Prayer Nut with the Carrying of the Cross and the Crucifixion

Entry

The exterior of this boxwood prayer nut is ornamented in the standard manner with à jour-carved gothic tracery. Unique, however, are the additions of the first owner’s name – eewert ian z’ va[n] bleiswick – and the family coats of arms of both himself (on either side of the hinge and the clasp, on the bottom half-sphere) and his wife (on the top half-sphere) (fig. a). This Evert (‘Eewert’) Jansz van Bleiswijk (‘Bleiswick’) (1460-1531) was a scion of a prominent patrician family in Delft and a forefather of Dirck van Bleyswijck, the seventeenth-century chronicler and mayor of that same city.⁹ He was married to Erkenraad (‘Erckge’) van Groenewegen (1466-1544), who herself came from a regent family in Delft.¹⁰ The coats of arms on the prayer nut are those of each spouse, respectively, an escutcheon with three shot pellets for Van Bleiswick and an escutcheon with three pea pods for his wife (fig. b). This prayer nut is also exceptional because the accompanying copper case and a small velvet pouch have also been preserved (fig. c). Both may very well originate from the early sixteenth century. Such ornately executed objects of devotion formed an integral part of the worshipper’s intimate world, whether laymen or members of the clergy. They were typically carried in a special case worn on a belt, but more commonly on rosaries and paternosters.¹¹ First and foremost, these prayer nuts functioned as instruments during personal meditation and recitations of the rosary.¹²

Located behind the gothic tracery of the prayer nut’s exterior are hollow spaces that perhaps functioned to hold pleasant-smelling substances whose fragrance was dispersed when the nut was used. As such, these objects would then be directly related to the perfume balls or pomanders en vogue around this time.¹³ This tracery, however, could also have been made to suggest the presence of a small relic, thus evoking the character of a talisman to which an apotropaic effect could then be ascribed.¹⁴ Above all, the finished exterior provided the necessary grip when using the nut. Upon opening the hinged halves, the two extremely small scenes of the nut’s interior come into view, composed largely of wholly undercut figures and motifs: in the lower half, the Carrying of the Cross with Veronica, and in the upper half, the Crucifixion – relatively speaking, a combination often encountered with prayer nuts. No less than nine other such pieces pairing these two themes have been documented.¹⁵ A heretofore undocumented prayer nut containing the same two scenes in a virtually identical form was recently discovered, which likewise bears an identical marginal inscription around the Crucifixion scene in the upper half. It stands as one of the few examples in this group of micro-sculptures of a woodcarver repeating his invention grosso modo: differences chiefly concern the positioning of a number of the figures.¹⁶

A border inscription carved in gothic minuscule encircles each of the two scenes. The inscription accompanying the upper half (Crucifixion) originates from the antiphon of the mass Adoratio Crucis and reads: tuam crucem adoramus domine tuam gloriosam recolimus passionem qui passus es pro nobis miserere nobis (we adore your cross, Lord, we remember your glorious suffering. Who has suffered and has died for us, have mercy on us).¹⁷ The other inscription, accompanying the lower half (Carrying of the Cross), comes from the Vulgate (Matthew XI: 30) and reads: jugum enim meum suave est et onus meum leve (for my yoke is sweet and my burden is light).¹⁸

The nut is carved from boxwood: a heavy, compact wood type, often referred to as ‘palm wood’, a misleading term dating back to the Middle Ages. In no way related to the palm, the term served to evoke associations with the Holy Land, as medieval sources purported that parts of Christ’s cross had been made of palm wood.¹⁹ A wide variety of other objects were also carved in boxwood – by the same maker(s) and in the same style – including miniature altarpieces, tabernacles and pendants. Apart from the fineness of the woodcarving, these objects inevitably share the same tendency for infinite detail, remarkable spatial depth and an element of horror vacui.

The Crucifixion scene is set against a background of trees and a tower-like structure. Judas appears on the far right, his lifeless body dangling from the branch of a tree; on the far left, a figure lies sleeping with his hand supporting his head, a depiction of what appears to be Peter in the garden of Gethsemane. The man walking toward the left of the scene, appearing in profile, remains unidentified. A young man on the right, standing before the crucified figure of Christ, assists the blind Longinus – seated on a horse and wearing a large turban – in aiming the latter’s spear. A second horseman on his left holds a banner. On the far right, a third horseman blowing a trumpet enters the scene. Two horsemen proceed him, with the foremost figure raising his balled fist. On the scene’s left, Mary falls in a swoon, supported by John and two women.

The nut’s lower half features a scene of the Carrying of the Cross, with Christ foundering behind the two thieves while being pulled forward by a soldier with a heavy rope over the shoulder. Christ has just passed through the city gate of Jerusalem (left) on his way to Golgotha, followed by two horsemen. One of these men wears a turban, the other a mitre and sceptre. Christ grasps a corner of the veil held up by Veronica, who kneels before him. A dog jumps up at the veil. Other military figures on foot are visible in the background: a soldier with a raised club and hammer, behind him a screaming soldier with a pitchfork, a third soldier seen from the rear, a man with a spear, and a horseman, likewise seen from the rear, holding a banner. Both the upper and lower scenes take place beneath an overarching vault that has a carefully concealed opening, introduced by the maker to reach and carve the more deep-lying recesses from above.²⁰

In 1968, Leeuwenberg attributed the present prayer nut to an otherwise unknown Netherlandish woodcarver. ‘Adam Dircksz’ is the Dutch appellation of Adam Theodrici, a sculptor whose signature appears on a stylistically comparable prayer nut in Copenhagen. Leeuwenberg grouped numerous objects displaying shared stylistic characteristics around this signed prayer nut from Denmark, subsequently attributing all to the very same maker, whose origin he placed in the Southern Netherlands. At the present time, approximately 120 micro-carvings have been assembled in a stylistically homogenous group. Consensus with respect to the maker(s) of these works, however, remains elusive.²¹ Does a single Adam Dircksz exist, as Leeuwenberg maintained, or were rather one or more workshops operating in a number of Netherlandish cities collectively responsible for this micro-sculpture production, as others have surmised?²² Leeuwenberg’s attribution to Adam Dircksz may at first appear overly influenced by the art historical scholarship of his day, where the emphasis lay chiefly on the efforts of individual artists and only to a lesser degree on identifying potential workshops or other working associations. Nevertheless, his viewpoint deserves reconsideration: a closer examination reveals that by far a majority of the prayer nuts, tabernacles and miniature altarpieces indeed form a technically homogenous group. Unquestionably, some of the micro-carved scenes are finished in far greater detail than others, with compositions of greater complexity and larger numbers of figures. This, however, points more to varying levels of finishing and elaborateness rather than multiple makers. Within this stylistically cohesive group, clever and effective variations were introduced, drawn from no more than a limited number of figural types and motifs. In addition to shared elements previously cited by Leeuwenberg, numerous other motifs have as yet to be addressed. These include, for example, the form and finishing of the prayer nuts’ exteriors, the faces and attire of the figures, the layered rock formations, the masonry walls, the free-hanging rings on the walls, the speckled backgrounds, the characteristic open-worked caparisons, the finely branched trees, the overarching vaults, the altarpiece interiors with twisting, open-worked branches of metselrie at the top, or the standard lettering inscribed in gothic textura or miniscule.

While customary depictions of Christ’s Nativity or Passion make up the largest part, rarely are these repeated precisely in the same manner. Moreover, they occur either adjacent to or in combination with scenes from saints’ lives that are anything but common. This suggests that in many cases these objects were the product of special commissions involving a ‘custom-made’ iconography and text, furnished with family coats of arms when desired, along with the patron’s name and occasionally even miniature figures of the donor(s).²³ Representations and ornamentation in late-Gothic style prevail, though Renaissance motifs appear at a fairly early stage, as can be observed on a tabernacle dated 1511.²⁴ A flexible and efficient approach to the production of luxury objects in a modern, homogenous style points to a small, specialized workshop, overseen by a stylistically dominant artist – Adam Dircksz – working for an exclusive clientele.²⁵ This workshop’s activity is certain to have lasted for a period of at least three decades in the first quarter of the sixteenth century. Attempts to localize Adam Dircksz or his workshop, however, have as yet failed to yield any definitive insight; this in itself supports the theory of a small-scale enterprise leaving behind only scant archival documentation. On the basis of general compositional similarities to altarpieces produced in the Southern Netherlands, Leeuwenberg maintained that Adam Dircksz was certain to have been active in that region. He proposed the city of Ghent as a possible centre, in a somewhat ironic gesture honouring an art historian native to that city, Jozef Duverger, to whom Leeuwenberg’s article was dedicated.²⁶ Since then, most authors have argued a Flemish provenance.²⁷ At first glance, this seems an obvious conclusion: in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, major centres of sculptural production in Brabant and Flanders – including Brussels, Antwerp, Mechelen and Ghent – were experiencing a period of great flourishing, with a high degree of specialisation existing among the various artisanal branches. Furthermore, the supply of costly boxwood was guaranteed in these regions, likewise creating an exceptionally beneficial seller’s market for exclusive art objects the likes of micro-carved sculptures.

Williamson, however, came to a different conclusion, in part based on a small selection of prayer nuts and tabernacles, as well as the geographic origin of those documented as initial owners, stating that ‘a small number of different workshops, probably located in various towns throughout the Netherlands and Lower Rhine, were involved in the making of the existing micro-carvings’.²⁸ However, Reesing – supported in his findings by Scholten – more recently argued that Adam Dircksz and his workshop should instead be sought in Delft or its immediate environs, in simple recognition of the fact that a relatively large number of the micro-carvings emanating from this workshop could clearly be linked to that city. Another relevant detail concerns the regular frequency with which the first name ‘Adam’ appears in the Delft city archives in the early sixteenth century, a name otherwise encountered quite rarely.²⁹ The fact that Dircksz’s name appears nowhere in the Delft municipal archives can perhaps best explained by a major fire there in the year 1536, which resulted in the loss of vast quantities of the city’s historic archival material.

Romanelli dated this entire micro-carving production to a time period spanning approximately fifty years: 1475 to 1530. Those pieces documented up to now, however, suggest this occurred within a much shorter period, specifically, the first quarter of the sixteenth century with a clear apogee in the years 1510 to 1525.³⁰ This dating appears to corroborate the above-cited surmise that all were produced in one workshop under the direction of a single artist: Adam Dircksz. During this period, his workshop was responsible for the steady production of dozens of prayer nuts and other miniature carved works, commissioned by the elite in the Low Countries and a few foreign patrons.

Frits Scholten, 2024