Female Saint

Entry

Originally, this female saint held an object in her hands. Without the attribute, now missing together with the left hand and several fingers of the right hand, her identity can no longer be ascertained. Her downward gaze suggests the object might have been a book, the attribute of many female saints. Other attributes are also conceivable, such as the ointment jar of St Mary Magdalene or the tower of St Barbara. These are two of the most frequently depicted female saints in Southern Netherlandish sculpture of the sixteenth century, with both traditionally dressed in the rich and fashionable attire seen here.

The carving on this saintly statuette is exceptionally refined, with the original polychromy surviving largely intact. Due to a minimum of overpainting, details in the face and clothing are optimally preserved. The turban-like headdress (bourrelet), the pleated chemise visible above the trapezoidal neckline of the bodice and the slashed, puffy sleeves are characteristic of luxury women’s fashion from the early sixteenth century. Exotic details, referring to the Eastern origin of many of the female saints, include the palmette motif adorning the sleeve just below the left shoulder and the hem of the overskirt, which terminates at its lowest point in a conspicuously large tassel. The supple drapery folds of the figure’s mantle and dress are masterfully rendered. Various techniques have been employed to embellish the polychromy, which consists primarily of gilding: lines of pointillé on the bodice, forming a lozenge pattern and curls below the waist belt, and sgraffito for patterns on the dress, sleeves, bodice, mantle, and the curling flaps emerging from the bourrelet.² Rather intriguing is an object lying on the ground near the saint’s right foot. Ostensibly a small money purse composed of various parts, it was originally attached to the now missing end of the chain that hangs from the waist belt.³ Long sashes, cords or chains adorned with hanging tassels, purses, pomanders, or prayer nuts were common accessories in renaissance women’s fashion. Rarely are such objects depicted in this manner, however, almost as if being dragged across the ground. Perhaps the purse is therefore meant to convey a unique circumstance, albeit unclear.⁴

Leeuwenberg tentatively attributed the present figure to a Mechelen workshop, noting that it was above all the socle – polygonal in form and originally ornamented with metal rosettes – that reminded him of the saintly statuettes known as poupées de Malines (Mechelen dolls).⁵ Normally, however, the socles accompanying these statuettes were not carved as integral components of the rest, as is the case here. Furthermore, the present figure deviates substantially from the serially produced Mechelen figures, with their disproportionately large, domed heads, the skewed and wide-spaced eyes, and the diminutive, sweetly smiling mouths. The present saint displays none of these characteristics: she is beautifully proportioned and has a perfectly oval face, with dreamy eyes half-opened and a somewhat wistful expression. Another distinction is the superior quality of the carving and polychromy when compared to the level of execution one typically encounters with Mechelen ‘dolls’. This applies not only to the polychromed finishing of her attire, but also the delicate flesh tones used to achieve a more natural appearance as opposed to the shiny, porcelain-like heads of the mass-produced poupées.

The present figure’s elaborate raiment and fanciful headdress are also atypical for Mechelen sculpture and indeed more characteristic of Antwerp Mannerism. This transitional style bridging gothic and renaissance held sway not only in Antwerp, but also in other Brabantine cities (Mechelen, Brussels, Leuven), the Mosan region, the Rhine and Lower Rhine regions, and even as far north as Utrecht and Amsterdam.⁶ When it comes to localizing works like the present figure, stylistic elements described as ‘Antwerp mannerist’ therefore seldom provide sufficient grounds for pinpointing any one specific city or region within the geographic range of distribution.⁷ Decoration techniques such as sgraffito and pointillé likewise offer little or no means of verification: though originally linked to Antwerp retable production, sgraffito was a technique also frequently applied in centres such as Brussels and Mechelen.⁸ Similarly, gold-leaf gilding decorated with pointillé was commonly practiced, not only in the Low Countries, but also in many other parts of Europe. Such uncertainties complicate the attribution of Antwerp Mannerist sculptures, often resulting in tentative conclusions subject to change.

The Amsterdam statuette is highly akin to a number of mannerist-style female saints linked to sculptural production in Antwerp, Mechelen and Brussels. Two works in particular display numerous similarities: a St Catherine of Alexandria formerly held in a private German collection,⁹ and a St Agnes preserved in Rotterdam (fig. a).¹⁰ Like the Amsterdam saint, both figures are attired in luxuriously detailed raiment and possess the same natural proportions, a full, oval face, a sturdy neck, and a small pointed chin complemented by a second, smaller ‘under-chin’, rendered in delicate flesh tones enhanced with subtle blushes. Also remarkably similar are the two small forelocks that emerge from the headdress left and right, thus framing the forehead on all three figures.

Initially, the St Catherine was thought to be from Mechelen. With the discovery of the brand-marked hand on the reverse of the integrally carved base, however, its origin was confirmed as Antwerp.¹¹ In the past, the St Agnes was localized by some in Mechelen, by others in Antwerp.¹² Preising linked this latter work to a St Dorothy in Aachen, which Leeuwenberg in turn attributed to the Master of the Utrecht Stone Female Head (active c. 1490-c. 1530).¹³ Nevertheless, the Agnes lacks – as do the Catherine and the present figure – the strikingly high domed forehead, the fleshy nose and the rather compact proportions typical of others works attributed to the Master of the Utrecht Stone Female Head.¹⁴ Furthermore, Van Vlierden pointed out the similarity to the Wise and Foolish Virgins on the predella of the Antwerp retable of Vaksala (Sweden), a high-quality altarpiece likely built per commission.¹⁵ Indeed, clear parallels can be discerned in the facial expressions (compare the Amsterdam saint to the fourth Foolish Virgin from the left), with two of the Virgins even having the same small locks of hair framing the forehead as encountered on the present figure, the Catherine and the Agnes. Stylistic differences are also evident, however, foremost being the Swedish figures’ thickset corporeality and proportionally larger heads.

Observing that the facial type of the virgins of Vaksala were more reminiscent of Brussels rather than Antwerp models, Nieuwdorp posited that these figures were perhaps carved by a Brussels sculptor active in Antwerp, or alternatively, that the predella in which they stood arose from a collaboration of sculptors from both Antwerp and Brussels.¹⁶ A similar combination of factors could also apply to the ‘anonymous’ Amsterdam saint. Given the socle’s typical Mechelen manufacture, one might consider a scenario in which a Brussels master active in Mechelen carved this exceptionally refined figure of a female saint at the request of a (private) patron wishing to acquire a sculpture of a quality then unobtainable on the free market.

Titia de Haseth Möller, 2024