The Art Institute of Chicago

A French Gothic Ivory of the Virgin and Child

Author(s): William H. Monroe
Source: Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies, Vol. 9 (1978), pp. 6-29
Published by: The Art Institute of Chicago
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4115929
Accessed: 24/03/2010 21:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artic.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Art Institute of Chicago is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Institute
of Chicago Museum Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 By WILLIAM H. MONROE

A French Gothic Ivory

of the Virgin and Child

mei,nitorilliuseboris,idestcandor
Felixprorsus,fratres cuinecaurum
castitatis: mundae
sapientiae,nec argentumeloquentiae,nec gemmamalicujusexcellentisgratiae, nostri
praefert ... (Guerricof Igny,De Annuntiatione
electioSalomonis Domini)1

Among the few exceptionalthirteenthcenturyFrenchivories that anticipatedthe full

floweringof the Gothicstyle is a seatedVirgin and Child group (figures1-3), recently
acquiredby The Art Instituteof Chicago,which continuesto attractscholarlyattention.2
TheVirginis seatedon a benchwith roundedsidesin a frontalattitude.Fromunder-
neaththe crown a couvre-chef passesaroundher waved hairfallingonto her shouldersin
neat,regularpleats.Herrobeis claspedat the waistby a buckledbelt,anda mantle,draped
abouttheshoulders leavingthe armsuncovered,is tautlycollectedoverthekneesenveloping
themin large,angularfolds.The seatedChild,with finelycurledhair,is carvedin profile
rockingback slightlyon his Mother'sleft knee. He wearsa long-sleevedchemisewhich
carriesto his barefeet. With his right armextendedbeforehis Mother'sbreasthe makes
a gestureof benediction,whilein his left handhe cradlesa bird.
In its presentconditionthe ivory statuetteis withoutthe Virgin'slower rightarm,
the flowerornamentation of the crown, and the head of the bird. The right arm of the
Mothersuggeststhat it was raisedtowardsthe Infantand, in all likelihood,she held an
objectin her hand:a flower,book, or, moreprobably,a sphere.3The ivory has takenon
a fallow colouringwith age; in placesthe patinationappearsalmostpurple.No visible
tracesof polychromeremain.4However, throughaging and chemicalchange,oxidized
paintpigmentsand/or a bindingmediumhave left distinctreddish-brown stainson the
poroussurfaceof the ivory, specificallyalongthe hem of the mantleandalsoon both sides
of the benchwheretracesof arcadescanbe detected.

FiguresI-3 SeatedVirginandChild,ivory,
The Art Instituteof Chicago,
KateS. BuckinghamFund,1971.786.
 litj
1 *
4 F

- "Ot .. MM ?rv

WAY,
TO:~
8 MuseumStudies9

Dating and place of origin of the Virgin and Child group remain problematical.5
Documentary evidence on ivory carvings scarcely exists, thus permitting only general
attributionsof origin. Equally elusive is the question of dating during this period of the
Gothicivory'sdebut,and approximatedatesmust be arrivedat on the basisof stylistic
comparisons with large-scalemonumentalsculptureand with otherminoror luxuryarts.
With thisin mind,the milieuof the Art Institute'sivoryis to be foundin northern
Franceamongthe royalcathedralworkshopsafterthe mid-123o's.At this time thereap-
peareda new method of figure productionwhich introducedinnovativeand enduring
stylisticformulaethatbecameestablished as artisticcanonfrom the secondhalf of the thir-
teenthcenturyto the end of the fourteenth.Ateliers,in an attemptto meet the demands
of extensivesculpturalprograms,developeda new techniquedesignedto expeditethe pro-
ductionprocess-a techniqueconsistingof a simplified,hurried,moremechanicalapproach
to the stoneblock.The actualhandlingof the blockappearsto be conditionedby an accel-
eratedpace,which,whenthe blockis fully carved,stillallowsit to retainits essentialprop-
ertiesof weight,volume,anddensesurface.
By perceptiblyshorteningthe work processthrougha new treatmentof the block,
stonemasons in northernFrancebroughtaboutradicalchangesin style which superseded
prevalentgraphicmethods of representation transmittedby painting and metalwork.
Sculptureabandonedthe lineartroughstylein favourof weightier,simplifiedformswhose
crumpleddraperywith arbitrarily hewn, pointedfoldsandoval headswith sharp,pinched
facialexpressionsnow effecteda similartrendin theminorarts.The change-overfroma style
where all the emphasiswas on line, to a formallanguageof crisp,angularcontrastswas
accomplished rapidlyandwith widespreadsuccessandcan actuallybe witnessedoccurring
in a numberof works of differentmedia.6Followingthe lead of monumentalsculpture,
The Art Institute'sivory statuetteis an exampleof a work from the minorartsundergoing
sucha transition.Vestigesof the linearstyleareapparent,for instance,in the hollow trough
of draperyabovetheVirgin'sleft foot (figure2) andin thenarrowgroovesaboutthe waist.
Thesesametraitsarefoundin certainpanelsof stainedglassfromthe Sainte-Chapelle, Paris,
where duringthe years1243-1248a similar,thoughslightlylater,stylistictransitionwas
takingplacein painting.7
The two rivalstyles,the linearand the block-like,co-existedbrieflybeforea tran-
sitionwas achieved,and the latterevolvedinto a more refinedHigh Gothicidiom. But
unlikethoseworksfrom the Ile-de-France, afterca. 1245, in the incipientHigh Gothic(or
Figuresz and3 SeatedVirginandChild.
 figures,detailfromthe centralportal,west facade,Amienscathedral.
Figure4 Archivolt

"Court")style, which are probablyof Parisianorigin,the sourcesof the block-styleare

difficultto determinewhen this and the linearstyle are operatingtogetheron diversely
locatedmonumentsin the late 1230's. The Art Institute'sivory is, however,representative
of a groupof workswhich showsthat a stylistictransitionis aboutto be completedand
thatstiff,prismaticformshaveyet to be planeddown andfashionedinto flaccid,sweeping
curves.
The LastJudgmentportalof Amiens(Somme)cathedralprovidesa startingpoint
for the stylisticsourcesof the ivory statuette.8
The Virgin'sdraperyrepeatsthe block-like
structureand draperyfolds of the seatedarchivoltfiguresexecutedafter1235 (figure 4),
even resemblingthose comprisingthe Stem of Jesseand the Patriarchs,completedlast
(towards1240) and concentrically appliedto the two outermostrows beneaththe central
portalvault (figure5). With littlevariationthe Virgin'sdrapery,looselygatheredbetween
widespreadknees,sharesthis sameconceptof broad,rigidlyformed,jagged folds which
unevenlyworkedtheirway to the ankleswherethey breakand becomeslack,nevertres-
An EarlyGothicFrenchIvoryof theVirginandChild II

passingon the roundededgeof the socleastheylaprestlesslyaboutthe barelyrevealedtoes.

Largeagitatedfolds of draperyaboutthe feet andanklesof seatedand standingfiguresare
a devicealsofoundin metalworkengravingandpaintingof thisperiod.9Furthermore, in
the bottomzone of the left archivoltsat Amiens(figure4, secondrowfromleft) the robeof
the smilingangelis low-waistedandcrenulatedin the samefashionas the Virgin's;while
suchfeaturesas low foreheads,thinlycarvedeyes,roundedchins,even the whimsicalsmile
playing acrossthe faces of certainfigures,are manifestationsof a type of physiognomy
of worksin both stoneandivory in the thirdandfourthdecades.
characteristic

from the centralportal,west facade,Amienscathedral.

Figure5 Archivoltfigures
Figure6 Archivolt
figuresfromthe northportal,priorychurch,Villeneuve-l'Archeveque.
 Ivoryof theVirginandChild
An EarlyGothicFrench 13

On a monumentdatingprobablyfromthe endof the 1230's, the northportalof the

priorychurchof Villeneuve-l'Archeveque (Yonne),the formulaeof the laterAmienssculp-
turecontinue.The lateralVilleneuveportal,dedicatedto the Virgin,plainlyclaimsthe sty-
listicarrangementsof Amiensandcertainfragmentsfromthejub6of Chartrescathedralasits
The archivoltfiguresportrayingthe Stem of Jesse(figure6, outerrow)
nearestrelatives.10
agreecloselyin styleandcompositionwith thosefromthe Amiensmiddleportal.Following
also from the Amienswest facadeare the brokendraperypatternsand sharplydelineated
featuresof thejamb statuesfrom the left side of the Villeneuveportal(figure7). Like the
ivory Madonna'sfinely tapered,raisedfacialsurfaces,the headsof the jamb statueshave
featuresas the smilewhich expands,drawingup the chin, and
suchplasticallyarticulated
the samevacant,staringeyes.1 Suchsurfacedefinitionprobablyfirstappearedin the minor
arts12before spreadingto monumentalstone sculpture,and in this context one should
mentiona bronzegilt reliquaryhead13(figure8) in theMus6ede Clunywhichhasa striking
resemblance to the Chicagoivory and,paripassu,to the Villeneuvefemalejamb statues.
The Cluny reliquaryhead, which may be datedto the secondquarterof the thirteenth

northportal,priorychurch,Villeneuve-l'Archevbque.
left embrasure,
Figure7 Jambstatues,
Figure8 Reliquary
head,gilt bronze, Figure9 Evangelist detailof fragmentfromthejub6
relief,
Mus6ede Cluny,Paris,inv. no. L.O.A.6120. now Mus6edu Louvre,Paris.
of Chartrescathedral,

century, provides an interesting example of a facial type that was present in more than
one differentmaterialduring this period.
The relieffigure of a writing Evangelist(figures9, 1o), a fragmentin the block-style,
ca. 1240, and probably from the transitionalmonument, the jub" of Chartrescathedral,14
has a counterpartin the angel annunciatingto the Magi from the Adoration group placed
on the far right of the Villeneuve lintel (figure6). In addition, there are convincing stylistic
parallelsbetween the Evangelistrelief and anotherjub"scene, the Presentationin the Temple,
when these two fragments are in turn compared with the right and left Villeneuve jamb
statues.The Evangelist'sdrapery,like the Virgin's, is cut in such a way that stiff sheets are
unsystematicallyhewn to form swellings, grooves, and cavities bringing out the cursive
Figure Io Evangelistrelief,detail, seen from below, Figure II Lintelfragmentof Resurrection
from the centralportal, west
of fragment from thejube of Chartrescathedral, facade, Notre-Dame cathedral,Paris,now Musde de Cluny, Paris.
now Musee du Louvre, Paris.

play of light and shadow. Although the broadly arranged drapery touches the body at
certainpoints intimating the presenceof a figure underneathits mass, it is not attendanton
the body's motivation but, instead, works autonomously allowing only isolated parts of
the figure to emerge.
A trumpetingangel from the Resurrectionrelief of the west facadeof Notre-Dame
cathedral,Paris (figure11), shows a similarinterestin the handling of drapery.On this frag-
ment from the left side of the Judgment portal lintel, completed probably after 1240 and
frequentlyattributedto an innovative, younger atelier,15the head of the figure in the upper
centre emerging from his tomb is practicallyidenticalwith the head of the Child from The
Art Institute'sivory.16In each case the distinctivefeaturesare the temples which slant in-
 16 MuseumStudiesg

Figures12, 13 SeatedVirginandChild,ivory,WaltersArt Gallery,Baltimore,1971.235.

An EarlyGothicFrench
Ivoryof theVirginandChild 17

wardsto meet a flatcrowntherebyshapingthe oval headwith tightlyworkedcurls.From

the samecathedral,but on a differentportal,a hint of the Villeneuvesculpturesurvives.
Despitea softeningof the drapery,one canstill see choppystrokesbreakingup broadsur-
faces and the sharpphysiognomiesof the earlierVilleneuvefigurescarriedover to the
northtransepttympanumandarchivolts,completedin the late 1240's.17
Theseexamplesfrom monumentalsculpturewhich representplanesand volumes
accordingto new methodsof workshopproductiondirectlycorrespondto the drapery
compositionand figure style of The Art Institute'sivory group. The same small-scale
monumentality,comparableto large-scalesculpture,is also typifiedby two other Early
Gothicivories:a seatedanda standingVirginandChild (figures12-14) bothat theWalters
Art Gallery,Baltimore,I8 which are of approximately the samesize as the Chicagoivory.
Thesestatuettes appearto havebeenfashionedat aboutthe sametime as the Chicagoivory,
conceivablyin the same workshop,for each shows fundamentalanalogiesof style and
composition,allowinga mutualassociationand a generaldatecirca1240. The headshape;
the veil fallingto the shoulders;the arrangementof deeplyincised,pleatedfolds,especially
aboutthe breastandwaist;the sharplyangular,"cubist"approachto the drapery;andthe
frontal,hieraticpostureareall traitswhicheachgrouphasin common.19
Stifferand more austerethanthe full-bodied,thick-setbulk of The Art Institute's
group,the BaltimoreseatedVirgin (figures12, 13) displaysseveresurfaceareas;the facial
featuresare meagreand plasticallyweak. Insteadof curlyhair,thin striatedbandsof hair
evenly framethe face. However, the most apparentdifferencebetweenthe two seated
Madonnasis the brusque,angularexecutionof the BaltimoreVirgin'sdraperywhich re-
semblesthe treatmentof the Amiensseatedarchivoltfiguresdatedto ca. 1235-1240. This,
combinedwith the knowledgethat no parallelsexist for the BaltimoreseatedVirgin in
monumentalsculptureca. 1240, could suggestthat this group is slightlyearlierthan the
Chicagostatuette.
The draperyof the BaltimorestandingVirgin (figure14) shouldalsobe compared
with sculpturefromthe Amienscentralportal,for instance,the archivoltfigureof an angel
in profile(figure4, bottomzone,secondrowfromleft). In eachcasethe upsweptfoldsareor-
ganizedin large,looseswellswhicharethendrawnup freeof thebody to waistlevel.These
plungingfolds renderedin broadoutline,which carryto the Virgin'sleft handwherethe
Child is held in profile,anticipatea formulatype lateradoptedfor the ViergeDor6e of
Amiens.20Also in the samemould as the BaltimorestandingVirgin is a nearlycontemporary
 18 MuseumStudiesg

Figure 14 StandingVirginand Child, Figures15, 16 StandingVirginandChild,ivory,

ivory, Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, 1971.239. Tresord'Oigniesdes Soeursde Notre-Dame,Namur.
Figure17 SeatedVirginandChild,wood, Figure18 LiberFloridus,
Paris,
EgliseSaint-Martin
d'Arloncourt,
Longvilly. MS.
nationale,
Bibliotheque lat. 8865,fol. 33.

ivory statuette(figures15, 16) allegedlyfrom the Cistercianabbeyof Aulne(Gozee,in the

provinceof Hainault,Belgium)and now in the treasuryof the Soeursde Notre-Dame,
Namur.21Althoughcarvedwith lessconviction,particularly aboutthe base,it nevertheless
faithfullycopiesthe style and compositionof the Baltimoreivory. Suchdifferences which
exist betweenthe two statuettesareprobablydue to the shapeof eachivory block before
it wascarved.The Namurivory'sprovenanceservesasa reminderthat,withoutanyspecific
documentation to the contrary,it is a fruitlessexerciseto claima Parisianoriginfor any of
thesestatuettes.
If one is to dateandlocalizethe Chicagostatuetteandits companionpieceseffec-
tively, examplesfrom otherminorarts,book illustrationandMosanwood carving,which
postdatethe ivories,but which are stylisticextensionsof them, shouldbe considered.A
Virginand Childgroupin wood from the churchSaint-Martin d'Arloncourt, Longvilly22
20 Studies9
Museum

(figure 17), its formnot havingaltogetheremergedfromthe block,indicatesa progression

fromhardto softdrapery,theVirgin'smantlefallinglimplyfromthe shouldersandcurving
diagonallybetweenthe legs. The painter(s)of the mid-thirteenth centurycopy of the Liber
Floridus,23 a manuscriptproducedin northernFrance,also usesthe samecurvinglines to
model the Virgin'sdraperyon a page illustratingan angelgreetingthe Virginand Child
(figure18). The manuscript illustrationstill repeatscertaindraperypatternsfound on the
ivories:the flatv fold coveringthe Virgin'sknee,whichfirstappearson the Amiensseated
archivoltfigures(figure4, left) andslightlylaterin paintedglassfromthe Sainte-Chapelle, is
identicalto thosefoldscreasedoverthekneesof theBaltimoreandChicagoseatedMadonnas.
The large,elongatedpleatof the angel'smantle,extendingfrom the waist,is a traitcharac-
teristicof the BaltimoreandNamurstandingVirginsandalsofiguresin the Sainte-Chapelle
stainedglass.24The paintedfiguresfrom the book and the MosanMadonnaand Child
bothhavethe samedistinctivefacialdetailsasthe Chicagoivorygroup,aswell as displaying
the Child'sfoot suspended overtheVirgin'slapandthehemof Hischemise.Althoughlater,
aboutthe middleof the century,theseexamplesfrom the minorartsof northernFrance
andFlanders areextensionsof a stylefirstdevelopedin northernFrenchmonumentalsculp-
turebeforespreadingto ivory carvingandothermedia.
Furthermore,one cannot discountthe possibilitythat a largerivory statuette25
(figures19, 20), now in a privatecollection,mayalsohavebeencarvedin the sameatelieras
one or more of the other ivory groups.This seatedVirgin and Child ivory has certain
characteristics in commonwith the otherstatuettesand,if one were to classifyit in terms
of a chronologicaldevelopmentof EarlyGothicivories,this group would appearto be
approximately of the sametime as the BaltimoreseatedVirginbut slightlyearlierthanThe
Art Institute'sivory. For example,the veil, hairarrangement, facialfeatures,and the posi-
tion andmodellingof theVirgin'sdrapery-covered feetandanklesagreewith the Baltimore
ivory;whilethe Chicagogroupsharesthe seatedattitudeof theMadonnaandsmilingChild,
the dispositionof the Virgin'smantle,the obliqueplacementof the Child'sfeet on the
draperyfolds,and,not least,parallelpleatsandcreaseddraperies workedin identicalfashion
(figure20, cf.figure3).
When comparingthisivory with the smallerBaltimoreandChicagoseatedgroups,
one noticesthat its compositionis proportionately different.The relationof Madonnato
Childis somewhatretardataire,stillpreservingthe wooden, aloof maiestasposture of older
SedesSapientiaefigures. The Child sits deeply in his Mother's lap; her head is so spatially
An EarlyGothicFrench
Ivoryof theVirginandChild 21

Figures 19, 20 SeatedVirginand Child,ivory, Private Collection.

22 MuseumStudies9

distantfrom his as to createan effect of being both physicallyand spirituallyremoved from

him, the more so, as the Virgin's right arm is raisedhigh, out of his reach.26 The Art In-
stitute'sivory also shows archaisms,but when seen in the intendedfrontalattitude (figure2)
this group displaysa symmetricalscheme: the essentiallyoval draperycomposition creates
the form of a mandorlaenclosing the figure of the Child in a romanesquemanner.27In this
scheme the Child is admitted completely to the Mother's space, establishinga unified, inti-
mate rapport.Both figures exist in balancedreferenceto one another.
The small number of Early Gothic ivories surviving as well as their obvious simi-
laritiesto large-scalemonumental sculpturesuggest that during this period they were not
turnedout in one homogenous style by a workshop given over exclusivelyto ivory produc-
tion. Instead,it is conceivablethat these statuetteswere carvedby the same masonsrespons-
ible for executing monumentalworks in stone. But if during this period of transitionin the
second quarterof the thirteenthcentury,monumentalsculptureexertedan importantstylistic
influenceon minor arts, these in turn, particularlyMosan metalwork and wood sculpture,28
were no less significantfor new developments of composition and iconography in monu-
mental works. In ivory carving, for example, the Baltimore and Namur standing Virgins
prefigurethe large-scaletrumeaustatue of the Vierge Doree on the Amiens south transept
portal.
The composition of Madonna and Child fashionedas a free-standingfigure group
becomes a principaltheme in sculptureduring this period, and attemptsto portrayit result
in a profusionof modificationswhich include new motives of grouping, new gestures,and
an inventive handling of drapery.Already before 1230, the old frontal scheme of the Sedes
Sapientiaetype is eschewednot simply for reasonsof taste or style, but becausethe interpre-
tation of a theme has changed, and another conception of Madonna and Child as a figure
group is sought in order to better import a new sacramentaland devotional meaning.
Each Baltimore and Chicago ivory group shows recent inventions or variationsin
the transmissionof forms, in some instancesretainingolder traditionalmotives. Nowhere is
this variationin transmissionmore apparentthan in the dissimilarcompositionsand iconog-
raphy of the two seatedVirgin and Child groups (figure2, cf.figure 13). The Art Institute's
group is fashionedin the round; the Baltimoreivory is carvedin relief and was designedto
be applied to a flat background.The oval drapery scheme of the frontally seated Virgin
differsconsiderablyfrom the v composition built by the figures of the Baltimore ivory-a
composition which is reinforcedby the large folds of this Virgin's mantle.
An EarlyGothicFrench
Ivoryof theVirginandChild 23

Unlikethe unifiedcompositionof the ChicagoMadonnaandChild,the Baltimore

pairconstitutesa groupof two figureswho standnearone another,not beforeone another.
The frontalityof The Art Institute'sMadonnaand the side positionof the Childare old
compositionalprinciples29 made prominentby the oval draperyscheme.The Baltimore
seatedgroup,althoughperhapsthe earlierof the two statuettes, hasrelinquished this fron-
tality.The Virginsitsoff to one side;the Childdoesnot sitin frontof hisMotherbut stands
on the draperystuffwhich forms a platformabove her left knee.30The standingChild,
whoseattitudeis similarto the standingBeauDieu of cathedraltrumeaux,31 andthe strong
v schemewhichhe buildstogetherwith the angulardraperyfolds,providesa splendidcom-
positionaltour de force for an alreadyexistingtype: the seatedVirgin as the new Eve,
ServataVictoria,tramplingthe serpentunderfoot(Gen.,III, 15; cf. Ps., XC/XCI, 13).32
Additionalstudyshowsthatthe volumen or scroll,heldin theleft handof the stand-
ing Child,is ideologicallycorrelatedwith the benedictio
latina,the gestureof blessingwhich
the Child of eachivory group practices.Originallythe gesturewas not benedictory.In
ClassicalandEarlyChristianartthe significance of theseattributeswas thatthe scrollin the
left handcontainedthe writtenspeech,while the gestureof the righthandexpressedthe
realizationof the writtenword. Eventuallythe scrollbecameassociatedwith the Gospel,
signifyingChristiandoctrine;the gestureof speechsignifiedthisdoctrineexpressed in living
words,i.e. the Logos.As the gestureappearslaterin EarlyGothicivories,it is lessa sign of
the authorityof Christiandogma than a gestureof ecclesiastical benedictionwith a new
sacramental An iconographywhoseoriginalmeaningis obscurehasbeenre-
significance.33
adopted.Showingcontinuedvariationthe Childin The Art Institute'sgroupholdsa bird
in his left handwhich, as a replacementof the scroll,no longerrepresents the Logosbut
instead,in its iconic usage,bearsthe messageof the Church(Ecclesia),the futurePassion
andResurrection,or someothermeaning.34
This concernwith the stylisticandiconographical identityof the individualVirgin
and Childgroupshas to some extentdivertedattentionfrom theirfunctionin the period
generally.Eachstatuettewas placedwithina tabernacle or shrine,eitherin a privatechapel
or on one of the severalaltarsdedicatedto the Virginandsituatedin the interiorsof abbey,
cathedral,or collegiatechurches(figure21).35 No doubt each statuette,which "summo
altaribeat[a]evirginisin festivitatibussupponitur",36 enjoyed a specialprominenceon
thosecalendardaysdedicatedto the Virgin."'
It is well to rememberthat from the second quarterof the thirteenthand throughout
24 Museum
Studies
9

Figure 21
Theophilus Praying
a Statue
before oftheVirgin,
detailof thetympanum,
northtransept,
Notre-Dame Paris.
cathedral,

the fourteenth century, workshops found the portrayalof Virgin and Child groups with
their numerous iconographicalvariationssuch a popular theme. One must keep in mind
that the late twelfth and thirteenthcenturieswere devoted par excellence to the cult of the
Virgin. Firstsponsoredand developed by the Cisterciansin the twelfth century, Mariology
grew in importance in the thirteenth under the newly-founded and influentialmendicant
orders, especially the Dominicans and Franciscans.At this time psalms and hymns to the
Mother of God, particularlythe so-called Marian antiphons,found unanimous acceptance
in both religious and lay circles. Sermons, treatises,and speculaof the period promoted a
kind of literary and scripturalfree associationcharacterizedby elaborate and protracted
metaphorsand allegories. Thus the Virgin is seen as the inheritor of the ivory throne of
Solomon, the seat of Divine Wisdom (IIIReg., X, I8f.); she is herself an ivory throne, and
from her body of preciousivory issues "sine manibus"the Christ Child, who in turn is an
ivory throne.38In the poetry of Solomon the ivory belly of the spouse (Cant.,V, 14) is the
virginal womb of Mary from whose ivory body the Redeemer was created.39The Child
An EarlyGothicFrench
Ivoryof theVirginandChild 25

being of the samesubstanceas its Mother,her ivory body is the ivory body of the Son.40
Contemporary textsalsoaffirmthatbecauseof itsproperties
of firmness,whiteness,coldness,
andlucidity,thisrareandexoticmaterial,os elephantis, was an idealmeansfor representing
the Virgin,who in her purityandchastitymetaphorically embodiesthesesamequalities.41
This essayhas attemptedto illustratethe arthistoricalsettingof the Art Institute's
Virginand Childivory group.Characteristic of an angular,block-stylewhichis firstseen
at Amiensbeforebeing diffusedthroughoutnorthernFrance,this ivory, on the basisof
stylisticcomparisonswith monumentalsculpture,bookillustration, andMosanwood sculp-
ture, shouldbe datedcircaor shortlyafter1245, and localizedin an areawhich includes
the provincesof Picardy,Artois,or perhapsFlanders.Moreover,like its companionpieces
in BaltimoreandNamur,also executedin the block-style,the Chicagoivory represents a
periodof experimentation and evolutionin style and composition.While it hasnot com-
pletely succeededin breakingaway from the rigidityand austerityof the old-fashioned
SedesSapientiae type andits architectonic,
romanesque maiestasandAdorationof the Magi
antecedents,nevertheless,the frontalityand massof the Art Institute'sivory are softened
by the ebullientfacialexpressionsof the Madonnaand Child.Suchcountenances of naive
candorwill becomefrom the secondhalf of the thirteenthcenturyon, a conventional,
slightlypreciousmannerismof the High Gothicstyle.
TheArtInstituteof Chicago
NOTES

I PL 185,col. 118, 5C-D, SermoI, "De Annuntiatione Domini"in S. Bernardi OperaOmnia,tome 6.

2 Acc. no. 1971.786, H. 22.5 x W. 9.5 x O.D. 8.4 cm. KateS. BuckinghamFund.Formerprovenanceas
follows:ex. coll. O. Homberg,Paris,salecat., Objetsd'Art,GalerieGeorgesPetit,Paris,June3-5, 1931,
no. 128,illus.pl. 58; ex. coll. E. Kofler-Truniger,
Lucerne,in H. Schnitzler,F. Volbach,P. Bloch, Skulp-
turen,Sammlung E. undM. Kofler-Truniger, vol. I, Lucerne-Stuttgart, 1964,p. 17, no. S. 31, illus. Also
H. Schnitzler, P. Bloch,C. Ratton,F. Volbach,Mittelalterliche undEmailkunst
Elfenbein ausderSammlung
Kofler-Truniger, Diisseldorf,1965,p. 17, no. S.31, illus. pl. II.
3 It is difficultto determinewhetherthe sphererepresents a fruitor a globe,mundum inpugillocontinens.
4 The Art Institute'sConservation Departmentobtainedsamplesfrom the Virgin'sright armpitandfrom
the Child'scurls.Eachsamplewas viewedat approximately 400xwith a polarizingmicroscoperevealing
the followingmaterials:ironoxidered (4-8gm),ultramarine (4-8pm),ironoxideyellow earth(6-12gm),
calciumcarbonate(4-8gm) containedin a gessosolution,leadwhite (I-2gqm),and egg white, the latter
usedin a thin,lightwash;Igm (micrometer) = 1/25,000 inch.As a rulenearlyallivoriesin the thirteenth
andfourteenth centurieswerepaintedin rich,luminouscolours.Thus,onecanpositthatthe Chicagogroup
originallyreceivedgoldenhair,a redrobeandbluemantle,andperhapsfleshcolourson the exposedparts
of the body.Bordersof garmentswerepresumably gilded.
5 Existing scholarship, giving dates andplace originwhen mentioned,includes:R. Koechlin,LesIvoires
of
26 Museum
Studies9

Gothiques Franfais,3 vols.,Paris,1924,vol. I, p. 53; vol. 2, p. 5, no. ii, where the dategiven is: second
quarter the thirteenthcentury;andvol. 3, pl. 4 bis,no. Ii. The salecat.of the Hombergcoll. proposes
of
the untenabletime,debutof the thirteenthcentury(Objects d'Art,p. 61, no. 128). See L. Grodecki,Ivoires
Franfais,Paris,1947,pp. 8off., illus.pl. 21, where the date assignedis: towards1235 andp. 153,wherethe
locationreads:"Ile-de-France (?)". The scholars reviewingthe Kofler-Truniger coll. situatethe ivory as:
French,thirdquarter of the thirteenth century(Schnitzler al., 1964,1965,p. 17,no. S.31),a datewhichis
et
uncharacteristically late. Also see M. Seidel,"Die Elfenbeinmadonna im Domschatzzu Pisa",Mitteilungen
desKunsthistorischen Institutesin Florenz,vol. 1972,p. 29 and below,n. 73, illus.no. 31 andp. 50o, where
the presentlocationof the ivory is given.The 16", Studien zu
mostrecent reference is: R. Suckale, Stilbildung
undStilwandel derMadonnenstatuen derIle-de-France zwischen1230 und1300oo, Munich,1971,pp. 7off.and
below,n. 7, p. 86f.andbel6w,n. 16, passim.He proposesa dateabout1230 (ibid.,p. 72) andis confident
of a Parisiansourceof origin(ibid.,pp. 70, 71).
6 Examplesfrommonumental sculpture towardstheendof thethirddecadearethejub6of Chartres cathedral,
the southtranseptrosestoreyof Reims cathedral,the west facadeof Amienscathedral,and the central
portalvault of the Chartresnorth transept.For thissculptureanda discussionof stylistictransition,see
W. Sauerlinder, Gotische PlastikinFrankreich 1140-1270,Munich,1970, pp. 54ff.,P. 122f., p. I47f.,p. i66f.
At Chartrescathedral,beneaththe vaulton the eastandwest sides,aretwo rows of seatedmalefigures
liningthecurveof thebarrel.On theeastsidethedraperyof thefigureon thebottominsiderowis executed
in the latetroughstyle,while the figuredirectlyabovehasthe draperyof the block-style.Thosefigures
on the outerrow of the vaultwere probablynot completedbeforeca. 1245.Reimscathedralalsoshows
thatthe troughstylecarriedon into the 30's beforethe block-styletook over. The fourteenroyalstatues
demonstrate the transitionwhichculminatesin the figuresfrom the soffitaroundthe rosewindow,com-
pletedprobablybefore1241.Examplesfrommanuscript paintingarethe two draperystyles,Muldenfalten
andbroad,angular,in the Sainte-Chapelle Gospels,Paris,Bibl. nat.,MS. lat. 8892.Thatpaintinglagged
behindmonumentalsculpturein this transitioncan be clearlyseenin the handlingof draperyon certain
panelsof the Sainte-Chapelle windows,carriedout in thefourthdecade.Herethe two stylesareworking
togetheron the samedrapery.
7 SeeL. GrodeckiandJ.Verrier,LesVitraux deNotre-Dame et dela Sainte-Chapelle deParisin CorpusVitrearum
MediiAevi,France, I, Paris,1959,pp. 72ff.andillustrations, esp.pl. 31,nos.L-156,L-125;pl. 36,no. L-130.
The modellingof draperyin this glasspaintingis an accurateinterpretation of three-dimensional forms.
Comparethe draperyof the Chicagoivory Virginwith thatof Godthe Fatherin pl. 3I, no. L-156.
8 Thereis a consensusamongscholarsasto the stylisticrelationship of the Amienswestfacadesculptureand
theivorygroup.L. Grodeckifirstpresumed thissimilarity (IvoiresFranfais,p. 82)whichwaslaterconfirmed
by Seidel(op. cit., p. 29 andbelow,n. 73, illus.no. 32) andSuckale(op. cit., p. 70 andbelow, n. 7).
For the dating of the west front sculpture, see A. Erlande-Brandenburg,"La Fagade
de la Cath6draled'Amiens", BulletinMonumental,135, 1977, Pp. 257-93, esp. pp. 283 ff.
9 Examplesfrom the thirddecademay be seenin illustrations fromthe Saint-Corneille Missal,Paris,Bibl.
nat.,MS.lat. 17318(e.g.fol. I7ov)andrelatedto thisbookin style,a leaffroma Missalfor Noyon usein:
W. Wixom, Treasures from MedievalFrance,Cleveland,1967, illus. p. 145. The Sainte-Chapelle glass,
paintedbefore 1248,represents an intermediary stylisticstage.Lastly,see the draperyof the Wise and
FoolishVirginsengravedon the sidesof a silver-giltand niellobook-coverof the FirstSainte-Chapelle
Gospels,Paris,Bibl. nat.,MS. lat. 8892,a work completedtowardsI25o.
Io SeeSauerlinder (op.cit.,p. 15iso) for referenceto theChartrainjub6 andSuckale(op. cit.,p. 34)for reference
to specificarchivoltfiguresfromthe Amiensmiddleportal.
An Early GothicFrenchIvory of the Virginand Child 27

II Suckale,op. cit., p. 71, where the Chicago ivory is comparedwith thejamb statues.
12 A Frenchseated Virgin and Child ivory, dating from the first half of the twelfth century and now in the
Museo LiazaroGaldiano, Madrid, is carved with the same distinctive facial featuresas those adopted for
The Art Institute'sivory Virgin approximatelya century later. See E.v. Philippovich,Elfenbein,Brunswick,
1961, illus. p. 59, pl. 44.
13 Chef-reliquaire, Musee de Cluny, inv. no. L.O.A. 612o, H. 33 cm., "Limoges, XIII".
14 The Evangelistrelief, preservedin the Louvre, is a controversialobject. The youthful scribeis probably the
Evangelist,Matthew. See Sauerlinder,op. cit., p. 122 and illus. no. 61. The fragmentis allegedly from the
jub6 of Chartrescathedral.Concerning this question, see L. Pressouyre,"Pour une reconstitutionde jub6
de Chartres",BulletinMonumental,125, 1967, p. 427f. and below, n. 2.
15 Fragmentsof the left and right sides of the lintel are now in the Mus6e de Cluny. The left side together
with the tympanum figures of Christ in Judgment and the archangelto his right, have been seen as rep-
resentinga younger, innovative style which differsfrom the older central portal sculpture.Until recently,
individualauthorshave claimedapproximatedatesfrom the years 1220-1230.For referenceto this literature,
see Sauerlinder,op. cit., p. 57, p. 138 and pls. 146, 147. However, A. Erlande-Brandenburghas advanced
a plausiblethesiswhich holds that the tympanumfigures and the left lintel fragment are restorationsdating
from 124O-1250 ("Les Remaniements du Portail Central a Notre-Dame de Paris",Bulletin Monumental,
129, 1971, pp. 241-247; "Nouvelles Remarques sur le Portail Centralde Notre-Dame de Paris",ibid, 132,
1974, pp. 287-296). A precise date for this sculptureis still a matter of debate.
16 Suckale, op. cit., p. 71.
17 On the north transeptportal of Notre-Dame cathedral,Paris,see Sauerlander,op. cit., p.
I53f.
18 SeatedVirgin and Child: Koechlin, op. cit., no. 12, illus. vol. 3, pl. 4 bis, and vol. 2, p. 5, where the date
given is: end of the second quarterof the thirteenthcentury;J. Natanson, GothicIvoriesof the 13thand 14th
Centuries,London, 1951, P. 14, illus. fig. 2, with the date, "about 123O-I240"; and R. H. Randall, Medieval
Ivoriesin The WaltersArt Gallery,Baltimore, 1969, no. II, acc. no. 71.235, illus., with the following in-
formation: "French,second quarterof the thirteenth century. Height 8Y in. [22.3 cm.]" and "traces of
flesh tone, gilt borders, and blue paint on the garments". It should be noted that this ivory is carved in
relief, and that the head and neck of the Child, as they appearin figure 12, are modern additions. Also see
Suckale, op. cit., p. 70f., pp. 89-91, passim.
Standing Virgin and Child: Koechlin, op. cit., no. 13, illus. vol. 3, pl. 4 bis and in vol. 2, p. 5,
dated: milieu of the thirteenth century. See Randall, op. cit., no. Io, acc. no. 71.239, illus. and with the
additional facts: "French,second quarter of the thirteenth century. Height 9?4 in. [23.5 cm.]". Also see
Suckale, op. cit., p. 72 and below, n. 8, where it is noted that the bottom of the statuettehas too narrow
an effect due to breakageincurredon the lower right side of the mantle, p. 91f., passim.
19 The Chicago ivory has traditionallybeen seen as forming one group with the Baltimore statuettes. See
Koechlin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 53; Grodecki,op. cit., p. 82; Seidel,op. cit., p. 29 andbelow, n. 73; and Suckale,
op. cit., p. 70 and p. 72, with the comment: The three smallfigures originate approximatelyfrom the years
about or after 1230.
20 On this observation, see Suckale, op. cit., p. 72.
21 Koechlin, op. cit., no. 14, vol. 2, p. 5f., with the date: third quarterof the thirteenthcenturyand F. Courtoy,
Le Trdsordu Prieure' d'Oignieset l'Oeuvredufrre Hugo, Brussels,1953, p. III, where this ivory is dated to
the end of the thirteenthcentury, illus. p. I12, fig. 99. Both of these dates are too late. The Namur ivory
statuette(H. 29 cm.) should be dated to ca. 1240. About the neckline of the Virgin's robe, tracesof a dec-
orative border are visible. Also see Suckale, op. cit., p. 72 and below, n. 8.
28 MuseumStudies9

22 The Longvilly Virgin (H. 50 cm.) has recently been associatedwith a particulargroup of "Sedes mosanes"
and dated to the decade, I25o-126o. See R. Didier, "La Sculpturemosane de la ze moitie du XIIIe sidcle",
Rhein undMaas, vol. 2, Cologne, 1973, p. 423, p. 427 and illus. no. II. To this group should be added a
seated Virgin and Child statuettein Notre-Dame de Matagne-la-Petite,illustratedin: J. de Borchgrave
d'Altena, "Madonesen Majest6",Revue belged'Arche'ologie et d'Histoirede l'Art, XXX, I96I, p. 97, fig. 85.
23 On this manuscript,its date and possiblecentre of origin, see R. Branner,"Note on the Style of the Kansas
City Leaf", The Nelson Gallery & Atkins MuseumBulletin,vol. 5, no. I, 1971, p. 28f., illus. fig. 7. Harvey
Stahl kindly referredme to this illustration.
24 See Grodecki and Verrier, op. cit., illus. pl. 25, no. M-I66.
25 Koechlin, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 5, no. ii. Until recently, the only other referencefor this ivory was the Cat.
of the Rodolphe Kann Coll., Objetsd'Art,ed. J. Mannheim, vol. I, Paris, 1907, p. Io, no. 17, illus., with
the remark: "France,thirteenth century (?). Height 14/2 inches [36.8 cm.]". See also A. M. Frankfurter,
"The Mackay Art Objects on View", Art News, May 20, 1939, p. Io, illus. p.l.; Exh. Cat. MedievalArt
1o6o-105o, Dorothy Miner Memorial,Art Gallery, Univ. of Notre Dame, [South Bend] March-April,
1974, no. 40, illus., with the notation: "France(Paris), ca. 1370". The date cited must be a misprint; a
Parisianorigin is uncertain. The Child grips with his right hand a thin strip of ivory protruding from
the Virgin's breast which secured a relic. A similar arrangementis found on the breast of the Madonna
de las Batallas,Seville cathedral,an ivory dating from after the mid-4o's. See Suckale, op. cit., p. 82 and
below, nn. 5, 6, and pl. I.
26 This disproportionmay be caused partly by an alterationof the Virgin's right hand.
27 Suckale, op. cit., p. 86. In Romanesque art the oval shape is used mainly in an architectonicsetting but
also resemblesthe design of seal matrices.
28 See the illustrationsin: de Borchgrave d'Altena, op. cit., pp. 3-114, esp. figs. 48, 68.
29 For the origin and development of this attitude,particularlyas it relatesto representationsof the Adoration
of the Magi, see V. Lasareff,"Studiesin the Iconography of the Virgin", Art Bulletin,vol. 20, 1938,
pp.
46ff., esp. pp. 61-63; R. Hamann, "Die Salzwedeler Madonna", Marburger Jahrbuch,vol. 3, 1927, pp.
134ff., with illus., esp. pl. 61 b, c; and de Borchgrave d'Altena, op. cit., pp. 3-114. Also see above, n. 12.
30 For the motif of the standing Child, see Lasareff,op. cit., p. 41 and Suckale, p. 90 and below, n. 25. A
seatedVirgin and Child ivory, ca. 1250, is illustratedin: A. Mayeux, "La Vierge et I'Enfantde la collection
"
Tello-Champagne Dreux", Revue de l'Art Chre'tien, vol. LXIII, 1913, p. 396f.
31 Suckale,op. cit., p. 9o.
32 See PL 183, col. 63, 4A-B, Homilia II, "Super MissusEst Homiliae" or "De LaudibusVirginis Matris"in
S. BernardiOperaOmnia,tome 3. Also De LaudibusBeataeMariaeVirginis,X, II, 3, 4, in D. AlbertiMagni
OperaOmnia,ed. A. and A. Borgnet, vol. 36, Paris, 1898. This work, a compendium of Marian devotion
and doctrine, had an enormousinfluenceand was regardedwith venerationdue to the famous Dominican.
However, it is now generally ascribed to Richard of St. Laurent, dean of the metropolitan chapter of
Rouen, 1239-1245.
Originally a romanesquemotif, the dragon (or serpent) under the Virgin's foot becomes pop-
ular from the middle of the twelfth century on and is especially widespread in early thirteenth century
French, Mosan, and German examples of the SedesSapientiaetype. See Exh. Cat. The Year1200, vol. I,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1970, nos. 35, 36, 55. Also Exh. Cat. Rhein und Maas, vol..I,
Cologne, 1972, nos. LI, L6, LI5, and Nz and, lastly, Koechlin, op. cit., nos. 3, 25, and 96. For references
to representationsof the serpent under the Virgin's foot in Adoration scenes, again see The Year 1200zoo,
no. 74.
An EarlyGothicFrench
Ivoryof theVirginandChild 29

33 Fora furtherexaminationof the gestureof benediction,see the illuminatingstudyof H. P. L'Orangein

Studieson theIconography of CosmicKingshipin theAncientWorld,Oslo, 1953,pp. 171-197, esp.p. 172f.,
p. 194f.
34 Concerningthe diverseiconic meaningsof the imagesof smallbirdsas interchangeable "symbols",see
H. Friedmann,TheSymbolic Goldfinch, Washington,1946,esp.pp. 7-10, pp. ioff., andpp. 28ff.
35 Figure21 showsTheophilusprayingbeforea statuetteof the Virgin,a detailfromthe narrativescenesof
the TheophilusLegend,locatedon the middlerow of thenorthtranseptportaltympanumof Notre-Dame
cathedral,Paris.Seeabove,n. 17.
36 FontesRerumAustriacarum, Oesterreichische vol. 3, Vienna,I85i, p. 142f. In this
Geschichts-Quellen,
sourcefrom the "StiftungBuch"of the Cistercianabbey,Zwettl, the abbot,Bovzlaus(1248-1259), is
mentionedas havingbrought"de superioribus partibusFrancie"certainrelicsand reliquaries,among
theman ivoryimageof the BlessedVirginMary.Thissourcealsoimpliesthatthe monasticsettingof the
ZwettlVirginwas on an altarretable,probablyenshrinedin a smalltabernacle.
37 Until the end of the fourteenthcenturythe fourgreatMarianfeastswerethe Purification, Annunciation,
Assumption,andNativity.The feastof the Conceptionwas an exceptionbeingcelebratedonly in certain
placesin Francesuch as Lyonssince the twelfthcentury.However,duringthe thirteenthcenturyeach
Saturday was,in effect,a veritablefeastof theVirgin.SeeH. Du Manoir,Maria,Atudes surla SainteVierge,
vol. 2, Paris,1952,P. 746 andbelow,nn. 32, 33.
38 SeePL144,cols.736B-74oD,SermoXLIV,"InNativitateBeatissimae VirginisMariae"in S. PetriDamiani
OperaOmnia,tome 2.
39 PL I85, col. 118,4B.
40 Ibid.,4B-D; Cf. De Laudibus Beatae..., X, II,63.
41 De Laudibus Beatae... , V, II, 65; X, II, 5.