Modelled and fired. A white chalk ground, terracotta-coloured paint and wax layer have been applied to the statuette’s surface in places. The head, collar and shoulders have been modelled in the round; the open reverse, which begins below the shoulders, has a vertical, cylindrical support in the middle. The reverse has been finished fairly evenly, showing traces of the fingers and a toothed tool.

A section along the lower edge has broken off, as well as left of the medal under section of the hair (at the forehead, right of the hair part). Minor flaking in places.

…; from the dealer J. van Herck, Antwerp, fl. 10,381, to the museum, 1977

Object number: BK-1977-22

This sensitively modelled male bust is a typical example of a Flemish baroque portrait, characterized by a subtle naturalism derived from Italian models. This is expressed in the soft and fluid modelling, the diverted glance of the sitter and the mantle rendered to conceal the bust’s termination in a nonchalant manner. Portrayed here is the painter Gaspar de Crayer (1585-1669), as affirmed by comparing this work to his engraved portrait in Cornelis de Bie’s book Het gulden cabinet vande edel vry schilder-const (Antwerp, 1661).¹¹Cornelis de Bie, Het gulden cabinet vande edel vry schilder-const, Antwerp 1661, p. 245, see RKD images, no. 244226. The medallion on a chain on De Crayer’s breast bears the image of King Philip III of Spain, an insignia conveying his status as court painter to Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand of Austria (1609-1641), governor of the Spanish Netherlands in Brussels.²²H. Vlieghe, Caspar de Craeyer: Sa vie et ses œuvres, Brussels 1972, vol. 1, p. 44. The commissioning of this bust portrait may very well have been motivated by De Crayer’s appointment as court painter in 1636, as this would explain the choice of a medium of noble status rarely implemented in this genre. One other, if less tenable possibility is that the bust was executed as a gift of friendship to De Crayer in exchange for a painted portrait of the sculptor.

Its probable maker was Lucas Faydherbe (1617-1697). In terms of style and technique, the portrait falls well in line with other works from his documented oeuvre. A collaboration on the main altar of the Sint-Pietershospitaal in Brussels in the year 1638 confirms that De Crayer and Faydherbe knew each other, both being prominent Flemish artists of their day.³³H. Vlieghe, Caspar de Craeyer: Sa vie et ses œuvres, Brussels 1972, vol. 1, p. 309. Later collaborations between the two men include the Marian altar for the Sint-Walburgkerk in Oudenaarde in 1652 and the main altar of the Maria Hemelvaartkerk in Sint Laureins-Watervliet one year later.⁴⁴P. Philippot, D. Coekelberghs, P. Loze and D. Vautier, L’Architecture religieuse et la sculpture baroques dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux et la principauté de Liège: 1600-1770, Sprimont 2003, pp. 873-74.

Unjustly, Faydherbe’s portrait sculpture is an aspect of his oeuvre that has been somewhat overlooked, in part the consequence of the few surviving works. The Amsterdam De Crayer bust closely corresponds to his only two other existing documented terracotta portraits, both depictions of Archbishop Alphonse de Berghes of Mechelen (c. 1670-80).⁵⁵H. De Nijn, H. Vlieghe and H. Devisscher (eds.), Lucas Faydherbe 1617-1697: Mechels beeldhouwer en architect, exh. cat. Mechelen (Stedelijk Museum Hof van Busleyden) 1997, nos. add. 3, 4. Even if these two works lack the informal and un-posed air evoked by the Amsterdam bust, all three share essentially the same treatment of the hair, the rendering of the eyes and soft modelling. The unforced naturalism absent from the De Berghes portraits can nevertheless be observed on Faydherbe’s magnum opus, the imposing marble kneeling portrait of Archbishop Andries Cruesen on his tomb monument in the Sint-Romboutskathedraal in Mechelen, carved between 1660 and 1669.⁶⁶P. Philippot, D. Coekelberghs, P. Loze and D. Vautier, L’Architecture religieuse et la sculpture baroques dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux et la principauté de Liège: 1600-1770, Sprimont 2003, pp. 872-73.

Faydherbe’s formal written request of 1685 addressed to Otto-Hendrik, governor of the Spanish Netherlands, confirms the artist’s reputation as a portrait sculptor, indeed surpassing the level suggested by the above-cited works. In his appeal, composed in French, Faydherbe requested permission to do a sculpted portrait of the governor, thereby citing a number of his earlier portraits: ‘Having learned that V.E. [Otto-Hendrik] intended to do his portrait first in clay and after in marble, he [Faydherbe] comes to offer his services to V.E., having made various resemblant portraits, to wit, of Mr. Rubens, from whom he [Faydherbe] has learned his art, as well as the grandfather and grandmother and father and mother of the Comte Marchin, and the father and mother of the Marquis of Trasegnies, all in white marble […]’.⁷⁷Ayant appris que V.E. serait d’intention de faire son pourtrait premièrement en terre et après en marbre, il vient offrir à V. E. son service, ayant fait plusieurs semblables pourtraits, à sçavoir du sieur Rubens auprès de qui il a appris son art, comme aussi des grands père et mère et père et mère du Comte Marchin que des père et mère du marquis de Trasegnies tous de marbre blanc (...); M.L.V. Goethals, Histoire des Lettres, des Sciences et des Arts en Belgique, Brussels 1844, vol. 4, p. 177; B. Libertus M., Lucas Faydherbe, beeldhouwer en bouwmeester, Antwerp 1938, p. 38. Four of the portraits cited here are still known today, specifically, those of Jehan de Marchin and his wife, Jeanne de la Vaulx-Renard, on the monumental tomb in the Eglise Saint-Martin in Modave and the comparable tomb effigies of Gilles Othon de Trazegnies and Jacqueline de Lalaing in the Eglise Saint-Martin in Courcelles-Trazegnies (the tombs are dated c. 1672-77).⁸⁸B. Libertus M., Lucas Faydherbe, beeldhouwer en bouwmeester, Antwerp 1938, pp. 39, 82- 89 and figs. 12, 26-28; P. Philippot, D. Coekelberghs, P. Loze and D. Vautier, L’Architecture religieuse et la sculpture baroques dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux et la principauté de Liège: 1600-1770, Sprimont 2003, p. 881. Both pairs again demonstrate Faydherbe’s great talent as a portraitist and his ability to achieve a convincing naturalism, even when conceived post-mortem.⁹⁹P. Philippot, D. Coekelberghs, P. Loze and D. Vautier, L’Architecture religieuse et la sculpture baroques dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux et la principauté de Liège: 1600-1770, Sprimont 2003, p. 884 (with ill.).

The now lost portrait of Rubens is by no means insignificant: like the bust of De Crayer, this work concerns the depiction of an artist and may perhaps also be seen as a friendship portrait given to the painter by Faydherbe, who worked as his apprentice for several years and with whom he essentially shared a father-son relationship.¹⁰¹⁰F. Scholten, ‘Rubens’ werkplaats-academie of de ghemeynschap die onse Consten van schildry ende Belthouwery t’samen hebben’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 2004, pp. 35-53. In this context, a larger than life terracotta portrait bust of Rubens by the German sculptor Georg Petel (c. 1590-1635), inscribed ‘IAP. F.ct 1633’ (Iörg Petle Augustanus fecit 1633) is also of great significance (fig. a).¹¹¹¹Despite earlier doubts, technical research has shown the bust to be authentic. For this bust see V. Herremans in J. Tatrai and A. Varga (eds.), Rubens, Van Dyck and the Splendor of Flemish Painting, Budapest (Museum of Fine Arts), 2019-2020, no. 11 (with earlier literature). Petel was another sculptor known to have worked in Rubens’s workshop, long before Faydherbe’s arrival. He was in Antwerp at least two times in the 1620s. Whether Petel returned to Antwerp in 1633 or based Rubens’s portrait on a preexisting model brought back to his hometown of Augsburg remains uncertain. It is plausible he gave this, or an earlier version of the bust as a friendship portrait to his master in Antwerp, a gesture that may have inspired Faydherbe to do the same. Formal similarities between Petel’s portrait bust of Rubens and Faydherbe’s bust of De Crayer – such as the diverted heads, the prominently displayed medallions, and the way both busts are terminated – suggest the latter was also artistically influenced by Petel.

Frits Scholten and Bieke van der Mark, 2025

F. Scholten, Gebeeldhouwde portretten/Portrait Sculptures, coll. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1995, no. 11; H. De Nijn, H. Vlieghe and H. Devisscher (eds.), Lucas Faydherbe 1617-1697: Mechels beeldhouwer en architect, exh. cat. Mechelen (Stedelijk Museum Hof van Busleyden) 1997, no. 17; P. Philippot, D. Coekelberghs, P. Loze and D. Vautier, L’Architecture religieuse et la sculpture baroques dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux et la principauté de Liège: 1600-1770, Sprimont 2003, p. 867; V. Herremans (ed.), Heads on Shoulders: Portrait Busts in the Low Countries 1600-1800, exh. cat. Antwerp (Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp) 2008, pp. 140-41, no. 80; P. Wengraf (ed.), European Bronzes and Terracottas: Patricia Wengraf Celebrates 40 years of Fine Sculpture, London 2018, pp. 84, 86 and fig. 1; V. Herremans in J. Tatrai and A. Varga (eds.), Rubens, Van Dyck and the Splendor of Flemish Painting, Budapest (Museum of Fine Arts), 2019-2020, p. 136

F. Scholten and B. van der Mark, 2025, 'attributed to Lucas Faydherbe, Bust of Gaspar de Crayer (1585-1669), Antwerp, c. 1638 - c. 1640', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/20061402