The figure of the Virgin Mary is standing with her left hand on her chest and her right hand at her side. It should be noted that her right arm, together with the hand that is separated from the body, are carved in a separate, added piece of ivory. This detail takes away from the figure some of the curved profile of the elephant tusk, which is common in this kind of pieces. Viewed from the front it is notable that Mary turns her head and directs her gaze to her left, revealing the profile of her face; so much so that the figurine has another perspective, which is equally beautiful, on its left side from which the face from the front and the set of folds on the left side of the body can be seen. In a certain regard, this is the most satisfying view of the image, allowing one to appreciate all the folds of the cloak and both of the hands, in addition to the oval and smiling face. The mouth is half-open, barely showing her teeth. The other two views of the figure are of far less interest than the first two; however, they reveal the curious detail of the right foot turned outward and poorly integrated with the position of the left foot, should this not be in order to accommodate the two preferred views of the piece.

In a very general sense this Virgin is inspired by similar works in ivory that were mainly made in during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The angular folds at the bottom of the tunic and cloak surrounding the figure, creating a set of lines at the front of the body, are visual schemes that certainly remind us of medieval works. However, there are many details that do not match what you would expect to see in a Gothic figurine. The first is the aforementioned ambivalent view. Medieval figures are of predominantly frontal views; here, the strong profile, the right hand and the folds to the left permit and invite another view of the piece. In addition, the working of the folds, although angled in some parts, is rather soft and rounded, more neoclassical than Gothic. The facial features, moreover, tend toward a certain realism that is not medieval. Beginning with the detail of the teeth, and decidedly in the working of eyes, the taste is modern. The pupils, carved and with their gaze upwards, and the eyes outlined and defined in three-dimensional details are unknown in Gothic figures, whose eyes tend to be almond shaped and smooth, although sometimes painted with colors. Finally, the bare feet of the Virgin are in stark contrast with the decorum of medieval art in the representations of the mother of God, who never showed a foot without a shoe in works of this type. This suggests that the piece should be assigned to the eclecticism of the nineteenth century, when there was a renewed taste for Gothic ivory figures. With no further comparisons, which are difficult to make because there have not been many pieces of this type published, it is difficult to define the origin of this Virgin more accurately. The most recent literature only deals marginally with the issue, but does not include works similar to this.[1]

The position of the body of Mary, as well as her gaze to the left and the hand on the chest, identify the iconography as that of the Annunciation. Missing, of course, is the figure of the Archangel Gabriel. However, it should be noted that generally Gabriel arrives from the left of the composition of the Annunciation. In addition, when Mary places her hand on her chest in this scene, it is usually the right hand. As for the bare feet, these details suggest that the piece was made at a time or by a person who did not appreciate -and perhaps did not know- these peculiarities of medieval iconography.

[1]. Barnet, 1997: 279-307.

Sources:

Barnet, Peter (coord.), Images in Ivory, Detroit-Princeton, Detroit Institute of Arts-Princeton University Press, 1997.