Steenokkerzeel

Noted in Tollenaere (1957), who mentions the later alteration of the additional four lion heads to the lower base: "Font à cuve quadrangulaire, simplement moulurée d’un bandeau très large, en relief, et d’un scotie sous laquelle les amorces du support sont amorties par une autre scotie plus petite épousant la forme cylindrique des colonnettes. Support : une grosse colonne cantonnée de quatre colonnettes. Socle quadrangulaire à deux ressauts et bases des colonnes en tore aplati, filet et anneau. Le large socle, cantonné de quatre têtes de lions en ronde bosse, est une adjonction postérieure. Calcaire bleu de Meuse, taillé au ciseau. Fin 12e – début 13e siècle." Noted in Van Boxmeer (1930). Noted and illustrated in Lauwers (1987). Baptismal font of the 13th century listed and illustrated in BALaT KIK-IRPA [https://balat.kikirpa.be/object/14775] [accessed 17 February 2024]: "doopvont van XIIIe [...] Romaans [...] steen"; the same entry includes the 17th-century font cover: "deksel van XVIIe [...] messing ". A communication to BSI from Pol Herman (e-mail of 13 October 2023) refers to "The somewhat complicated history of the baptismal font at Steenokkerzeel (Belgium) and notes that the "provenance of the baptismal font as the Saint Catherine’s church of Humelg[h]em". Pol Herman provides the sources and bibliographical references noted above, and adds a long story about the interesting and indeed complicated vicissitudes in the life of this font: "As for the baptismal font, it is now located in the centre of the St. Bernard Chapel. It is an interesting piece of art, made of marble, 111 cm high, with a square basin of 72 cm width, resting on a heavy central column, flanked by four additional columns which in turn rest on a heavy square base. Pastor De Maeyer dated the object at the time (around 1180) as follows: “The font, very old (1500s according to members of the fine arts committee), 4 columns in Romanesque style.” Belonging to the Romanesque style, in its basic profile this baptismal font nevertheless shows a certain affinity with the Gothic style. This fact makes it refer to the transition period, which is the beginning of the 13th century. Originally, this font did not belong to the church of Steenokkerzeel, but to the neighbouring church of Humelgem. Between 1589 and 1595, Pastor Hieronymus van Frachem served both churches, and he had the font transferred from the St. Catherine's Church of Humelgem to the St. Rumoldus Church of Steenokkerzeel. Since at that time the latter church did not yet have a baptismal chapel, the baptismal ceremonies being previously held in the sacristy (as the records show), the Humelgem baptismal font was simply placed in the church. The inhabitants of Humelgem strongly protested against this course of action, to the extent that even the dean mentioned it in his report to the bishop: “1596: Rogabant incolae restitutionem fontis sui qui in templo Sti Rumoldi positus est, de qua illis spem dedi.” The insistence of the inhabitants to get their property back resulted in the diocese noting in the margin of the report that the people of Humelgem should either get their font back or be compensated for it: “Moneantur magistri fabricae ut restituant vel incolis satisfaciant.” However, the church wardens of Steenokkerzeel remained deaf on that side, because in 1599 the same complaint followed again, with the additional comment that the dean had ordered its return. Only in 1619, under Van Frachem's successor, would an arrangement have been made. However, the solution seems to us to be shrouded in a web of confusion and conflicting information, even after reading Van Boxmeer's text. It is said that Humelgem sold the baptismal font to Kampenhout, where the aforementioned author indeed found in the report by the deacon that Kampenhout had purchased a new baptismal font that year (1619), but it was not stated that it was transferred there from Steenokkerzeel. Nor has a word been written in Steenokkerzeel about this possible transfer to Kampenhout. In our opinion, the most acceptable hypothesis would be that Kampenhout had negotiated with Humelgem, but ultimately purchased a new font elsewhere. Steenokkerzeel would then have happily paid the price of the baptismal font to the church of Humelgem, possibly through the mediation of the pastor of Kampenhout. Anyway, the present baptismal font at Kampenhout cannot be that from 1619, it being much younger (19th century). At Humelgem, the present baptismal font is dated 1635 (unsure), and could be the one that was bought thanks to the financial compensation it received."