Sample Pages: Jean Bellegambe (c. 1470-1535/36). Making, Meaning and Patronage of his Works by Brepols

jean bellegambe decades of the sixteenth century, was a successful painter. His patrons included some of the most high-ranking clerics in the Habsburg-Burgundian Netherlands as well as members of the ruling class of Douai, the town where he lived and worked all his life. This is the first study to appear since Dehaisnes’ 1890 monograph that is exclusively devoted to the artist. By reassessing primary evidence—archival documents and material evidence from the works of art themselves— it aims to highlight Bellegambe’s artistic achievements. Close scrutiny of his paintings and investigation of the artist’s working methods will show that Bellegambe visualized the concerns of his patrons by closely linking the physical characteristics of his works to their original imagery, function and use. This book presents a series of five case studies of his works that were made for a monastic community, two individual clerics, a town hall and a bourgeois layman, thus providing rich evidence of patronage and audiences. The objective here is to examine how Bellegambe met the challenges posed by these commissions, and to gain further insight into the practice of a skilled artist who—rooted in a long line of craftsmanship and artistic tradition and in close collaboration with his colleagues and patrons—produced a body of highly original works.

jean bellegambe

j e a n b e l l e g a m b e (c. 1470-1535/36), whose career spanned the first three

Making, Meaning and Patronage of His Works

a n n a k o o p s t r a (1980) studied art history at the University of Groningen (MA, 2004) and

obtained her doctorate from the Courtauld Institute of Art (PhD, 2016). She has held curatorial positions and research fellowships at the Suermondt-Ludwig Museum (2005-08), The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Slifka Interdisciplinary Fellow, 2008-10), The National Gallery (Simon Sainsbury Curatorial Fellow, 2015-17), and the Courtauld (Associate Caroline Villers Research Fellow, 2016/17). Her research focuses on the technical investigation of paintings, and in particular on the making and meaning of early Netherlandish paintings.

9 782503 574370

anna koopstra

Contents

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I The Artist’s Life and Career

Life

Works

Posthumous legacy

CHAPTER II Oeuvre and Patrons

The Anchin Polyptych

Similar patrons, similar commissions

Other works

CHAPTER III Preliminary Observations on Materials and Working Methods

Panels and frames

Underdrawing and painting technique

Technical evidence and questions of attribution

Workshop

CHAPTER IV Jean Bellegambe and the Convent of Flines: Reconsidering The Cellier Altarpiece

Monastic reform and the convent of Flines

The evolution of the composition

Interpreting the iconographic program

Location, audience, date

CHAPTER V Clerical Devotion and the Monastic Milieu: The Diptych of the Virgin and Child with Saint Bernard and an Unidentified Cistercian Monk The Virgin and child as an object of clerical devotion

The abbess as exemplar

CHAPTER VI Self-Representation and Piety for the Here and the Hereafter: Abbot William of Brussels and the Triptych of the Annunciation

101

William of Brussels as a patron

102

Function and location

108

CHAPTER VII Painting as a Moral Compass: Triptych of the Last Judgment

113

The Last Judgment, the Four Last Things, and visions of heaven and hell

113

Function and audience

121

CHAPTER VIII Civic Duty, Charitable Giving, and the Wish to Be Commemorated: The Pottier Triptych and the Pottier Family

125

Reviewing the archival evidence

128

Iconography and meaning

130

Scenes of the life of Saint Anne, demi-grisaille, and the reality of giving

133

CONCLUSION

141

Bibliography Index

143

Acknowledgments

This book started as a Ph.D. research project (2011-15) at The Courtauld Institute of Art. I thank my supervisor Susie Nash for sharpening my thoughts along the way, and more. Many colleagues at museums and archives were helpful in responding to my requests for information and access to works, files and photographs; they are thanked in the text. Special thanks go to Anne Labourdette, former director of the Musée de la Chartreuse in Douai, for always welcoming me into her museum, and to Maryan Ainsworth, who made it possible for me to undertake a technical investigation of The Cellier Altarpiece at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, which much enriched my research. I also thank the colleagues from the Department of Paintings Conservation at The Met for their support, in particular Michael Gallagher, Sophie Scully, and Charlotte Hale.

A Theodore Rousseau Fellowship (2013-14) from The Metropolitan Museum of Art enhanced my opportunities to travel, while an HNA Fellowship Grant (2018) assisted me in purchasing the photographs and reproduction rights needed for publication. For her sustained support, I am much indebted to Maryan Ainsworth; thanks also go to Pamela Barr, who expertly edited the manuscript and transformed it into a book, and to Johan van der Beke from Brepols Publishers, for his never-ending professionalism. Without their efforts, and those of the designer Griet Van Haute, this publication would not have come into fruition.

Introduction

The refectory of the Musée de la Chartreuse in Douai, France (fig. 1), houses the largest ensemble of paintings by Jean Bellegambe (ca. 1470–1535/36), the artist from Douai who is the focus of this study. It includes the work that for several reasons may be considered his masterpiece—The Anchin Polyp tych (fig. 2), commissioned between 1511 and 1520 by abbot Charles Coguin of the Benedictine abbey of Anchin, some fourteen kilometers to the east. Also on display in Douai are two large panels dedicated to the Immaculate Conception that were probably the wings of The Pottier Triptych (fig. 3), commissioned by the prominent douaisien Jehan Pottier and supposedly completed in 1526. The Anchin Polyptych and The Pottier Triptych can be linked to Bellegambe through documentary evidence and together form the heart of his oeuvre. A large number of documents preserved in the muni cipal archives suggest Jean Bellegambe spent his entire life in the French-speaking city of Douai, then part of Flanders.1 Douai’s history is defined by its geographical position on the border between the kingdom of France and the Burgundian Netherlands and its alternating political dependency on both.2 These circumstances explain the distinctive character of the city, which developed as something of a separate entity (together with the castellanes of Lille and Orchies) with links to France, primarily through its language, and to Flanders, where most of its commercial opportunities lay and whose Burgundian rulers the douaisiens unfailingly supported. Thanks to its strategic location in the outermost southern corner of Flanders and especially because of the river Scarpe, which runs through the city and ends in the river Scheldt, Douai was connected to the Flemish cities of Ghent and Bruges in the north; to Arras (part of the county of Artois, under whose diocese Douai fell) in the south; and to Valenciennes, in the county of Hainault, to the east (fig. 4). The

Fig. 1. View of the refectory of the Musée de la Chartreuse, Douai

independent area around the influential diocese of Cambrai constituted the fourth bordering territory. The area’s rich intellectual milieu is attested by the presence of several monasteries. The Benedictine abbeys of Anchin, Marchiennes, and Saint Amand as well as the esteemed Cistercian convent of Flines, all located within a stone’s throw of Douai, were among the most affluent religious entities in the Burgundian Netherlands. We know with certainty that two of them patronized Bellegambe, and it is likely that he worked for the other houses as well. During the artist’s lifetime, measures of reform, which stimulated commissions for works of art, were introduced in these houses in the hope of restoring them to their glory days, both materially and spiritually, after a period of decline. Sadly, not a trace of these monasteries remains. By the beginning of the sixteenth century Douai’s great wealth—its flourishing cloth industry had made it one of the richest Flemish cities in Flanders during the thirteenth century—had diminished due to changing economic circumstances and political struggles and wars in the area. The latter in part resulted from the rapid succession of several Burgundian rulers after the untimely death of Charles the Bold at Nancy in 1477 and the continuing interest in the strategically 7

INTRODUCTION

Fig. 2. Jean Bellegambe. The Anchin Polyptych, ca. 1511–20. Second opening. Oil on wood, 161 × 112 cm (central panel); 162 × 78 cm (each wing). Musée de la Chartreuse, Douai (inv. no. 2175)

appealing territory of the French king Louis XII and his successor, Francis I. The many losses endured by the area around Douai—then as well as in more recent history—make it all the more fortunate that several of Bellegambe’s works survive.

State of research As is the case in the field of fifteenth- and sixteenthcentury Netherlandish painting in general, the study of Bellegambe’s life and work began in the late nine8

teenth century with the collaborative efforts of learned enthusiasts, collectors of works of art, and local historians and archivists.3 Their devoted investigation of the extant paintings, many of which originated from cloisters and convents, led them to the rich archives in the area. The unearthing of archival information resulted in connections being made between the documents and the works of art. Two such discoveries, made within two years, provided a solid factual basis and accelerated study of the artist and his oeuvre. In 1862 the Belgian archivist Alphonse Wauters

INTRODUCTION

(1817–1898) discovered Bellegambe’s name in a manuscript written by the local historian François de Bar (1528–1606), preserved in the Royal Library of Belgium in Brussels.4 De Bar noted that the “excellent peintre Belgambe” was responsible for the work placed on the main altar of the Benedictine abbey of Anchin. Wauters’s discovery finally restored the author of The Anchin Polyptych,5 which, by 1862, was kept in the church of Our Lady in Douai.6 Félix Brassart (1834–1905), the archivist of Douai, made a similar discovery in 1863. In a historical account

written between 1725 and 1730 by père Emmanuel Le Preux, the guardian of the Franciscan church in Douai, Brassart found Bellegambe’s name, the name of the donor, the circumstances surrounding the commission, and a date for The Pottier Triptych.7 The enthusiasm generated by the rediscovery of the name of this local artist led the Douai-based collector Auguste Preux (1822–1879) to publish a pamphlet titled “Résurrection d’un grand artiste: Jehan Bellegambe, peintre du retable d’Anchin” (1862), in which he confidently declared that Bellegambe could measure up 9

CHAPTER II

Oeuvre and Patrons

There are no signed paintings by Jean Bellegambe.1 Thanks to archival evidence—albeit from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries rather than from the artist’s own time—two works can be firmly attributed to him: The Anchin Polyptych and The Pottier Triptych. Based on stylistic analysis, Bellegambe’s oeuvre has been constructed around them. The abbey of Anchin, which fell under the diocese of Arras, was a relatively late Benedictine foundation of 1079 located about fourteen kilometers east of Douai.2 Two angels hovering near the top of The Anchin Polyptych’s outer right wing panel (fig. 9) carry the abbey’s coat of arms: a blue crest covered with fleurs-delis and featuring a white deer. The latter alludes to the foundation of the abbey by two Douaisien chevaliers who, according to legend, were led by a deer to the place where they were to found the new community. François de Bar, who confirmed that the polyptych was originally placed on the main altar of the abbey church, served as grand prior of Anchin from 1599 to 1606. He was also the great-grandnephew of Charles Coguin, the Anchin abbot who commissioned the work. His coat of arms is presented on the outer left wing panel, where he is also portrayed.3 Charles de Saint-Radegonde, dit Cocquin or Cockin (Coguin), officially became abbot of Anchin in 1511 at the death of his uncle Guillaume Ostrel. Unofficially, he had already been granted several abbatial privileges since he was appointed as Ostrel’s co-adjutor in 1506.4 Coguin was an active patron of the arts. Coguin’s coat of arms, together with his device “Favente deo,” can be found in at least four manuscripts he commissioned for the abbey.5 After more than three decades, Coguin’s abbacy ended with his death in 1546. The Anchin Polyptych is an informative, logical starting point for assessing the distinctive features of the artist’s style and approach. The polyptych thus serves as a touchstone for Bellegambe’s other works, even if in other ways—in its physical complexity and

specific iconographic and theological content—it is exceptional. Bellegambe did produce more than one painting for the same patron. Three more works are linked to the abbey of Anchin, and three of his works can be associated with the Cistercian convent of Flines. As a result, the oeuvre can be approached from the viewpoint of the patrons who commissioned the works. The artist’s relationship with his patrons as well as the impression made by the finished works themselves appear to have been crucial factors in generating other commissions.

The Anchin Polyptych The Anchin Polyptych is one of Bellegambe’s largest extant works. What makes the painting stand out in his oeuvre is not, however, its dimensions but rather its unique format and composition.6 Restoration in 2001–6 confirmed that its physical condition is sound.7 The polyptych consists of seven painted oak panels, making it the only work in the oeuvre with more than three panels. Five of the panels have a fixed position and contain painted scenes on only one side—though reportedly the two narrow lateral panels that flank the central panel of the Trinity show traces of polychromy on the reverse.8 Together with two L-shaped wings, painted on front and back, there are a total of nine surfaces with painted compositions. The movable wings are attached to the stationary panels. The identification of the work in De Bar’s account rests partly on this piece of information, as he mentions the “double wings” of the altarpiece.9 Since the wings—today displayed separately—are attached toward the center rather than at the sides, two different configurations of the panels are possible without changing the overall dimensions of the work. The way in which the altarpiece’s fixed and movable parts are constructed is comparable to double-winged retables where a caisse with sculptures is flanked by two 31

CHAPTER II

OEUVRE AND PATRONS

Fig. 9. Jean Bellegambe. The Anchin Polyptych, ca. 1511–20. First opening. Oil on panel, 161 × 112 cm (central panel); 162 × 78 cm (each wing). Musée de la Chartreuse, Douai (inv. no. 2175)

OEUVRE AND PATRONS

Fig. 14. Jean Bellegambe. Charles Coguin, Abbot of Anchin, ca. 1511–20. Oil on wood, 67.9 × 28.9 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The Friedsam Collection, Bequest of Michael Friedsam, 1931 (acc. no. 32.100.125)

Fig. 15. Jean Bellegambe. Saint Barbara, ca. 1511–20. Oil on wood, 87 × 28.9 cm. Musée de la Chartreuse, Douai (inv. no. 2011.1.1)

and faces. One angel is clad in antique-style armor (underdrawing can be seen with the naked eye) and the other is practically nude, which adds to the triptych’s “profane” appearance, despite its religious content. Its modest measurements suggest that the Triptych of the Mystic Bath was placed in a less public location than The Anchin Polyptych. Nevertheless, the two works are comparable in their unusual subject matter and compositional approach—especially the inclusion of texts. There is no indication of the date of the triptych, and we do not know how long Bellegambe’s professional relationship with Coguin lasted. The third work that is related to Coguin is the Metropolitan Museum’s wing panel Charles Coguin, Abbot of Anchin (fig. 14).25 The composition and format make clear that it was part of a larger work, probably an interior left wing. The support of the panel was thinned and put down on another panel,26 which has compromised the work’s condition. The paint layers are heavily abraded; elements such as Coguin’s staff and the decoration applied to his golden cope are almost completely lost.27 Coguin’s coat of arms is painted against the green of his prie-dieu, and the facial resemblance to his depiction on the left wing of The Anchin Polyptych leaves no question about the

abbot’s identity. Indeed, the figure of the kneeling abbot was probably borrowed directly from the prestigious polyptych, which reinforces the notion that these commissions were related. It has long been noted that the painting of abbot Coguin is related to a panel in Douai that depicts Saint Barbara in a niche (fig. 15).28 The Saint Barbara is about twenty centimeters taller than the Charles Coguin but is the same width.29 The two panels also share the same earliest known provenance— the collection of Jules Gréau in Paris.30 The saint is executed in demi-grisaille, with added color for the hair and flesh.31 A blason in full color is suspended from the top of the niche. It depicts Coguin’s coat of arms combined with the arms of a married woman who appears to have been related to him. Saint Bar bara (exterior wing) and Charles Coguin (interior, left wing) were probably once part of a triptych that was commissioned by a member of Coguin’s family rather than by Coguin himself, as has always been assumed. They appear to be the only two panels that remain of the commission. Bellegambe’s Triptych of the Trinity in Lille (fig. 16) is the result of a similar set of circumstances.32 The exterior of the triptych shows an Annunciation in 39

CHAPTER II

Fig. 16. Jean Bellegambe. Triptych of the Trinity, ca. 1520. Oil on wood, 105 × 69 cm (central panel); 108 x 30 cm (each wing). Palais des Beaux-Arts, Lille (inv. no. P833)

poor condition.33 The central panel repeats the composition of The Anchin Polyptych. The figures of the Trinity are almost identical—only the position of the head of God the Father and his gaze are altered.34 The gilded, heavenly sphere of the polyptych’s center panel, however, is replaced by a more earthly setting, with a throne that appears to be made out of stone and a tiled floor. The kneeling ecclesiastic portrayed on the left wing can be identified as Jacques Coene by the large coat of arms held by the angel.35 Coene’s coat of arms is also integrated in the architecture of the throne (fig. 17) to further personalize the central panel. Between 1501 and his death in 1542 Coene was abbot of the esteemed Benedictine abbey of Marchiennes, east of Douai. He was thus a contemporary of Coguin’s. Coene was a well-known patron of the arts;36 in addition to liturgical manuscripts, several of which survive, he commissioned paintings throughout his career. In the first decade of his abbacy he commissioned paintings from the workshop of the Brussels artist Bernard van Orley (ca. 1488/92–1541/42).37 In the 40

Fig. 17. Detail of Triptych of the Trinity (fig. 16), showing coat of arms of Jacques Coene

1540s Coene commissioned three large altarpieces from the Utrecht painter Jan van Scorel (1495–1562).38 He did not, however, commission the Triptych of the Trinity. Instead, the young lay couple depicted on the right wing, in the company of Saints Leonard and Catherine, were the patrons. Two crests that hang from the simple painted frame in the top of both wing

CHAPTER V

Clerical Devotion and the Monastic Milieu: The Diptych of the Virgin and Child with Saint Bernard and an Unidentified Cistercian Monk

The Diptych of the Virgin and Child with Saint Ber nard and an Unidentified Cistercian Monk shows in the open position (fig. 82) the Virgin and child on the left wing and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux1 accompanied by a Cistercian monk on the right.2 The composition can be considered a standard format for a devotional portrait diptych.3 Since there is no coat of arms, the identity of the monk, presumably the patron of the work, is unknown. The presence of the portrait of Jeanne de Boubais on the exterior of the right wing (fig. 41) is explained most logically by assuming that the diptych came into her possession after the original patron’s death, which would mean that the abbess and the Cistercian monk knew each other. Pearson has published most extensively about The Diptych of the Virgin and Child with Saint Bernard and an Unidentified Cistercian Monk.4 Taking as her point of departure the historical context of monastic reform at Flines, she developed an elaborate argument to explain the connection between the interior and the exterior and the relationship between the Cistercian and Jeanne de Boubais. Pearson posited that it was the latter who commissioned the work, as a gift for the monk, whom she identified, implausibly, as William of Brussels. However, considering the composition, function, and use of the diptych, it is likely that the monk commissioned the work.5

The Virgin and child as an object of clerical devotion The interior panels of The Diptych of the Virgin and Child with Saint Bernard and an Unidentified Cistercian Monk are compositionally connected through the ledge in front of the figures of the Virgin and child. The landscape in the background also runs continu-

ously, though the site differs from one panel to the other: a contemporary town can be seen behind the Virgin and child while a more deserted, rural landscape is visible behind Saint Bernard and the monk. Unusual for Bellegambe, there are no recognizable sites. The gazes and touches between the figures further connect the panels. At the same time, the intricate spiritual relationship that is set up between the figures is aimed at including the space in front of the painting. Read from right to left, Saint Bernard touches the donor with one hand and holds a crozier in his other hand. He points to the Christ child, thus establishing a clear connection to the other panel. His downward gaze seems directed to Christ. The focus of the monk however appears to be slightly upwards, on the Virgin. Christ’s mother in turn directs her gaze downward toward her Son. The Christ child does not make contact with any of the other figures but looks out directly at the beholder. He is ostentatiously holding a rosary to invite the viewer to pray.6 The diptych format and composition—with figures depicted in half-length, close to the picture plane, which reinforces the personal relationship to the beholder—differs from other works Bellegambe was called upon to produce. Despite these formal concerns, the diptych is stylistically close to The Cellier Altarpiece. The Virgin of the Frick diptych, with high cheekbones, reddish blonde hair, and heart-shaped mouth, recalls the Virgin in the center panel of the triptych, whose distinctive, narrow face does not occur in any of Bellegambe’s other works. The main figures of the Virgin and child were not borrowed literally from The Cellier Altarpiece but were adapted to better fit within the context of the diptych. Correspondences between these works suggest that the monk was familiar with The Cellier Altarpiece, and that when he 93

CHAPTER V

Fig. 82. Jean Bellegambe. Diptych of the Virgin and Child with Saint Bernard and an Unidentified Cistercian Monk. Oil on wood, 40.4 × 25.7 cm (left wing); 40.4 × 25.1 cm (right wing). Frick Art & Historical Center, Pittsburgh (acc. no. 1970.36)

Fig. 84. Detail of Triptych of the Virgin and Child, Saint William, and a Benedictine Abbot (fig. 25), showing the Christ child and Detail of Diptych of the Virgin and Child with Saint Bernard and an Unidentified Cistercian Monk (fig. 82), showing the Christ child Fig. 83. Central panel of Triptych of the Virgin and Child, Saint William, and a Benedictine Abbot (fig. 25) 94

CLERICAL DEVOTION AND THE MONASTIC MILIEU

Fig. 85. Bernard van Orley (ca. 1491/92–1542). The Knighting of Saint Martin by Emperor Constantine (verso), showing the Virgin and Child, ca. 1514. Oil on wood, 69.2 x 75.6 cm. The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri. Purchase: William Rockhill Nelson Trust through the bequest of Henry J. Haskell (obj. no. 53-39).

Fig. 86. Bernard van Orley. Adoration of the Virgin and Child by Saint Martin with Saints Peter, Paul, Agnes and Thekla, reverse showing portrait of Jacques Coene. Oil on wood, 69.7 × 75.7 cm. Private collection

wanted a diptych for his personal use he specifically asked the artist to model the Virgin and child after The Cellier Altarpiece. That would imply that The Cellier Altarpiece predates the diptych. As Boëdec first observed, The Diptych of the Vir gin and Child with Saint Bernard and an Unidentified Cistercian Monk is related to Bellegambe’s Triptych of the Virgin and Child, Saint William, and a Benedictine Abbot, in particular its central panel of the Virgin and child (fig. 83).7 The position of the Virgin and child is similar in both, as are the child’s appearance and gaze (fig. 84). It is possible that these two works are examples of the different configurations in which independently conceived Virgin and child panels could be customized to a preferred layout by the patron, illustrating their versatility and variety in audience. By adding a pendant to a Virgin and child, a diptych could be formed, whether both panels were attached with hinges or not. Although no independent panels with a Virgin and child in half-length by Bellegambe are known, the Virgin and child of The Diptych of the Virgin and Child with Saint Bernard and an Unidenti fied Cistercian Monk could have been conceived as an independent composition.8 Alternatively, by adding wings, a single Virgin and child panel could be made into a triptych. Material and technical evidence suggests that the latter seems to have been the case with

the Triptych of the Virgin and Child, Saint William, and a Benedictine Abbot. Intruigingly, Boëdec further suggested that the triptych’s central panel was based on a Virgin and child by Bernard van Orley that is painted as a fictive panel in a fictive frame on the reverse of The Knighting of Saint Martin by Emperor Constantine (fig. 85).9 The work has been cradled and most of the original paint layer was removed.10 The only surviving original part is the Virgin and child. An equally fictive pendant painting has been preserved on the reverse of The Adoration of the Virgin and Child by Saint Martin with Saints Peter, Paul, Agnes and Thekla (private collection).11 Most of the original paint layer on the reverse of this work has been removed as well, save for a portrait of abbot Jacques Coene of Marchiennes (fig. 86), who appears on the left wing of Bellegambe’s Triptych of the Trinity in Lille.12 When these two paintings with scenes from the life of Saint Martin,13 thought to be part of an altarpiece for the abbey of Marchiennes, were displayed side by side, their reverses thus showed fictive pendant paintings of the Virgin and child and a portrait of Jacques Coene as if hung on the wall with a nail. Is it possible that Van Orley modelled the fictive diptych on the reverse of the Saint Martin panels after an actual diptych by Bellegambe that his patron owned? Or is it more likely, as Boëdec assumes, that Bellegambe’s Virgin and Child 95

CHAPTER VII

Painting as a Moral Compass:Triptych of the Last Judgment The Triptych of the Last Judgment (fig. 95), which is generally dated to the 1520s, is one of Bellegambe’s most ambitious and carefully executed works.1 Along with The Anchin Polyptych and The Pottier Triptych, it is among the largest of his paintings.2 The composition, crowded with figures, is conceived in a grand manner and extends over all three panels. In the center panel the dead are resurrected from the barren earth while angels blow their trumpets. In his role as judge, Christ above directs them to heaven or hell. On the left wing, heaven appears as a verdant landscape; in stark contrast is the dark and burning vision of hell depicted on the right. Inscriptions on the wings link the central subject of the Last Judgment to the catechistic themes of the works of Mercy and the Deadly Sins.3 Scholars have not paid much attention to the Berlin triptych despite its monumental scale and original approach. While the painting had a promising start when it was included in Dehaisnes’s 1890 monograph with a lengthy description and a reproduction, subsequent contributions have been scarce.4 Occasionally, observations have been made with regard to related works or compositional sources, but they remain general and are rarely supported by arguments.5 Nothing is known about the commission or the original location of the Triptych of the Last Judgment. On the basis of an archival document of 1525 that mentions Bellegambe appraising an altarpiece at the Douai town hall, it was suggested that Berlin painting could be identical to that work and made for that setting.6 Although several scholars have rightly dismissed any “evidence,” the claim in itself will be examined by considering more closely the implications of the triptych’s iconography and form on its function and audience as well as by drawing comparisons with other panel paintings that are similar in imagery and function.

The Last Judgment, the Four Last Things, and Visions of Heaven and Hell The Berlin triptych is the only known instance of Belle gambe taking on the subject of the Last Judgment. The center panel largely follows the standard iconography that was established for the subject in the Netherlands based on the description in the gospel of Matthew (25:34–46) even though the commonly included motif of the weighing of the souls is absent.7 All emphasis in the strictly hierarchical composition is on Christ, who raises his hands in benediction to those at his right and rejects those at his left, thus separating the blessed from the doomed as “sheep from the goats” (Matthew 25: 32).8 The gilded inscriptions Venite benedicti and Ite vos maledicti reflect his words and actions.9 In combination with the traditional symbols of the lily of mercy and the sword of justice depicted on either side of Christ’s head, the texts would be easily understood by beholders—who must have been very familiar with the theme—if not necessarily “read” by them, as they are near the top of the painting. The archangel Michael, in full armor and wearing a diadem, is set apart from the other angels, who wear liturgical garments. He is chasing an unlucky man and woman in the direction of hell with his large sword. The special importance of the sword, a symbol of power and justice, is emphasized by its parallel position to the sword to the right of Christ’s head. The originality of the composition mostly lies in the wing panels. The wide format of the painting emphasizes the depictions of heaven and hell and enhances the prominence of the wings. While the dimensions of the painting must have been determined with regard to its original location, details of its construction and the optimal use that is made of the format suggests the painter and the panelmaker must have collaborated closely on its making.10 The rounded tripartite top provides space for placing the apostles in a semicircle 113

CHAPTER VII

Fig. 95. Jean Bellegambe. Triptych of the Last Judgment, ca. 1520–25. Oil on wood, 222 × 178 cm (central panel); 222 × 82 (each wing). Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin (inv. no. 641)

behind Christ, with the Virgin Mary and Saint John the Baptist flanking him one level below as intercessors for mankind.11 On the left wing, earthly paradise appears as a lush green joyous meadow. Large numbers of the elect are directed by angels up a hill toward heaven via a meandering movement that starts near the right edge of the panel and moves through several gatelike buildings and a ring of dark clouds. Several others are depicted as souls on their way through the sky. The text inscribed on the framed plaque that is held by an angel hovering near the top derives from the Beatitudes: “Beati misericordes qui ipsi misericordiam consequentur” (“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy,” Matt. 5: 7). The angel points to the destination to which the blessed are led: a circular palace at 114

the upper left perched atop a circular cloud occupied by an assortment of music-making angels (fig. 96). According to Kavaler, “Bellegambe’s fictive edifice is an ideal structure—like gold work, too delicate to withstand the stresses of earthly existence. It is a celestial crown, an example of divine orfèvrerie.”12 His observation aptly touches on the idea of the crown and the act of crowing that is central to the left wing.13 In the foreground stand two full-length figures: an angel in liturgical dress who looks directly at the viewer is helping a naked man into a long-sleeved dark blue cloak.14 The angel is about to crown him—an extra ordinary distinction. Directly behind them, two angels are bestowing the same honor on two women. The left panel thus shows the rewards for the truly righteous referred to in the inscription.

PAINTING AS A MORAL COMPASS: TRIPTYCH OF THE LAST JUDGMENT

(the Apocalypse of Saint John; Dante’s Divina Comme dia; the Pélerinage de l’âme by Guillaume Deguileville) than others (Saint Patrick’s Purgatory, The Vision of Saint Paul, or The Vision of Tundal ).18 Hell is depicted on the right wing of the triptych. The contrast between the left and right wings is indicated by the text from Isaiah 65:13 on the placquette at the top of the panel, held by an angel: “Haec dixit d(omin)us deus ecce servi/mei comedent et vos esurietis/[ecce servi mei] biberent et vos sietis [ecce servi mei] l(a)etabu(n)t(ur)/et vos confundemini Isa 65” (Therefore this is what the Lord says: my servants will eat, but you will go hungry, my servants will drink, but you will go thirsty; my servants will rejoice, but you will be put to shame). For his depiction of hell, Bellegambe again made use of visionary literature, in this case the popular publication Le grand calendrier et compost des berg ers, or Shepherds’ Calender (1st ed., Paris, 1491) by the editor Guy Marchant.19 The Calendrier comprised a calendar followed by a collection of popular knowledge about the human body, the soul, death, and the universe, touching on astronomy and astrology. Considered one of the first printed almanacs, it developed and continued the tradition of illuminated manuscripts. Correspondences between the Calendrier and the right wing are found in the woodcuts illustrating Lazarus’ visit to hell. The text, which was considered an “eye-witness account,” follows a schematized explanation of the tree of vices and thus accentuates moral

In its emphasis on paradise as an earthly landscape, Bellegambe’s wing built on ideas current in South Netherlandish painting in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. As Genaille observed, the left wing is reminiscent of the Way to Heaven by Dieric Bouts (fig. 97).15 Bouts’s painting was probably the left panel of a triptych, which may have included a Last Judgment in the center and a panel of the Fall of the Damned (also Palais des Beaux-Arts, Lille) on the right.16 Paradise as shown on several occasions by Hieronymus Bosch is also similar—for example, in his Visions of the Hereafter, particularly in the two panels of Heaven and Hell (figs. 98–99).17 These examples were inspired by visionary accounts of journeys to the other world. Most of these texts were written during the twelfth century; some were more often illuminated

Fig. 96. Detail of Jean Bellegambe, Triptych of the Last Judgment (fig. 95), showing music-making angels 115

jean bellegambe

j e a n b e l l e g a m b e (c. 1470-1535/36), whose career spanned the first three

Making, Meaning and Patronage of His Works

a n n a k o o p s t r a (1980) studied art history at the University of Groningen (MA, 2004) and

9 782503 574370

anna koopstra