a fine picture of Our Lady of Sorrows, enthroned, surrounded by smaller
subjects of the Seven Sorrows. Beginning at the left, the Circumcision,
the Flight into Egypt, Christ lost by his parents in the Temple, the Way
to Calvary, (with St. Veronica holding out her napkin,) the Crucifixion,
(with Our Lady, St. John, and Mary Magdalen,) the Descent from the
Cross, and the Deposition in the Tomb. A fine work of its sort,
attributed to Mostart (or to Maubeuge). On the _west wall_ are two wings
from a triptych by Pourbus, with tolerable portraits, (centre-piece
destroyed,) and an early Flemish painting of the Deposition from the
Cross (interesting for comparison with Roger van der Weyden and Gerard
David). In the foreground lies the vessel containing the Holy Blood. On
the wings are the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. The whole is very
rudely painted. Outside are portraits of the donor and his wife and
children, with their patrons St. James (staff and scallop) and St.
Margaret (whose dragon just appears in the background).
On an =arcade=, a little further on, is a very early fresco (1350?) of a
saint (St. Louis of France?), and also a dainty small relief (about
1500) of a donor, introduced by his patron, St. Peter, adoring Our Lady.
The =end chapel= of the right aisle, that of the Holy Sacrament,
contains a celebrated and noble white marble =**Madonna and Child, by
Michael Angelo=, enshrined in a black marble niche. The pensive, grave,
and graceful face, the exquisite modelling of the dainty naked Child,
and the beautiful infantile pose of its left hand, all betray a design
of Michael Angelo, though the execution may possibly have been left to
pupils. But the modelling is softer and more feminine than is usual with
this great sculptor, except in his early period. In this respect, it
resembles most the unfinished Madonna in the Bargello at Florence.
Condivi mentions that Peter Mouscron of Bruges ordered of Michael Angelo
a Madonna and Child in bronze: he was probably mistaken as to the
material: and we have here doubtless the work in question. Apart from
its great artistic value, this exquisite group is interesting as
affording another link between Flanders and Italy.
The same chapel also contains some good 17th century pictures.
Near the confessional, as we return towards the West End of the church,
we find a good diptych of Herri met de Bles, of 1520, containing, _left
panel_, an Annunciation, with all the conventional elements; to the
left, as usual, is the angel Gabriel; to the right, Our Lady. These
relative positions are never altered. The lilies in the pot, the desk
and book, the bed with its furniture, the arcade in the background, and
the rich brocade, are all constant features in pictures of this subject.
Look out for them elsewhere. The _right panel_ has the Adoration of the
Magi, with the Old, Middle-aged, and Young Kings, the last-named a Moor.
This quaint and interesting work of a Flemish painter, with its archaic
background, and its early Italian reminiscences, also betrays the
influence of Dürer. Among the other pictures may be mentioned a triptych
in an adjacent small chapel: the _central panel_ shows the
Transfiguration, with the three apostles below, Moses, Elias, and the
Eternal Father above (perhaps by Jan Mostart). On the _wings_ (much
later, by P. Pourbus), are the portraits of the donor, his wife, and
their patron saints.
The =West Wall= of the church has several large pictures of the later
Renaissance, which can be sufficiently inspected on their merits by
those who care for them. The best of them are the Adoration of the Magi
by Seghers, and De Crayer’s Adoration of the Infant Jesus. I do not
propose to deal at length with later Flemish art till we reach Brussels
and Antwerp: at Bruges, it is best to confine oneself to the
introductory period of Flemish painting—that of the Burgundian princes.
I will therefore only call attention here to the meaningless way in
which huge pictures like B. van Orley’s Crucifixion, with subsidiary
scenes from the Passion, reproduce the form of earlier winged pictures,
which becomes absurd on this gigantic scale.
* * * * *
The =Church of St. Jacques= stands in the street of the same name,
conveniently near the Hôtel du Commerce. It is a good old mediæval
building (12th century, rebuilt 1457-1518), but hopelessly ruined by
alterations in the 17th century, and now, as a fabric, externally and
internally uninteresting. Its architecture is in the churchwarden style:
its decoration in the upholsterer’s. The carved wooden pulpit is a
miracle of bad taste (17th century), surpassed only by the
parti-coloured marble rood-screen. A few good pictures and decorative
objects, however, occur among the mass of paintings ranged round its
walls as in a gallery. The best is a =panel= of the old Flemish School
(by Dierick Bouts, or more probably a pupil), in the _left aisle_, just
beyond the second doorway. It tells very naïvely the History of St. Lucy
(see Mrs. Jameson). _Left_, she informs her mother that she is about to
distribute her goods to the poor, who are visibly represented in a
compact body asking alms behind her. _Centre_, she is hailed before the
consul Paschasius by her betrothed, whom she refuses to marry. She
confesses herself a Christian, and is condemned to a life of shame.
_Right_, she is dragged away to a house of ill-fame, the consul
Paschasius accompanying; but two very stumpy oxen fail to move her. The
Holy Ghost flits above her head. The details are good, but the figures
very wooden. Dated, 1480.
Beside it is an extravagant Lancelot Blondeel of St. Cosmo and St.
Damian, the doctor saints, with surgical instruments and pots of
ointment. The central picture shows their martyrdom.
Further on hangs a good Flemish triptych (according to Waagen, by Jan
Mostart), representing, the prophecies of Christ’s coming: _centre_, the
Madonna and Child; with King Solomon below, from whom a genealogical
tree rises to bear St. Joachim and St. Anna, parents of Our Lady. R. and
L. of him, Balaam and Isaiah, who prophesied of the Virgin and Christ:
with two Sibyls, universally believed in the Middle Ages to have also
foretold the advent of the Saviour. The stem ends in the Virgin and
Child. _Left_, the Tiburtine Sibyl showing the Emperor Augustus the
vision of the glorious Virgin in the sky: _right_, St. John the
Evangelist in Patmos beholding the Apocalyptic vision of the Woman
clothed with the Sun. This is a fine work of its kind, and full of the
prophetic ideas of the Middle Ages.
Pass round the =Ambulatory= and =Choir= to the _first chapel_ at the
_east end_ of the _right Aisle_. It contains an altar with the Madonna
and Child in Della Robbia ware, probably by Luca. Also, a fine tomb of
Ferry de Gros and his two wives, the first of whom reposes by his side
and the second beneath him. This is a good piece of early Renaissance
workmanship (about 1530). The church also contains a few excellent later
works by Pourbus and others, which need not be specified. This was the
church of the Florentine merchants at Bruges (whence perhaps the Della
Robbia) and particularly of the Portinari, who commissioned the great
altar-piece by Van der Goes now in the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova at
Florence.
The other churches of Bruges need not detain the tourist, though all
contain a few objects of interest for the visitor who has a week or two
at his disposition.
_F._ THE ACADEMY
[The =Académie des Beaux-Arts=, which formerly occupied the
_Poorters Loodge_ (or Guild Hall of the citizens within the
gates) has a small but valuable =collection of pictures=,
removed from the destroyed cathedral of St. Donatian and other
churches of Bruges, which well repays a visit. You will here
have an excellent opportunity for studying _Jan van Eyck_, whose
work I shall more particularly notice when we arrive at Ghent.
It is interesting, however, here to compare him with his great
successor, _Memling_, who is represented at the Academy by a
fine triptych. The little gallery also contains some admirable
works by _Gerard David_, one of the latest of the old School of
Flemish painters, whose work may thus be observed here side by
side with those of his two chief predecessors. Owing to the
ruinous state of the original building the collection has been
transferred to a temporary apartment, beyond the Hospital
bridge, near the Church of Notre-Dame. No tourist should leave
Bruges without visiting this interesting collection.]
The =Museum= is situated (at present) in a house on the right-hand side
of the Rue Ste. Catherine, nearly opposite a new church. Go to it past
the Hospital of St. John. Admission daily, 50 c. per person.
Begin in the centre of the =wall opposite the entrance=.
(1.) Jan van Eyck. =**Altar-piece=, ordered by George van der Palen, for
the High Altar of the original Cathedral of =St. Donatian=, of which he
was a canon. The centre of the picture is occupied by the Madonna and
Child, the face of Our Lady somewhat recalling German models. She sits
in the apse of a church, probably St. Donatian. The Child, whom it is
the fashion to describe as “aged-looking,” fondles a parrot and grasps a
bunch of flowers. To the left stands St. Donatian the Archbishop, patron
saint of the church for which this altar-piece was painted. He bears his
usual symbol, the wheel with five lighted candles (as in the beautiful
panel by Gerard David in the National Gallery at London). This is a fine
and finely-painted figure. To the right, St. George, in full armour,
admirably represented, but in an affected attitude, lifts his casque
somewhat jauntily as he presents his namesake the Canon George to Our
Lady. In all this we get a touch of Burgundian courtliness: the event is
represented as a state ceremonial. With his left hand the Saint supports
his Red Cross banner. The portrait of the kneeling Canon
himself,—asthmatic, pudding-faced—is very admirable and life-like, but
by no means flattered. He grips his prayer-book with an old man’s
tremulous hand. (For a profound criticism of this fine picture, see
Conway.) The insipid Madonna, the rather foolish St. George, the fine
portrait of the Canon, are all typical of Van Eyck’s manner. The
accessories of architecture, decoration, and background, should also be
carefully noted. The capitals of the columns and the knobs of glass in
the window, as well as St. George’s costume, are elaborated in Van
Eyck’s finest fashion.
(2.) Jan van Eyck. *Portrait of his wife, painted for presentation to
the Bruges Guild of Painters, together with one of the artist himself,
now undiscoverable. This is a fine though evidently unflattered portrait
of a capable housewife, very stiffly arrayed in her best church-going
costume. It deserves close inspection.
Above it, (3.) Head of Christ, ascribed to Jan van Eyck, but in reality
a poor and reduced copy of the picture at Berlin.
(4.) Memling. **Triptych painted for =Willem Moreel= or =Morelli=, a
member of a wealthy Savoyard family settled at Bruges. Like Jan van
Eyck’s portrait of the two Arnolfini in London, and Hugo van der Goes’s
triptych of the Portinari at Florence, this picture marks well the
cosmopolitan character of old Bruges. In the _central panel_, St.
Christopher (whose altar in the church of St. Jacques it adorned) wades
with his staff through the water, feeling as he goes the increasing
burden of the Christ-Child on his shoulder. (For the legend, see Mrs.
Jameson.) To the left, above, is the diminutive figure of the hermit
with his lantern, which always accompanies St. Christopher. The left
foreground of the picture is occupied by St. Maurus, in his Benedictine
costume; to the right is St. Giles (St. Egidius) the hermit, with the
wounded doe, the arrow piercing the arm of the saint. The _left wing_
represents the donor, Willem Moreel, under the care of his patron, St.
William, who wears a hermit’s dress above his coat of armour. (When a
saint places his hand on a votary’s shoulder it usually implies that the
votary is a namesake.) Behind are Moreel’s five sons. All these
portraits, but particularly that of the donor and his eldest son, who
closely resembles him, are admirable. The _right wing_ represents the
donor’s wife, Barbara, under the protection of her patron, St. Barbara,
with her tower, showing as usual three windows (emblematic of the Holy
Trinity). Behind the lady are her two daughters, one of whom is habited
as a Benedictine nun, whence, doubtless, the introduction of St. Maurus
into the main altar-piece. This fine triptych originally decorated an
altar of St. Christopher in Moreel’s private chapel in the church of St.
Jacques. One of his daughters is the “Sibylla Sambetha” represented at
the Hospital. The =wings= at the =back= represent in grisaille St. John
the Baptist with the lamb, and St. George with the dragon. It was usual
to paint the outer wings in grisaille or in low tones of colour, so that
the splendour of the interior hues might burst upon the spectator as the
triptych was opened.
(12) Attributed to Schoreel: really, by a master of the Brabant School.
Death of the Virgin. Our Lady is represented on her deathbed,
surrounded, as always, by the surviving apostles, who were miraculously
collected together to her chamber. The faces are those of Flemish
peasants or artisans. Above, Christ appears in glory, surrounded by a
halo of cherubs, to receive her new-born soul. Two angels support his
outer garment. This picture well shows the beginning of the later
Flemish tendency.
Now return to No. 5, by Gerard David, on the other side of the great Van
Eyck. This is a *triptych, painted for Jean des Trompes, for the High
Altar of the lower chapel of the Holy Blood. The _central panel_
represents the =Baptism of Christ=. In the middle, the Saviour wades in
the water of a diminutive Jordan, where the concentric circles show the
increased careful study of nature. On the right-hand side of the
picture, St. John-Baptist, patron saint of the donor, pours water on his
head. The relative positions of these two figures, and of the angel to
the left holding a robe, are conventional: they have descended from a
very early period of art. (In the Ravenna mosaics, the place of the
angel is filled by the river-god of the Jordan with his urn, afterwards
transformed and Christianized into an angel with a towel. Look out in
future for similar arrangements.) The central figures are weak; but the
robe of the angel is painted with Flemish minuteness. So are the flowers
and leaves of the foreground. Above, the dove descends upon the head of
the Saviour, while the Eternal Father pronounces from the skies the
words, “Behold my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”
In the background are two other episodes: L., the preaching of St.
John-Baptist (where Oriental costumes indicate the heathen); R., St.
John-Baptist pointing out Christ to his disciples with the words,
“Behold the Lamb of God.” The distance shows two towns and a fine
landscape. Observe the admirable painting of the trees, with their good
shadows; also the ivy climbing up the trunk of one to the right. This
picture is among the earliest in which the gloom of a wood is accurately
represented: in many other respects it well illustrates =the rise of
landscape-painting=. (For an exhaustive criticism, see Conway.) The
_left wing_ has a portrait of the donor, with his other patron, St. John
the Evangelist, holding the cup. Beside the donor kneels his little son
Philip. This portrait, the face and foot of the Evangelist, the fur of
the donor’s robe, the crane in the background, and many other
accessories deserve close attention. Two figures in the background dimly
foreshadow Teniers. The _right wing_ has a portrait of the donor’s wife,
Elizabeth, with her four daughters. Behind her stands her patroness, St.
Elizabeth of Hungary, in Franciscan robes, with the crown on her head
and the double crown and book in her hands, as on the statuette at the
door of the Béguinage. The painting of a rosary here is excellent. The
_outer wings_ (turn them back) show, on the _left_, the Madonna and
Child with a bunch of grapes; on the _right_, the donor’s second wife
Madeleine, introduced by her patroness, St. Mary Madeleine, who holds
the alabaster pot of ointment. By the lady’s side kneels her daughter.
The background consists of a view, probably in the Bruges of that
period. Painted about 1507.
6 and 7. Gerard David. =*The Punishment of the Unjust Judge.= These two
panels are of a type commonly set up in courts of justice as a warning
to evil-doers. They were ordered by the Bruges magistracy. You will see
a similar pair by Dierick Bouts in Brussels. The story, a horrid one, is
taken from Herodotus. Sisamnes was a judge in Persia whom King Cambyses
detected receiving a bribe and ordered to be flayed alive. The king then
stretched his skin on the seat of judgment, and appointed the son of
Sisamnes to sit in his father’s place, that he might remember to avoid a
like fate. The _first picture_ represents, in the background, the
bribery. In the foreground, King Cambyses, in a rich embroidered robe,
demonstrates on his fingers the guilt of the unjust judge. Sisamnes is
seized on his tribunal by a man of the people; courtiers, lawyers, and
burgesses looking on. The expression on his face and the painting of all
the accessories is admirable. In the _second picture_ we have the
flaying of the unjust judge, a horrible scene, powerfully rendered.
Cambyses stands by, holding his sceptre, surrounded by courtiers who
recall the last age of the Burgundian dominion. In the background (as a
subsequent episode) the son of Sisamnes is seen sitting in his father’s
place: behind him hangs the skin of the father. Architecture, landscape,
ropes, and all other accessories of this painful picture should be
carefully noted.
15. J. Prévost. Last Judgment. Below, the dead are rising, half naked,
from the tomb, girt only with their shrouds; the good receiving garments
from angels, and the bad hurried away to a very Flemish and unimpressive
Hell. Above, Christ as Judge holds the sword. Two angels blow out the
words of blessing or malediction. On the spectator’s left, Our Lady
shows the breast that suckled the Redeemer. Behind her are St. Peter
with the key, St. Paul with the sword, St. Bartholomew with the knife,
and other saints. On the right are St. John-Baptist with the lamb, King
David with the harp, Moses, horned (as always), with the tables of the
law, and a confused group of saints. This picture is rather curious than
beautiful. Above it is a later treatment of the same subject by Van
Coornhuuse, interesting for comparison as showing the usual persistence
of types and the conventional grouping of the individual figures.
Compare especially the corresponding personages in the lower left-hand
corners.
A few other pictures skied on this wall deserve passing notice. 29 is a
Death and the Miser, of the School of Quentin Matsys. 17, by Lancelot
Blondeel, the architect of the great chimney-piece of the _Franc de
Bruges_, represents St. Luke painting Our Lady, in one of the fantastic
frames in which this painter delighted. 18, by the same, has a St.
George and the Dragon, with the Princess Cleodolind looking on. Around
it are four smaller scenes of his martyrdom: (he was boiled, burnt with
torches, dragged by a horse, and finally decapitated). 11, is a good
diptych of the Flemish school, by an unknown contemporary of Gerard
David. It represents, left, a donor, with his patron St. John the
Almoner, holding his symbol, a sheaf of corn. On the right, his wife
with her patroness, St. Godeliva. 28, is an Adoration of the Magi, where
the Three Kings again illustrate the three ages of man and the three
continents. Beside it is a Nativity which exhibits all the traditional
features already noted.
The =end wall= has in its centre a tolerably good Adoration of the Magi,
of the German School, 15th century. Note once more the Three Kings, of
whom the youngest is a Moor. Left of this, a *drawing, by Jan van Eyck,
of St. Barbara, which should be closely inspected. She holds a palm of
martyrdom. In the background, workmen build her tower. It is interesting
as a scene of real life at this period. This is a replica of the
well-known picture at Antwerp. To the right, two coloured drawings by
Gerard David from the life of St. John-Baptist. Above these hangs a
tolerable P. Pourbus of the Last Judgment, valuable for comparison with
the two previous treatments of the same subject on the principal wall.
Go from one to the other once or twice. Later painters of the
Renaissance use this solemn theme as a mere excuse for obtruding the
nude—and often the vulgar nude—into churches. On the same wall are a
good triptych in grisaille by P. Pourbus (Way to Calvary, Descent from
the Cross, Resurrection: from Notre-Dame at Damme), and other pictures.
The remaining walls have portraits and other works, from the 17th
century downwards, most of which need no explanation. A few of them,
indeed, are not without merit. But, as I have before observed, it is
best in mediæval Bruges to confine oneself to the 13th, 14th, 15th, and
early 16th centuries, leaving the rise of the Renaissance, and the later
Flemish School of painting, to occupy us at Antwerp, where they can be
studied to far greater advantage.
II
GHENT
_A._ ORIGINS OF GHENT
FLANDERS owes everything to its water communications. At the junction
of the =Schelde= with the =Lys= or Lei, there grew up in the very early
Middle Ages a trading town, named =Gent= in Flemish, and =Gand= in
French, but commonly Anglicised as =Ghent=. It lay on a close network of
rivers and canals, formed partly by these two main streams, and partly
by the minor channels of the Lieve and the Moere, which together
intersect it into several islands. Such a tangle of inland waterways,
giving access both to the sea and to Bruges, Courtrai, and Tournai, as
well as less directly to Antwerp and Brussels, ensured the rising town
in early times considerable importance. It formed the centre of a
radiating commerce. Westward, its main relations were with London and
the English wool ports; eastward with Cologne, Maastricht, the Rhine
towns, and Italy. Ghent was always =the capital of East Flanders=, as
Bruges or Ypres were of the Western province; and after the Counts lost
possession of Arras and Artois, it became in the 13th century their
principal residence and the metropolis of the country. The trade in
=weaving= grew rapidly in importance, and the Ghenters received from
their Count a charter of liberties of the usual mediæval burgher type.
As time went on, and the city advanced in wealth, its subjection to its
sovereigns became purely nominal. Ghent equipped large bodies of citizen
soldiers, and repulsed a considerable English army under Edward I. The
Ghenters were also determined opponents of the claims of the French
kings to interfere in the internal affairs of Flanders; thus they were
mainly instrumental in winning the famous =Battle of the Spurs= in 1302,
when the citizens of Bruges and Ghent put to flight the army of France
under the Count of Artois before the walls of Tournai, and dedicated as
trophies 700 golden spurs, worn by the French knights whom they had
routed. This battle, memorable as one of the chief triumphs of nascent
industrial freedom over the chivalry and royalty of mediævalism, secured
the liberties of the Flemish towns against French aggression.