More hand signs

More on the relationship between the two figures portrayed as the disciples Simon the Zealot and Philip in The Last Supper painting by Dieric Bouts.

I previously mentioned that Philip represents the painter Jan van Eyck, and Simon the Zealot is Petrus Christus, who worked under Jan before taking over his studio after Van Eyck died in 1441.

When the contract to produce the Altarpiece of the Holy Sacrament was drawn up and signed in March 1464, it stipulated the assignment of two theologians to assist the painter Dieric Bouts. Johannes Varenacker and Egidius Bailuwel were associated with the Old Leuven University and are featured in the top left panel of the altarpiece.

Bouts has also portrayed Varenacker in The Last Supper panel, in the guise of James the Less sat at the table corner opposite Philip. The figure also represents an older version of Jan van Eyck. So there are two representations of Jan at the table – as Philip, and as James the Less. There is a specific reason for Bouts doing this and likely that Varenacker played his part in constructing the links, hence the reason for portraying the theologian a second time in the altarpiece and in this particular section.

But the combined figure of Van Eyck and Varenacker portrayed as James the Less isn’t just speculation on my part. The connection is confirmed by an associate of Bouts, Hugo van der Goes, in his Adoration of the Kings panel of the Monforte Altarpiece.

Johannes Varenacker and Jan van Eyck in multiple guises

The humble figure of St Joseph is a representation of Varenacker shown with a depiction of Christ’s Shroud on his shoulder, a pointer to Van Eyck’s fascination for what is now known as the Turin Shroud. Notice Joseph has cap in hand as also Varenacker and Van Eyck in the Altarpiece of the Holy Sacrament.

One of the New Testament references connected to the figures of Simon and Philip is from John’s gospel. The passage about the miracle of the loaves describes how five barley loaves and two fish were enough to feed 5,000 people who had sat down to eat on a hillside (6 : 1-15).

Verse 5 reads: “Looking up, Jesus saw the crowds approaching and said to Philip, ‘Where can we buy some bread for these people to eat?’”

Such was the size of the crowd that Philip answered “ Two hundred dinari would only buy enough for a small piece each.”

Another disciple, Andrew, whose brother was Peter, said a small boy had five barley loaves and two fish but it wouldn’t be enough to feed everyone, estimated at 5,000 people.

Sitting next to Philip in The Last Supper panel is the mentioned Andrew (in red) alongside his brother Peter (in green).

Philip and Simon the Zealot are portrayed with their mouths open. They are in a conversation which represents the question asked by Jesus and Philip’s answer. Simon in the role of Christ (as in Petrus Christus) is portrayed “looking up”.

Simon the Zealot and Philip, aka Petrus Christus and Jan van Eyck… multiple hand signs.

When taking the loaves, Jesus gave thanks – a blessing – before giving the bread out to the people. Simon’s (Christus) right hand is raised in blessing. It also represents the tail end of a fish, as does the joined hands of Philip, in regard to the two fish presented with the five loaves. The three-hand, dove-like formation represents the descent and action of the Holy Spirit in blessing the offering.

On the table are six pieces of bread, not five. However, two are half-cuts, the pieces in front of James the Less and Simon the Zealot, or Jan van Eyck and Petrus Christus. In the case of the latter pairing this points to the two painters sharing in some way, perhaps Jan passing on his knowledge and experience to the younger artist, or even his studio after his death.

The juxtaposition of the knife and half-cut bread placed in front of Simon refers to the Zealot’s type of death and martyrdom when his body was reputed to have been sawn in half. It also points to the breaking of bread (Christ’s body) during the celebration of the Eucharist. The knife is positioned on a trajectory pointing to the figure of Jesus blessing the communion wafer in his hand with the words: “This is my body which will be given for you.” (Luke 22 : 19)

Elements of the Philip and Simon pairing (Jan van Eyck and Petrus Christus) are reflected in two figures on the opposite side of the table, with the large dish echoing the famous mirror feature in Van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait painting. Already mentioned is the elderly depiction of Van Eyck sat at the corner of the table. Next to him is Matthew, the tax collector.

More on how these two figures connect with each other, and with those opposite, in a future post.

Council to auction art collection

A painting by Julian Trevelyan is among those to be auctioned

A council about to auction off more than 400 paintings by famous British artists for hundreds of thousands of pounds has prompted calls for other authorities to follow suit

Hertfordshire County Council is to give up 90 per cent of its £26.2 million art collection amid fears the cost of maintaining them in storage cannot be justified.

More on this story HERE

Mirror images

More on the identity of the disciples and artists portrayed in The Last Supper panel painted by Dieric Bouts… Seated on the left side of the table are the apostles James the Great, Simon the Zealot and Philip. For this presentation the focus is on Simon and Philip and how they connect to each other.

The two men mirror a similar group portrayed in A Goldsmith in his Shop, a work attributed to Petrus Christus and dated 1449, some 18 years prior to the completion of The Last Supper. In turn, for the Goldsmith painting, Petrus adapted some of the features and narratives from the Ghent Altarpiece produced by the brothers Jan and Hubert van Eyck and completed in 1434. Bouts’ version is a composite of the two groups with added narratives.

There are several visual matches for Simon (Petrus Christus): the burgundy skull cap, the red robe, both men looking up, transfixed, and the three-hand triangle formation are the most noticeable pairings. Simon’s hands can also be matched – one rests on the table edge, the other is raised.

In both the Goldsmith and Last Supper paintings, Jan is portrayed with his eyes looking down over the shoulder of the figure of Petrus sat beside him. This defines the relationship between the two artists. Petrus studied under the watchful eye of Jan in his studio and later took over the workshop after Van Eyck’s death in 1441.

The self portrait of Jan in the Ghent Altarpiece is also a representation of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. – and this makes the connection to Philip the Apostle. So, in fact, the figure in The Last Supper represents three people, Philip the Apostle, Philip the Good, and Jan van Eyck. Already mentioned is the relationship between Jan and Petrus, so what is the relationship between the apostles Simon and Philip? What is the relationship that unites the figures when portrayed as Petrus and Philip the Good?

More on this in a future post.

Who do you say we are?

So who are the twelve disciples sat around the tabel in The Last Supper painting by Dieric Bouts?

Running clockwise from Jesus, they can be identified as follows: John, Thomas, James the Less, Matthew, Bartholmew, Jude, Judas, James the Great, Simon the Zealot, Andrew, Philip, and Simon Peter.

John the Evangelist

John is the easiest to identify as he is generally considered to be the youngest of the disciples and usually portrayed without a beard. In the two images above, the left a section of The Donne Triptych by Hans Memling (National Gallery), John can be easily matched with the clip from The Last Supper, probably because Memling is the model in both paintings.

John is often depicted in paintings holding a chalice or with one close to him, sometimes containing a snake, as shown below. Notice the twist pattern on the lid of the silver chalice lid and the ‘snake’ handle.

The disciples are not seated at random. Each man connects in some way with the one on his left. So there is a specific link between John and Thomas, the disciple next to him. It is this: John has his eyes focused on the bread which Jesus says is his body, Thomas hasn’t. His appears to be deep in thought, “somewhere else”. This scenario points to the time when Jesus appeared in the same room after his Resurrection. Thomas was not present. He was “somewhere else”. When he did return the other disciples said to Thomas “We have seen the Lord!” Thomas doubted the claim until Jesus later appeared a second time to the disciples, Thomas included. This account only appears in John’s Gospel and is the link.

Thomas

Some of the iconography identifying Thomas was pointed out in a previous post, but there is more.

Thomas was also known as Didymus – meaning “twin”. Bouts has interpreted “twin” as meaning “two-fold” – the folding of Thomas’ hands and the folding of the table cloth on which his hands are placed.

Thomas was a builder by profession, so one of his attributes in art is a builder’s square. To the left of his head is a pattern of square floor tiles. He is also seated at the corner of the table, and the fold in the table cloth forms a 45 degree angle. Thomas was the first disciple to profess his faith in Jesus by acknowledging the resurrected Christ as his Lord and God, a cornerstone and foundation of faith.

The link from Thomas to the next figure of James the Less is ritual cleansing, and the iconography identifying James, as well Matthew and Bartholomew is for my next post.

The art of homage

In earlier posts I revealed how the hands of four of the disciples sat alongside Jesus in The Last Supper painting by Dieric Bouts, represent the emblems of four colleges associated with the Old Louvain University.

Mention was also made that some of the disciples represent artists, Jan van Eyck being one of them. Another is Hugo van der Goes, portrayed as Judas. It begs the question, why would Dieric Bouts have chosen Van der Goes for the role of the disciple who ‘sold out’ on Jesus?

Following the death of Dieric Bouts in 1475, Hugo van der Goes went on to produce the Monforte Altarpiece. The surviving panel, Adoration of the Magi, references elements and themes from The Last Supper panel produced by Bouts; in particular, the four emblems associated with the Old University of Leuven: the Castle, the Falcon, the Lily, and the Boar (pig), as shown below.

The Old University of Louven and emblems of its four colleges represented in the Adoration of the Magi (Hugo van der Goes) and the Last Supper (Dieric Bouts).
The Castle, the Falcon, the Lily, and the Boar.

Hand servants

More on The Last Supper panel of the Altarpiece of the Holy Sacrament painted by Dieric Bouts for St Peter’s Chuch, Leuven. Its Dean at the time the painting was produced was Dominic Bassadonis who also served as Chancellor of Leuven’s Old University, founded by Pope Martin V in 1425. The University’s four boarding schools were named: the Castle, the Falcon, the Lily, and the Boar (or Pig).

College crests… The Boar or Pig, the Lily, the Castle, the Falcon… Louvain Monumental

Each school had its own coat of arms or emblem, as shown above. These are referred to in The Last Supper painting, “assigned” to hands of the four apostles alongside Jesus. From left to right they are St Andrew (castle), St Peter (falcon), St John (lily) and St Thomas (boar or pig).

Hand signs… Castle, Falcon, Lily and Boar (or Pig)

Probably the most difficult to distinguish, but more meaningful, are the hands of Thomas. The four fingers of his left hand form the boar’s head, the thumb its ear. Thomas’ right hand covers his left for a reason. He had doubted the resurrection of Jesus and refused to believe unless he could touch the wounds of the risen Lord.

The French translation for boar is sanglier. However, Bouts splits the word in deference to Van Eyck’s use of word play in his paintngs. Jan is seated next to Thomas. When sanglier is split into two words – sang and lier – a new meaning evolves: blood and bond. So Thomas’ right hand represents a seal over the wound made in Christ’s hand when he was nailed to his cross – a reminder of a new covenant bond with God, sealed with the blood of Jesus. It was at the Last Supper that Jesus shared the cup of wine with his disciples and said to them: “This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many.”

There is another narrative that connects to both the boar sign and the issue of blood. In Judaism, physical contact with blood or a boar (pig) is considered unclean and requires the person to be ritually purified. Above the figure of Thomas at the door entrance is a receptable for washing. A basin and towel are also under the cupboard beside Van der Weyden.

For the hands of Thomas to represent uncleanliness at the table is a pointer to the teaching of Jesus when the Pharisees complained about his disciples breaking traditions by not washing their hands before eating food, and what is understood by a man being clean and unclean (Matthew 15 : 1-20). Thomas’ doubt was not washed away by ritual cleansing but by being invited to touch the wounds of Jesus.

A communion of artists and saints

This is the central panel of a triptych known as the Altarpiece of the Holy Sacrament. The work was commissioned in 1464 by the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament for St Peter’s church in Leuven, where it is still displayed, and completed in 1468.

There are four other paintings attached in pairs either side of the centre panel, all related to the Last Supper and its Institution of the Eucharist narrative.

The Flemish Primitives website provides a comprehensive biography about the artist Dieric Bouts and a visual description of the Altarpiece of the Last Supper painting, as well as access to view the painting in a large format.

It is possible to identify the apostles around the table with the iconography clues embedded by Dierec Bouts, but less obvious are some of the second identities Bouts has also included. They are mainly artists, his contemporaries. But Bouts picks out one artist in particular, Rogier van Weyden, the figure standing on the right side of the frame who historians generally describe as one of the servants on hand.

Historians are also uncertain about the identities of the two men framed on the back wall, peering through a serving hatch. Generally thought to portray “members of the confraternity responsible for commissioning the altarpiece” they are, in fact, two artists: Dieric Bouts (left) and Hans Memling (right). The German painter is said to have spent time working in Van der Weyden’s Brussels workshop, while Bouts was also influenced by Rogier who died in 1464, just three months after Bouts had agreed the contract to produce the altarpiece.

Another artist said to have greatly influenced Bouts was Jan van Eyck. He is the figure in red, seated in front of Van der Weyden and portrayed as St James the Lesser, a pointer to the quatrain on the Ghent Altarpiece in which Jan acknowledges his brother Hubert as the greater artist.

Variations of Hans Memling: As Jan van Winckele, as a servant, St John and St Michael

But what about Hans Memling’s contribution to the altarpiece, if any? Memling was probably the youngest among the group of featured artists and so it would not be unreasonable to focus on the youngest of the disciples, John, sat on the left of Jesus. There is a resemblance to the Memling portrait in the serving hatch but a more convincing connection are components from The Last Judgment triptych painted by Memling between 1467 and 1471. The faces of the two St Michael figures (Membling?) resemble St John, probably because the writing of the Book of Revelation is attributed to the Evangelist, while Memling’s group of artists as heavenly apostles is seemingly inspired by the group of artists as apostles in the Bouts painting.

A section from Memling’s Last Judgment showing Jesus and his apostles in heaven.
National Museum, Gdansk, Poland

The Memling portrait in the serving hatch is adapted from an earlier portrait by Bouts painted in 1462 and located in the National Gallery, London. The sitter is questionably said to be Jan van Winckele. The gallery’s description explains that it is “the earliest surviving dated Netherlandish portrait to include a view through a window, although such views were included in Netherlandish paintings with religious subjects.”

Dieric Bouts alongside Hans Memling, and the National Gallery’s ‘Jan van Winckele?’

By linking the two paintings in this way, and then portraying Memling alongside his own portrait, but looking in the opposite direction, was Bouts suggesting that both men had been working on producing triptychs at the same time that shared a similar narrative – the apostles as artists – but viewed from different perspectives, apostles on earth and apostles in heaven? Bouts as the ‘master’ and Memling as the ‘disciple’ he favoured?

As to the other standing figure beside the serving hatch, he is not an artist but a patron. The clue to his identity is that Bouts has placed him standing behind the apostle Peter who represents the foundation of the Church. He shares the same name as the apostle – a second Peter, so to speak. He is Peter II, a member of the influential Adornes family of merchants from Bruges. He is represented as a deacon attending to Jesus in his role as priest, the Last Supper being the first Mass.

There is a particular reason why Bouts has depicted Peter II Adornes and Rogier van der Weyden as standing figures. Both men died in 1464, the year the painting was commissioned. Not only is Bouts suggesting that they were upright and respected figures in society, but their standing is symbolic of being raised up and resurrected. A communion of saints.

Double servings

So who are the two men framed in the serving hatch featured in The Last Supper painting by Dieric Bouts? Are they, as some historians claim, members of the Confraternity that commisioned the painting? Answers and more in my next post.

Section of The Last Supper painting by Dieric Bouts, St Peter’s Church, Leuven

Of Duchys, Kingdoms and Empires

This clip from the Monforte Altarpiece shows Maximilian I, husband of Mary of Burgundy. They were married in 1477. Maximillian was later crowned King of the Romans (1486), became Archduke of Austria in 1493, and proclaimed Holy Roman Emperor in 1508.

He is depicted kneeling at the side of Casper, one of the three adoring Magi painted by Hugo van der Goes. The figure of Casper is also assigned four other identities: the artist himself; St Jerome; St James the Greater; and Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor and father of Maximilian I.

Hugo has deliberately created uncertainty as to which of the two figures is receiving the chalice. Both have a hand on the vessel. Is it the son Maximilian serving his father Frederick, or is it symbolic of a transference of power, which can also be employed in a religious sense, from Father to Son?

Furthermore, the transaction relates to the time when Hugo van der Goes was a lay brother at the Rood Klooster, an Augustinian priory, where he was allowed to continue his work as a painter. Many notable personages would visit the priory in Brabant, one being Maximilian I who, in 1478, met with Hugo and presented him with a gift of expensive wine (perhaps for one of his paintings). So in this scenario the standing figure receiving the “wine mixed with myrrh” from Maximilian is Hugo van der Goes. The mix of wine with myrrh is a biblical refrence to when Jesus was offered the drink while he was on the cross (Mark 20:23), and probably a reference to the mental anguish suffered by Hugo in his later life.

It’s at this point that a third identity for Casper is introduced – that of St James the Greater, a son of Zebedee and brother to John “the beloved disciple”. St James is the patron saint of Compostella, the pilgrimage shrine in Spain. Monforte de Lemos was once a base for the Order of Hospitallers of St John that served and accommodated pilgrims on their way to Santiago Compostella.

It was Salome, the mother of James and John, who requested Jesus to grant her two sons seats either side of him in heaven. Jesus responded: “Can they drink the cup that I am going to drink”, that is the bitter cup of “wine mixed with myrrh”. The brother’s responded that they could but Jesus explained that the places were not his to give but for those his Father had prepared them for. A close inspection of the stem of the chalice shows two cartouches in the style of Egyptian hieroglyphics. There are several other Egyptian references made in the painting. Oval cartouches with a line underneath are symbols inscribed with the names of royal kings. In this instance, there are no inscriptions to reveal any identity. The containers or places have been prepared but have yet to be filled.

Another reference to the Father and Son relationship is the sculpted profile formed by the four-finger grip in the chalice stem. It is meant to suggest a reflection of Maximilian’s profile, like father, like son, or in biblical terms, the repsonse given by Jesus to Philip: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

Image courtesy of The Knight Shop

The profile and Maximilian gazing at the chalice combine to make another point, the Archduke of Austria’s fascination with suited armour. The “fluting” on the stem of the chalice is associated with a style of plating favoured by Maximilian that later became known as “Maximilian armour”. While the fluted armour was designed as a feature to deflect pointed weapons, helmets were equiped with visors shaped as bellows, similar to the finger formation gripping the chalice. Visor as in visage echoes the earlier reference to seeing the Father in Jesus as well as facing up to death – and drinking from the cup of salvation.

The fourth identity given to Casper is St Jerome, one of the Four Doctors of the Church. An attribute depicted in paintings of St Jerome is a lion. In this showing a lion features in the fur trim of the black coat. However, Maximilian is also portrayed as a lion. He has a gold mane and his profile is meant to depict a golden lion – the heraldic symbol of the Duchy of Brabant.

There is more iconography that connects to the four identities but links to other features in the painting.

Conversion paths

CONVERSION OF ST AUGUSTINE by Fr Angelico, Musée Thomas Henry, Cherbourg, France

The Conversion of St Augustine is by the early Renaissance Italian artist Fra Giovanni Fiesole, better known as Fra Angelico. It is a section of a larger type of work described as a Thebaid, which depicts the life of hermits and monks living in the desert, sometimes referred to as the Desert Fathers.

Five of six panels are known to exist and are kept at different locations. It is not known if the sixth panel has survived. The four outside panels show the four original Doctors of the Church, all saints: St Augustine of Hippo, St Ambrose, St Jerome and St Gregory the Great. The date attribute is between circa 1430 and circa 1435.

The Thebaid, particular the section depicting St Augustine’s conversion, has elements which the Flemish artist Hugo van der Goes later incorporated into the Monforte Altarpiece (featured in an earlier post this week).

MONFORTE ALTARPIECE (Adoration of the Magi) by Hugo van der Goes, Gemäldegalerie

For instance, the four Doctors of the Church also appear in the Van der Goes painting, and Augustine’s friend Alypius, the figure with his back to the church wall, is remodelled, given a new identity and placed next to the Temple wall. The peacock, the low fence, the topiary trees, the sheep, and especially Augustine’s position on the ground (matched by the female figure sat on the hill), are all components ‘converted’ from Fra Angelico’s depiction of St Augustine’s conversion.

Which begs the question: did Hugo van der Goes ever make his way to Italy on pilgrimage and have sight of Fra Angelico’s Thebaid?

Fra Angelico was already a painter before becoming a Dominican friar in his mid-twenties. So too was Hugo van der Goes when at the peak of career he joined a monastic community as a lay brother.

Celebrating Leonardo

PARNASSUS by Andrea Mantegna, 1497, Louvre

2019 marks the 500th anniversary of the death of Leonardo da Vinci and celebratory events to honour the Italian polymath are planned worldwide. At some time during the year I intend to publish here an analysis of the Parnassus painting by Andrea Mantegna. It reveals some suprising and unknown references to Leonardo. Other contempories of Mantegna are also included in the work.

The Louvre, where the painting is housed, describes the work as the triumph of spiritual over earthly love and the celebration of the Arts at the Court of Mantua. But that’s just at surface level. It is much more than that. The painting was commissioned by Isabella d’Este, marquise of Mantua, and dated at 1497.

In light of the Epiphany

The Monforte Altarpiece (Adoration of the Magi) by Hugo van der Goes, Gemäldegalerie

The Monforte Altarpiece is an oil on oak panel painting of the Adoration of the Magi by the Flemish painter Hugo van der Goes. The altarpiece was originally the central panel of a triptych with movable wings that are now lost.

The principal narrative is pilgrimage and the search for God, reflecting not just the journey made by the Magi but also that of the artist in his later years, accompanied by an assortment of other pilgrims, painters and priests who impacted on his life in some way

Hugo carefully crafts a composition of several themes, weaving and skilfully blending narratives to produce a telling masterpiece of iconography.

from Flanders to Galicia…

Some wise men came to Jerusalem from the east. “Where is the infant king of the Jews?” they asked. “We saw his star as it rose and we have come to do him homage.” Matthew 2 : 2

The painting takes its name from Monforte de Lemos, in northern Spain, where it was housed in the town’s College of Our Lady of Antigua. It was sold to the State Museum of Berlin in 1913 to raise funds to extend the college facilities. The site previously served as a university and seminary founded by Cardinal Rodrigo de Castro (1523-1600) towards the end of the 16th century. He was a great grandson of the Ist Count of Lemos Pedro Alvarez Osario (†1483).

Iconography evidence reveals the painting was commissioned specifically as an altarpiece for a church or chapel located in Montforte de Lemos, most likely the Dominican monastery of San Vincento do Pino adjacent to the Castle of the Counts, and probably to commemorate Beatriz Enriquez de Castella (1398-1455), wife of the first Count of Lemos. The commission also coincided with the rebuild of the castle after it was damaged during the Great Irmandiño War (1467-1469). A fire later damaged the monastery and this was rebuilt during the 16th century. It may have been at this point that the painting was moved to another location, possibly the Convent of Santa Clara in Monforte Lemos, founded in 1622  by Caterina de la Cerda y Sandoval following the death of her husband Pedro Fernández de Castro (1576-1622) and VII Count of Monforte. In 1633 Caterina professed as a Poor Clare, taking the name Caterina Conception as the convent was dedicated to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hugo’s painting was eventually placed in the chapel of the college of Our Lady of Antigua, possibly as a gift from its founder Cardinal Rodrigo de Catsro who may have inherited the artwork via his family connection to the 1st Count of Monforte de Lemos. A copy of the work has replaced the original now kept in the Gemäldergalerie, Berlin.

time moves on…

As to when the painting was completed, art historians generally date the work c1470, although Till-Holger Borchert places it between 1473-1477. However, there are historic narratives in the painting for it to be attributed thereafter, even as late as 1482, the year put at Hugo’s death. If Hugo did die that year then it is feasible the Montforte Altarpiece was one of his last paintings. Besides the historic references supporting this hypothesis are three figures in the scene portraying Hugo as “close to death”.

the artist

Not a lot is known about the life of Hugo van der Goes. There is no certainty about his birthdate or when he died exactly. It is assumed he was born in Ghent around 1440 and died in 1482 at Auderghem near Brussels. Sometime after 1475 Hugo entered cloistered life as a lay brother but continued to paint. It was later claimed by Gaspar Ofhuys, a monk serving with Hugo in the Roode Klooster, that the artist suffered with a psychological illness and on one occasion attempted to self-harm. Incidents surrounding this traumatic episode late in Hugo’s life are alluded to in the painting, supporting Ofhuys’ account later chronicled around 1510.

missing parts…

The Monforte Altarpiece had two wing panels attached that are lost, and the main centre panel was cut down in size at some time in its history. However, there is a small-size copy of the original centre section (right) housed at the Museo Baroffio in Varese, Italy. Although some elements have been altered the replica does complete the picture, so to speak, and provides further information about the structure of the building in which the scene is set. The work is attributed to “a follower of Hugo van der Goes” and dated at the end of the 15th century.

temples and towers…

The ruined building is a standard backdrop for Nativity and Adoration scenes. It represents the ruined Temple of Solomon. The grey stone section behind the fence is the Second Temple (also destroyed), while the newborn infant Jesus signifies the sanctuary that was destroyed and raised up again in three days – his death and resurrection (John 2 : 19). The golden-colour building at the rear represents the rebuild of the Monforte castle and probably its monastery wing damaged during the Irmandiño War.
The castle’s main tower – which still survives – is known as the Torre dl Homenaje, the Homage Tower, which the local people were made to rebuild after the uprising and then swear allegiance and do homage to the 1st Count of of Monforte de Lemos. Hence the association with the scene based on the biblical passage from Matthew’s Gospel (2 : 12) when three men from the East made their way to Bethlehem seeking the infant king of the Jews and to do him homage.

That the scene is linked to the Monforte Tower of Homage is borne out by Hugo in the way he cleverly combines a group of figures to refer to the coat of arms of the 1st Count, alongside those of his wife, that were set into the rebuilt tower in 1480. One of the titles attributed to the Virgin Mary is Tower of David. Stonemasons marks, including the Seal of Solomon, are also inscribed on the tower.

More on this and other levels of identities in a future post.

It takes two to tango

Sirens or angels? Joan Stafford and Alice Fitzalan

The installation of the Ghent Altarpiece in St Bavo’s Cathedral (previously the Church of St John the Baptist) was officially celebrated on May 6, 1432. Another celebration in the Ghent church that same day was the baptism of Josse, second son of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, and his third wife Isabella of Portugal. For whatever reason, the child’s father was absent and Cardinal Henry Beaufort, a half-brother to Isabella’s mother, was recorded as one of Josse’s godparents.

Beaufort is also featured as the prominent rider on the white horse in the Just Judges panel of the altarpiece, surely not a coincidence. His facial features match those of the earlier portrait by Jan van Eyck, once thought to be of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati.

But the presence of Henry Beaufort in the Ghent Altarpiece extends beyond being one of the Just Judges. For as Van Eyck depicted the Cardinal not only on the white horse but also on the brown mare alongside, the presence of the former bishop of Lincoln and Winchester is also found in the two angel panels of the upper register. Two and two make four. the number four is the common denominator underlying many of the narratives in the Ghent Altarpiece.

So just why did Jan van Eyck give the cardinal both a prominent and yet almost invisible role in the Ghent Altarpiece? Possibly to represent both his public and private life – seen and unseen, open and closed as the altarpiece itself would be at times. But Van Eyck did not limit his exposé. He included others, even himself, as if lighting a lamp so that everything hidden would be made clear and secrets made known and brought to light (Luke 8 : 16-18).

One feature of Henry Beaufort’s life that historians have never been able to factually nail down is the claim of an affair with Alice Fitzalan, Countess of Cherleton, said to have resulted in an illegitimate child, Joan Beaufort, sometimes referred to as Jean.

Alice was the daughter of Richard Fitzalan, 11th Earl of Arundel. She was also the wife of John Cherleton, 4th Baron of Cherleton, who she married sometime before 1392. Joan’s father was executed under Richard II on September 21, 1397. Her husband died October 19, 1401. Perhaps it was when she was at this vulnerable stage in her life that the alleged affair was started.

On July 14, 1398, Henry Beaufort was consecrated bishop of Lincoln. Under Henry Bolingbroke, who usurped the throne of Richard II and became Henry IV, Beaufort was made Lord Chancellor of England in 1403. He resigned his position when he was apponted bishop of Winchester on November 19, 1404. Beaufort was a half-brother to the new king. John of Gaunt was their father.

Most historians consider Beaufort conducted his affair with Alice after her husband’s death in 1401 and at the time he was the bishop of Lincoln, although some surmise the affair and the birth of the child was before Beaufort was ordained a priest. Jan van Eyck points to the affair taking place during the Lincoln period, 1398 to 1404.

Van Eyck also goes as far to designate another woman in Beaufort’s arms around the same time, and the actual mother of the bishop’s daughter, not Alice. A second affair was never considered by historians, although it is quite feasible there was only one and that Alice may have been used as a “stalking horse” to conceal the identity of the child’s real mother.

Alice is said to have died sometime in 1415 and details of any affair she may have had with Beaufort seemingly went to the grave with her. Convenient for Beaufort, although he did provide for his child. The bishop of Winchester, as he then was, eventually arranged for her to marry Sir Edward Stradling. The marriage happened sometime between 1420 and 1423 and both his daughter and her husband were remembered in his will when the cardinal died in April 1447.

Alice Fitzalan is depicted in both of the angel panels alongside the second woman Van Eyck has portrayed as the mother of Beaufort’s daughter – Joan Stafford, widow of Thomas Holland, 3rd Earl of Kent. The marriage was childless and Thomas was beheaded without trial on January 7, 1400, as a result of his role in a failed rebellion against Henry IV known as the Epiphany Rising.

Van Eyck also intimates that the two women, though related through marriage, were rivals for the attention of Bishop Beaufort following the deaths of their husbands.

It may have been Beaufort was content for the rumour of an affair with Alice Fitzalan to circulate among the gossips, even that she was the mother of his child. In that way the real identitiy of the other woman in his life was kept secret. For a churchman of high rank to conduct one affair would have been considered improper; to have enjoyed a second mistress may have opened the door to further speculation about possible other affairs.

So what would have encouraged Alice and even Joan to keep the lid on their alledged romance with Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Lincoln and Lord Chamberlain of England? Did Beaufort exert his power and influence to intimidate them into keeping silent, especially the mother of his child? Did she present a potential threat to his reputation and ambitions in governing both Church and State?

More on this in a future post.

Images: closer to van eyck