Frames and supports in 15th and 16th-century Southern Netherlandish painting

CHAPTER X 252 102. Inv. no. 2175. Dimensions with frames: Trinity: 177.5 × 90 cm; lateral parts: 177/127 × 136.2 cm. 103. de Bar, quoted from Dehaisnes 1890, 436. 104. Heck 2005, 50; Gerzaguet 1993. C. The A nchin P olyptych 102 (Douai, Musée de la Chartreuse) Between 1509 and 1513, at the request of Abbot Charles Coguin of the Benedictine Abbey of Anchin near Douai, Jean Bellegambe produced a set of paintings to enrich the presentation of an ancient silver and gold reliquary dating back to 1262. Charles Coguin also provided carved surrounds ( picturis ac fenestris ingeniose distinctam ). 103 The reliquary itself was placed in a safekeeping box (“boette”) on the high altar of the Abbey. The splendour of the polyptych reliquary is praised in the archive texts. We can suppose that the carved decoration boasted about presented a certain analogy with the carved frame of another Bellegambe altarpiece, that of the Adoration of the Infant Jesus and the Preparations for the Crucifixion which is conserved at the former Abbey of St Vaast in Arras. At Anchin the carvings probably included carved lateral stiles as in Arras. These would have formed a fixed frame within which the altarpiece could be opened and closed, while retaining its dimensions unchanged. The sculptures would have enriched the front outside of the painted altarpiece, but would have needed a supporting structure independent from the paintings with their mobile frames on wheels. We have no physical clues remaining with which to reconstruct this structure. One can imagine that the carved surrounds were attached to the safekeeping box. The altarpiece’s turbulent history 104 ended with the loss of the reliquary, of its safekeeping box and of the carved surround. All that remain are Bellegambe’s paintings, still together despite the serious risk of loss or dispersal, all the greater for the fact that the central panel with the painting of the Trinity was not physically attached, for example by hinges, to the other paintings. We shall see why. The only remaining source of information as to how the ensemble functioned is an examination of the frames of Bellegambe’s paintings (fig. 125). The simple, functional frames which still surround the paintings are original. Just like with the Ghent altarpieces by the Van Eyck brothers, the information that can be read from these frames complements and sheds further light on the limited information available in the archives. The Anchin frames reveal a very unusual mechanism. The panel with the Trinity functioned as the cover of the box (“boette”) containing the reliquary. Little wheels, perpendicular to the plane of the painting under the large lateral frames allowed these elements of the altarpiece to be rolled backwards. Other little wheels, parallel to the painted surface, on top of and under the centre panel with the Trinity allowed the panel to be rolled laterally into a groove cut for this purpose, enabling the reliquary to be taken from its container and exhibited at the front of the altar. The cover with the Trinity was then pushed back into place. When the reliquary was exposed, the paintings and carved surrounds formed a sumptuous backdrop. When the reliquary was returned to its box, which was closed with its cover, the paintings and sculptures turned into a rich façade. The ensemble falls into the category of “meubles à transformation” (convertible items).