Note on the tables removed to Belgium in 1794 and returned (or … – The Art Tribune

1. The recent acceleration of claims

At the start of one of his numerous publications on the French revolutionary seizures, Ferdinand Boyer, specialist subject, wrote in 1970 (p. 149) “ Everyone knows that the french revolutionaries after their victories over the foreign coalition smote France in works of art made in the conquered countries. But this fact well known artistic conquests, there is no overall story, well documented, which are considered causes and characters. This is not to glorify, to propose an example to the world today who refuses to consider the work of art as a possible trophy of victory. But we must also not stick to hearsay, get carried away by national sensitivities and condemn without trying to understand what happened in reality. “

It appears immediately useful to recall this warning as the subject remains controversial, leading often to the sin of anachronism.

the question came back in the news because, since decolonization and the many recommendations UNESCO supporting the return to the source countries of looted cultural heritage, the refund requests of all kinds have multiplied. Redress for families owning Jewish property confiscated by the Nazis created a powerful incentive for the former colonies as they have given new impetus to requests for recovery. These grievances actually appear as a challenge to the notion of inalienable, prevailing legally in many states regarding public property, especially those museums (Kairis, 2010, p. 31).

It is in the wake of this acceleration of requests for refunds that have multiplied in recent years the questions concerning a case was believed buried for a long time: the major pieces of foreclosures heritage of our country during the occupation French from 1794 to 1795. We will quote a few.

---

1. Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640)
class=”autobr” The Triumph of Judas Maccabeus , 1635
class=”autobr” Oil on canvas – 310 x 228 cm
class=”autobr” Nantes, Museum of Fine Arts
class=”autobr” Photo: RMN-GP / G. Blot

2. Bertholet Flemalle (1614-1675)
class=”autobr” Conversion of St. Paul , 1670
class=”autobr” Oil on canvas – 463 x 266 cm
Toulouse, Musée des Augustins
class=”autobr” Photo: Daniel Martin

---

In 1988, two candidates local elections in Liege lack of awareness have launched a media campaign to demand of french President Mitterrand strong gesture of returning to Liège a canvas of Marseille Museum they believed Rubens and adorned until 1794 the altar of the chapel of the hospice for Incurable. The solicitation appeared all the more preposterous than this picture, actually a copy, is one of the poor who have been seized by the French … Note that, as with most applications that followed, the applicants suggested a gesture single France, as if such a move could have precedential value. A member of the Volksunie in 1994, another of the Vlaams Blok to 2000 committed the government to claim the paintings that the French had seized. In 2011, a Community Senator MR launched in turn a press campaign for the return to the Tournai cathedral of Rubens painting ( Judas Maccabaeus ), authentic this time in the Museum of Fine Arts in Nantes ( ill . 1). The Parliament of the French Community / Wallonia-Brussels voted unanimously on November 9, 2011, a resolution asking the community government to start the procedures to edit the table. The Belgian Foreign Ministry has even relayed this request to the French authorities (with a plea of ​​receiving official in 2014). In 2011 still, the Cathedral of Liège received on loan for six months of Toulouse Musée des Augustins the Bertholet Flemalle panel that adorned the altar of the building until 1794. With the support of a regional minister Walloon, steps were taken, unsuccessfully, from the city hall of Toulouse for the permanent storage of the table in Liege. This claim has since been reiterated on several occasions, the authorities have even delivered a letter to this effect to President Hollande during his visit to Liege on August 4, 2014. Parliamentary questions on French seizures were again asked the federal Parliament and the Flemish Parliament in 2014 and 2015. Most recently, on 6 September 2015 the newspaper Sunday published a full page called very significantly: “ France must return our Rubens! “

Before considering the merits or otherwise of these claims, first look at the historical facts.

2. The French artistic confiscations of 1794

At the first conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and the Principality of Liege by French troops (late 1792-early 1793), their commander, General Dumouriez, has publicly opposed any seized religious property. To believe this, France had not conquered Belgium, she had only driven the tyrants who oppressed and therefore had no right to seize the property of the clergy and public revenues in an independent country. A decree of public Hi Committee in Paris nevertheless ordered to requisition in the conquered countries all that was necessary for the subsistence of the troops. Only silverware church was also targeted, but the abuses were relatively limited and rather relevèrent individual looting as a deliberate policy.

We must not forget, there were many that followers of revolutionary ideals, then saluted the “liberators” with french freed from the yoke of Austria and the Liege prince-bishop oppressed populations of the Belgian and Liege region (current terms of the time that we return below for convenience under the term “Belgium”). Several cities also demanded by plebiscites, often manipulated by some activists it is true, the annexation of Belgium to France. After acclaimed the “liberators” French, Belgians (but probably not the same …) cheered the same way the return of the Austrians after the battle of Neerwinden, March 18, 1793 …

By the battle of Fleurus of 26 June 1794, Belgium was finally wrested from the authority of Austria as much as the prince-bishop of Liege. And then the French generals were more conquerors at first, is the winner of the law, a law of immemorial tradition that prevailed. Academician Armand-Gaston Camus has summarized this principle in its 1803 justifying speech to the Institute, about seizures of books in the northern countries (cat exp Paris, 1989, p 259…) “ the Republic exercised his right choosing from the spoils those it wanted to make money. “

soon the French authorities decided to send commissioners to take the masterpieces of Flemish painting, especially those held in religious buildings, places of those infamous superstition that the Revolution meant to fight at all costs … There were actually three “ evacuation agencies “(see eg Boyer, 1971). The first was created June 12, 1794 by the Trade and Supply; it was therefore established even before the invasion of Belgium, at a time when the armies were still stopped at our borders. The agents were ready to intervene, what they did in the early days of the French conquest. This first collection agency consisted of three members, specialists, attached to different armies. Among the assistants skilled in the northern army, the designer Pierre-Jacques Tinet was specifically charged works of art; he made seize seventy-three in Belgium, according to the report. Other experts were in charge of supplies (cattle, grain, feed …) or manufacture of objects.

The public Hi Committee appointed five days after the mandate given to Tinet and others by the Commission Trade, other extractors agents to monitor (secretly) armies. These are conventional mission in Belgium désignèrent new delegates extractions; among them were the Jacques-Luc Barbier and Antoine Léger painters. July 18, 1794, these conventional explained the appointment by these considerations (Saunier, 1902, p. 29): “ People’s Representatives to the armies of the North and of the Sambre and Meuse, informed that in countries where the victorious armies of the French Republic come to hunt the hordes of slaves resulted in the tyrants, there are pieces of painting and sculpture and other engineering products; whereas their real deposit for the honor and progress of the arts, is in the living room and handy free men [...]. “

Barbier Léger and began executing their mission in Antwerp on 31 July. They seized there a fifty paintings in ten days. They then continued by Mechelen, Ivy, Brussels and Louvain, for forty additional tables. They sometimes criticized the methods of their “competitor” Tinet, accused of mauling the tables he had entered.

Despite the claims of French officers committed to removal, mainly in churches, every precaution were not taken in handling. A case has remained famous: the removal of a major work in the history of the Liege painting Assumption of the Virgin Bertholet Flemalle Liège kept in the Dominican church , which was cut by the valet to mend the sheets of a carriage (Kairis, 2015, p. 160). On Herbouville, prefect of the department of Deux-Nèthes (Antwerp) in that time, for his part denounced the vandalism that presided over the removal of paintings of the abbey church of Tongerlo: some paintings were cut saber ( Piot, 1883, p. 7).

Following the upheavals following the fall of Robespierre and others in July 1794, agencies were no longer able to perform the extraction work. Also, on 20 August 1794, the public Hi Committee appointed he new commissioners, whose Gaspard Michel librarian, said Leblond, and architect Charles de Wailly (who had built ten years earlier the Castle of Laeken) for “ to go to Belgium and in countries occupied by the Armies of the North and of the Sambre and Meuse to collect all the monuments, all the wealth, all the knowledge that relate to the Arts and Sciences, to enrich the Republic “(Boyer, 1971, p. 499). This is in fact a third “ extraction Agency ” that was thus formed. These new agents still opérèrent for two months, but Tinet one side, Barbier and Light, on the other, had already removed most of the major pieces.

To end the cacophony ( and the risk of degradation of items seized) the rivalry between the three extraction engendered agencies, public Hi Committee advised on 7 October 1794, Leblond, Wailly and fellow naturalists (charged to visit all the offices of natural history in the countries conquered by the northern army) all previously designated officers now became their subordinates. This was to avoid abuse previously known, particularly when citizens are pretending to be French agents and confiscated works of art in churches; known case of the sculpture group of the Charity by Jan van Delen ( ill . 3) removed (or, more accurately, hidden) in the Sablon church in Brussels November 11, 1794 (Piot, 1883, p. 171-173) and has just been acquired by the King Baudouin Foundation following his reappearance on the art market in 2012.

---

3. Jan van Delen (circa 1640-1703)
class=”autobr” Charity , 1675/1680
Marble class=”autobr” – 106.7 x 78.5 x 47 cm
class=”autobr” Brussels, King Baudouin Foundation
class=”autobr” Photo: Christie’s

4. scenic tour of Flanders and Brabant
class=”autobr” published by Jean-Baptiste Descamps

---

The confiscations were later carried based hierarchies of tables offered in two fundamental works for knowledge of painting in the Netherlands: picturesque Voyage of Flanders and Brabant published by Jean-Baptiste Descamps ( ill . 4) in 1769 (true travel guide for lovers of Flemish painting) and Gallery of Flemish painters published in 1792 by Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun (Poulot, 2010, p . 219).

But the bulk of seizures in Belgium were over. They deported to the Rhineland. The extractions were rare in the Netherlands, the French have created here a brother state: the Batavian Republic. According to the peace treaty between the Netherlands and France, the French Republic gave way to the Batavian Republic all real property of the House of Orange and those of movable property which it did not wish to have. Practically, only the collection of the Stadtholder was confiscated and transferred to Paris in spring 1795 (Boyer, 1970, p. 152). The fact is not trivial: it is what will motivate first William I in 1815, in its ambition to recover the works seized in Holland and Belgium

5. Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640)
class=”autobr” The Descent from the Cross 1612
class=”autobr” Oil on canvas – 420.5 x 320 cm
class=”autobr” Antwerp cathedral
class=”autobr” Photo: KIK-IRPA, Brussels

the first pictures of Belgium arrived in Paris on 20 September 1794. the first shipment included only four tables, but it was the main masterpieces of Rubens in Antwerp preserved, including the famous Descent from the cross (ill . 5) and the famous painting entitled Blow lance . On this occasion, Barber, the officer in charge of bringing the tables in Paris, made a speech noticed before the National Convention speech in which he called the elements of revolutionary rhetoric on the matter (Saunier, 1902, p. 26 -27): “ These immortal works are no longer in a foreign land; they are now in the country of the arts and engineering, in the land of freedom and the holy equality, the French Republic. “

There were seven shipments Belgium between September 1794 and February 1795, for a total of about two hundred paintings; the inventory was drawn up, according to the Paris archives, by Gilberte Emile-Male (1994). Unfortunately, there was no systematic recording of seizures, so it is difficult to determine the exact list of extractions, some confiscated works that have not reached the rest of Paris. It is time for a thorough historical research is launched to identify and locate the works, mostly paintings, which were delighted to Belgium.

There were also many specimens of scientific objects, natural history (mainly fossil) and books. Wanted books and manuscripts should be focused on science and technology, including the description machines (Caron, 1909-1910, p. 164). According to a report commissioners taking stock of their action in October 1795, there were about fifty thousand pounds and more than two thousand manuscripts withdrawn from Belgium and the Rhineland (Boyer, 1971b, p. 373). Confiscations concerned, as in France, objects that belonged to the Church, emigrants and libraries and offices created by the Austrian rulers. For collections in botanical gardens, the commissioners proposed exchange with the Museum of Natural History in Paris (Boyer, 1971b, p. 362).

The requisitions of paintings by the French stopped early 1795, following the hostility increasingly assertive representatives of the people and newly developed local government in place in Belgium in view of the meeting with France, which will become effective on 1 October 1795 (Boyer, 1971b , p. 371-373). For example, the Crombet citizen, President of the Administrative district of Namur, had printed 29 March 1795 a circular officially thwarting the mission of the French Commissioners (Courtoy, 1943, p. 34). Shipments in Paris also ceased because of high transport costs. The shortage of transport and priority that the army had to give to the sending of works of art in Paris had already aroused strong dissatisfaction and numerous complaints against the evacuation commissions (Caron, 1909-1910 , p. 167). Samples have continued but for the benefit of local museums that were considered in each department. Hence the many confusions between the works confiscated by French agents were seized and those thereafter, mainly in churches and convents, by local authorities.

Early on, opposition manifested against all these samples. The French authorities, even if they were behind the revolutionary arguments of release of the masterpieces of Flemish art, were clearly not insensitive to the concerns. The architect Charles-Louis Clérisseau even proposed to French MPs to make copies of paintings seized in Belgium to soften the regret of people who felt dispossessed, while allowing the French artists to be in the manner of Rubens copying his masterpieces (apple, 1991, p. 241-242). The proposal was not followed, but it was significant of a major objective of seizures in Belgium: the grouping in one place, namely the Palais du Louvre became national museum under the title Museum Central des Arts from 1793 masterpieces for use in the training of artists. Many texts of the time recall that the confiscated items were now intended for the instruction of the people and that young artists should be the first to benefit from such a wealth of masterpieces.

grievances of the Belgian population were not shared everywhere. Some municipalities married indeed enthusiastic convictions of revolutionary authorities, who wanted to create a Paris museum of world art. Jules Helbig (1889, p. 40) cites the case of the Liège municipal authorities warmly welcoming, September 30, 1794, the French commissioners came to strip the churches in the country while announcing fraternally as the effects that would outweigh the only for exchange. The Liegeois are still waiting for compensation … Bénédicte Savoy (2003, p. 201) noted how often the casual attitude of the French commissioners coincided wrong, on the ground, with the glorious Parisian rhetoric.

What that it happened, claims of local people opposing the spoliation not weighed heavily against the wishes of the French authorities to centralize masterpieces while giving good conscience, as for example seen in a report by Jean-Baptiste- Pierre Lebrun, the expert responsible for inventory Flemish paintings arrived at the Louvre (Lemaire, 1981, p. 41): “ It was time for the glory of the immortal men [namely painters], that the Republic carry off (sic) masterpieces that the carelessness of those who owned the lead to their ruin. The French glory was reserved to preserve for future generations the productions of these men an inimitable genius. “As the capital of freedom, Paris had to concentrate masterpieces. At the same time, justifications were advanced: revolutionary France wanted to expand his social reorganization to implement conquered territories and had confiscated the property belonging to his opponents, especially in the Catholic Church (Boyer, 1970, p. 149).

in his famous report against vandalism (neologism he coined for the occasion) read before the Convention August 31, 1794, Father Gregory celebrated in turn seized in Belgium (Saunier, 1902, p. 26): “ The Republic acquires courage that with immense sums Louis XIV could never get. Grayer, Vandyck and Rubens are on their way to Paris, and the Flemish school rises in droves to come decorate our museums. “This kind of proclamation today ready to smile, but it underlines the bubbling time in the theory of heritage in development: the museum concept is so new and it questions the tradition by highlighting secularisation and contextualization Art

One of the main ideological foundations. time is, as we have seen, the concept of heritage released. As noted Edouard Pommier (1991: 227-228.) “ From the time of their creation, the masterpieces of art,” buried “under the weight of despotism, were victims a kind of exile; calling them to the home of freedom, the Revolution restores them to life in their true homeland, which they are assigned by the principles of 1789 and which will now be their “final home”. The history of art finds its fulfillment in Paris in 1794. “The exalted movement of concentration of masterpieces in Paris did not yet dried up after 1794. Thus, June 25, 1795 the conventional Sergeant solemnly wrote to public Hi Committee, having suggested sending two artists armies of the Rhine and Moselle for the proper conservation of tables identified in the conquered countries (Boyer, 1971, p 490.) “ the Romans, stripping Greece have kept us beautiful monuments; imitate them. “

Multiple restore operations were soon on the tables before companies in Belgium (see Ferdinand Boyer studies of 1978 and Gilberte Emile-Male in 1964 and 1994) . On arrival tables in Paris, Lebrun was commissioned to establish what we call today a condition report. The conservation status was often meticulously noted and many paintings were restored, which saved them a ruin which had not much concerned about the former owners. Lebrun noted in its minutes (Emile-Male, 1964, p 159-160.) “ All these observations carefully made will prove to posterity that we were worthy to appreciate such conquests, and we may not assign us the damage that these tables were experienced by mésoins of indolent monks who possessed them. “the criticism of the negligence of the former owners quickly became a topos of self-justificatory glosses revolutionaries.

6. Léonard Defrance (1735-1805)
class=”autobr” easel Self-Portrait
class=”autobr” Oil on canvas – 59 x 41 cm
Liège Ansembourg Museum
class=”autobr” Photo: KIK-IRPA, Brussels

As noted Bénédicte Savoy (2003, p. 19): « the company won ownership of assets is considered, by summer 1794, as a natural extension of nationalisations initiated in France in the name of universal values ​​and ideals encyclopedic, in defiance of the national origin of coveted objects. “the author adds (p. 42) that the levies imposed by order of the Convention fell within the right of conquest that commissioners qualifièrent specimens of a new genus as done in the name of public instruction. This approach even aroused the enthusiasm of some local supporters of the French revolutionaries, as Baron Hüpsch in Cologne or painter Léonard Defrance in Liège ( ill . 6). This prolonged the activity of French officials after leaving prospecting himself the collections of the Liege and requisitioning for them objects of interest to the French national collections. October 30, 1794, Defrance even wrote to Charles de Wailly to complain about the slowness and laziness of workers employed at the dismantling of the main altar of the Cathedral of Liège (Daris, 1867, p. 323-324).

seizures in Principality of Liege were quite paradoxical. What interested them in French charts in Belgium, it was primarily the works of Rubens, Van Dyck, Jordaens and Grayer. It was not a coincidence. As noted by Alain Roy (1977, p. 17), Count Angiviller, sort of culture minister of Louis XVI, had greatly enriched the royal collections in Flemish and Dutch paintings, then very fashionable, in view of accessibility that is already planned, long before the Revolution, giving tables of the king the draft gallery open to the public, however, has resulted in 1793 under the Convention. The French commissioners had little Flemish paintings found in Liege, but works great local painters, whose style was closer to the Franco-Italian art. According to the inventory of Liège tables established upon their arrival in Paris, fifteen paintings were considered major and ten others were saved in this way (Emile-Male, 1994, p. 30): “ Those below would have been able to stay in the country, they had been a testimony to the taste and the lights of the French Nation. I will not describe either their state or their mediocrity. “The vis-à-vis contempt paintings spotted Cork also guess in a report that the French commissioners sent there have addressed the public Hi Committee on 23 October 1794 (Boyer, 1971, p 500). “ The result of our research, in relation to art in Liège and its surroundings is reduced to a few artists paintings of this country. Although these tables do not deserve to be ranked in the first class, we believed, however, reap some because they are close to the Italian genre, the genre in which artists from Liège sought to develop in Rome. “Hence the paradox: tables that does not interest the French were transferred to Paris under pressure from the new Liège administration. Number of Liegeois, more than citizens of any city of the Austrian Netherlands, shared in fact the revolutionary ideal and longed contribute to the creation of this great universal museum that was to become the Museum Central des Arts. They wanted to see the paintings of local masters also honored. Flattering as that sneaky, four French commissioners levies Liège not deceived them as to gallophiles feelings of the natives, assuring them – in words at least – “ they are far from holding the same conduct against Liegeois, their brothers, their allies, in respect of the Belgians “(Daris, 1867, p. 322).

3. src=”http://www.latribunedelart.com/local/cache-vignettes/L204xH290/dyck_adoration-bafa0-95371.jpg” src=”http://www.latribunedelart.com/local/cache-vignettes/L290xH236/rubens_melchisedech-45fa3-f3c0e.jpg” src=”http://www.latribunedelart.com/local/cache-vignettes/L230xH290/dyck_charles_ier-2-e34f6-4539f.jpg”