29

P. HUVENNE

Pieter Pourbus as Draughtsman: A Survey

Pieter Pourbus is mainly known as a portrait painter of the bourgeoisie in the second half of the 16th century, a clientele whose conservatism left its mark on both his portraits and altar- pieces. Paintings and patrons alike seem to have modelled themselves on the 15th century, ear- ning Pourbus a reputation as the (last representative of the Bruges School' (Note 1). Hitherto only Pourbus) portraits have been studied in detail (Note 2)) but he was more than just the best portrait painter of his time, showing the humanistic versatility of thegreat Renaissance masters not only in his paintings, but also in his designs, architecture, cartography and knowle4qe of waterways and strategic matters (Note 3). In all these activities he brought one aspect of his ar- tistry to bear, since he made drawings for everthing he concerned himself with. The Jlrst to draw attention to Pourbus as a draughtsman was Wescher (Note 4), but since then only Arndt has returned to the subject (Note 5). The survey given here is confined to what belongs specifi'cally to the drawings oeuvre of an artist, although it could easily have taken in all his work, not least the underdrawing in his paintings, which are largely linear in conception. He uses oil paint in only a limited way to achieve plasticity, albeit he never neglects to suggest volume and depth, even in a paintingsuch as the Plan of Duinen Abbey in 1580 (Fig. I ), which can best be described as'drawn in oils on canvas'. The best illustration of the domination of the draughtsman in Pourbus over the painter is the splendid grisaille of the Deposition of 1570 from the church at Damme (Fig. 2). Despite this, art-historical interest in Pourbus as a draughtsman was only kindled by the publica- tion of the modello (Fig. 3)for the van Belle Triptych of 1556 in St. James' Church in Bruges Despite this, art-historical interest in Pourbus as a draughtsman was only kindled by the publica- tion of the modello (Fig. 3)for the Van Belle Triptych of 1556 in St.James' Church in Bruges (Fig. 4). Not only is this drawing a modello intended to give the patron an idea of what the altar- piece would look like, it is also a contract signed by the patron and the artist and dated 28 Sep- tember 1555. The drawing depicts the composition for Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows, a favourite subject of devotion in Bruges, with great care, yet everything is kept very sketchy and the numerous differencesftom the final paintingshow that the artist was left to a considerable extent with a free hand. Notably, the tondos with the Seven Sorrows are left blank in the modello, reference probably being made here to a series of existing compositions (Note 6). Wescher linked two drawings with the tondo scenes in the painting: a Presentation in the Temple (Fig. 5) and a Lamentation (Fig. 6). The latter is dated 1556 and is thus later than the modello. It is also completely rent in character. It is virtually the same size as the tondo in the painting and there are fewer departures from it in the latter than is the case with the modello, while the lines and hatchings are more precise and subtle. It must have been meant primarily for studio use and is clearly by Pourbus' own hand, although the word written below the date is probably novem(ber) rather than a signature, as Wescher suggests. The composition, which was used again two years later in the Lamentation at Annecy (Note 7), harks back in essence to a stained-glass window for the Chapel of the Holy Blood, of which the 16th-century cartoon still survives (Note 8). A third drawing known for certain to be by Pourbus appears at first sight to be by a completely different hand, but it was unmistakably made for his earliest signed painting the Last Judge- ment of 1551 (Fig. 7, Note 9). The format and style,:?qain show this drawing to have been a modello. It is known that the alderman of the Liberty ofBruges, for whom the painting was made, were highly delighted with it and this will not just have been because of the quality of its execution. Although this type of 16th-century Last Judgement is now well-known, it must be remembered that this was quite an early example in the series, which must have made a sur- prisingly new impression. A comparison with the Last Judgement by Jan Provost (Note 10) makes this understandable. Pourbus did not free himself at one blow from all the traditional ingredients, the burning ruins and heavenlyJerusalem only disappearing in the definitive version, thus allowing the cosmic dimensions of the theme to come more to the-fore. The drawing shows 30 more clearly than the painting how much Pourbus was indebted to Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel composition, which he must have known from copies or engravings (Note 11) and which he used as the key to a new approach, transposing it into the smaller dimension ofapaintingfor a court ol alderman (Note 12). Ile tried to get further away from his model in the panting but only partially succeeded in creating a unity of his own there, and while Michelangelogives us a real dies irae, Pourbus'version looks more like a well organized Rhetoricians'tableau vivant. This drawing lacks the flavour of a truly personal vision. Nor is this to befound infour other sheets that are certainly by Pourbus, naturally not, since they are maps, which rather remind us of his activities as a cartographer and his skills as a mathematician, which may have had more influence on his artistic vision than has hitherto been suspected. They are a plan of Duinen Abbey of 1563 (Note 15), a map of the island of Cadzand (Fig. 8, Note 16), a map of the Rom- bautswerve, a watercourse between Damme and Sluis (Note 17) and a much larger map of the watercourses ofBroucke and Moerkercke, Zuid-over-Leye (Fig. 9, Note 18). This last with its cartouches and grotesques is a welcome addition to the known oeuvre, although it again has little of a personal nature about it. No more help is offered by the numerous designs which, in addition to minor cartography (Note 19), are known only from written sources (Notes 20-25). None oJ these survive, but some of the finished works do, notably the lottery poster of 1574for the Bogaerden School (Note 22) and a hearth-plate 10, Note 21). Arndt-s attribution to Pourbus of the design for the tomb of Francisco de la Puebla and his wife (Note 26) is not unfounded and finds some support in the existence of another tomb, that of the family ofjoost de Damhouder,Jor which there is slightly more documentary evidence suggesting Pourbus as the designer (Note 27), but all this can only be taken with some reservation. Thus the three known drawings all date from the mature first half oJPourbus' career, which saw the creation of his finest work. They show no stylistic unity, but are clearly by a practised hand. The long elegant lines mainly define the contours,.often with an extra emphasis, while relief and shadow are added by hatching and white highlights. The architecture in them is of distinctly Vitruvian proportions and belongs entirely to the mid 16th century, as do the classical figures which seem borrowed from and Michelangelo. Fine though they are, the drawings show no clear identity of their own. They are somewhat stiffer than the known drawings ofmaarten de Vos and and more fluent in line than those of PieterAertsen. They could be confused with the drawin?s of Lambert van Noort and also show stylistic relationships to those ofjan Swart and to some Gouda stained-glass designs. Various old and new attributions can now be grouped around the (smooth' style of the Last Jud- gement drawing on the one hand and the more sketchy style of the modello and Lamentation on the other. To the first group belongs an apparently unpublished drawing of the Descent of the Holy Spirit (Fig. 11, Note 28), which is evidently another modello, this time for the outside of the right wing of an unknown triptych. It bears an old inscription, Pieter Pourbus, and the attribution seems perfectly justifi'ed by the drawing's similarity to the Last Judgement. The Vir- gin here, too, seems to come between the Virgins on the Seven Sorrows drawing and panting while she has a similar sharp face to the Virgin of the Lamentation. This drawing thus probably dates from around 1550. Three other drawings link up with this, a series of triumphs conceived in tondo form : the Triumph of Death (Fig. 12) in Vienna and the Triumph of Time (Fig. 13) and the Triumph of Christ (Fig. 14) in Paris. All have previously been attributed to Pieter Coecke or his school, though they have little in common with his known style of drawing. They do, however, tally in style, composition and details with Pourbus' Last Judgement drawing. To the second group belongs a much morefreely drawnstudyJora Resurrection (Fig, 13), which is most probably by Pourbus, although it is open to question whether it is a preliminary study for the Passion triptych in Bruges as Arndt suggests. The acceptance of this attribution gives us more insight into Pourbus'freerstyle of drawing. The sheet clearly reveals him as a textbook example of the method current in his time of building up a composition with as it were prefabricated com- position fgures. Another drawing that fits in completely with this is a Life and Martyrdom of St. Barbara (Fig. 31

16), a design for an unknown triptych (Note 30). In view of its more complex composition it probably dates from the 1570's and it also shows some relationship to the centre panel of the St. George Triptych from Duinkerke by Frans Pourbus the Elder, which is known to have been painted in Pieter Pourbus' studio (Note 31). A drawing of the Virgin with SS. Luke and Eligius. (Fig. 1 7) seems to fall somewhere between ourr two It was groups. attributed by Weale and Faggin to , Pourbus' father-in-law since it is a (Note 32), variant of the canvas painted by Blondeel in 1545 for the Guild and of Image-makers Saddlers (Note 33). It could be seen as a rejected design for the latter, except that it was drawn seven years later and does not fit in with Blondeel's known style (Note 34), but rather shows the long dry lines characteristic of Pourbus. The two artists are known to have worked in collaboration: in 1551 Pourbus made cartoons for a stained- glass window after designs by Blondeel (Note 35). Our drawing could also be a reworking of this kind, since Blondeel's panting clearly served as the model. Finally, Wescher's attribution to Pourbus of the drawing of the Presentation in the Temple (Fig. 5) seems untenable. Admittedly the composition tallies almost completely with that of the relevant tondo in the Seven Sorrows panting but the style is so wooden and shaky that this drawing cannot be by Pourbus, but must be a copy, probably not of the panting but of the lost original drawing. It clearly dates from the 16th century, in view of the colour notes on the back, and may have been made in Pourbus' studio. Thus to the seven drawings, including four maps, that are known for certain to be by Pourbus, can be added a number of attributions and a copy (earlier attributions no longer considered acceptable are listed in Note 36). The technique seems to be constant : pen on paper, sometimes with wash, sometimes with some chalk, but the limited nature of the material does not allow many conclu- sions to be drawn about this. As a Pourbus shows a draughtsman, however, certainly different side from the portraitist, a side more reminiscent of the painter of the Allegory of Love in the Wallace Collection in London.