Financing the repairs

Before turning to the accounts, I should acknowledge some of the limitations in the study of the restoration of St James. As discussed, the financial perspective was limited to the institution of the churchwardens. So if a guild master purchased a sculpture for the chapel of his guild, or if the institution of the Table of the Holy Spirit (the parochial institution for poor relief) paid for a work, this would not have been recorded in the accounts unless the churchwardens were involved. Gifts and quick repairs may also have escaped the accounts. There are indications that some restoration work had already taken place by the time Van Vaernewijck recorded the destruction in his narrative: the priest Willem Doens had funded the repair of the three stone priest seats that he had

Expansion 1500-1660, ed. R. Po-Chia Hsia, vol. 6, The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 345–48, 351, 360–67; Freedberg, The Power of Images. Studies in the History and Theory of Response, 12, 161–65; Wim François and Violet Soen, eds., The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545-1700), Vol. 3: Between Artists and Adventurers, vol. 3, 3 vols, Refo500 Academic Studies 35 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018); John W. O’Malley, ‘Trent, Sacred Images and Catholics’

Senses of the Sensuous’, in The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church, ed. Marcia B. Hall and Tracy E. Cooper (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 28–48.

393 de Boer, ‘Picking up the Pieces. Catholic Material Culture and Iconoclasm in the Low Countries’, 61–63.

commissioned³⁹⁴, two lecterns that had been broken had been restored³⁹⁵ and the nuns of St John had immediately ordered a new window after the destruction of their window³⁹⁶. These were most likely not the only actions for the material restoration of the church that escaped the accounts. Thus the accounts underrepresent the activities in the parish.

In fact, the iconoclasm of 1566 only left a few subtle traces in the accounts (see Fig 2).

Both the expenditure and income of the 1566 accounts fail to reveal any remarkable features. Compared to the other accounts dating from the period 1562-1567, expenditure and income in the accounts book of 1566-1567 and the following year are at a record low.

However, the difference with the years preceding iconoclasm is minor. Compared to the expenditure of about 43 pounds in the accounts of 1562-1563, St James's parish spent only 6 pounds less in 1566-1567. This difference is mainly the result of the reduced expenses for repairs in the church. Whereas in the years before iconoclasm, a separate category listed repairs or changes to the church building and its interior, the accounts for 1566-1567 show only a few transactions of this type. Another factor in the decrease in expenses was a decline in the purchase of candles, wax and oil. This may be because the church could not be used immediately after the attacks. So more candles would only be necessary once masses were performed again. Moreover, the destruction of the altars and chapels meant that chantry duties could not take place for some time. Another possible explanation for the smaller expenditure is the lack of funds. Collections during mass and other gatherings did not raise as much money as in previous years. This was partly the result of the disruption to mass services, but could also be explained by a lack of interest in mass (and offerings) in the months following iconoclasm. Indeed, Van Vaernewijck noted that even in December 1566 less than a third of the habitual churchgoers attended mass at St James.³⁹⁷ He describes how on one occasion nobody made an offering during mass at the church, even though the organ had been played and the church bailiff had called on the parishioners to bring their offerings.³⁹⁸ Clearly, Van Vaernewijck could not

394 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 148 (I). “Die drije priesterlicke stoelen jeghenover, van oorduun ende Avennes steen, ende up den rugghe met een schoon schilderie hijstoriael, die doen maken waren van her Willem Doens, presbijtre, ende costen hem wel veertich ponden grooten, noch gheen jaer ghestaen hebbende, werden van quaetwillighe bouven ooc afghebroken, tsanderdaechs smorghens upden XXIIJen angustij, ende met coorden die colommen omverre ghetrocken. Zij waren ghemaect van meester Henrick Van Ballare 1, schulptor ende gheschildert van eenen Jan Vander Riviere, pictor. Maer den voornoemden her Willem heeft ze weder eerlic updoen rechten, zoo zij tevoren waren…”

395 Van Vaernewijck, 149 (I). “Zoo ooc van ghelijcken afghesmeten waren IJ lessenaers upt nieu ghestoelte, up elcke zijde eenen, maer zijn weder gherestaureert.”

396 Van Vaernewijck, 151 (I). “Bijzonder die veinster daer tzitten staet vande nonnen in Sente Janshuus, die weder terstont nieuwe doen maken was.”

397 Van Vaernewijck, 50 (II).

explain away this reluctance to give money by pointing to the church’s infrastructure or the quality of the service.

Figure 2 Graph annual income and expenditure of the churchwardens of St James in Flemish deniers groten (1562-1578).

More remarkable or revealing than the accounts of 1566-1567 are the accounts of the previous and following years. The impact of the iconoclastic fury is highlighted when looking at the reality behind the accounts of the year 1563-1664. During this period, a sum of about 27 pounds was spent on repairs and building materials, which was almost 40% of the total expenditure of that year. These expenses were mainly covered by a huge donation from the Table of the Holy Spirit of St James. Compared to the previous year and the following year, the repairs in 1563-1564 resulted in a rise in expenditure of about 60%.

Work on the roof and gutters took up the largest portion of these expenses, but some of the money was paid to a mason and used for the purchase of chalk, sand and tiles.³⁹⁹ Seen

399 RAG, OKA St Jacobs Gent, 343, fo 18 vo – 20 vo.

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

income without surplus last account

expenditure without loss last account

in this light, the destruction of 1566 seems even more dramatic as it is clear that the church building had just undergone substantial restoration work.⁴⁰⁰

The accounts after the tumultuous year of 1566 reflect a rather slow reaction of the parish to the image-breaking, but it is possible that there was a delay between the repairs being carried out and the related financial transactions being recorded.⁴⁰¹ On the other hand, the slow recovery may reflect the chaos of the first months after iconoclasm.

Indeed, the higher authorities had to intervene to encourage an organized restoration of the church patrimony. For the authorities, including the king’s governor and the bishops, there was a direct link between resacralization and political restoration.⁴⁰²

The repairs to the churches could only be tackled in collaboration with the churchwardens, the guilds who had chapels or altars in the church and individual patrons. Many guilds had an altar or chapel in St James: the tapestry weavers, cloth shearers, woodworkers, woodcutters, carpenters, woodturners, wainwrights, coopers, shipwrights, basket makers, furriers, pelterers, the white and black tanners, girdlers, shoemakers' apprentices (elseneers) and old cloth dealers. Furthermore, the church also had a chapel or altar of the guild of St Margaret, St Barbara, the guild of the blind, the brotherhood of the Name Jhesus, the guild or brotherhood of St James and the brotherhood and chamber of rhetoric of Marien Theeren (In Honour of Mary).⁴⁰³

In the second half of June 1567, the city council, instigated by Margaret of Parma, sent for the deans of the craft guilds and brotherhoods. The magistracy ordered them to immediately start the repairs to their altarpieces and other damaged ornaments in the church. The guilds also had to send a list of their altars and chapels, so that officials could check on their work. Many of the guild members found this demand unjust, noted Van Vaernewijck, as those being forced to repair the chapels were not responsible for the destruction. However, Van Vaernewijck disagreed. He believed that many people had allowed it to happen in a way, because they had neither defended their altars against the image-breakers, nor hidden the precious altarpieces or other devotional objects, as others

400 Whether the iconoclasts targeted these roof works or not will become clear in the following chapter, where the restoration works are discussed in greater detail.

401 For example, it seems the parish did not collect enough money to start the repairs until the year 1568-1569, but according to Marcus van Vaernewijck the tabernacle was already inaugurated at the beginning of that accounting year. One possible explanation is that some of the income and outgoings in the accounts of 1568-1569 actually relate to the previous year. Of course, it may be that the payment simply followed later (after the repairs) or that the cash was advanced – Van Vaernewijck himself did this on various occasions for the church.

There is also the possibility that some expenses are not mentioned in the accounts.

402 Spicer, ‘After Iconoclasm: Reconciliation and Resacralisation in the Southern Netherlands, c. 1566-1585’.

403 Trio, ‘Volksreligie Als Spiegel van Een Stedelijke Samenleving. De Broederschappen Te Gent in de Late Middeleeuwen (12de-16de Eeuw)’, 196–201.

had done.⁴⁰⁴ Artworks and objects had been saved at St John's and St Bavo's, where the famous triptych, the Ghent altarpiece (The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb), had been hidden in the church's towers two days before the riots started. In St James too, some of the guilds had taken measures to prevent destruction. The shooting guild of St Sebastian placed in safekeeping a beautiful painting portraying Our Lady, St Barbara and St Catherine by the master painter Hugo van der Goes. The society of St Barbara hid their reliquary and the rhetoricians of Marien Theeren removed the side panels of their altar table and some sculptures to place these in safekeeping.⁴⁰⁵

Van Vaernewijck’s position as a vingtenier in the weeks preceding iconoclasm had brought him into direct contact with the opinions of guild members on protecting the church. He knew exactly which men had decided to defend the church and which had not. Indeed, only a minority had been interested in guarding the church. Research on other towns in the Low Countries for this period has shown that certain towns managed to prevent or stop iconoclasm.⁴⁰⁶ So Van Vaernewijck definitely had a point; many of the guild members seem not to have cared about possible damage to the church before the image-breaking, and afterwards too they seem to have had little interest in restoring the church. But as a churchwarden of St James and a Catholic who valued a beautiful church interior highly, he wanted the repairs to proceed regardless of the matter of who was guilty of the destruction.

Van Vaernewijck also argued against the idea that only those who had actually taken part in the image-breaking had to pay. He thought that this was not a realistic option, as most of the iconoclasts were very poor and some of them had already fled or been hanged.

By pointing out that the image-breakers were mainly poor and marginal, he hoped to convince the reader that Ghent society, as a whole, had hardly been involved in the destruction, at least not directly. Although this position fits in with other attempts in his chronicle to minimize the responsibility of the local inhabitants of Ghent for the iconoclasm, it does not reflect the reality. Van Vaernewijck was a member of the Ghent magistracy in this period, and he followed a line of thinking that is evident in many town governments that tried to place the blame for the image-breaking on foreigners.⁴⁰⁷ Van Vaernewijck admitted that there were some people of means who were guilty of iconoclasm, but he believed that many of them regretted their actions. According to him,

404 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 258 (II).

405 Van Vaernewijck, 88, 145–46, 150-151 (I); Trio, ‘Volksreligie Als Spiegel van Een Stedelijke Samenleving. De Broederschappen Te Gent in de Late Middeleeuwen (12de-16de Eeuw)’, 198; Verstraeten, De Gentse Sint-Jakobsparochie, 188 (II).

406 Suykerbuyk, ‘De Sacra Militia Contra Iconomachos. Civic Strategies to Counter Iconoclasm in the Low Countries (1566)’, 22–27, 31, 33.

407 Suykerbuyk, 22–25; Lamont, Het Wereldbeeld van Een Zestiende-Eeuwse Gentenaar Marcus van Vaernewijck, 58.

these men now wished to pay for the cost of the damage, or even fourfold, in order to ease their conscience, but they did not dare speak up. Moreover, many others knew the perpetrators and their deeds but preferred to remain silent, as they did not want to be responsible for another man’s death.⁴⁰⁸Of course, Van Vaernewijck could not have known every iconoclast’s reasons for taking part in the image-breaking, nor their level of regret, so again he is making an effort to counter the image of a guilty Ghent. Indirectly, he advocates against the search for those responsible by arguing that this would only bring more death. As a member of the magistracy, he preferred a more peaceful resolution where everyone paid for the damage, regardless of their level of involvement in the image-breaking. Although there were probably practical and political reasons for this regulation, civic peace remained an important motive in the city’s policies, including when it came to church restoration.

Another reason why parishioners were reluctant to start the repairs was the fear (and rumour) that more iconoclasm would follow.⁴⁰⁹ This is not surprising, considering how the power of the Reformed grew and the widespread anticlerical feelings in Ghent, especially during the Wonder Year. Furthermore, news of iconoclastic riots in other areas of the Low Countries had reached Ghent. As early as September and October, more organized forms of iconoclasm took place in various towns across the northern Low Countries.⁴¹⁰ As a result, it would still be several months before organized action was taken for the reconstruction of churches. In fact, it was not until end September 1567, after the magistracy ordered action, that a special commission assessed the damage inflicted on the church of St James. The commission comprised the dean, the two parish priests, the three churchwardens (including Marcus van Vaernewijck), the two Holy Spirit masters, a painter and a glass-blower. Knowing that the parishioners would be held financially responsible for the repairs, they decided to give a moderate estimate. Perhaps the commission was worried that the parishioners lacked resources, but they may also have thought it unjust to make them pay for what others had done. Van Vaernewijck echoed the complaint of the guilds when he wrote that the commission hoped that some iconoclasts could be forced to pay, or that at least some of the wealthy people that had strong ties with the Calvinists would contribute.⁴¹¹ The commission's prudence would also have been influenced by specific events that had dominated the Wonder Year. Having seen the popularity of the hedge preaching, and the diminished interest in mass, the commission probably also feared that many people would be unwilling to pay the high costs of restoring their parish church.

408 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 259-260 (II).

409 Van Vaernewijck, 260-261 (II).

410 Van Bruaene, Jonckheere, and Suykerbuyk, ‘Introduction. Beeldenstorm: Iconoclasm in the Sixteenth-Century Low Countries’, 4–5.

The city government had to intervene again to instigate repairs to the chapels of St James and other parish churches. In March 1568, the magistrates repeated their order to the craft guilds that they restore their chapels, so that church services could continue with suitable honour and reverence. In the ordinance, which listed all the necessary repairs, the magistrates also referred to letters containing orders from the duke of Alva, sent in February 1568 to the Council of Flanders. It is clear that the urban governments assumed that all the "Christian people" would help financially to restore "God's temple".⁴¹² The lack of sources means it is impossible to check whether all the guilds and brotherhoods responded and repaired their chapel or altar in the end. However, we know that the well-documented Marien Theeren repaired a chrome statue of Our Lady, two statues of prophets and ordered a new stained-glass window for their chapel.⁴¹³

A year after the assessment, things had clearly changed inside the church building. The churchwarden accounts that cover the period 1568-1569 registered most of the repairs arranged by the churchwardens of St James. Thus the repairs made by the guilds or wealthy families to altars or chapels stay under the radar. The accounts of 1568-1569 also listed all the parishioners who contributed to a general collection of alms, where the parish priest, churchwardens and Holy Spirit masters went from door to door across the whole parish. The accounts were signed in January 1570 by the parish priest Adriaen Van Loo, churchwardens lord Jan Damman, Christoffels Vanderhaghen and Pieter Dhannins, and Holy Spirit masters Roelant Van Hembyze, Joos De Brune and Pieter Dhamere.⁴¹⁴ These were the men who most likely organized the tour of the parish (ommegang). The collection was organized in order to pay for the tabernacle and rood screen, revealing how important these constructions were for the parish church. It is no accident that it was these repairs that Van Vaernewijck focused on in his chronicle (see below). There are 465 parishioners listed as having donated money, ranging between 1 denier and over 2 pounds (480 Flemish denier groten). Some of the parishioners contributed unpaid labour instead of money. In total, the parish gathered over 37 pounds, which means that on average the contributors gave a little less than 1 shilling or 12 denier, which was about the daily wage of a mason’s journeyman.⁴¹⁵

It has proved difficult to find information about these donors. Only the more prominent members of the parish have left their names in other sources, enabling us to link them with this collection list. The following 19 parishioners on the list were or had

412 Van Vaernewijck, 293-295 (III).

413 Anne-Laure Van Bruaene, Om Beters Wille. Rederijkerskamers En de Stedelijke Cultuur in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (1400-1650) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008), 151.

414 RAG, OKA St Jacobs Gent, no 347, fo 31 vo.

415 Dambruyne, Corporatieve Middengroepen. Aspiraties, Relaties En Transformaties in de 16de-Eeuwse Gentse Ambachtswereld, 838.

been an alderman or a receiver (responsible for finances and bookkeeping) in the magistracy: Joos de Brune, Lievin de Buck, Lievin van Casele, Omaer Claessens, François De Clerck, Pieter Dhanins, Loys van Doreslaghe, Philips de Gruutere, Willem van Auweghem, Lowys Van Havere, Pieter de Keysere, Joos vander Saffelt, François van der Sare, Joos Schauteete, Marcus van Vaernewijck, Jan vanden Velde, Joos van de Vivere, Jan de Vos and Jacob de Vrient.⁴¹⁶ There were 13 parishioners who were or had been in previous years a member of the Table of the Holy Spirit or a churchwarden of St James:

Gillis Callant, Laureyns de Grave, Laureyns de Groote, Christoffels Vanderhaghen, Willem van Auweghem, Jan de Keysere, Lievin de Meyere, Lievin de Moor, Zegher Vanderstraten, Lievin Tayaert, Marcus van Vaernewijck, Jan van de Vivere and Pieter Dhanins. Clearly, there was an overlap with the group of magistrates. A few others on the collection list would become an alderman or receiver in the future: Jan de Meyere, Joos van de Moortele, Jan de Stoppelaere and Jan van Tombeele.⁴¹⁷ Not surprisingly, most of the men in this

Gillis Callant, Laureyns de Grave, Laureyns de Groote, Christoffels Vanderhaghen, Willem van Auweghem, Jan de Keysere, Lievin de Meyere, Lievin de Moor, Zegher Vanderstraten, Lievin Tayaert, Marcus van Vaernewijck, Jan van de Vivere and Pieter Dhanins. Clearly, there was an overlap with the group of magistrates. A few others on the collection list would become an alderman or receiver in the future: Jan de Meyere, Joos van de Moortele, Jan de Stoppelaere and Jan van Tombeele.⁴¹⁷ Not surprisingly, most of the men in this