Early on the morning of 11 April 1934 the sacristan of St Bavo’s Cathedral in Ghent chanced on a criminal offense scene. The Ghent Altarpiece – an enormous polyptych, painted by Hubert and Jan van Eyck – was in its common place within the Vijd chapel; however the place one of many panels depicting the Simply Judges had been, there was now a gaping gap.
By then the Ghent Altarpiece already had a chequered historical past. Commissioned by the rich service provider Jodocus Vijd within the early 1420s, it had been put in within the household’s chapel within the hope of encouraging worshippers to hope for his soul. However it was additionally meant as a testomony to his wealth and status. One of many first artworks ever to be painted in oils, it was undeniably lavish, overflowing with saintly figures and glittering colors. Within the centuries that adopted it turned one of the vital fascinating artworks in Northern Europe. It was practically destroyed by Protestant iconoclasts; plundered by Napoleon and brought to Paris; damaged up, pawned and offered to the king of Prussia; and at last captured by the German military throughout the First World Struggle.
However the theft got here as a profound shock, all the identical. Belgium was then in a febrile state. Two months earlier King Albert I had died in a mysterious accident; and simply weeks later two of the nation’s main banks had unexpectedly collapsed, ruining companies and wiping out financial savings. The lack of such a distinguished art work shook the Belgians’ already wounded satisfaction greater than public opinion might bear. It was very important to catch the thief – and rapidly.
Hope and despair
There was only one downside: the authorities have been baffled. When the chief of police, Antoine Luysterborgh, visited the scene later that morning nothing made any sense. How had the thief damaged into the cathedral, disassembled the altarpiece and escaped with a panel that was virtually 1.5m tall, all with out anybody noticing?
Ideas quickly got here flooding in. The police have been inundated with experiences of suspicious-looking individuals who had been seen lurking. However nothing got here of any of them and two months handed with none critical leads. Then, on 1 Might 1934, the bishop of Ghent, Honoré Coppieters, obtained a ransom letter. Signing himself ‘D.U.A.’, the author demanded a million francs for the panel’s return and invited the bishop to answer by inserting a categorized advert within the newspaper La dernière heure. There was no query of paying such a sum, in fact; however the well mannered tone of the letter led the police to consider that the panel would possibly quickly be inside their grasp.
A fragile negotiation now started. And it quickly bore fruit. In a 3rd letter, dated 28 Might, the thief revealed that he had left the outer a part of the panel – a grisaille portrait of St John the Baptist – within the left baggage workplace at Brussels North station as a goodwill gesture. Frustratingly, nobody who labored there might bear in mind something in regards to the man who had deposited it, aside from that he was middle-aged; however an air of quiet optimism now took maintain.
Ten extra letters have been despatched, every as earnest and cheap as the subsequent. Then they instantly stopped. The case, which had appeared so promising over the summer season, ran chilly. With no different arduous proof to go on, the police despaired of ever catching the thief, not to mention discovering the lacking panel.
Exit Goedertier
One other surprising twist was across the nook, although. On 25 November 1934 a stockbroker named Arsène Goedertier had a stroke at a gathering in Dendermonde, simply outdoors Ghent. Realising that loss of life was close to, Goedertier requested for his lawyer, Georges de Vos. In a hoarse whisper he revealed that he was the thief. The proof, he claimed, was in his desk. De Vos didn’t want telling twice. Speeding spherical to Goedertier’s home, he discovered copies of the letters, a pocket book lined in diagrams and the draft of a closing, unsent message. He additionally found the receipt for the left baggage workplace at Ghent station, the place the typewriter used to provide the letters was later discovered, and a set of keys, together with one which was recognized as belonging to the rood loft within the cathedral.
There was little doubt that Goedertier was the thief. However why had he carried out it? The apparent rationalization was cash. Six years earlier, Goedertier had based an funding firm with some associates from church. This arrange and ran plantations within the Belgian Congo, capitalising on the large incentives being supplied to personal companies by the federal government. After the Wall Road Crash, nevertheless, it bumped into difficulties and, six days earlier than Goedertier’s loss of life, it had been declared bankrupt. It was not inconceivable that the theft was related. Had Goedertier stolen the panel to cowl the corporate’s money owed?
It hardly appeared seemingly. Regardless of the chapter Goedertier was not in need of money. After the First World Struggle he had opened a brokerage home along with his spouse and it had made him a millionaire. His dwelling was luxuriously embellished, he employed a big employees of servants and drove an impressive automobile. He was additionally extraordinarily pious. He was even one of many founders of a Catholic co-operative. It was unlikely that he would have stooped so low as to blackmail his personal bishop for one thing as crude as cash, particularly when he had greater than sufficient already.
But when Goedertier didn’t do it for the money, then why did he? Was it simply the fun of the crime? Goedertier was an avid fan of true crime. He owned a big assortment of detective novels and liked following police investigations within the information. What was extra, he additionally had a style for artwork. He was an completed painter. He had studied on the Royal Academy of Artwork in Dendermonde and had a specific expertise for portraits. After a lifetime of respectability, did he merely lengthy for a bit of pleasure?
The hunt
Extra pressingly, what had Goedertier carried out with the panel? On his deathbed he informed De Vos that it was someplace nobody might contact it with out arousing public consideration. However the place? There was no signal of it in his home, nor in his security deposit field on the Crédit Anversois. It needed to be elsewhere.
The search proved disastrous. The police made solely essentially the most cursory enquiries. Though De Vos was fast to report Goedertier’s confession, he was not correctly interviewed till a lot later. To make issues worse, the general public prosecutor determined to maintain Goedertier’s involvement underneath wraps. Not till six months later was the press knowledgeable and a reward supplied for any data. This, admittedly, turned up a couple of small particulars. However by then recollections had already begun to fade and the case as soon as once more fizzled out.
There the thriller lay – till, that’s, the Second World Struggle. After the invasion of Poland, the Nazi authorities started looting occupied territories for his or her artworks. It was feared that if – or slightly, when – Germany attacked Belgium and France, the same destiny would await the Ghent Altarpiece. In early Might 1940 the Belgian authorities subsequently determined to ship it to the Vatican for safekeeping. Whereas it was en route, nevertheless, Italy declared struggle on France. It was then redirected to Pau, within the Pyrenees, the place it was positioned underneath the safety of the Vichy authorities. The Nazis have been to not be denied, nevertheless. In 1942 they seized the portray and shipped it off to Schloss Neuschwanstein in Bavaria, the place it remained till heavy bombing compelled them to maneuver it to the Altaussee salt mines for the remainder of the struggle.
The lacking panel irked them, although. At about the identical time because the altarpiece was taken to Germany, Joseph Goebbels despatched Oberleutnant Heinrich Köhn to Ghent to trace it down. A crafty, relentless man, Köhn was a born detective. After interviewing De Vos, Goedertier’s widow and anybody else who had recognized the disgraced stockbroker, he concluded that the panel should have been hidden someplace within the cathedral itself. He was so assured, the truth is, that on 20 Might 1942 he knowledgeable the bishop of his intention to look the constructing. But Köhn by no means discovered something.
Responsible bishops?
What went flawed? Based on Karel Morties – a former chief of police who has spent longer investigating the case than virtually anybody else – Köhn was proper in regards to the panel’s location, however made a deadly mistake in revealing his plans to the bishop. As quickly because the bishop heard in regards to the search, he allegedly despatched phrase to Canon Gabriel Van Den Gheyn, the custodian of the cathedral treasures. Unbeknown to Köhn, Van Den Gheyn had discovered in regards to the theft, and the placement of the panel, from Goedertier in confession years earlier than. Earlier than the Germans might discover it, subsequently, he spirited it out of the cathedral in the dark and hid it in a close-by dwelling.
However this hardly appears credible. If Van Den Gheyn had certainly heard in regards to the panel in confession he couldn’t have informed anybody – together with the bishop – with out violating canon regulation. This leaves us with an not possible scenario. If he didn’t inform the bishop something, how did the bishop know to warn him in regards to the search? But when he did share Goedertier’s secret, why did the 2 males not transfer the panel earlier?
Extra seemingly, Goedertier left the panel within the care of an confederate. In his letters, he had talked about unnamed ‘associates’, and it might have been just about not possible for him to have eliminated the panel on his personal. Maybe one in every of them stored the panel? Throughout the authentic investigation police had checked out two figures, Achiel De Swaef and Oscar Lievens, with out discovering any proof. It isn’t not possible that there have been others.
Ninety years after the theft, Ghent police continues to maintain the case open. And there’s nonetheless some hope. In 2014 the historian Paul De Ridder even claimed to have traced the lacking panel to the home of a well known native household. For now, nevertheless, the thriller stays as perplexing – and as tantalising – as ever.
Alexander Lee is a fellow within the Centre for the Research of the Renaissance on the College of Warwick. His newest guide, Machiavelli: His Life and Occasions, is now obtainable in paperback.