“Er zijn geen Belgen, Sire. België is een politieke Staat, vrucht van de diplomatie. Het werd kunstmatig samengesteld, het heeft géén nationaliteit. Welk een tegenstelling tussen Vlaanderen en Wallonië! De aardbodem is verschillend, de mensen die deze streken bewonen zijn anders en hun zielen zijn zo verschillend als hun landschappen.”

“There are no Belgians, sire. Belgium is a political State, the fruit of diplomacy. It was created artificially, it has no nationality. What a contrast between Flanders and Wallonia! The ground is different, the people who inhabit these regions are different, and their souls are as different as their landscapes.”

Jules Destrée in his letter to the King on the separation of Wallonia and Flanders, 15 August 1912. (1)

When we looked at the history of the Belgian canary societies in Part 1, they all conducted their affairs in Dutch and referred to the birds simply as postuurvogels (posture birds) (2).  It is very likely that there were also canary societies in French speaking Wallonia, but Gust and I have found no trace of them.  It could be argued that the original Belgian canary should therefore be called the Vlaamse kanarie (Flemish canary), but as we shall see, both cultures can claim a key role in creating the breed now known as the Belgische Bult in Dutch and the Bossu Belge in French.  Both names mean Belgian Hunchback.  Surprisingly, the use of Bossu predates Bult, which suggests that the breed had many supporters in Wallonia  and that the Flemish breeders just followed their lead (3).  We can only hope that a written record of their activities awaits discovery.

The golden age of the postuurvogel spanned from the 1850s to the 1880s, but the breed fell into decline towards the end of the 19th century.  Claude St John quoted James F. Dewar of Edinburgh in 1911 (4):

“Ghent and Antwerp are now the only towns where Belgians are bred, and exhibitions held.  Up to a few years ago there were three societies in Ghent, but at the present moment there is but one, and even that, though it boasts an origin as early as 1804, is but a shadow of its former strong self.  This is De Endracht, or the Union.  De Arend, the Eagle, dates from 1846, and still holds its annual show during the Fêtes of Antwerp subsidised by the town to the value of 100 francs.  In quality the birds are inferior to those of even fifteen to twenty years ago, being much decreased in size, whilst the square massive shoulder of years ago is hardly ever seen.”

There are a number of factors that contributed to its fall from grace in its homeland and, inevitably, the British were involved.

There can be little doubt that the export trade had an undesirable impact on the breed at home.  In 1889 C.L.W. Noorduyn lamented that: “The great prices, which at that time were mainly spent by English breeders for our purebred birds, gradually resulted in the export of everything that was somewhat pure.”. He added “with regard to the question of which birds should be considered purebred and which should not, I received the most contradictory reports from various traders and enthusiasts in Antwerp, Brussels and other places.” (5)

Noorduyn urged breeders to maintain the classical triangular shape, which he featured in one of the coloured plates in his book “De Kanarie in zijne Verschillende Rassen” (The Canary in its Various Breeds): 

Alas it is evident that many breeders had already succumbed to the temptation of producing birds for the lucrative British market. Noorduyn called this style of bird “the so-called ‘death-prayer’ [doodbidder], which sits on its perch with its head hanging down, as if it were too heavy for it to hold up”.  It was disturbingly close to the British notion of what a Belgian canary should like:

The decline in the popularity of the Belgian canary was inevitably matched by a decline in the canary societies.  We see attempts by show organisers to broaden the appeal of their shows by catering for more varieties: in addition to the postuurvogels, classes were provided for Saksische song canaries, toupets (crests) and a mysterious variety known as geëmailleerde (enamelled) canaries.  It is evident that the postuurvogels played a minor role at these events.

The First World War and the invasion of Belgium by German forces in 1914 devastated the remaining stocks of Belgian canaries.  No clubs catering for postuurvogels survived and the breed was on the verge of extinction.  In 1923 C.A House noted sadly:

“Then came the War and that killed the canary fancy in Belgium.  Each time I have visited Belgium since the War I have asked for Belgian canaries, and the men who bred them, but none of any real value have I found. The breed however is not quite dead.  I have seen a few but they cannot compare with the birds of old.” (6)

Fortunately a small group of Belgian fanciers were determined to save their national breed.  A succinct account of their struggles, setbacks and ultimate triumph was written by Thomas Müller and Uwe Feiter in an article first published in Der Vogelfreund in 2013 (7).  It is reproduced here, by kind permission, in English translation:

“Around 1920, only a few Bossus at the breeder Meewens Robbens in Antwerp (Belgium) are said to have survived. However, due to the greatly reduced vitality and fertility of the breed, they could have completely disappeared very quickly. In 1924 the names of the Belgian breeders Cambeau and [A.J.] Dawans appeared, who, concerned with the prospect that the Bossu had become extinct, committed themselves to the reconstruction and rescue of this breed. In particular, they used the Malinois (Mechelaar), South Holland and Yorkshire (old type) breeds as foundation stock for their reconstruction efforts, as Belgians had been crossed into these breeds in the past. By a happy coincidence, Dawans made the acquaintance of a breeder named Lapaille in 1937 who, to his astonishment, still owned a few pure offspring from the breeder Robben’s Bossu line, the quality of which unfortunately left a lot to be desired. 

First, these birds were paired together with the most promising specimens from Dawan’s crossing results. Excessive breeding selection and the associated decline in vitality and fertility ultimately led again in the thirties of the last century to the fact that the existence of the breed, which had been reconstructed up to that point, seemed to be endangered again. At the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, Dawans only had 10 breeding pairs, then lost all of the remaining specimens in the course of the Ardennes offensive in the winter of 1944. Lapaille died before this new catastrophe for the Bossu breed in 1941.

Despite the further setback, Dawans set about again in 1952 to reconstruct the Bossu from affordable remnants of posture canaries from Belgian breeders. Thanks to his experience and knowledge from the many generations of the pre-war years, he was able to produce the first birds with easily recognisable breed characteristics very quickly this time. Then in 1962 the next disaster occurred. Due to an illness in his stock he lost 160 to 180 birds that year and his breeding was severely decimated. Dawan’s work had almost been destroyed again and he certainly would not have gone back to work alone. From the few surviving birds, Joseph Watrin then took over five cocks and three hens. Furthermore, two cocks of the old Yorkshire type from the breeder Clermont were added, which ultimately helped to improve the size and thus brought the desired success. Since then, more and more breeders have devoted themselves to the Bossu every year and the breed is currently experiencing an enormous upswing, both nationally and internationally.”

It was an impressive achievement.  We get a sense of the excitement that the revival generated in Belgium from a first hand account of a visit to Mr. Dawans by L.J. Tielens in 1958:

“In our correspondence, we found a letter addressed to a breeder in Liège, Mr. Adrien J. Dawans.

This gentleman informed us that he had recently succeeded in breeding an old Belgian breed, extinct since 1930: the Bossu Belge canary.

We were initially somewhat skeptical, but after receiving a reply to our letter, we were convinced that it would be very interesting to visit Mr. Dawans because we had found a photo of one of the “Hunchbacks” in his last letter.

The following Sunday, we were on our way to Liège,  equipped with our camera and notebook. “We were very kindly received by Mr. Dawans, and he immediately led us into his garden, where he had built a spacious little house for his canaries.

From the moment we entered, we noticed that Mr. Dawans had not exaggerated. Two large aviaries contained only “Bossus Belge”. At first glance, more like Yorkshire or Malinois, but after their owner touched the wire mesh, the “Bossus Belge” would get into position. Their bodies stretched out in a straight line with their tails, their stiff necks forming a right angle, their necks lengthening, raising their square shoulders, and their little heads looking down to see what was happening.  We noticed some very fine specimens, but also others that were not in good shape, with too much frizzle, a little too small, with heads that were too large, etc.” (8)

You can see from the photos that accompanied his article why Mr Tielens concluded “Mr. Dawans really is on the right track”.  

You will also note from their names that Messrs Dawans, Lapaille et al are all Walloon.  Jules Destrée had underestimated his fellow Belgians and their pride in their nation.

Acknowledgements:

My thanks to:

• Gust Truyens for bringing Jules Destrée’s letter to my attention.  
• Michael Monthofer for contacting Thomas Müller on my behalf and obtaining his consent to “take what you want” from his article on the Belgian canary in Der Vogelfreund.  A very generous offer.
• and finally to Danielle Sugliani for drawing my attention to the article by L.J. Tielens.

Footnotes:

1. Destrée’s reference to “the fruits of diplomacy” was echoed in Charles de Gaulle’s famous remark “Belgium is a country invented by the British to annoy the French.”
2. The name ‘Belgian canary’ wasn’t used in Belgium; it was a name bestowed on the breed by British fanciers in the 1850s.
3. C.L.W. Noorduyn, De Kanarie in zijne Verschillende Rassen (1899).  It is interesting that he used the French word Bossu rather than the Dutch Bult, which suggests that the ‘hunchback’ nickname had originated in Wallonia.  Gust has traced the first use of bult to an advertisement in Het Handelsblad on 21 December 1907, although the actual phrase used was ‘Belgische postuurvogels (bulten)’ which translates as ‘Belgian posture birds (humped)’. 
4. Claude St John, ‘Our Canaries’, published by ‘Cage Birds’, London, 1911 (p227 & 228).  I will return to James Dewar in the final part of this series.
5. C.L.W. Noorduyn, De Kanarie in zijn verschillende rassen (p31),1899.
6. C.A. House, ‘Canaries’, first edition 1923 (p.134).
7. Thomas Müller & Uwe Feiter,  “Rassebeschreibungen der in Deutschland anerkannten Positurkanarienrassen, Teil 17: Der Bossu Belge … Nationalvogel unserer belgischen Nachbarn” (Breed descriptions of the type canary breeds recognised in Germany, Part 17: The Bossu Belge … national bird of our Belgian neighbours), Der Vogelfreund 1/2013.  I have only published an extract concerning the revival of the breed here.  Messrs. Müller & Feiter are also authors of an excellent compendium on posture canaries ‘Faszination Positurkanarien: eine landschaft für’s Leben’ (Fascinating posture canaries: a landscape for life) which Michael Monthofer kindly sent me.
8. L. J. Tielens, “Avons nous a Nouveau Notre Bossu Belge“, Ornithophilie, Vol 1A, N2, 1958 (p7).