Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics, and the Origins of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris 0520221761, 9780520221765

Citation preview

arse

TT ARR IT

Inventing the Louvre Containing the finest collection of Old Master paintings and antique sculpture ever assembled under one roof, the Louvre, founded in the final years of the Enlightenment, became the model for all state art museums subsequently established. This book chronicles the formation of this great seum, from its origins in the French royal picture collections to its apotheosis during the Revolution and Napoleonic Empire. More than a narrative history, Andrew McClellan’s account explores the ideological underpinnings,

pedagogic

aims,

and

aesthetic criteria

of the Louvre,

as well as its

contemporary, the Museum of French Monuments, which in complemen tary ways laid the foundation for the modern museum age. Here, the central and abiding questions of museum practice — arrangement of art works, restoration and conservation, public education, and service to the lighting, state — were first defined and given visual expression. Drawing on much new archival material, this book also casts new light on the art world of eighteenth-century Paris and its most colorful characters, from Roger de Piles and La Font de Saint-Yenne to Jacques-Louis David and Alexandre Lenoir.

Inventing the Louvre Politics, and the Origins

of the Modern

Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris

Andrew McClellan Tufts University

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY

PRESS

te

Art,

For my parents and for Connie

s of the

France—His'

r this book

modern

museum

in

—1 8th century

is available from the British Library

hardback

é

2

5

¥

&

|

5 &&

CONTENTS List of Illustrations Acknowledgments

Introduction

The Luxembourg Gallery, 1750-79 D’Angiviller’s Louvre Project The Revolutionary Louyre The Musée Central des Arts Alexandre Lenoir and the Museum of French Monuments

Conclusion Appen Arrangement of Paintings in the Luxembourg Gallery, 175

Appendix II D’Angiviller’s Grands Hommes of France, by Salon

Appendix III Partial Reconstruction of the Hanging Scheme at the Musée Central des Arts in 1797-8

Abbreviations Used in Notes Notes

Bibliography Photographic Credits Index

page ix xiii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATION

Anonymous, Electoral Gallery, Mannheim. Frans

van

Stampart

and

Anton

Joseph

v

renner,

Prodomus. View of the Imperial Galleries. Galerie Electorale de Dusseldorf. Nicolas de Pigage, La The Rubens Room. Chrétien de Mechel, Catalogue des tableaux de la Galerie Impériale et Royale de Vienne. Plan of the Imperial Gallery Etienne-Louis Boullée, Imaginary Museum and Temple of Fame. Hubert Robert, The Grand Gallery of the Louvre between 1794 and 1796.

Honoré

mier, “The Egyptians weren't good looking!”

Jean-Francois Blondel, Architecture francoise. Plan of the

Luxembourg Palace. 8. Plan of the Luxembourg . Detail of Figure Rubens Gallery, Musée du Louvre, Paris. . Charles Lebrun, Tent of Darius. . Paolo Veronese, Pilgrims of Emmaus. . Andrea del Sarto, Chari 3. Raphael, Saint Michael. . Roger de Piles, Balance of Painters.

Gallery

. Crozat Collection. Arrangement of paintings in the second room on the rez-de-chaussée, 1755. . Annibale Antonini, Mémorial de Paris. Jharles-Antoine Coypel, ... des grands maitres de l’art contemplez les merveilles. . Luxembourg Gallery, arrangement of paintings on the west wall of the first gallery, 1750. 19. Jacques Bailly, Catalogue des tableaux... au Luxembourg. 20. Catalogue des objets contenus dans la galerie du Muséum Frangais. 21. Claude-Joseph Vernet, The Port of Bordeaux. 22. Joseph-Siffred Duplessis, Comte d’Angiviller 23. Louis-Nicolas von Blarenbergh, Choiseul Box.

List of Illustrations 4 V’eau-fortis des

principaux

tableaux

.. . dans le Musée

Napoléon. Reni’s Mendicanti Bay. Saint-Hubert, The Antique Sculpture Auguste-Cheval de Galleries, Louvre Museum, Plan. Arrangement of the Mars Hubert Robert, Project for the Rotunda, Louvre Museum. . Anonymous, Napoleon Bonaparte Showing the Apollo Belvedere to His Deputies. . Hubert

Robert, Desecration

of Royal Tombs

at

Saint-Denis

in 1793.

. Pierre-Joseph La Fontaine, Lenoir Defending the Tomb of Louis XI at Saint-Denis. . Jean-Baptiste Réville and Lavallée, Vues pittoresques et

perspectives des

salles du Musée des monuments francais.

Tomb of Francis I. . Alexandre Lenoir, Musée des Monumens

Frangais. Greek

monuments.

.

Angouléme. f the Peace. the Cross.

nt from

dans anciens trouvés . . Jean-Baptiste Réville and perspectives des salles du Entrance to the museum. . Jean-Baptiste Réville and

perspectives. Cloister.

:

nfiscation of Paintings at Parma by

Julius Griffiths and Maria

Napoléon. Madonna di Foligno B i

Cosway

56. Julius Griffiths and Maria Cosway,

Collection di

Lavallée, Vues pittoresques et

Jean-Pierre Brés, Souvenirs du Musée monumens francais. Salle d’Introduction. . Jean-Baptiste Réville and Lavallée, Vues pittoresques

8. J.-E. Biet and

f Arts and Science. Louvre Museum. amids, Constantin Bourgeois, The Drawings Exhibition of Year V.

Annibale Carracci, Paris. 49. Nicolas Poussin, Study for the Holy Family of the Steps. 50. Raphael, Madonna di Foligno. 51. Raphael, The Transfiguration. 52. Raphael, The Coronation of the Virg 53- Hubert Robert, Grand Gallery of the Louvre after 1801. LE Griffiths and Maria Cosway, Collection d a eau-fortis des principaux tableaux ... dans le sée Napoléon. Transfiguration Bay. 55-5 ; STL. Maria Cosway 4 l’eau-fortis des principaux tal . dans le Musée

l’église Cathédrale de Paris. Lavallée, Vues pittoresques et Musée des monuments francais.

. Jean-Baptiste Réville and Lavallée, Vues pittoresques et perspectives, Plan of the museum.

| Berthault, Triumphal Entry of the

7.

Charles-César Baudelot de Dairval, Description des bas-reliefs

' '

t

. F

.

9

.

:

.

5 74.

é

§

775.

perspectives, Salle d’Introduction. Jean-Baptiste Réville and Lavallée, Vues pittoresques perspectives. Thirteenth-Century Room. Jean-Baptiste Réville and Lavallée, Vues pittoresques perspectives. Fourteenth-Century Room. Jean-Baptiste Réville and Lavallée, Vues pittoresques et perspectives. Fifteenth-Century Room. Jean-Baptiste and Lavallée, Vues pittoresques et perspectives. Sixteenth-Century Ro: Jean-Baptiste and Lavallée, Vues pittoresques et perspectives. Seventeenth-Century Room apti : ke Vues pittoresques i i Jean-Baptiste and Lavallée, et perspectives.

cea

ae

Seventeenth-Century Room

s List of Illustration 6

Jean-Baptiste

Rev

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For their help in various ways over the many years it has taken me to write this book, I would like to thank Colin Bailey, Frank Brady, Anita Brookner, Philippa Dickin, Francis Dowley, Peter Funnell, Sura Levine, Yvonne Luke,

Ourida Alex

Mostefai, Jane Van Nimmen,

Potts,

Dominique

Poulot,

Marcia

Maxime

Pointon, Edouard

Préaud,

Daniel

Pommier,

Sherman,

Paul

Smith, Genevieve Warwick, and Richard Wrigley. I am especially grateful to Michael Fried, who read early drafts of the first chapters and made many valuable suggestions; and to Katie Scott, whose friendship and advice as a fellow dix-huitiémiste has been important to me. My thanks also to my colleagues at Tufts University and to the History of Art Department of The Johns Hopkins University, and especially Elizabeth arles Dempsey, and Herbert Kessler, in whose company I spent Cropper, a pleasant and productive year as a J. Paul Getty Fellow in 1988-9. I am grateful for the financial support of the British and French governments and the J. Paul Getty Foundation. My thanks to Jeongmin Chu and Pam Kruhelp with the bibliography and photographs. Portions of panski for their Chapter 3 originally appeared in the Art Bulletin and are reprinted by permission of the College Art Association, Inc.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents and my wife, Connie, for their constant encouragement and support. Medford, Massachusetts

September 1993

INTRODUCTION om LIA 9

nd

ay

se

-ohs

In the final decades of the ancien régime a succession of ministers under two kings dreamed of creating a public art museum in Paris that would be the envy of Europe. Those dreams were realized when the Louvre opened in 1793 at the height of the French Revolution. This book recounts the key

moments in the movement to create that most celebrated of museums. Chapters 1 and 2 consider two forerunners of the Revolutionary Louvre, the exhibition of royal paintings at the Luxembourg Gallery between 1750 and 1779 and the unrealized museum project of Comte d’Angiviller under Louis XVI. Chapters 3 and 4 concern the formation of the Louvre museum from 1793 to its apotheosis a decade later as the Musée Napoléon. A final chapter on Alexandre Lenoir’s Museum of French Monuments represents a case apart, but an essential one. A museum born of the Revolution and containing only French sculpture, Lenoir’s museum offers a valuable museological foil to the Louvre, in addition to being a fascinating institution in its own right. No account of the dawn of the museum age in France would be complete without it. At a time of heightened interest in the history and ideological underpings of museums and exhibitions, an account of these two famous institutions needs no justification. But what lends the French case particular interest and importance is that it was in Paris in the latter half of the eighteenth century that the central and abiding issues of museum practice — the classification and display of objects, lighting, the aims of conservation — were first discussed and articulated. The fifty years covered in this book witness the emergence of criteria for the display of art in what was essentially a new

building type: the public museum of art. It is the process that resulted in the elaboration of modern museum discourse that interests me. Whereas that discourse might seem to be aesthetic in nature, limited to questions of how

Introduction

:

ilso

deeply

Introduction

politi

(damask

in evidence), they were supplemented by an ar rangement of pictures aimed it Instructing

rr ectly equent

it

focused

pe

of the

on

the

modern

in

character from the ul for the Museum aga mained popular until it , Restoration in 1816, it was essenin the museum’s formation and purnderstood as a product of Revolutiontrol memory of the past and of the | structure and ideology, the Musée cus of the first sustained critique of ‘ ransform and alienate works of art not originally ill be considered at the end of Chapter 5 and in

artists and

would-be amateurs

in the art of painting. Working

in conjunction with mainstream art theory, partic ularly the writings of Roger de Piles, the Luxembourg encouraged a co mparative mode of viewing

I en as the h nitiatives ipoléon’s glori Joubt a history vat

wall hangings, gilt tables and frames, and porcelain vases were all

f

that revealed the strengths and weaknesses of chosen artists and the schools to which they belonged through calculate juxtaposition of different paint ings. Highly formal in character, this way of seeing was indifferent to chronological sequence, to the “history of art” as we understand it today. It concentrated on the pictorial qualities - what we would now call the “style” — of individual paintings rather than the place of those works within a larger diachronic structure.

In the latter half of the century both the comparative, “mixed-school” arrangement effected at the Luxembourg and the unsystematic, decorative mode of display prevalent in other princely galleries were superseded by a hanging system that seryed to demonstrate historical evolution within national schools.? Propelled b dvent of new taxonomies in the study

nclusi

for criteria of display in late-eighteenth-century Paris was The search redicated on the assumption that the purpose or “mission” of the museum , as it still is, to educate and conserve. Therein lies the “modernity” of he museums I discuss, and it is that which distinguishes them from other prominent art collections in Europe. All royal and princely collections in the eighteenth century manifested the wealth and taste of their owners; throughout Europe collecting became a major form of princely patronage. Modeled on the late Renaissance kunstkammer, early ei ghteenth-century cabinets (the term often used to describe rooms set aside for the presentation of valued objects) signified princely rule through an abundant and harmonious arrangement of paintings. At Mannheim (Fig. 1), for example, we find pictures densely and symmetr ally arranged around a central vertical axis like pieces of a puzzle. The effect is dazzling, indeed overwhelming; discriminating viewing of individual works

is out of the question.

Exhibitions

such as this closely resembled and were often contiguous with porcelain and Curlosity cabinets (Fig. 2), further Sugges ting that the visual effect of the whole counted for more than scrutiny of its com ponent parts. But in France at the Luxembourg Gallery from 1750 a new set of priorities came into play. Though the Protocols of magnificent display were hardly ignored

Figure 1. Anonymous, Electoral Gallery, Mannheim. Drawing, 1731, Bibliotheque d’artet

darchéologie, Université de Paris.

Introduction

of natural Linnaeus

\

} s / s u n e g l a i m o n i b ily the roricism, the

history

and

Butt

classifications

eerie

art

European

in lea¢ ling

norm

the

.

sf OF f past

ordering

con

and

{ealer

yllection

not

ibinet

baroque f display, so

Figure2. Frans van Stampart and Anton Joseph von Pren Prodomus. Vienna, 1735. View of the Imperial Galleries.

modern

early

museums was dealers

irt it late

Introduction

of

century

eighteenth

collections.

ind princely

Bachaumont, Chrétien nckelmann, and others formed an ishered in the new taxonomy and set suld ignore.

idherence £ the

much in 1778

collection,

The

mark

of the

to that standard. to borrow

progres

The “taxo-

James

Clifford’s

as the collection itself.4 “It wasn’t enough,” of the Elector

Palatine, Karl

Theodor,

nt picture gallery at Mannheim and to build a second f the most beautiful antique statues alongside the newly He wanted at the same time to give a new luster to the Dusselorganizing the collection in a more favorable manner.

new order at Dusseldorf (Fig. 3) involved segregating the different 100ls and then within a given school hanging works by a celebrated artist together. So, for example, the paintings of Rubens were hung side by side to give the viewer a sense of his oeuvre, his manner and range as a painter; and an effort was made to define the Flemish and Italian schools by displaying them in separate galleries. This ubiquitous and largely contemporaneous shift in the organization of European collections defined the art museum as a site of public instruction in the history of art, which was constructed as the succession of great masters and their pupils within national schools. At Vienna in the early 1780s Chrétien de Mechel transformed the ornate baroque gallery (Fig. 2) into what was arguably the first art historical survey museum (Fig. 4). He described the new museum as ‘ showroom for the visual demonstration of t history of ar A decade later Lenoir aimed to do much the same for French sculpture in | us own stri ctly chrono logical exhibition. The second half of the century also witnessed a grac dual loosening of the The

Figure 3. Nicolas de Pigage, La

Galerie Electorale de Dusseldorf Basel, 1 The Rubens Room

Introduction

seepere ae

ee x

be had

ne

The increased public accessib ility and didactic emphasis of princely ant ollections throughout Eu rope in the second half of the century is a clear mark of the spread of Enlightenment culture, We might add to what Piga ge uid of the Elector Palatine that it was not e noug h to own a Magnificent and !l-ordered collection, one ha d further to open that colle ction to the pub. lic.? In France, moreover, the royal collection came to be seen as national property, part of the nation’s cultural Patrimony that had to be preserved for posterity. The French case thus antici pated modern national museums in which the rhetoric of collective ownershi p and the fostering of national

te

pride remain crucial, The Crown became the guardi an of transcendant cul-

tural

edn f

government.

lerie Impériale

(

ric-like S connoisseurs increasingly expected to be able lew paintings at an appropriate distance, up close in the case of cabinet ures and further away for larger canvases (Fig. 6). The connoisseurial re to apprehend the surface of a work and traces of the artist’s hand leightened interest in conservation and the lighting of picture galler ies, the of

much

discussion

during

the period.

Questions

of conservation

and lighting concerned the creation of optimum conditions in which t examine art objects and may be linked to the larger eighteenth-century que: for what Michel Foucault and Barbara Stafford have called “transparency” immediate and unmediated contact with the material world.7 Late-eigh-

teenth-century museums initiated the now comm onplace practice of isolating works of art, both from each other, through hanging and frames, and from

the social roles and physical contexts that they originally enjoyed, in the service of direct or transparent viewing. The desire for transparency entailed erasure of the life of a picture, its Purpose and critical fortunes, | etwe en leaving the artist’s studio and entering the museum, at the same time th at

newly developed restoration techniques sought to insulate it from the rayages of time. In order for

the viewer to better apprehend the artist’s Bemus, museums aspired to simul ate the conditions of the studio the object was created.8 Trans parency in the museum encourag, encourages) the illusory sensation of di rect contact with the act of the fiction of a canvas as fresh and as Pp resent as the day

sak,

it was painte

embodied

in works

of art that belonged

in the public sphere

and to the public as much as to the king. Against this ba ckground, the question of restoration and conservation assumed grea t political weight. Accepting responsibility on behalf of the nation, the Crown turn ed the maintenance of the royal collection to its advantage by forging an equa tion in the public eye between careful conservation of valued art tr easures and good

we eee

subjects

values

hand and in which (and still creation,

As we shall see, this equation grew in importance after its

invention at midcentury to the point where, during the Revo lution, the museum was used to counteract perceptions at home and abroad of social and political turmoil. In the late 1790s French commitment to conservation was stretched to justify the appropriation of art confiscated as the booty of war in conquered lands. Portraying itself as a politically and cultur ally superior nation, France claimed to be uniquely qualified to safeguard the world’s treasures for the benefit of mankin The political possibilities of the museum space expanded under Louis XVI as Comte d’Angiviller, superintendent of royal buildings and minister of art, set out to make the arts “an emanation of the throne.”!! Both in his patronage of living artists and acquisitions for the royal collection, d’Angiviller planned the Louvre as a showcase for French artistic ascendance and a platform for royalist politics.!2 The museum’s involvement in the political life of the nation was taken a step further during the Revolution, when, as I argue in Chapter 3, the Louvre museum became a sign of popular sovereignty and the triumph over despotism. The communal enjoyment of nationalized property in a palace that had once belonged to the ng contributed to what the Abbé Henri Grégoire, the priest turned revolutionary, called the “republican mold.” In a manner similar to popular Revo-

lutionary festivals, the museum shaped the Republican identity. In the late 1790s under the Directory and the Consulate, the integration of museum and state was pursued and manipulated to somewhat different ends. As a result of French territorial expansion after 1794, the Louvre swelled with confiscated art, and the museum became a monument to military might. Military emblems replaced the new national flag, the tricolore, as decora-

Introduction

and sculp

| paintings

in the velcon

province Aristocrats

he gallery privately on painted mainly for what idemy and first painter of ibl

1e

1770s and 1780s envisof refined art lovers served museum’s political potential and influabout the importance of public instruction, use the museum to address those segments of sociup “public opinion” on issues of private morality, votion to king and country.!6 Eager generally to Louis XVI’s enlightenment and magnanimity, d’Angiviller public a perfect museum, a “monument unique in Europe.” ambitions fueled the utopian museum designs of Etienne-Louis Boullée and his colleagues at the Royal Academy of Arc hitecture, which in their turn raised public expectations still further and put pressure on the

government

to deliver.!7

D’Angiviller’s

failure to complete

his

museum

before the outbreak of the French Revolution owed as much to a fear of falling short of those expectations as to the demise of the monarchy. Indeed, so important

was the perceived re ationship between museum Project and public that Jacques-Henri Meister, Baron Grim s successor at the Correspondence Littéraire, wondered if the Opening of the Lou might even have prevented the Revolution! “Who k nows if this museum, completed to perfection, might not have saved the monarchy, k by providing a more ing idea of its Power and vision, by calming fine 5 a » and by dr 8 anxiou anxious spirits. amatizing the benefits of the

Old Regime.”18

Introduction

gure 5. Etienne-Louis Boullée, Imaginary Museum and Tempofle Fame, Drawing, c Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris While the passage from royal collection to public museum occurred with out fanfare elsewhere in Europe, in France the opening of the Louyre in 1793 was sensational because it was tied to the birth of a new nation. The investiture of the Louvre with the power of a Revolutionary sign radically transformed the ideal museum public. To the extent that the Louvre embodied the Republican principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, all citizens were encouraged to participate in the experience of communal ownership, and clearly many did (Fig. 6). The introduction of regulations concerning behavior in and around the museum as well as safeguards against theft point to a socially diversified public in need of surveillance.!9 Foreign visitors were struck by the presence of “the lowest classes of the community.”

But enjoyment of the fruits of revolution required no aesthetic sophistication, any more than access in and of itself supplied the theoretical and historical grounding necessary to see the art and decipher its systematic presen-

tation. If people came away from the museum confirmed in their devotion to the state, only some could fathom

the art historical lessons inscribed on

the walls. Theoretically one, the museum public was divided by degrees of visual competence. The lack of cultural and art historical sophistication in certain viewers led to the type of faux pas that Honoré Daumier was later to make the subject of caricature (Fig. 7). In 1795, for example, in order to underline the act of appropriation, the museum used wall labels to indicate the provenance of works of art seized from émigrés. But, according to one

Introduction

Honoré

Egyptians

Daumier,

weren't good

Vod engraving,

ventions

Europe.

gogic strategies continued to privilege the bourgeois amateur. The debates of the 1790s about how to hang the Grand Gallery meant 1othing to and were not : intended fori the sans-culotte. There were no “popular arts” at the Lou: re, and even the types of painting that had proven popular with the person in the street at the regular art exhibitions in the Salon — genre scenes and

landscape — were condemned during the Terror. The success 5S of the Louvre yuvre a as outward symbol of Republican culture required the adoption of display splay concon

hierarchies

recognized

by connoisseurs

throughout

explain to to des gui n tte wri or nt me rt pa de ion cat edu no There was

Bonat tha e ar aw un tly den evi e wer war of ils spo sculptures acquired as the er one und er eth tog t ugh bro r eve art st ate gre parte’s booty represented the de ca Dé La l rna jou an ic bl pu Re the for roof. In May 1799, a writer d an Gr the to it vis ent rec a on n see had he philosophique described what ely fin and s er st Ma Old the g yin cop s ist art Gallery. In addition to young d re te un co en he , ngs nti pai the of se tho d ale riv dressed women whose beauties

people e lag vil d goo , ter sis his and , her mot his , her a young soldier escorting his fat never seen had y ntl are app o wh and y, it un mm co ir who had never before left the daub above the d re ve co eok sm the or inn al loc the of paintings other than the sign ssin and a Pou a n ee tw be e enc fer dif the tell er nev ld altar. These good people cou more proud to be the all , son the and re; the be to ud pro Watteau, but they were all these pictures. of ny ma d re ue nq co t tha I is “it ing say leading them, seemed to be

ical

” made by ess ogr “pr the at vel mar or art at k loo to the uninitiated how t impormos the ly uab arg of e pos pur the no, ugi Per r che Raphael over his tea ble to read una se tho , ess hel ert Nev . 54) g. (Fi um se mu tant installation in the ic wealth. ist art d un fo wne ir the old beh to d ite inv l stil the installations were ntings and pai the ire adm to 0s 179 late the in vre Many who came to the Lou

eae

ccount, some visitors completely missed the point: confused by the labels, they mistook busts of Plato and Alexander the Great for the Duc de Brissac and the Prince de Condé.2! The idea backfired because it had been assumed that anyone could tell the bust of an ancient Greek from one of a French aristocrat simply by the look of it. Insofar as the museum provided instruction in the history of art, its peda

and

value

Introduction

other reason one

¢

ould have

yi us sinIr n e betwaePo

for visiting

an i

at 1 teau

The museum

spectacle impressed

In and the framed canvases s rk wo the difference I : on them up were st ti ar one yf ng ti in pa the museum the in th wi c an the Gr humble compahis d ate ar sep at Wh r. the ano of ind see the to y it il ab in ir the y g, in ew vi f of s theirthei mode triots yt as prized trophi museum's ¢ ontents ed shoulders with artists and bb ru d rl wo ant ference

Eleg

simp 6th

“frame”

be there, others hoping to learn, and years. Not least of the hanged in 20 seum is this diverse yet fractured public. at museums with national and civic rooled in the mysteries of art and the museum bequeathed to us by the RevoThe yn the paradoxical principle of an institution »p populist but infused by the exclusive tastes of an Old Whose museum? Whose art? Of all f art fit for kings. he museum today, none are more pressing. arly history of French museums demonstrates is the icted nature of the art museum and its public. There is or necessary about the way museums are organized or natural within them. Nor are museums neutral spaces: they of art displayed their

contents as certainly as a picture

frame circumscribes

a can-

vas. I hope the striking parallels between museum practices in the early modern era and now will help readers better understand how museums

think and work today. But at heart this book is an eighteenth-century history in which I try to capture the excitement (and intrigue) generated by the movement to create a new kind of public institution, an institution at once

e in design and rich in political possibilities.

THE LUXEMBOURG GALLERY, Wil Fei) TESS

Bae

em an h t in w a s r o h t u a e inking,{ th h t E ly al tu ac ) s wa s wa y ily l m fa for d o o Paris g to is th them draw to l Whatever r i Be initially f thethe museum scl of ns¢ on the f power se a m e illustratiof h t in l il hen t¢ inst t d an s, ve li r ei th m the only e h t y n e the first tim¢ in d to d a h xe power at th on st si to r f di e th te pride. Yet in orde ia ec pr ap to : um t s the mu

True understanding of painting consists in knowing if a picture is good or bad; in being able to distinguish what is well done from what is not in the same work and to justify one’s conclusions. Roger de Piles,

Conversations sur la connoissance de la peinture, 1677

Contemplate the marvels of the Old Masters; Take care to profit from their wise counsel; May you respect their diverse talents But avoid their faults when seeking out their charms. Antoine Coypel, Epitre 4 mon fils, 1721

Luxemthe in ned ope nce Fra in y ler gal art lic pub t firs the 0 175 In October wings t wes and east the n wee bet d ide div was n tio ibi exh The bourg Palace. -nine ety nin of ion ect sel ial init an g, win east the In 8). . (Fig of the palace

y pla dis on put was n tio lec col al roy the m fro gs win dra paintings and twenty s of the Queen ent rtm apa the as ely tiv lec col wn kno ms roo ing oin adj r fou in ngs of the three nti pai ned tai con ies ler gal two t firs The 8a). . (Fig in of Spa rn (i.e., Flemish the Nor the and , nch Fre the n, lia Ita the s, ool sch principal only French painted tur fea m, Roo one Thr the led cal d, thir the ; ch) Dut and masters of ian Ital the to ily mar pri d ote dev was m roo rth fou the ings; and and drawes tur pic the t hou oug Thr . ies tur cen th een ent sev and the sixteenth er glass) and und also e wer gs win dra (the mes fra gilt h wit d rne ings were ado exhibion Sal the of ion tat imi in h, clot en gre of d oun hung against a backgr tables and ble mar of m for the in e cam n tio ora dec r the Fur tion after 746. ing a royal itt bef ce len opu of air an ng ati cre te, aga and vases of porphyry view lic pub to e ibl ess acc y all equ , ace pal the of g win t spectacle.! In the wes

The Luxembourg

The Luxembourg Gallery, 1750-79

Gallery

meen

[

eee

a =

rony

3-

ri a

Figure 9. Rubens Gallery, Musée du Louvre, Paris.

Paris,

1752-6.

Plan of the

nbourg Gallery

was the great Rubens cy celebrating the life of for whom the palace had been buil t (Fig . 9). Both wings pen to the public on Wednesdays and Saturday for three hours at a tretck in winter during the morning and in summ er during the afternoon. Th remained accessible at these times until the gallery closed in 177 9. Only the finishing touches remained to be adde d to the gallery in January 17 5° when the project w as submitted to King Louis XV for his form al approval, the bon du roi: The King’s paintings are so uncomfortably housed in Picture cabinets at Versailles that they must be stacked one on top of another, thw ‘arting the curiosity of foreign ers and others who desire to see them. Until such time that His Maje sty wishes to build a place where t shown to advantage, it is Prop might be osed to exhibit them in Pari s in the apartment of the Queen of Spain at the Luxemb ourg, There are four large rooms whe. © they coul, d be arra nged without greater expense than the cost of ab out a hundred lengths on which they will hang. of green cloth to cover the walls They will be shown to the public on two days a w And as they will be on dis play attention will be gi ven to those in need of restora-

“

tion.

i ions Ss w ‘a Appr p: ate restorat pproopri

oa f | the I : ca ersr an aris

place; and rem ain in ee will remai s l i w aille les Ver: I sail at nts ai A tme ts the par men r o f art ded oO the a t Z itende of f foreignhi curiosity the satisfy to er ord in ted ora dec | tly ien ff fic binets will b be suf = on view in be pi pictures so tha that t th there will Iles,, H so S r e to Vv Versailles others wh o com Versailles.* and at

der b e carried1 d out t under

th supe the P rvision of the First

ec ing g sls no athe erea vea t rev thape i retion As eee m ie on si us sc di d le oi br em ly cal iti pol d an y complicated 7" he i “ H ie . ‘ : expen! an ed ail ent 5 d an r lie ear y rs yea ee thr n tio mo t nin a jecu Sata i ib al ld se Ui a a n ee gr me so exceeding the cost of aaa, mmey es s se at be eo ; y t s cer th wi firs We f cannot say who nty tai cer say with et e e n o e tim the at r to ta en mm co i tans pictures (one os ‘aa fr le that everyone imagined they had thoug oe mes e : e e a inr ide ca al gin ori the ae t tha n , ow kn beints in the direction of Lou thahalt t = l opev leidenletce it po s severa tanaltiape eee oe b we shall see2, the doc cument iiss a4 model o: f

circumsta

mont,

a

:

=

Hee the influential amateur and pioneer oi

seme

pameneee Eo ot ee on sp re or the In n ann al artistic treasures. ae = ae r S e tk h aa (in roi du s , or Batiment syal Buildingsgs, R oya ! 8 e e te ing dat al . os op pr s ou the > OlO d Regime), is an anonym

eee, e pe e e p ’s nt mo au ch Ba g on am aren is filed : e ot e e e es eri uil ies e h t i in : S or: ‘s’ % Gallery decora aete the Am:bassad P' y Wh .4 lic pub the to it en op to d an g’s pictures the king’s So kin en

languish unse to th em f ln o ow d a of d tea B ins h authhor argu , the es, to good ao) useuse, ‘gues could id b be furt‘hher y er ll ga T he ? its : vis its vis e on ces an and s torerooms that no in in p alaces

The Luxembourg Gallery, of marb:le es ur pt ul sc d an n ai el rc po rting, hung in crims | ll wa d an s, er c li li de de an ch al st cryys

elegant ta embellished wi astorchéres and lt gi , e z n o and br

f incely galleries of son n dadamamasksk. . n was clearly André Félio i t a r i p s n i t n a t r o p m i and Italy, but a more specific sur les Entretiens famous his from alace s description of the Tuilerie bien’s which I to , 85) 66(16 es ntr Pei lens € lus Vieset sur les Ouvrages aes of the Luxems sign ny ma of t firs the 1s st pa the will return. This link with Bachaumont d di y wh t Bu s. ng ni in rp de un cal bourg’s historical and theo And what moti- : ? did he n whe sort put forward a ga lery proposal of any vated the government to respond so favorably and so quickly to the idea? ral way e n e g a in ls al « re l a s o p o ThTI is pr

To ans

these

must consider

questions we

the

the politics of the art world at

and the ambitions of its leading figures h the appointment of Charles-Frangois Lenormand of director general of the Batiments du roi in Luxembourg was to form an important part of ram of reforms aimed at revitalizing the Royal s ambitiou

f Painting and Sculpture and restoring government control over ed his appointment to the sudden rise to power rman

ee-year-old niece, Jeanne-Antoinette Lenormand

vho

in June

r recognized

1745

was

made

Marquise

d’Etoilles

de Pompadour

and

officially as mistress to Louis XV.’ Pompadour

r general of buildings, Philibert Orry, dismissed and moted in his place. At the start of 1746 it was announced that rother, Abel-Frangois Poisson, later Marquis de Vandiére and Marigny, would inherit the office upon Lenormand’s death. Thus e the dynastic fortunes of the Lenormand clan pinned to the fate of the

arts in France.

The department of buildings had been treated largely as a sinecure, and the arts ignored, by Lenormand’s predecessors, Orry (director general, 1736-46)

and the Duc d’Antin

(709-36).

As Thomas

Crow

has argued,

the origins of the Lenormand family in the parvenu world of finance (Lenormand was himself a fermier général, or tax farmer, and a director of the Indies company) determined the direction of arts policy during the Lenormand-Marigny years.6 The family’s success in office andin overco ming the taint of finance and what many of the nobilit of swor d and robe regarded as humble birth depended on the revival of state-sponsored art and in particular the promotion and appropriation of serious history painting in the | grand manner. t HisHi tory painting was the highest, most respectable es ae in the academic hierarchy, the raison d’é of tre of the Royal yal Acad Aca emy y its heyday under Jean-Baptiste Colbert and Charles Lebrun during the reign ign of o|

Louis XIV, but one that had bee een prpr ogogreresssively abban don edne an do s ce the turn of the century.” b Negl Blec “natura ec ted by its constituency — the 5 monarchy and nobility — by midc entury history Painting had be come, in the

words of Crow, “a free-floating symbol of all that was elevated and morally

commanding.”®

Through

renewed state intervention and, to quote Crow

once more, th

slit

of “the Academy’s capacity to generate publicly

,riented narrative pictures” Lenormand aimed to appropriate history painting for the Crown and his family.?

Over and above the appeal of art as a vehicle of upward social mobility, Lenormand must have recognized in the Batiments post an opportunity to make his mark as a civil servant by effecting improvements in an area of zovernment perceived as in need of reform. For evidence that reforms were needed one had to look no further than the dismal results of the recent Prix

contest annual the 1664, in Colbert by hed Establis tions. competi Rome de involving a set historical subject gave the winners three years (often longer) of study at the French Academy in Rome and represented the climax of the

icademic process. Given its importance, there was cause for concern when by the 1740s the caliber of up and coming artists had fallen so low that the Academy found itself unable to award prizes on a regular basis. In 1740, 1742, 1744, 1745 1746, and 1747 the field in painting was so poor that no sculpto awarded were Rome de Prix period same the in given; were prizes second and first were there 17.43 In 1745.19 and 1740 in twice, tors only artists were prizewinners in both painting and sculpture, but only four all the been have would talent of paucity The . compete to deemed qualified Edme , Boucher s Francoi of ion generat t brillian the as more apparent maturity. Successful reaching now just was Loo Van Carle and Bouchardon, to ment commit ent governm visible on d depende reform of history painting the genre and to the rejuvenation of the academic system. of Colbert and es principl the to return a of form the in start A new nd’s initiaLenorma what ly essential is which order, in be to felt run was were the crees initiativ those of nt importa most The doing. tives aimed at Academy to betthe within school a , protégés éléves des ation of the Ecole well as as e techniqu artistic to respect with ter train Prix de Rome winners stay in Rome; the their for ion preparat in e literatur and history, geography, the genre; the e stimulat to designed 1747, of tion history painting competi most highly the painting history make to ions aluing of royal commiss sevenrewarded;

the revival of academic

lectures, or conférences,

on the

in the Academy's s position new eight of creation the teenth-century model; in high on instituti the for support broaden to “associate” class, intended as a school designed Gallery, ourg Luxemb the of society; and the opening for both artists and amateurs. **

*

*

er, ad le d an r to ra st ni mi ad en ov pr a as Lenormand arrived at the Batiments a e e d an y, ac cr au re bu y, or st hi its but he was unfamiliar with imple-

and te la cu ti ar to r de or in rs de si in of t or pp required the advice and su

BEBE:

17 , y r e l l a G g r u o b m e x u L The

1750-79

#

The Luxembourg Gallery, 1750-79

to

|

Marigny was sent ALUSLIC Antoine

;

vay

te

painter of the king, we

incl

emicians,

ees

irs"

t

ie

:

:

Metrave

Y

fr

company

in the

arts

er(ielpaintca@hatles

'

oma

:

.

y the

be

{ line of acad

f influential

a

half ng

would be

was

in

amateurs

ointed out, The fact century.

reign

of the Sun

backward look

ive nostalgia for

a glorious

sented

to Lenor-

t probably

had

the

ynnectdhed ie

oypel the

Thro

artist

¢

of

and first ademy eath of Frangois

F

s

ha

the

about

p

(Bachaumont once described the ds ind no doubt discussed the project Bachaumont and Lenormand came ynistic backgrounds. The former lles bility and was raised in the shadow of Versai V).15 He been physician to the dauphin under Louis XI s and irly in life to a leisured cultivation of arts and letter

built a reputation as one of the most knowledgeable

His class allegiances predisposed ‘him to look askance at imateurs in Paris.'6 and to an the rise of the financier class and the appointment of Lenorm important government post. Yet as much as Lenormand needed Bachaumont, Bachaumont saw in the director general’s inexperience and social vulnerability an opportunity to direct official arts policy toward issues that he felt were important and that had been woefully ignored under previous administrations. At the top of the list was the conservation of art treasures,

which Bachaumont was among the first to declare crucial to the nation’s patrimony, As early as 1724, he called attention to the imperiled state of the chateau of Fontainebleau, suffering from years of neglect.!7 Though a royal palace, he argued that its preservation was a matter of national feaporanicel His range of concerns widened significantly after 1745 and embraced the condition of the royal picture collection. In a letter of 1746 addressed to the director general, Bachaumont, after complimenting him on the success of

se eI

Paapteere

poe

ea)

to the

dis raceful state of the

GallcryTieialic pointed ahah carré: the Galerie d’Apollon and the that many of the king’s pictures were in out y

in passing, that led a year later to

the suggestion to establish a public

imilar opportunism inspired the publication in 1747 of La Font de -,int-Yenne’s notorious Réflexions sur quelques causes de l'état présent de la peinture en France. Though first and foremost a biting review of the pre-

a vious year’s Salon, the Réflexions contained the first publicized appeal for , but idea the of in orig the not is text ’s Font La . nce Fra public art gallery in into action. and orm Len s pres to h muc did it that sure be may we te a royal In his Réflexions, La Font called on the government to crea

ht mig ures pict ’s king the ch whi in , vre Lou the in lly idea ery, gall an g tin tra ons Dem e, alik ic publ and sts arti of fit bene the for yed pla ed the sad iciz crit t Fon La es, aill Vers at ace pal the of knowledge had fallen, on ecti coll l roya the ch whi into air rep dis neglect and ored by ign or to n now unk . . . ms roo ted ligh kly away in small, dar contrast the on ily heav g yin Pla ”'9 ity. ibil cess inac ers ow ing to their

be disintimate state of “hidden foreignbetween

ier in a guidebook earl e mad on ati erv obs an g oin ech public and private, and on unfavorably ecti coll l roya the of eep upk the to Paris, La Font compared

view from (on al Roy is Pala the at ans rle d’O with the collection of the Duc even surpass in ht mig ures pict ’s duke the that 1727) and went on to suggest Crown: the of e thos ity qual and quantity

the duke], a fof e os th y it al qu in d an er mb ass in nu ta ca If His Majesty’s paintings surp d he is bl pu a en be r ve ne s ha ao ove as there pr = to t ul ic ff di 4 t bu de ma n te of 4 claim 5 our Nation! of s st ti ar ed nt le ta e th i for is imprisonment logue, what a loss their

nal neglimi ri “c e th on ck ta at t un bl a ue with ng ra ha s hi d de lu nc co nt Fo to La g in th no d di o wh , ce la Pa mbourg xe Lu e th at es rg ie nc co e th gence” of sun. ay dd mi e th of ys ra g in ch or sc from the gs in nt ai ns be Ru e th t ec a in prot ed at tu si , on ti ec ll co l ya ro on the s rk ma re al ic it cr e es th of e The purpos Font was conLa t, rs Fi d. ol of tw s painting, wa ry ra po em nt co of ew revi together , ed rd ga re he at th t ar of s those work of n io it nd co e th t ou ab cerned the plight at th ts es gg su he , nd co Se treasures. al on ti na as , nt mo au ch Ba with theme of ng yi rl de un e th th wi up d tely boun ma ti in s wa es ur ct pi l ya ro of the the days of e nc si s rd da an st ic st ti ar cline in de dy ea st e th , ly me na , e th of his text s t n e m u n o m t ea gr d other an s ng ti in pa e os th of t ec Louis XIV. Negl ace g un yo ed iv pr de ly on t palace, no re uv Lo e th ar ul ic rt pa of t past, in n io os er dy ea st e th of c mptomati sy s wa t bu ls de mo l °. na g in ss pa inspiratio e th to us io rv and impe on as re on d de un fo , a “deca“unchanging beauty by t en em ac pl re l ua ad gr and its n” io sh fa of s ie ll fo e th , the contime and se ur co of , nd mi in d ha La Font ! .? on ti ra co de d an t ar of coco. By ro dent” style e th d an l ca si as cl e th labeled be r te la d ul wo at wh n ch as the su trast betwee s t n e m u n o m al on ti na important g in in ta in ma to lf se it committing

ey REGS

ment

learn

that

dependenc

such

reduce

need of restoration.}8 It was this concern for the royal collection, mentioned

The Luxembourg Gallery, 17 50 ~ 79

rnment would symbolically nteenth-century classi

puvreran

resurrect and revalori cism and

mpire of novelty.” ueetinsieee precursor ring art

in

a new

to Diderot

seriousness

a traditionalist,

and

of sub:

a reactionary

g

and confident France under If in a printed defense of his second ntention,

only

gth and earance

in the

imaginary

resurrec

with him the grandeur and in the fine arts, but in every

splendor of the kingdom.”23

was

no

coincidence.

La

Font

plans to revitalize state supin light of those plans that

n circulating in Paris of July, of 1747, a time calculated to

vernment.5 Though ostensibly a n, Its scope was considerably more ambiLa Font’s disparaging summary of recent trends been intended to preempt the celebratory leven history paintings commissioned by the

leading Academy artists at the end of 1746. At the iucisms would provide terms of refere nce for a public disnew Salon, and more generally state pol icy and the direction For our purposes it is equally pr obable that La Font knew of stablish an art gallery similar to the one he described. nts purpose was clear: by broa dly publicizing issues and Prop osals e already in the air he was hoping to enhance the likelihood of th eir implementation. Stimulating pu blic discussion and increasing public expectations could only make it mo re difficult for the governme nt not to Bie through.26 His authorial Stance was that of a disi nterested citizen wh spoke not in his own inte rest (anonymity ! Protecte d him from t hat charge but in that of the “public,” \) and of the nation¥ as a whol e. La Font w. as also responding to Lenormand’s declaratio n of intent to e nact meaningful state intervention in the arts, his commitm ent to tr eating the

general of buildings as mo re than a sinecure. Pr

office of director

A

La Font evid ently shar evailing view in Bachaumo ed the nt’s circle th at thRare e trsiumph aof the rOc and the taste for luxu Ty g oco sty oods that went with it — whic h, in La Font’s had literally banished se view, rious Painting from the fashionable Interi be identified with the a or — could scendance of th ne fina ncier class. The Pri vate artistic

tastes of the Lenormand family, epitomized by Pompadour’s Patronage of Frangois Boucher, served only to confirm that opi nion.27 It was thus out of haracter,

not to say ironic, that a tax farmer should

espouse the cause of

history painting and academic reform. Thus Réflexions may be read asa hallenge to the new director general to rise above the tastes and instincts of

his class. He would have to prove he deserved the comparisons he did little to discourage between himself and his predecessor, “the great Colb ert,”28

La Font’s strategy was as novel as it was shrewd. He comes across in his texts as a man of principle, unafraid of controversy, who wrote as if he had nothing to lose. Born in 1688, midway through the reign of Louis XIV, into

a solid bourgeois family involyed in the Lyons silk trade, we know little about La Font’s life until his appointment in 1729 as gentleman to the

queen

(Marie Leczinska).2? He remained at Versailles until 1737, and it was

during this period he became acquainted with the court and the royal picture collection. During that period, too, he befriended the first painter of the king, Frangois Le Moyne, an exact contemporary through whom he must have learned much about painting. It is tempting to see more than a coincience in the timing of La Font’s departure from Versailles and Le Moyne’s ic suicide in 1737 at the age of forty-nine. Be that as it may, we lose track of his movements until 1747 when he showed up on the doorstep of

the well-connected engraver and amateur, Pierre-Jean Mariette, with a manuscript written by a friend, or so he claimed, which was none other than the

Réflexions. La Font read parts of it to Mariette, who, given his close AcadAs he was leaving he emy ties, predictably advised against publication. assured Mariette that “the work would never see the light of day.” “Appar“someone changed his mind, for a short while the latter continued, ently,” later I learned that the book had appeared and just so I couldn’t doubt it the author

La

Font

sent me a copy.”32

had

others in high It has been later ventures. acquainted.3!

hoped

Mariette had

he would,

and

been duped;

if he was

he had

offended

reacted

just as

by the Réflexions,

places were sure to be as well. suggested that La Font had Bachaumont as an ally in this and Certainly they had mutual interests, and we know they were Quite possibly it was through Bachaumont that La Font kept

in touch with plans at the department of buildings. Furthermore, given their

mutual interest in seeing the Louvre completed, it is not implausible that La Font’s second book, l’Ombre du grand Colbert, was to some extent a collaborative effort (though Bachaumont flatly denied it). The two men were

not close friends, however, and the differences between them are significant.

Clearly they shared a concern for the nation’s artistic heritage, and they appear to have been united in their condescension toward Lenormand and

his family. On those matters they could make common cause. Perhaps, as Crow suggests, Bachaumont found in La Font’s caustic style and indiffer-

The Luxembourg Gallery, 1750 romotion of his own interests. orld. Bachaumont num

yng

1

the

his good ona culti government

with

practicing

the

grounds that vas one thing; example, that paintings in person but ipacity as adviser to nany years.** It was mmendations to the lobby for his causes nda. Only after he wit {id

ters

he

venture

concerning

into

print

historical

ur la peinture, la sculpture, et

Whereas the essays on architecation of the Louvre and the statue tively, the essay on painting is an unambigu-

ne

100] — past and present.

Bachaumont

held

Figure 10.

i es. Versa aill Musée e de de Vers , 1660 Cc c. as, canv on Oil us, Dari of Tent , run Charles Leb

up

and Charles-Antoine Coypel as evidence of the contin1e grand manner in France, implicitly countering La Font’s ting had gone into decline after the death of Louis XIV. The tis devoted to a discussion of the relative merits of the two mous pictures on display in the state apartments at Versailles: Charles Lebrun’s Tent of Darius and Paolo Veronese’s Pilgrims of Emmaus (Figs. 10 and rr). The choice was highly significant. Ever since Charles Perrault had paired the two in his Paralléle des anciens et des modernes of 1688 in order to defend French art against an already pronounced prejudice in favor of the Italians, the pictures had come to symbolize the struggle of native artists to gain equal recognition alongside their Italian and Northern tivals.34 By the middle of the eighteenth century it would have been impos ble to read a comparison between these Pictures in any other way. Nothi could be more indicative, therefore, of Bachaumont’s patriotic, pro-Academy sentiments. Having been accused of collaboration with La Font, it is as if Bachaumont

wanted to distance himself publicly from his criticisms of

contemporary art and to make his own Position perfectly clear,

The artists of the Academy were ou traged by the Réflexions. Rebuttal s were soon forthcoming, and La Fo nt became the subject of caricatu re.35

Figure 11.

of f Pils Paolo lo V Veronese, » Pilgrims

Emmaus. Oil

on canvas, c.

5 1560, Musée du

F Louvre, Paris,

ee

! 7 Le no rm an d and the Nevertheless, and no doubt much to the chagrin of ne Academy, the response to the Réflexions in other qu arters was far from unfa vorable, “It would offend th truth,” wrote Mariet te, il “to deny that this : a ee, er reroublic

my y inin the the Lou 5 housedtl neaa r the = AcAcade adem vre, no Place could be found fo r it41 The Luxembourg Palace on the far side of the Se The Luxembourg, as it happened, had much toine was chosen instead. tecommend it as a site for the royal gallery.

}achaumor received by the y ibl Mp Bas naar pe ion i t contained “more good than bad”; t “ good m o r e it contained on the Abbé G.-T.-F. Rayna was much l s most important, a glowing review with it; and, f taken appeared in the influent o1 [ U , in which La Font’s Passage book

wasn’t

cal ing

perfectly

well

for a public gallery was

journal's only reservation was

alnont

of

response. By the winter of gallery at the Luxembourg t director general of building

i bli Pel

Works at

l

governr

He

t tionally, hinten

wooc vent humidity,3# and in January ed the following ordinance

1748

imagines,

the

oe

ey

ane

tag

Roya

means of two new thoroughfares, one running east-west from the

ten

in

the

Lenormand

morning till midday

[rj

and in summe

arta recalled

La Font’s s description

bequeat! h ed hi mF s MpPortant natural Academy of S h Story ccoolllleecct cience in r 75 ion to t ie 4 with the e xpressed desi re th ‘at it be

Louvre to

the Tuileries, the other running north-south from the Porte Saint-Gervais to

the Luxembourg.43 Once a space had been found the business of selecting the pictures from

enjoy these

of n es whe id nothing t © protect the paintings from the damaging ra of the summer gun, The timely opening of the Rubens gallery would demo mons nstr atee trat that that La Foonntt xaggerated, Evidently, li Way of preparation ttle in the w vas needed before eee the general public was allowed seems the gallery hac in (it | never been inaccessible to the Privileged visito public exhibition of royal r).40 A Pictures was entirely anot her matter, howey fr a The first priority was to find a suitable exhibition Space for the collecThe obvious location , at least to Critics, y the Louvre or the adjoin a Tuileries. For some reason the la tt er was ney er considered. a-OauvnVre,3) gee gh iti wa As for the Vas both the premiei r roya l residence in Paris i hoped that the king (it was would one day move back to the sai e and home of : the Royal Academy of Painting a no pea it could Vaz t ha ve a c c o m nd moda Sculpture, diane Pic ated C a e Pii ctur gallery at th at time, cet. No one as yet was < uallery along the Seine, occu late seventeenth ce pied from the ntury by the stratepic a l ly tpahel fortified towns of tema portant scale-relief models of ace bieec, « aaah fa e a ! sandy there Was n o room in the old ay of objects, i > Wh en fo , r example, L.=L, Pajot d Onsenb ray

Mercure de France to open the city and link the Right and Left Banks by

Tires in the gallery stoves during winter and of summer in order to preserve the beautiful

personally or by arrangem thee personaly or by ectnasenen ent,on oe TuesTO dayansd

one

linking the Bastille and the Tuileries may have been a distinct advantage.42 Certainly the choice of the palace would have pleased Bachau mont'’s friend, J.-B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, who in 1748 published a proposal in the

mnsibility prompted a swift were installed in the Rubens

cee

r from

pography of Paris, generated in large part by the Project to build a new place royale dedicated to Louis XV (now the Place de la Concorde), its location on the Left Bank away from the dominant axis of roy al landmarks

whether such a project would ever be realized,

Ieigh

convenlen

and easily accessible to the public; and, of course, the Ru bens gallery was across the courtyard, In addition, at a time of height ened awareness of the to

quoted and enthusiastically endorsed.37 The

Mane us

The rooms on the first floor of the east wing were vacant

the 1,800-strong royal collection could begin.

:

est to the project and most

charge of the

gallery;

The choice fell to th

los-

familiar with the collection: Charles Coypel, in

J.-A. Portail, keeper of the king’s pictur

at Versailles;

and Portail’s counterpart at the other royal chateaux, Jacques Bailly. Coypel

ordered a new and comprehensive catalogue of the royal collection from the Academy’s secretary, F.-B, Lépicié, in order to accelerate the gallery (also to answer La Font’s complaints); i¢ proved slow work, however, and Nicolas Bailly’s 1709 inventory was probably used instead.4

Many of the best royal pictures were unavailable for display in th gallery because they formed part of the permanent decoration at Vers ailles. Since the 1680s the state apartments had been treated as semipublic galleries in which the paintings served the politically important function of impressing visiting dignitaries. Removing those pictures: merely to sltutilae the Luxembourg was out of the question.4s The commitment to Verse affected a number of significant masterpieces — for example, Veronese's Pil-

grims of Emmaus and Lebrun’s Tent of Darius, and Raphael’s Saint John in

the Desert and Domenichino’s King David Playing the Harp, which hung on either side of the king’s bed. And, as the Luxembourg catalogue was forced

to admit, the royal co llection was short on movable works by “MMessrs. i Boulogne, A Jouv e elder, and other excell artists.”46 Under Louis XVIeneta ,condecertTre oy efth f ort would be made to acquienret d

cabOinnect pictures by the r e chosen the pictuercesognhiazded to Frbeencrhestmasters ored a.nd framed for exhibition .47 Many

i

i

for the

Luxe:

Sabi

The Luxembourg Gallery, 1750-79

The Luxembourg Galle:

pictures

fell to the two resident restorers at the

Batiments:

Francois-Louis

Colins and Marie-Jacob Godefroid, better known as Madame or veuve Godefroid.#? Both entered the royal service with considerable experience in private collections behind them. Colins originally from Brussels, was well

known

as an art dealer and restorer (the two often went h and in hand) and highly recommended by Edme Gersaint, himself an important dealer,50

Godefroid’s

reputation

froid, another respected

outstanding co. 1.

was

established

dealer-restorer

is of the

Prince

de

through

took over her husband’s business

Gersaint also thought

her husband,

who was employed Carignan and the

J.-E.

Gode-

to maintain the

¢ omtesse de Ver-

after he was killed in a duel in

highly of her abilitie

It seems Colins and Godefroid were the first restorers to be formally employed by the Crown. Previo usly tl responsibility for ma intaining the aintings as well as inset decorati ve works — belonged t the various chateaux.5 Fr om 1743 Colins and vere given a royal pension of 200 fivr between them, Henceforth a significant distinctio n was m between highly val Old Paintings that became the Master responsibility of qualified restorers and lesser works ~ ceilin overdoors, portraits, and so on — which were left ies4, des tableaux, to the painted

are

through

aria the

ranks

of the

that he got his wish (Fig. 36).!22 What is remarkable about this view of the Salon is just how legible David’s picture is: the visual economy of form, dramatic gestures, and tension between planar arrangement of figures and deep spatial perspective combine to distinguish the Oath from the works that surround it. And the same qualities that made the Oath work so well at the Salon would, as David anticipated, have guaranteed its success in the museum. As at the temporary exhibition, in the museum it would have been seen in the company of other paintings and hung high on the wall to be viewed at a distance. David’s attention to viewing circumstances is brought into greater focus the Oath and its position at the Salon of 1785 with when we compare L.-J.-F. Lagrenée’s Death of the Wife of Darius (Fig. 37), also commissioned for the museum. Like David, Lagrenée had also asked that his picture be hung to good advantage, in this case “as low as possible, for if it is hung too high the finish will be completely lost.”123 His request was also granted, seen to the left in the Martini ind the Death of the Wife of Darius can be beneath the pictures ordered by the king and just above eye level. ving, The problem for Lagrenée was that his painting would never have been so low in the Louvre. He had painted a large-scale museum picture hung

vith the finish of one that belonged on the lower walls of a cabinet.

* been tainly 1ave is no

*

ld haye wou vre Lou the at es tur pic the er ord t wha in e sur be ot ann d’Angiviller’s project never reached that stage; but almost cerhung — lery would the mixed-school arrangement of the Luxembourg Gal , there fact In y. log ono chr and ool sch by nt eme ang arr an to given way e differed hav ld wou vre Lou 's XVI is Lou at g han the nk thi to reason

DD' 'AAn npgiivviilllle

er's Louvre Project

D'Angiviller's

Figure 37. Louis-Jean-Frangois Lagrenée, The Death of the Wife of Darius. Oil on canvas, 1785, Musée du Louvre, Paris.

realized at the Louvre in the late 1790s, with the French school displayed at the Salon end of the Grand Gallery followed by the Northern schools and then the Italians. Within each school some attempt would have

from

that

been made to hang works by the same artist together and in chronological order.

D’Angiviller’s pattern of acquisitions reflects a consciousness of national schools and the need to fill gaps in the historical sequence of acknowledged the ume masters — in other words, to give what would have been viewed at is1s an adequate representation of the history of art from the High Rena Luxembourg’s privileging of the pictorial qualities of individual sance, The rseded by works through a mixed-school arrangement would have been supe ent within lopm deve al oric hist ate nstr demo to y, toda us with still ern, conc 1 regional schools.

that galOf great importance in prompting this change was the knowledge the process in were or ted, adop had pe Euro in e wher else ons ecti coll ries and years since the In gy. nolo chro and ol scho by nt eme ang arr an , idopting

k the eric Fred to ols scho by nt eme ang arr an ed end omm rec Bachaumont made had den Dres and 3) (Fig. rf eldo Duss at s erie gall cely Great, the prin do liketo t afoo were s move and em, syst a such t emen impl me attempt to early the in na Vien in ery Gall rial Impe the At 2 na.! Vien wise at Florence and s

Ku We NESTE, es

(Fig. 4) the

man

Baselbrought in to reorganize the collection, the

t step rtan impo an gone had el, Mech de tien Chré er deal and based engraver

D'Angiviller's Louvre Project ke

t ec oj Pr e r v u o L s ' r e l l i v i g n A D'

c pi e th y a w e th h g u l thro o o h c s h c ea of y r the histo g plained n ex i t a el r ch t Me s n o r m , e de u g o in l a t a r c furthe yn to his 1 784 ntroductic

ge ther, to t h g u o r b n e e b d a painter h n ve gi a of a s k rious genres he possiblethe wor va e th d an rent perl e f f i d s hi f “o ne on eth ee a order l gica ronolo e ch a o , imp’ to d ie tr rs me d a co h e e U a l Zo Moreov m ont o r f practiced.” d n e h e r p p a to r e visito th g n i w o l l a , on ti ec e, he con ll re ag ll wi e entire co n o y r e v E nturies ce e th yf r te ac ar ch atic em st sy is th “the evolution and om fr g in ntages result a v d a g n i m l e h w er ies to tr un co l cluded, “on the ov al of rs eu at tists and am ar o t st re te in of be the of n o i t a r arrangement. It will t s n o m e d al r the visu fo m o o r w o h s ts is ex nov historical leea arn thatat therthee re now t ar t rs fi e th g in be to m has a clai e or ef er th na en Vi ” t. ar history of due to museum in the modern sens rt pa in was gy lo no ro ch d an ol ho by sc o ti ca fi si as cl d ol of This tw and t rs fi ed st fe ni ma y, ur nt ce e eighteenth lat the in m is ic or st hi of of the rise story Hi ng ri ee on pi s n’ an lm ke ory in Winc st hi t o ar f y ud st e th in st foremo ethod m al mi no bi e th to se on sp re a direct so al s wa It 26 .1 64 17 of t Ar introduced by Lintures were

hung,

s ie ec sp d an s nu ge by s al im an plants and ok to y kl ic qu on ti ca fi si as cl al mi Bino ind Buffon at midcentury.' M. y collections, as we see in L.

arrangement of natural histor 1749 description of an ideal cabinet: would be a y] tor his al tur [na of dy stu the for t rable arrangemen cies. . . . The spe and us gen ss, cla by s ect obj its ed order that distribut I ughout; the indiro th d lie app tly ten sis con be d ul wo s cie of genera and spe apart. One will be er nev er, oth h eac to t nex ced pla be d ul f a species wo Such an

n the Daubenton’s

able

to

see

species

in relation to genus,

and genus

in relation to

study natuld sho one h hic w to ing ord acc s ple nci pri the arrangement will indicate s be realized. ple nci pri se tho l wil t en em ng ra ar an h suc h oug ural history; only thr one gain knowll wil y onl not nce gla h eac at ve; cti tru ins be l wil ect eff hing in relationships between given er cov dis o als l wil one s, lve mse the s ect obj the of edge ine the genus, differobjects and those that surround them. Resemblances will def en and tak e, enc fer dif y and rit ila sim of s rk ma se tho s; cie spe the rk ences will ma the image ry mo me the e in rav eng and nd mi the t to sen pre l wil er, eth ed tog ar mp co of nature.128

A well-disposed cabinet, reflecting the order of nature itself, was essential didactic value became the meafor purposes of study, and from midcentu sure of the serious collection. “Return your shells to the sea,” exclaimed the Encyclopédie, “give back to the earth its plants and rid your apartments of birds, fish, and insects, if all you can make of them is their skeletons, chaos where nothing can be seen distinctly, and where scattered and heaped Following the lead of natural objects provide no neat and clear ideas.”!2? history, the reorganization of picture collections after growing belief throughout Europe lines testified to the

along analogous that works of

flora

and

fauna,

were

susceptiblblee

serve a useful purpose through well-

of rational I cla cl; ssification in and shoul

F

é

ell-ordered public exhibitions,130 ue) dae : There are clear correlations between the organizing princip les of genu erat a S, Fe BOB ind species in natural history and school and chronology i g, paintin in art: ante genera the ered consid regional schools may be reat mas

ees the are clustered their pupils and foll species, around whom ‘ollowers. Within a colLaas ae ; : lection or text narrative direction is supplied by y hi history. The influen tial

, j dealer-connoisseur J.-B.-P, Lebrun (who, as noted sion; tosuc een : and Pee ed betw 5 employ tion ) connec history e' the natural made a m licitly art tly een explici oe hi F

precisely this organizational structure in his book Galerie des peintres fla é x nands, hollandais et allemand: es: Ben ees cae 7 of the Louvre d in the ee 2 ae At any 1790s. in the late We neavily ily F involve « at o t ice that the system of school and chronology rapidly became ay rate, suffic and has remained) the natural way of organizing museums of art D’Angiviller, a noted scientific amateur and collector of shells, was certainly abreast of recent theories of taxonomy and would have understood that

perfection in the Grand Gallery entailed a systematic and modern display of

the collection. The stature of the museum would depend on the arrangement and presentation of the collection as much as on the works of art themselves. An organization

by school and chronology would further have served

what I take to have been another chief goal of the museum: the glorification of French art and history. The display of French painting on view in the section of the gallery adjoining the Salon would have suggested continuity between past and present and a sustained prosperity made possible by state

support via the Academy. Modern works making their debut at the Salon would, if deemed worthy, pass next door and take their place in the unfoldThe ing narrative of French painting from Vouet and Lebrun to the present. Salon would provide a steady flow of new blood into the Grand Gallery, Meanenriching the French tradition with the passing of each generation. for the Louvre, while no modern Italian or Northern paintings were bought yed chronologiDispla nd. moribu now were ons traditi those that ng implyi g native trathrivin a nt represe would ion collect Louvre the , school by cally s once domiFrance’ of ons traditi artistic spent the from over taking dition static e imagin can one 24) (Fig. Louvre ary imagin nant rivals. In Robert’s

past, overwhelmed ng recedi a in ulated encaps singly increa s school foreign by French painting marching triumphant into the future. the on ed depend art an Europe in school French The ascendance of the of universal validity s subject g treatin g paintin history of display prominent meant ng painti sal Univer . manner grand in a commanding, recognizably neooque, neobar a in treated ogy mythol or history episodes from ancient

D'Angiviller's

Angiviller's Louvre Project

Louvre Proje¢

ie work Wick th e; classical styl

ilst gritmte scuGu lpture and

primarycs

122

w

for those

lisinterested pursuit of the common good. Thus, although we owe much to F I for in a sense introducing the arts and letters to France, to Gtenbers Pays invention the printing press, and to Christopher Columbus for eek America, I ofdidn’t think they merited statues because the one was inspired by Ee

Lagrenée areS DHRUEE wed)

ind

il

French

Ae

audience

ire

rather

than

pecific, and rtraits. French ind tended to artists at

the

choice

iat many

of

of them

seum-going in

a diachronic

and tourists, the nal history and to bon ideology. If less r point to the govern as a domestic platform for royalist politics. im ke a closer look at a few of the French works, atues wor

of the

Great Men.

purpose

of the government

commissions

viewer “virtue and patriotic sentiments.”!33 French dvantage of doing both at the same time: they presented ism and virtue by French men to rival the exploits of the 1en were ever considered, indicating that history and its representation were male preserves, and heroism and public virtue male

attributes.)

n, and why? is in evidence

But

we might

ask: What

heroes and events were cho-

What did it mean to be patriotic? Whose

version of history :

nlike earlier sculptural projects commemorating great men of France — Titon du Tillet’s Parnasse francois or the Place Peyrou in Montpellier, both dedicated to Louis XIV, and the military heroes at the Ecole Militaire — Angiviller’s series (see Appendix II) drew from different epochs in modern French history and from each of the four états, or estates: the military, the clergy, the magistrature, and the Third Estate, represented by writers, scientists, and artists.!35 Of equal importance > criteria of selection were grounded as much in Enlightenment notions of virtue and disinterested ser vice to humanity as in outstanding achievement in the courts or on the bat tlefield. Revealing the influence of the phi ainned pllai iller r exexp CE OS of 177¢ his thinking in a letter at Beauvais I thought wh

mbine

and his own inclinations, and the others by self-interest.136

;

be

To an enlightened way of thinking, the invention of the printing press and the exploration of new lands were vital to the progress of knowledge and should e encouraged for that reason alone. But enlightened though ways, d’Angiviller’s first loyalty was to the king, and we can his goal as director general of the Batiments was to make the tion of the throne,” as the Journal de Paris put it in 1777.13?

he was in many never forget that arts an “emanaOver and above

brilliance and virtue, what linked the majority of Great Men was loyal service Crown. Thus the men represented were not only exemplary benefacto the tors of their country and humanity, they were also model subjects of the king. Collectively the Grands Hommes (along with many of the French paintings) represented a vision of French history and society in which the unifying principle, reconciling differences of rank, estate, genius, and religion, was alle-

giance to the king. In Charles de Wailly’s project for the Grand Gallery (Fig. 38)

we see Louis XVI, represented as ruler and patron of the

arts, at the cen

ter of and raised above the Great Men statues. Arranged symmetrically around the king, these men of genius signal a common debt to the enlightened support of a dynamic monarchy. And to the extent they were presented to the public as models for emulation, their devotion to the king mattered as much as their individual achievements, In conjunction with official historiography and incipient national education programs, these images composed an abso:

lutist iconography of nationhood. Another respect in which these statues differed from previous commemo rative projects was that there was no finite plan or preconceived list of men. Every two years beginning in 1775 d’Angiviller ordered four new statues; no doubt he envisaged the series continuing indefinitely. As a consequence,

events the choice of new subjects was always open to influence from current

and shifting views of history. Such magistrates, beginning with Etienne of 1777 (Fig. 39), in light of the 17708: the exile and restructuring of

was the case in the choice of famous Gois’s statue of Chancellor de |'Hépital most important political event of the the Parlements under Chancellor René-

of Nicolas Maupeou and their subsequent recall in the first year of the reign Louis XVI. Gois’s statue and the magistrates that followed were commissioned as emblems of monarchical right in the wake of a bitter political pro- | their of circumstances The nation. the divide to threatened that debate of politicization increased the to testimony vivid offer reception and duction ~ opinion. public control to effort an in century the of quarter last the art in remodthe by followed 1771, in Parlement Paris the of exile Maupeou’s

D'Angiviller's Louvre Project

D'Angiviller's

Louvre Project

39. Etienne Gois, Chancellor de Hépital. Marble, 1777, Musée de

Figure 38. Charles de Wailly, Louvre, Paris.

Project for the Grand Gallery. Drawing, c .1785, Musée du

cling of the eleven provincial Parlements and reform of the judicial system, culminated fifty years of tension between the Crown and sovereign courts. The Parlements of France (not to be confused with the Parliament in F land) were essentially courts of law that exercised legal jurisdiction in the king’s name throughout the realm.!38 In addition to the exercise of law, they were involved in the legislative process through their responsibility to authorize

royal edicts through

the act of registration: only

through

registra

tion did royal decrees acquire the force of law. The corollary of registration was the right to suggest amendments to those decrees, known as remon strances. Though the king was not bound to listen to the Parlements’ rec ommendations, the magistrates’ license to criticize his edicts maintained the semblance of a ten y working within a system of checks and balances. During th enth century remonstrance evolved

ary ent lem Par g rtin asse le whi will l roya ng cti tru obs of ns mea a into consequence ate edi imm an was s ent lem Par the of e exil u’s peo Mau 3? ts.1 righ restrict their to ht soug that t edic an pt acce to sal refu es’ rat ist mag of the

, rendertion stra regi re befo nce tra ons rem of t righ r thei ove rem and powers ing it politically mute. known. To was it as u, peo Mau coup the to n tio osi opp ce fier was There sharply divided was n nio opi ic publ re, ratu lite ary por tem con judge by overdue and that long was s ent lem Par the of rm refo felt who e thos n betwee of their power nds bou the ed epp rst ove had they cy poli l roya ng in obstructi interests and on’s nati the ted esen repr s ent lem Par the eved beli who e and thos

was the proe issu At . ism pot des of rule the d ure aug on ssi pre sup that their roles of king and ve ecti resp the and ce Fran ed ern gov who of tion ques found Parlements in an absolute monarchy.'°

:

the n wee bet lict conf the of ct aspe ing rest inte most the For present purposes, war that a and pag pro the was tes stra magi ed exil the of Crown and supporters

no fewer 1-2 177 In ion. opin ic publ over win to d ensued as both parties trie

view. Not of ts poin ng osi opp ard forw ing, putt ed ear app than 270 pamphlets duously. assi so ted cour be n agai ion opin ic publ ld wou until the Revolution

D'Angiviller's

D'Angiville

Though some of the

free

innovations

erned

nly

and | He ins

Jueednced Influenc

lements

by by

er

the

through

dan

the

of

warned

Parlements’ Par

the

1748,

intermediary bodies between former while faithfully represent Parlements an unbridgeable gap For their part, Maupeou’s orrupt,

argued

w

scut

downright

yf

lements portrayed them theh soverereiiggnn an and the n ati of the la ing the inter up betwe would open supporters

was

say in the way they were gov

ent

right of remonstran

inda

Pamphlets

in earnest

it was

of

bulk

anti-Maupeou propa

that

the

was

king

and

the

only

wn. In addition, the Par under no obligation to listen to

ive positions, both parties turned ymmentator put it natur lution that ha

ur

real

to his

re urgent and legitimate desire to government. As an impartial spectator, hearts differently, and aston ted French

liverging views of the same issue, I believed that the ur annals would shed the light of truth on the mat-

sse d’Egmont remarked that the affair had taught people things t their hist that they would have died happily without knowing.!*¢ sides tried to fill this void in knowledge with their own version of the sulting in two competing representations of French history. Propo nents of the magistrates argued that the Parlements were coeval with the monarchy and that they possessed legitimacy and powers independent of the king. Documents were quoted, and selected historical figures — l’Hopital and d’Aguesseau, the magistrates’ twin idols, Montesquieu, Bossuet, Fénelon, and others — were summoned in defense of the Parlements’ traditional rights. Maupeou’s men did a little research of their own, however, and discovered that they could use the same sources and quote the same men to better effect in support of the government’s position. It was merely wishful thinking and a willful manipulation of the records that were at the root of the Parlements’ claims to direct descent from the earliest judicial and delibera tive assemblies of the Franks. The annals also proved that the writers and Statesmen conscripted by the Parlements, notwithstanding their Parlementary allegiances and progressive spirit, clearly drew the line at disob ying the king. It was implied that had the y been present to witness the int ansh dh aents they , too would hav gence of tl Pa rlem e sided with Maupeou. In the most important collection of anti-Parlement literature, entitled Code des francois, edited by the Abbé Joseph Rémy, documents are cited and

Louvre Project

reprinte d to show, among other things, that the Magistrates’ “pa triot king,” Henry IV; was no less imperious in his dealings with the Parlements than Louis XV, and that the likes of ’'Hépital and d’Aguesseau had , in fact, idvocated the ultimate authority of the king over the courts.147 In the end the government produced a more convincing view of history. Maupeou won his battle with the Parlements, and Louis XV vowed not to return to the old system. But upon Louis’s death in May

ind cabinet ushered in a change of

1774, a new king

mind and a perceived need for reconcili-

ation.'*8 The magistrates had been sufficiently humbled, and Louis XVI was persuaded that a good and just monarch had nothing to fear from the Par-

lements. The Paris

magistrates were recalled in November, but on the

understanding that they would be more obedient in the future.

At that juncture French constitutional history had become so politicized

that no reference to a great Parlementarian of times gone by could be politi-

cally neutral. I would suggest that d’Angiviller’s choice of I’Hépital as one of the first Grands Hommes (a choice made in January 1775)!4? was intended as a final word in the recent ideological struggle to control the past —a battle the Crown felt it had won. Through Gois’s statue, exhibited first at the Salon and destined for permanent display in the museum, the famous chancellor and idol of the magistrates had come to rest in the royalist camp and was to be identified henceforth as a loyal servant of the Crown. Gois’s

L’Hopital was a gesture of reconciliation to the nation grounded in the government’s confidence in its ability to keep the Parlements in line. his reading of the statue when it debuted at the Salon on August 25, — the jour Saint-Louis — 1777 was enforced by a lecture given at the Académie

Francaise on the same day. The king’s name day in odd years was the occa sion not only of the Salon’s opening but of the reading of the winning essay in the biennial Académie competition, which had as its subject (from

1759)

the eulogy of a great man from French history. The competition was a main “If fixture on the Parisian literary calendar. As Sébastien Mercier remarked: left in the roof fell in [on the Académie] that day, there would be no writers in the Paris.”150 Commentary and excerpts from the prize essay appeared journals. The éloge académique attracted many famous philosophes, not least because its didactic, moralizing purpose opened a door for comment on contemporary mores and politics under the cloak of historical with biography.!51 Many eulogies were published clandestinely to coincide was little more oft en for mat bio gra the phi cal the se in and com petition, the than a pretext for explicit political critique.

were inspired Ho mm es Gra nds d’A ngi that vil ler ’s dou bt no be can There of the philosophe fri end clo a se was gen era l dir ect The or eul ogi the es. by !52 Thomas. Thomas Ant oin e-L éon ard com pet five iti ons firs , t the won who and we fri end his , ple ase to (17 65) Des car on tes ess ay wrote his winning know

that the eulogies were

much

discussed

at the literary salon of

D'Angiviller

s Louvre

D'Angiviller's Louvre Project

Pr

d’Angiviller’s.

) e lover, Baronn

de ¢ N Mar

e n of the seva ve { se andc foure firstS

I ee

| eulogized were Men Great st twelve and gossip, news Paris f reliabl that rots. x“ M ine The , ) I x di of e ac pl on mm co a s wa it , er ov re Mo ook the connection for granted way of the Renats: ity iqu ant j :eighteenth-century art theory) f great men to tra rannsmission |

sance, ae

v

higt

that sculpture’s

fin 59 eat

Homa

cel

;

mplen

f

nted

the

eulogy

Maréchal du $ then under tomb,

juently

per

, had con

commented

Académie Frangaise and 2 August 25 came toge7 ther on on Aug Sculpture Angiviller selected his first four Great out in the sense that the other the

yal | Academy to homage

) ting and of Pain When |’H6pital.

t

he subject

of a recent elo-

man and subject of the next f deliberate collaboration

that year was none other than the gandist,

my

Joseph

Rémy.

had demonstrated

His eulogy

in his Code

served

as a text

des francois

that

ever disloyal to the best interests of the nation, believed y that the Parlements were subordinate to the king, and he sage in his élo In words clearly aimed at the recalled nd ridiculed the magistrates’ selfish and presumppast. A few days after he was crowned, Rémy sent d’Angiviller a copy of his essay and received a warm reply.158 On August , that most symbolic of days, word and image came together in the service of royalist politics.! But whatever sense of satisfaction the government derived from the celebration of I’H6pital was marred by the sudden appearance of an anonymous and clandestine eulogy of the chancellor attributed to the distinguished soldier and military strategist Francois-Apolline Guibert. Thoroughly disillusioned by the Parlementary crisis, Guibert used his éloge to attack both the magistrates and the government in equal measure. First he mocked the former’s claim to represent the nation: 'H6pital, unequi repeated t

l!'H6pital believed that the Parleme were not and must never be more than jt cial courts. Their pretension to being the senate of the realm, the image and ; supf ment of the Estates-Gener him not only absurd and chimerical, but contrary to the interests of th What righ , in effec fe t, have simple magis What right

trates, created by the sovereigr

3

venal office,

born for the most part in

obscurity, and with neither mand ate nor power from their fellow citizen

jer themselves called to represent the nation?!6

Turning next on

BENS, $9 COR :

government, Guibert continued:

How could anyone fail to see that if the court temporarily ind ulged the Parlements’ pretensions by appearing to regard their power of registration as a necessary sanc tion and integral part of the law, it was only to deceive the nati on into believing that there existed a counterweight to the authority of the throne, and to discourage: any thought of summoning the Estates-General.'61 :

His solution was to call for the Estates-General, the nation’s only true representative body. In the meantime the Parlements should obstruct the registra-

tion of edicts and thereby force the government to reveal itself for what it was: a despotism. As Guibert’s text makes clear, the coup Maupeou

demonstrated the political impotence of remonstrance as well as the hollowness of parlementary claims to represent the nation. At the same ti the ease with which the Parlements were dismantled revealed that in practice as

well as theory there were no limits to the king’s power. Guibert’s intended audience was not so much the Parlements themselves but the public, and his text signals the extent to which public opinion emerged as a significant force in political discourse after the Maupeou affair. As Keith Michael

Baker has argued, the government, by recognizing public opinion as something that needed to be addressed in pamphlets and works of art, “unwittingly conspired with its opposition to foster the transfer of ultimate authority from the public person of the sovereign to the sovereign person of the public.” '* This transfer of authority was a gradual process, however, and in the late 1770s and early 1780s d’Angiviller continued to use his Grands Hommes to advantage. At the Salon of 1779 statues appeared of two other political progressive Parlementarians — d’Aguesseau and Montesquieu, both of whom had figured prominently in the pro- and anti-Parlements dialogue of the early 1770s. Though at times genuinely radical in what they wrote, their presence in the Salon and eventually in the Grand Gallery served to render them emblems of monarchical right and to neutralize them as sources of oppositional discourse.!63 Also exhibited at the 1779 Salon was FrangoisAndré Vincent’s painting of Matthieu Molé seen calming the mob during the Fronde. At the time of the Parlements recall in 1774 Molé had been described as “the buttress of the throne, the upholder of the law, the incor-

ruptible organ of truth:

a magistrate who combined the courage of a hero

with all the virtues that define the citizen and public man.”1® (Etienne Gois

later sculpted Molé for the 1785 Salon.) Great soldiers of the past predomi-

nated at the next three Salons (Catinat and Tourville, 1781; Vauban and Duquesne and le Grand Condé, 1785) as a result of French Turenne, 1783; involvement in the American Revolution. But by the late 1780s we witness

Chapter

D'Angiviller's

Louvre Project

properly s wa at th The rvention a sharp retreat from politic al inte cen hnt ee nt v ve se us mo fa the of at ed was th commissioned but never exect it 1 . Commis 789 of n lo Sa the for n no ig ¢ Lamo tury magistrate Guillaume e one

3

statue

obably abandoned in th pr s wa It 7, 178 in u jo Pa or lpt sioned from the scu hi $ efoorms of) e ary ref lement Par t o t lem Par the to d nte following year as opposition mou Lamoignon fire, er Und non oig Lam de is ngo Fra enéti Chr direct descendant angry mob an er lat s day 8; 178 r mbe t Sep in resigned as keeper of the seals a riot at the next Salon, risk n tha ner l hote s Pari his ack att to d trie

THE REVOLUTIONARY

LOUVRE

In August 1789, was dropped. anc the proposed statue « of siviller wrote to the painter Vien with reference to the next round nmissioned by the king: “We must exercise paintings and statues to be

choice

in the

the greatest caution

of subjects.”!6

Accordingly, the Great

Men chosen — the artists Lebrun and Puget, the writer Boileau, and the admiral Duguai-Trouin — offered little scope for hostile interpretation. !°7 The Great Men — at least those with clear political significance — signal an important departure long been a weapon

in state intervention in the arts. in the ideological arsenal of the

beginning with Gois’s |’Hépital we

the arts had French monarchy, but

Arguably

find royal commissions being used not

simply to glorify the king but to influence public opinion on issues of imme diate concern to the government. Pajou’s unexeceuted Lamoignon and d’Angi

s anxiety general

be

read

over

the

choice of subjects

in 1789

represent

attempt

or any

the inver-

Far from trying to dictate public opinion, in 1789 the

feared

a hostile

The museum is not supposed to be a vain assemblage of frivolous luxury objects that serve only to satisfy idle curiosity. What it must be is an imposing school. Jacques-Louis David, Second rapport sur la commission du muséum, 1794

reaction

to any

gesture

that

as an attempt to assert royal authority through the arts. It , at the moment of the Grands Hommes’ retreat from signifilitical involvement that David came of as a history painter.

Whether or not his great canvases of the 1780s were painted with politically subversive intent (the debate continues), d’Angiviller’s use of the Great Men in the service of the Crown would at least have heightened an awareness in David and his contemporaries of the political possibilities and icaeions in the Salon, and makes it all the easier to understand why David’s matin could have taken on a radical identity on the eve of the Revolution. 168 Those possibilities and tensions would have been transferred to the museum with the works of art intended for it. Even though completion of the museum eluded d’Angiviller and the Old Regime, iste liber ate excur-

sion into contemporary politics and historical representation through state Patronage had nevertheless made of the Grand Gallery a deeply idec I _ | space. The politicization of the Louvre would be arried steps RR further by the Revolution, but in a direction unim aginable to c Angiv iller before 1789

on the ns gi be um se mu re uv Lo the of y or st The Revolutionary chapter in the hi the en wh , 92 17 10, st gu Au d se ap ll co day the Bourbon monarchy finally then l ti Un . er on is pr n ke ta I XV s ui Lo ng Tuileries Palace was overrun and Ki rvised pe su t ec oj pr a um se mu the d an ce pala the Louvre had remained a royal n du roi had cdl fe

the bo t, yea at th of l ri Ap as e lat As . ts ec it by the king’s arch aaa e a ng lo the n gi be d ul co Mique be acquired before the architect Fe a : an Gr the d te or pp su at th s ll le wa tural repairs to the sloping stab om the king’s civil me

for fr id pa re we s ir pa re e Th ). 25 from below (Fig. s declare wa on ti ec ll co l ya ro the , the monarchy erest I -edd However, with the fall of e a a its lv y ickkl ce un anno ic qu i al ly mb se As on ti Na e th d national property, an days after st Ju , r9 st gu Au On . um se ¢of the mu on ti le mp co e th g in r: at le ce ac in ed: su is s wa e e cr de g in ow ll fo the attack on t he Tuileries, the

the at ” er te gethna to ng ngi bri of E e S nc ta or ziing the imp gni eco iz gn co re J , ly mb se As al The Nation aat pre: sen e ar J at th art of s rk wo r he museum the paintings and ot persed in many

Th,at and ro

October

museum

urgency” locations, declares there is

August r te af on so so ee cr de al ci fi of an of t ec bj su e th e ad Mm: s wa m -u 4 tereda eted a lete as t, Ye . e le ab rk e ma re is eared a matter of urgency no less, deacl Roland, ie ar -M an J , or ri te in e th 1792 from the minister of museum e th e r, ea e cl eF kes a a d vi i Da s ues-Loui had been entrusted, to Jacq bh he

sc an ic bl pu Re e th in ay pl to le ro already had an important

extend st mu ce an Fr . . . es ’s great ; rich on ti na th e e at tr ns mo de st brace em ll wi m u This museum mu e s u m al on ti the na s: le op pe all to d an s : age the h iverse, By un e th its glory throug of on ti ra mi ad ¢ will be th d an ty au be ld fo ni ma its all in knowledge

The Revolutionary Louvre Louvre

The Revolutionary

embodying these gra become among the most pow

before the

Long

Louvre

a symbol

the museum . . . will

,f-a free peopl

of the French Republi

llustration:

had

first picture

been

in the

ind the cultural benefits of

achievement

of Revolutionary

recognized

Republicans

hung

Liberty.

As Edouard Pommier has argued, this apparently spontaneous investiture

lutionary sign had its origins in the of the museum with the appropriation of creation of a national patrimony following the state’s his Church property in November 1789.4 Overnight an immense artistic and toric heritage ceased to function meaningfully in a religious context and “at the disposition of the entered the public domain as biens nationaux, Crown soon The property of émigrés, the royal ac ademies and the Nation.”

followed. In response

to this unprecedented situation,

of artists and scholars were monuments

determine

destroyed. ing the

(1790)

what

should

then

be

the

in Paris — first the

Commission

preserved

composed

Commission

des

— to

temporaire

des arts

(1793)

could

be sold,

reused,

and what

or

Guidelines were drawn up for distribution in the provinces, includ-

pamphlet

dans toute

and

established

commissions

Instructions

d’inventorier

maniére

sur la

et de conserver,

l’étendue de la République, tous les objets qui peuvent servir aux

ux ices et a l’enseignement (1794), a landmark document in the history of conservation. More will be said about the work of these commissions

in

Chapter 5; what is important for present purposes is that from the start the

destination

of those objects deemed

worthy

of conservation

was

a museum.

What better use could be made of the nation’s new-found artistic and cultural wealth than to display it for the benefit of public instruction and pleasure? And what better use for abandoned churches than to house such collections? These were the early conclusions of the Commission des monuments, embodied in a clear-

ted report of December

1790:

1. All monuments so designated belong to the nation. It is necessary therefore to make them accessible to the general public, and nothing could better serve that purpose than bringing them together in repositories established in each of the eightythree departments which now make up France, taking re that each repository is as complete as possible. 2. Each departmental repository will be located in a large town, preferab ly one where there is already an educational establishment, for it is clear how much public instruc tion will benefit from these museums, the name that will be given to the repositories. 3. The site will be easy to find in each of the chosen towns. The muse um will beb housed in one of the churches that are due to be closed and w hick h would otherwise

be without useful purpose.’

In the capital, the sight f overflowing storage depots rekindled earlier visions of transforming the Louvre into a physical encycl opedia of knowledge. The politician Bertrand de Barére, in an add ress to the National

ssembly of May 26, 1791, envisaged the Louvre as a national palace of arts and sciences, uniting under one roof “all the riches possessed by the

Later that year the idea was taken up by Armand Kersaint in his nation.Ӣ Discours sur les monuments publics. But for Kersaint, the museum was to be more

than a union of rare and useful objects. Located in an expanded

(and finished) Louvre-Tuileries Palace complex, the museum would be a national monument, affirming at one and the same time the “will of the of old.” regime the over regime new the of superiority “the nation” and Completing the Louvre, he stated, would demonstrate that the new regime had accomplished “in several years what ten kings and fifty prodigal minis-

ters had failed to do in several centuries.”7 What is striking about Kersaint’s

project is his identification of artistic achievements with the creation of a new political order (“Show the world what a sovereign people can do”!) and the use of those achievements to confirm the triumph of Liberty in the public eye. More remarkable still in retrospect was his prophecy that the completed Louvre would make Paris the “capital of the arts” and the Athens of the modern world, a theme to which we will return later.8

Just as Kersaint preached the symbolic value of completing the Louvre after openof potential the grasped successors his and Roland so neglect, of centuries of the years final the during delays frustrating of years after museum the ing

for the responsibility assumed Roland essence. the of was Speed Did Regime. appointed a duly and 1792 September in property national all and Louvre J. Jollain, N.-J.-R. Vincent, E-A. Regnault, (J.-B. artists five — men panel of six (C. Bossut) — known as mathematician one and Pasquier) Pierre and Cossard,

these six men fell To project.? museum the oversee to Commission, the Museum deciding which and display the for Gallery Grand the preparing the task of now belonging collection huge the from exhibition for chosen be objects should remained paper Kersaint and Barére of schemes encyclopedic The to the nation. had it as focused, attention and dream, projects, last gasps of an Enlightenment ie equally was There arts. fine the and Gallery prior to 1789, on the Grand ‘ sought. had d’Angiviller “perfection” the museum question now of giving the had deter-/ 1791 as recently as gallery the in Even though a new experiment the space and inadequate was light of supply existing mined one: more that the : was.!° it as open to have too narrow, the museum would the va through gallery the on worked ‘As the Museum Commission and a . identity museum’s the that inevitable was and spring of 1792-3 it wal s. ; its beyond world the in developments by ical role would be shaped royalist rebelXVI, Louis of execution the — 1793 succession of events in front, and the assaseastern the on setbacks military lions in the provinces, t - pushed the ra Ma l au -P an Je d an u ea rg Fa tin Sa de é sinations of Le Pelletier d e th tude toward ti at s nt me rn ve go the ed nc ue fl in d an Revolution to the left ain rt ce un s thi ng ri du e lur fai of d an cy Louvre. Fear of royalist conspira

The Revolutionary Louvre Louvre

slutionary

of which was e os rp pu the ” n, io ct ru st in ic ubl neriod fueled a campaign of “f As a s. ne li an ic bl pu Re ng alo y socict of sffect the complete regeneration to play in the process. t par s t i had um se mu the state institution prominent ers who lett of n ma and phe tat e h t at, Do) minique Gar 1793, In April to the Museum rote ua Jan in rior inte the »f replaced Roland as min erest in which int e “th y, ler gal the h wit sn mnmissi n urg Co‘om due

grows daily

The

I nor

tances.”

tc

ompletion of the museum] at the present

achievement

well

nt int i

Re nea

continued:

He

rected; in particular,

it would have

reign mistress

assuaging

of

as

our external enemies, is by

which the national effort should be ible effect

“the fury of our passions

on public

opinion, which

and the calamaties of

by demonstrating that in spite of troubles at home and abroad d in the capital, the museum would also show that the rms” of the Revolution had in no way extinguished the cultiv n Franc

1a

the Convention directed its Comwas taken in May when Instruction (CPI) to draw up plans for a public festival first anniversary of the birth of the Republic, to take n August 10, 1793. Garat wrote to the president of the Conlittle over a month later to suggest that the museum and the Salon tribute to the celebration by opening on the same day. His

0 associate the museum with the direction of the Revolution and

prove, in his words, “to both the enemies as well as the friends of our young Republic that the liberty we seek, founded on philosophic principles and a belief in progress, is not that of savages and barbarians.” Furthermore, Garat reiterated Kersaint’s observation that the inauguration of the museum on August 10 would underline the superiority of republican government ov: he administrators of despotism.”13 It was at this moment that the Louvre museum formally entered Revolutionary political discourse as a sign of both triumph over despotism and culture born of liberty. Garat’s sensitivity to the latter symbolic value in particular may well have been due to his understanding of how the course of events in France was perceived abroad. In April 1792 he was attached to the embassy in London where he witnessed how “the principles and events

of our revolution were disfigured in a most atrocious manner.”!4 As antiRevolutionary propaganda

abroad

intensified

in step with the Revolution

itself, Garat would have become increasingly aware of the the need to redirect attention away from recent atrocities (such as the September M as-

sacres) and toward the ultimate, and in his v

W, Positive go: als of the Revo-

jution.!5

Through the museum Garat hoped to forge a link in the public eye,

both at home and abroad, between the conservation and display of universally esteemed works of art and the perception of responsible Republican government. In order to counter anti-Revolutionary propaganda, publicity of Republican achievements had at least to equal the spectacle of the guill tine and

dramatic acts of iconoclasm. And what better source of positive

publicity than the founding of a museum Europe had been anticipating for years? Garat’s proposal to assimilate the opening of the Louvre into the Festival of National Unity, as it came to be known, was greeted with great enthusiasm, and from that moment the Museum deadline to meet.

Commission

had a

The Commission now had two months to put the museum in order. It complained that only half the Grand Gallery was available (repairs to the stables were still in progress) and that no one was satisfied with the quality of light, but to no avail.16 It also ran into difficulties with members of the Commission des monuments, who, resenting the sudden appointment of an upstart commission to do work that they felt was rightfully theirs,

obstructed access to storage depots.!7 Garat finally intervened but with no weeks two than less Louvr e the at arrivi ng still were pictu res spare; to time as it was Franc ais, Musé um the Remar kably , open. !® to due was it before total of a were displa y On 1793. ro, Augus t on plann ed as opene d called, precious sculp tures , bronz e and marbl e assor ted 124 plus paint ings, 537 marbles, pieces of porcelain, clocks, and “other objects.”1 Unity stand out Natio nal of Festiv al the and Louvr e the of openi ng The approprihighl was it and 1793, of achie vemen ts Repub lican as two signal of this signi fican ce the grasp To day. same the on occur red ate that they festiof the Revolutionary purpo se the briefl y consi der must we connection, val and the meaning of the Louvre in 1793. the Republic of II year in Conv enti on the to addre ssed In a tract de Frang ois deput y the natio nales , fétes les (1793-4) entitled Essai sur the festival in of role crucia l the on disco urse his d’Anglas introduced Boissy goal of the Revolu ultim ate the statin g first by politi c body emerging tion:

ind . . . it is nk ma of on ti ra ne ge re t en an rm pe r e p the e h ect It is to bring together and to eff an understandh ug ro th y cit pli sim d an ty puri of e stat l to return man to his natura y once and for all the ro st de to ly ll fina is It . . . ts. righ his of ing and the exercise chains that oppress and enslave him.

only led fil ful be d ul co s on ti bi am d an gr ch su Revolutionaries realized that a e was not enough to direct a revolutio

through education. Authority alon icipation. rt pa g in ll wi d an ect dir h ug ro th ed the citizenry had to be mold ugh a ion of the people would be secured thro

The consent and participat

The Revolutionary Louvre The Revolutionary

Louvre

ONE

LIS DIME SILO,

DELS KEPUBLIO

of r

yal celebrations

the Revolution

continuity.”23

a sense

On

the

and

of what

other, the

lent

has termed

Lynn Hunt

public

and

worship

religious

festival generate da

the

experience

image

of

The festival of

“psycho-political

sense of commu-

republican society ba individual citizens and between an ideal

August

ro combined

and

made

manifest

itn

of

on the belief in transcitizens and the state. In parency between “public instruction,” and short, the festival was central to the concept of didacticism was at the heart of Revolutionary politics an

nity,

Bilin

ance

Soe

“It is by educating a man,” tion uc tr tr ins DLC lic pub ) of comprehensive system= lete ple com ner man a in him te ra ne ge re l as, “that you wil glas, Anngl 1’A wrote 2 Boissy d’ be taught to reject to d ha he e; fre be to rn lea to d ha {an ute. and absol ic. The public ubl Rep the of re futu the in h fait his e plac anc to ues yal his old On one, the program ls leve two on end this ve ser « to was ned al sig tiv fes d, sse gre pro n tio olu Rev the as ed and exp y uall grad was ch whi vals, festi of sitimacy to the new order by filling the gap left by the discontinu ga

two

themes

eet

&

that

recur throughout Revolutionary literature and figure promisently in Jacobin discourse: national unity and the regeneration of the people. These

concerns were conspicuous in the focal point of the festival — the procession and its attending imagery designed by David — but they were also implicitly present in the organized spectacle at the Louvre. On the morning of August 10 the crowds assembled at the Place de la Bastille, where the people drank from a fountain of regeneration in the

form of a neo-Egyptian statue of Nature squeezing water from her breast: which at once cleansed them of any association with the past and “baptized” them citizens of the Republic (Fig. 40). The ordered masses (estimated at 200, cked with liberty caps, tricolored ribbons, fasces, garlands, and olive branches, then set out along a processional route punctuated by five stations established at the scenes of significant Revolu tionary

events from the Bastille to the Champs de Mars. The festival thus end orsed the reidentification of familiar Parisian landmarks as sites of Republican memory. The crowd envisaged by David in his proposal to the Convention was the very picture of a new society in which distinctions of class and race were dissolved. “All individuals useful to society,” he wrote, “will be joined together as one; you will see the president of the executive committee in step with the blacksmith; the mayor with his sash beside the butcher or mason; the black African, who differs only in color, next to the white European.” From the second station at a triumphal arch on the Boulevard Poissoniére, the procession moved on to the Place de la Révolution

(now

the Place de la Concorde),

where

Louis

XVI

had

been

guillotined

months earlier. The people watched as repr esentatives from the eighty-six regional departments set light to a symbolic pyre made up of the “debris of feudalism” placed before a statue of | iberty, which stood on a pedestal

1793, Bibliothéque Figure 40. Anonymous, Festival of 10 August 1793. Engraving, Nationale, Paris.

:

:

X

3

:

of Louis . ae tue sta n ria est equ ’s on rd ha uc Bo d te or pp su that once des ce Pla the n, tio sta rth fou the At e. fre set n sands of birds were the rcules ; He f o tue sta al oss col ci a of ow ad sh the in i ted h hal Inv alides antithesis of the , sm li ra de fe ng i hi as sm people the French representing NS rs, the Ma de p am Ch the at Finally, hydra. a of national unity, in the form president the e er wh nd la Fathe the of altar the procession gathered before of allegiance. ge ed pl da le and Constitution the of the Convention read ie oe night. ¢ he into i followed f i c i n g dancing Music and sym! ols o} new the sanctifying drama, It was a brilliant allegorical on ti na e th ith wi d an , y, hy ch rc ar na mo e th i th those of f aw: ing Republic while of the l fal e th om fr on ti lu yo Re the of e the progress eing joined as one reliv as a muse d ve ei nc co s wa l iva n pea ie Bastille. In the words of Mona a ss maey d’ vi Da s wa It 25 ens. citiz its and en scene of the birth of the Republic ERe

en mm co was and. y antr page y onar luti Revo terpiece of medal

and a

ie five-act theatrical production by Gabr

se

doubt sere no was um muse the of ing open The Moline.26 the Louvre wou visit did who those yet val, festi day-long

st

alee ee

ner

The Revolutionary Louvre The Revolutionary Louvre

with vith 2 a similarE

sense of collective

Revolutionary may be view\ ed

triumph over despotism. In ion ens ion of the festi ens ext as5 an ext

important respects the museum val outdoors. ationsof the Lou ci so as l ica tor his h ric the s, other all On that day above The Revolutionaries nt. ica nif rly ula tic par med see e hav ld vre wou levels. First, new two 1 effe o int put was y iet soc e rat ene reg intent to of old: the fasces e thos for ed itut subs were p shi wor ic publ for s bol sym the Virgin, ed lac rep y ert Lib of ge ima ile fem the , -lis r-de fleu the ed replac er eith was ns tio sta ife man its all in past the , ond sec , And on.27 so and

destroyed or appropriated and revolutionized. David’s festiv al skillfully of the new culte révolution blended the two possibilities: all the trappings naire

tot tl

were

he peopl.

paraded through

The occupation

the

streets

and squares, w hich now

of spaces that had previously

belonged

been tightly controlled was

collapse of the Old Regime. As Ozouf has an inevitable response to the “The appropriation of a certain space, that must be opened and remarked, This forced, is the first climactic pleasure afforded by revolutions.”?8 applied to internal spaces no less than to space outdoors, and of all royal buildings in Paris none (after the Tuileries, overrun in August 1792) was more conspicuous, and therefore more attractive to Revolutionaries, than

the Louvre. Entry to much of the palace, and particularly Gallery, had been carefully regulated during the ancien régime.

the Grand As we have

until 1776 the Grand Gallery was home to the strategic scale-relief models and, for obvious reasons, was kept under strict lock and key (Fig.

Permission to visit the Galerie des plans was customarily reserved for high-ranking courtiers, foreign ambassadors, and visiting heads of state. Even after the models were removed, the gallery was not generally accessible except to those involved with or interested in the museum project.2? In the summer of 1793 the government would have been alive to the significance of “liberating” this formerly privileged space. Inside the museum, the feeling of Revolutionary conquest was unequivocal. The works of art on display had been prized from their pre-Revolutiona tings and returned to their “rightful” owners: the people. According to the Abbé Grégoire, those treasures “which were previously visible to only a privileged few . . . will henceforth afford pleasure to all: statues, paintings, and books are charged with the sweat of the people: the property of the people will be returned to them.”3° Belonging to no one individual or insti tution, the gallery’s contents were presented as “the property of all.” Seizing works of art in private hands and entifying them as communal property brough: t together at the national museum paralleled the Rey volutionary pro gression from liberty to unity dramatized by the festival of August free Aug}

admission and circulation at the museum celebration. The perception of collective Grégoire termed the “republican mold” national character and the demeanor of a

echoed Participation in the street ownership helped fashion what and to confer on the citizen “a free man.”31

In the weeks leading up to August ro, the Louvre was stocked with all manner of art objects in order to reveal the full extent of the nation’s newfound artistic wealth. Paintings and sculptures, tables and vases of precious marbles and porphyry, bronzes and porcelain were brought from the vari-

ous depots to dazzle and overwhelm the beholder. In July, Garat wrote to the Museum Commission: It would be appropriate to bring together for the opening everything that will enhance our precious collection of treasures to impress upon those who are coming to Paris for the festival that our present political problems have in no way diminished the cultivation of the arts among us.2?

At

one

and

the same

time, the museum

symbolized

the stability of the

state and the triumph of the people. Furthermore, for a period of two weeks, beginning on August 3, the public was admitted to the central storage depot of the Petits-Augustins to view the vast hoard of property, most of it confiscated from Paris churches, arranged according to provenance. The event proved such a success that the depot’s keeper, Alexandre Lenoir, was allowed to keep the exhibition open until the end of Septemthe ber.33 As mentioned in the introduction, some time later at the Louvre of émigrés were attached to works of art that had come from their names collections.%4

ted: it was era lib be to had that ce spa al roy a ply sim not was The Louvre Discontent . ure lpt Scu and ng nti Pai of y em ad Ac al Roy the to also home grown steadily had ld wor art is Par the of ly opo mon y’s dem with the Aca n many olut Rev the of eve the on re whe nt poi the to y, from midcentur the interests of ed mot pro had t tha tem sys a tle man dis to er eag e people wer demy there was = Aca the hin wit n Eve e. ens exp r thei at few a privileged n of honors. tio ibu str d ary tom cus and chy rar hie the h wit satisfaction After

1789

the

academies were among

the first institutions of the Old

of Painty dem Aca the t ins aga nt ume arg The . ack att Regime to come under the and ure uct str cal chi rar hie its t tha was t firs The ing rested on two beliefs. reforms cal iti pol the h wit ble ati omp inc e wer its members enjoyed privile,

an in ted sta er Mig C. S.er rav eng the As y. iet that were transforming soc in sone e els ng hi yt er ev “If 9: 178 er mb ve No of important pamphlet . ge an ch o als st mu y em ad Ac the of ion ng reform, the constitut undergoi

The Revolutionary Louvre

—_

The Revolutionary

Louvre

aching methods te l na io it ad tr s y' em ad Ac the t E tha Th e secondnd ¢ argument was um entered se mu The sts arti of nt pme elo dev per pro prope the to e h t ed wert ill suit d to arts it ican plan for the regeneration of the

the dispute because in the Republ as the was to replace the Academy future

surce source

instru u ction of of instr

for

I present

and

artists

Com the by icy pol of ent tem sta y earl an in r clea e This intent was mad , students, ans ici dem aca t iden diss of up gro g ron -st 300 the arts, des e mun

and previously disenfranchised artists that came tog ther under David’s In an address de livered to the National leadership in September 1790. Commune insisted that “In place of these public pro Assembly in 1791, the the huge collections of antiquities fessors and their deceptive instruction and works by the great masters, as well as many other artistic treasures cur “in a vast and suitable space” for must be displayed rently hidden away” the benefit of both students and the general public returned to the museum later in its address, after further tional academic practice It is obvious

how

ill-suited this education

is . . . to the formation

Commune The criticizing tra

of artists. Let us

provide one that is more in keeping with liberty . . . one that doesn’t raise students in vitude and commit them to a narrow path. Their goal as artists should be der ated in a more striking manner: let us evoke the memory of the great masters ina 1. a way that their wise and immortal masterpieces will inspire the artist enflamed with a love of his art to use them as his guide. It will be clear that we are calling for the creation of the national museum.38

According to the Commune, the main problem with academic instruction was the enforced dependence of a pupil on the teaching and protection of one master. The argument went as follows: an aspiring student was placed at an impressionable age in the studio of an established master. To get ahead and to benefit from his master’s influence with patrons and in the Academy, the student had little choice but to imitate the master’s manner. The faults of the master (no artist was perfect) would

be transferred to the pupil, who

in

turn would pass them on to the next generation, and so on. hough the dangers of following one example too closely had long been a commonplace

of art theory, after 1789 the contrasting notions of indentured servitude to a corrupting master, on the one hand, and freedom to choose one’s own

teachers from the field of great masters, on the other, became a central and irresistible figure in antiacademy rhetoric.39 In the words of Alexandre Lenoir, before the Revolution “Paris had neither museums nor public collections; arrogant masters hid the works of the great men from their pupils and offered only themselves as models; s tudents became slaves forced r to wear their masters’ livery,”40 The master-pupil argument was used by the

Jacobin deputy Gilbert Romme in a 1792 speech calling for the suppression of the directorship of the French Academy in Rome: surrounded by the works of Raphael and Michelangelo students full of youth and vigor are unlikely to receive fruitful instruction from a man inferior to those great masters and well past his prime, . . . Close supervision is inappropriate for students alled by the nature of their art to exercise their genius freely,4!

The closure of the Academy in Rome in the following year made the open-

ing of the museum in Paris all the more urgent, Rhetoric aside, there was a real commitment to giving artists access — indeed privileged access — to the Louvre collection for purposes of copying during the Revolutionary era. Lenoir exaggerated when he said that artists before the Revolution could not see Old Master paintings: apart from the

Luxembourg, there was the Palais Royal (where Lenoir himself studied) and

numerous other private collections open to well-connected academicians. But it is true that copying works of art in Paris was intentions, copying was not permitted at the allowed in the royal picture depots under Terray trast the Museum Commission in 1793 devoted

a problem. Despite initial Luxembourg; nor was it and d’Angiviller.** By confive days of every décade

(the ten-day week in the new Revolutionary calendar) to artists’ study.** This was increased to seven days in ten in the mid-1790s.* As Dominique Poulot to the useful testifi ed Galler y Grand the in copyi ng of activi ty the noted, has instruwas it art, past of reposi a tory than more museu m: the of purpose middle of the decade the By 6).*° (Fig. presen t the in art produ cing in mental

Gallery, but Grand the in easel an up set to allowe d was anyon e just about

had been ie people soo over III year (by becom e copyi ng did so popular a Ironic ally, introd uced. be to had restri ctions permits)*6 that before long

presentation 0 upon only grante d was copy to permi ssion ing the Directory, in never, was system atelier the thoug h Even a letter from one’s master!47 of the Academy closur e tempo rary the survi ved and fact, abolished the If Paris. in traini ng artisti c of part vital a (1793-5), copying did become it nevertherelati onship , master -pupil the replac e end the in museum did not the durin g behalf its on made claims pedag ogic less more than justified the artistic ntemp orary c on copyi ng of impact Revolution. Whereas the full copies by early-ninesurviv ing gauge, to difficu lt very be practice would to the g great i nt o p poi — — on so d an , ult i ica Ger i x, oi cr la teenth-century artists — De Kei re po al rm fo ir the to nt me le pp su a as importance of the Louvre es a

and the ts en id ss di the n ee tw be tle bat the in t in po The turning deputy on to the National Convention as

from was David’s electi ininfluential e th to on i ti at in na mi no s i hi by ed ow is, foll: ct “Museum” Public Safety e te it mm Co d an ) PI (C on lic Instructi of Pub e Committee a he as , es te it mm co e es th of k wor (CPS).48 David participated actively in the

The Revolutionary Louvre The Revolutionary

Louvre

His ent. id es pre pr s s a rm ‘ te e rv se he h |ic did in the Jacobin Club, of wh he spoke en wh but s, art the d ne er nc co I Convention) m¢ ) addresses to the era the r Ter , h t 4) 379 ing (1 dur o r e T y all e eci th esp g n , i t i r u d lly his opinions carri¢

of Jacobin

rule

began in November beg my against t he Acadedemy political campaign floor of the on h c spee a ing dur it m fro on ati ign res 1792 with his dramatic

David’s»

the Convention. In the David gradually won

s that

me

suaded the Convention té Paris academies. July

18 when

royal emblems

discuss this jc

the

Meanwhile

it was instructed

des monuments

the by

house.

appropriate the Academy’s there.*9 Finally, on August lowing rousing speeches by

by

July

he

had

per

gained official recognition on Commission to assist the Convention

Commune the

buildings

boldened

By

grew,

influence

CPI to report on the suppression of the

in the ideologically

from public

Jacobin

followed,

the

significant work of effacing remaining When the

in Paris.

Commune

met to

Convention’s support, it decided

to

rooms in the Louvre and hold its assembly days before the museum opened — fol8 — two David and the Abbé Grégoire, the Convention

The CPI assumed responsibility for the voted to dissolve the academies.5°? arts, which in effect meant that power passed to the Commune. In assuming control of the arts, the Commune was faced with the prob-

lem of taking over the Academy’s functions while eschewing its methods and hierarchical structure. This it was evidently unable to do — at least to the satisfaction of the Convention. The Commune itself was suppressed in the autumn of 1793 and its place taken by a radical offshoot, the Socié populaire et républicaine des arts (SPRA). As the name suggests, the SPRA was run along the lines of a popular society or club whose business it was to convert the people to the Republican cause. Artists were examined to

ensure that only true Republicans we mitted; politics became a criterion of membership.*! In keeping with its egalitarian charter, ranks within the Society were proscribed, and its meetings in the Louvre were open to any one who wished to attend. So much for the abolition of privilege. But the SPRA, now that the traditional academic system was no longer available,

was also obliged to address the question of how tion to aspiring artists, and, more important,

to provide artistic instruc-

how

to tailor that education

to meet the political demands now placed on the fine arts. The history of the Academy’s dissolution would be little more than a sideshow of the Rev olution if it were not for th great store placed by Repub licans on the regen erative powers of the visual arts and the efficacy of visual signs.52 It was through the arts that the people would become famili E ar with the

history, symbols, and martyrs of the Revolution. The arts, in other words, would play a leading role in legitimizing the Revolu tic and, moreover, would record the heroic ac hievement for post erity, The experience of revo-

Jution was so different from what had gone before, the break with the past so radical, that a new artistic style was called for to characterize in visual terms the magnitude and nature of the upheaval. The art of the Old Regime came to be viewed as effeminate and debased after 1789 (building on earlie r efforts by La Font and others to characterize the rococo in those terms) and

unfit for either public scrutiny or emulation by young Republican artists. In

a remarkable June 1794 address to the Convention, which sought to bring painting in line with the masculine republic of virtue promoted by the Jacobins, the painter turned politician Gabriel Bouquier had this to say about the art of the Old Regime and that which must replace it: It is time to do away with the traditional French system, that monarchical routine which, in subjugating art to the whims of false taste, corruption and fashion, has narrowed its genius, mannered its methods, and perverted its goals. . . . It is time to

replace the dishonorable productions [of the Old Regime] with paintings worthy of

a republican people who cherish morality and who honor and reward virtue. . . . Effeminate works by the likes [of Boucher, Vanloo, and Pierre] are incapable of

inspiring the virile and energetic style that of the defenders of equality. In order to breaking the chains that bound them, has dignified colors, an energetic style, a bold

must represent the revolutionary exploits capture the energy of a people who, in voted for the liberty of mankind, we need brush, a volcanic genius.*?

Republicans advocated that it was in the museum that these qualities would

acquired. um, It was the question of how the museum, or rather what kind of muse his next could best serve the needs of Republican artists that led David into seen, confrontation — this time with the Museum Commission. As we have

be

insisted from the start that hand in hand with the abolithe Commune had and it is tion of the Academy must go the creation of the national museum, the Acadclear from its polemical pamphlets that its campaign to replace

taking control of in est inter its of ion arat decl a time same the at was emy 2 the museum.*4 to do ort eff an h wit ded nci coi on si is mm Co um se Mu the on David’s move h inibot ind beh was CPI The s. nt me nu mo des on si is mm the Co away with of arts s ect asp all ng bri to ire des a by ted iva mot e wer tiatives, and both ng away with doi nt mea s Thi l. tro con ed liz tra cen er und administration t or disunc def w no to e anc egi all d owe and by d ate cre e agencies that wer

Commisthe of e cas the in is Par of ity pal ici Mun the — credited authorities mmission. Co um se Mu the of t tha in and Rol er ist min in ond sion and the Gir ons were the si is mm co two the t ins aga d ele lev s rge cha the Not surprisingly, and inconsisnce ete omp inc y: em ad Ac the yed tro des had t same as those tha

d guilty by associhel e wer ee thr All n. tio olu Rev the of als ide tency with the E jars : ation with past regimes. Waiting in the wings go. to first the was s ment monu des The Commission

The Revolutionary Louvre

once in

created

(CTA),

irty

er 18 the deputy from

delivered a speech

ithieu,

of

that the hat

moment

¢

have

Thermidor

i

that

cminder

that

i

were

members

ity

“terror”

But

have

would

performance

oni

1

to

said

their predecessors.’

Nept

york

and

= after

idinlt

d

ineptitude be

wnnot

the

of

ibolition

w

again

came

into play, only this time there was even more at stake because the Republic was relying on the museum to counteract outward wns of civil and political chaos, Failure to maintain the art it had inherited

jeopardized the Revolution’s self-image as the engine of progress and Enlightenment ideals, As the Abbé Grégoire remarked in his report on van “barbarians”

dalism,

detest and destroy works of art, but “free men” love

ind preserve thems Appealing to such sentiments, David's report gave details of botched restoration work under the Museum Commission: a

Raphael disfigured by clumsy repaints, a Claude landscape stripped of its apical light and color, a famous Guido Reni scrubbed to the bone, and so ono! By implication, Commission members were vandals in their own right, David

emphasized

that his criticisms of restoration practices were

backed

“the best-qualified experts in Europe,” He was referring to Jean-Michel hy Picault, son of Robert, the “inventor” of the transferral technique, and {

still,

march

that everything rve

i

Mathieu’s

speech

firm

on

and rapid |

to the

Commission

and calling

f ten men

(the

J.-H.

for

must

harmony

with

one

in

forward

commissions

step i in

Convention

Museum

painters

such

and indeed

with

of his

its replacement

Fragonard,

J.

Bonvoisin,

sueur, J.-M. Picault, and J.-B. Wicar; the sculptors R.-G. Dardel L, Dupasquier; the architects F.-J. Lannoy and David Le Roy; and

Casimir Varon) accountable to the CPI, whose professional standing was sound and whose patriotism beyond reproach.58 The Museum Commission, David claimed, was made

up of men

who

were either unqualified

for

the job, such as Cossard and Bossut, or who, though possessed of talent, like Vincent and Renard, were at best lukewarm Republicans. David failed to persuade the Convention on this occasion, perhaps in part because the

Commission had tangible proof of its accomplishments in the museum itself. In a second report on the subject, delivered on 1794, David challanged that achievement and argued that hands the display could be much improved.s? He focused on that had

become

controversial

almost

as soon

form of the January 16, in different two issues

as the Commission

began

preparing the museum late in 1792: picture restoration and the choice and arrangement of works of art in the gallery. Because of incompetence in those two areas, David explained, the Louvre, that “temple of libert y,” was a source not of glory to the Republic but of shame. Not for the first time the issue of conservation proved an effective weapon against those in whose trust the nation’s heritage had been placed The equation between a well-ordered museum and responsib le government

Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun, both of whom had recently published pam

phicts attacking the Museum Commission, Frustrated in their own attempts to win a place on the Commission, they joined forces with David to help in the destruction of the Commission,

at As carly as October 1792 Lebrun applied unsuccessfully for a position present time this again, tried he later month A restorer.®2 a as the museum David connoisseur. a as interior, the of minister then Roland, to ing himself

Apparayail.6} no to but support, his lend to interview the to went along repuquestionable Lebrun’s erase to nothing done had ently the Revolution appealed to the Lebrun authorities, the persuade to failed tation. Having

sur le muséum Réflexions his published he 1793 public. In January and reiterating policy restoration Commission’s the national, condemning to run the eae qualified were connoisseurs only that the familiar point and to ee attributions make to ability the had because they alone bad. Roland Cameats from pictures good and copies from original pictures and suggesting that intrigue Lebrun’s exposing press the with a letter to i it. by been seduced had vid to secure the ae bid simultaneous a making a ee, nae had been Sad Picault Lebrun, Like museum. the at of chief restorer is ae OTe to Revolution the on d’Angiviller and no doubt counted to ae Commission Museum the by asked tunes. In October 1792 he was basiaes ae

the best-qualified determine to competition open an in art a tec ba family’s the divulge to his father before him, he refused ce ae his own of competition restoration different and proposed a eee Bical rejected turn in was this Lebrun

and

David.§5

In March

1793

Ficaul

bl

a

ae poke

Oars the peston to Commune the on Chronique de Paris calling 4 the at abuses Commission's look into what he claimed were the

The Revo! The Revolu in

later

in

0) perly

Finally to public tion must be [he question of

the

f much

Muscum hool

arrangement,

to

the

uscum nusecum

Masai

mmission

| revealing

ind it did

so

evidently

and {ththeir

lel j

riod; or if we had separated the collection into schools, we might well have satis: | a handful of scholars, but we feared being criticized for having ordered some hing which, in addition to serving no useful general purpose, would actually hin ler the study of young artists, who, thanks to our system, will be able to compare

well Direc

of the ion

Con its

and

arrangement

deliberately

Callu the

nstrated the spirit of art in its infancy, during its rise and in its most recent

und themselves

\ D

set

extent

in

out of

bth

to

the

with the approval of Garat

n between a museum and a depot of biens nationaux.

The

on understood its mission to be the creation of an all-encompass: ing muscum, displaying under one roof “all the riches of the Republic in all branches of art and science.” But to David and his Jacobin colleagues this eclectic display was at once all too reminiscent of the aristocratic cabinets of the Old Regime and too heterogeneous to function as a school for artists.

As he declared in his speech of January 16:

“The Museum is not supposed

to be a vain assemblage of frivolous luxury objects that serve idle curiosity, What it must be is an imposing school

only

Commission presented its argument in a polished memoir dated

at a used

the

imis

felt obliged to justify its preference for a mixed In response to the criticisms of Lebrun, Picault,

irrangement we have adopted is like that of an abundant flowerbed that has planted with great care. If, by choosing a different arrangement, we had

vere

hands

had ope

twith enturic

ers igh

debate in 1793, Even before the museum

Commission

the

uc

the critics insisted that if the museum was to contribut instruction and the formation of Republican artis divided into schools and arranged chronologically.” how to arrange the Louvre collection had been

to satisfy

In addition to the decorative arts and scientific instruments, the gallery had also to be cleared of paintings that, in David s words, “could only encourage bad taste and error” — painting , in other words, that were seen to embody the decadent, effeminate taste of the Re Pompadour, For it was precisely this taste that the muse na ag to lewas supptosed eum eradicate from French art: “By offering young students only the most beau tiful of models, we sill soon see the end of that mannered and artificial taste which has characterized up till r v the work of every master of the French

as well as their faults, which only

styles of the Old Masters, their perfections

the

become apparent upon close and immediate comparison Aware ¢

chool

Z impede

of the “scholarly” and

& sinst

period

alternative

its impl I ementation,

would

to their installation, the In

a strict

its view,

Commission

arrangement

by

in the street and would

do nothing for the man

the young artist’s, development, Roland himself had recommended «

naue “every O74 As A artists tive of “everyone. display as one that would please they ) lled reca = the ) lled reca be will it sts, arti e Commission wer men on the

in eclectic

the

six

4

ae

rement

came to the pedagogic needs ot pile

(Fig.

20)

when

it

Pee ac aginenibneds in

In its insistence om ie pe SU aA ne ey Tent of Darius were Chapter 1, Veronese’s Supper at Emmaus and Le vata pen : is f nga whe n Fra bee had still paired at the ‘ Muséum y the as , ed en op it hen ri é

" Versailles for more : than a a ce century.

the focal The Louvre’s role in the education of Rey c yn a and its opponents » OMMISSIC eum C wel 2 . point of the argument between the Museu bid to bid @ In s ! em st syste sy e y e tiv pec res ir the of y it or ri Joth parties idvocated the supe | ante r pedagogic ground, but in the final tet one system was not ’

:

sia

of

Republican

e q became artists

demonstrably better for young painters than «the other. Grand heat G y aa represente d a ea In essence the dispute about hanging the Grand Fa ay: the one, favored by artists, lash of alternative modes of pictorial display: the one Y ites d he is bl ta es es ri go te ca al tic cri om fr d ve ri was ahistorical and de a

l and ue ica tor his s wa , rs eu ss oi nn co by d re er the other, pref : s er’ old beh the e at tr en nc co to d me scientific taxonomy. The former ai t e s ea er wh e, am fr the in th wi ies lit qua tion first and foremost on pictori al e in a ac pl its of s rm te in ng ti in pa n ve gi latter encouraged appreciation of a

Revolutionary Louvre

FER

,

riled competition, reveal the extent to which attitudes toward restoration atio ‘ 1 : change re cpa1 yea te ee : of restoration was no longer

mt 8, though this was still of the utmost

portance

ern

in certain cases, W hat made a good restorer was the ability to

the pe

ae materials of the various Old Masters and the torer,

ain purpose of restoration was

iven work of art to its “original state.”"* There was no greater

t to a picture than the ignorant restorer who in cleaning the surface 1k layers of glazes for coats of varnish or who in repainting a dam

irea substituted his removal from the began in February. yn.”85 During a period

ant public 5

museum

ould

project),

and

hailed

as a

be

irtists and foreigners (a special open day for the general public was held on july 14, 1794, the fifth anniversary of the Bastille).8¢ The special concession to étrangers remained in place throughout the 1790s and is a clear indican of the propagandistic function of the museum. hat is particularly interesting about the process of “purification” is the

nnovation

difficulty the )

power in January 1794, composed of determined by the issues over which critics

Con

3,000

scheduled

fought:

restoration

and

the

restoration competition In the event it proved a failure. A week nanded by Picault and Lebrun.7? was announced in Paris only a few people had come forward.#0 A it ifter date was planned for the summer of the following year, and it was econd In Sep: that better publicity would yield a larger field of candidates. hoped

tember

atoire

had

the

notices were distributed to provincial towns throughout the

land.*! As it happened, the

Conservatoire was not to get a second chance.

for by September 1794 paintings seized as war booty in Belgium had bepan The political aoe to arrive in Paris, the majority in need of restoration.2

art.

Disdain

what since the Revolution had ite the perfect museum

to the impossibility

of determining

successful a restoration would prove several years ut it.83 Ironical

sug

“in a matter

of days

later,” as J.-R-L.

how

Mérimée

)

the Lou at n ratio resto of ice pract the , tably inevi cally, though is f s during ment Bati 2 the ie b en/a t d|be wtha as . Hee much ccc Regime ce Old the final e ofaruthe evyears The

J I of Picault parr and Lebrun, together with the guidelines for the pamphlets

conflicted with the Revolutionary ambition to eradi

A good case in point was Rubens’s Medici cycle (Fig. 9), whose original

was, of course, the glorification of the monarchy, (We should bear purpose in mind that by the summer of 1794 the streets of the capital had been

intervention, there were doubts about the effectiveness of such a eomnen tion owing

become sensitive subjects. The desire to cre

cate the memory of former customs and loyalties.

oncern

Belgian

for objets de luxe, porcelain, and so on, was outright, but the

remove d (their presence had been exaggerated by the Conservatoire) were however, in arose, Problems influence. corrupting potential because of their portrayed cases in which indisputable masterpieces by canonical artists

cleared of

the

Conservatoire had in deciding what to do with certain types of

not so clear was view from banished be should pictures what for criterion For example, content. as style over much so not was confusion The cut.87 routine French “the embodying exhibition original the in the few paintings

Sure to put them on display immediately exceeded the desire to see justice

done to a handful of would-be restorers. Besides, even without

own hand for the style of the master. : gallery of works of art that were deemed unsuitThe Conservatoire’s word for this was “purificasome months the gallery was closed to all but of

all royal monuments and insignia.**) The fate of those paintings

vas discussed by the

Conservatoire in August. On the one hand, there was

that the sight of the “tyrant Henri IV and his wife” (Marie de

Medici) might

reawa

royalist sentiment

But, on the other, it was under-

stood that this famous series had long been regarded by artists and connoisart.0? In the end a . ry of art.*? ¢ the histo of s ment monu scurs ag one of the supreme ost] odes |i va ist 1 ly a royal ee overt epis less the compromise was reached whereby two of from the series - The Treaty of Angouléme and The Conclusion of the i Peace (Figs. 41 and 42) - were chosen, Removed from theiri narrative

The

Revolutionary Louvre

, the dense allegory of the scenes rendAs ered s them illegible except as paintings and examples of Rube $ brush; the nudie e foreg: d ime all the more prominent as signifiers of the tde al. All th in added precaution all “feudal signs” in the Paintings were ‘s ond difficult class of paintings was painting had proven highly Suet

ae Bene Scenes Though

gam ually to aristocratic collectors s and visitors s toto the“he subthe lowly Salon, Ses matter of much Dutch and Flemish art was deemed inconsistent with jidactic, moralizing aims of the museum during the Terror. In strict publican eyes the activities of farmyard and tavern would not mold and pire the young artist or citizen along desired lines, In the spring of 1794 nre painting was denounced more than once in meetings of the SPRA. On asion the sculptor J.-J. Espercieux exclaimed that he would not give ity sous for any Flemish picture,” It was proposed that a separate room created at the Louvre for selected genre pictures judged useful to artists from a purely technical point of view but inappropriate for general viewing. |.-B.-P. Lebrun, author of a recent book on the Northern schools of paintcame forward to defend the Flemish school and “the virtues of the cot not have worried.”

In practice, the exclusion of genre

tage,”

yet he need

David

Teniers, Albert Cuyp, Adriaen van de Velde, Adriaen van der Werff,

— painting was never systematically applied. Indeed many Northern artists

Peter Rube: Paul Rubens: weer, Paul i The Conclusion of the Peace. Oil on canvas, 1621-5,

on the list of Bartolomeus Breenbergh, and Gérard de Lairesse — figured the height of works requisitioned by the Conservatoire from Paris depots at than edifying subless to public the exposing about Misgivings Terror.23 the museum. the at completene ss of demands the by outweighed were jects public exhibition of The art. religious was problem potential Another clashed with the gov ostensibly martyrdom s and ecstasies, saintly miracles, to replace the worship of and “fanaticis m” suppress to policy ernment’s of course, if religious paintings But, Reason. of Cult the with Catholicism of countless masterdeprived be would museum the excluded, be were to fied in September intens dilemma The periods.** and schools pieces of all Belgian pictures. The first consignment 1794 with the arrival of confiscated i

Figure 42.

Mees uote

ean

-

Rubens’s magnificent contained numerous religious works, including . An article in the 43) g. (Fi l ra ed th Ca p er tw An om fr s os Cr Descent from the

such pictures to g in rt po im of om sd wi the ed on ti es qu e qu Décade philosophi ple delivered peo a on ... y og ol th my lic tho “ca ir the ng France and imposi from the superstitions of catholicism.”?° ism tic cri lic pub es, lin se the g on al d ha ve ha Whatever doubts people may of a ew vi re a in d ure fig t en mm co e ov ab was rare (it is significant that the ting up rr co ial ent pot e Th ). um se mu the of travel book and not a discussion a serious gh ou th , ng ti in pa of e typ r he ot y an or influence of religious art,

The Revolutionary Louvre The Revolutionary

place in the history of art. A transformation from imago agenst , shift in emphasis from function to form from signifihain ) ied to sigignnif ifiier, ild, it was suggested, result from displace ment to a museum va a 5 ingement of the collection by school and chronology.” This was implicit

Louvre

the

October 1793 law outlawing vandalism of significant art Bits iring feudal signs: the alternative to destruction was removal to the

nearest museum.” The power of the museum to elide original meanings |

| to substitute for them new aesthetic and art historical significances is understood today, but it is an attribute of museums exploited during the Revolution.

first recognized

As promised by David in his reports to the Convention, the Conservaire set out to replace what it viewed as a disorderly jumble of pictures with what its spokesman Casimir Varon described as “a continuous and ininterrupted sequence revealing the progress of the arts and the degrees of by various nations that have cultivated them.” If the

perfection

attained

mentation

in the Grand Gallery was recommended at this time on grounds

program was not in itself radically new, what is remarkable is that its imple-

f political expediency. In Varon’s fascinating report to the CPI of May

1794 explaining the changes that the Conservatoire had so far effected, he proposed that the new installation would neutralize the regrettable content »f many

of the paintings:

ing before you ead spr of sure plea the with es rfer inte et regr of e sens ry nta olu \n inv a multiins orig l stia cele and path true its m fro far ed erg div has art es; our rich of long centuries of slavery lts resu the ts, men eri exp s olou friv and ous ger dan of tude producits that secs one s turn one er rev whe re: natu its d ind shame, have debase not

Figure 43. 1611-12,

concern,

Peter Paul

Antwerp

Rubens, Descent from the Cross. Oil on panel,

Cathedral

especially

during

the Terror,

was

finally

not

great enough

to

impede the momentum of the museum or to detract from its whiners perfection. On the one hand, the ideal of a comprehensive museum tran-

scended mundane political concerns; on the other, precisely because it was an ideal shared by all enlightened Europeans of the late eighteenth century,

it was something the Republic aspired to realize in order to emonstrate itst political, cultural, and ultimately military superiority.%6 F Besides, for the sake of consistency and appearances a potent rationalization was at hand

A solution to the apparent contradiction between Revolutionary ideology and the purpose of much past art lay in the secularizing power of thne museum

and the reidentification of icor

intings as art objects occupyi

auchery. Such art does deb and , tery flat , ion tit ers sup of ks mar the bear tions hing for lib not does it es: ador le peop ed rat ene reg a that ons recount the noble less y and vanity if foll of s ing yth pla e thes all y tro des to d pte tem erty. One would be heless there is ert nev But . ion lat emu of hy ort unw ly ent vid f-e sel they were not so e precepts. This is fals e thes te tera obli to ts, vaul e thes veil to some point in trying overall effect of the colthe h oug thr #s It it. e iev ach to ve stri l shal our task and we grandeur and simplicity of air an of ue virt by is It e. don be best can lection that this ction that it sele us oro rig a h oug thr is It ect. resp win that the national gallery will rust command the public’s attention.1°°

during re uv Lo the at key re we ion ect sel us ro go ri Simplicity, method, and ieu envisth Ma s, nt me nu mo des on si is mm Co the the Terror. In his report on arranged d an d re de or be l wil g in th ry ve “e h ic iged a national museum in wh t as Varon Jus 9! .”1 elf its od th me by d he is ll be em with method, explained and with the me gi Re d Ol the of y” er ch au eb “d d an y” er ontrasted the “flatt d disoran s es xn la the ed ar mp co he so w, ne “simplicity” and “rigor” of the the Conservaof y enc ici eff the th wi on si is ganization of the Museum Comm terms: “Our tic ris ita mil e, in ul sc ma e lik in d be whose conduct he descri toire,

The Revolutionary Louvre The

Revolutionary

Louvre

n, io is ec pr f , ler er, ord OF s e l es ud ex st in contra

and the

¢

stri

French exacth

ictest

administration tude, ”!°2 Conserva the by ed is om pr on ti ec ll of the co The methodical reordering the museum ep ke to re su es Pr , hov ver , ne do an toire proved easier said th only half Still institute. to hard hanges « de open to artists and the public ma l under repair), stil was f hal er oth the bl¢ s ila wa y ava er was ll Gallery Grandnd Ga off the the Gra vre, to accom Lou re the uv Lo the vi in e er wh se el ce spa on and money to expand exhibiti als, meddals , ure lpt scu n r e f m , ure lpt scu rn de mo antique and modate the separate rooms by Varoonn inir his for 1 by for ed ll ca er and cameos and gems, drawings, s forfo fundsds thr through the win ests requ uent Freq ing. hcom fort report, was not all was the steady me eso ubl tro t Mos 193 ears. f dea on fell 4-5 ter of 179 sti exi ng sting exie rseevthe theis and theh constant need to o revi arrival

of

of

w

new

art

keeping , ots dep aris s iou var the of g rin ito mon e clos e pit Des installation. RICOSeptember tem be By least. the say to track of what was available proved difficult, seven hun and six n wee bet to led swel had alone t depo re Louv the , 1794 tions or dred pictures — no one was sure of the exact number.!°4 Any addi substitutions

in the

demands of school The

problems

pounded by lands.

The

the

permanent

and history choice

collection

had

both

to comply

and the dictates of visual symmetry.

and

hanging

were,

of course,

with

greatly

com-

arrival from September onward of art seized in conquered

Revolutionary

Louvre

would

not be complete, or more than pro-

visional, until the fruits of foreign conquest had been successfully assimilated. An account of the process of assimilation and permanent installation must wait until the next chapter. In the meantime we must turn our attention abroad, to the plundering of northern Europe and the systematic despoilation of Italy by Napoleon Bonaparte.

Official confiscation of art, as opposed to random looting by troops, w: CPI to the CPS on June 27, 1794, the authorized by a report made by the day after the French victory at the battle of Fleurus, which marked the turnng point in the two-year-old war with Austria. The CPI recommended that a handful of artists and men of letters be sent to Belgium in the wake of the ublican army in order to confiscate selected “monuments of interest to the arts and sciences.”195 On July 8 the CTA appointed a committee of four men — J.-B.-P. Lebrun, the Abbé Grégoire, A.-C. Besson (an early advocate of confiscation),1°° and Varon from the Louyre — to draw up instructions for generals in the field in the event they happened upon objects worth tak ing. The CTA was the obvious body to supervise such business since the elaboration of guidelines for selection and confiscation complemented the work that had gone into their earlier manual on cataloguing and conserving valuable objects throughout the land.!°7 Belgium, after all, was now another

province

whose

monuments

might enrich Parisi an institutions: the

Louvre, the Bibliotheque Nationale, and the Jardin des Pl antes, In due were ourse a number of experts chosen in various fields to dir ect the operition, including the painter J.-B. Wicar (who w. the fall of Robespierre), the architect de Walk deme scsipit following 5 ind

the antiquarian

and

former

ist André Thouin,

secretary of the Commission

des monu-

ments, G.-M. Leblond. At about the same time, however, apparently at the behest of the ¢ PS, the stinguished chemist L.-B. Guyton de Morveau, then serving

cisely

with

what

the French

the

army

at Brussels, authorized

two men

to do pre-

CTA’s experts were being sent to do. Morveau’s delegates

were the painter and former pupil of David, Luc Barbier, then an officer in the Hussars, and one Léger. In the event, they sent the first spoils of war back

to France.

Regarding the choice of paintings and other objects, much if not all direc-

tion was provided by the CTA in Paris. In the realm of art, Lebrun’s knowledge of the Low Countries, accumulated in his years as a dealer and in the

preparation of his three-volume Galerie des peintres flamands, hollandais et allemands (1792-6), proved invaluable.1°8 Whatever reservations contemporaries may

have had about his character and professional conduct, Lebrun

was a formidable connoisseur, perhaps the greatest of his age, and his experience was essential to the formation of the Louvre during the 1790s. Cecil Gould was probably right to suspect his influence in Barbier’s choice of pictures and to note that the first three sent back from Belgium, Rubens’s

Descent from the Cross (Fig. 43), the Erection of the Cross, and the Crucifixion, had been singled out for special praise in his recent book.!99 At the same time, they were obvious choices and topped the register of Flemish pictures that had, in the words of one Convention delegate, “long attracted travelers from all over Europe as well as the admiration of painters.”!1° More significant, no doubt, was Lebrun’s influence in the selection of representative works by dozens of lesser Flemish and Dutch masters. The list, featuring two works by twenty-one artists and single pictures by more than sixty others, is at once too varied and too specific to haye been the product of chance. It is as

if Lebrun’s Galerie provided the model, and perhaps it did. The first of the 150 paintings to be confiscated in Belgium arrived in Paris in September. Political pressure to display these treasures was such that they went on view at the Salon just five days after their arrival, ousting pictures by contemporary French artists submitted for the annual concours.1!2 This special exhibition in the Salon set a precedent for all future convoys of war booty arriving at the Louvre. A day after their arrival in Paris, Luc Barbier, who had escorted the convoy in person, appeared before

the Convention and made a speech important for its rhetorical justification ~ of foreign conquest:

the

Louvre

The Revolutionary

t

e haveebeen pipieces L

te

ervitude.

that the legacy of

en

is

Van

Dyck

they

erty and

ar

1

For too long these

liberty

of

yatrimony

master people ee fr a m of so bo It is in the

|

)

The

immortal

;

worksof Rubens,

paeemontalientsoll

atenolol

aflH

equalit

n removed from bee had ngs nti pai e thes that ism m tic icis cri crit s s i iou obv l o ng ng mptipti re-e-em Pre they had found that ed claim claim Barbier , er Barbi { se, purpo r prope their and native soil their

gesenius.

all of

rightful

Just

to th museun from aroun¢ the Republic

Revolution

as s theth cc

Europ

d

t

bosom

in the

home

berty. libe of »f liberty,

had freed

the ie

t true

Frenchmen

home home

of

creativity

and

and would soon liberate

n had freed these paintings, too long subjected ted at the Louvre the Furthermore, ¢ of inspiration, drawing artists 1 universal source erved “to make known to Finally, recent cor

) rd. er and

discipline

of its armies

In one speech Barbier managed simultaneously to defend French confis cation on ideological, pedagogic, and military grounds. His address became ubsequent

public justifications of French conquest, and worth noting that the Louvre was alre dy the

eams before the battle of Fleurus. Kersaint, for examyn the

Louvre and other monuments,

envisaged a new

race of men regenerated by liberty,” succeeding Rome the arts.”!14 A similar vision preoccupied Boissy d’Anglas Imagine Paris becoming the home universe, the hub of through knowledge

Piedmontese

in

April,

he

j land

turned

foward

Paria,

The Revolutionary Louvre

ee

entering

the city he sought information from the French minister at Genoa about ollectionsof art to be found not only in Parma but also in Mi lan, Modena, Piacenza, and Bologna.1!® Breaking with the informal looting of collections in the Low Countries, Bonaparte stipulated the surrender of works of art as part of the armistice he signed with the Duke of Parma on May 9, setting a precedent for future campaigns (Fig. 44). Though confiscation was on occasion ordered in retaliation for local resistance, as in Verona following the revolt of April 1797, or in Rome a year later to avenge the assassination of

General M.-L. Duphot, in the main it was legitimized (and tied directly to battles won) through treaty agreements.

In advance of the armistice with the Duke of Parma and

in

anticipation

of great victories to come, Bonaparte wrote to Paris on May 6 asking that “three of four known artists” be sent to Italy to assist in the choice and transport of his booty.11? But already in Paris, in the wake of the fall of Piedmont and apparently in ignorance of Bonaparte’s innovative armistice of May 9, the Directory had decided to authorize the continuation of the

Jooting that had proved so successful north of the Alps. In due course five commissioners were chosen: the chemist C.-L. Berthollet, the mathematician Gaspard Monge, the botanists Thouin and J.-J. de La Billardiére, and the painter J.-S

Barthélemy

(who

was

later assisted

by Wicar

and

Gros).120

Though our concern is with the paintings and sculptures taken for the Lou-

the capital of the arts: imagine the inestimable advantages of it of all the treasures of the mind . . . it must be the school of the human science, and command the respect of the whole world and instruction.115

Most familiar is the Abbé Gré: call to enrich France with cultural treasures at the expense of its vanquished enemies, culminating in the acquisition of the greatest prize of all: the Apollo Belvedere and the other ancient marbles of Rome.!!6 It was fitting that Paris, capital of what Revolutionarles perceived as a new political world in the making, should naturally become the capital of art and knowledge as well. With this premise in place, confiscation became a matter of taking from the ignorant and giving to the

enlightened

for the ultimate

benefit

of all. In the new

cultural

order,

the

Louvre would become museum to the entire world. In 1796 the policy of confiscation was taken south to Italy by General Napoleon Bonaparte where it was raised to new levels of sophistication.!17 Though Bonaparte manifested little personal interest in art, he well understood iits value in the realm of € politics and war. After a quick victory over

iscation of Paintings at Parma by French Troops. Drawing,

yni z gure Figure 44. Charles Meynier, Confisc Musée du Louvre, Paris.

f

8

Louvre

The Revolutionary

of the

omposition vre, the s all that was confiscated CES AU sn F lier

:

ollowing th

i.

oward

naparte

Rome. In ray

bologna,

of the

their

nquered

Milar

commissioners

a

ena,

arriva | in

Ir

¢

and

commission.

I

mat

armistice

Vas

from

2 Ron

statues

>

a

victorious

Mod

Cremona,

yed by members treaty; ena

in

some

J june

n

paintings

S

Ww

y

cent

SDT

f

1797

¢

further

erugia,

and

taken

no

fortnight ear hed

y

In ¢

cases the number was s an

;

Milan,

enza,

by

art was

us that

eminds

commis1 sion

given

works

of

over

art

23

and to

were

Venice. According to in all ar VI (1797-8), hosen during this first rtain

important

cities,

scia, remained untouched, as did heads of state. Some of these cities tially

stripr

while

Bonaparte

eventually

found

collections.! in noble 1 treasures selected the works of art and according to what principles aris n. As in Belgium, the commissioners’ choice met with almost te approval at home, suggesting that they were given clear guidelines if not detailed lists of objects. The one exception to the rule sup1 conclusion. After the first French victories in northern Italy, laparte, impatient for the arrival of the commissioners from Paris, appointed the artist J.-P. Tinet, who happened to be on hand, to begin the process of confiscation.'23 By the time the experts from Paris arrived, Tinet had already been to Milan, Cremona, and Modena and partially filled the stipulated quota of works of art. On May 17 Tinet dispatched seven cases of assorted antiquities and works of art, which proved a dismal anticlimax when they were unpacked at the Louvre six months later. The Décade philosophique was forced to admit to an expectant public that “with the exception of five etruscan vases . . . there is nothing worthy [in the convoy] to be offered to the French Republic.”!24 Acting on his own and in haste, Tinet had put together a less than satis tory collection of objects. The official commissioners were altogether more professional. They went about their business with an assurance that suggests a guiding hand. At least with respect to art, it is more than likely that they kne w in advance what to look for. Between common knowledge of what constituted the major artistic monuments of Italy and detailed guidebooks providing information about less obvious works of art , a list of desidera ta could easily have been compiled in Paris. A guidebook had been used to scout works of

II

in Germany

rat he

The Revolutionary Louvre

and (at least) one was most probably used for It ly aly

Thouin, in his otherwise discre et accoun

as

t of his stay in Italy, tel} traveled with J.-J. Le Frangais de Lalande ’s popular Vosare ye

C15 Italie (1769), and this may well haye been the common urce.!?6 If at first the use of guidebooks to direct the confisca tion of foreign art seems ironic in the sense that a central museum in Paris undermined the purpose of the Grand Tour, we should recall that the point of building the Revolutionary Louvre was precisely to alter the Priorities of European

urists and artists and to make Paris the artistic capital of the modern

world.

Where relevant, other sources of information must have been used.

A list of antiquities from Verona, for example, refers throughout to Scipione

Maffei Caylus,

(1675-1755), the erudite friend and correspondent of the Comte de who had published several antiquarian studies of thar city.!27 In

their choice of 500 manuscripts from the Vatican, the commissioners closely followed the requests of the Institut and Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris and referred constantly to the “printed catalogue” issued by the latter.128 For

paintings, Luigi Lanzi’s two-volume Storia pittorica della Italia might also have been consulted. Published at Bassano in 1795-6, it was the most up-

to-date and authoritative account of Italian painting. Certainly Lanzi’s book was used in about 1800 when the Louvre drew up a list of Florentine artists (mainly “Primitives”) not yet represented in the museum.!29 Works of art were chosen according to one of two criteria: first, celebrity second, rarity. In the first category were those canonical paintings and sculptures esteemed the world over. The final list of objects taken from Rome begins with famous antiques from the Vatican and Capitoline Museum - the Apollo Belvedere, Laocoon, Belvedere Torso, and so on. Eighty-three of the 100 works of art ceded by the pope were antique marbles. Though many of those chosen are unfamiliar today, at that time they were universally admired by amateurs. In the words of Haskell and Penny, the selection “implied a tribute to consecrated taste.”139 The same could be said of paintings from Rome. That list opens with two of the three paintings thought by the French (following Poussin) to be the greatest in Rome: Raphael’s Transfiguration (Fig. 52) and Domenichino’s Last Communion of

Saint Jerome (the third, Daniele da Volterra’s fresco of the Descent from the ( ross at S. Trinita dei Monti, was immovable).!3! It continues with other scarcely less famous altarpieces: Guercino’s Saint Petronilla, Caravaggio’s Deposition from the Chiesa Nuova, Andrea Sacchi’s Vision of Saint

Martyrdom of Saint Peter. These paintings, long Romuauld, and Reni’s admired by amateurs, had also been faithfully studied and copied by gener-

ations of students at the French Academy in Rome; their capacity to inspire : future students in Paris was an important consideration.

If little guidance would have been needed to select these obvious master-

pieces,

The Revolutionary Louv re

Louvre the

their rarity.

same

was

The commissioners’

ld fill gaps ; in the wourr tion, stemming from accounts for for the the incin

imoone Sim

of the

truc

not

large ¢

museum’s the des

second t

num ber

of f paintings ‘i

k was to bring

back

chosen eefor

pictures

"

eme tary y ambiamb: ) plemen com Thi gs. din hol Italian history of ¢ art, instruction) In theth ) proy of Giorgione, ks by the likes

‘ Elizabetta

G: tarini, i, D Dc Can

Sirani,

and

Bononi

Carlo

—

pying uden for copying. mmended t to students ommended artists who would n« Where art historical rather than artisti instruction was concerned only a rk was required.!32 Who to representative sample of a gi ven artist’s surely a matter decided by the include in the survey of each school was Paris must also explain the commismuseum authorities. Directio to in search of works by Perugino, ar sion’s excursions to Perugia A total of seventeen Peruginos, Guercino, and his pupil Ercole Gennari. twenty-eight

Guercinos,

and

three

Gennaris were

brought

to Paris.

Such dis-

proportionate numbers (compared with, say, fifteen Raphaels, nine Renis, and three Domenichinos) were less an aberration on the part of the commissioners than the product of the museum’s didactic program, to which I will return

in the

following chapter

The removal of art from me and Venice, was eant, in which

Italy, culminating in the mighty third convoy presented to the public at home as an exotic

Bonaparte’s Grand

Army, the commissioners,

and invalu-

asterpieces of art played leading roles. Through press reports the he progress of the most eagerly awaited convoy through Successive stages of its tortuous journey to Paris, each step on the way reported like installments in a serialized adventure. Descriptions of the

bumpy road and curious bystanders between Rome and the port of Livorno

Leghorn), and the threat of English frigates on the open seas, lent the reports local color and a touch of suspense. A pair of letters published in the Décade give us, in one, a fascinating account of how the paintings were rolled in waxed cylinders and the statues encased in plaster and straw and then transported overland on specially constructed carts to the coast, whence they traveled by ship to Marseilles.133 The other letter gives an improbable, though no less interesting, account of the arrival of the third convoy at Livorno, pulled by 120 buffalo and 60 large-horned oxe The whole town came out to greet the c Voy; everyone was amazed by the power

of a nation which, four hundred leagues from native soil... had managed to transport such a large and precious cargo across the Apennines from Rome in order to decorate the capital of its empire. What a nation, this France, they said. So impressed were they that they called her THE NATI ON , as if she were the only one on earth deserving of the title.134

It was indeed a miraculous achievement, esp ecially as, | y all reports, so lit-

tle damage was suffered by those fragile works of art, The whole operation was a large-scale propaganda exe:

tary

campaign, which

1

exercise managed with the Precision of a mili-

in an important sense it was, since the prime benefj-

iary was General Bonaparte. To the people at home these trophies of conjuest spoke more loudly and enduring ly of his success in war than reports sf victorious battles ever could. As a result of Bonaparte’s Italian ca mpaign the Louvre took on an increasingly military air. The symbolism of war and military might replaced that of popular triumph over despotism. Artists and the public now had the army

to thank for the museum as much as the Revolution Wi . tness the trib-

ute offered by the artist Baltard: “The National Museum and its precious contents are recompense for the lives and blood of our fellow citizens spilled on the field of honor. French artists are worthy of this prize; the y fully recognize its importance.” 135 The press, eager to fan the flames of patriotism, predisposed the public to view the art from Italy as the bounty of war. In May 1797, for example, the Décade announced the arrival of a small consignment from Mantua, augmenting “the number of trophies that will celebrate until the end of time the memorable exploits of our armies.”'36 By 1798, according to an account of the new exhibition of booty from Lombardy, the new national flag, the tricolore, displayed in the gallery four years earlier, had been displaced by an ornamental arrangement of captured enemy arms and battle standards: A trophy of the middle warmed my monuments and lasting

arms and flags taken from the enemy decorate the door of the Salon. In an inscription reads: “To the Army of Italy.” The sight of this trophy blood, the words brought tears to my eyes. .. . One day we will raise of marble and bronze to our warriors. Unnecessary efforts! The true monuments to their glory will be in our museums.137

Bonaparte’s personal identification with the museum was secured in Decem-

ber 1797 at a dinner held in his honor in the section of the Grand Gallery destined to house the Italian schools.138 Of all events connected with the removal of art from Italy none was more dramatic than the festival organized in 1798 to mark the arrival in Paris of the third convoy containing the long-awaited marbles and paintings from Rome, central Italy, and Venice (Fig. 45). After lengthy delays caused by a combination of political problems in Rome (resolved by the Treaty of Tolentino, signed in February 1797), a shortage of funds for transportation, and bad weather en route, the convoy finally arrived at Paris in July

1798.!39 Though previous convoys had arrived at the Louvre with little fanfare, the contents of the third and last convoy called for a celebration. It

was commissioner Thouin who it seems pushed for a spectacular entry into Paris. In his letter to the Directory of August 1797, written once the convoy

ec Soe

The Revolutionary

The Revolutionary Lou vre

onsisted of cavalry and marc hing troops, musical bands, an d repreof the three divisions. Since for safety’s sake all of the artist ic treare kept in their packing cases( with the lone exception of the bronze of San Marco), visual interest was confined to the exotic plants and nals, dromedaries, lions, and so on , that led the wa y. Banners and ptions described what could not be seen. Introducing the sculptures at front of the arts division was a banner that read: “Monuments of jue Sculpture. Greece gave them up;/ Rome lost them; / Their fate has

The Revolu

hanged; / It will not change again.”143 Inscriptions on individual

repeated the full array of metaphors and apologies for the museum :ad been introduced since 1793. That on the Horses of San Marco, for

ample, read: “Horses transported from Corinth to Rome, and from Rome Constantinople to Venice, and from Venice to France. They are finally on

soil.”

That on the cart bearing the Apollo Belvedere and Clio: “Both

|| reiterate our battles, our victories.”

The banner preceding the Paintings

Artists hurry! Your masters have arrived.” Meanwhile a song for the occasion resounded with talk of prize trophies, van-

smposed quished tyrants, and the Republic’s eternal right to its plunder. Upon

: the arrival of the procession at the Champs de Mars, Thouin gave

, speech loaded with more of the same fuzzy rhetoric. What better way of

ault, VI.

Triumphal

Engraving,

En 1798

f the

Monuments of the Arand tsSci-

was under way, he calculated the enormous political benefi t of a “tri Procession” traversing the length of the French Republic.'40 By September, as he prepared to escort his precious cargo up the Rho ne from Marseilles, he had conceived in considerable detail an elabor ate parade through the capital.'41 His plans were followed to the letter when the b arges eventually reached the banks of the Seine. Originally the festival was planned for Bastille Day, but last-minute delays caused the ceremony to be rescheduled to coincide with the annu al Festival of Liberty marking the anniversary of the fall of Robespierre and the end of the Terror,'42 On the morning of 9 thermidor (July 27), forty-five cases were loaded onto the carts that had borne them overland in Italy, The Procession, divided into thr groups — natural history, books and manu Scripts, and fine arts — made its way fro m the Museum of Natural History on the Left Bank to the ¢ mps de Mars, where it arrived late in the a noon. In addition to carts decked wit h oak garlands and tricolors, the

commemorating the end of the Terror, he insisted, than a festival chat will yvash away memories of tyranny and replace them with thoughts of nature, ot the arts, antl liberty! Though Thouin described the triumphal ete uniquely suited to that anniversary, others (and no doubt Dee had earlier prepared to emphasize the appropriateness of the convoy’s arrival on the anniversary of the Bastille. Certainly the Décade had al ted itself by declaring July 14 a day well chosen, for it was after all oe a af the Bastille that had triggered “this great revolution which ae fet es so much precious plunder.”144 Had the convoy been delayed ae a He sae ah anniversary of August ro would have done just as well. curane rhetoric, what mattered most was the acquisition of ae world’s most : y prized works of art. A refrain in the song said it all: “Rome is no mo: cha ed country:y: / Rom: e is no Man / Has chang G Great Rome; / Every Hero, every more in Rome,: / It is all in Paris. 7145

Chapter

[he

4

=

HE

\

:

A R eeI 5

MUSEE ¢

administration

on

The Musée Central des Arts

hand

to greet the Masterpieces

of Rome

and

Veni Louv was altogether diff of ficece atat ththe e start re of the Belgian campaignerent from that which had been in . In 1798 not one mem ber of the rigi ginnalal CoCo nsnserervz v atone remainaineded, , TwoTw. of f David' rid”s right-hand men, Wicar ind Le

Sueur, were purged following the fall of Robespierre (David himself vas briefly imprisoned). Eight members stayed on: J.-H. Fragonard, Casimir Varon, J.-M. Picault, David Le Roy, Jean Bonvoisin, R.-G. Dardel, F.-J. de Lannoy, and A.-L. Dupasquier.

Of the cight, only Fragonard

and

Pi

cault urvived a subsequent, deeper restru cturing of March 1795. Hubert Ro bert, \.-J. Pajou, and F-A. Vincent joined Pi cault and Fragonard to form a leaner ind, what the government hoped would Prov e, more efficient administra-

tion.

The new appointees signal a clear return to the old order: Vincent was brought back from

the Museum

Commission,

whereas

Pajou

and Robert

had acquired their administrative experien ce under Louis XVI (Pajou had been in charge of the so-called Salle des antiques, the central repository of royal

under

sculpture).

another

the

museum held its own nocturnal arrival from Italy in the courtyard of the n the middle of sixteen torch-lit pyramids, eminiscent of Boullée and uncannily similar to ramids of I. M. Pei (Fig. 46). Two inscriptions placed urtyard read: “The Arts seek the land where laurel the Armies of the Republic and the French vernre grateful.”! The “most attractive” wives and daughters of ig into the early morning hours.

Louvre Museum

reformed

Conservatoire

remained

in office for just

two years before it was, in turn, replaced in Ja nuary administration,

At that time the Louvre

was

renamed

1797 by yet the Musée

entral des arts in order to single it out as the nation ’s first museum and “center of the arts in the Republic.”2 In recognition of the museum’s grow

ing size and

tion, the

increasing

importance

as a national

and

International

institu

y administration consisted of three full-time bureaucrats — Léon

Dufourny, Bernard-Jacques Foubert, and Athanase Lavallée — in addi tion to

the connoisseur Lebrun and a panel of artists, in this case made up of Robert, Pajou, de Wailly, J.-B. Suyée, and N.-J.-R. Jollain (Robert's fellow keeper of pictures at d’Angiviller’s Louvre).3 Possessing social and admini strative skills as well as a discerning eye, these bureaucrats signaled the emergence of the professional museum man. After 1802 the customary panel of artists was done away with altogether. Notwithstanding changes in personnel, inspired in good part by political shifts after the Terror, the museum’s “mission” remained constant. The vision promulgated by the Conservatoire in 1794 of a museum devoted to the “high” arts and instruction in art history was passed on from one administration to the next and eventually realized in 1803 by the man Napoleon Bonaparte made director of the Louvre, Dominique VivantDenon.

Figure 46. 1. M. Pei, Pyramids,

T

As noted in Chapter 3, the first Conservatoire had difficulty rearranging the collection left by the outgoing Museum Commission. Its promise of a rigorously ordered museum proved difficult to keep owing to the physical constraints of the Grand Gallery (primarily the high walls and intrusion of windows) and the need to accommodate a rapidly growing collection. The Conservatoire received little sympathy from the public or the government:

on the state of the Louvre:

a withering report

tration, the Décade published

nee Il be

t

Of course

organi plaint,

Unlike n

those

ems

t

r

the deman

charge

pleasure

rearranging

these

in

constantly

rearrangin

be se n near the entrance to the gallery one we week later, or will have disappeared altogether. It is

the

aim of the

‘ Va

superb

this

nd most valuable collection of paintings in until the paintings were placed in a permanent,

ng ¢

of

account

an

readers

ted

rational

frus

public’s

the

ting

1

n¢

understoc

neither

and

Conservatoire

vy

s.

blishec

eport,

was to

Possibly

1

this

one t

1

rt on

was

s v

1e ormer

yuld require had a point,

royal

many

paintings

was

do considerably

in anticipation behalf

on

the

to place

collection

Gallery

more

than

of this com Conservatoire.

and

that

was

barely

large

the paintings

from

at least another 600 feet of wall space.5 The but the government was eager for a fresh

id Conservatoire initially had no more success than the first in ng for the need for more room. In fact, in May the museum lost valu€ space when picture depots located beneath the Galerie d’Apol»ver by the stock exchange.* Shortly thereafter the issue of gain raised when the Belgian pictures displayed in the Salon had taken down to make way for the exhibition of contemporary art. There was nowhere else for the Belgian works to go but the section of the Grand Gallery still closed off for repairs.? Rather than violate the Revolutionary principle of public access to national treasures, the government duly granted funds to extend the museum by a further 560 fee’ the length stipu-: lated by the first Conservatoire.8 By March 179 6 the new section of the gallery was ready But no sooner had the work been completed than it w ‘as realized that the original part of the gallery was now badly in need of renovation. The flooring, hastily laid in 1793, was worn, and the walls needed Painting. It was decided to continue the new parquet back to the Salon and to give the entire gallery a fresh coat of paint: the walls were painted olive ee the cornice stone gray, and the ceiling sky blue.? The Louvre’s resiate pepe este ee Salneisieae, called Hubert, promised to in wi a

a

@ In six weeks; but when

the public was treated to a series of temporary exhibitions in the Salon and a permanent exhibition of Old Master drawings in the Galerie d’Apollon next door. The first of the Salon exhibitions, held between May and September 1796, featured a selection of paintings of the three schools drawn from the collection as it existed prior to the arrival of the Italian convoys. The masters of each school were represented more or less in proportion to their fame. Thus, for example, from the French school there were eight Poussins,

four paintings each by Lebrun, Le Sueur, and Vernet, three each by Rigaud and Bourdon, and one token work by painters such as La Fosse, Jouvenet, Mignard,

on rhetoric and promises and long e need for more room. The report

Grand

1799,

the gallery closed

as Co not to reopen for a full three ye: ars. To compensate for the closure of the ¢ srand Gallery between 1796

and

Santerre, Chardin, and Drouais. The structure of the exhibition as

well as the balance of paintings anticipated the eventual hang in the museum in that the schools were separated and in proper sequence, with French pictures followed by those of the Northern and Italian schools.!9 Most remarkable, however, was the reappearance of types of paintings that had been flatly condemned during the Terror. After Thermidor the political climate gradually relaxed and with it the museum administration’s concern about what could and could not be put on display. No excuses were made, for example, for the inclusion of Chardin’s Still-life with Skate or Santerre’s erotic Suzanna at Her Bath, not to mention scenes from Rubens’s Medici cycle — The Education of Marie de Medici and The Birth of Louis XIII that were kept out of sight in 1794. And it is with a voice not heard since before the Revolution that the apocryphal identification of Mary Magdalen with Louis XIV’s mistress, Louise de la Valliére, in Lebrun’s famous painting 84), is noted in the catalogue: (Fig. The portrait of Madame de la Valliére, mistress to Louis XIV. The charms and painful sacrifices of this woman known for her sensitivity add to the real merit of so much so that its beauty would be diminished if the illusion were this painting,

Henceforth, until the reopening of the museum in 1799 (and beyond), the exhibition schedule for the Salon was dominated by the convoys from Italy, which began arriving at the Louvre late in 1796. the Conservatoire turned its attention to hanging the In the meantime

Grand Gallery and the exhibition of Old Master drawings in the Galerie d’Apollon, first discussed in 1794. The drawings gallery (Fig. 47) took only months to prepare and opened in August 1797 under the new administration of the Musée Central.!? Though a handful of drawings had been displayed at the Luxembourg (and a similar arrangement may have been planned for d’Angiviller’s Lou-

uvre), the exhibition at the Musée central was the first to be devoted excl sively to them. (The catalogue made much of the fact, seizing on the oppor-

eee

completed,

re impatient t see the muscum both the problems involved. In January 1795,

SUSIE DIE

Musée

gener

The

The Musée Central des Arts

Arts

des

Central

Figure 48. Annibale Carracci, Paris. Drawing, Musée du Louvre, Paris.

Figure

Nicolas Poussin, Study for

the Holy Family of the Steps. Drawing, Musée du Louvre, Paris.

ear V. Drawing, 1798,

once more the secrecy of the Old Regime with the openepublic.) From the three schools 415 drawings were chosen ion of more than 11,000. A recent reconstruction of the original exhibition staged at the Louvre revealed a highly ima ginative selection, ranging from large-scale cartoons to nature studies and finished drawings and featured many superb works (Figs. 48 and 49).'3 Despite the differi functions of the drawings, the installation ren dered them aesthetically equivalent. Matted and framed uniformly under glass, as in a modern exhi bition, they were presented and a Preciated as pontaneous, unmediated expressions of artistic genius.'4 The intent of the hibition was primarily didactic (here, too, aspiring artists were given fF ivileged access), and the administration even composed an exercise boo k for use in the gallery.15 Fol lowing the example of the recent Salon exh ibition and in antic ipation of the Grand Gallery, the drawings were arr anged sequentially in schools and vertically according to size. Stret hing v from the entrance (at the far end of Fig. 47), pied the upper

Italian drawin numbered register of the wall opposite

1 to

the

18 9 in the catalogue, occu -

windows.

As in the Grand

F

a

oo

; the area high above eye level was reserved for large aur rawei Fi oe 1 s eee ibald pe 1 ; no and Pelegrino by Giulioi Roma : mainly 3 cartoons ings eunbered 200 to 287, filled the bays between the windows; and,

Gallery,

t nce, French drawings, entra ing éover from thejelen i r between the dado giste pied the e lower ye regis chronological arrangement was planned but 5 ing pleas try symme “a g ainin interests of maint

occupale ae to ee oon ‘ s Italians. ee the é an had to be abandone oie eye. the to

The Musée

Central des

Arts

The Musée Central des Arts

Midway through the in

rawings, the final selection of pic hang

of the ruling | institutions of etic minister Paris area and stated

tures

n of the

Musée

f French

Grand on the desired of the cate:

central,”17

Monuments

ulpture, but it also paved r royal

paintings

and

orts to bring them to

f the

king’s pictures from

Ver.

To prevent further losses local museum in the chateau, which was

vention in 1794.!9 Nevertheless, the illes’ pictures, chief among them » Palma Vecchio, and other Italian vernment in Paris together a scheme to turn Versailles into a priate everything else for the Musée cenBenezech announced the creation of the Musée spé)pening the way for an exchange with the Louvre, appeared equally beneficial to both instit utions.2! In :; paintings, Versailles was to receive an French paintings ntribute to a comprehensive chrono logical display of the ol from the Renaissance to the Pres ent. Following d’Angiviller’s works of living : artists would be included in the exhibition. Not surprisingly, however, Versaill es lost out in the exchange be ‘Cause it was rated within a framework dete rmined by Benezech’s ruling of the previne year entitling the Louvre to keep the best of all catego es of art for > itself, including Fren enc i ch paintings. The jury appointed : . f to se lect paintings e e rom and for Versailles determ ined how the French school should be represented and hung at the Louvre before iding what could go to the Musée spéciale.*2 Benezech himself remi nded the jury: “the Musée central des arts must offer the most beautiful pr oductions ¢ of all genres and all schools.”23 It was essential, of course, that good French Pictures remain in Paris since the French school was to be displayed first in the Grand Gallery and would have to hold its own a gainst the best Northern and Itali an pai ntings in the world. Having surrendered objects deemed aesthetically supe rior to the I ouvre the Musée spéciale (along with the Mus eum of French Monuments ) took on

ee




Nationales, F'7 1060. “Mémoire

ice des tableaux des Not gue alo cat the m fro are s er mb nu and titles of paintings Lombardie et de de les éco des ux lea tab des et . _ . écoles frangaise et flamande Bologne, Paris, 25 messidor an IX.

Boizot, Racine

Etienne Gois, Molé

ENTRANCE TO GRAND GALLERY

C.-N. Monnot, Duquesne P.-L. Roland,

Grand Condé

C.-A.

Bridan, Bayard (Dijon, 1769)

Félix Lecomte, Rollin

Pierre E eau (Paris, 1760 Corneille (Rouen, 1768 J.-J. Caffieri, M. Clodion, Montesquieu (Bordeaux, 17 Augustin Pajou, Bossuet (Dijon, 17 BI

Claude Dejoux,

Catinat (Paris, 1775)

J.-A. Houdon, Tourville

L.-P. Mouchy, Montausier (Paris, 1781)

Augustin Pajou, Pascal

1789

Louis Foucou, Duguesclin Pierre Julien, Pou. J.-G. Moitte, Cassini

Augustin Pajou, Lamoignon — not executed

1791/2/3 (NOT EXECUTED)

J.-J. Caffieri, Lebrun Pierre Berruer, Boileau

1783

C.-A. Bridan, Vaub. Paris, 1787) imum

L-P. Mouchy, Luxembourg J.-B. Stouf, St. Vincent de Paul

, ea) provosed

Félix Lecomte, Duguai-Trouin L.-P. Deseine, Puget

“Un

grand

Alexandre”

tableau

(Lebrun,

“Un grand tableau d’Alexandre famille de Darius” (Lebrun, La Famille de Darius aux pieds d’Alexandre, no, 18)

d’

La

défaite de Porus, no. £7; OF L’Entrée d’Alexandre dans Babylone, no. 19); “ tableau du bas du milieu de du Poussin . . . ”(?) No. 2

“Un grand tableau de Jesus

“La mort de Méleagre” (Lebrun,

La

Mort

renversé sur la croix” (Lebrun, Le Crucifix aux

de

Méléagre, no. 20); “au bas du grand tableau... un tableau du Poussin . . .”

(?)

No. 3

Tableau représentant la

famille

(Lebrun,

de

La

Darius”

Famille

de

Darius aux pieds d’Alexan-

dre, no. 18); “Le tableau le grand de dessous

représentant la mane dans le désert; par Poussin”

(Poussin, La manne dans le

ert, no. 7)

anges, no. 162; Le Sueur, La Descente de crc

“Jesus-Christ chasse les marchands du temple” (Jouvenet, Les Vendeurs chassés du Temple, no. 52)

South Wall

North Wall

South Wall

North Wall Travée no. I

1787

serruries (sic) pour le Muséum,”

No. 4

tableau

grand

“Un

représentant une descente

No details given

(Jouvenet, La de croix” Descente de Croix, no

54?) No.

5

tableau grand “Un représentant Jesus-Christ

au temple”

(Vouet, La

Présentation temple, no.

No. 6

de J.-C. au

140?)

“Jugement de St Gervais et St Protais” (Le Sueur, Saint

Gervais

No derails given

et Saint Protais

amenés pour sacrifier aux idoles, no. ror); “cing petits tableaux représen-

ne” “La martyre de St Ecen

(Lebrun,

Saint

lapidé, no. 12)

Etienne

tant le Musée” (?)

No. 7

“Apparition et la gloire de

St Gervais et St Protais” (P.

de Champaigne, Appari-

tion de Saint Gervais et

Saint Protais, no. 212)

“La décolation de Bour-

don” (Bourdon, La Décolation de Saint Protais, no. 2)

III

pendix

South Wall

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN NOTES

uchement

dicis, no represt Rubens, Marie

9);

bens

“deux faisant

Ascen L’Elévation

ns,

croix, no.

ommunion urant,

munion,

de

de

ns, S. Francis

recevant la

no.

4852)

Com

Un grand tableau représentant l’assomption” Rubens, L’Assomption de la Vierge, no. 4842) “Une

Descente

par Rubens” drale

two

Croix de la d’Anvers, no.

wings, nos.

504,

5; or Le Christ descendu

2 Croix, no. 489; two nos. 490, 491)

de Croix

(Rubens, Le

Christ descendu de la Croix, no. 48 Descente de Croix de la cathédrale

03)

d’Anvers,

ARCHIVES Arch. Nat. Arsenal

BN

Deloynes

Doucet Sorbonne

Rubens,

La

Péche mirac

“Un

Christ

GBA JWI MMF

PVAR PVARA

uleuse, no, 528; two wings,

PVCM

d’Isaac Ostade, I'Hyver” (Ostade, Um Hiver, no.

PVC

nos,

» 530);

“le tableau

434); “posé au milieu le grand tableau de Vouwermans” (?); “le portrait de

Philippe

Champagne”

(Champaigne, Philippe de Champagne peint par Iui-

méme, no. 217)

Bibliotheque Bibliothéque Bibliotheque Bibliothéque Université de

de l’Arsenal, Paris Nationale, Paris n Deloynes Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes, Collectio Doucet, Universite de Paris [V Paris, Sorbonne

PUBLISHED WORKS, JOURNALS Burlington Magazine BM de I’histoire de l'art francais é iét soc la de in let Bul Directeurs de BSHAF des ce an nd po es rr Co ., eds ey, A. de Montaiglon and J.-J. Guiffr CcDD nts, 1666-1804, ime Bat des nts nda nte uri les c ave l’Académie de France a Rome

NAAF PVABA

au du milieu, la miraculeuse les deux volets . . . du grand”

Achives Nationales, Paris

PVSPRA

17 vols., Paris, 1887-1908

Gazette des Beaux-Arts uld Institutes ta ur Co d an g ur rb Wa the of l na Jour nce.

Fra Inventaire général des richesses d'art de la 1883— ments francais, 3 vols., Paris,

Nouvelles archives de l'art francais aux de | M. Bonnaire, ed., Procés verb 1937-43

rchives du Musée des monu

cadémie des beaux-arts,

3 yols., Paris,

re et de |’Académie royale de peintu

verbaux A. de Montaiglon, ed., Proces -92 itecture, 9 vols., sculpture, 10 vols., Paris, 1875 ch ar d’ le ya ro e mi é ad Ac l’ de rbaux H. Lemmonier, ed., Proces ve 2 vols., Paris, Paris, 1911-26 s, nt me nu mo s de on si is mm de la Co L. Tuetey, ed., Procés-verbaux s, 2 vols., art s I9OI-2 de re ai or mp te on si is Comm L. Tuetey, ed., Pr océs-verbaux de la Paris, 1912-17 arts et de la Société des l ra né gé e un mm Co la de H. Lapauze, Procés-verbaux Paris, 1903

s, populaire et républicaine des art

L have retained eighteenth-century spellin;

accents in quotations that appear in the note; All translations are mine unless otherwise noted. INTRODUCTI

importance as a model for the The Louvre’s survey museum is persuasively argued by C.

Duncan Survey

and A. Wallach,

Museum,”

“The Universal

Art History,

3 (1980),

pp. 448-69.

ed a | The royal gallery at Dresden also featurtin mixed-school arrangement. On collec nand display strategies in late-eighteenth-ce

tury Germany and Vienna, see D. J. Meijers, Kunst als natuur:

De Habsburgse

s schilderijengalerij in Wenen omstreek 1780, Amsterdam, 1991.

sur le muséum

|. J-B-P. Lebrun, Observations

C. B. national, Paris, 1793; P. 153 quoted by

enth-CenBailey, “Conventions of the Eighte

tury cabinet de tableaux:

Blondel d’Azin-

Art iosité,” court’s La premiere idée de la cur On the order: Bulletin, LXIX (1987), P- 445 ing of art and

objects of natural

history in

Pomian, K, see , rse cou dis ry tu en -c th en te eigh Paris, Collectionneurs, amateurs, curieux.

is, 1987, PP» Venise: XVIe-XVIlle siécle, Par 61-80, 163-94, and passim.

e: ur lt Cu of t en am ic ed Pr e Th , rd fo if Cl _ J. Literature, Twentieth-Century Ethnography,

and

Art, Cambridge, MA, 1988, p. 219: de Dusde Pigage, La Galerie Electorale

seldorff, Basel, 1778, P- viii.

oe

6. C, de Mechel, Catalogue des tableaux de la

galerie Impériale et Royale de Vienne, Ba le i Mechel’s “Tere: Peadon 1784, P. Meijers, collection is discussed at length by Kunst als natuur, p. 41ff and passim

. See M. Foucault,

Les mots et les choses

Une archéologie des sciences humaines,

Paris,

1966; and

B.

M. Stafford,

Voyage

studio

in eigh

and into Substance. Art, Science, Nature, 1760-1840, the Illustrated Travel Account, Cambridge, MA, 1984

. There

is mention

of the

museum teenth-century discussions of the ff.rc9, 132. The see Arch, Nat., Or 16'

purpose

experts

of restoration was held by all

to be the return

of paintings

to

“leur premier éclat, leur premict beaute.” See, for example, A.-L. Millin, Dictionnaire des beaux-arts, Paris, 1806, Il, p. 454ff During the Revolution, when copying was

museum widely practiced in the Louvre, the as itself a studio, and was described was

such by La Décade philosophique in year If

(vol. 2, p- 23)and wurst kun ly nce pri of y lit ibi ess acc The ed, derkammern remains to be determin access though it seems complete freedom of phenomenon. was a late-eighteenth-century d’antigIn the avertissement to his Recueil makes an lus Cay de e mt Co the , 52) (17 és uit to open impassioned appeal to collectors interests their collections ta the public in the of the progress of knowledge: qui On ne scaurait trop exhorter ceux

(September M, Baker,

inion;

Jas

MA

1974,

monuments

10n dernier

Paris,

1910}

tat eb

lu musée

olution,”

cited by

aii

en France EUL Work

13, Florence ols., William

1,

La

1992,

naissance dy Paris, r98r, I,

Shepherd, Paris in 1802 and 1814, 1814, p, §2. Thirty years later in a

Parliament, Samuel Woodbu rn with approval the presence of the orders” on Sundays; he saw “solple with their wooden shoes; [

ought it a very fine sight... . " Hous e of mmons. Reports from the Select Committee on Arts, 1836 (vol. IX.1 of Re ports, Commit

tees). My thanks to Caro l for the last reference,

Duncan

21. La Décade philosophique, To pl uvidse an UL, p 22. La Décade philosophique, 10 prairial VII, p. 434 at Versailles

>

»

£247;

Prince

» Grand

Henry

hard

Cosway

ussia

(1786) [Or

» ff.206-7

Godefroid), f.4, (Hac quin), f.13; Or

brought from the garde meuble . On the Gallery, see J. Co

T919 (86), f.245]

15. ¢Cited byby P. P. Conisb . teenth-Century France , 45-6. On

ainting in Eigh Oxford, 1981

the increa sing comple xity

Public for art in eighteenth especially relating to the Salon, see T. } Crow, Pa “¢ inters and

teenth-Century

Pub lic Paris, Ne

1985, pp. 1-22 and passim - SeeJ. Leith, The Idea of in France, 175¢ Public opinion France, see M. Oz

H

Louvre,” and J. I du Roi au

f

Life ; in Eigh

;

f.15; Or 1915 ornaments were

These

2.

nnell Apollo, XCVX¢ V

3. Anc

Nat.Or,

du

(1972), pp. 382-9;

» “L’Exposition des tableaux

PP. 154-202 Arch.

“Forerunner of the

Luxembourg,

BSHAF

(1909)

f.26 bl x du roi placés dans le LLuuxxeemmbboouurrgg, » Deloynes, ro

47), £16.

For the

Apers, see Arsenal,

document

uis

but

without

Lenormand

Pompadour,

giving

an author

ora

and his family, including

se Y. Durand, Finance ef fermiers

écena nat:t: méce

les génnééreraux au XVIKVIe les fermiers gé ille siecle, Paris, 1976, p. 28ff

Crow, Painters and Public Life, Chap, 4 The

exception to the rule was the history

painting competition organized by the Duc d'Antin in 1727, for which see P, Rosenberg, “Le concours de peinture de 17 7," Revue de l'art, 37 (1977), pp. 29-425 and C, Clements, Unexpected Consequences:

The

“Concours de peinture” of 1727 and

History ae

Painting in Early Eighteenth-Cen~

tury Paris, Ph.D,

sity, 1992,

dissertation, Yale Uniyer-

The office of Surintendant des

Batiments du Roi was changed in 1726 to Directeur-Général des Batiments du Roi in order to limit the financial independence of the office, 8. Crow, Painters and Public Life, p. 110,

. Ibid., p. rrr,

. H. Lapauze, Histoire de |'Académie de France @ Rome, 2 vols., Paris, 1924, I, 225-6. A good account of the Prix de

Rome can be found in Louis Courajod, L’Ecole royale des éléves protégés, Paris,

1874

On Marigny and his administration, see A. Gordon,

The

Marquis

Louis XV, 1751-1773: Royal Patronage, Ph.D.

1. Arch. Nat. Or 1914 (77),

OF 1976 (82), F.156; Ox

4 vols,, Paris,

de Marigny,

Directeur-Général des Batiments du Roi to

PTER 1. THE LUXEMBOL RG GALLERY, 79

Paul

of

) On

R.

for

Duke

see

frangals,

1, p.xxx, with a date, November 24,

1744,

well;

Note tospp, th=1g

Courajod repro

in the introduction to journal et le musée

vard University, 1978.

. On Coypel, see J. Locquin, La peinture d'histoire en France de 1747 a 1785, Paris,

1912, pp.

2-13 and passim; and C. B. Bai-

ley, First Painters of the King,

1985.

. Lenormand

:

A Study in French dissertation, Har-

“Idee

offerte & monsiew r de Topu urne mehehemm 4 pour mettre \ les

Jableaux du Roy en surété ce qui a donné New 4 former le cabinet du Luxembe signed by Coypel, An appended note ourg,” in the same hand reads: “1.‘idée d'en composer un

cabinet public au Luxembourg fur acce ptbe et ordonnée peu de tems apres par M, de

Tournehem,”

+ On Bachaumont, see | Amateurs,

Olivier, “Curieux,”

and Connoisseurs

Laymen

and

the Fine Arts in the Ancien Régime, Ph.D

dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, 1976; also see L, Gossman, Medievalism

and the Ideologies of the Enlightenment.

The World of La Curne de Saint-Palaye,

Baltimore, MD,

1968; Crow, Painters and

Public Life, p. 113ff. and passim; R. Tate,

“Petit de Bachaumont; His Circle and the Mémoires Secrets,” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, LXV (1968); and R. Ingrams, “Bachaumont: A Parisian Connoisseur of the Eighteenth Century,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, LXXV (January 1970), pp. 11-28.

See Crow, Painters and Public Life, pp 114-16; and P. Lacroix, ed., “Jugements de

Bachaumont sur les meilleurs artistes de son

temps,” Revue Universelle des Arts, 5 (1857), pp. 418-27. Bachaumont’s reputa tion crossed the French border into Prussia; in 1748 he was asked by Frederick the

Great for his advice on setting up an academy and the royal picture collection; see idem, “Conseils d’un ami des arts [Bachau-

mont] a Frédéric II,” Revue Universelle des Arts, 3 (1856), pp. 351— . Arsenal, MS 4041, ff.440-5; Olivier,

rieux, Pp. 192. . Arsenal, MS 4041, £.144ff., “Mémoire sur

le Grand Salon du Louvre, donné en 1746 4

Monsieur

de Tournehem.”

Bachaumont

(1690-1771); Comte du

included as a note at the end of the memoir:

(1692-1765);

(1694-1752).

1.15;

also expressed his approval of Lenormand’s

La Font de Saint-Yenne

Caylus

York,

Nat,Ox 19078,

(1684-1751);

de Tournehem

de Bachaumont

New

Arch,

(1688-1771);

C.-A.

Petit

Coypel

oncerning Bachaumont’s friendship with

Coypel, see Arsenal, MS 4041, f.50. It seems the idea of a gallery also struck ypel as a good solution to a problem he was thinking about at much the same time, namely, how to secure the best pictures in

the royal collection from loss or theft; see

painting competition. The following was On croit vous faire plaisir, Monsieur, de vous donner avis que parmi les Tableaux du Roy qui sont 4 Versailles a

Vhotel de la Surintendance ou au Louvre

a Paris dans la Gallerie dite d’Apollon, il

y en a plusieurs de la premiere beauté qui auroient besoin d’étre nettoyés,

remis sur toile et sur de nouveaux chas-

sis, et qui meriteroient des bordures, —

219

Notes to p. 21

had been

ver les

the sub-

1 memoran.

note attached

script states, ment sur une

e tems dans le s sur quelques

9, P» XXXV); tells us that

e”

peu

de tems

(Deloynes, I,

é Raynal

in the

s littéraires,

29, 1747, writes

homme nait

les arts

vient

qui

sait

de

juger

travaux avec assez de préde politesse” (Corre

littéraire, Journal

49 appeared

de

M.

Tourneux, ed., I, p.

Trévoux

for

December

an article (attributed by

Bachaumont to La Font) entitled “Remerement des Habitans de la Ville de Paris a

Sa Majesté au sujet de l’achévement du

Louvre,”

mounted by issed the Frenct

cautés

tous

le

sles aux plus belles &

aux plus sages anciennetés”

See

the the

Ombre

de

Ste,

MS MS copy‘ of du

Grand

Albine”

Arsenal,

T a an

les nou

MS

i:

3036,

overview view

(p. v

de ; l’auteur de

“Lettre

Colbert

4 M

Bachaumont’s

Remond

papers;

25, signed by La Font

of La Font s place in eig teenth-century art criticism, 5 see H. Zmi Zmi jew

ska, “La Critique des Salons en Frar avant Diderot,” Gazette des Beaux-A

(July-August 1970), pp. 1-144 ee The history painting competitior

announced 35,

cerns

royalal

late

45. As we raised

pict pictuures re

by

in 1746; see PVAR

have

seen,

La

Font

the

|

which began, “Le Public a si bien

regu L’Ombre du grand Colbert, qu’il en resulte une verité tres glorieuse a notre siecle. Cette verité qui meriteroit d’étre publiée dans toute les langues, c’est qu’on estime encore le zele des bons Citoyens

cest que le langage qu’inspire ce zele,

trouve encore des Protecteurs” (Ntsenaik MS 3036, ff.27-8). Praising the government

for something it had yet to do as a means of forcing it into action was a novel tactic that

ate not go unnoticed at the time; when Bachaumont used it a few years later, it drew the e following fo remark from Baron Grimm M. de Bachaumont . a fait courir dans les rues une chanson sur cet événe

a nt [the rumored completion of the Ouvre]. C’est une assez bonne méthode ier le gouvernement sur les belles faire, comme si faites. La honte reculer,

et

fait

4041,ff. 109-11, reproduced by Tate, “Petit

y Olivier, “Curieux,” p. 236, As 746, Bachaumont had sent Lenor memoir on the Louvre; discouraged

haine exposi-

in

in the late 17.405, for which see Arsenal, MS

Javar

‘ademy

delivered

choses dont on a regu les

failure

text

Bachaumont insisted chat they met only after the appearance of the Réflexions Brought together thereafter by mutual int

ncouraged by the success of La Font’s blications, Bachaumont himself took to , Font

ests, age, and background, they were in

Both Bachaumont and

were employing

fairly close contact

tactics used to

Crow,

ypel

Painters and Public Life,

papers. Crow is probably right in arguing, therefore, that they collaborated on

pp.

L'Ombre. However, another passage in

Academy lecture “De la nécessité de oir des avis” given on June 23, 1747: Renouveller en faveur des Arts le beau

siecle du grand Colbert c'est son projet. Deja nous voions recommencer ce tems

la heureux; nos successeurs en verront continuation. Gouvernés par un st digne Chef, et persuadés comme nous le jeune Colsommes des sentimens de son

légue [Marigny], nous pouvons promet-

pros: tre a cette Académie une longue perité, Vi, Sorbonne, MS 1009, £.743 also PVAR, L’Ombre p. 59. The Abbé Raynal described satire contre

notre

ministére”

note, Pp following the in as (Descourtieux, 36 ourticux, Les sc De k ic tr Pa by y ud st the 29. See le siécle: La Il XV au rt l'a de s en ci ri théo maitrise, de e ir mo Mé e, nn Ye tin Sa Font de University

grateful

of Paris: Sorbonne,

to Professor

Francis

1977-8.

| am

Haskell

for

this the of py co the t ul ns co to me allowing History of Art e th of y ar br li e th sis in d to an ty si er iv Un rd fo Ox at Department my atten to it ng gi in br for y le ig Wr d ar Rich Versailles at ed oy pl em s wa nt Fo La tion. ggesting

year, su for only one quarter of the in 1729 te La : me co in e at iv pr a that he had where he met the m iu lg Be to ed el av tr he erted

o al wh n, ge ag nh Va x” eu ri cu x “fameu of

the ition nd co ed at or ri te de e th him to Rubens Medici cycle 5-6 30. Deloynes, Il, 23, PP- 23 ing account of at in sc fa a t lef nt mo au 31. Bach lationship

uent re their meeting and subseq

Bachaumont’s own

are to be found among

compared Lenormand to Colbert in

as “une

until at least the carly

17505. Copies of everything La Font wrote

preat effect by the Parlements in their diswith the Crown. See Baker, Inventing putes the French Revolution,p. 170

to great effect; Painters and Public Life,

PP. 122-4

of his private memorandums

blishing his ideas.

Crow uses the

de Bachaumont,” pp. 260-1.

reveals that they

account by Bachaumonr

had their differences of opinion, L

fe wanted advice, or so he said, on how had repair the damage the Réflexions inflicted on the artistic communtty conseillay a I'auteur de faire une Let Je ses inten tre par la quelle il justifieroit d'excuse tions, et leur feroit une espece

Conseil et me

il me remercia de mon

il fit

promit de le suivre; effectivement

sans me la

cette Lettre et la fit imprimer

quand

avant l’impression:

communiquer

ntent du co z se as fus je ; luc la je ru elle pa 04 je trouval qu \

commencement fags efforgoit de réparer en quelque

qu'il ort qu'il pouvoit avoir fair 4 ceux fut ma avoit trop critiquez. Mais quelle vers la f

suprise quand je trouvai Lettre un

endroit oi

que \'Ecole

il disoit

les jours @

frangoise dépérissoit tous lieu d’augmenter,

etc.

indigne

Je fus

rt cette double méprise de sa pa fis de vifs reproches;

lui était échapé faiché:

Le

mal

| m’ayoua que

et qu'il en etort

ctant

sans

dela

Reméde

de

cela

bien

je le

rire sur priay avec Instance de ne plus Ec

omut, ¢t ces Matiéres, il me le pr discussion. tivement il laissa la cette nt " p. 268 Tate, “Perit de Bachaumo

Marierre as ch mu up set s wa nt mo au Bach had been.

were supo tw e th at th es gu ar so al Crow cause (pry ta en em rl pa e th of porters is amply documented in

t2off.), which at all in La t no t bu se ca ’s nt mo au Bach be said that ld ou sh it , rd ca re the r Fo Font's. of the passage quoted

by Crow

t

defense

Notes to pp. 25-6 fair tant de bruit parmi les Peintres” La Font himself remained In 1748, he defended himself by insisting that only the distook

ould

speak

the

“the language

opportunity

to con-

y paintings commissioned

, recently

exhibited

at the

as a collection marked

sterilité, &

du défaut de génie

ix des sujets, que de la froideur rité

37.

F

l’exécution”

(Lettre

exions sur la peinture, To this gratuitous attack responded by canceling the

Academy

36. Del

dans

, Pp. 236

Bachaumont,

see

Bachaumont,” p

“Petit

Tate,

de

Raynal praised the

Réflexions in the Mercure de France for July x and also in Les Nouvelles littéraires; see Correspondance littéraire, I, pp. 181; and Mémoires

ciences et des beaux-arts,

Journal

iewed by six rthier,

bbé de Raynal;

les

sciences,

The

Paris,

caricature

qui regarde

1688, pp

14ff; also see ” pp. 236-41 anciens

et des

les arts et les

was by Watelet, another

well-connected amateur and engraver. The attack against La Font was led by

Charles Coypel. On August 5 he delivered a lecture to the Academy discrediting the idea of a unified “public” (“le public change

vingt fois le jour”) as well as the right of nonpracticing critics to judge painting. The

lecture was later published as “Dialogue

entre Dorsicour et

Céligny” in the Mercure

de France (November

1751), pp.

59-73

Lenormand’s friend, the Abbé Leblanc,

soon to accompany Marigny to Italy, also published a rebuttal, Lettre sur l’exposition

des ouvrages de peinture,

n P-, 1747,

which he noted that the Réflexions attracted “la curiosité du public

in

had

au Sallon”

cially pp.

de

Trévoux

2074-8:

pour l'histoire

(October

known as the 1747),

espe-

the gallery is described as

“un projet magnifique . . . qui feroit beaucoup @honneur 4 la nation, s'il étoit jamais

exécuté.” In addition, each and every criti-

cism La Font makes, about the superiority of the Orléans collection, the condition of the Medici cycle, and so on, is reported as

fact. Also see Descourtieux, La Font, p.

32ff. 38. Arch. Nat., Or

1685, f.455; similar arrangements were made in the gallery proper from 1750; Or

1684, ff.r4

“Ordonnance de Monsieur le teur G néral pour la observer au Palais du Luxem-

39. Arch.

Na

1684,

f.109

article VII, dated January

15, 1748.

Also see [Baillet de Saint-Julien], Lettre sur la peinture, sculpture

*** n.p., 1748, p. 36.

et architecture

4 M

40. See, for example, ermain Brice, Description de la ville de Paris, Paris, 1713, Il, pp. 68-9; and J. Thuillier and B. Foucart, Rubens: La Galerie Médicis au Palais du Luxembourg, Paris, 1969.

4X. Arch. Nat , Or 1908(53), ff.189,194. The king personally asked Marigny to do all he could to accommodate d’Onsenbray’s wish.

3y March 1754, Gabriel had drawn up a plan to convert “les cabinets de Bercy,” but

he told Marigny, “Je suis obligé de vous

prevenir que l’etat actuel des lieux exige des reparations qui malgré votre impatience 8 prendrot un tems considerable” [Ox 190

f.18]. Evidently the plan was shelyed and the collection was assimilated into the

Cabinet du roi. place royale project and the On Bouchardon’s equestrian statue, see P. Lavedan, Histoire de I’Urbanisme a Paris. 1975, Nouvelle histoire de Paris, 17, Paris, n pp. 243-513 La Place Louis XV, exhibitio talogue, Musée Carnavalet, Paris, 1982; . and Gossman, Medievalism, pp. 129-30 the Bachaumont assembled a dossier of l, numerous projects for the square; Arsena MS 3103. e J.-B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, “Lettr place 4 M. de la Bruere sur le projet d'une pour la Statue du Roy,” Mercure de France (July 1748), Pp: 147-53-

“Nourch. Nat., Ox 1907b(47) f.17: écution du veaux moyens proposés pour fex Tournehem, de ur ie ns Mo par eté arr jet pro

l, con4 Veffet de faire un Inventiare généra de tous les tenant une description historique to Coypel, g in rd co Ac ” Roy. du ux tablea was to the purpose of the inventory de son etablir en cette importante partie

rdre et de administration, l’esprit d’o ses opérates tou de e baz la fait qui le reg

en méme tions, et de faire connoitre collection tems a l'Europe la magnifique a plus, il fer Ill . Roy du ux ea bl Ta des l, arrétera accellera infiniment le travai tous les curieux les critiques, et flatera

de prononcer é ert lib en t tan met les en de ces ite mér le sur s me eux-mé é Tableaux.

from Lépicié in d ere ord was ory ent inv The AP 392 £.8; also June 1748 [Or 1907b (48), was pul ory ent inv ’s lly Bai N. (x), £.87]. Inventaire di nd, era Eng d an rn Fe by hed lis

et 1710 9 170 en igé réd Roy du ux Tablea o responsible als was el yp Co 9. 189 Paris, (5°); 7b 190 Ox s gue alo cat y ler for the gal f.x9. suc-

Lenormand’s t tha ing not th wor is It catalogue, é’s ici Lép d use y, gn ri Ma cessor, sses,

royal pre the by ed uc od pr handsomely

for his administo gain.n favorable publict ity tratio When the firs volume appeared in 1752, complimentary copies were to have

been sent to members of the royal family,

the amateurs attached to the Academy, and

a handful of important nobles: the Maréchal de Richelieu and the ducs Gevres,

d’Aumont,

Fleury,

Béthune,

Villeroy, and Luxembourg. But at some point the original list was revised; such was the perceived need to improve public opinion that the noblemen were crossed off, and substituted were a number of influential journalists and men of letters: G.-F. Berthier, P.-C. Duclos, and the abbés de la Porte, Sallier, and du Resnel du Bellay; Ox 1907b (52), £.9x, Furthermore, in response

to Fréron’s positive review in his Lettre sur

quelques écrits de ce tems, VI, pp- 98-120, reMarigny asked Lépicié to convey his app ciation, adding cryptically, “J’entre bien la volontiers avec vous dans les frais de ™ {Ox reconnoissance que nous lui devons 1908 (53), f.8].

45. Arch.

Nat.,

Ox

1965(7),

“Un

état de

4 Vertableaux du Roi qui ne servant point el pour sailles , . . demandés par M. Coyp dated ,” rg ou mb xe Lu du t ine cab le former suggestion May 1750. In 1754; J S. Bailly’s

exhibition was to add more paintings to the se he had in tho of ny ma e aus bec ed ect rej at Versailles; ts en tm ar ap the in e wer mind the NAAF,

1903

(1904);

PP

75-6.

On

and the s lle sai Ver at ts en em ng ra hanging ar aux perma problems of attaching the “table cinating letter fas the see ls, wal the to ts” nen dated July y, gn ri Ma to l tai Por A. J.from 1759; Or 1909 (59), f.60. du cabi-

ux lea tab des e gu lo ta Ca , lly Bai . J-S 46. 18net du Roy, Paris, 1750, p- wer e made

espemes fra w ne ty six st lea 47. At xembourg; Arch. Lu the at es tur pic for cially Nat., Or

rg07b (48), £20.

hand, had er oth the on le, cyc 48. The Rubens illier and

see Thu been cleaned at least once; Foucart, Rubens,

pp- 140-T-

Sometime

were restored y the 3 173 and 5 172 between Falens, who, n va l re Ca r te in pa by the de P.-J. o ri da cé bé (A te iet Mar to according A. de and es gr ri ne en Ch de P. Mariette, ed. 1851-60, th is, Par s., yol 6 , on gl Montai by the Duc ed oy pl em s wa ) 233 p-

Notes to pp. 28-30 votre faveur la reconoissance de tout

r cleaning and

for

removing and

n t

toration is dis-

rédécesseurs, et a toute Ja nation

Je me flatte, Monsieur, que vous

ting docu-

evez. favorablement ’hommage que

Bailly

’honneur de vous faire par cet ai rit, de mon admiration, de mon estime, et de celle de tout Paris et de toute la Nation. C’est uniquement pour

with the royal

ghteenth

4),

i vous le tirez si honteuse a

of Bailly’s

of the

f.143.

century;

It should

rdes at the royal ervise much roujate. In 1748, for

élébrer la grandeur at la dignité de la re entreprise que j’ay ha blication de ce petit ouvrage. . . . J’at ulu vous en présenter le premier

to reline two

nnoyer and to dauphin’s apart. anwhile a certain

J’aurat Vhonneur d’aller exemplaire. vous faire ma coeur dés que yous serez

4 Paris, et de vous assurer de mes sentimens d'admiration, d'une reconnoisle sance sans bornes, et de mon respect

aning, repainting,

fied

apartments 4a

77

1 grand

(47/48).

plusieurs

at

paintings

for

Compiégne;

plus sincere

At Versailles

hommes”

Nat., Marigny sent a polite response; Arch,

were

Ox

total of 12 livres for cleaning

Gallerie,

aussi ceux

des grands et

claimed

petits Appartemens du Roy, de méme que

les tableaux de Madame et des Mesdames”; O1 1934b (77), f-r1. The archives are full references.

of such

Arch. Nat., Or 1923a (48), f.22. In addition to their annual pension, they were now to be paid for each day spent working on

Godefroy,

Madame

aillé

avec

lui

aux

ages pendant plus de vingt

nt

avoir a cette veuve

nt fait

de la survivance, qu’elle

njointement

chargés

Colins,

M.

tous deux du mémes soins.

Godefroy

adame

avec

est journellement

occupée a ce travail pour la plus grande

royal pictures

. Arch. Nat., Or 1922a and b; copies of the bills are among Coypel’s official papers,

indicating Lenormand’s serious intent; Ox Bachaumont applauded this 1965 (7).

restoration work in his Essai, p. 26. It

would be appropriate here to record that La

Font also praised Lenormand for the Lux-

partic de Curieux, qui tous sont extrémement satisfaits de ce qu’ils lui confient, & qui se louent ouvertement

embourg Gallery and for preserving the second edition of Rubens paintings in the

patience qu’elle a morceaux les croiroit ne ressource

was due.

de V'intelligence,

Contrary

perronned't a clea

t

de

l’adresse

&

pour rétablir |

the

Font

Réflexi

was capable

ordered

of giving

credit

where

it

In 1756, after Marigny had

repairs to first c

the Louvre, La Font sent of his latest work, Lettre

ns du Louvre, together with letter a plusieurs mois que j’aurois

paroitre

1908

(56), ff.47-8-

into Was La Font “hounded back Crow has obscurity” in the mid-1750s as

s les tableaux des plafonds de la grande comme

la mienne en particulier, des ns que vous faites faire au Louvre, et de l’etat d’ind

et

cet écrit pour publier

[Art History,

5 (1982), p.

rro], oF

having did he voluntarily give up writing, had set out accomplished much of what he — passages on to do? His final literary effort of Piganiol edition 1765 new a in arts the de la ue historiq tion Descrip Force’s de la his reputation that shows — Paris de ville after his decade a well and alive remained of the editor The m criticis of last piece the reader: warned ue historiq tion Descrip qu! Les changemens

et augmentations

et les juge rts Beaux-A les concernent severes, portes mens, quelquefois un peu artistes, sont des ions product les sur

S:Y"""; de M:D.L-F, de . . . e Pouvrag tres s d'ailleur connu é, distingu amateur advantageusement dans la République

des Lettres. P 37ff. La Font tieux, Descour by Quoted at his hree, eighty-t age later, years died six home in the Marais. des

_F.-B.

Lépicié, Catalogue rarsonné Roy, 2 vols, Paris, 1752-4 bh

tableaux du

For an

e cellent account of th

e= pr a “L , le Ma eil Em G, e se restoration, La 5)

pp- 43-4.

re en 17 uv Lo au n io it os sp an miére tr

Charité d’Andrea

del Sarto,” Revue du

Louvre, no. 4 (1982), pp.

223-3

« Arch, Nat., Ox 1922b (Picault), f.20 Apparently he was successful for we find years him at Fontainebleau again fifteen later doing further restoration; Or 1922b (Picault), £24; La Feuille Necessaire, 1759,

p. 281; and G, Emile-Male, “En marge de

l'Ecole de Fontainebleau,” BSHAF, 1973 (1974),Pp. 33-6. Salon livret, Paris, 1745, p- 34- The paint ings were of the Four Seasons; sce F.-B

Lépicié, Vies des Premiers peintres, 2 vols., Paris, 1752, Il, p. 45- On Picault’s career, see Marot, “Recherches,”

PVARA, V1, pp. 69-71 Arch, Nat., Or

1907b (48), ff.18-19; also

Emile-Male, “La premiere transposition.” . Arch. Nat.,Or 19226 (Picaulr), f-1 . Arch, Nat., Or

. Arch, Nat., by Coypel, Arch, Nat, the month

rg07b (48), £7

Or rg907b (51), fers inspected d Van Loo Lépicié, Portail, Or r907b (50), fro. Later in the Academy went along with

the idea; Or

r9z5b (50), Lépiaé to Lenor

mand, June 27, 1759-

PVAR, VI, pp. 242-3-

caulrt); and (Pi b z2 rg Or , t. Na , Arch PP Engerand, Inventatre 1709. transpositse Emile-Male, “La premiére p. 225 ), $7, Arch. Nat., Or r907b (52 (x),f

nique, see Marot, ch te e th of s in ig or e th r . Fo director at n, so er Po s le ar Ch ” “Recherches. is emy in Rome trom 1704

the French Acad man 1725, was the first French

on record to

rformed when pe l ra er sf an tr d se es tn have wi restoration of the

he supervised the of irs sale me ri e th at on ti ec ll co Odescalchi CDD, VI, 17 in s an lé Or d' c to the Du ses also

os Br de t en id és Pr e Th 82. pp. 66, encounter his left us a vivid account of

with

later; Let s de ca de a tw n la Mi in the process F s, se os Br de t en id és Pr tres d’Italie du 1986, Ul, pp s, ri Pa ., ls vo 2 ., ed d’Agay, 244-5+ n In 1753, in a compe ngny, Lépicié on behalf of Ma uted to ib tr at ng ti in pa a froid transferred - . . la et , de au ch au 'e “\ Holbein using only painting was on e th r te la ar ye A patience.”

Notes to pp. 32-3

t on pu s wa d an on ti ec ll co l ya ro e th d sntere y (see

Notes to pp: 30-2

rt u o b m e x u L e th at w o sh

1993

NAAF,

edition

the

display

of th

Count

portrait m M r pa vé le en é ét a et t cede rien

jefroid qui ne le

11 | Engerand, by quoted a paintings transferre Luke;

of St

fron

Essai sur la

Algarottt,

1769, p. v). Seven years ter1763, the director general in ain to clean the pictures of a Paris,

surch, this time the famous s, Carmelite church on rue Saint-Jacque home to a number of significant French sey-

the

Guitfre

J.-J.

Francesco

later, in

Picaul

ri bitec dat

Godefroid

In

Academy

4 M.

peinture,

of the Academ

in the rooms

enteenth-century

paintings,

Lebrun’s Penitent Magdalen, Conclusion to this book. the See E, H. Gurian, “Noodling

including

discussed

in

Around with Exhibition Opportunities,” in I. Karp and Exhibiting Cultures: The S. Levine, eds., and Politics of Museum Display, Poetics hington, DC,

1991, pp. 176-90.

P, Bourdieu, “Outline of a Sociological Theory of Art Perception,” International Social Science Journal, 20 (1968), p. 597.

following the

of the

cus

ractical handboc

h as Arclais de

migque rch. Nat.,Or 1913

tations that follow are from a second edi-

Moni

; the also5see ris, 176

(May

1757)>

PP

a (Hacquin),f.9.

’Angiviller

(76),

was unwittingly repeating an observation made by Gautier d’

des arts, 18 (1863), p. 381

Revue universelle

72. NAAF, 1903 (1904), p . 269, 276. Two notable exceptions to the rule deserve to be mentioned

here for the further evidence

they offer of the equation forged between responsible government and care for works of art in the public domain.

In 1756, or

possibly a year earlier, Mme. Godefroid

began cleaning a set of sixteen paintings,

including Jouvenet’s splendid Descent from the Cross, owned by the Capucine convent in Paris. [Arch. Nat., Or 1922 (Godefroid),

ff.56-7]. The project was commissioned by the wealthy collector and amateur, the Baron de Thiers, but once under way

the

government stepped in to assume responsi bility for it and to earn the gratitude

convent and the public. In addition, Restout made a copy of Jouvenet’s I

for the main

altar, w

We should also recall the example of the Chinese encyclopedia that opens M. Foucault’s Les mots et les ch _ André Félibien, Entretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellens peintres anciens et modernes, Paris, 1666-88. Quo-

of the

tion published in two volumes between 1685 and 1690. Also see the 1987 edition of entretiens 1 and 2, with a stimulating

introduction by René Démoris.

. On the tradition of active discourse in seventeenth-century art, see E. Cropper, The Ideal of Painting: Pietro Testa’s Diisseldorf Notebook, Princeton, NJ, 1984, especially pp. 98-9. Poussin’s studio was also the source of Charles-Alphonse Du Fresnoy’s

sur la peinture, for which see

J. Thuillier, “Les ‘Observations sur la peinture’ de Charles-Alphonse Du Fresnoy,” in G. Kauffmann and W. Sauerlaender, eds., Walter Friedlaender

zum

90.

Geburtstag,

Berlin, 1965, pp. 193-209. On Poussin’s art theory at the time of Félibien’s and Du Fresnoy’s

stay

in

Rome,

see

D.

Mahon,

“Poussin au carrefour des années trente,” in

Nicholas Poussin, Colloques internationaux,

CNRS,

2 vols,

Paris,

Poussiniana,” ) (196

1960,

I, p.

Gazette des

p- 97ff; and

J.C.

Forte, Political Ideology and Artistic The-

ry in Poussin’s Galerie of the

Decoration of the Grande puvre, Ph.D. dissertation,

Columbia University, 1983, p. 197ff.

47, André Félibien, Conférences de l'Académie 69. 16 is, Par e, ur pt ul sc et re tu in pe de le ya ro

de Piles et les Also see B. Teyséddre, Roger XIV, débats sur le coloris au siecle de Louis ne, Les ai nt Fo A. d an f; zof P) 57 19 Paris, doctrines d'art, p. 6xff. _N. Sainte-Fare Garnot, “La Galerie des

ies er il Tu des is la Pa au rs eu ad ss ba Am (1980), pp. 78 19 F, HA BS ” ), 71 (1666née, 119-26. Also see A. Brejon de Laverg 1987, L’inventaire Le Brun de 1683, Paris, pp. 26-7. This exhibition lasted from 1668

converto 1671. By the time Félibien’s sixth paintings sation was published (1679) the

to the ies ler Tui the om fr d ve mo re en be had Louvre. libien, Entretiens, entretien

was

Il, p. 3

The sixth

written in 1679; two years

d his Conhe is bl pu es Pil de r ge Ro r, earlie

de Ia peinversations sur la connotssance between ue og al di a as d te en es pr , ture also stresses Damon and Pamphile, which art lover from ng ri pi as the h ac te to ed ne the al collecroy the of r tou a r te Af e. exampl says to Damon: tion, Pamphile, the initiate,

& voir les ux, lie les sur re est it ro ud «j] fa rquer ce ma re re fai us vo ur po Tableaux, l’est pas” (pne qui ce & , au be de a y quil 3; also pp- 16-17 se that ur co of s wa te ba de ed at he The most and Rubenists, s st ni si us Po the n ee betw 1671 cons d’ ar ch an Bl l ie br Ga by sparked Roger de e, dr td ys Te see or; col férence on

Roger de , en rk fa tt Pu T. d an passim;

n, its Theory of Art, New Have

gave the n do ur Bo n ie st ba Sé 69 In 16

on the individes tur lec d te ec oj pr six of first ight, composi” re tu in pe la de es ti ual “par and haror, col , on si es pr ex g, in tion, draw ces de en ér nf Co n, ui Jo H. see mony; et sculpture, re tu in pe de le ya ro l’Académie Bourdon’ . im ss pa d an 123 p, 83 Paris, 18 Testelin’s i nr He of is bas the parts formed 1680 as in d he is bl pu ” ts ep “table of prec intres sur la pe s le bi ha s plu des Sentimens , mis en ure lpt scu et re tu in pe la pratique de Also see . 0) 68 (1 is Par s, te ep ec tables de pr M. Noel feu de n io at rt se is N. Coypel, “D les de la iel ent ess s tie Par les sur . ypel .. des Peinture

(1698),”

Revue universelle

arts, 18 (1863), P- arrff.

Cours s hi in ed ar pe ap t rs fi e . De Piles’s Balanc s, 1708.

s, Pari de peinture par principe painting d de vi di i rt be Al ta is Leon Batt

into Circumspection (drawing), Composition, and Light (color) in his treatise On Painting (1435-6), J. R. Spencer, trans., New Haven, CT, 1966, p. 68ff. A century

later Ludovico Dolce, formulating equiv-

alents to branches of rhetoric, defined

painting as the sum of Invention, Design, and Color; see M. W. Roskill, Dolce’s

“Aretino” and Venetian Art Theory of the Cincquecento, New York, 1968, p. 116. This threefold division of painting was introduced to France through Du Fresnoy’s De Arte Graphica, translated by de Piles as L’Art de la peinture, Paris, 1668. R. Fréart de Chambray, borrowing from Franciscus Junius, divides painting into five parts - Invention, Proportion, Color, Expression, and Composition - in his Idée de la perfection de la peinture, Le Mans, 1662 (Farnborough, U.K 1968). Lon_ Emst Gombrich, in Norm and Form, Balance as a e th to rs fe re , 76 p. , 66 19 don, T. Putt“notorious aberration.” Quoted by Art, New of ry eo Th es’ Pil de r ge Ro , en rk fa elf disms hi o wh 5 42 P, 85 19 , CT n, Have issert ve di ul yf la “p a as e nc la Ba e misses th ment.” p- 2osff. , re tu in pe la r su i sa Es i, tt ro Alga evaluating of ea id e th of ed ov pr ap i Algarowt e was nc la Ba e Th . rt pa by rt pa s past artist by the is ys al an al ic at em th ma a subjected to mathematician d an t is nt ie sc d he is gu in dist ademy of Ac e th at an ir Ma de s ou J.-J. Dort Piles est de M. de ée id “L Science. als sil “m e, ot wr he ,” le el uv no ingénieuse & nen il n, io nt ve in ur po es mérite des élog l’exécution. de té co du me mé est pas ed that it in la mp co he gs in th r he Among ot ro in any ze of e or sc a ve gi to e made no sens that with d de lu nc co s ou rt Do category! But of computaod th me e th in ts en em improv présentera un us no . . e nc la Ba te et tion, “C un modeéle & r te ul ns co a on ti plan d’estima stagira de il d an qu t en em ul se n 4 suivre, no en bien is ma , re tu in pe de peintres & porter un A ns ro au us no d'autres cas ou sur le e nc ue éq ns co e qu jugement de quel so approved al He .” ns re ur nc co mérite des into four ng ti in pa of on si vi di of de Piles’s Histoire de e Se . ce an rt po im parts of equal avec les es nc ie sc s de le ya l'Académie ro Paris, 5) 75 (2 s ue iq at ém mémoires de math an’s memoir, ir Ma d an 35 -8 79 » 1761, PP

227

tes LO pp. 36-41 Notes to pp-

34

“mettre a traités des spé

peri

for for

s that

the

Ouarterly, XXXII (1980), pp. 1-32; E.

Cul

{., Madison, WI,

olas Faret’s 1630

stolaire

et

L’hon

our,

and

fre

1682,

art de

la

la familiarité,”

Je la France,

I, p. 46

1 Public

78

Life, pp. 26-9

On de Conversations, pp. 7-10. Piles, also see C. theory of connoisseurship, Piles’s a

Wood,

Pp. 5+

tr

table

mining

mated

ger de Piles’ of values

whether

[i.e

or

the

not

A

had a useful

Balance]

a work

for deter. approxi

academic standards.” On p. 29 Holt

reproduces a critique of David’s Oath of the Horatii from the Journal de Paris, which makes obvious use of de Piles’s cate:

gories:

“I note drawing that is correct and

Theory

in the

of

nnoisseurship from Vasari to Morelli rland

same principles th making the works.

Studies

Dissertation),

N:

York,

1988,

Charles Coypel’s unpubfor example, “Dissertation sur la lished Academy lecture nécessité de recevoir des avis,” Sorbonne, MS

C.-H. Watelet and 1009, p. 60. Also see “Imitation” in their Levesque’s article

Dictionnaire des arts de peinture, sculpture et gravure, 5 vols., Paris, 1792, vol. Ill, pp. “Remarque-t-on, dans les ouvrages

d'un maitre . . . la partie dans laquelle il se montre constamment supérieur a ses rivaux.

l'on étudiera, l’on imitera principalement (Raphael, Correggio, Titian, etc.] pour les

of the highest character . . . the colors are true and harmonious . . . a composition full of energy, reinforced by the strong and fear.

parties dans laquelle chacun d’eux a excellé.”

. De Piles, Conversations, p. 7. This passage is repeated in his Abrégé de la vie des pein-

Annibale a pris de tous ces Grands Hommes

some expressions of the men.”

tres, Paris, 1699, p. 91. . See D. C. Stanton, The

Aristocrat as

Art,

New York, 1980; also, N. Elias, The Court Society, New York, 1983, pp. 105-10. . See Bernard Beugnot, L’entretien au XVIle

siecle, Montreal,

1971, p. 33ff. Beugnot

notes that Félibien was one of numerous

The doctrine of selectiv introduced into France by embodied in Annibale Carracci:

imitation

was

Du Fresnoy

“Le soigneux

(Raphael, Michelangelo, Romano, Correg-

gio, Titian] ce qu'il en a trouvé de bon, dont

il a fait comme un pressis qu’il a converti en Sa propre substance”; L’Art de peinture, 2d ed., Paris, 1673, pp. 87-8. On Carracci’s

C. Dempsey, Annibale Carracci and the Beginnings of Baroque practice of imitation, see

Style, Gliickstadt, Germany, 1977.

nilation,”

Norm

Imitation

and Form,

pp.

Cropper, The Ideal of Painting; J. 122-8; M. Muller, “Rubens’ Theory and Practice f the Imitation of Art,” Art Bulletin, 64 p. 229-47; and R. Wittkower, 19 ius,” in Gen and sm, ici ect Ecl , ion tat Imi Aspects of the Eighteenth Century, E. pp. Wasserman, ed., Baltimore, MD, 1965,

Enlighten

nth-Century

The Style all’antica:

(

function ariations

nch

generally on imitation during the G. W. Pigman, “Versions of

[mitation in the Renaissance,” Renaissance

ontenelle ssophy in

dry light

More

94.

143-61 the cataon ed bas is on cti tru ons rec e Th

logue by J.-B. de la Curne de Sainte-Palaye, Catalogue des tableaux du cabinet de M. Crozat, Baron de Thiers, Paris, 1755 Geneva,

Minkoff

reprint, 1972), Pp. 5-6

he Thiers was Pierre Crozat's nephew;

in 1750 by n tio lec col e tur pic the inherited zat, MarCro . F . L r, the bro r elde his of way the collecd nge rra rea ers Thi el Chat quis de ring fundation after 1750 but without alte Stuffmann, M. See e. pos pur its mentally de Pierre “Les tableaux de la collection LXXII s, Art uxBea des e ett Gaz ,” Crozat (1968), pp-

1-144-

de ses et s ri Pa de al ri mo Me , gs. A. Antonini 1749s I, pps, ri Pa ., ls vo 2 , ns ro envi

. Dubois de -F L. y, gl in st re te In 293-3 of the e gu lo ta ca wn no -k ll we Saint-Gelais’s ption des ri sc De , on ti ec ll co s Orléan

s I of 27 17 s, ri Pa l, ya Ro is la Pa tableaux du ucting the hang tr ns co re in us to e us no artist in alphaby s ng ti in pa ts lis it because is “ratioTh . !) me na st fir y (b r de betical or to the n io nt te at s ll ca on ti nal” classifica In the colon ti ca fi si as cl r la mi si a of absence painters ch ea of t lis e Th . lf se lection it ography bi f ie br a by ed ed ec works is pr d weaknesses an s th ng re st s hi g in summariz

in the parts of painting.

. - de Pierre . ux ea bl ta es “L 96. seudieaan Crozat,” p. 16ff. ic Life, pPbl Pu d an rs te in Pa 97. See oun 9-41. des re ai mm so n io pt ri sc De b . i Mariette, des , ie al It d' s re it ma ds dessins des gran t de feu M. ne bi ca au ce an Fr de Pays-Bas et lation from. x (trans P: , 41 17 s, ri Pa , at Croz

) The 40 p. , fe Li ic bl Pu d an rs te in Crow, Pa to ed bt de in y rl la mi si t fel Comte de Caylus

the Crozat reunions; see Stuffmann, “Les tableaux . . . de Pierre Crozat,” pp, 22-3.

99. Stuffmann, “Les tableaux . . . de Pierre

Crozat,” p. 18; and CDD, Ill, pp. 362-90, 100, Dubois de Saint-Gelais, Description des

tableaux, p. v. In the preface to his Discours prononcez dans |'Académie royale de peinture et sculpture,

Paris, 1721,

Antoine

Coypel described his relationship with de Piles as “une amitié tres-étroite dés ma

jeunesse. . . . ;’étois toujours le confident de ses Ouvrages 4 mesure qu’ils les produisoit.” ror. Coypel, Discours, p. 99.

102. Ibid., Preface, 103. Dubois de Saint-Gelais, Description des

tableaux, p. viv x04. Anonymous, Lettre sur les tableaux tirés du cabinet du roi et exposés au Luxembourg depuis le 24 octobre 1750, 175% (Deloynes, p- 1427).

4 105. Lettre de M. le Chevalier de Tincourt

Madame

la Marquise de *** sur les

Roi, Tableaux et Dessins du Cabinet du Paris, 1751 [Deloynes, p. 1430], p. 6. p. 22

riez agréablement se s ou “V : -8 44 . pp d., Ibi 109. comparaison surprisé de trouver dans leur Ecoles differs oi tr de e st ra nt co le 8c ut Je go sur entes; le morceau

du Poussin

tire

beaucoup les nt se un br Le de i lu ce Raphael, Moine a toutes Carraches, le Tableau de Le l'Ecole Vénitide es ss ne fi les & es ac les gr enne.” . 72-6. ‘0. Ibi (nos. 96, -9 88 ), 95 , 62 . os (n a Ibid., i 79 (NOS. 91, 93> 72). -5 93 ), 82 , 81 , 61 , 60 85, way that written e th s se us sc di n ri Ma 112. Louis reader with t an st di e th ly pp su guidebooks at the same e ac pl n ve gi a t ou ab information ary for the er in it an h is bl ta es time that they of the it ra rt Po e; ac pl at th actual visitor to , pp- 185-788 19 , MN s, li po ea King, Minn sur : rs ou sc Di , el yp Co 113. See, for example, the pu s wa is Th 32 17 s, peinture, Pari Diaed tl ti en e ur ct le a of lished version la peinture de ce an ss oi nn co la logue sur eque oa th io bl Bi e th at is (the original read to the el yp Co at th 0) 5x Paris, MS ee e e us ro me nu Academy on ’s death. er th fa s hi r te af 1723, the year

229

Notes to pp. 44-7

Notes to pp. 41-4

Watelet and Levesque’s Dictionnaire des

Coypel’s expert, Alcipe, says Damon Les beaux arts sont faits personnes de bons sens & Croiez qu’il y a tel homme capable de sentir sera plus beautez d’un tableau, que

comparative viewing and de Pilesian ilues retained currency into the 1790s, To

«

connoisseu

prétendus

become

standard texts Vasari, Giovanni back

this

observation

imposent par leur qui ont passé I entes

“Amateur,”

article

d’c le qua

amateur,

an

Ce

up

with

cours ne

revoyant

manicres

jui

des

wrote

one

must

Watelet first

in the

read

the

Du Fresnoy, de Piles, Lomazzo, and so on, and a “course

peut

plusieurs

rassemblent

Ecoles célébres, méler, ensuite

faire qu’en

les

grands Maitres.

of

reasone €

voyant

&

fois les collections ouvrages

capitaux

Arretez-vous sur les

premiérement sans les en les comparant.

Appliquez l’examen des plus beaux tableaux tour-a-tour aux principales parties de l’Art; reservez pour les

t beauté

de

leur

stile”

de re

les maitres.

Vol. I, pp. 64-5. In their article “Cabinet” they state: “Rien n’est plus capable de don-

ner des idées des genres, des maniéres, du mérite des différens Maitres, & par consequent de I’Art en lui-méme, que de pouvoir, sans sortir du méme lieu, comparer un grand nombre de chefs-d’oeuvres” brought together “avec une sorte de méthode” (vol.

de Piles, Antoine those who sought

is sur

la peinture

meilleurs

list was probably drawn up by

who

recommended the same

Academy

in October

1747;

(£391).

livres

His

I, pp. 285-6).

Mariette,

Courajod, L’Ecole royale ; also see Loc-

authors to the

Arch.

ce qu’on

téte, je veux dire, l’aptitude 4 distinguer

(p

reiterates tation Significantly, the works of

des

objets d’instruction

place plus souvent mal-a-propos a la

jamais scu

la nécessité

De

derniers

Nat., Oz

Elected ama-

quin, La peinture d’histoire, pp. 10-11, 88-92. . Ibid., p. 13. N. Pevsner, Academies of Art Past and Present, Cambridge, 1940, p. 177,

became actively involved in its affairs only

the Ecole royale: “Their main task .. . was

19

(Mariette),

5. Sorbonne,

conferences,” teur

at

the

MS

f.1

1155: “De la necessité des

1746, pp. 86-7.

Academy

in

1731,

Caylus

rightly emphasized the role of practice at

from Lenormand’s appointment to the Bati-

to work at oil painting. .. . The copying of pictures was taught . . . and also composi-

ments. In addition to reviving the con ference, he sponsored the téte d'expression prize and contributed to Lépicié’s project to

tion, history and

Paris, 1889,

Pp. 165-98; also see Locquin, La peinture d'histoire, pp. 10-13, 92-5; and Crow

Painters and Public Life, pp. 26-33 PYAR, VI, pp. 240-1.

A. Tuetey and J. Guiffrey, La Con ion du Muséum et la création du musée du

Louvre, Paris, 1910, p. 187. To judge by

perspective

and anatomy. . PVAR, VI, p. 148; also see Courajod, Ecole

write a comprehensive lives of the first painters of the king. See S, Rocheblave, Essai sur le Comte du Caylus,

mythology,

:

royale, p. 14. Courajod, Ecole royale, p. 118. J. H. Rubin remarked the Ecole royale’s ini-

tiative: “The founding of an additional school - was surely related to the

increased importance of color and painterly handling in the style of mid-century.” Eighteenth-Century French Life Drawing, Princeton,NJ, 1977, p. 21. ;

ary,

Seen (OL! example, M.-F. Dandré-Bardon,

and it is likely that it was only after his death that his paintings became eligible for

1765, p. 51: “A is, Par , loo Van le Car de Vie

de la pégard de la pratique du pinceau, s pate, de la fonte, de !a couleur, peu de gen lont mieux connue: bien peindre étoit un

public display in the gallery. The Diana was

added sometime after x74, when it was

lent to the collector Etienne Bouret from Versailles (along, with Le Moyne's Scipio) to enhance his collection of Le Moynes displayed at his hétel on the rue Grange Bateliére; see Arch, Nat., Or 1908 (54), ff.56-8. Four new history paintings by Noel Coypel (nos.45-8) had also been added to

lui. Il avoit un soin extréme de

jeu pour

s tou dre ren de er, min ter de ir, bien arrond les détails de ses ouvrages et d’y rechercher

Also see toutes les finesses de la Nature.” AF (1938), NA ,” oo nl Va rle “Ca L. Réau, Sahut, pp. 9-965 P. Rosenberg and M.-C. Musée Carle Vanloo, exhibition catalogue, , The First ley Bai and 73 197 e, Nic Chéret, . Painters of the King, pp. 91-100 a Rubens and a ed ow rr bo Loo Jan 3 175 In . 124 presumably ; rg ou mb xe Lu the m fro n Poussi Nat., Or other loans were made; Arch. year, ing low fol the In 6. f-2 ), (53 1908 to one Mile. on si is rm pe e gav y gn ri Ma e d’aprés ndr pei et r die etu ler “al to Delandes mbourg,” but xe Lu au t son qui ux lea tab les ints from la mp co er aft it ew dr th wi later 4. For further , ff.2 ), (54 8 190 Or ; lly Bai see Chapter ce, cti pra g yin cop to references

2.

125. Arch.

1685,

Nat., Or

Hustin,

Emperor traveled incognito as the Comte du Falkenstein. In 1758 a plan to house the Vernets in the former apartments of the Maréchal de Lowendal next to the Rubens gallery was approved by the king; Arch. Nat., Or 1684, ff.325-6, 329-30. On the

Claudeports themselves, see P. Conisbee,

KenJoseph Vernet, exhibition catalogue, wood House, London, 1976during 334. On the collecting of French painting of the the period, see C. B. Bailey, Aspects PaintFrench of Collecting and Patronage Oxford ing in France, D.Phil. dissertation, f University, 1985. Peintres, premiers des Vies Lépicié, 135. F.-B. 2 vols., présent, jusqu’a Lebrun depuis preoriginally lives, Lépicie's Paris, 1752+ form, was lecture in Academy the sented to

£134} also see A.

Le Luxembourg,

ro ro-trallapy7ee

the Throne Room by 1759. On the d’Antin competition of 1727, see note 7 abov 133. Arch. Nat, Ox 1914 (77), ff.146, 148. The

2 yols., Paris,

;

Desire: From and ion dit Tra , son Bry 126. See N. 1984. e, dg ri mb Ca , oix acr Del to David 4 44Pp. s, ion lex Réf , ‘ont 27. au Palais ux lea tab des ion sit xpo aa ae sur l'e LI, 1429. es, oyn Del , rg ou mb du Luxe leaux tirés du tab les sur tre Let 129. Anonymous, au Luxembourg, s osé exp et roi du cabinet

Deloynes, LIl, 1428.

manifesto, pro-French earlier an by inspired vie de

La Monville’s de Maziére Abbé the first On 1739Paris, Pierre Mignard, of Painters First The Bailey, painters, see the King.

;

critiques Réflexions d’Argens, J-B. wate 136. peinture, Panis,

tirés du cabinet, ux lea tab les sur tre Let 130. See sur les .J. P.B au e ttr “Le of p. 2. The author , dubbed rg ou mb xe Lu au s osé exp Tableaux PPthe Gallery

o6-y,

“le Salon

sur les différentes écoles de review of this Elie Fréron, in his

des Anciens,

o= Oct on ned ope rg ou mb xe Lu The in early

ally closed ber 14; the Salon usu Ee October. 322+ te p, re tu in Pe de rs Cou 131. See de Piles, Deza ier . J A ; 22 P, rs Coypel, Discou x et oi o h c ch e le r su e tr d’Ar\ genville, “Let eux,” Mer:

curi t ne bi ca un d’ nt me ge Varran PP: ), 27 17 e un (J ce an Fr cure de Font, Réflexions, PP1294-13395 and La

30-1.

:

d. Paris, e h 7t , x u a e l b a T s 132. Catalogue de in 17525 ed di y o r T e D ): $7 "1759, p: £6 (no.

1752. only wayto the that book, concurred of French artists equality the demonstrate @ Peintre, Peintre “comparer to was sur quelques tableaux 4 tableaux.” Lettre

écrits, VI, 1753, Letter XIV, P: 320-

. Tbid., pp» 141-2 pParalléle, eae a

n F e se the Tuileries; avergnee, L de n o j e r B A e a,e Ps 2, 2 Also se ris, 19875 Pa , 3 8 6 1 de n u r B L'inventaire Le 25-9:

two

were

Notes to pp. 52-3 4

Notes to pp.

739

ce

JeA\ Pigar

de

Monae

D,

Paris.

elet pair inIl, Wat 1 . p naire, XVI

43

Versaille eda

desdits tableaux, statues et bustes, P. Clément, Lettres instructions et

Se

7 vols.,

ert,

H

iclion

and Levesque’s

servissent a relever la beauté

sorte qu’ils

este

Paris,

brief history of the movements of the n in the seventeenth century, Lavergnée, L'inventaire Le p. 17ff. The bulk of the

)

lection had been moved to Ver La

tearnle,

Thevdeatwae

act

Roney RA AREEm also ten BAN,

with the place LouisXV projects ; l'Ivry’s suggestion in P, atte, érige en France a la gloire de

Monumens :

The

by

Con-

Create a National

to

Move

201; and Ger-

discussed

plan,

rand’s

thorns The Marquis de Marigny, p,

Phe

Hy BUTRBOUIAul

i 67, p.

Pari

: aay

, sur les

TIAai

186

moeurs du tems, Paris,

9, Eineyelopédie,

(X, 1 65, pp, 706-7, See also Maille Du sUNO! Le Citoyen désinteressé, on diverses idées Aubin concernant AeA

the Gallery

er

NAAR,

a

19

a “gallery sioned Rar ened erie ane

Luxembot ir ;

io

the

: Col e th om th andTE oe the ArcArc h frof Constan janAEn and umnT of TraRIR aja HnEWA Forte, Politicalal IdeIdi ology se Theory, , especiespecall p. 94 ff; ial y

and Artistic d A an i ud St in ss ou Blunt, “P e sies oration of the Wengic Fi y,fo es i ie Mot n Fr,Gtll e y a ( 2) 95 (1 93 , BM ” e, vr 369ff; 94 (1952) 3x,

¢, included the foll

iaIltkseeroit bien a propos d'y observer

un tretrer les ppartement propre pour y meterve mie de Sa Majesté, ov |

apparteme:

leaux

:

es

jours

bie n disposés, et un aut ent nt bie fusssse

apparteme de statye Ppartement a orner ae

Be t

Bbusutesa; et penser, dé i présent, mens 4 ces deux app artemens, de

Dussausoy envi

Attached to each of the he of seated in the Louvre, The wing

des

Hommes

See véesGord rordon, a

Ilustre

rei Mar The Aarquis

de Marigny, p

Arch. N er dated tt f Sine le 0, 167 ¢ ) 1 e e h G March a first info: rmed Nrigny of tlOs ) are WMa the need to repa ny of

P.

me nie bservations on theowinLog.uvre, sent

14off,

p.

in which h the picture collection w s displayed, The med while, was to be given Grand Gallery, to the kin| $ library and the “Cabinet over oy) ; erres e98 Pi et 5 N s, T le E il Cul) a Anpes, Dessins, Méda Gr

ca

Poussin plannedit ube

.

p. jaleric

cording to Henri Sauval, Histoire ot antiquités de tl fa vill43e -4de Paris, 1 » PP.

),

4

tiles ala ville de

emens

;

Hie

imated

|

cost

was 7 sed = nfes or ct re di which theford (ff.9¢—>generalal co livres, 8 20ee0nl a el : cent he could not af

(

ir:

0!

ochin tells u:

7

that

an

appe by the editor appeal

L’Av ant \ coure:eur f the journaol had e (wh

Lacomb

de noble projet en 1760 M. le Marquis e” Arch, ai la s apré a oy nv re le Il y, Marign Nat., Or 1912 (73), £82. For its effect on d’bistoire, Terray, see Locquin, La Peinture

) had

to i Marigny thirteen deep in ticular a oat pee Igust

made

yeara

JO n.

Jacques a similar appeal CHIANG 0 free

Lacombe wrote

8, He Jaber: ie ra ne or a Versailles empilés ara Gs feraient un nouveau spectacle.ellJe propose ce

a gallery in for eal app lic pub r he ot An 65 p. rcure de the Louvre was made in thepp. Me182 -5. On

i j

(November

Rance

;

1773),

Terray, sce Bailey, Aspects of the Patronage p. de2. Cha Painting, and Collecting of Frequnch es ir mo Mé ereau],

Also sce (J-B.-L. Co

‘ Terrai, 2 vols., n.p., £7765 I, Pp.

| ote is unclear The2-3 precise sequence of events 13. 27 ¢ q

’

though

}

much

documentation

survives;

=2) Ox 1912 (73); fF83, 995 10%190 5 AF, some of which is published in NA Arch. Nat,

(1906), PP: {Or

2-9» Perhaps it was a memoir

's se 1912 (73) f,ro2], sent to Terray

retary

Montucla

on August

13, by the

tableaux des de gar , rat Jeu e enn Eti r nte pai dis at Versailles, that prompted highslevel

nts. The opening cussion within the Batime paragcaph 1s worth reproducing t demon: of the n tio cep per the ad re sp de wi strate how in was es tur pic g's kin the of h political wort the eighteenth century: que le s ge ta an av ds an gr plus des Un sa pre= Roy puisse et doive revirer de c'est sans ux, lea tab des n tio lec col cieuse plus ore enc tre met de uy cel dit contre que sou sanss richesses x des Etrlesangers nationaux, des yeu ceuxs les sou

e dans ed ss po é st je Ma $a e qu re nomb illeurs me de re tu in Pe de es nr ge tous les Le desir : les Eco es nt re fe di des Maitres tes amae s rt pa es ut ro de e tr oi nn co de et de xe se ut to de rs eu ss oi nn co teurs ct taijnetoute qualité, et c'e‘ st travailler cer Etat que des peut ment a la gloire fadeire valo ir ce qui per du soin de ; or ri pe su Ja e alc tr ot nn co 3 e ir fa A contridu buer5 ce qut est ité de la nation frangoise dans dsyto de ad , la ue nt a Mo l a by bye on ea e,ean la ucl o a° ‘bily Jey un , pr7a Athe nocottebm eotor

a 6 ur le ro nt co le “Monsieur pour rd na ey nt Mo de M. arrangemens avec gallerie

dans la ux ea bl ta s le ur jo un placer also pre, r i o m e m nd co se A ” des plans. (73), 2 1 9 1 x [O a l c u t n o sumably by M £.835 reproduced

in NAAF,

19955

on to use ti es gg su t rs fi e th t en es pr re may inter pa e th r te la s ar Ye y. er ll Ga d n a the Gr Joseph-Siffred Duplessis recalled that it

3 Maes de la Condamine who ae ie vee i the idea of a gallery in the Lourére de Vi Se: his Lettre 4M. Bar

added: “5; wise ae tds Duplessis nteur, &il ts pas \'inve aau ae Hee mérea pté ado ite de Vavoir tee sian

eels . Three fel eats — Men g Ee: i a in; ord acc , 1 il Apr on Ei 5 ak aie Slov

190. ) Ps On Gs aan see J. Silvestre de Sacy, Le éral one 'Angiviller, dernier directeur géno his ,

als les Batiments du Roi, Paris, 1953; s-C rle laude own memoirs, Mémoires de Cha

Flahaut,

Comte

de

la

Billarderie

de es ir mo Mé les sur es Not . ler vil d’Angi , Marmontel, L. Bobé, ed., Copenhagen 1933:

Arch, Nat. Or tora (74), (ors; Ina letter

yor to the garde des tableaux and future ma 29, of Paris, J.-S. Bailly, dated December

i esperance 1774) d'Angiviller wrote: d'avoir avant quiil soit peu la pallerie des nds partic plans pour y exposer la plus gra des tableaux du Roy.” Arch. Nat, Of 19a (74) hte. 2 Me On the collectton and I . ne Ecole Militaire, soe R. \ argea e, Parisy Invalides, trois sidcles d'histoir e rue 1974, Pp: J¥a=16. Some of the Le gallery the of f roo the in e hol ta tha ge lar so had to be made in order to transport them

intact. ance, Fr de e ur rc Me e th ) 73 17 In November t pa dé ce de e ac pl e at vr e “L : p. 183, argued werviroit & il ov e, ir ta li Mi e ol Ec I’ it ro se ans nsso0r ele g 4 * sa i, qu Pif nseruction des jeunes éléves, |, pourro a i ti se “ e rel, ee tien e inte de c rennce tir de l’e ainsi dire, dans r nsporter, pouour ain r tra étre un ut pe o e ls 'i qu es ié if rt fo Places éfeees erin S de a le jour dans OF S cent eee Neb h c SE , eR Nat. dels mo e th ng ri ea cl n gi omised to beeI e pr main rdeOctorbeerte 26, aee er P e te y da er ll a vi gi An d’ to ‘mpa lett

et Belair le e DY ja n. h ve gi e ar um se mu ture 0 f the ©0! e th of y er ll Ga nelly, “The Grand Architectural t ec oj Pr um and the Muse of Archiy et ci So e th of Problems,” Journal 1972) PPay (M 31 de tectural Historians, re uv Lo Le t, hu . Sa 20-32; and M.-C des musées

Réunion Hubert Robert, 1979+ s, ri Pa , x u a n o i t na

Notes to pp. 58-62

Notes to pp. 53-8

Connelly, “The

also

ff.119-30;

Nat.,

44

-uillaumot,

Le Louvre

and Sahut, 19

i Gallery”;

f.137; dated May

27,

icted

advantage

of not

and

Connelly, “The Grand

g the

p.

Palais Royal,

Arch.

The

see F. Kimball,

Philadelphia,

PA,

116. La Font had praised the lightPalais Royal,

Octagon

On the

£1148.

£31; 1175,

of the Rococo,

ng at the

that at all

war; annual expenditure on the n the early 1780s averaged just livres; see Arch. Nat., Or 174,

n

of the impor-

the museum project r was given any money

Roon,

Réflexions,

p.

39.

F. J. B. Wat-

see,

seul Box, Oxford, 1963, pp.

Nat.,Or 1244, f.46.

See Guillaumot,

Mémoire.

Le

Pelletier

de

Mortefontaine built a top-lighted gallery for his collection; see Bailey, Aspects of the Patronage and Collecting of French Painting, p. 61; also see the anonymous response

giviller instructed

Brébion

to

coration “purement simple pour donner plus d’éclat encore

aux

richesses

regards.”

cording

qui doivent

Arch.

Nat.,

atti

Ox

to Guillaumot,

r tous les

1176,

f.462

Mémoire,

pp.

16-17, decoration was to be restricted to

the cornice, vault, and end doors.

Walls

were to have been painted green, as they

were at the Luxembourg and at the Salon. 28. On the frames made by F.-C. Butteux, see

G. Bazin, The Museum Age, New York

roesipiens4 rand! B. (Pons,

francais du XVIlle

ments,”

41-50.

29. Arch.

f es cadres

siécle et leurs

Revue de l’art, 76

Nat.,Ox

1670,

orne

(1987), pp

Nat., Or

167:

f.247

“The Grand Galle:

» f

@ qui leur administration est confiée [1777],

Deloynes,

X, no. 17x. By the end of the

decade, Watelet and Levesque could insist

on the absolute necessity of top lighting in

arts, 1, pictures, galleries; Dictionnaire des Pp. 326. » Arch. Nat., Or 1670, f.231; letter dated August

26, 1780.

. See Sacy, Le comte d’Angiviller, p. 139; and Connelly, “The G nd Gallery,” pp. 125-6. . See his lette to the Academy of Architec-

ture, PVARA, IX, pp. 358-62. Arch.

. PVARA,

Nat.,

Or 1670, f.247.

IX, p. 361

. See Connelly, “The Grand Renard, son-in-law of th

lery,”

p. 126;

chitect Guillau: mot, held the post of insp. ctor in the Paris ;

30. See Brébion’s report of M Arch.

to Etat actuel des arts en France et de celui

and

Connelly

department

of Superintendance.

43. See Sahut, Le Louvre de Hubert Robert, p 18; and PVARA, IX, pp. 358-62.

nine architects to ignore

light effects inside, and

yeartain main to t icul diff too be ould “Vos études : them ed orm inf He nd. rou aux nt eme igr gul sin er iqu ppl s’a Joivent et dans les cs flan les par er lair d’éc moyens points les plus avantageux.”

histoire, Paris

It is a mark

uncertain

{uce

nto the Salon. Also see A. et son

the

Renard’s lantern scheme because, despite its veritable caractére de génie,” it would ruin the external appearance of the gallery, pro-

ff.227-9; the stairBrébion after Soufflot’s

had the

Mémoire, pp. 6

wre de Hubert Robert, p. 18. Jat., Ox 1670, f.161. D’Angiviller’s

670, { by

32£.74. Nat., Ox 19(8),

Arch.

47

Guillaumot, Mémoire, slso

p. 24 and passim;

ppConnelly, “The Grand Gallery,”

1670, £.247; report by ot, dated um la il Gu d an n, zo Ha Mique, November 16, 1789especially , er ll vi gi An d’ e mt co Le See Sacy,

Chaps. XI and XIII.

| Ibid., p- 172+

f.187. . Arch. Nat., Ox 1182, Vien also 7. 24 f. ) 79 16 Or , _ Arch. Nat. ccess; Or su t ea gr a s wa n er nt la reported the to Sahut, Le g in rd co Ac 511 f. , 9) (8 1920

59, 1. E10; p. , rt be Ro rt be Hu Louvre de The t. ec oj pr the of or th au Renard was the A- Raguin, J.by d te uc tr ns co Jantern was similar l ra ve se t il bu y ad re who had al one at the Hotel g in ud cl in s, ri Pa in lanterns dealer A.-J. the for ly ab um es pr de Bullion, coms n’ io éb Br 917 £. , 70 16 Paillet; see Ox er when a mb ce De in ed at ic nd vi plaints were ng on the ri ve co storm dam: panes of glass r ou -f ty en tw e ok br d roof an “The Grand , ly el nn Co see in the lantern;

Gallery,” p- 131+

s givnt me cu do e re th n do 53. This figure is ba from 177. art on t en sp y ne mo ing totals for BS:

9) (7 15 19 Ox , t. Na . ch Ar . re tag7 es; OF 1919 (86), 1775-8, 191,878 livr 7,794 f.109: 1779-85, 62

livres;

Or

1920

livres. lf we 2 10 4, 14 , -7 86 17 (88), f.x5: s10 an si hu rt Ca the to n ve add the 30,000 gi Bruno pict in Sa s r' eu Su Le exchange for the Le

id for pa es vr li 000 50, d tures an al is tot the t, er mb La l te Sueurs from the Ho totals may well e es Th es vr li 1,043,681 for. d te un co ac un art of s rk leave certain wo ina letter to ed rr fe re re we 54. The Sevres vases

from Baron d’Hancarville to d’Angiviller, dated August 29, 1786; Arch. Nat., Ox 1919 (86), f.265. 55- The Grands Hommes commissions were worth 10,000 livres each; four paintings were commissioned at 6,000 livres; two at 4,000; and a further two at 3,000, The toral for each salon was 78,000 livres, Over seven years this amounted to 546,000 livres. On the commissions (painting), see B. Jobert, “The travaux d'encowragement: An Aspect of Official Arts Policy in France

10 under Louis XVI,” Oxford Art Journal,

(1987), pp. 3-£4; also Locquin, La Peinture d'histoire.

The tax 56. Arch. Nat., Or 1912 (73), f.54;

farmer, Favereau, had two pictures, one

attributed to Poussin, the other a copy after Carracci.

about 57. The essential source of information

Fernand d’Angiviller’s acquisitions is Engerand, Inventaire des tableaux comBatimandés et achetés par la direction des 1901ments du Roi (1709-1792), Paris, on the fakes and copies of existence 58. The problem marker had been a recognized century; see seventeenth early the since Also see 85-6. ppAge, Museum The Bazin, by 1782 March of the memoir Montucla, Arch. d’Angiviller’s secreta Nat., Or

McClelr9x6 (82), 1.88; and A.

of Display: Aesthetics ‘and Politics lan, “The Art HisParis, 17 o-1800,” Museums in

tory, 7 (1984)s P. 45>

59. Arch.

~

Nat.,

Or

1917

(84),

fE.402-3-

toral of 239,641 livres 4 spent p’Angiviller collector, see

as a Vaudreuil On sale. the at Comte de Vaudreuil: “The Bailey, C.B. of the Eve the on Aristocratic Collecting CXXX (July 1989), Apollo, Revolution,” . 19-26.

Before £52. (83), 1917 Or 60. eae Nat., Holland on in sale Locquet attending the was eens Paillet 1783, 22, September already owne : the king to ignore artists

of besuty works of case except in the In 1785 beau”). est s ' i l (“prendre a recent king the to d’Angiviller justified the following, in Belgium 10 spending spree 3 0U “ Flandres en acheter way: “J’ai fait 4 la manquoient qui tableaux de Maitres x98 (85) O1 Majesté”; votre collection de

Notes to pp. 67-9 otes to pp.

point

Also ir

£386. for

62-7

that D’Angiviller

realized

that he

needed a professional working for him. rand, Inventaire, p. 5 Also see

pictures

Nat.,Or

1917

on pictures on the

moitié avec la e ss fi la j¢ e qu ré nt mo vez té 4 m’y si he s pa ai n’ je t, le il Pa M. sister ent de me a e m é m et e, tr et um so

(79), f.177:

brun’s belief Le d an , le sa t le te Wa the

(83

numerous instances of Paillet and

ire

e passing judgment

r

offered to the king: Arch. Nat,,

77),

f.r10; Or

84), £253; Nat.,

1915

llections of Montriblond

and the

spent

Nat.,Or

14,

(87),

1914

193.

livres

c

(77), ff-12,

138)

Pierre spent 28,660 of f.193) on three paint-

re de saint Liévens by

a Visitation of the Virgin by Jan , and Jan Cossiers’s Adoration de ee Sacy, Le comte d’Angiviller, Nat., Or

1914

(77), ff.248-9.

Local

authorities complained about the removal, necessitating the intervention of the French foreign minister and d’Angiviller’s close

friend, the Comte de Vergennes. A copy was made for the altar. 77. On Sauvage and Bosschaert, see Arch. Nat., Ox

Marquisde Turgc down because they

st’s early style, by then ell represented in the royal collection

belongec

dealing

Pomian,

curieux,

Pears, Growth

in the

Col

teenth century, see lonnneurs amateurs ei

pp. 163-94. The Discovery

For England

of Interest in the

1680-1768, New

of Painting.

Haven,

The

Arts in England

CT, 198:

1918

(85), ff.297,

Or 1178, ff respondance Bossch

373, 437,

449, 47:

-3; also J. Guiffrey, “Cordu comte d’Angiviller avec -I, pp.

93-130.

D’Angiviller was particularly interested in

the Elector’s two dozen works

by Adriaen

van der Werff, whose jewel-like finish was

highly appreciated in the eighteenth century. Bosschaert was a personal friend of the architect de Wailly. D’Angiviller bought

from Lebrun in 1785 [Ox r918 (85), £.4193

Or

1178,

ff.524,

537-8]

and

negotiated

Lippincott, Selling Art in Georgian London The Rise of Arthur Pond, lew Haven, CT,

with him, with unclear results, to buy Le

79. See JoLynn Edwards, Alexandre-Joseph

1182, f.85; and NAAF,

1988.

Paillet (1743-1813): A Study of a Parisian

Art Dealer, Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Washington, 1982, pp.

104-5.

;

71. Ibid., p. ros; also Arch. Nat., Ox r9r4 (77), £118. D’Angiviller sent Pierre a marked copy of the catalogue and saidof the Le Nain (and two others) that he would

be annoyed to let them go “méme au dessus du prix marqué.” It was perhaps at this

Sueur drawings from the Prince de Soubise in 1789; Jr 1877, pp. 354-8.

78. Arch.

Nat., Or

r177,

f.24.

Paillet com-

plained to d’Angiviller about Lebrun’s tactics at a recent auction when he publicly refuted the authenticity of pictures up for sale; Or 1916 (83), £.398.

79. Arch.

ment de mes prétentions

Nat., Ox

wrote to

1919

(86), f.57. Lebrun

d’Angiviller in March

1786:

La protection dont vous ’honorez [Pail-

let] me devient de jour en jour plus préj

a ce travail,

cision of de e th ed nc ue fl in er ll vi gi that d’An Pailto it ve gi to s e t p m o c s Chambre de the he Crown (T . -3 42 .1 ff , 79 11 Or

1917 (84), with reference to

Or

8, 18

Arch.

On

NAAF 1905 (r906),

je Merk

69. ¢

Monsieur le , su ez av us Vo . . . diciable. Von avait e qu i mo t ai ét c’ e qu , e Comt leaux de feu chargé de la vente des Tab e yous qu r si dé le r su e qu et rt M, Aube

18,477

livres at this sale, mostly on

1919 x [O gs in aw dr d an s ng ti French pain ae

80

f.6r-]

ion for s s i m m o c a pt ce ac to Paillet refused l d’Azinde on Bl e th at ng ki e th r buying fo letter ’s er ll vi gi An d’ e Se 3 83 court sale in 17 4, 17835

ted May da t ur co in Az d’ l de on Bl to normal, s wa It 2. 22 f. , 76 11 Arch. Nat., Or percent ro a ke ta to er al de e th it seems, for Rémy had as r, ye bu e th om fr n commissio 773 OX 1914

le of 17 done in the Conti sa : (77), f.225ple, Paillet m a x e r fo , 8 8 7 1 81. In August and d n a l l o H to n o i t i d e p planned an ex and a letrt po ss pa a r fo er ll vi asked d’Angi French e th to n o i t a d n e ter of recomm 1929 (88), Or , t. Na . ch Ar ambassador; : f.174entire e Th . 86 £. ; 0) (9 20 Nat., Or 19 t Robert r e b u H by ed lu va s ection wa the fate On . es vr li 0 0 0 , 0 6 9 ebrun at a

l, el sk Ha F. e se , on ti ec ll co s n a av he Orlé PPArt, Oxford, 1989, Rediscoveries

in

and passim. 9-44 Pierre Puget, by , gs in aw dr aaa 83. 39:4 el, and oc rr Pa s le ar Ch n, si Watteau, Pous artists, were ch en Fr g n o m a , Bouchardon for 58,000 le sa e t t e i r a M e bought at th (75)> 13 19 Ox , t. Na . livres; see Arch ller with vi gi An d’ to e ot wr ff.3.59-60. Pierre nd: “Le cabimi in on ti ec ll co the Mariette en maitres e ch ri t es y Ro du net des dessins rien e ed ss po ne ms te rares mais en méme age. Quant nd co se du e br des artistes cele Brun. Le s de é pt ce ex , en aux modernes ri paid for es ic pr e Th )49 .3 Ecole a former” (f for Italian e os th d le ua eq French drawings fetched n si us Po by g n i w artists; one dra on drawings yr Pe re er Pi en ev El 2,900 livres. e Baudouin th at ht ug bo e os th were among 6), £695 (8 2 % 9 1 Ox sale in 1786;

Bouchardon drawings, along with paint-

ings by P.-C. Trémolitres and Boucher, were bought at the Wateler sale in 1787.

These purchases attest to the heightened

appreciation for drawings in the eighteenth century.

Arch. see Also 37. p. (1906) , 1905 NAAF , 84. A. and ff.39 -41; (75), 1913 O1 Nat., ppSchnapper, Jean Jouvenet, Paris, 1974,livres 67-8. Hacquin paid Chabanais 2,6¢0

for the Jouvenet and sold it to Pierre for twice that amount. 85. For the transaction, see Arch. Nat., Or “Let1913 (76), ff.256-71; also J. Guiffrey,

tres et documents sur l’acquisition des

tableaux d’Eustache Le Sueur,” NAAF

the (1877), pp. 274-362- In return for paintings, the king gave the order 30,000

For livres toward the cost of a new roof.

see contemporary descriptions of the cycle, pG. Brice, Description, 6th ed., 1713, U, . de La Curne de Sainte Palaye, 406; gout dans Lettre a M. de B*** sur le bon 175 les arts et dans les lettres, Paris, petit cloitre du table aux des “Description Le Sueur,” des chartreux peints par thought the Piles De 1435p. Lil, Deloynes, Abrégé de works ; best his cycle Bruno Saint He was com479P. peintr es, des la vie his Reflexin d’Arg ens by pared to Raphael see G. Rouchés, Also criti ques. jons 1923s pp: 77-9 Paris, Sueur, Le Eustache Yale Edition of The see 96. For Walpole, W. S. Corre spond ence, Horace Walpole's P- 26; for Ramdohr, XXXV , ed., Lewis, A spe~ ae (83), 1916 see Arch. Nat., Ox Le Sueur paintunspe cifie d of isplay @” Apollon Galeri e the He cd et pea Grand Duke Paul son, II's for Catherine see Or 1782; in Paris Petrovich, who visited 22 (Hacquin), 12. £2685 oe (76)s 1913 Or 87. a ae to Pére Ra i letter Comte de Maurepas’s the Card which in order, net, prior of the monument es “un as ings are described Or 1913 er Frang oise, cieux de l’Ecole

a the for drawi ngs {.262. Preparatory Crow in 1777+ were bought by the 1914 (77) £83:

n

eee

Jas Ex8t: (76), 1913 Ox 88. panic ee occas ion, cette de devoi profiter r

les collections unique, denrichir

Majesté d’une partie qui

le Lae

manque, ¢ 4

237

Notes to pp. 72-3

Notes to pp. 69-72

est d’autant plus nece plD us brpri illante peut

and

he

livres

had

out

been

ofterec 2

Amour de l’Hét mu:

Ny

onaux,

1989,

F

PP.

Mengs

7) 24

and

C.

Girodet, Montargis,

the

Springer, The Marble

9

. The Marquise de Roncé«

1751.

1775-1850,

Chap. 2

“On

ne peut

in

yernis qu’on y a appliqué

6:

fort”

(p.

10).

(1765), p. 218. DD, X, p. 212 and passim

see

Gautier

Nat., Or

1919

(86), f.139; also

“Projet tendant a l’établissement des mosai-

cistes en France,” Deloynes, LXIII (pieces

ss¢,

les

faire

2034-6). For references to the Rome mosaics, see Marquis d’Argens, Réflexions

leve

yant qu’un seul qui

qui

critiques, pp. 41-2; Abbé Leblanc, Observations sur les ouvrages de MM. de

soit sur toile”;

These pictures were sale by the restorer

lat

3, OF)

August

Maziére

Monville,

La

l’Académie, Paris, 1753, pp. 141-2; and C. de Brosses, Lettres du Président du Brosses,

Il, pp. 241-3. Also see F. di Federico, The aics of Saint Peter’s, University Park,

Paris, 221,

de

Journal

Vie

PA, 1983. For the revival of mosaic and

de Pierre

Mignard, p . 130-1, The ceiling was at Versailles: “Le plat-fond a été gravé par Gerard Audran, & l’estampe peut servir a consoler en quelque sorte les curieux de la perte du tableau” (p. 131), On engraving as

posterity, see also Watelet and Levesque,

Dictionnaire, Ill, p. 492ff; Notice de deux

tableaux de Mosaique, par J. Rinaldi, artiste romain, Paris, 1808; and J. Guillerme, L’Atelier du temps, Paris, 1964,

a means of transmitting paintings to poster-

pp. 118-22,

ity, see, for example, A, Félibien, Tableaux

- See D. Rice, The Fire of the Ancients: The Encaustic Painting Revival, 1755-1812, Ph.D dissertation, Yale University, 1979. Also see R. Rosenblum, Transformations in Late Eighteenth Century Art, Princeton, NJ, 1967, pp. 185-6

du Cabinet du Roy, Paris, 1677, and J.-B.

Massé,

La Grande Galerie de Versailles,

Paris, 1752.

In his address to the Academy of Architec ture of 1785, d’Angiviller urged the archi-

tects to consider carefully the issue of safety

. The name of Arnauld-Vincent de Montpetit

“qu’exige le dépét inestimable [the royal

collection]” that the Grand Gallery conserver a jamais.” PVARA,

- Arch. Nat., Or

IX, Pp. 36

“doit

1925b (83), letter from

Lagrenée to d’Angiviller, dated July s, 1783. The painting was exhibited at the

Salon of that year. Also

see E. Pommier,

Le

1916 (82), f.a4r;

deserves mention

in this regard. Much

of

his life was devoted to the discovery of new

paints and techniques for pri erving art. See his Note inte sssante sur les moyens de conserver les Portraits peints a I’huile, et de les faire passer a la postérité, Paris, 1775. This

method involved fixing glass to the paint

(89), f.50; Ox

1919 (87);

restorer be dul wo e th of er tt le e th and de Saint-Germain, Or

ge

2

m! ake nu a at th ng ti no h rt wo is ff.62-3. It have stu i to d me ai cl s er or st re artists and varnishes we d an ts in pa of y tr ite chemis

paroit leur avoir

Also

1915

Gault

the distinguished

chemist Jean eae!

see

lessis, p! Du J.-S. e se so Al 1. £6 ), Or 1920 (89 a collection in ” s, ue cq la les r su Aémoire pp4, 23 10 MS , et uc Do ; of technical essays

rvations sur la peinture, I, and the Chevalier de Jau“Peinture” in the Enc) court’s article

Je

his pictures cleaned (d'Angiviller recommended Paillet) before he submitted them for consideration; Or r915 (79), £177.

1913 (7), £253 Ox

Ox

méme

rendu leur premier feu, sans leur avoir fait

Arch.

tit’s 1917 (84), ft. Also see Montpe e, 23, 10 qu hi op os il ph de ca Dé La y, pituar

Angiv

183-4. For furt . PP s, mp te du r ie el L'At vation er ns co th wi g in al de ce en nd po corres

attribuer au tems, aucune altération dans leur conservation, d’autant que l’espece de

. See

102. Arch, Nat., Ox 1914 (76), ff. 396, gor.

see s, nt me ti Ba e th to d te it techniques subm ff.z52,

Representation

Cochin remarked,

aucun

, Nat., iller in his schemes; see Arch

chin, Lettre sur les peintures aneum, aujourd'hui Portict, Paris,

, especially

Paris.

(1975),pp. 768-73.

Cam-

and

manticism,

Als:

Pio-Clementine

Or

Dark in Neo-Classical Art,” BM, CXVII

lerme, il Gu d an 5 12 930 . PP 8, an floréal her

uins

tha

yinted tt

7

Cahiers du Musée

rer

yrth

no!

were

tion,

though t

lot

for the

livres

certain

re ommended a

Pierre

Francoise.”

probleme du musée a la veille de la Révoly-

ire, qu’elle est la de VEE col

air. Montth wi t ac nt co t en ev pr to ce urfa s to interest me ti ny ma d ie tr aperit

1913 (75)> £.273+ “Note sur written ” d, oi fr de Go e M ach ae de ier: On these ll vi Cu or la uc nt Mo by either er, Pe ll vi gi An d e mt co Le two, see Sacy, x

ie

=,

death, s d’ oi fr de Go e m M Following

the Batiments

employed

her son and one

r 1913 [O s si ba ce an -l ee fr a Hooghstoel on 19 (87),] 19 Or 27 ; 9 7 2 6) 27 , 6 7 , 74 .2 (f 7 d

1788, Godefroi in h at de s hi on up f fa rtin de La a M by n e k a t s a w fils’s place of artisists

a number Porte, who was one of try with Jean is em ch t in pa d ie ud st who had 20 ( (89), £.61Darcet; ; Or 1929 ie 8, 0.7 ff , 6) (7 13 19 Ox

o. See Arch. Nat., s later wa n i u q c a H . 89 f. 115; Or 1914 (77 a al Or , es vr li 0 60 of ren a pension ) Hacqui (8)

in 1783 f.r52. On his death

! ous-T-T isis co go an Fr n so s hi by was succeeded a ; )58 17 (b. aint of psi on si us sc di g in at in IOI. ep the fasc oo nion u m m o C ’s nd ra ff Bo ings in ; a ee e r e M , ot um la il Gu St. Merri; ae] : e th of g in en op e th In 1784, when ee or er ll vi gi An d’ , t seemed imminen 0: e : ed ne 1 s ng ti in pa l al review of f-3 > 4) (8 17 19 Or , t. Na . ch tion; Ar of viewy ar ll ro co e h T 56 NAAF 1906, phion ase e fp th as a w: t gh i li d o o g in ing pictures M | lam Y D s e r y u b t p l u c s , g n i w e i f cil e c of e a i t u n i m e h light in which t eee u o c r u o t n o c and the subtlety of “Lie ey, l e t i h W J. e ; e d s e t a i apprec

One Auguste Margu was also told to have

Also see Ox 915 (80), f.286.

103. Arch. Nat., Or rg15 (79), £.285. Numerous

offers were rejected because of poor condition, due especially to incompetent repaints by earlier restorers; NAAF, 1905, p. 495

NAAF, 1906, p. 63; Ox r9x4 (78), £575

Or 1915 (79), f.x55. Also see Ox 1918 (85), f.r9x. Standards of restoration were clearly lower in the provinces. One Fruissant from Vitry explained in a letter accompanying a picture “dans la maniére du Poussin” that

Vespece de gaizis que vous verrez der-

ricre le tableau est un prétendu secret que j’ai trouvé dans un livre, pour faire c'est revivre et conserver les couleurs: une composition de graise de boeuf, de terre et ceru se de noix , de Vhuile ni bien nt jaune qui n’a fait, je crois, tableau, mal, Vous trouverez que le d'etre beso a in éclar , son tout avoir pour a nos confi er le voul u pas n’al je nétoyé, nce. Sail de provi Reyuvri e ers ih f7

was

‘inally judged to be “mauvais.

elie Reccuil d'antiquites igi et Tomer s { grec ques etru sque s, tiennes, yols., Paris, 1752-67- The Preface to me

104. posab

4s De t espe cial ly is ume III (x759) a i an ae s the of the methodology of ier! stresses the importance « es as re “l’a tten tion of objects, s fines se, de d’éx écut ion, dégrés ‘ On N ae style . of an understanding “Gree! Pott s, D. A. Winckelmann, see Anton I; s c i p o C n a m o Sculprure and R Cenh t n e e t h g i E e th nd Raphael Mengs a Alsofe . 73 075 PP , » JWCI, 43 (1980) amateurs s, ur ne on ti ec ll Co paral ion, , Paris, a curieux, pp» 143-62. a Ia nation i includes ine also ee Mee aoe ese ip. 5-6 ih

ioc g cleanin how about n plei ca @ Jet Haare

oe sale value of n u o e r ve pect to a “disco ic! Et t n i a S of h c chur ae from the

Notes to pp. 75-9 Notes to pp. 73-4

Guide

pa) § to (0 er al de er deal a o a to ld so s wa Dumont, which | ct po te a s, ir pa re l ra peemernctu

aT

jours que ce be

hat the

Ox

teur”

Ww

The

la peinture

mo

eur

retou

tablea

guishes

Arch.

viewing,

pictures had

4 monsieur

Nattier

inture”

between

easel pictures and

impc

moins

May

and

see Pp.

been cleaned

arranged in 1732; see Mercure de » PP: 1400-5. xample, “Lettre d’un amateur de

Levesque, les

collection represented the

practice

en vente bien nett belle Nat.,

Godefroid

plus belles époques de la Peinture en France.” For his discussion of the relation-

stated, “Il n’y a pas plu

d’Angiviller

des amateurs, Il, p. 90.

Dupont

concernant

éléye de

la maniére

(1759), which distin-

the treatment

ceilings

of nature in

Dans les plafons dans les voutes deglises, il faut necessairement a raison

Nat

de Peloignement des yeaux ou les objets

qu’on peint sont placés, outrer la nature pour en rendre la representation plus agreable a la grande distance qui

adoucit pour lors et lui rend agreable ce

qui, consideré de prés, choquerait les yeux et leur paraitrait insupportable.

Deloynes, LXIII, no. 2060. Very similar

Martin

wrote

remarks were made by

Le tableau de chevalet et le tableau de place, chacun isie a son genie particul-

vingt ans, on

restaurer les tableaux de

restoration

rch the pp.

lier, selui qui

églises et des ci-devant ation, p. 24, For of pictures at the Dominican

perfection par ce que son genie se porte

enthierement au point se vu ou il des-

tinne son ouvrages

rts, see the interesting letters in

plus reflechie plus vray plus epuré et

28, 1779), pp. 978-9; 364 (December 10,

Sainte Genevieve and the Hépital des Quinze-vingts also had pictures cleaned after 1775; see Emile-Male, “Jean-Baptiste. Pierre Lebrun.”

. F.-C.-C. Pahin de La Blancherie, Nouvelles de la République des lettres et des arts, 7 vols., Paris, 1779-87, VI (1783), p. 18 Description historique

des

Tableaux

de

Véglise de Paris, 1781. The author of the this pamphlet is identified by L.-V.

Thiéry

au masse qui doive

lentourré et a leffet imposan de tout quils doit produire. La peinture de chevalet au contraire devant étre vu de plus pray exige une perfection plus sage

Journal de Paris, t (August 9, 1779), 898-9; 224 (August 12, 1 ), PP894-5; 23 ugust 20, 1779); 240 (August

AF, 1873, p. 409. The Bibliotheque de

se livres enthierement au

tableau de place parais moins pray de

on rue Saint-Jacques, and at Saint

1778), pp. 1467-8; for Saint Roch (1772), see Arch. Nat., AP 392, II, f.209; for the n Loos at Notre-Dame des Victoires 36), Ox 1919 (86); for Saint Sulpice, see

J.-B.-P. Lebrun:

plus pray de la comparaison de la nature alors le spectateur se trouve en partie lié avec louvrage de l’artiste.

BN,

MS

Frangais,

20157,

f.219.

Also see

the interesting remarks about Charles

Lebrun’s decorative paintings at Versailles, a

Grande

Galerie

de

Versailles,”

Deloynes, XLVII, no. 1244. Perhaps most illuminating of all were

the observations

1772-1829),

of Friedrich

yon

Schlegel

prompted, significantly, by a

visit to the Louvre in 1802-3: The place for which a picture is destined

is a point of the highest importance. .. .

Every good picture should be designed

for some

of particular spot, and most

opripr ap us th re we s ng ti in pa d ol the ved,

conce

ately

...

It is easy in the

masters, to od go ly al re e th of works - « There is, . n. io at in st de r ei th trace ani-

indeed, no image - « . which can be rk of wo y er ev d an e; at ri op pr ap versally nfined to co be to t gh ou t ar e iv imitat particular destination. of hetic and Miscellaneous Works , trans., Lonon gt in ll Mi , el eg le hl F. von S¢

102-3:

on, 1849, PP:

forts . PP , s n o i t a s r e v n De Piles, Co

Il, p. , e r i a n n o i t c i D , e u q Watelet and Leves beer e d a m s a n w o i t c n i t s i d a n 119. Agai

beb ' tween

ks inset decorative wor

and easel

tment a e r t 4 g n i r i u q e r r e t t pictures, the la sition po ex te ou “t e t a d o m m o c that can ac ” raisonnable. New n, io nt te In of ns er tt Pa a \l, 1g. M. Baxand, 1985, Chap. 25 on the AcadHaven CT , see ce an st di g in ew vi of n emy’s discu io : 54£7 : pp l, pVARA, Il ainst ag ck ba d an st to need 15. The beholder’s oe to r e d r o in l l a w the opposite aa e n i p 4 s a w es ur largest pict e in a g a d n a s t h g i favor of skyl uillaumot, above é1

the

cornice;

see

G

pp. 25-6

l a set ra ne ge or ct re di e th oe | ae 116. be e were er th at th ng vi ro p of calcc ulations Many y: er ll ga e th l fil to enough paintings a i 's Darius n u r b e L ke li he mentioned, eee a m m E of ms Veronese’s Pilgri

the ns e m u s s a we n ca Versailles — ee F Sd ne Pa to go agreed to let them Fs ar : te da er tt le 1905, Pp- 184-5 1778.

117. Arch. Nat., Ox

Thes 1917 (84), f.254

Hi

ee eee s u M e th to nt se s Bruno cycle wa l ae vo Re e th g n i r u d e s i de VEcole franga ng the i r u d e r v u o L e but return ed to th supplied t le il Pa 6 8 7 1 Restoration. In unenay n i a p l l a m s a h d’Angiviller wit vos vues a r i l p m e r de e n g i Veronese, “d grands maitre de x u a e l b a t s de la place (86), £.297petit”; ncouragee ’ d x u a v a r T e H ee 118. See B. Jobert, sur la s n o i x e l f é R in, ment.” Also C.F. Jollau 1786, P- 2% s, ri Pa gravure, peinture et la destination is th of re a aw Artists were made Vien Pierre c wr ‘ote ti o 1779 from the start; in

in Rome reminding him to make both of his Pictures for the king the same size “parce qu'ils sont destinés a faire pendant dans fa Gallerie”; Arch, Nat., AP 392, III, f.44. 119. Arch. Nat., Ox 1925 (76); list of paintings for the 1777 Salon, 120. J. David, Le Peintre Louis David 1748-1825, Paris, 1880, pp. 571-2; cited by Roberts, Jacques-Louis David, p. 197. On Dayid’s manipulation of his audience, also see E. Lajer-Burcharth, “Les oeuvres de David en prison: art engagé apres Thermidor,” La Revue du Louvre, 5/6 (1989), pp310-21; and idem, “David's Sabine Women: Body, Gender and Republican Culture under the Directory,” Art History, 14 (1991), especially pp. 405-7. It is also worth noting that in preparation for work on his Oath of the Tennis Court David set ordered a backdrop of green cloth to be paint: up in his studio in anticipation of the National ing’s eventual display at the du Jeu t Sermen Le , Bordes P. see ly; Assemb de Paume de Jacques-Louis David, Paris, 1983, p- 54sire, CamDe d an n io it ad Tr , on ys ya1. N. Br Crow its so Al 31s. ap Ch , 84 19 bridge, Painting and : 85 17 in i ti ra Ho e th of Oath in France, sm li ca di Ra y ar on ti lu Pre-Revo s snsoye: d’ vi Da On 8) 97 (1 x y Art Histor one n, so hn Jo De se e, ur tive use of gest e etl Th n: io at ic un mm Co rality and and the Oat! d vi Da t, ro de Di of Revolution (1989),

XT LX , in et ll Bu t Ar ” i, ti ra Ho of the ws

one e e S to ly rect 122. bavi ae di Ne es e th to ed al pe ap so subject and al Do ji n, ei st en ld Wi G. d an Biévre; see D. au catalogue 4€ s re ai nt we ments : compl 73, P19 s, ri Pa d, vi Da s ui T'oeuvre de Lo ©! the d of n e nd i je r f l a n o s r e p a x7ff. Bievre was of f Eliza-ee e The Memoirs 2-113.

se director general; beth Louise Vigé! a w e N » s. an tr 4 y, le : Shel s ) 5 8 ( Nat., Or 918 ch. was imple s l o o h c s of division 17508) and oat venan e th © g n i g n i r u d sseldorf

d at Du Werff r e d n a v d n a ubens Eten of R s;5; See om ro n ow r ei th her in de le ra to ec El e ri La Gale e D x-xiPP y l aa l a i c e p s e 8,

re sent tO e w s g n i v a r g n e d

Notes to pp. 84-7 , good introduction to the Parlements

rder

to

sac rificing

eye,

the

of

pleasures

Doyle, | eenth-century France, see W. in The French Revolu: Parlements,”

ind the

compartments

form

» shape

and

color.”

On

NG,

Theories of

1-94

the

195.

reorganized

at exactly the

was

be

sal versus the local in eighpainting, see J. Bar-

jua Reynolds Art,”

f English

Eng-

and the

and

Nation

in

London,

K. Bhabha, ed.,

54-76. D’Angiviller explicitly vileged ancient history over modern in a private note dated March 20, 1776

Il a été trouvé

maintenir préférence

le grand

pour

convenable

style de donner

la

ancienne

au sujets de histoire

quant au nombre sur ceux de Vhistoire moderne”; Arch. Nat., Or rg25br. Travaux “The Jobert, 132. See d’encouragement.” VIII, pp.

176-8. See the list drawn

ture d’histoire,

pp. 48-53; and Crow,

133. PVAR,

up on March 20,1776, Arch. Nat., Ox 1925 (76). Discussed by Locquin, La Pein-

Taton, ed., ; article logpédie ycclo ” The same article insisted on a methodical order “ most conducive to ” and that the “science of natural his:

tory will progress in proportion to the

spread of finished collections.” The

fields of art and natural history

Painters and Public Life, p. 189ff. Also see Rosenblum, Transformations, Chap. 2.

134. For a fuller treatment

13 (1990),

135. On the Parnasse Francois and other eighteenth-century projects, see J. Colton, The

Parnasse Francois and the Origins of the Monument

1979; and

Genius,

to

Haven,

New

Monuments

idem,

CT,

to Men

of

Genius: A Study of Eighteenth-C English and French Sculptural Works,

the author of the popular Abrégé de la vie des plus fameux peintres, 4 vols., Paris, 1762, he wrote an earlier treatise on mine

the former thinks in terms of “classes “families” (“without doubt the best and most methodical , the latter

Art History,

Pp- 175-92.

intersect in the person of A . Dézallier d’Argenville, who wrote with equal author ity on both. Best known to art historians as

als and shells in which he distinguished seri ous collectors from curieux according to the arrangement of their collections. Where

of the following

material, see my article “D’Angiviller’s ‘Great Men’ of France and the Politics of the Parlements,”

Ph.D.

dissertation,

New

York

University,

the

Ecole

Militaire,

see M.

ues de grands

homm

Revue

de l'art

1974.

On

Gagne, “Quelques documents sur les stat-

136.

ancien et moderne,

Arch.

Nat.,

Or

August 12, 1776

59 (1931), pp-

1913

137. Journal de Paris, March

(76),

139-44:

145. Anonymous, Tableaux des différens ages de

la de Efforts Les in francaise monarchie la

1981

liberté, II, p. 43. On the use of history by

f.199; dated

be

Crown,

[opposition

see

J- Egret,

parlementaire,

Louis

Paris,

the two sides in the debate, see Baker, Inventing the French Revolution, especially

pp. 31-85. 146. Egret, Louis

this unwelIt was precisely to check silenced V XI s ui Lo t tha t ne developmen ng their vi mo re by 73 16 in ‘he Parlements the regislege of remonstrance before licy was over po is Th . cts edi of tf runthe On . 15 17 im nt ge turned by the re and ts en em rl Pa the n ee tw be ng disputes

rehanging the

Meijers, Kunst als history

ed., 2 vols., Oxford,

“ine Parlements” (p. 158) , evolyed remonstrances had already will in l ya ro ng si po op for le hic , “ve sixteenth centhe by w” la the of me na

natural history collections

re

Baker,

passim. 1773, Il, pp. 192, 230, 254,of and 144. See Hudson, “In Defence Reform.”

sete op. 157-68: Also, B. Stone,ChapThele 87 at of Paris, 1774-1789, ure,

cie dans deux de la lithologie et la p.

K.

Creation of Modern Political

Védit de décembre 1770, 2 vols., London,

XV et 19795

of France ts en em rl Pa e Th and W. Doyle, d Regime, Ol the of n ow kd ind the Brea al Studies, 6 ic or st Hi ch en Fr ” 8, 78 95-1 ie " 5? 541 1970), PP: tation en es pr re l ca ti li po of the idea th-cen14 On en te gh ei In is is cr the Parlementary the French g in nt ve In r, ke Ba tury France, see pasd an ) 1 5 4 2 2 , 8 5 1 Revolution, PP 4 : : T form: e R of e c n e f e D n “I , dson 14411. os D. C. Hu cnn m4 a d n a g a p o r P t n e m French Govern l Studa c i r o t s i H h c n e r F ” risis, Maupeou see the interso Al 9 7 1 5 : PP jes, 8 (1973)> os a e p u a M i t n a e th coin article on G Acie , x u e i p u D Pp. phleteers, Bastille, !a de s r e i n n o s i r p parisienne et les Paris, de re oi st hi l' de e et Bulletin de la Soci : 7° -5 45 : PP > 58 (1931) fforts de la E s Le e n o r e ea ae 2Eba peou u a M Sr du e m s i t o tri : liberté @ du pa iques Pour t o i r t a p ts ri ec s de ou receuil

frangais, 3 t n e m e n r e v u o g n maintenir l’ancie ouana, oe

Maupe d n a 3 5 7 7 1 , n o d n o vols., L ae a l i r a p ts ri éc s receuil complet de ie s e c n a h C du e gn liés pendant le re du desp é t i d r u s b a P r e r t n peou, pour démo nin G pour mainte & r li ab ét tisme qu'il voulait onarcee m la r u e d n e l p s e¢., dans toute sa , t r e b o r i a M de dansat francaise, M.-F. Pi docu, Paris. c! do ty ta en of Parlem on ti ec ll co e th e . Se ; remonréclamations, et de ments, Receuil des a SUI 44 . . he des Parlemens . stranances...

taire, p. 218.

XV et ‘opposition parlemen-

Code des 147. Abbé Joseph Rémy, ed., Le francois, ow receuil de toutes les pieces intéressantes publiées en France, relative-

ment aux troubles des Parlemens, 2 vols., 138-9, 149, aod 109, pp. |, 1774, Brussels, passim. Cited by Hudson, “In Defence of

Reform,” p. 62. L’Hopital continued to be regarded by Parlementarians as the ideal Président magistrate; see, for example, de Hénault, Nouvel abrégé chronologique 1775 ed. Paris, vols. 3 France, de [histoire 538, where he (first published 1744), Il, p. de au-dessus magistrat “un as described js 4 tout éloge.” l'opposition parlemenet XV Louts Egret, 148. to Besenval According 6. Chap. taire, king's peincipal the 384), pI, (Mémoires, Crate Maurepas, de Comte adviser, the un coup d'eclat par déburer de soucicux au plus grand plaire devoir bien qu'il savait pp- 224-- Also Egret, by Cited nombre.” France as of Parlements see Doyle, “The Regime, Old the of the Breakdown p. 35 ; Paris, of Stone, The Parlement friend and Pats close D’Angiviller’s in ee s also as colleague, Turgot, ae ee see recalling the Parlements;des Parlement’ rappel “Turgot et le fram Révolution La (x774),” 1902), pp- 193-208 's ae aes Hommes Grands 149+ ae i ‘of 1775 in © for filed document 1913 Nat-s k Oxecgansl Arch. 3 hives; ry arc ments took P aa D’Angiviller (75), EE: of Grea choice the for Ssecaginilledth ity responsibility Men; see McClellan, ‘Great Men."” P- 27. 8, , s i r a P e d u Great ‘ Mercier, Tablea s ’ r e l l i a v n i «p'Ang , n : a l l e l C ! e M a 1sst. See e ° 7 7 1 ee : a especially pp e o = a is n o i t c a e n n * f o 152+ ae co ries 0} oya! R _ Dowley, A Se e i m é d a c A e by th d e r e d r o s pea

“Notes to pp. 85-95

Notes to pp. 88-9

D. de Peinture et de Sculpture, Ph. yf

tion, University

153. See d'Angiviller, Mé

dence to suggest the

disserta

in Rémy’s favor, but it is noteworthy th, at

Chicago, 1953

Dowley, A Series A. Deleyre, Essa

the two most

pp for Thomas the post

of

the Batiments; see M historiogr: Henriet, “L’Académicien Thomas,” Bulletin du bil

154. Memoire 155: See, for exa ions sur la sculpture,

plus durabl but digne «

156. For see

apr

sculpture est donc ference

Oenure

de per

des hommes illustres

odelesde

Thoma

yertus.”

to

Pigalle’s

&

tomb.

ronné 1812

fates

he wrote:

tour-a-tour les objets de la

le Magistrat

Monarque. (p. 35)

158. Arch Nat., Ox

soit subord

1914 (77)

onné au

333-4. The

note accompanying Rémy sien C'est 4 vous que je do le morceau de Mon ouvrage quia le mieux reussi deva nt le public, et devant V’Académ ie. Permettez-

moi de yous offrir un exempl aire de l’éloge ++. comme un hommage de ma rec nnois-

sance.” The “morceau” of which he speaks was probably the mention he make

at the

start of the eulogy (p. 3) of D’Angiviller’s

Statue and the joint celebration of the academies. On Septembe r 3, d’Angiviller replied: “Cest un vrai plaisir que j'ap avoir contribué par la en quelque ch preng ose « Succez.

244

upset by the éloge and tried (it seem s ee cessfully) to have it withdrawn from circulation; see Mémoires secrets, 10, Pp. 223

. [Frangois-Apolline de Guibert], Eloge de V'H6pital, n.p., 17 PP. 55-56. The author of this eulogy is usually incorrectly identified as Jacques-Antoine Hippolyte de Guibert. F.-A. de Guibert, best known for his controversial but influential book on military tactics, Essai général de tactique

de votre ouvrage.” There is no ect

PP. 48-50. Guibert’s Eloge was distributed illegally. Its reception (as well as that of Rémy) was ported with great interest by the Mémoires

secrets,

10,

pp.

209,

223,

229-30, 232-3. - Ibid., p. 56. M.-F. Pidansat de Mairober t

reprinted the most biting Passages of the Eloge with commentary in his L’Espion ndance secrete entre

ylord All’eye et Mylord All’ear, ro vols.

London, 1783, VIII, Li ter IV. Intere stingly, ; Mairobert noted: “II tt... frappant, que Pau au teur oppose aux Magistrats ce méme U'Hépital dont ils se sont prév: alus si souyent dans leurs remonstrance & leurs autres

ecrits” (p. 95).

- Baker, Inventing the French R

iF

+ Montesquie

U is, of course,

evolution, p.

best known

for

rit des lois of 1748. Henri-Frangoi

a distinguishe family. Some of his speech hes, such as “L’homme public” (170 6) or “L'amour

ticularly

de la patrie”

(1715), are

parintere: sting in light of later Pa P r-

musée,” p, 58.

Discours

6. M.-J, Mavidal and M.-E. Laurent, eds.,

a rentrée de la conférence ieurs les avocats au par- i

Archives parlementaires de 1787 &@ 1860,

139 vols., Paris, 1867-96, 26, p. 469.

blueique 4 rubliq 75], Lau 17 y ar nu Ja 3 {1 s He ert de Parip. 8 495,

Sb

168

7. A.-G. Kersaint, Discours sur les monuments publics, Paris, 1792, pp. 43-2. Also see an earlier recommendation along similar lines

Prerevolution, ch en Fr e a sat P- 187 and , 87 19 o, ag ic Ch _ eas

the French of s in ig Or e, yl Do so pass: im) al ap. 5: Revolution

166. NAAF 19°

“D’Angiviller’s ‘Great Men.”

Frangaise in 1786; see Dictionnaire de biographie francaise, fascicule xcvii, 1986,

sollicitude de I'Hépital, vous qui des nes a faire regner les Lois, ne craigniez pas alors de les violer, soit pour assouvir yengeances, soit pour seconder un zéle aveugle, soit pour défendre de intéréts incompatible avec la consti tution Monarchique, Le Chancelier veu t que

59. Predictably, the Parlemen ts were bitte;

philosophes. He rose to the rank of field marshal and was elected to the Académie

prevanicateur,”

SSE au, 2 vols, Pari {enrion de Pancé,

id

(1770), had ties to both the court and the

d’Ague:

Vous

pete that year.

Oa

ing an important subversive one by F.-A. de Guibert, were given in other eulogies published at the time; see McClellan,

donner

Magistrat

Garat (x7 79) w7Sa

9. Further readings of l’Hopitaly includ.

pétuer le mémoire de

celebrated culogists of the

er li ce an Ch le M. de s Jementarvy s; 177%. 5

day — Jean-Frangois de La Harpe ( Winner 17 in 67 pri , the of ze 1771, 177)

U

ne d’Angiviller secured

petition was fixed

ou le pélerinage historique, Patis, 1796, pp. on cited by Pommier, “Idéologie et

oenet rs ou sc Di e se e; rs ou sc , di

6 (1907)s P- 2664. ues, 1 1925b (£7): The stat never oks in May 1792, were

ynaud, Ra yrc Fu M. to g in rd co exécutées au es ur pt ul sc s de Inventaire s Batide n io ct re Di la cyIlle siecle pour there Y no , 27 19 s, ri Pa é onts du Rol, sioned, is mm co g in be er ev ia meal of their tics, see li po y ar on ti lu vo on David’s pre-Re th of the Horattt ally Crow,

a WE oP 855

“The Oa 120) 1; A. Boime,

Marc y 5 ae a and the Pre-Revolution-

David,” eters 3 Davi Re Art History ary Progressivis m of R ror ; and 1 8 . p (1980), p

1972+ , n o d n o L , s u t u r David: B

1. Arch. Nat.,

7: The 24 , 3 1 2 , 17 .2 ff , 670 OF 1 brought to d’Angiviller’s

problem 4. atl ntion in 178

"du

Tuetey and

Muséum

Bie

:

Commissio a L , y e r f f i u G J.

Musé ée du u d n o i t ti a éa é r c et la

0, P- 2 1 9 1 s, ri Pa , e r Louv

land and o R n O 3. = Pp ¥ I. £45 PomE. 3. Le Moniteur, e se e, vr yu ou ionary the early Revolut Reflexions , n u 7 0 “ r b e L e r r e Pi mier, Jean-BaptistePom. 2 9 9 1 s, ri Pa , l a ation sur le Museum 1 n 4! ttention y m to e m a c ay mier's excellent € 1 o! bo y m r te af nly et mu sée a Pépoque e i g o l o é d [ “ 4: 1 en i de‘ la Revon i l s e L 10 ” , e révolutionnair d., Paris, , e l l e v o V . M , lution frangaise

had gone to press:

. PVC

Commission,

F.-

Pucaoca

r vision: la mi si a d ha e g u Ro

Prin s o n s n a d n o t eroi lection précieuse ne f Lyon, aris, Nantes, P cipale s villes, comme on Y s u e s m uuperbes Bordeaux! O quels lises g é s o n le d s lle dép \ oui pourroit élever des: uments n o m s e L ” ! s Supprl! mé et monasteres

by B. Poyet, Mémoire sur la nécessité

d’entreprendre de grands travaux publics, Paris, 1790. 8. Ibid., p. 459. Tuetey and Guiffrey, La Commission du Muséum, p. 26, Roland's commission succeeded a first museum commission appointed in haste by the Legislative Assembly in the aftermath of August ro. The comare position and activities of this commission that it unclear, though there is evidence pp. Gallery; Grand the on work undertook 142-4. On 1-3; and PVCM, vol. [, ppcontrol of bring to campaign his and Roland under property national all and the museum of the inteministry the of jurisdiction the Roland a Jean-Marie Bernardin, E. see rior,

le Ministre de l'Intérieur (1792-1793), Pans,:

. 435-8: ae a It 46: p. Discours, alee 0. prompted the aut ead experiment that more ee new, a with up come Tiel se top with complete plan museum La Commisss rr. Tuetey and Guiffrey,

Muséum, pp- 123-412. PVCM, |, p- 247-

3

dated July

13. Arch. Nat., Fry 1059 (15); lerter 451793 on, i t u l o v é r Ia r su s 14D: Gar: at, Mémoire Paris, an Il, p. 3-

15, On Pe

ana

Shadow Bindman, The

paganda, sec D. e.

oe the Guillotin

0

7

Britain an

Museum, Londona,ay sion” See the Commis

ae

e

o | m u é s u M rts et sur le Cor e L , y e r f f i u G in Tuetey and a P- r83ff. , m u e s u M u d sion 2, 157+ % 2 1 : pp |, , M C 37. PV . EO 5 5 2 + 7 4 2 pp |, , ie PVGM

16.

ae

‘Notes to pp, sol4 IAAF

191 Notes to pp: 95-

and the they

Commission des

wi

abl

monume ts, noot

(

i

but

, (1905)>

nseil Co au it fa t or pp Ra , if Corps Législat de la

sur les sceaux Cing-Cents, Jes du ry ce an Sé : re oi ég Gr r pa , ue iq bl Répu J 1 IV (January 31, 1796); quoted

Culture, and Class, p, 92. litics, ind Guiffrey, La Commission du 3 44, 289-91. Also see the cata-

Lenoir

had

printed

Ne

ro

row.2

Painf ters

agean

Lettre

Publ andand i ublic

ster,

Chap. 2.

al:

vient

a sourire;

a

si la cour

re poud en) tusti e uit ! réd aut les tes tou ne on et ur s co ie u: ém tit la ad ins ac es es utr oe : ii ‘ i iques sont pulverisées comme pe monarch tions bs 4 erv obs t e e ir mo mé Adresse, e a Bela Co ‘a un mm oe par oN e, cl al on ti Na A al’ ée bl em ss “

5 9-1 178

be con

Me aauld ORL It sho Paris, 1976, p. 100. Ozouf questions both the suc

the fes yesttiival. of it cess and the sincer

the of ter Mas t an the ge Pa and wd Do d vi Da . DL is 26, Sexé ue Jacques Lou 8, 194 , NB n, col Lin n, io o) ut Rev ol ev ch rene He G; ture, and Class, Pol itics, Cul e o 27.? See ue 5 ine hon, Marianne ul Ag M. e an r e au : Lilpiageriei. et la symbolique

sega

1979. is, Par 0, 188 gi ya em e ea i He) Sant

ihe C. eae r e a le pe aoe e Th 29. Gri ie y e aa ief rel the of l va mo re the prior to els pe of ter let " a in mentioA ned by Pierre 30.

.

-8 Arch, Nat.,OriE 1171, ff.207ee

7793

les destruc Abbé Ab é H. Grégoire, Rapport sur

ion opérées tions

par pai r le vandalisis vardme, lisme, Paris,Par an dhIl, ep.

S 8. p. 1, 179 is, see pp. 28, 4 des arts,p. 26Par also ; 3. Ibid., i abxllosy aE Ds La e, pl am ex for , See Lebron ro floréal an Il, p. 8ff; J.-B. a d’er ns ye mo les sur )erri ihear ie e ag ur co en ref dl si cac Kor Pasae a IG i> 2i=ae p. , ca hi ap gr e art De y: no es lr Du ences eee nture, p. 412; peintu 254; de Bs Piles, Cours de de pei

d An . 333 p. 5, . vol , ie éd op cl cy En and RR the ee omak

z

,issance du ern“La (i) e Na bieenab 2 ae So . ar , Poulot Michel, eds., R. and es rd Bo . (re Fe 3 ts|deila

Armes ee ne Arts! Les Ar Aux pre p: 215 8, 198 is, Par 99, es , Ge om

ascup la sraypr-i ne Ho Ap la ib sion D\vo directe: de ce pla 3 th, ue OO Pp. 3de France 4 Rome, dyeBarJeu oe 2,ee J E rat 08, 177 . In the early

arerenitiaceatxemisbouurrgeter Rot.

et

les ta

estab ; aye

ee e . . sont exposés aux fetp ee

la semaine, il est bon de

dl en qi a cev dla a fam jeunesse entra pour beauc coup lors de

cet arrangement”; NAAF

1905 (1906),

> p.P: 73 73,

du

to at g in sh wi s st ti ar on

pier”; Les Conservaésire nal des arts a leurs jo b na m u é s u M du eurs so see Al 4. p, Ul n s 4 oa tl Ha s, ri armeenpecom , ‘sPa ennss: ye it:oy ncs e eco uc s o

Life; and

la liberté narchent ainsi chargés de chaestines,détrui te, le

sion and Guiffrey, La Commis

es les s ai dans toutér udier et (cent

ere eineteannseiiffySieed; ds Vina Mt de 2a II r a ar ea c a fl

and d’Angiviller, see heels

ad ministration e th museum 17945 tés seront announ\ ced that “Toutes les facili heures, les jours, a toutes les us to s ée sccore sons, aux artistes qui

an

ereTeou eS lesOF arts puamcemigpays “Si, dans

128.

5913 (75)> £4185 Ox 1914 (77),

tey

fhe

au Dépot provisoire osophique,

Ps

For copying polic

; Museum, Pe 335° intarel-Bessons La naissance du musée,ringIl, du od ri pe f ie br a r o F 5: 23 pg. also restricno y ll ua rt vi re We e er th che Terror In March

bjets de sculpture et pluvidse

Terray

ructey

43.

the occasion \

for

i

1993

(1904), p- 164; NAAP

p- 218. ” e, sé mu du e nc sa Poulot, “La nais

% 47

46

48

Arch.

569 (x), f-19. 102. F24 g) (5 ),Heef.

Nat., F21

cal career, see D. L. Artist Memid, Dav is Lou ou ee ye Ja l Securi‘1ty,” e ra ne e Ge of e te , it wd mm Do Co the of ber

Ibid.,

LVII (1952), , ew vi Re cal ori American Hist and the Fine m nis obi Jac ,” idem 92: Caz reers of e o én E Pe e oe Arts: QuarArt ” d, vi Da d an Bouquier, Sergent3), PP 195-214- For a terly, XVI (195

Jacquess, rt be Ro W. sce y, recent summar Revolutionary Artist, Chapel Louis David i agelGhapae ~ ee Hull) NG;, Introduce tion: 4g. PVSPRA emenl r a P s e v i h c r A t, en ur

. 94) p (18 p 8 diplomatique, 1896), PP: ( o r s (a895 8) PPaaoimae Les Conquétes artisier, n u a S C. 1 48 mpire, E ’ l e d et n o voluti é R la e d es e u q i t aielea Commiss de sciences

sion pour |

et arts en Italie,

francaise

(1934 ), PP:

g g. A number of

d, l u o G : h s i l g n E in e l b a ‘wail culpture, 2

e s u q i t n a to e c n e r e f re ntique, A e h t d n a e t as ynn, u and N. Penny, T Q M . D 4; . 14 ap Ch , 1 8 9 1 , T C , n e v leonic Ha o p a N e h t of Art Confiscations The view, 5° e R l a c i r o t s i H Wars,” American ner, r u T L. . M d 0; an man o 1945), PP- 43 7-6 R e h t in ! fiscations n © t Ar h nc o n e C r F “ e h t f 0) s g ic, 17985 ” Procee din

Republ

lige par ordre de I'Empereur Napoléon III,

Paris, 1858, vol. I, pp. 527-30. 122. For Florence and Turin, see Gould, Trophy,

:

in VI

iy

413-17.

de Pomm rts, Paris, a x u a e b s le s n a oir d De V’Art de , v cal F.-R--J

Revolutionar ‘y Euro,

118. Gould, Tropby, p. 44. 119, Blumer, “La Commission,” p. 69. 120. Ibid., pp. 70-1; also see CDD, 16, pp.

quis par les ff: angais et con!

mpiled o c ” e u q i l b u p é de la R ereul,|, in F,

on

1750-1850 (1980), vol. 2, Pp. 43-5t.

Kersaint,

See G. Briere, “Le Peintre J.-L. Barbier et les ‘onquétes artistiques en Belgique (1794),”

The call

4

I 794

Notes to pp- 109

ux de ea bl ta es br lé cé de 1815 l du ya Ro ut it st In l' de in Bullet pp. ; 4) 96 (1 L VI , ue iq st ti e Ar

PP. 59-62; and, with specific reference to

Napoleon’s pursuit of the Venus de Medici,

see F, Boyer, “Un conquéte de la diplomatique du premier consul,” Revue d’bistoire

diplomatique (1957), p. 22ff. On the

Borghese and Albani collections, see F. Boyer, “L’Achat des antiques Borghtse par

Napoléon,” Académie des Inscriptions o Belles-Lettres. Comptes rendus des séances

and, de l'année 1937 (1937), PP.and 405-155 the Antique, Haskell and Penny, Taste pp: 112-13.

p- 7sif. Commission,” “La Blumer, See 123. V, frimaire-an 10 philosophique, 324. La Décade upon inventory the up drew Lebrun 428, du Naissance La arrival; Cantarel-Besson, : musée, Il, p. 142+ L109. 20157, Frangais MS as. BN, la Hol-

la Belgique, dans Voyage Thouin, A. ie I, p- 46: 1841, Paris, vols-, 2 I'ltalie, lande et

value Lalande’s suggest Penny Haskell and

pee judgments may iat inte 109. sioners; Taste and the

Am que,Pp:

Matfet, 2 On (2). 1275? Fx7 Nat, 327. Arch. amateurs Pomian, Collectionneurs,

curieux, pp. 195-217

£275. ), (1 0 5 7 2 1 7 , Fr et cor s e t 128. Arch. Nat o N , e l l i l i v e l l don de Be e R . G C L, PP01 e e S , Hl © 129. , 2 9 , 8 s 1 i r a P is, ., ndance, 2 yols vre’s list

Lou e h t in s g n i d a e ite fe d ae The h in s r e t p a h c with y l t c a x e e d i em c n i o c c r e na's y a L . a i r o t nce S e c e h t r t of e h t he ) 2 at used as w n o i i t c e l l o c Uffizi s ae e b i u q q i i t t n n a of a lii st

‘ he Lo iqnes h p o s o l i h p e d a Déc

20-7 Notes to pp: ?

407-15 momentarily over the from Rome. Corres sh

objects

hoice of final

Décade La see festival, the On ique, 2 » thermidor an VI, pp. . La Clef du cabinet des souverains, 4816-19 . pp , VI) an r do mi er th no. 552 Mainardi, for a recent interpretation, see P.

ey were at th tut on the subject their own se ci er ex ) ¢ nt te liberty to some ex Proces verbaux Bonnaire,

M.

3 VO

ux-Arts,

w taken from Rome

starure than

132.

Louis-Antoin¢

Lavallée’s

accompanying

list

the

Summer

year

to

IX

144.

form

mid-s

La Décade philosophique,

1. Doucet,

MS

10 thermidor

DES ARTS

1089, II (4), 13 thermidor an

VI; also La Décade philosophique, 20 ther-

paintings by art sented in the Ill), f.17

Louvre;

. Archives des Mu

ously unrepre Nat.,

F21

bition catalogue, Louvre Museum, 1988, p. 24, note

. On the tion, se

above the entrance to the museum; Cantarel-

Ibid, I, pp. 184, 234-5.

. Ibid., I, pp. 257, 265,

see the Moni-

the gallery already feet.

teur universelle for 2 and 4 nivése an VI (

December 22 and 24, 1797); and Réimpres-

V, p- 214.

a

737

;

, os Il, p. 41; also Arch. Nat., O2 835 (5),

:

b . Notice des tableaux des trois écol dans la collection du Muséum des arts, rassemblés au Sallon d’exposition, endane

Funds for transportation were secured by

£.298. 140. La Décade philosophique, 10 thermido.

267. The section of

in use measured

:

les travaux de la Gallerie, Paris, an IV

rie With, Ge. OA.

:

and A.-F. Peyre,

: ophique, s o l i h p e d a c é D a review in L 59-61. 5 . p p n

I 2G antarel-Besson, -Be: La Naissance if du24musée, 7-52. 4, 16 3, 15 2, 14 5, Il, pp. 13

ass

activities, see Doucet, MS 1089, I (dossiers 4, 5, 8, 10, 11). The Semaines critiques, though welcoming the Musée spéciale remarked “le Musée Central de Paris reve nira tout ce que la peinture offre d’excellent

dans les trois écoles,” no. 9 (May 22,

1797), P- 439-

24, Benezech was explicit on this point, stressing to the Musée central administration that it should concem itself with quality rather than larter history; that too much attention to the at Verwould compromise standards. It was Jacune sailles “que l'on pourra composer sans en France.” Phistoire chronologique de l'art Arch. Nat., F21 569 (6), f£83-427 54% souverats, des cabinet du 25. La Clef 4743+ messidor an VI (July 155 1798), BLettres sur Berkheim, Christian Carl 26. See so see Al 0. 48 P, 09 18 , Paris, Heidelberg one of the , un uz La by e cl ti ar g the fascinatin

societe Ss - 1°2— P P , ) 6 8 8 (t épartements s x musées de Paris, , n o i t u l o v e r de la

nion

ala

23. Arch. Nat., Fax 569 (6). On the jucy's

aille s r e V a e s i a g n fra

PP. 177-9.

Besson, La Naissance du musée, I, p. 71.

Bonaparte; see Arch. Nat., Fr7 1275b.

personnel changes in the administraCantarel-Besson, La Naissance du

Paris, 1795. Cantarel-Besson, La Naissance du musée, I,

olors were hung in the Grand Gallery and

139. For the Treaty of Tolentino, see Correspondance de Napoléon Ier, vol. 2, pp. 444-9

I.

. Le Conservatoire du Muséum national des arts au Comité d’Instruction Publique,

Conservatoire, two large tri-

Ppp. 102, 107-8.

Paris,

. La Décade philosophique, 10 pluvidse an Ml, p. 211.

, germinal an VI, p. 54. In x

sion de l’ancien Moniteur, vol. 29 (1847)

3.

musée, Introduction; II, pp. 252-3-

d'un artiste, aux arn

138. For an account of the dinner,

t BB

in L’an V. Dessins des grands maitres, exhi-

57

de la République, n.p., n.d., p. 2. de philosophique, 20 floréal an V, under the first

nationaux,

Proces-verbal du Conseil, p. 1, note 1. Cited

o messidor an

phil 133. La Décade V, pp. 84-8

134. Ibid. o therm Hommage 135. Baltard,

midor an VI, p. 305-

of the second c careful to note

jrite Quer atone Oe

Morel drawings: the

and then in

send to Versailles; BN, MS Fan ne He zo-1. Other members of re ee

a P. 22 , s e r t i 30 fructidor a m s d n a r g ins des s s e D . V B.-J. Fouby n e t t i r w 15+ L’An ag w ook b e s i c r e x e ntaires de e The m é l E es ip n i r P e suivi t, Receuil d , ns io ss Pa s de n jo ! press x E V T U S e r u t et d'un Pein e i m o n o i s y h P a l sur e g é r b ie A m o n g n o i s y du h P é m m eme no t s y u d e ncki W , n u r Expos B e L ; oe.uvres de ait l’usage des a ., tc e , t e l e t ngs, Wa e M , n leurs n a r e m t i l i el c a f a é n i t s et des e t s i t r a s princis t r jeune A s e d l a r t n ée Ce s u M u a s e d étu Dess s e d e ri le a g la r an o d m i r m palement dans r e h t 0 3 s e ilosophiqu h p de e a c e D 16. La sée, u m u V, p: 365: d e c n a s s i a , La N n o s s e B l e r a t 17. ¢ an sion s i m m IL, p- 62 o C a L , y e Gu iffr d n a y e t e u T 18. See e list. h t r o f , 0 2 2 “iu muséum, iPsPt-ory, see the report oF faaln XII, ef h I, PP: , A T C V 19. For a bri P o s l a 8495 2 O . t a N . seum h u c M r A e L “ , x u e l A. Dutil e e s d n A . Vécole e d 382-3 e l a i c é p s e Mu: sé le et l a Réun o i t a , n ) 3 2 8 1 2 9 7 1 s (

20 prairial an

23

CHAPTER 4. THE MUSEE CENTRAL

French saa se!cave ee ee

wer omn co r f d a e t s n i quote Paris. , t e c u o D ds maitres. an rheque gr s de s n i s . Des y n a ' of L er ep ke e d Se te ' n i o p p a s ¢ yArleux wa See

VI, p. 496.

VI, pp.

the

Bell

252

ing the Empire,” p. 158-

«n La Décade philosophique,

and at

)

13:

are given 145. The complete words of the song

s de la peinture depuis sa hue jusqu’a nos ( sous ne his er remiére

least tw

155-63:

1989), PP:

ains, pp. _La Clef du cabinet des souver 4816-19; translation by Mainardi, “Assur-

of Florer

ed

zes th

“une suite ine et renaissance jours paintir

of

letter

Art Journal, 48

1798 Féte de la Liberte,”

obvious

of les like Perugia and paintings

so I s, ri Pa in s a w I ailable when pies i n the Biblio-

e “Assuring the Empire of the Future: Th

and Ma Paris, 19 PP 796) (1 4 , e u q i d é p o Encycl Paris would have om fr e nc da ui 424ff. s important in the < se of town

heen more

an V I

yendemiaire

Instt

with the

ndence

er from tt le 2; 38 £. a, 75 12 7 Fr , t. Na 141. Arch. Marseilles, 6 Thouin to the Directory, dated

did hesitate

ners The commissio

d a e h s i l b u p y centl e r s a h n o -Bess g the l n e i r r e v o a c t s n e a m C volu o w t e s e h t o seque | r n for 1797-8, Musée o i t a r t s mini Loouyvse ad janvier 1797-juin 1798). Procés fy Louvre d u conseil d administration du erbaux 1992, which is, Par s, art des | l soe centra book my r te af ly on n o i t n e t documents al in ig or e Th _ s s e r p e to

des

des m o n u a t i a f Rapp ort , n o r a V C. ent m e e Se t r a zo. p é d le dans s e y o v n e s e r i a s s i comm PVCTA, o s I S I 3 4 9 7 1 s,

l Magdeleine, peint pa

se, 10. Oi et e in Se de Département e concluth in d e s s u c s i d ); thermidor an VI Notice e Se , ts en nt co s ' m sion. For the museu etc. , es st bu s, se va atues, des tableaux, st de Vécole

éciale p s e e s u M le composant , Versailles, an x.

L (dossiers 19 , 9 8 0 1 S M tober c O in 27. Doucet, n a g e b n restoratio d n a a a A i -Centn s. g n i C 1797s e d | l i e s s Latif: Con i g e L s p r seum o u C M g. le r u s n i e par Mar r d r o ' d e ose an y i m 1 E i f o e c n a Sé

s. central des art

Paris “Le séjour 4 aux de e l b a t s e r b é l de cé 's sentiments

, Pari e s t O & e n i e S de

ailles s r e V 5 7 6 . £ 569 (6)> " 2 F , . t a N Also . h c 3. r A ax. , h c r a M med in r o f n i ly al ci fi of s wa 225 1797) O. 9 (May Il, 674-8-

Semaines

critique 5, N

ant t r o p m i n a Lebrun, . -P : -B J. e, pl am ex Ose of t n e 22. For v in d e , WaS as ry ju e th of the f r o e b m t me ! n e m e g | se on the arran

pp. 430-1-

year VI to advi

al n r u o J e h t m o r e f

2-3 3 1 p p to s e t No

layer of varnish that would also lend them an attractive luster; (2) the different branches of restoration must be practiced by specialists trained in those areas; (3) ori paintings should be returned to their wherever pos, that g nin mea , ion ens dim nal sible, portions of canvas added to accomjate a picture in a setting for which it

self e h t th o so Al O ° 4 , P- 67 V X X , s e n y o l {minis De the museum ac ed by defense publish Dcécade tration, La De

phique,

phil

1°

t la e th in d e d u l c n I . 5 2 wyase an VI, pp. 4c om the Italian coammu is [r ter was a report

contisca s e r u t c i p e th of sioners that most heureux Pp

es tr st ¢ l “i n; io at or st re needed s- Delacroix : The e c n e i r e p : Ex d n a n raditio . r e t e P , Gibbon.” to Burke i n u r B m o fr e Idea of Declin -52 7 3 1 , ) 6 7 9 1 r e Summ Daedalus, 105 nce du a s s h i a N La , . e Yvelin , n o s s e B l e r a t n 198fCa , s i r a P , . s l o v 2 . Musée du Louure rie du le ga la s n a d s u n e t on gue a Jes objets c 1793, s i r a P . s i a c n a Muséum F digla r su e u q i h p o s o l i ssai ph sussard, Pierre. E VI. an s, ri Pa . ts ar s e nité de Frangois and th 1981-

431-46.

er, Keith M. Inventing the French Revolution.

6 5 2 ) 0 2 9 7 ( F A H S Xapoléon.” B d and Image: French

asse n r a P e h T . th di Iron, Ju us. New i n e G to t n e m u n o Origins of the M 9: Haven, CT, 197 - Philip. Painting in Eighteen 198France. Oxford, Create 4 to t n e m e v o M L. The nnelly, Jam issertad . D . h P . e c n a a r F National Gallery in nsas, 1962. tion, University of Ka o, l l o p A » . e r v u o L e Forerunner of th (1972), 382-9: and XCV e r v u o L e h t of “The Grand Gallery _ Probl a r u t c e t i h c r ect: A ecthe Museum Proj t i h c r A f o ty Socie!

lems.”

Journal of the

tural Historians,

31 (

des C l ei ns Co : if at sl gi Le rps

Due

pearee ed. Li

aot

ee ol|

oy ae royale des éleves protégés, Paris,

» Alexandre Lenoir, » son j et le Son journal Musee

cy

conti sre

oypel, Antoine, Discours prononcez

i

l'Académie royal

d,

sare

Paris, ere soe eatin colar Coypel, Charles-Antoine, Discours sur la peinture. Paris, 1732. ___. “Dialogue entre Dorsicour et Céligny.”

Mercure de France (November 1751), $9-73-

“The End of Art and the Origins Crimp, Douglas. of the Museum.” Art Journal, 46 (1987), 261-6.

in Crow, Thomas E. “The Oath of the Horatii 1785; Painting and Pre-Reyolutionary Rad-

icalism in France.” Art History, 1 (x978), 428-71.

Painters and Public Life in EighteenthCentury Paris. New Haven, CT, 1985. Daudin, Henri. De Linné 4 Lamarck.de série en de la classification et idée

botanique et en zoologie (1740-1790). :

Paris, 1926-7unce par le o n o r p s r u o c s i D . David, Jacques-L II. Paris, an re ai um br 17 . . citoyen David. : < year Il. éuR Ia de te fe la r su . Rapport et décret 1793s, ri Pa 0 t. si ao ro du nion républica ine is-

la comm de n o i s s e r p p u s la r . Rapport su es p + 9 3 9 7 1 s, l a ri k Pa . séuémum. deomun i i s $ t i s s e c é n la r u s _ Second rapport eum. s u m u d n o i s s i m m o de la c

sson —presprsei

Denon, eae ttqas

xi.

é

th s e L . k c i r t a P DescourticuX Font a L : e l c e i s e XVIll aitris m e d e r i o m Mé

Sorbonne, 1977-8- 4¢

ierre. P s i u o L ; e n i Dese les tinge @ orner

Ph.D. dissertation, Har-

,| Patronage.

Lebrun, son role dans Whistoire de la

Bul-

restauration des tableaux du Louvre.”

Sociétés

ration

logique de Paris et de I’lle 1956), 371-417, a Paris de 1794 a 1815 de

‘our

tableaux

élébres

Patrimoine Artistique,

VII (1964), 153-71

transposition

La premiére

Bulletin de

Rubens.”

de

Royal du

[Institut

his-

au Louvre

La Charité d’Andrea del Sarto.” 1982), 223-30.

du Louvre,

Revue

des Tableaux du

Inventaire

Engerand, Fernand.

igé en 1709 et 1710. Paris, 1899. Inventaire des tableaux commandés et 7

André.

Félibien,

la direction des Batiments du Paris, 1901.

Conférences de l’Académie sculpture. Paris, 1669.

de peinture et

Entretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellens peintres, 2d ed. 2 vols., 1685-90

Paris,

Entretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellens peintres anciens et mod-

yal.

Pari The

Wallach

Art

Museum et

Finance

)tiques, mens utiles

idée: quelques étal Paris, 1767

gramme. Paris, an VI.

fermiers

1976.

Citoyen désinteressé,

Le

; Maille.

Paris,

les

ou

concernant a la ville de

“Le Muséum national et le Musée spéciale de l’école francaise a Versailles 1792-1

).”

Réunion des sociétés des

des Départements (1886), to1-36.

beaux-arts

Edwards, JoLynn. Alexandre-Joseph Paillet (1743-1813):

Dealer.

Ph.D.

A

Study

of a Parisian

Art

dissertation, University of

Washington, 1982

Egret, J. Louis XV Paris, 1970.

et l’opposition parlementaire.

. The French Prerevolution, 1787-1788

Chicago, 1987

Eméric-David, T.-B., E. Q. Croze-Magnan. Le complet des tab

qui composent la

vols., Paris, 18¢ Emile-Male, Gilberte

Démoris, ed., Paris, 1987.

R.

Fétes de la Liberté et entrée triomphale des objets de sciences et d’arts recueillis en Italie. Pro-

Ur

History

mécenat:

siécle.

aux au XVIIIe

ernes.

Visconti, and S.-( ée francai: » receuil t et b s-reliefs ion nationale. 4

A. Les doctrines d’art en France. PeinFontaine, tres, amateurs, critiques, de Poussin a Diderot. Paris, 1909.

Foucart, Bruno. “La fortune critique d’Alexandre Lenoir et du premier Musée des monuments francais.” L’information de histoire de l'art, 5 (1969), 223-32.

Foucault, Michel. The Order of York, 1973.

Things. New

Furet, Francois. Penser la Révolution. Paris, 1979.

Gallet, Michel. “Une vue de monuments frangais.” Carnavalet (June 1969), Garnot, N. Sainte-Fare. “La

sadeurs

au

(1666-1671

1980), 119-26

Gibson-Wood,

Carol.

Connoisseurship New York, 1988

Gordon,

alais

l’ancien Musée des Bulletin du Musée 17-19. Galerie des Ambas-

BSHAF,

des

Tuileries

année

1978

Studies in the Theory

from

of

Vasari to Morelli.

Alden R. The Marquis de Marigny,

Directeur-Général des Batiments du Roi to

Louis

XV, 1751

A Study in French

York Review of p 3y 1987), 38-42, f Books (December Haskell, F., a

Nem crt in

University; 1978.

-d

Medievalism and the Ideologies

Lionel

La of ld Wor The t: in en Enlightenmen Baltimore, MD, ¢ Je Saint-Palaye.

Curne

Huard, G, “Mevaniee lea i

rpique retrouve. Exhibition catalogue,

1979-

paris; CN.MH.S.,

of Conquest;

Trophy

Cecil.

——

The Musée

1965-

London,

Christopher : he Musée des

M. “Alexandre Lenoir and monuments francais during

peou Crisis.” French Historical Studies, 8

(1973), 51-76.

Hunt, Lynn. Politics, Cultare, and Class in the

French Revolution, Berkeley, CA, 1984. Ingrams, Rosalind. “Bachaumont: A Parisian Connoisseur of the Eighteenth Century.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, LXXV (January

31, 1794):

1970),

Paris, vandalisme. le sur ; eee 21, 1794). ; (October II an g brumaire Troisieme

rapport

sur le vandalisme.

Veau fo

ription hissc de e un ec av y a w s o C Maria s, Paris,

Griffith J. r pa ue iq it cr et e qu tori Rs 802 (2d ed. 1806).

-A. Guibert, Francois

l. de]. Eloge de V'Hépita .

fe

cquisiVa r su x s nt me cu do et “Lettres Guiffrey Sueur.” Le he ac st Eu d’ ux ea bl tion des ta E : (1877),

NAAF

vee

274-360-

Angiviller d’ e mt co du e c n a d n o p Corres

93-136

Bosschaert.”

NAAF (1880-1); i

e sur la maniere zr mo Mé . el Ax sle ar Ch Guillaumot, y placer ur po , re uv Lo du e ri le d’éclairer la ga res tu in pe s le le ib ss po t en le plus favorablem : sée le munu er rm fo 4 be. s ée in st de et sculptures, ; 97 t7 s, ri Pa s. art s national de Paris, s. mp te du r ie el At L’ s. suillerme, Jacque mmes. ra og pr et es bl Fa s: on ti arn es Collec

Haskell

rd, Rediscoveries in Art. Oxfo

ar

Actes de ” s. mi ne en s ur le et musées

103-

The New

43 (1983) , es al ci so es nc ie sc en e ch er ch re Ia Museum. “The Artist and the

11-28.

Inventaire général des richesses d'art de la France,

14, (December Il an frimaire Paris, 24 oom 1794): entee es pr re , e r v u o L du e i Griffiths, Julius. Galer rte exécutées par par des gravures

A

Government Propaganda during the Mau-

XII (1981), 2005228

(é ugust

e de l'art ancien et maderne 47

Hudson, D. C. “In Defence of Reform: French

Henri. Rapport sur les destrucet sur les me is al nd va le r pa s ée er op s tion s, 14 fructidor ri Pa . er im pr ré le de s en xy moy nIl

Q

“Li salle du Xille sitcle au Musée des

(1925), 113-26.

Historical ch en Fr .” on ti lu vo Re the French

Studies, Abbé . roire,

BSHAF (1940), ae. ep \Cmasim) f

son and the Creation of the Louvre.

f

en

Bibliography

Archives du Musée des monuments frangais, 3 vols., Paris, 1883-97. Izerda, Stanley J. “Iconoclasm during the French Revolution.” American Historical Review,

55 (1954), 13-26.

Jobert, Barthélemy. “The travaux d’encourage-

ment: An Aspect of Official Arts Policy in

France under Louis XVI.” Oxford Art Journal, ro (1987), 3-14the Age of the and XIV Louis R, N. Johnson, Sun King Enlightenment: The Myth of the on Voltaire from 1715 to 1789. Studies and the Eighteenth Century, 172 (1978), de Académie royale Conférences Henri. Jouin, de peinture et sculpture, Paris, 1883. © 5 D. Lavine, Stephen and Ivan, Karp, The Poetics an Cultures. Exhibiting

Washington, Politics of Museum Display. Ts

History of a Cultural A aes ae 19) a CT, Haven, New French Revolution. sur les mon Discowrs Kersaint, Armand-Guy. : ments publics. Paris, 179?aa, ie ‘un d “Conseils ed. Lacroix, ie ae {Bachaumont] a Ee

Bis peat 3 ‘pachaumont sur les * temps.” Son de ‘cilleurs artistes eae des Arts, § eae J.-B. ae. Groza! E Sainte-Palaye, de La Curne de M. t e n i b a c u d x des tableau

Bibliography

m du o n au it fa . . . t r o p 5 5 ens Jean-B.-C. Rap publiqu e. ... Paris, 16 d’instruction Mathict Com

Bibliography 1755

Thiers. Paris,

Baron de

ie

reprint, 1972):

(Minkoff

xtons sur e l f é R . ] e n n e i t t-Yenne, E n i a S de t n o F a {L inture en e p e d t a t é ' l e d quelques cause os me on des principaux 5: exa n u c e v a e c n a r F Louvre le mois

ouvrages

au

exposes

7 4 7 1 ue, Hag e h T . 6 4 draoust 17 e Th , ed t xs . t r e b l o C d “Ombre du gran 1749

Hague,

Champs Elysées.

Le génie du Louvre aux

1756

“Les cabinets d'histoire naturelle,”

Laissus, Yves.

os en sc in Enseignement et diffusion des R. Taton, ed., Ie, siec Ile XVI au nce Fra

Lan

9 vols,, royale d’architecture, 1671-1793. Paris, 1911-26.

jets de ob des e ct in cc su ce ti No e. Lenoir, Alexandr pot sculpture et d'architecture réunis au De

1793

sous Napoléon. 8

Lanzac de Laborie, L. de. Paris vols., Paris, 1905-13

de la Lapauze, Henri, Procés-verbaux Soc iete ale des

arts

et de

ublicaine des arts.

la

Commune

populaire

Paris, 1903

Laran, Jean. “L’Exposition des tableaux du Roi (1909), BSHAF au Luxembourg.” 154-202

Francois, Lettres sur plusieurs monumens

Lauran,

des arts

extraits du Journal du Deéparte

Versailles, an VI. t ment de Se ervations sur l’admints Athanese. Lavallée, tration du Musée Central des Arts. Paris, an VI

Lavallée, J. (de). Tableau philosophique du regne de Louis XIV, ou Louis XIV jugé par un Francois libre. Strasbourg, 1791. Lebrun,

J.-B.-P. Galerie des Peintres

Hollandais et Allemands.

Flamands,

3 vols., Paris,

792-6.

_ Réflexions sur le Muséum national. Paris,

179

. Observations sur le Muséum national .. . pour servir de suite aux réflexions quil a

déja publiées sur le méme objet. Paris, 1 + Quelques idées sur la disposition . . du

Paris, Paris,

de peinture.

s des arts, Notice historique des monumien ... Paris, an IV, au dépédt national.

Description historique et chronologique

e réuni des monumens de sculptur des monuniens francats. P. Musée Vill

Rapport historique sur le chateau d’Anet.

Paris,

ns des grands maitres Exhibition V. n des mus catalogue, Paris, Réunio nationaux,

Museum

Essai sur le an Il

Paris, 1964, 659-711 1988

Petits-Augustins.

des

provisoire

an VIII Musée des

monumens

francais,

ou

description historique et chronologique des statues... . 5 Vols., Paris, 1890-6.

Lépicié,

F.-B.

Catalogue raisonne des tableaux du

2 vols., Paris, 175

Vies des Premiers peintres,

jusqu’a present.

Les commissaires

depuis Lebrun

2 yols., Paris, 1752.

du Muséum

Frangais aux mem-

. bres du Comité d'instruction publique

Paris, 179

Chevalier de Tincourt a Madame Lettre de M. le les Tableaux et la Marquise de *** sur du Cabinet du Roi. Paris, 1751.

Des

et Lettre sur les tableaux tirés du cabinet du rot au Luxembourg depuis le 24 octoexposés bre 1750. 1751. ce Locquin, Jean. La peinture d'histoire en Fran de 1747 4 1785. Paris, 1912.

McClellan, Andrew. “The Politics and Aesthetics Paris, in Museums Display: of Art

1750-1800.”

64.

History

7

(1984),

‘Angiviller’s Great Men and the Politics of the Parlements.” Art History, 13 (1990), 175-92. . “Nationalism and the Origins of the Museum in France.” In The Formation of. Collections of Art and ArchaeolNational G. Wright, ed., Studies in the History

muséum national. Paris, an III. _. Examen historique et critique des tableaux exposés provisoirement venant des premiers & second envois de Milan,

McKee, G

Cento & Bologne... . Paris, an VI.

Marot, D. “Recherches sur les origines de la transposition de la peinture en France.”

Crémone, Parme, Plaisance, Modéne,

Leith, James. The Idea of Art as Propaganda in

France, 1750-1799. Toronto, 1965

Lemonnier, H., ed.

Pr:

verbaux de |’Académie

of Art (forthcoming).

Louvre.”

(November

“The

Publication of Bonaparte’s

zette des Beaux-Arts, CIV

1984), 165-72.

Annales de l'Est (r950), 241-83.

Martin, G. Avis a la nation. Paris, 1793.

rassemblés au Sallon d'e x ositin

onville, Abbé S.-P. La Vie de Pierre

1 Pe

mariere

de®

N 2

Galerie I

Olivier, Louis. “Curieux," Ama

noisseurs: Laymen and Tere ae ve he

3° nard. Patis, 17 aux de e l b a t s e d e u g o l a t ‘ Chrétien de. Ca nne. e i V e d e l a y o R et e l mpéria

Ancien Régime, Ph.D, dissertati i Johns Hopkins University, 1976. eae

Ozouf,

1784nasel, Hapse D : r u n t a n s l a ora J. Kunst b e D nen e W in j i Meijers> r e l a g n erije burgse $¢ rild msterdam, 1991. A omstreeRS 1780. oir: The

Stanley

,

Sebastien. L

Mercier)

Paris

(1797]+

De l’Art de o. sc ce an Fr Milizia I ¢ 4 . ¢ VI an yan beaux-arts. Paris, and Jules , de le to na ‘A Montaiglon, des Directeurs ce an nd po a : avec les me Ro 4 ce an Je Fr -1804. Jes Batiments, 1666 1908.

Picault, J.-M. Observations . . . sur les tableaux de la République, Paris, 1793. Pigage, Nicolas de. La Galerie Electorale de Dusseldorf. Basel, 1778. Piles, Roger de. Conversations sur la connoissance de la peinture, Paris, 1677. , Abrégé de la vie des peintres. Paris, 1699. . Cours de peinture par principes. Paris,

Paris. 6 vols.,

;

voir dans les : Guiffrey. Corde |’Académie Surintendants 17 yols., Paris,

( £0 3 3 9 5 7 3 > ) 5 481-973 9 (£89 _ 481 —508.

1708.

Pomian, Krzystof. Collectionnenrs, amateurs, curieux. Paris, Venise: XVIe-XVllle siecle. Paris, 1987.

;

llections co de s on ti xa ne an “Les dans le ré Muntz, Eugene: ur le et bibliotheques de ou rt da cipale‘ n i r p s e l a n o i t a n r e les relations int evue R ” . e s i a g n a r f n o oluti ment dans la Rév (1894)s 8 , e u q i t a m o d'histoire dipl 1896), 18

:

musée a et “Idéologie Edouard. Pommier,

Pépoque révolutionnaire.” In Les Images

ed. de la Révolution francaise, M. Vovelle, Paris,

x

ves a i t a l e r s e c e i P Arts. s e d l a r t n e 6 ement, s Musée s i l b a t é t ce n de ladministratio exécutif. e r i o t c e r i D u d e dr : imprimées par or : Paris, an VI. vols., Lei2 s. ri Pa de r u o j C. Sé ne Nemeitz, Joachim jen, 1727: cueillis 4 re , x u a e l b a t x u e i rs préc Paris, . o Notice des plusieu n g i l o F et n i , Tur Venise, Florence

dans la is ll ei cu re x u a e l b a t ux ion Notice des principa Pe . VI , an lie. ta Lombardie. Paris en is ll ei cu re x u tablea x u a p i c n i r p s de e c Noti Z Paris, an VII.

révolutionnaire

sciences, Paris, 1688,

se

3

féte

Perrault, Charles, Parallele des anciens et des modernes en ce qui regarde les arts et les

” Proceed. n o i t u l o v e R e th cor versus ionary Mi BAA t u l o v e R n o m u i ort a of the Cons am

) 9 7 a 5 9 1 1 ( . X ( , europe e Nonveau

La

1789-1799. Paris, 1976,

Len

“Alexandre

Mona.

fla et e s i a c n a r f s e l o des éc x u a e l b a t s de e c Noti ie a I. VI mande. Paris, an yy e e p [ s e l o c é s de ux Notice des tablea des écoles x u a e l b a t s de et mande . . . 4 X. I n a s, ri Pa e n g o l Lombardie et Bo s e e v i t i m i r p s e l o c é ux des Notice des tablea s, 1814ri Pa . e n g a m e VItalie, de V All es, choisis l o c é s oi tr s e d aux Notice des table des arts, m u é s u M du n o dans la collecti

1988,5 1-78,

la veille de la a musée du Pahine Le Girodet, Musée du Cahiers Révolution. 5 Montargis, 1989. Lettres @ __. Quatremere de Quincy, des monudéplacement le sur "Miranda ‘ments de Vart de UItalie. Paris, 1989, | “Winckelmann et la vision de VAntiquité et de Lumiéres des France la classique dans

85 (1989), Ta Révolution.” Reve de Vat, : : . -10

de s t a b é d et s e n i r t c o é. D : Lrart de la libert e. Paris, 1997+ ngais la Révolution fra xions e l f é R , n u r b e L e r ; Jean-Baptiste-Pier l, Paris, 199% ‘nationa se of i R e h t sur le Muséum e h t d d an s e Attii tud l a i c it i t i l o P © “ , . y x r e o t s Al i H t r A heory-

Be ease

jn Art T

:

eS

e He: h t f o n o i t a t e r p Inter m a en e e d s. It n i Art t n e i c n A f o y r o t rtation, ni I-213-

. disse D h P . t x e t n o tury C ‘ 8 7 9 1 , n o d n o of L an‘ e r u t p l u c S k e e _ “Gr Mengs ‘Anton Raphael.

Century.” Journal © Courtaul

du Musée on ti éa cr la et u e s u M mission de 1910,

Bibliography

of His:

ction u r t s n o C s n’ «Winckelman (1982), 37 5 , y r o t s i H t tory » Ar Len e r d n a x e l A “ e iqu lot, Domin ais.

Pou

musées

des

perspectives des salles du Musée des monu-

de la place de directeur de l’Académie de

Les

In

teenth-Century 1985-6),

1967.

au

“politique du musée

Florence, 199

de la marche,

Roger de

et des

République

Paris, 1793

p

aient aux arts et a

splacement des monuments Paris, an I

stination

des ouvrages de l'art. Paris, 1815. Jean-P. Rapport. . . sur Rabaut Saint-Etienne, l’établissement d’un Muséum national

antiques. Paris, an III.

“Rapport sur la restauration du tableau de Raphael.” Mémoires de I’Institut. Littérature et Beaux-Arts, Vol. V, an XII.

Réau, Louis. “Le jardin Elysée du Musée des monuments francais.” Beaux-arts (January

1924), rf

Reboul. Essai sur les moeurs du tems. Paris,

1768.

Rémy, Abbé Joseph-H. Eloge de Michel de PHopital. Paris, 1777 Renouard, A-A., et al. Observations de quelques

r patriotes sur la nécessité de conserve les

monumens de la littérature et di Lava

Art.

Les Origines

NJ,

Princeton,

de la conservation

historiques

monuments

in Late

en

des

France

1830). Paris, 1913. Le Louvre de Hubert Robert. Sahut, Marie-C. I

musées

des

Réunion

nationaux,

Paris,

Millington, trans., London, Schneider, Remy. “Un ennemi

monuments

Arts (1909),

frangais.”

hetic and Misceln Schlegel. E. 1849. du Musée

des

Gazette des Beaux-

353-79

ler, dernier vil ngi d’A te com Le J. , Sacy de tre ves Sil Roi. directeur général des Batiments du Paris, 1953.

Art, New Haven, CT, 1985de Quincy, Antoin Quatremére

Paris, an Il. Réville, J-B., and

Transformations

Schlegel, Friedrich v aneous Wor

inaugura:

itution de la

Puttfarken, Thomas.

05.

1902. Révolution et de |’Empire. Paris,

> BUI Worki

t 1793.

(Winter

istiques de la Saunier, Charles. Les ¢ onquétes art

en France

féte consé

19

Fi

1979

l’etat ct Parti:

monumens,

F.

Rucker,

Studies,

Century

Eighteenth

.

public,

18

Robert.

Rosenblum,

eres i m u L s de , ce an Fr en e sé du mu flex Ré s on ti ec fl Re al ic or st Hi .” République “Le

Transfiguration

and Napoleon’s Cultural Politic

des dix u t é s de e u v e R — t Enlightenmen huitiemistes, 1 (1988) sur le statut i sa Es : re ai in ag im re “Le Louv la

ions histor

“Raphael’s

Martin

snberg,

Paris, 1986 497 ocie ; dans |Europe mod Musées et s aise ae c n a r f le co | s erne.” Mélange 986d)e, 991-1096 II ( ge de a t i Rome, XLVI r é h r e u s u q i ann Un regard t prit e d ts ci ré s e c e g a n i o Ta civilisation: le tém XVIlléme siecle visites de musées

Paris, 1792.

a Rome.

France

I,

vol ., ed , a r o N , P e ir Lieux de mémo -532

Rapport .. . sur la suppression

Romme, Gilbert

ret les

frang monume nts

Paris, 1816.

ments francais.

arts

be Aristocrat as Art. New

Stanton, Domna

York, 1980.

Vorigine Stein, Henri. Le peintre G.-F. Doyen et Paris, du musée des monuments francais. 1888.

lection de Stuffmann, M. “Les Tableaux de la col s, Pierre Crozat.” Gazette des Beaux-Art

XXII (1968),

1-144.

His Circle Tate, Robert S. “Petit de Bachaumont: and the Mémoires Secrets.” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, LXV (1968

Testelin, Henri. Sentimens

des plus habiles pein-

tres sur la pratique de la peinture et s Ipture, mis en tables de preceptes. Paris, 1680. Teystddre, Bernard. Roger de Piles et le débats sur le coloris au

1957

Thouroude,

siécle de Louis XIV. Paris,

S. “Le couvent des Petits-Augustins.”

l'Information d'histoire de Vart, 4 (r964),

161-77

Tuetey, Alexandre, and Jean

Guiffrey.

La Com-

Patis, du Louvre, 1792-1793 la Commission de ux ba er -v oc Pr s. ui .y, Lo 1901-2.

Paris ., ls vo 2 . s t n e m u n o M Le ‘de ion tempos s i m m o C la de x au rb oces ve Van

fi

va

; Pr s, 1912-18. ri Pa ., ls vo 2 . ts Ar s raire de Raphael’s to s e s n o p s e R Nimmen, Jane. 848. Ph.D. -1 98 17 , re uv Lo e th Paintings at

86. 19 , nd la ry Ma of ty si er dissertation, Univ des s on ti si Po . re uv Lo du xemy ue Ecole

anciens éléves de s le r pa us en ut so theses Paris, . 44 19 4 11 19 de e Pécole du Louvr 1956.

“« ee Sur quelques tableaux represen le Musée des monuments francais.” BSHAF (1971), 41-51,

oe ron, Casimir, Rapport fait au nom des commissaires envoyés dans le dépa Seine & Oise. Paris, 1794. i Vyverberg, Henry. Historical Pessimism in the Fre deench Enlightenment. Cam amb bri ridge, MA,

Watelet, C-H., and P.-C, Levesque. Dictionnaire des arts de peinture, sculpture et gravure. 5 vols,, Paris, 1792.

PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS

bers. m u n e r u g i f o t e r 4 [| references a Is: 43 , 52 51 , 50 : k r o Y w e rce, N u o s I 6 5 , t 5 5 r A , / 54 : a i h p l e Alinari d a l , Phi y t e i c o S l a c i h p o s o l i 80 American Ph s 7 5 , 7 2 : , s 5 i 2 r a P , s ; 67 onale , i 66 t ; a 65 N , 64 s , e 3 6 v i , h 2 6 , k 6 4 c Ar , 19, 8 1 ; 6 1 > , 5 9 1 8 , 4 1 , 7 » 4 3» 2 : r o h t u A 78) 799 81, 82

\.C.L., Brus

739 , 2 7 2 7 9 68, 69, 7

74s 75> 799 773

1 : s i r a P , e i g o l o é h c r a et d’ t r a d e u q e h t o Bibli 59 9 4 ) 6 3 : s ; 7 i 1 r a P , e l a n tio a N e u q e h t o i l b Bi

British Library: te © u t i t s n I d l u a t r u Co sées u M es d e u q e h Photot Paris: , x u a n o i t a N ées 4 4 Réunion des Mus ) 2 4 s 0 4 9 9 3 > 8 3 3> 35> 375 29, 30, 31s 329 3

-8 7 8 , s i r a P , e s i mie Franga , 545 8 2 8, , s i r a P , tecture i h c r A f o y m e Acad 58-95 75 Paris, 8, , e r u t p l u c S d n a ing Academy of Paint of, n o i t i l o b a ; 8 4 1 8, 18, 24 52> 64> 9 58-9; 1 , d n a r i o n e L e dr 99-1033 Alexan emy d a c a i t n a 3 4 9 163, 1673 1895 265 1 9 9 8 1 , 7 6 1 s rhetoric, LOO-T painth c n e r F f o n o i t omo ni13, 9117 orm f e r 5 2 7 0 6 2 2 , 1-2 ing, 22, 45-79 8 41; ° 2 ; 7 1 6 1 , d man of, under Lenor 725 , 9 8 2 , n o i t a r o t s e supervision of r 6, 385 5 3 > 2 3 , at e c i ct theory and pra 9 NI13, 23°

, 22 0 8 7 2 2 ) 9 7 , 4 1 4 nii4

s dig) i o g n a r F i r n e H ellor c n a h C , u a e s s e u Ag

86, 87

sani Collection,

,

Chi

R

> 178, 188

Flahaut, e d e d u a Charl siviller, isitions u q d e i r e d r a l Comte de la Bil ackb 3 3 2 7 9 7 0 6 for the museum, ; 65> 67, 825 2 5 , f o r e t ground and ¢ gn of i s e d 3 3 0 7 % 3 n, and conservatio 234 273 536° 8, , e r v u o L the

Grands

Hommes,

93,

, 82-35 87-99, 156

eum, s u m e h t f o n o i 2013 organizat 167, 3-995 8 , s t n e m e l r a P e th 75-81, 1085 and 67-79 > 9 4 7> , t t a h c n re promotion of F 51 54> 9 4 , m u e s u m the 81-2; vision of

81-2

, Frangois de Boissy d’, 95-6, , 116, 1 6, Anglasae Antin, Louis-Antoine, Duc d’, 16,45

Antoine, Jacques-Denis, 59 119, Apollo Belvedere: confiscation of, 116,

123; display of, at the Louvre, 150, 152, 153-4) 167, 196, 259 NET9 73

d’, 47; Argens, Jean-Baptiste, Marquis 60 s, Pari es, abl Not of ly emb Ass 224 n§2 ° 4 , 25 ; s e u q c a Bailly, J

59 Bailly, Jean-Sylvain, 1 Bailly, Nicolas, 25

134 Baldinucci, Filippo, 121 d, Louis-Pierre,

Baltar

6 Barbier, Luc, 115161, 163 , 8 5 1 5 3 2 9 , de Barere, Bertrand 117 , n o m i S n a e J Barthélemy, 257 N81 , 6 4 5 , 4 3 1 , o i Pietr n n a v o i G , i r o l l e B s 153 9 1 1 , o s r o T e r Belvede 3/024 5 2 ; 9 6 1 , 6 6 1 , 139 e r r e i P , h c e z e n e B 51; 62 , o z n e r o L n 033) 2 2 2 Bernini, Gia , s i o g n ume-Fra a l l i u G e r e P Berthier,

er, d n u m u e s u M Louyre

154, 199) 20%

119 Bononi, Carlo, > 125 4 0 1 , n a e J , n i s Bonvoi , 149 e m o R , n o i t c e l l Borghese Co 257 né , o c i r e d e F , o e m o Borr 67 Bosschaert, 62, e, 86 n g i n é B s e u q c a J Bossuet, 93, 194 , s e l r a h C , t u s s o B

r, t 38, u o m A 3 7 6 , 17 , me Bouchardon, Ed Louis of e u t a t s n a i r t s e 256 n58; equ 156 XIV, 96, I > 63, 103 1 2 , 7 1 , s l o g n a r F , r Bouche

, 8, 51, 59, 124 s i u o L e n n e i t E Boullée, Boulogne, Louis de, 62 193 Bouquier, Gabriel, 97, , 12 74 n, ie st ba Sé , n o d r u Bo Bouret, Etienne, 231 M1 , Brébion, Maximilien, 53 eus, 111 m o l o h t r a B , h g r e b n e e Br Comt , rc le ec L s i u o L e g r o e Buffon, G 80

Canova, Antonio, 201 Cantarini, Simone, 119 119. Capitoline Museum, Rome, arge to Caravaggio, 34, 135-6; Crt , 325 Peter, 135; Death of the Virgin Deposition, 119, 201 Carignan, Prince de, 26 t-Jacques, Carmelite Church, Faubourg Sain Paris, 202, 226 N72 148, Carracci, Annibale, 41, 135-6, 146, 196, 228 n93; Parts,

129

eéres, Caylus, Anne-Claude-Philippe du Tubi Comte de, 18, 35, 36, 41-25 73, 1195

20, 21,

16,

Colbert, Jean Baptiste, 193-4, 221 n28

179,

27 26, , ss ou -L is go an Colins, Fr 95, 192, , 92 s, nt me nu mo s de Commission O17) S77 h e M h 8 1 3h y He BE arts, 92, 103, s de re ai or mp te Commission 114-5)

104,

153,

163-5

94, TO, n, io ct ru st In ic bl Pu of e Committe 03,1 I 163-5, 168

113,

114,

149,

ty, 101, fe Sa ic bl Pu of e Committe Commune

des arts,

10°,

102,

103,

158,

114-5 LO§

Commune of Paris, 158 ce de, 62 in Pr n, bo ur Bo de Conti, Armand 43~4> TOT, 231 ni24, copying, of paintings,

246 144

Correggio, 28, 41, 47 of on ti ia il nc co Re 8; 14 da, ro Cortona, Piet Jacob and Laban, 62 Cossard, Jean, 93, 104 147, 198 1, 14 a, ri Ma , ay Cosw Frangois, 141 Couché, Cousin, Jean, 182

; 45, 230 38 36, 28, 5 22 13, e, in to Coypel, An nii4 29, 36, 383 , 28 e, in to An sle ar Ch Coypel, and the adviser to Lenormand, 18, 225 9 114) 223 Luxembourg Gallery, 25, 21

41, 220 n44; spokesman on the arts, 8, NIT3 n2z5, 222 N32, N35, 228 ng3, 229 249 n77 Coypel, Noél, 45, 47, 231 1132, Crayer, Gaspard de, 63, 196 Crespi, Giuseppe, 62 Creti, Donato, 62 critique of museums, 194-7, 200-4 Crozat, Pierre, 36, 38, 41, 62 72 Cuvillier, Charles-Etienne-Gabriel, Cuyp, Albert, 111

217 ng

Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, 75, 127 Chaudet, Antoine-De! Chaussard, Pierre, 190

Op

Cignani, Carlo, 62

Cimabue, 146, 198

Claude Lorrain, 105 Charles-Louis, 54 Clérisseau, s-Nicolas, 58-9, 1

23° Dandré Bardon, Michel-Frangois, 167,

ni23

Darcet, Jean, 239 199 Dardel, Robert-Guillaume, 104, 125 Daubenton, Louis-Jean-Marie, 8 Daumier, Honoré, 9

David, Jacques-Louis, 43,

135,

3, 6 1 , r i o n e L e r xand e l A d n 7 0 0 rati, o H e h t of h t a O ; 6 4 197; Brutus, ionary festit u l o v e R d n a 90; , gx y Lour a n o i t u l o v e R and the ; 8 6 Rey9 d n a 3 5 2 1 , ls va 5

136, 189,

247 nsx; abolition of the Academy,

yre, E>

100, 103-5,

113

alism, d n a v y r a n o oluti Dominique

156

2, 125, 132,

vant,

e Louh t g n i g n a h ; 8 9 1 154, 199

Denon,

;

vre,

7 n88 5 2 , 2 0 2 , 8 140

87 , é n e R 4-5, 9 1 , s , e 2 t 9 r 1 a c s , e 6 D 9, 18 6 1 , e r r e i P is Deseines Lou

266 N133 188 , 7 8 1 , 6 8 1 , of b s: tom r e i t i o P e d Diane 74 Denis, 2°, Diderot, 20° ; n o v g r o pillis, Ge 9 120, 135) 1

n o i n u m m o C t s 5: La ~ , p r a H e h t g a, Playin i l i c e C t n i a S ; 1 0 2 ,

Domenichino

1595 , e m o r e J t n i a S of 144

Res

227 n83 Jean-Jacques, de Mairan,

Dossi, Doss»

119

I 58, 260 NI2 Doyon, Gabriel-Frangois, display of, 13; and drawings, appreciation 237 183 77> 127-9, 236 265 s NIT3 180, E 127, Germain, ls, 38, Drouais, Jeano ¢ g n a r F s i u o L , -Gelais t n i a S e d s i o Dub II4 229 095 N 0 3 2 , I O 2 , e t s -Bapti n a e J é b b A , s o Dub 125 , on Le , y n r u Dufo 17; 226 1 n > 4 1 I N 0 3 2 rles, a h C , y o n s e r f u D n76 , 104, 125 d r a n o é L e n i o Dupasquier, Ant d, 117 r a n o é L n i r u l Math a r é n é G , t o h p Du 123 3 3 2 , 9 4 , d e r f S hDuplessis, Josep , 182 2 6 , t h c e r b l A , r e r 25° Du 3 9 7 ; 7 6 , 4 , y r e l oral Gal t c e l E , f r o d l e s s Du n1o6

y Van, Dyck, Anthon

Eastlake,

1155 196

Charles, 20°

i 82 > 51 Paris, Ecole Militaire, Paris, 17> , s é g é t o r p s e v e él Ecole royale des

43-4 . 7 3 1 , n e d n a v d Feckhout, Gerbran betis a s i l B é d n a m r A e n -Jean Sophie Comtesse d’, 86

Egmont,

r : Emériei-D s avid, » T1 Oun ssaint-Bernard, 147,258 Encyclopédie, 47, 51, 80 Espercieux, Jean-Joseph, 111 Félibien, André, 146, 230 n114; Entretiens < sur les vies, 7 16, 31-2 44-6, 38. ee6 Frangois de Saltese ie teva

oy

Fetti, Domenico, 144 Fleurus, battle of, 114, 116 Foubert, Bernard-Jacques, 125 Fragonard, Jean-Honoré, 104, 15

Francis I, King, 28, 164, 181, 182, 1895

enamel portrait of, 186; tomb of, 167,

168, 181 French Academy in Rome, 17, 35, 43;

JOO-I, 119

Fréron, Elie-Catherine, 222 33, 223 044, 231 0136

Gabriel, Ange-Jacques, 28

8 18 4, 18 , de u ea at Ch n, lo il Ga

5 51, 126, 43 , 18 , re uv Lo n, lo ol Ap Galerie d’

127, 149-50

53> , 24 , re uv Lo s, ef li re et Galerie des plans 98

106, 160, , 99 > 95 ) 94 e, qu Garat, Domini 161

n68 6 22 s, ue cq Ja y, ot Gautier d’Ag 137) 153 6, 13 0, 12 , le co Gennari, Er nt 4 22 , 26 s, oi Gersaint, Edme-Frang the Shepof on ti ra do ‘A Giordano, Luca: herds, 148 Giorgione, 129

Godefroid,

Joseph-Ferdinand-Frans>™

74

or e am ad (M e-Jacob ri Ma d, oi fr Gode 225 068, T DS 4 22 , 74 > Veuve), 26, 27

han Goethe, : J ohann

140 von:pi VOR 254 18) Wolfgang ig H

e O} u t a t s ; 9 § , e Gois, Etienn

186, 1885

Louvre,

the

Grégoire, Abbé Henri, ndalism, 1 116, reports on va

Kersaint,

Griffiths,

Hacquin, Frangois

I

n4t

on, Michel-Barthé and Abelard, 166, 18

nequin, Philippe

II, King, 182; ¢

59 Heurtier, Jean-Frangois, 57, di r Michel 87, 90; tomb o

Hotel Crozat, Paris, 36, Sagonr

Hotel

Saint-Pouange, Pai

Saint-Hubert, A Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 254 n40

Curne

Saint

La Font de

Jeurat, Etienne,

i

233 n13

icolas-Jean-René, 93,

coco Yenne, Etienne: antiro

n22; backand the Lux and 245 >

5 sentiments, I ground of, embourg Gallery, 19,

2 1 0315

21,

Petit de Bachaumont,

servation of artistic treasures, 19, 4545

26, 44,

51,

2 Abbé, 20 Frangoiss 18, 21, 453 pio, 42,45 of

a Fosse,

e aprenée, Louis-Jean-Frangois: Death of th )

agrenée

the

81

my,

s ui Lo d an ; 4 2 6 1 , e r v join the Lou naparte, o B n o e l o p a N d n a 7; XVII, 19 453 11 4, 14 11 267 196, 193-49 133, 188, 1795 9 7 9 6 1 , 4 6 1 , theory of history 26 3

Leblanc, Abbé Jean-Bernard, 222 n35 Leblond, Abbé Gaspard-Michel, 115, 159 Lebrun, Charles, 16, 28, 35, 42) 45, 47> 192, 238

179,

n89

direction of the arts under Louis XI Conquest

of the

, 43; Penitent Magdalen, So -4; Tent of Darit Lebrun, J

seur and expert, 4,

1159, 26

N124 6 6 2 , 4 8 0 64, Charles, m e h e n r u o T > Lenormand d

biam d an d n u o r g k c ba Frangol Paul: mbourg, e x u L e th d n a x; 2 , tions, 16-18 demy,

e Aca th of m r o f e r ; 44 , 0 26-3

1, 43) 44 45> 222

n28

ci, 130, 142

-Michel, s i u o L , u a e g r a F t n i elletier de Sa arquis de, 93> 163 46-7> , 8 7 2 , 5 2 , d r a Fran¢ s-Bern

114-15,

»f Alexandre ns 5; dispute Lenoir, 164, 261 133 Commission, 105-7; with Museum role in arranging 164, 248 n75;

David, 104, 125 Le » Roy, 127, 7 7 9 4 7 > 7 6 , 5 4 e, Le Sueur, Eustach el t o H 5 9 8 n 8 3 2 6 8 179, 191, 237 1 no Cycle, u r B t n i a S 5 Lambert, 69, 72 79

Le

68, 7

@Angivil

ee

NII7, n118; hanging the Musée Cen- :

a ne hanging the Revolutionary s 10, 42, 106-14; pedagogic pur-

pose of, under d’Angiviller, 79-81, 1015

pedagogic purpose of, during Revolu-

tion, 42, 92, 100-1, 103, 106-8, 111,

128, 13577; 140-4, 147-8, 257 n8 political purpose of, under d’Angiviller, 7, 8, 50, 69-70, 81-993 political pur-

pose of, during Revolution, 7, 9, 92-5, 97-9, 143, TT, 130, 1325 148, 1543 and the public, 8-12, 217.09, 218 020;

of Luxembourg Gallery, Paris: arrangement pictures, 3, 13-14, 40-42, 44-7; 79>

107-8, 134; COpying at 43-4; 10% 23% x24; pedagogic Purpose, 2-35 30% 38-44 political purpose, 24; 27-9 44-8; Rubens Gallery, 14, 24; 25

9 1 1 , e n o i p i c S , i e f f a M

134 , t n u o C , e r a s e C o l Malvasia, Car lery, 2 l a G l a r o t c e l E , m i Mannhe

, 163 93 , l u a P n a e J , t a r Ma

Sueur, Pierre-E

% 5 1 , e m u a l l i u G , e r Lethié

NLE7 0 3 2 , 75 , s e l r a Ch

Linnaeus, ¢ 23° nii7 , 4 3 1 , o l o a P nazzo, Giovannl 188 , 2 8 1 , 8 6 1 5 7 6 1 ,

Philibert de I “Orme, of, 159 b m o t : ng Ki I, XI s ii it

, 184

, 2033 col9 7 1 uis XIV, King -293 9 1 r, fo a i g l a t s o n ction of, 51; 9O-T} SUC g 18 1 , on D> tr pa as , of revision 127,

, 18, 22 . 16 , r e d n u ts ar 5 of the , King, 14, 52> 87 s 69 , 65 > 52 > 49 > 47 , ng Ki , I XV

93,96

» S12, $3-60, 126, 198-9, 13.4024, 198-9, d aaa 127; COpying at, Lor, 246 n44; drawhangi ings, display of, 127-9; giviller’s Louvre, 75-81, 24 nx16,

restitution from, 196, 200-1, 267 145

68 223 044, 225 n

Joseph (de), 19°

81, 90, 140,

architec play hesof, 148-54, 259 x33;33, architecture

162, 1, 16 9, 815 , ents sion d es monum 196; efforts to n, no De d an , 261 127

n76

Laocoon, 119, 150, 152, 153 Lauri, Filippo, 62 203-4 an, Frangois, I 5 254 137 Lavallée, Athanas

Lavallée,

antiquiti ai 237 183°DEL 177, Ceeity ©, 236 ES 35 antiquities, dis-

9- 91, 265 8 1 , 7 6 1 > T O LO

138-90,

ay Paris: acquisitions for,

ne

Ae

Younger, Jean-Jacques.

119,

Lhe Conti-

193-45

ee 200, 267 n14s

106, 108, 109, 04, oe e er 6, 512 , IIT, 113 Louvre Mus e

background and reputation 3 Z7 ni nI13> the Commisd an 6; n1 60 & Gb

airesse, Gérard de, 111 Francois de, 118 alande, Joseph-Jérome Le de, 90 amoignon, Chrétien-Frangois Lamoignon, Guillaume de, 9° Landon, Charles, 137, 256 175 125 Lannoy, Frangois-Jacques de, 104, Lanzi, Luigi,

Louvre

, 64-5 e g r o F e h T s: ui Lo , e Nall 4 d the n a ; 0 3 1 4» , 2 1 , \lexandre

181-4,

1 137 25 8, 14 3, 13 2, 13 9, 1r Institut, Paris, 102, 103, 106 Jacobin Club, Paris, ror, Jardin des Plantes, Paris, 114, 179 Jardin, Nicolas-Henri, 59

foyne _

tiste de, ap -B an Je , ye la Pa te in de Sa

Wi,

‘oussaint,

amus,

116

117

J.- de,

La Billardiere,

Juli

\ Grimm, Friedrich n26 Gros, Antoine Guercino, 129, f Saint Peter, 1353 1 Guerin, Pierre-Narct ron de, 194 Ferdinz Guilhermy, 8, 59, 60 Charles-A Guillaumot, s-Bernard, 115, ui Lo , au \ on Guyt

93, 94,

once

La

Gre

Armand-Guy,

Louis XVII, Ki Coma eraNING,in1

n6ot

256

Index

81, 111, 139-40, 253 N22,

83> 9%

146 Maratta, Carlo, esse t m o C , de t e n i B e Marchais, Baronn : 87 r, d@’Angiville nii4, ° 3 2 , 38 , 24 , 21; n a e J e r r e i P , e t ; Mariet ng Marquis

sson, i o P s i o c n a r F Genr o van Abel t c e r i D as 5 , 67 de: collection of ee n , 18 , 16 : s t n e eral of the Batim

v

pro} e r v u o L 3 4 5 1 224 323 1 4 5 ery, 44 l l a G g r u o b m e ame 4 5 Lux 74977 , o i n o t n A ‘ 113 ) 4 3 0 1 rtini, Pietro s e Chatl e s i t p a B c n an Jea

Chancellor Ren Nicol

Maupeou, 83-9

n, 7 mo Si bé Ab , le Maziere ¢ Monvil 23% de Pierre Mignara,

ny4

ni3

-3; t00 92 ; 91 is, Par , ly mb se National As policy, ts ar d an s: ri , Pa on ti en nv Co al Nation LOI—5,

8

, 4; 79 de en ti ré Ch , el ch Me

242 129

Notre-Dame,

45, 47

Orléans

Baron de Ja Bréde et de, 86 8 ng98 nt de, Montpetit, Arnauld-Vince Jean-Etienne, 72 Montucla, Jean-Mi Moreau le Jeune, Esteban, 62, 63 Murillo, Bartholomé

Museé

Pajou, Augustin,

197

de l’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 122

Museé du Luxembourg, Paris, Musée spéciale de Pécole francaise, Versailles, 169,

130-1,

—4,

2

25324

Museum Commission: and Alexandre

Lenoir, 161-3; criticism of, 103-8,

1133

organization of the Louvre, 93, 94-5; OI,

125

Museum of French Monuments, Paris: arrangement and decoration of, 155, 162, 169-71,

178-84, 187-8,

192-3,

264 nI0o2, NI03, 104; catalogues to, 162, 163-4,

165,

Collection, Paris,

36, 38, 67,

170, 191-2, 265

nr149; objections to, 169, 194-7; as a

pantheon, 179-80; pedagogic purpose of, 167; political purpose of, 167-9,

Parmigianino,

Franets

Perrault, Charles, 22, 44, 47 Perrault, Claude, 57 Perugino, Pietro, 120, 136-7, 141, 142, 144,

145, 153

Petit de Bachaumont, Louis: as artistic

adviser, 4, 22, 41, 79, 219 N16, 230 n114; Essai sur la peinture, 8, 22, 47

224 n54; and La Font de Saint-Yenne, 20, 21-2, 24, 221 n31; and Lenormand

181-2, 187-90, 265 n106; rela-

preservation of

artistic treasures,

origins

motion of French Renaissance art,

of the Luxembourg Gallery, 15-16, 18;

tionship with other Paris museums, 130, 169; restitution from, 194-7, 266

21, 26, 219

restoration at, 162,

184

N18,

Peyre, Antoine-Marie,

264 N1o2

220 N26,

178,

179,

264

18-19,

NIOS

180,

182, 186, 188; statue of II, 1825 y r n e H f o e u t a t s ; 2 18 Henry of b m o t 5 8 8 1 ; 7 8 1 races,

Three G II, 159 79; 119, , e m o R , m u e s u A M Clementine £53, 259 Dit 3 149, 15 de la Concorde),

ce

Louis XV (Place

6 Paris, 2 5, 52> 9 5 n68 2 2 , s e l r a h C Poerson, ean de, J é n e R s i o c n a r F Général , l u e r e m m Pe 118, 131 Poisson Le e t t e n i o t n A _ e eann Pompadour, J de, 16, e s i u q r a : M , s e l l o a nd d’Eti e, 25 r d n A s e u q c a J Portail, 119> 3 7 7 5 7 6 > 5 4 > 1 , 11, 3 s a l o c Ni n, i s s u o P

Passeri, Giovanni Battista, 134 Pei, I.M., 124

I, 219 nx8;

27 083 Germain,

Ponce, Paul » 184

Pasquier, Pierre, 93 Passavant, Johann, 200

de Tournehem,

133;

35 31, 34-6, theory, art : e d ;, Roger 79; 230 NIT4, 11 7 22 | 542) 45> ~5; 146, 3 3 , es tr in pe s de ce 1173 Ba alan

Norm

28, 47, 62

189-91, 190-1, 192-4, 266 n124; pro-

156-7,

, Harcourt Monument , 88 salle, Je: t n e m u n o M e x a S de hal 187; Ma réc 38,

I

Palais Royal, Paris, 19, 38, 57, TOX 9 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome, 14 Palissy, Bernard, 182 Palma Vecchio, 28, 47, 13° Parlements, 83-90, 221 131 nd, Duke of, 116-7 Parma, Don Fer

22, 43, 57>

Nico an-Bapuste:

152

188

57, 99, 125)

Rabaut Saint-Etienne,

76, 103 124 N 2 4 2 7» 4, , e d las

1

73-4 Pahin de la Blanche Alexandre-Joseph, 64-7, 152 Paillet,

, at nd co Se s de ui Lo sle ar , Ch u e i u q s e Mont

Paris,

3 sptiste-Marie,

Orry, Philibert, 16

Gaspard, 117

de Cluny,

Te an Mic 164 S A H 5 105 , 0 3 7 2 obert,

194

17°

38 , r9 d’, c Du , pe ip il Ph s, an Orlé

Molé, Matthieu, 89 Moline, Pierre-Louis, 97

Museé

Paris, 74, 156

, 51 -5 24 d’, t jo Pa L. L.y, ra nb Onse of, 184 yb t , de s le ar Ch s, Orléan

Mique, Richard, 57, 59, 91 Jean-Guillaume, 187 Moitte, Monge,

1655

4, 80-1, 3, of on ti ca fi si as cl natural history,

87, n, ie st ba Sé sui Lo r, ie Merc nor, 1 o é L s i o g n a r F n a Mérim 31, 41) 1 , ti ro ar on Bu o l e g n a Michel 146, 2 Miger, Simo Pierre,

158,

149,

13%

, 96-7 94 s, al iv st fe ic bl pu d an

8 Meister, Jacques-Henri, 70, 73, 153 Mengs, Anton Raphael, 1 7

Mignard,

IL,

113,

ls Pierre, 67, 151 o g n a r J an-k 45 105, 106, 0 2 ; 2 7 , l he

Thermidorian reaction,

264 noo; and 165-7, 194

178) 180

18

and r G e th f 0 n o i t a ), 191; decor 425 , e g u l e D 5 9 Gallery, 51; 53» 55 ien and, b i l é F 3 41 , l u a P Ecstasy of S ‘aint the of y l i m a F y l o H the 4; ott idy for Steps, 129 Jear n-Louis, 74-5 , , © ini, Giulio Cesare

_ Pierre-Paul, 151

1795 19%

oss y r h C e n i o t n A Juatremere de Quin’ % museum, e h t to s n o i t c e j tome, 197; ob itution, t s e r d n a 4; 20 , 2 0 195, 20 history, t r a f © y r o e h t ; 194-6, 199-200 146- 7, 148, 193

Ramdohr, Friedrich hs Le ae R ap haelCl;, 3 ; 3;

41, 41, 101, 101, Totos, 120, 146, 3s 148 14,

156, B19a6, 202; BaCglais0i Altarpiece, iglione, 141; B, 141; Baldassare

Jardiniere, x 375 141-2; p ate

4 as the Virgin, 1 amily of Brandis ibis poetier Holy ksFoli Madonna di gno, 5

Leo X, x44; Saint e Pop 3 144 , 137 , 133 Cecilia, 137; Saint John in the Deh 253 Saint Michael, 28-30, 137, 144s é

1367,

vee 147, 255 156, 057, 256 N75; 7 Transfgsguration,

119, 137, 140,

IAT, 144-$, 201 Raymond, Jean-Armand, 59, 151, 152-3

Raynal, Abbé Guillaume, 24, 220 n25, 222

n33

Reboul, 51 Regnault, Jean-Baptiste, 93, 160, 163, 247 ng, 267 n18

Rembrandt van Rijn, 62, 139 Rémy, Abbé Joseph, 86, 88 Rémy, Pierre, 65, 237 n&o Renard, Jean-Augustin, 58, 60, 104 135s Reni, Guido, 28, 32, 34 105, 1205 148, 196; David and Goliath, 1443

119; MendiMartyrdom of Saint Peter, canti Altarpiece, 144-5 and eum Mus vre Lou See on. restituti nts. Museum of French Monume of display, 6, 7° s tic the aes and restoration: at the Louvre ; nor 239 -3, 132 72-Ay

11103; av 239 3, 70, ler vil ngi d’A er und

26-39 y, ler Gal g our emb Lux the Musée 152s 225 68;at the 132-3, 224

254 40> 38, 13% 254 -3, 131 l, tra Gen

ing, deal e tur pic and s n4z , n4t 255 rng, 195 107; politics of, 7, 239 n105, 24° 253 130; -3: 132 , 108 -6, 104 27 24,

133 249) , 109 of, e POS PUT 3 134 254 32) 385 and posterity, 70%

n84, 254 238098 val of i t s e F : s l a v i t s Revolutionary fest 94-73 Triumphal 35 National Unity, 1 2 1 , s t n e Monum n a i l a t I f o y Entr

rite

| Marie

J oseph,

rance, F of s t r o P ; 7 2 1 , net, ( plaude Joseph 31 N133

Index rdinal de,

Plessis du d n a m r A , u e i l e Rich

187, 191 , of b m o t 3 9 6 1 s 9 5 157s 1 L27. he, Aq t n i c a y H , d u a g i R

o / C D E W S 2 1 , xy , s Pelee Tel 75> 81

a

ure, 54) 57> 583 729 sidore, I e i r a M n e i l i m i x Robespierre, Ma 114,

125)

122,

158

94» £93> 5 93 , 91 , e i r a M Roland, Jean

107, 161, 163

co, 151 s e c n a r F ! n n a v o i G Romanelli, , 144 9 2 1 , o i l u i G , o n a m Ro Romme, Gilbert, 1 es, 181 Rousseau, Jean-Jacqu

196; Ado > 62 , 41 , 33 4, , l u a P r e t Rubens, Pe n, ; ration of the Magi, 66

Crucifixio

115s , 1 1 1 , s s o r C e th Descent From rie de a M 5 5 1 1 , s s o r C e h t of ction 109, 177, Medici Cycle, 14, 24, 68,

ld, au mu Ro t in Sa of on si Vi ; Sacchi, Andrea 119 Saint-Aubin, Gabriel de, 6, 158, 1595 15 , of y be ab l ya ro s, ni De tSain 163,

179,

180,

183, 197

mte de, 53 Saint-Germaine, Claude-Louis, Co al de, 126, Saint-Hubert, Auguste-Chev I5O-I,

152, 259 NI14

Saint-Merri, Paris, 59 Sainte-Chapelle, Paris, 183 ons of ti bi hi ex : re uv Lo , é) rr ca on al (S n lo Sa confiscated art, 115, 127, 131-2, 1335 rary art, 134-7; exhibitions of contempo

10, 13, 18, 19, 21, 28, 44, 492 ti54on) 74of>, 76-7, 81, 90, 222 0353 renova 57> 60, 235 N52

Santerre, Jean-Baptiste, 45, 127 Sarrazin, Jacques, 179, 191, 202 Sarto, Andrea del: Charity, 27-8, 133 Sauvage, Pieter-Joseph, 67 Schidone, Bartolomeo, 62 Schlegel, Friedrich von, 202 Sebastiano del Piombo, 130 Shee, Martin Archer, 198 Sirani, Elisabetta, 119 Slodtz, Michel-Ange: Languet de Gergy Monument, 186, 192

des arts, ne ai ic bl pu ré et e ir Société popula Paris, 102, 111 53-4, 56, , 52 , 44 , n i a m r e G Soufflot, Jacques57, 58 144; , ar ph ti Po d an ph se Spada, | eonello: Jo Son, 144 al ig od Pr e th of Return uc de, D , e n u h t é B de n e i l Sully, Maximi 179

Suvée, Joseph-Benoit,

rice u a M s e l r a h C , nd ra ey Tall Teniers, David, 111 arie, Terray, Abbé Joseph-M 9 N94 22 . de n ro Thiers, Ba d, 87 Thomas, Antoine Léonar 8, 121, 123 11 75 11 4, 11 é, dr An , Thouin d Armida, an o d l a n i R : o r d n a s s e l A Tiarini,

144

Tibaldi, Pelegrino, 129 8 Tinet, Jacques-Pierre, 11 Tintoretto, 162 wned with Titian, 31, 32, 633 Christ Cro Thorns, 144, 200 Titon du Tillet, Evrard gois de la, 63 Traverse, Charles-Fran 231 132 , 45 , s 25 i , o de c n a r F n a e J , oy Tr 933 AmbasTuileries Palace, Paris, 28, 91, sadors’ Gallery, 15, 32, 34> 39 4 ues, 52 Turgot, Anne-Robert-Jacq 4 Valliére, Louise de la, 127, 203-

vandalism, Revolutionary, 156, 157 165-7, 180, 184-6, 247 n60

Van Loo, Carle, 17, 44, 67, 193 62 Vanni, Francesco, Varon, Casimir,

104, 113, 114,

125, 126,

164

155-6,

sts, Vasari, Giorgio, 147; Lives of the Arti 31, 134,

Raphael, tory,

192,

135,

145-6,

Vatican Pinacot

201, 230

NIT7;

141, 1453 theory

181,

201

268

Vaudreuil, Comte d eldzquez, Diego de, 63 Velde, Adriaen van de, 111 Venus de Medici, 149, 153

n7

on

of his-

45 5—6, paolo: Veronese, 131

supper at

200,

2

Marriage at Cana, 200;

47, 107 , 5 2 , 2 2 Emmaus,

s, e n y u L e d t r e b l A ’ apuste d B e n n a e J _ Verrue © 2 , de e s Comtes , 15, at s g n i t n i a p of y a pl rsailles Palace, dis 51, 223 145 47-8, , 6 3 ? 9 2 2 5 2 s 19, 22 189, 241 , 5 3 1 , 0 9 Marie, h p e s o J Vien, mit, 67 r e H ng pi ee Sl 5 4 2 E 6 118, 26 4,79 , y r e l l a G al r e p m I Vienna, d

ls an a i r e t a m of n o i t a i c ng art: “"~ appre ewwIiNB jje 15%) 182, , 3 2 3 1 5 3 2 7 nique, 6, 74-75 , e c n a t s i d e t a i r p o r > atan app view240

NIIT,

241

NTIS; comparative

ssions of e r p m i 5 8 7 0 1 , 8 7 4 2 4 ing, 31 and 5 2 0 2 , 8 9 1 , n o é l o p the Musée Na 152, 182, 72; 1495 , 0 6 7 5 > 54 , ng lighti N144 239 NIOL, 267

4s 125 0 1 , 3 9 , 9 8 , é r d -An Vincent, Francois 2-4 5 1 , o n i r i u Q io Visconti, Enn Vitruvius,

57

Vieughels, Ni

las, 36

Volterra, » DanDai nieleda, 130, » 130; Descent from the Cross, 119 Vouet, Simon, 45, Br, 140 ‘Waagan, Gustay, 200

Wailly, Charles de, 54,5658 149, 180

3134, 125,

Walpole, Horace, 68, 70 Watelet, Claude-Henri, 75, 222 n35, NII7, 257 083

2

ee

Watteau, Antoine, 11, 36, 38, 67 Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, Duke of, 200

Wert, Adriaen van der, 111, 236 — Wicar, Jean-Baptiste, 104, 114, 117, 125 Winckelmann, Johann Joachim, 4, 73, 180, 193, 259 n115; History of Ancient Art,

80, 146, 147, 148, 153, 181

Wouwerman, Phillips, 73

Zix, Benjamin, 199