Tribe.net. Local Connections $item.owner.firstName http://arthistorians.tribe.net/thread/934073a5-9902-4210-97e1-0e7686537079#c0629a36-e015-4731-9375-6fca8e4adcd9 2006-03-07T20:39:14Z 2006-03-07T20:39:14Z

*******I've removed the citation and referances to figures******** *******I've removed the Introduction****** *******The images are in the photo album**** *******This is the Melun Diptych******* Tracked to works throughout Europe in the 15th century, the French painter, Jean Fouquet, has been one of the most influential artists of his age. Notably, his art has been correlated to have a huge impact on modern artist to the point of foreshadowing them. His use of creating forms that we in turn would connect with our minds foreshadows artist like Watteau and other 18th century impressionist. Even seen in modern-day constructivist sculpture where Fouquet’s Virgin and Child (from the Melun Diptych) is the precedent, but Fouquet’s skills were far from ambiguous (which my previous statement may lead you to believe). Fouquet was the first French painter to be infamous outside his own country. Nor did he stay inside his own country. When centralized recognizing that France was the artistic center of the continent had changed (not in France’s favor), Fouquet traveled to Italy during 1443-1447 and later would travel to Florence and Venice. During these trips, he would master the various styles of these areas before returning to France. However, it must also be known that his major influence is that of the medieval theater. “The action took place in various compartments […] each compartment was composed of two or three platforms […] sometimes hung with detached place cards”. Through this, we can gather that his knowledge and love of the theater has a huge impact on the way he worked and on the piece in this discussion, The Melun Diptych (segmented into two pieces.) Fouquet’s art is far from happy scenes (like that of the Limbourg Brothers in their Les Riches Heures du Duke de Berry). Fouquet’s work was always of a somber tone. As in the Melun Diptych, the characters tell a dramatic story that is set in quiet specter and historical tragedy. At this time, in Europe, prevailing waves struck the art communities and soon, Fouquet, would travel and master these techniques that would contribute to our subject, the Altar of Melun. In Florence, Italy, the Early Renaissance had been developing mathematically and scientifically use of one point perceptive and defining idealized forms within space. And in Flanders, artists like Van Eyck and Van Der Weyden were forerunners in a new and rich painting styles that concentrated light on forms and provided higher humanized characteristics to their forms. It is not known when Fouquet had traveled to learn from the Flemish master, but we do know after mastering this style, Jean had traveled to Florence and Venice to learn from others. After returning from Rome, where he painted a portrait of Pope Eugene, he brought these skills back to France and translated them into a northern style (as well continuing Gothic tradition). Mastery of these two styles is evident in this diptych. Deeper elements to this diptych have to do with the angular arrangement and formatting of the picture plane and the figures in space. Noticeable, the figures in the panels are composed to relate with each other. The spacing between them along with the line of sight is along the same line, they both begin with the same horizon line – utilized to connect the two section. Chevalier’s line of sight (past the virgin) allows the viewer to connect the two sections with this technique. But more so, this is reciprocated with the Christ child gesturing back to the other panel. The question still remains as to why this devotional piece actually came into existence. When Fouquet returned from Italy, it was Etienne Chevalier who became Fouquet’s patron. His duty was to create a so-called “altarpiece” that preserved the late Agnes Sorel’s memory - which later would be donated to church in Melun. Etienne Chevalier was born in Melun around 1410. Upon taking over his father’s titles after his death, he began to rise to diplomatic height under King Charles VII. His titles were many. He would celebrate the titles of High Constable, Seigneur de Vineau, Plessis-le-comte, High Secretary to Charles VII, Ambassador to Italy and France, and later in 1452, Trésorier de France. We see Chevalier in the left-hand panel of the Diptych. Quietly kneeling with his hands clasped in prayer and adoration, he, the patron, kneels in witness of the virgin and child. Beside him is his patrol Saint, Saint Stephen. Saint Stephen was a martyr. In his arm one can see the book of scriptures (to identify him with sainthood) with a stone sitting on top. Saint Stephen explained through the Bible’s Acts of the Apostles and Voragine The Golden Legend explains his martyrdom: He was considered an example of a good life. He was considered a man of the people, for the people. His nature was that of grace and kindness. However when he was brought before the Jews, they tried to prove him to be contrary to their (Jewish) laws. But his heart was true and all accusations false. This did not stop the people from taking his life… by stoning. What is the connection with the stone and the diptych? There is substantial relevance to the right-hand panel and what she signifies as a martyr. All of these issues will be covered in due time. The Left-hand panel holds an image of the lactating virgin with the Christ child. Fouquet utilized further iconography whereas the Theotocos (god barer) is viewed within a throne surrounded by angels. Throughout earlier times (around 1370 by Paolo di Giovanni Fei and others,) this has been used when depicting Madonna. Significance of this throne is to announce her as the queen of heaven. She also wears a crown of eight stars. This particular icon is to both show her place in Heaven as well as present her as royalty. The angels that surround her are references to night and day. The image of the lactating virgin is perhaps one of the most interesting iconography. When first emerged, there were fears of causing lustful thoughts. Thus artists de-natured her to suggest that she is a symbolic icon, as well as emplying her mortality and the mortality of the child. Obvious in this particular work is that her breast is abnormally placed – this separates her from naturalized imagery. The exposed flesh offers further meaning, that of martyrdom. Martyrs were stripped to “humiliate torture, and punishment.” However, this may not be the case in this depiction, her depiction is not made to be a humiliation - but an adoration. This is a religious piece. In religious pieces the significance of the bare breast has been referred to as the Madonna of Humility. This is to say that she is the mother of all – another reference to Agnes’s nature as a kind pious lady. Further the Madonna of Humility was a reference to enduring of “man’s” sins and salvation through her suffering. Hence the message of the lactating virgin: “Dearest Son, because of the milk I gave you, have mercy on them.” And through this by her breast-feeding she gives nourishment of faith. Agnes Sorel being a living person and the Madonna being a serious, sacred icon, why was this one modeled after Agnes? Also, was this virgin really a virgin? If not, why would she be the living model? Agnes Sorel was the mistress of King Charles VII. Indeed she was not a virgin. Sorel had birthed four children: Marie de Valois, Charlotte and Jeanne de France, and the fourth (stillborn). Perhaps she was modeled due to the reputation of her nature. She was viewed as a kind, pious, loving lady. Besides her fidelity to Charles, she was spied upon continuously with suspicion and jealousy – hence her correlation with Saint Stephen. Even more interesting was her relationship to Etienne. There seemed to be one other love in Sorel’s life, it was Etienne. Knighted by the king, Etienne was devoted to Charles; however, Chevalier was obsessed with Agnes – even beyond his wife’s death in 1452. It was found that the shield of Chevalier had been inscribed, “tant elle vaut celle pour qui je meurs.” This translates to “So much she is worth dying for.” More so, at Chevalier’s mansion, after moving to Paris, an inscription was found, “ Rien Sur L n’a regard,” Sur L being Sorel, translates as “too much not to see [Sorel]”. Fittingly, Etienne was one of the persons charged to execute her final will. But what of her will? What of her death? Delivering a daughter on February 9th 1450 she suffered an attack of dysentery. She did die that day but dysentery did not kill her. Agnes was poisoned. Her murderer was a steward. The report came from Jeanne de Vendôm. The poisoner was one of the two executioners of her will, M. Jacques Coeur. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. More fitting, we can see how the two pieces relate to each other. The idea of the patron being in the artwork is continued, yet there is more to these models than patron and Madonna. Etienne is in witness to Agnes Sorel, more so, Saint Stephen is the witness to Agnes’s soul. Further, at Etienne’s final resting place (Melun,) is where the devotional piece was donated Strangely enough, “Etienne” when translated into the English language is “Stephen.” This is where further analyzing of this work comes into play. What further analysis can be made based upon this new knowledge? One is that the appearance of Saint Stephen gives further implications of her martyrism. And seeing the Christ child gesturing to Saint Stephen implies more of a connection (FIG. 7). As previously mentioned, Chevalier’s glance runs beyond Agnes’s – but St. Stephen is in complete witness and the gesture of the child connects back at St. Stephen. This along with knowledge of his martyrdom, illustrates Agnes’s role. Now separated into two locations – Etienne and St. Stephen in Berlin and The Virgin and Child in Antwerp, this dramatic piece of history cannot speak together how it was intended. The Virgin and Child panel has been renamed The Antwerp Madonna. Although separate, the Antwerp Madonna still touches the heart of many people. She has continued to be the prototype for many artist: François Clouet’s Maîtresse au bain, Sabina Poppaea, Mignard’s Maria Mancini, even to Ingres’ Belle Zélie. The Diptych of Melun was a devotional piece that was adored in the loving name, not of the Mother of Christ, but Agnes Sorel – yet in a museum (as only ½ of it’s intent) it is simply a work of art with a lost story. It is suggested that there is a missing panel - where Etienne is peering at the missing panel. Although no third panel has ever been found. It is also speculated that the two panels do NOT belong together. It is not my task to debunk this piece, I have only tried to explain the significance of what is seen and unseen as the pieces are. The facts remain along with much speculation. This stillborn child along with Agnes died on February 9th 1450 from poisoning. Her name had always remained clean throughout the accusations that were made. What also comes up is that this Diptych cannot be an altarpiece in which Agnes Sorel is depicted as the Virgin Mary – but is devotional.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-03-07T20:39:14Z