The Mysterious Sitter. Part II
Art detective investigation during the #StayAtHome
This is the second part of the Mysterious Portrait series of articles from the Hidden Gem blog where I capture my journey of researching the identity of the sitter of this remarkable portrait by one of the most important French painters of the 18th century Carle van Loo (1705–1765).
In the Part I of this story I challenged the existing suggestion that has been around for centuries and some of my initial ideas on the way to rule out the unlikely candidates that may seem appropriate at first sight.
Read it first if you haven’t and welcome to Part II to explore what I found out next.
The best portrait is a self-portrait
Now that I knew I had to find some Chevalier de l’order de Roi [i.e. the one entitled with the order of St. Michael], a wealthy person of arts living in Paris in 1730s and better having some bond to Versailles and/or fashion or silk trade, I couldn’t stand my initial gut feeling that led me to … Carle van Loo himself!
I mean, the look and the facial resemblance (the face oval, the hair, the eyes — most importantly, the eyebrows, the Van Loo family nose, finally) of the mystery sitter to the famous author of the portrait or, at least, some other member of his celebrated artist family, made me check this suggestion in all detail.
Though it was more common to the artists of the epoch to be painted with their easel and brushes, or somehow give the indication of their profession in the picture, there were still cases that sometimes they painted themselves differently for a special occasion. Receiving the Blue or Black Ribbon decoration could have been a perfect fit.
Moreover, Carle was actually a Chevalier de l’Ordre Saint Michel himself!
There was one more interesting thing that could add to this theory. It is known that Carle Van Loo exhibited his self-portrait at the Salon of 1753. Many of the visitors pointed out that it was an unusual selfie of the author — some said it was a masterpiece, some said Carle didn’t look exactly like himself [a-ha!], some pointed out its nod to Rubens and Van Dyck [whatever that could mean]. Alas, no one did leave a detailed description of the portrait.
Well, 1753 doesn’t seem like a good date for our 1730s portrait in question, though, who knows? I tried not to exclude this version right away. The fact that it was lost and not found until nowadays gave me some hope. Moreover, there was an indication of an unknown self-portrait by Carle in the collection of the famous salon holder Madame Géoffrin back in 1761. Could it be the one we are talking about?
Interestingly, in a 1765 accolade for Carle’s brilliant career [on the occasion of his death], M. Dandré Bardon noted that this portrait was overpainted by Carle soon after the show.
With these pieces of evidence in possession I gave a closer look at the Van Loo artist family once again.
There were numerous outstanding artists in many generations of this family, some of them also entitled with a chivalric order. I made this scheme to narrow down my research and better navigate in the dates.
What a family! No wonder they were so praised by the Kings and their painter peers who supported them in the academic career.
Going back to the investigation:
- Carle’s brother, Jean-Baptiste Van Loo (1684–1745), looks very much alike our sitter in question. The dates do fit well too, however, he has never received the Black Ribbon of the St. Michael Order.
Could it then be Louis-Michel? Moreover they used to paint one another in this family.
- I’m afraid, I had to rule out him as well since he’d be too young in the times our portrait was painted.
Yet there was a much bigger problem lying out there on the surface.
- Both Carle and Louis-Michel received their Orders too late! Well, not too late for them and their careers, of course, however, too late to be considered as our Mystery sitter!
Louis-Michel became the Knight of the Order of St. Michael in 1748 and Carle — in 1752. I think, you would agree, it would be too strange for someone to be painted with an Order he didn’t receive yet.
Oh, no, not this! It all ruined my so promising gut feeling! Seems like this idea was really mad.
All right, it’s still something. Now I have the last path to go and, hopefully, find the one I’m looking for.
Getting hands dirty in the online archives
This is the approach I decided to take next.
- Take all the recipients of the Saint Michael Order from 1715 to 1745/48 as maximum [some of them were listed in the Almanach national: annuaire officiel de la République française or sources like this one].
- Add all the Knights found additionally in the annals of the French Academies of Sciences.
- Rule out those with surviving portraits that do not resemble our Mystery sitter in any aspect.
- Check up all the available biographical info on the ones left and eliminate those who could not be the person on our portrait due to various reasons [either didn’t have a chance to meet with Carle, or were leading a completely different lifestyle to the one this portrait presumes, etc.]
- Scrutinize the bio of Carle himself [incl. many 18th century notes and documents] and try to find the direct indication of the names of the pre-selected persons [taking into account he came back to Paris from Rome only in 1734].
- Make the short list of those left and try to make an assumption who might fit the best.
For example, this way I had to exclude another candidature I initially liked so much — renowned French painter Jean-François de Troy (1679–1752). He was already a Knight of St. Michel in 1730’s [appearing on a portrait by Aved with the Black Ribbon in 1734], a known bon-vivant, a man of fashion who had some close relations to Versailles and Italy, and who could potentially meet Carle there or in Paris in 1730s. Unfortunately, his surviving portraits, though looking quite similar to our sitter’s face, show his one distinctive feature that is totally missing in the face of our incognito — the eyebrows! How pronounced and dark they are on all portraits of De Troy and how different they are in out portrait by Van Loo.
Alas, another shot in the blue was with another potentially best fit ever — Jean de Julienne (1686–1766). Famous collector, patron of arts, Director of the Gobelins factory, and finally Chevalier de l’Ordre Saint Michel since 1737. What’s more he was definitely working with Carle too, since he commissioned at least the famous Resurrection and Pasha [Pacha] scenes from him. However, there are several of Jean’s existing portraits preserved to date and, unfortunately, I can’t say it’s a 100% match.
Most painful it was to see his brown eyes and compare them to crystal blue ones of our Mystery sitter…
Before I name the ones left after such a tough elimination, here is a another list of ideas and assumptions I didn’t mention before that are to be considered in the cap table:
- The portrait was presumably painted during the Paris years of Carle Van Loo, then lost its trace almost immediately [since I couldn’t find it in the posthumous inventory of Carle or someone else from his family] and then reappeared there in the 1830s when it was bought to the Versailles collection. That gives a bigger chance the sitter was living in Paris and didn’t take portrait anywhere else.
- The portrait seems to have been commissioned by a private individual and kept within his family and descendants since neither no known print has been made, nor it was exhibited at any Salon, nor any information about such a commission was found in the archival sources available online.
- The portrait and the sitter had some apparent connections to Versailles and the Royal court [it is quite possible it was painted right there].
- Since I don’t have access to the backside of the painting and can’t see whether there are any marks left, nor can I look closely at the painter signature, I take it as a fact that the authorship of Carle Van Loo is indisputable here.
- However, I shall note that this portrait looks rather unusual for his practice of a history painter and somewhat different to his other known portraits in terms of technique, postures and everything. At the same time, it seems totally in line with the style of his celebrated nephew Louis-Michel, who specialised in portraits.
Having said that, here is the above-mentioned shortlist of potential candidates with my brief comments on each of them:
- Nicolas-Michel Judde (c.1695–1770), chev. 1723, secretaire du Roy [secretary to the King] since 1732. What a character it was! He was closely related to Versailles and the life of the court of Louis XV. Called «riche debauché» he had a reputation of a notorious rake, whose interest in prostitutes was well known, and closely monitored, by the police. [Special fun fact for those who read up until this point. He had a particular taste for flagellation, and shared the services of one Mlle July, who charged one louis to whip him, with the marquis de Sade and the philosopher Helvétius (Helvetius, Correspondance générale, IV, 1981, p. 298)]. No portrait found.
- Pierre-Charles Roy (1683–1764). chev. 1741 and secretary of the Order since 1753. He was a famous poet, court playwright and satirist, a rival of young Voltaire in the early decades of the 18th century [while Voltaire believed Roy to be simply «miserable»]. Often mocked up and neglected by progressive public of the Age of Enlightenment, he was considered as a mediocre representative of the old and outdated fashion in plays he set up at court. Eventually, he was closely connected to Versailles. No portrait left.
- Charles Denis Joseph François Xavier Belin Seigneur d’Augicourt (1691–1773), chev. since 1733. He was a Counsellor to the Parliament of Besançon, a person of taste, amateur historian and art connoisseur and a member of the Academie de Franche-Comté. He had commissioned Carle van Loo to paint several history pieces for the local churches, the Resurrection being one of them.
And then there were several other candidates whose lives are in such obscurity that almost nothing could be said or found about them online, though they still cannot be excluded at this point:
- Jean Masson de Plissay, seigneur de Morangis, chev. 1730. Honorary Counsellor to the King, connected to Orleans.
- Camille Perichon (1678–1768), chev. 1720. Prévôt of the Lyon’s merchants [i.e. head of municipality] in 1730–40, member of Académie des Beaux-Arts de Lyon. Silk trade was flourishing under the governance of his administration thanks to his significant contribution.
- André Perichon, chev. 1727, brother of Camille (above) secretaire de la ville de Lyon.
- Jean-Baptiste Robin comte de Saint-Challier, chev. 1721. Counsellor-secretary of the Crown of France, commissaire provincial des guerres. Spent larger part of his career at the Spanish Court.
- Antoine Sartine, Comte d’Albi (1681–1744), chev. 1713. Financier from Lyon, cousin of M. de Lusan, président du Grand Conseil.
Seems like a long shortlist, imagine how many more were eliminated behind the scenes.
The Truth Is Out There
I guess you already got it right by this point. There is no obvious and perfect candidate that could ideally fit into the storyline of our Mystery Sitter with a substantial level of confidence [well, few things are set in stone in art history in general].
Yet still, I’d rather make a suggestion which I hope could be proved with an access to some deeper archives which are only available offline.
Out of the short-listed candidates above I think that Pierre-Charles Roy or Nicolas-Michel Judde are the closest possible matches I could have made in an attempt of this online research. However, no direct evidence was found at this point, and who knows, maybe one day there is going to be a Part III of this story.
I welcome all of you, art enthusiasts and historians, especially those with an access to some offline archives, to challenge this proposal.
I really hope that Versailles palace could at least take Soufflot’s name out of this portrait and, hopefully, reassign it to the right person [quite possibly, from the list above].
Short and necessary disclaimer — all the findings here are subjective and sometimes couldn’t be proved without the access to the unique archive materials, which I obviously do not have in this #stayathome period of time. However, I do sincerely hope that my thoughts and ideas could help to find the proof of the sitter’s identity and verify and reestablish it according to the proper art history academic traditions.
