empathry

Happy New Year dear Sasha ; Reading (eagerly) your sudomodelism adventures really makes me saving me a subscription to Netflix, whilst your adventures are worth a Netflix serie ! I am thinking about your glueing problem, and a logical opinion could be that it's not really worth trying to select a glue permitting the quite unprobable occurence of having a modification to do (or a little repairing). I have myself some ship models I realized three decades (and more) ago and sometimes, the wood works is such a manner that cracks may appear, but whilst the ship models are protected by glasses, there is no wind, no dust, and no need to clean the model, so that the probability of a little bit of something needing a fixing is quasi nil. Your photos are always excellent ! I hope for all the people you love the best, and particularly for you a good health !

I send you other symbols of the French king hereunder, some with wings : Please note that France symbol (the country) is similar to the one of the King ; in other terms, the King is France (as Louis XIV told to French Parliament in 1655 << L'Etat, c'est moi >> )

The inner ring is named the "Sankt Michael" (with the shells) ; the exterior one is the "Sankt Esprit" (with the "H" letter). Here are the reference pictures. I hope it helps !

We have in France a poem (By Jean de Lafontaine) telling a fox who (after making many complimentings) eats a cheese belonging to a crow : Master Crow perched on a tree, Was holding a cheese in his beak. Master Fox attracted by the smell Said something like this: “Well, Hello Mister Crow! How pretty you are! How beautiful you seem to me! I’m not lying, if your voice Is like your plumage, You are the phoenix of all the inhabitants of these woods.” At these words, the Crow is overjoyed. And in order to show off his beautiful voice, He opens his beak wide, lets his prey fall The Fox grabs it, and says: “My good man, Learn that every flatterer Lives at the expense of the one who listens to him. This lesson, without doubt, is well worth a cheese.” The Crow, ashamed and embarrassed, Swore, but a little late, that he would not be taken again. This pretty looks like the Kolobok's story you told us ! And as for the spherical "bombs" you are sculpting in tagua, maybe should you interested to know about natural veneered wood spheres, used in rosaries. I send you a photo of them.

Hi there ! I remain highly favourable to the "ancient traditional style" workmanship, sculpting the pearwood with one's hands, just as you do Haiiaphnk ! Realizing a model is a true adventure with high (enlighted) moment ... and also more difficult moments ; and the new generations prefer to throw away those (supposed) difficult moments by using computers. Therefore and for the fun (because I don't wish start a combat), I wish to post hereunder the realizations of some vessels made by AI programmed softwares ... Please feel free to comment !

Hi there ! There's a saying that “perfection is achieved when there's nothing left to remove”, and that's the impression given by the latest photos taken from the upper side dome. The whole thing you've created blends in so nicely with the initial support (the customer's base) you're working on, that it seems as if your work had already been done all along. There's no visible discrepancy (difference / gap) between your personal work and your customer's initial support, as all harmonizes well ! Well done chap ! The sculpting phase is about to begin ! What I appreciate through your "step-by-step" images (and comments) is that you are both a geometer and an artist. In so many (complicated) shipmodels of this type, we often see flaws due to geometrical difficulties and/or flaws due to artistic (sculpture) difficulties. We are eager to see how it all will turn out as we are now probably predicting a highly skilled finished shipmodel.

... and in such a case, why not set the entire ship model on fire and analyse the wave lenght(s) emitted by its raw products through a spectrometer ? The customs would get from its ashes all the requested (legal) answers ! Are we turning to Ray Bradbury Farenheit 451 ? Will books be burnt ? Will art be burnt ? We'll ourselves be burnt and euthanized (... obviously for "our" security) in order to fertilize this planet ?

Hi José ; the ORIGINAL plan exists and has been published in 2002 by the French review BATEAU MODELE. This plan is an official one with Moulisart authorisation (and licence).

Hello Aleksandr, you are right and I am right too ! When I wrote that French copied Dutch, it is mostly concerning the technical (naval) point of view, being understood that Dutch vessels had a smaller draught that French ones, due to the fact that French used mostly iron studs in their construction (heavier) whilst Dutch used wooden studs (which do not rust). Dutch vessels were more maneuverable whilst French resisted betterly to gun fire. As for the decorations themselves (the artistic point of view), overdecorating a vessel for the King's advantageous dominance showing started by the English, and was followed by the other Navys (including France). It's extremely tricky to find out what exactly specific decoration is corresponding to such vessel, as vessels often are identically named. We know about Ambitieux I (1691) and Ambitieux II (1692). Something important to point out is the june 1671 royal list of "fixed names". In 1671, the "Royale" has 120 vessels and Louis XIV ordered that their names all be standardized. Hereunder is enclosed the "fixed names" list of all "authorized" names to be used for the King's vessels. Doing this was clever, as if a vessel was sunken or lost (like Ambitieux I), he was immediately remplaced by another one, Ambitieux II, bearing the same name, so that the vessel's name was always kept alive. = = = = << Mémoire du Roy au Sieur de Seuil Il verra par la liste et la lettre de sa Majesté cy jointes la résolution qu'elle a prise de donner des noms fixes à tous ses vaisseaux de guerre, frégates légères, flutes et brûlots de l'arsenal de Brest en changeant les anciens noms qu'ils avoient en d'autres qu'elle veut qu'ils ne changent jamais. C'est-à-dire que lorsqu'un vaisseau ne sera plus en estat de servir, il en sera baty un autre en sa place qui sera appelé du mesme nom. Et comme sa Majesté a à présent le nombre de vingt-six vaisseaux de guerre qu'Elle veut estre pareillement fixe, elle ne désire plus en faire bastir qu'à mesure qu'il y en aura quelqu'un qui ne sera plus en estat de servir. Le dit Sieur de Seuil observera cet ordre à l'advenir pour le nombre de ses vaisseaux qui sont à Brest. le 21 juin 1671 >> << Memorandum from the King to Sieur de Seuil He will see from the enclosed list and letter of His Majesty's resolution to give fixed names to all her warships, light frigates, flutes and fireboats in the Brest arsenal, changing the former names that they had into others that she wishes them never to change. This means that when a vessel is no longer fit for service, another will be built in its place, which will be called by the same name. And as His Majesty currently has the number of twenty six warships that She wishes to be similarly fixed, She no longer wishes to have any built until such time as there is one that will no longer be in a condition to serve. The aforementioned Sieur de Seuil will observe this order for the number of his vessels in Brest. Dated June 21st 1671 >> This letter from the King to the Intendant of Brest is attached to the list of names attributed to the units of his fleet attached to the port of Brest. In it, Louis XIV explains what is at stake with this list : that these new names "never change". He goes on to explain how this is to be achieved. The names must survive the ships through a system of everlasting relays. For each ship is attributed a name corresponding to its rank. Exactly twenty six vessels (no more, no less) are now attributed to the port of Brest. = = = = The Persian king Darius I (480 b.c.) used this same stratageme with his elite troops named "Immortels" which were (as per Herodote) 10.000 soldiers. When an Immortel dies in combat, he is immediately remplaced by another one. Surprisingly, there are none FULMINANT nor AMBITIEUX on this fixed names list !

Le Foudroyant is dated 1724, and as Magali Théron thesis deals mainly with figureheads (and not particularly transoms), so we are quite ascertained that Jupiter's, has been used as a figurehead the first time for the Fulminant (1692). As for the Pompeux, it's indicated that Jupiter with the "visage triste" was part of a decoration with other deities (upon the transom). The Pompeux is a 2nd rank vessel named "Madame" in 1670 ... then baptized anew "Pompeux" in 1671.

The historic reality is that French copied danish ships (by sending official ambassadors like Jean-Baptiste Antoine Colbert, Marquis de Seigneley. On the death of his father Colbert in 1683, Seignelay was named Navy Secretary by Louis XIV and held the post until his (sudden) death. Seignelay continued his father's work of expanding the "Royale". From 1660 to 1690, the "Royale" increased under Colbert(s) control from 18 sailing vessels to 125. Whilst arsenals too were reconstructed, modern historians criticise the Colberts (father and son), for concentrating on ships rather than infrastructure. = = = = The three attached images hereunder are from the "Chapelle Royale" in Versailles, showing a héraldry with the 3 lilies when representing France, and two interleaved "L's" when representing Louis (the King's first name) as a person. = Here is a sample of Frederich V signature ; you can read "FriderichR" which in latin means : Friderich REX (King).

The decoration of king’s vessels during XVII th century is obviously linked to important political events that I will try to summarize : The French / Dutch War [1672 – 1678] : Due to incessant quarrels between the French and Dutch concerning customs duties, Louis XIV sends (on a pure political point of view, very cleverly) his sister-in-law to London to negotiate (bribe N° 1) with her brother the king Charles II. In return for an annual pension of three million pounds, Charles II promises to help France. In 1670, in preparation for an impending war with the Dutch, Colbert officially orders a reduction in the decorations upon all the « Royale » vessels. In 1671, another French ambassador is sent to Sweden to negotiate a treaty with the Swedish king, and Louis XIV obtains the neutrality of Emperor Leopold I … against an annual pension of 600,000 ecus (bribe N° 2). In 1672, Charles II of England declares war to the United Provinces, and Louis XIV follows immediately (business is business) ! At sea, on June, the Franco-English alliance is defeated by Admiral de Ruyter's Dutch fleet at the Battle of Solebay, saving his country from a sea invasion. In 1673, Admiral de Ruyter defeats again the Franco-English fleet at Walcheren (June), then at the Battle of Texel (August). In 1676, in the Mediterranean, Duquesne attacks the Dutch fleet, which had come to help the Spaniards, at Stromboli. Furthermore, at Agosta, he fights a combined Dutch-Spanish fleet ; Admiral de Ruyter is killed there. After a new naval battle, in Palermo, on June, the French control the western Mediterranean. In 1678, Louis XIV is now able to impose a positive treaty on the war ; this is the Peace of Nijmegen, signed on August 10. The Treaty of Nijmegen is the triumph of Louis XIV. Due to the huge naval losses supported by the « Royale », starts the largest amount of budget, from 1690 to 1694, ever historically allowed for the fleet reconstruction policy. The historians call explicitedly this period : « the 2nd Louis XIV Royale ». Fulminant and Orgueilleux I, both launched on december 1691, are exactly from this period and whilst it is probable that it took only 6 months to re-build Orgueilleux II (further Barfleur French defeat), we know that since 1670, decorations were reduced by a Colbert ordonnance, it’s certain that (answering Alexandr question) vessels were starting to be standardized. In 1715, Louis XIV deceases and Louis XV is the new king. The new « Royale » gradually develops a new type of ship of the second rank, carrying seventy-four guns. The armament (initially consisting of 26 pieces of 36 pounds, 28 of 18, 16 of 8 and 4 of 4 pounds), is definitively fixed from the Terrible in 1739, to 28 pieces of 36, 30 of 18 and 16 of 8. Those famous 74 gun-ships (very well described in Boudriot’s monography) are no more decorated, as they were before during Louis XIV reign, but they are becoming true « sister ships ». = = = = Some humoristic considerations about bribes N° 1 and N° 2 who had been allowed to English and Swedish kings in order to make them betray their old alliances with Dutch people … is that just like for the courtiers of Louis XIV ; the king allowed either « privileges » … either bribes. I have been (also) heard that after the Independance war, that English knew to grease the right palms (bribed) of American new government representatives, when it was a question of voting and making a linguistic choice, between the French language and the English language, for the newly constituted new American parliament. Aren’t they good politics ?

A (partial) conclusion ; we may be making ourselves (now, in our XXI th century) a fantasized and improved image of what the decorations of the ships of the XVII and XVIII th century could actually be. It could be that the reality is less aesthetic than we imagine, insofar as (with the notable exception of the Wasa), the only historical remains that are still visible are drawings (those of Berain in particular), or some paintings of naval battles. It is indicated in Magali Theron's thesis that the plans of the ships (at that time) were really very sketchy ... or even almost non-existent. Are not those beautiful arsenal models that we are currently building (in particular thanks to Boudriot's monographies), too, intellectual and aesthetic "ideal" visions that may be far from what was really constructed in the shipyards of the XVII and XVIII th century ? The philosophical question is : Do we not ourselves project our Art (and our XXI th century mindset), in some fantastic fantaisy ? and more deeply : Are Tintin and Snowy the real initiators of our hobby : arsenal model shipbuilding ? Would Boudriot have started working upon his monographies if he didn't read, younger, The secret of the Unicorn ?

Answering Druxey ; it's simply written on Magali's Theron thesis ... and it's her own interpretation, I just retranscript what she wrote. (visage triste is not really "sad face" ; should be more accurately translated by "not joyful face") Answering Alexandr ; we are coming to the most historically intriguing concern about those two vessels ; one with Jupiter (the Fulminant) and one with Apollo (the Ambitieux) and Alexander's is wondering himself (a) how many aesthetic and/or symbolic links are (or may be) existing between those two vessels, concerning their decoration and possibly (b) is he maybe imagining [this is an intellectual hypothesis] links and subleties which were not in the author's mind ? A possible answer is (implicitally) in the thesis whilst all these decorations have been drawn by Berain. We could think, naturally and logically, that Berain had smart decorative ideas into his head and making simultaneously the two sketches (the one for Fulminant and the one for Ambitieux), he would maybe try to coordinate them in order to raise a far superior aesthetic effect. I'll start with a little historical background, by pointing out that Berain was THE artist at the court of the King Louis XIV, responsible for designing the decorations on the King's vessels. He therefore had an official title (for this) and was paid for his work. It should also be remembered that, in the time of Louis XIV, everything was governed and organized around the "privileges" that the nobles arrogated to themselves, that the King distributed, and that most the intrigues of the court were aimed at receiving (from the King) said privileges. Once a noble receives and possesses such-and-such a privilege, he is guaranteed a good financial income. As it happens, Berain has the privilege of decorating the King's vessels ; he owns the official title (to exercise this function) and nobody will ever think of challenging him (probably during all his life). Berain works in his artist's Cabinet at Versailles, he is a wise man whilst taking a very scrupulous attention that the King will always be pleased with his work, while the King's image will be enhanced and magnified for posterity through his work ... the one of an always obedient and servile artist. What we learn from Magali Theron's thesis is that, during his entire life, Berain only visited a shipyard once. This means that the artist probably never saw a ship decorated on the basis of his sketches in his entire life ! What we learn from Magali Theron's thesis is that, from time to time, Berain's proposed decorations were (situated) below the waterline, meaning that Berain had no idea what shipbuilding was all about. There are numerous letters (from shipyards) complaining that Berain was designing things that were totally impractical. So here we have Monsieur Berain, with his "privilege" of being the artist in charge of decorating the King vessels, and who will not even have the (intellectual) curiosity, throughout all his life, to go and see how his drawings are sculpted (in the reality of a naval shipyard). This is lamentable, and psychologically, Berain certainly must have been a lousy civil servant, who surely didn't care too much about the practical applied results of his Art ; Berain's work is simply and solely drawing a sketch to please the King AND BYE-BYE : THEREAFTER, ALL IS OVER !!! The only thing that matters is to continue to please the King, to make all possible designs that flattered him, and to keep intact his "privilege". This is why, Alexandr, you should not brainstorm yourself into looking for symbolic or mythologic aesthetic explanations ... when there are none !

Answering you step by step Alexander : I have been two days ago to bibliotheque Serpente and started to read the Magali Theron (very important work) opus, concerning the decorations of Louis XIV "Royale" (<< La Royale >> is still the name given, even now, to the French Navy). There are several topics I will successively point out ... for not making a too large (or complicated) post. Let's start with mythology and the figureheads : The Fulminant's figurehead is Jupiter, and it's to be clearly understood that Jupiter is Roman, Jupiter is not symbolically the same than Zeus (who is Greek). Louis XIV ships decorations are to be described as neo-Roman, whilst the idea of Rome (for Louis XIV) has been an idea of power, military force and Empire. Louis XIV doesn't care with Greeks who are mostly philosophers, he cares (his royal trademark) only with Romans who are warriors. I have been carefully looking through Magali Theron opus if some vessels had already a figurehead representing Jupiter and it appears that not. Fulminant is definitively the first vessel with a Jupiter figurehead. Other vessels (afterwards) have had a Jupiter figurehead ; the Salamandre in 1753 and the Tonnerre in 1806. It's interesting to note that Salamandre is a mytic animal which was represented into the coat of arms of French king François the first (early XVI th century) ; the belief in the incombustibility of the salamander is spread throughout Christian Europe. In Christian symbolism, the salamander, associated with the allegory of the four elements, became an emblem of fire. As for the Tonnerre (to be translated in english by "Thunder") it's crystal clear that we are too, dealing with the "fire element", the same as "Fulminant". It's not surprising that a figurehead representing Jupiter could be associated with this fire element. Moreover in Magali Theron opus, there is a very short reference to another sculpted Jupiter, which participates in a composite decor including many Roman deities, upon the "Pompeux" (1707) ; it's described as being a Jupiter with a "visage triste". Another answer to you Alexander concerning the two sister-ships Ambitieux I (H. Malet - 1691) and Fulminant (P. Masson - 1691) : YES, they are technically engineered into a same dimensions and gun capacity, but NO, the drawings by Jean Berain are totally independent. I suppose that king Louis XIV was proposed names for such 1st rank vessel to be constructed, he choose (step 1) Ambitieux and Fulminant, which are two adjectives in the french language, and (step 2) thereafter, Jean Berain is asked to draw something linked with those two adjectives Ambitieux and Fulminant, and (step 3) the drawings are sent to Rochefort, for being sculpted and painted. Moreover, the naval chief engineers in charge of the two vessels (H. Malet and P. Masson) are two different persons, so that the two vessels will be considered as "sister ships", only by their size and the equal number of guns they are able to bear. One important (and factual) point is that Rochefort [and Dunkerque and Le Havre shipyards too] naval archives have been mostly lost (or burnt ... etc) ; so, Boudriot made a monography which is supposed to be (more or less because Boudriot hasn't practically got many information from those missing or burnt archives) the Ambitieux II, dated 1692, whose naval chief engineer was G. Guichard. In conclusion, and due to the missing Rochefort archives ; (a) Nobody will never really know how Ambitieux I could have been somehow similar or different from Ambitieux II whilst their naval chief engineers were two different persons ; (b) Nobody will never really know how Ambitieux I could have been somehow similar or different from Fulminant ; (c) about Fulminant, the sole and only one vestige left are the three Berain drawings ; those drawings are originals and cannot be contested or interpreted (this is for sure the extra good new) ! In fine : I had previously assumed that, taking into account the date of the battle of Barfleur, it took only 6 months to the Rochefort naval shipyard to build the Ambitieux II ; then I will assume (logically) that building a 1st rank ship in a so short delay needs a great amount of uniformization and standardization => then the three ships are necessarily EXTREMELY SIMILAR. => Yes indeed, a Fulminant shipmodel can be historically assumed and constructed by using Boudriot's monography + original Berain's drawings. Moreover, it seems (historically) logical to think that that Ambitieux indeed was the sister ship of Fulminant and not the contrary, due to the precedence of their respective figureheads. Jupiter prevails always (symbolically) upon Apollo !!! No doubt to have about this !!!