HAIIAPHNK

Wow! Is this all plastic? Am I wrong? I didn't know you could make something like this out of that material? It's not 3D printing, it's definitely handmade! Is this being built now? What's next? Is this going to be a diorama? I have so many questions...

Yes, it's clearly visible that the decor is made of molding rather than wood. It doesn't matter at all. The decor can be anything. It can be carved from wood, molded from plastic materials, or cast from metal. The value of the model lies in the craftsmanship. Your friend has captured the style very well. It's as if he lived in 17th century France and served as court painter to Louis. Tell me, does he have any other works? Maybe not even nautical. I would love to see the rest of his work. Sculpture, painting, drawing. If it's not a secret, of course.

I wouldn't somehow particularly single out Fulminant and Ambiteaux from the rest of the lineup of ships. They had no particular revolutionary distinctiveness. It was not yet time in France to tightly control decoration so that it did not interfere with a ship's maneuverability and speed. Budrio wrote that many ships had to remove particularly heavy statuary after going to sea. Captains tried to make their ships something that could be fought and sailed on. And disputes between captains and artists were still fought such battles under the rug. These words were said generally about the whole state of the navy, and our two heroes of history were just like the rest of the ships. It says much for the fact that the second Ambiteaux was already built with alterations, the extra guns having been removed from it, because the first did not sail well at all. And the difference in transom construction between Foudroyant and Fulminant is explained quite simply. There were no standards. Each ship was the product of an artist. The logic was: if you, as an artist, make all your ships the same, why should you get paid? If you can't come up with something new, then you're a bad designer. So they did something new every time. Something different from the rest of our colleagues. And so that you could find new things for yourself. That's all. The difference is only cosmetic. Nothing more.

Give your friend a big bow from me. I was very much influenced by his work at one time. I was very much impressed and for a long time I dreamed of making a main figure from this ship. At that time, I was doing carving on purpose in an accelerated mode in order to be on time for the Universities Cup, which is held in St. Petersburg. It was a wonderful time. To this day, this sculpture remains one of my favorites!

The question here is, what do you mean by junior officers? The lieutenants were on the lower decks. Only the captain was on the quarterdeck. The special honorable quarters could be used differently. The captain lived in one, and the other could be a wardroom for meetings and luncheons. In addition, the ship by rank could play the role of flagship in the squadron. Then there was also an admiral on it. Then one cabin was occupied by him and the other by the captain. They both had windows that looked out onto the keel. So the false windows were not so badly needed. The question about cabins could be continued. There was a period when I was concerned about another question. I counted 86 places for artillery on the model. Whereas according to different sources Fulminant and L’Ambiteaux had more than 90 guns. Further the data has a difference, according to some you can read about 92 cannons in L’Ambiteaux, and Fulminant 96 or 98, according to other data both ships had 96 pieces. And that's where to place another 10! cannons? In any case, you have to find a place somewhere aft. Which means some guns will be in the officers' quarters. Which really messes up the layout of the quarters. And there was the huge question of how to reconcile the book schematics and the lack of space for the guns. And how would that affect the appearance of the side galleries? So waiting for the historical sketches was very exciting. However, later I realized that I made a mistake in the calculation and did not take into account 4 barrels, which should have been in front, and look at the course of the ship. So it is necessary to add not 10, but 6 guns, which is already easier. The sketches clearly show that there are no cannon windows in the side galleries area. Which immediately took the extra pressure off me. At least this problem has passed me by. But cannons still need to be added somewhere, which means they'll still end up in the officers' quarters. Which would change the layout of the quarters that Budrio suggested quite a bit. You should see where and how I tried to put those extra 10 seats.... It's both funny and scary to think about now.

What are the stronger arguments? At first, it was simple. I saw a ready-made Budrio solution in front of me, just take the book schematics, change the shape and you can build. Then I was confused by this difference with curved windows and started looking for examples. I practically convinced myself that there is an embodied variant. But I could not find a hundred percent proof of it. And now I'm back where I started. Plus now I have a fairly well-reasoned opinion that the flat variant of the upper level is the only correct way.... But why are the windows there so crooked? Why didn't Beren repeat what he had already drawn on L’Ambiteaux?

You beat me to it. I was going to follow up with a post listing my doubts, but never got around to it. It's a slow process for me. I have to first formulate everything in one language, then torture the translator a few times to make translations one way and then another. And only then do I have the peace of mind that I can be understood. And then there's the selection of photos. So I've already decided to leave the continuation until another day. I also thought about the arches, for a long time could not find how to call them correctly, once met a special nautical term for this particular element, but I no longer remember it. But you beat me to it. Thank you for that. You saved my time, and I could hardly explain it the way you did. Oh, it's so hard to find the right and logical solutions. Thank you so much for participating so actively in the project. Your thoughts are very valuable! Indeed, if you combine everything drawn on two projections, modern logic fails. It is impossible to combine contradictory information. And at the end you have to conclude that the artist took liberties, embellished something or on the contrary did not mention it. But where exactly is the mistake or fiction hidden? Thinking about what arguments both versions have. To begin with, let's curl our fingers, listing the evidence in favor of the "flat version". And then immediately offer criticisms to the same assertion. 1. Ancre has some wonderful specialists. Budrio showed in the monograph exactly the flat version. And this means a lot. Criticism: The book version has discrepancies with Beren's grisaille. The decoration is not an exact repetition. Nor is the figure of the lion on the breakwater. Did Budrio have all the information on hand or was he making things up on his own? It is mentioned several times in the book that the technical description of the ship is not an exact repetition of the L’Ambiteaux, but rather an average of several sources that were brought together. How appropriate is it to rely entirely on the interpretation of this monograph? 2- The arches on the balcony. This is a valid argument indeed. Why make such a structure when there will be a side wall of a commode immediately behind it, and there is nowhere else to go on the balcony? I was looking at everything I could find for references and noticed that fully voluminous side galleries are found on relatively small ships. There yes, they made ribs in the form of curved spandrels, stitched then planked and then decorated with bas-reliefs on top. But in all cases, when the ship had balconies that wrapped around the sides I saw only a simplified flat version of the dome at the side gallery. Plus wherever there are arches, there was also an open balcony. Critique: I am not a strong connoisseur in the French school. And the fact that I haven't come across specific examples where the arches stand on a cul-de-sac may also speak to the need to look for more. Which is what I've been trying to do. Asked about building similar models at the same time. Criticism to criticism: It's fair to say that the search never led to otherwise. There is not a single case that I can cite as an example. Now let's see what arguments the volumetric dome has. I. The deliberate use of light and shadow has a special place in the sketch. The eye sees a voluminous figure. A flat design will not have such shadow patterns. Criticism: It should be clearly understood that Beren's drawings are not sketches from nature, the artist did not draw, having before his eyes a ship in the harbor. It's a kind of fantasy taken from his head. It was necessary to make a drawing that had yet to be built. And hence the drawing of light and shadow may well be taken as an inaccuracy. II. Why exactly does the sketch of the Fulminant show the distorted directions of the vertical lines? If it is not an attempt to show optical deception on a rounded volumetric form, it looks very strange. What prevented Beren from drawing even lines? This question will persist either way. Even if I settle on a flat version of the top tier, I will still have this very question hanging over me: why such curvature? Is it to preserve it on the model, or is it better to straighten the vertical lines? What was it about L’Ambiteaux that you could make it straight there, but Fulminant doesn't anymore? If I decide for some reason that it's right to do a volumetric 2 tier, I'm more likely to just ignore that curvature. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

The lion is gradually moving toward the goal. Now it is time to dock the paws.

Or am I wrong after all and there really should be a flat option there?

So, the drawings have arrived and now the huge part with coming up with the decor is solved. I now have the exact details of the decoration. But along with that came questions about the Fulminant's construction. Let's take a look at what the stern looks like on L’Ambiteaux ship. I want to draw attention to the construction of the side galleries. The upper tier with the dome is made in the form of a false overlay. The dome is flat, the window is actually an imitation. And the total thickness of the whole structure is quite small. And now let's look at the historical sketch of this ship. Here it is difficult to say for sure that the same dome is flat. And you can argue for a long time how it should have looked in reality? Flat or voluminous? On different museum exhibits one can see both fully volumetric constructions, where there are several tiers of closed balconies. And in the form of simplified flat domes, as the authors of the book decided to do. Now let's take a look at some fresh, hot drawings by Fulminant. The first thing to note is that the drawings were done in the same period. You can see that the ships were built at the same time and they were designed together and approved by the king also together. One can even combine the drawings with each other and see that in many respects they are very much the same in design. Only the decorations are different, and even then, they are made in the same style. But as for the drawings of the side galleries, they are different. Fulminant has a strange deformation in the vertical lines. The windows of the lower and upper tiers stand at different angles. And it's definitely not a defect in the scanning of the document. It's the way it was drawn. So why is the drawing different? L’Ambiteaux doesn't have this distortion. What was the artist trying to show? It seems to me that by using such distortions the artist wanted to show a volumetric dome. That both the lower tier and the upper tier were to be made in the form of closed lodges. And this is exactly what it would be more correct to do on the model. What do you think? I don't feel like doing just based on my opinions. I believe modeling should be based on correct knowledge. If it is about assembling a model ship out of the box, then there can be no claims. But serious work should be based on knowledge. And here I face the fact that book drawings will not help. It is necessary to find other information about how volume domes were properly made. For example, I have a question how should the wall on the balcony itself stand? Should it be one level line with the stern? Or at an angle? If someone has photos from museums where you can see this assembly closer, please show me. Or maybe you know threads on some forums where similar ships were built? Maybe someone has already shown how they solved this issue at their shipyard?

Decided to add this material. It's not a response to anyone's comment. And I should start by explaining the situation. This is a response from a customer from our correspondence with him. It is quite possible that for many people the content will not be something useful, as it was primarily directed to me, as a person for whom French speech and mentality is not native. And therefore not always understandable. So you can read about something that for you does not require additional explanations. In this case, let it be a small note that I leave in the topic for myself. So that in case of need, I know exactly where I can return to this material. It is much easier to lose in correspondence, there are a lot of letters, and it will be harder to find it later. Besides, the letter was translated into Russian by the author and I have to translate it again. And because of this, some nuances can be lost. So why was this letter needed, and what did I personally see the benefit in? It is absolutely logical that Latin is much more closely connected with many European languages than with Russian. Today, none of us speak this ancient language. But you may encounter words in it that have passed into your languages over time and are familiar to you. Which is much less common in my language. And the word "Fulminant" is not found in Russian in ordinary life. It may be known to doctors or physicists, in their terms this word occurs. But I'm neither a doctor nor a physicist. So I needed a translator. And that's where a little detective work begins. The translator gave me the result that in Russian the name of the ship means "lightning-fast". I'm not sure the translator translated what I was trying to say correctly. So I'll say it again, in a slightly different way. It's a word that consists of two words: zipper + carries, or "one who has zippers". But in Russian, this word is primarily used when they want to talk about very high speed. For example: this boxer has a lightning-fast reaction. That is, he reacts or attacks very quickly. Or: she answered his question with lightning speed. In short, in Russian, this word is primarily compared to the speed of lightning. And in our case, it is doubtful that the name of the ship was meant to indicate its swiftness. Such a meaning would be a mockery. A huge, clumsy giant that has the name Speed. Army humor has come up with much funnier sarcasm as well. But no one would joke like that on an official level. So the name "Fulminant" must mean something else. And if there was a connection to lightning here, it was not because of its speed, but because of its power. So the ship was saying with its name: I have a power that only the destructive power of Zeus can match. And here around the name of the ship on Russian forums began a real discussion, what exactly means the name. What the builders in the distant 17th century wanted to say, and how one could guess who should stand on the breakwater. There were so many different opinions. That was before the long-awaited sketches from the archives arrived. And that's when my customer read the arguments on the forum and sent me an explanation. Below I quote his words in full. And I really hope that the translator will do a good job (if there are grammatical or semantic errors in the text, it's not the customer's fault, but the translator's): Hi, Sasha; Fulminant means "burning flame" in Latin. I have circled all the symbols with flames in the original plan. It is interesting to note that these flames are very often elevated above the sphere. The combination of sphere and flame clearly represents a military grenade. I also took a closer look at the lions' heads: at the rear of the ship, they are indeed lions, as two protruding teeth are visible.... but on the sides (on the flanks) the figures no longer have teeth. These figures are called "fauns" or "grotesques" and are very characteristic of the rocaille style established by the naval sculptor Bérin during the reign of Louis XIV. That's the kind of writing that's going on. It was a very good addition for me. And thanks to him I now see and understand a little more. Before, I didn't pay attention to how many images of flames there are. It's even funny, I saw the small lightning bolts, but I missed the flames that were nearby. Once again I repeat that maybe for you all this was clear and well seen. But maybe you have not considered so detailed drawings, this information will be useful for you. P.S. The words in the letter about lion heads and fauns referred to specific discussions on the forum. One of the opinions concerned decorative elements on the lower tier of the aft windows. The person wondered if they were definitely lions. Maybe they are portraits of Louis 14? Such a symbol was widely used in this period. And that's what one of the panelists saw in the drawing. That would explain a little bit about why the letter said lions. It also shows how heated the debate was.

This is the moment. Got the photos of the sketches. They are published for the first time. I want to say thank you to everyone who participated and left comments. To everyone who offered their versions and helped to think over an interesting question. Because it was this discussion that made it possible to find these photos. The thing is that originally it was planned to put a ready-made figure on the breakwater. It was a very high quality sculpture, but it was very far from the meaning of this ship. So I want to say thank you to everyone. And in the end, the customer was so interested in the search that he decided to change his mind and decided that it made sense to make a new figure that would be made specifically for this model. And I want to say a big thank you to him. Thank you for being able to find these sketches. Now what's left is to make the main figure so that it's of sufficient quality. And it's worthy. I'm also very happy that it actually turned out to be Zeus. To be honest, I'm very pleased that I was able to correctly decipher the clues and guess what was actually on Fulminant. The first page in the history of this project can be considered completed. Now we can move on. Based on the new images, the design and construction of the stern ensemble can begin. Build balconies and side galleries. So that in the future it is possible to proceed to the decoration itself. So some construction time is needed to continue publishing. What else would you like to note? One mystery is solved, but there are others. And I'll voice the other riddles a little later. So I'll be glad if the communication continues.

What kind of sadistic footage is this, then? Why saw poor Gustav? I'll tell you about it It was an interesting moment for me. And it took me a long time to decide. What's the point, what is it about and why was there agony of choice? We all understand that modeling is first of all an art. We take away the models made for technical needs, different experiments. In the vast majority of cases we create images. Imitation of what exists (or existed). And like any image, ship models can be simplified. By way of another lyrical digression I will remember how once in my childhood I read somewhere in the newspaper an essay about an elderly modeler. I don't remember who they told about. I remember that the author of the article wrote that during his visit to the workshop, the elderly master mercilessly ripped off his model skin, which led the journalist in a state of horror. Why, it was beautiful as it was? The modeler replied that he had recently found information that the real sailing ship was built of a different wood. And the planking of his model turns out to be erroneous. It was not so (say from pine), and should be oak or bamboo (again conditionally). So everything will have to be redone. Modeler, in his opinion, must exactly repeat the historicity. I don't know if there was actually such a dialog or if the journalist made it all up? At that moment, in my young years, I did not see anything strange in this event. In my eyes, the elderly master was a kind of hero. He was ready to make sacrifices, to remake for the sake of historical truth. Cool! Now I realize how naive I was. I understand that a modeler can deviate from historical realities. To change by virtue of taste or idea material of plating, on tiny ships in a bottle instead of small yuphers to make drops of tinted glue. And that's fine. And I already look at the elderly craftsman with different eyes. Now I would probably first of all think about how good it is that Sensei chose a sailboat for the model and not a submarine or an icebreaker. Otherwise, all of a sudden he decided to make nuclear reactors with handfuls of plutonium. For the sake of credibility. I'd leave room for admiration, though. If a person can make a model out of oak so that in the end the fractional texture of the wood remains proportionate and does not spoil the overall appearance, then he really is a master. Isn't he? Anyway, we all choose the degree of simplification on our models. And now I am also faced with a choice, but what exactly do I want to show? To what degree do I want to go into detail? What exactly will my Gustav be like? After all, he could be the lion that was just carved. And the ship is due to be launched tomorrow. And I could leave it wooden, or I could paint it, making it look exactly as it did before I died. I can also make Gustav, who was pulled up from the bottom. With the wounds, the chips. And that's when I took a closer look at the original. The beauty of it was that you could see exactly what the structure looked like. Separate handles and legs. But that's not all. Take a look at these shots: This angle was already there last time. But now I've pointed out the seams. Here they are in the other photos: That is, in reality the figure was not one piece. The mane, the back of the head were docked in separate pieces. And where the blue arrow is placed you can see the places of chipping when part of the overlay flew off. And it's clearly visible. Here is another angle where you can see it even better: So I was wondering. What am I going to do? Would I now have to mercilessly chop down the initial figure to make it look like the historical original? The first shots with the hacksaw leave no room for intrigue - that's what I did. But at the same time, I didn't. What's that? I removed the top of the head completely. I glued an implant in its place, and then brought it to the right condition. I didn't saw off the sides and the mane. Halfway through I examined everything and decided that I would do it simpler. It is not necessary to cut everything completely to simulate seams. The thickness of the cut is thin enough that it looks just like the original. If I cut it off completely and glue it on, the gap will be gone. Do I have to do that? No. So I started looking at other angles. I looked to see if I could see the gap everywhere. Logically, it should look different. In some places, the extra pieces fit closely together and there's no gap at all. And somewhere it is already very visible. That's what I tried to repeat. This is a story about making it.

I have a very important message! Thanks to Russian and Ukrainian modelers and a similar topic on the Russian forum found data, which revealed that sketches for the Fulminant exist. They were created in the 17th century to coordinate with Louis 14 to build a new ship. Moreover, they were preserved and registered in the French archive. And it was these very registration numbers that were found. And the customer made a request for these sketches. We've already received a reply from the archive. They said that they will satisfy this request. Moreover, it turned out that since the 17th century no one has touched these sheets. I'm sitting here imagining that the last time Louis saw these drawings. It's a joke, of course, but it's close to the truth. So very soon I will be able to see what I have been thinking about and trying to imagine. What is really there? Have we collectively deciphered the available data correctly or not? Is there a Zeus or a lion or something else? So now we just have to wait a little longer. I really hope it all works out. There are fears and worries that over such a long period of time the sheets with sketches have deteriorated and it will be impossible to use them. I realize that working with archives is not something unique. That this is the norm. But for me this moment is unique.

What gorgeous drawings! Thank you! They are exactly the basis for seeing the very problem I have in front of me. So much of the documentation allows only a vague definition of the decor. You can see that there is a lion on the breakwater, but it is very vague. In fact, the execution according to the sketches is a complete interpretation, one's own decision, a personal variant. Which is also quite acceptable and very interesting. For this purpose, I search in other kinds of art, such as sculpture or architecture. I don't think that in this respect the ship's image of a lion will be in strong contradiction to the lions that can be found in castles or other buildings. The merlion image (combining lion and fish, lion mermaid) is very interesting. I will definitely have one of these lions in my collection. So far I have plans to make a Danish lion in this style. But it is still ahead, there is time for thinking.

This is by no means a complaint. I understood exactly what you were trying to say. Any language has its own nuances and different words are perceived differently in different countries. I know that my English is very weak. And I can only communicate through an interpreter. Which means I can't be sure exactly how it translates my words. And I want to warn you in advance, so that I don't get into an awkward situation. P.S. You should have seen what a battle was formed on the Russian forum just around the very name Fulminant. This word in Russian is not used in ordinary life, and literal translation can convey several completely different meanings. And even between people speaking the same language there are cases when there are misunderstandings and everyone sees different meanings in one word. I am very glad that you are helping to understand this topic.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the lion. Stylistically, it is reminiscent of the French school. You suggested it as an option for the French lion? Is that correct? I am indeed looking for good references for such a lion. It won't be started for a while yet, but the search should be done now. I think I mentioned in another thread about Fulminant that French lions are not so easy to deal with. Perhaps you decided to share after that. To clarify a bit. I have some number of sketches where you can see what lions looked like in France in the 17th century. That said, not many models at all where you can see what they looked like already as a finished figure. The French school of drawing is very progressive. And French lions are a very correct depiction of these animals. And next to the others there is a very big difference. And you want to find something more similar, so that the French version is a little... how can I put it? Scary. Or funny. Even at the Paris Maritime Museum, I couldn't find a perfect one. So if anyone has good photos of French ship models, which can be used as a guide, I would be grateful for such hints.

I decided to make a small addition, it’s on a completely different topic. When I translated the last post and began to read it, I involuntarily smiled. And I noticed this sentence: The fact is that the translator conscientiously translated this word and it amused me. The fact is that the literal translation means this: or that: And I immediately thought what the rest are reading when I write. It is clearly noticeable that I am unable to communicate in short phrases. And to get my point across, I need to write a lot of text. This means that it may end up containing a lot of not very correct words and expressions. So I apologize if I am difficult to read and sometimes some sentences may be strange or funny. This is not on purpose.

As for the lion figure seen in the book, that's a separate issue. It is interesting to understand the reason for this decision. In "The Ships of Trouville" it was said that the figure of the lion as the main decoration of the ship was a decision that looked one hundred percent correct. And there wasn't even any discussion or debate about it. It didn't even have any other competitors. You could say that the lion passed without any exams or interviews. Which is already curious. So why did it happen this way? After all, we now have documents that clearly show exactly what stood on the breakwater at L’Ambiteaux. And it wasn't a lion. So the authors didn't have access to these sketches when the book was written? Because otherwise they would have just put the winged figure there. What could be the reason? When I read the book, it said in a separate thought that they wanted to dedicate the book to a number of ships created under Louis. And the authors wanted to create a certain general image of the entire 1st rank. However, this task was impossible, or practically impossible. Simply because it is a classic modern man's desire. We live in a world in which we ourselves have divided everything into standards, clear boundaries and regulations. It is natural for us to perceive the world in this way. We do not know any other way. Or we perceive the other as chaos. And in the 17th century (and later too) everything was different. And there was no clear standard. Different ships of the same class or rank were only united by approximately the same amount of artillery. And that was arbitrary. The authors spent a lot of effort and time to find and study a whole library of data on different ships and came to the conclusion that they have undertaken an impossible task. In the end, they decided to combine the most common solutions somehow. That's how their L’Ambiteaux came to be. He was a model assembly. Which can already be called a victory. As a result, we can look at a whole class based on one ship. But at the same time, the decision that the authors made was also a disadvantage, because the L’Ambiteaux is not an exact copy of its historical original. Now I will try to connect everything written with the question about the lion. Perhaps the avalanche of various questions and problems was so great that the authors were simply busy with much more significant decisions. And when they came to the question of decoration, they simply did not have enough diligence for this minor nuance. And if we also take into account that they did not find historical sketches, then everything falls into place. We are essentially in the same condition. We don't know what was actually done and are trying to use logical thinking to find an alternative solution. And it's even easier for us. In the case of Fulminant, everything is (I think) more obvious. One way or another everything revolves around lightning, force, power, etc. And with L’Ambiteaux, things are far from that obvious. Ambition can represent a lot of things. Including Mufasa fits under this symbol ;-)))). Or maybe it was for a different reason? Maybe, since the whole Ambition was prefabricated, its decor was also made as a kind of generalization? I don't know the exact answer. And I can only guess. In any case, I am very grateful to the authors of the book that I can now read about ships of that era. I can clearly see the comparisons. And even have ready drawings on which I can safely start building a model. I am also very grateful to the craftsmen, who are not just "blindly" building on the basis of the drawings, but have also done their own research and made adjustments, which undoubtedly improved the ship. When I saw this beautiful winged sculpture for the first time, I had a dream to try to carve something similar one day. It came true and now I am pursuing it, and I very much hope to be able to make another figure as well, which is the closest relative to L’Ambiteaux.

I'm doing a lot of thinking and trying to draw what the main figure on Fulminant might look like. But there is no way I can go further than the figure of Zeus. I can't manage to replace his figure with other objects. You very correctly wrote that the ships built during this period had names that were meant to glorify Louis 14. He was a personality who was very fond of himself and was vain. So there must be something very high-minded and pompous on the Fulminant's breakwater. As much as I fantasize, I'm not very good at coming up with a replacement equal to Zeus. The only thing I can think of is an eagle. He can be shown sitting on a cloud and have lightning bolts around him. You can make him guarding a shield with lilies. This is the only version that comes to my mind. But I don't see that it's the perfect version myself. It loses out to Zeus. The eagle is still only a secondary character, he can't be an equal substitute for Zeus. Yes, if I remember myths, Zeus himself took the form of birds, you can look for information whether he turned into an eagle. But even if I find exact confirmations of this version, still I cannot say that it can be better than Zeus himself. The eagle as a symbol is more suitable for Bonaparte, he had a predilection for these birds. But Louis? I don't know. I'm not sure. Yeah, it's a powerful and predatory bird. Yes, it has an ancient past, and the Romans used eagles as a symbol of their power. And Louis could compare himself to the emperors of the past, imply that he was their equal, all the rulers of the day did. Yes, the eagle can be connected logically with Zeus, because we can not go far from this image. But still, I do not believe that there could be an eagle there. Zeus is much better! Logically, that's who should be there. And just like on the Ambitious he should be a waist-high figure, and below that turn into an ornament. Ah, if I had the chance to see what was really there? Could the artist and author of this ship's decorations have found a better way than Zeus? And if Zeus is there, does that mean there could be just one human figure, which is not supported by such an image anywhere else? My eyes are already rippling with hundreds and thousands of drawings of different ships. I can't find strong enough evidence. And it's driving me crazy. I guess I'll settle on the Zeus. I can't think of anything better. I'm not fit to be Louis' court painter.

Thank you so much for participating. Fresh thoughts from the outside help a lot. And you have a beautiful thought. However, here it is important to remember the laws, according to which all the decor on the stern is built. The higher it is, the more significant the place. Above the aft windows is the most important place where the central figure is placed. Below and on the edges of it will be placed simpler figures. For example, these are the companions of the main figure or allegories that reveal the story encoded in the overall ensemble. And the very bottom is filled with simple decorations. These are either patterns or some wildlife, which is quite insignificant. At times, defeated enemies or those who are prey were placed there. As in the case of L’Ambiteaux, the lowest creature there is a fish. In the case of the Fulminant, the eagle is Zeus' companion, his companion. And to place it at the very bottom would be tantamount to an insult. If you pay attention to the sketch of Fulminant, it is already drawn in what style the artist thought. It's ornamental... I don't know how to spell the word to make it clear. Let it be something like a flower cachepot decorated with stylized vegetation. It is a complement to the upper corner elements. There's something like columns. I think these "cachepots" are the lower hemispheres of the side galleries. So at least there are no additional questions about that. And there are enough of them with the side galleries. I will develop this theme a little later.

Yes, you're right. It's a challenge. When you want to do it right and not just do something like this. then you have to look for sources, look at analogies and prove (at least to yourself) that this is logical and justified, and this is not. Indeed, the closest example to search for is L'AMBITIEUX. But there are many nuances to be considered in this monograph as well. And since we are talking about this twin ship, I will voice one more mystery: There is a winged figure on the breakwater of the L'AMBITIEUX. Let's call it an Angel. And if we look at the whole ensemble of decorations of this ship we can notice that human figures are found in other places. There are also human characters on the stern. All in harmony. But if we look at the Fulminant, the only thing that can be used as a graphic art document, we see one important difference! There are no human figures on the entire stern, not once and nowhere. Any "living" characters we can discern are eagles. And the lion heads on the balcony railing. And the question arises: can there be a human figure on the breakwater if it is not supported by similar figures anywhere else? How logical and correct would it be? Has it been done this way? And if there should be something else there, then what could it be? After all, any other figure immediately ruins the whole logical chain. How to show the main lightning wielder without showing him himself? Should we put an eagle? Or something ornamental, for example something like a shield with a coat of arms, like Marcel's. This is such an aesthetic and logical conundrum. I'll mention the rest later, or I'll drown in questions. Anybody have any thoughts?

Yes, exactly. But it's not that simple. There's another mystery here.

Yes, you're probably right. Indeed, if the head will be spoiled, it is already necessary to take a new blank. I have not thought about it, but it is impossible to do otherwise.

Yes, you're right. Any work is an interpretation of a particular person, a particular master. When making this lion, I had the opportunity to take a closer look at exactly what was actually on the ship. When you make a work based on drawings, it looks very different. There, it's about 70% personal fantasy. But here I had the opportunity to go the other way and try to make a copy. In my mind, I could follow the same path that the carvers in Stockholm once did. I couldn't miss this opportunity. Plus I like to share not just the result, but the process. For example, when we eat, we get more satisfaction from the process itself, not from being full at the end. I have different emotions and thoughts while carving. And it is more interesting for me to show what happened during the work. To describe the thoughts that arose at that moment. In some cases it was fear and anxiety, and in some cases it was joy or surprise at the discovery. I think it's more interesting that way. And for me to show. And for others to watch. Maybe it will be of practical use to someone.