Soleil Royal by Hubac's Historian - Heller - An Extensive Modification and Partial Scratch-Build

[druxey]

Some very fine cutting and shaping for that balustrade.

[FriedClams]

Beautiful work Marc!

 

Gary

[Chapman]

Hello Marc,

As always, your model is making great progress.
Here is a link to a well-known image of a French first rate. The information about the print is particularly interesting here.

Quote

CURATOR'S NOTES: (Martha R. Wyatt, March 2001) Henri Sbonski de Passebon & Claude Randon. Plan de Plusieurs Batiments de Mer avec leurs Proportions. De Passebon was a Lieutenant in the French Navy during Louis XIV's reign and this work was commissioned and dedicated to Louis Auguste de Bourbon (Lieutenant General of the French Army and Navy in the Levant). The extremely well executed plates depict both French and Turkish Naval and trade vessels found in the Levant at that time.

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you all for the likes and the kind comments.  Chapman, yes, this print has been quite fascinating to me.  I suspect that it is directly connected to or derived from the “Gilded Ghost” portrait.  While this engraving is often labeled Soleil Royal, there is not enough specifically detailed information to make that connection.  The only detail that seems to hint at this possibility is the figurehead.

 

What is more interesting is the caption note that explains that this is a Levant fleet ship, which would make it more likely a representation of the Royal Louis.  In any case, I like the crossed fish tail ornaments on the upper bulwarks, and I will attempt to incorporate this idea into my decor for the SR 1670 project.

 

This weekend, I painted and installed the upper balcony support pillars:

I definitely think that beefing these up was a good idea.

 

I also finally managed to glue-in the starboard headrail.  Before doing so, I decided to add  a small support that attaches to the middle main wale.  This is a small detail that I have observed on various models and portraits:

I had an extra pair of cathead supports, so I used these to fashion these small supports:

I like the continuity of this small addition, as now all of the ornamental pilasters of the headrails are supported.  It is well in keeping with the spirit of the kitbash.

 

Now, I can prepare the figure carvings that are placed just aft of the headrails, and which bridge the bellflower garland between the main deck guns and the headrails:

Prior to installation, I pad the backs of these carvings so that the carving can seat just above the drift rails:

Little by little, we are getting there.  There is a  continual process of paint-retouches and weathering that is happening simultaneously. Next, I’ll secure the port headrails, so that I can fill-in the intermediary headrail support timbers and begin filling-in the head grating.

 

Thank you for looking in.

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Hubac's Historian

[druxey]

Looking better and better!

[FriedClams]

Very, very nice as usual, Marc.

 

Gary

[Kevin]

lovely to catch up on your log, stunning work

[Hubac's Historian]

I am less than a week away from our trip to Paris, and then the North East Joint Clubs Meeting is shortly around the corner, once I return.  My objective, before the show, was to get the head fully together and re-touched, as well as the upper balcony level.  Well, I’m not going to cross that threshold before April 29th.

 

There were a number of competing priorities, throughout March, and I just couldn’t find the time I needed to make that happen.  I say all of this in the event that even one of you had hoped to see the model in New London.  I’ve decided not to bring it because these areas at the bow and stern will remain too un-finished looking for display.

 

These also happen to be particularly challenging areas of the model to bring together.  I am satisfied enough with the balcony bulwark parts that I made:

Fitting the end pieces to the model required some tricky cutting-in to the outside window pilasters.  You can see that the sill moulding for the window tier extends fully to the ship’s sides:

The rebate has to accommodate both the end piece and the 1/16” caprail that I have yet to make:

It’s a slow and winding business that necessitates painting in stages.  One thing that was a little surprising to me is that the fore and aft depth of my middle and upper balconies is significantly more shallow than the stock kit:

Thinking about my process, I realized that I had made a design decision, earlier, when I was figuring out the middle balcony; I realized there would be limits to the degree to which I could bend the posture of the Four Seasons figures, so that they could stretch from the now “false” lower balcony to support the projection of the middle balcony.  By necessity, then, the middle balcony determined the depth of the upper balcony.  Proportionally, I am not displeased by the more shallow depth.

 

One failed experiment had to do with the bow angels that seat just behind the headrails.  I used a combination of C/A and liquid plastic cement to secure the headrails.  Before glue, though, I had dry-clamped each headrail in-place for several days, in order to better induce the shapes and relieve unwanted stress on the subsequent glue joint.

 

Now, bear in-mind that I am fully aware these headrails should be flat.  The design of the kit figurehead, in combination with my widening of the bow, does not allow for any reasonable projection of the aft escutcheon of each headrail.  The gap you see on Frolich’s model, below, would have been more than double on mine:

photo, courtesy of Marc Yeu

 

With such a distracting projection away from the forecastle bulwarks, these escutcheons would have looked like jug ears.  In consideration of that, I decided it was better to perpetuate the in-accuracy of the stock headrails, which are also rounded to seat up close to the hull.

 

In an attempt to distribute any remaining stresses across a broader glue surface, I thought I could literally pin those escutcheon ears down with the bow angel carvings:

Unfortunately, one must drill for these pins at the precise depth and angle.  This proved quite difficult to do with the headrails already in-place, and the result of my attempt was that the carving did not lay flat against the ship’s side.  Forcing it to do so would have, in fact, introduced additional lever strain on the headrail glue joint.  Consequently, I ground the pins away, filled the holes and simply glued the bow angels in-place.  I’ll post pictures of all of that once the re-touching is complete.

 

The other surprising thing to me was just how much shimming was necessary for the other remaining headrail supports, now that both headrails were fixed in-place.  In hindsight, it would have been much wiser to pattern these supports after the headrails had been installed.  Instead, I had attempted to dry-fit them one side at a time.  Using this approach, though, I could only eyeball the centerline, and only poorly at that!  Just look at all the plastic I’ve added back to these parts:

Finally, though, I can do the necessary touch-ups and glue these in-place.

 

One part that could only be made once the headrails were installed was the forward terminus of the headrail grating.  In the stock kit, Heller provides a mostly flat headrail grating, the forward end of which rests on a small ledge just behind the figurehead.

 

As an upgrade, I want to create a new headrail grating that is both cambered, athwartships, and that follows the upward sweeping arc of the headrails.  This is a tricky piece to make and fit.

 

I seem to have lost the picture of the cardboard template I had made to start this part, but I transferred that pattern to a piece of 1/16” styrene.  In my first attempt, I tried to muscle a bend into the part, but it snapped.  On the second attempt, I used an open candle flame to soften the plastic so that I could easily induce this curve:

There was some melty distortion, at the edges, that was removed during the fitting and shaping process.  As I had with the pattern, I temporarily CA’d a handle to the part for ease of fitting in this tight area.  Once I had a perfect fit, I glued a piece of 1/8” square stock to the forward end so that I could shape a neat bullnose that transitions into the knee of the head:

You can also see the thinner stock that I glued to the aft end, on the under side, to create a ledge for the grating slats.  To finish off the piece, I filed a gentle camber into the top surface of the part, which is now ready for paint and installation:

And so, it is a lot of fiddling around to make this imperfect geometry coalesce into something that looks purposeful and a reasonable facsimile of a ship’s head structure.

 

If I were starting this whole project all over again, one thing I would definitely do would be to fabricate a continuation of the middle battery planking past the beakhead bulkhead, in a downward tapering arc towards the stem.  By the time I realized this was actually a feature of French practice, it was too late to incorporate the detail.

 

Thank you for the likes, comments and for looking-in.  When I next return, later in May, I will have some nice finished pictures of the head.  Until then, be well!

Edited April 9, 2023 by Hubac's Historian

[Ian_Grant]

Ah, j'adore Paris! Bonne journee!

[yancovitch]

moi aussi.....mais il a été beaucoup des annees...such beautiful work........as always

 

[druxey]

Not bringing the model to New London? Je suis désolé!

[yancovitch]

people really should see it.....who cares about the unfinished parts.....

i could have tried to sell my models online.....but a model just doesn't look like much in a photo, compared to seeing it in real life.......live......the model actually comes to life...........

[md1400cs]

Marc,

such superlative work.

 

PS: Enjoy my birth city  😍

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you guys for the well-wishes and kind words.

 

Michael - up until what age did you live in Paris?  This trip is a last hurrah for my father, who fell in love with the city while stationed there from 1957-‘59.  At 88, there is not much remaining of my father’s mind and memories, but we are hopeful that the experience of being back there will re-awaken something inside him.

 

C’est la vie.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Hubac's Historian

[druxey]

That will be a bitter-sweet experience, for sure, Marc.

[mtaylor]

Have a safe and hopefully a memorable trip and in a good way,  Marc.  Family first .

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you, Mark!

[Hubac's Historian]

My visit to the INHA, National Library of France was interesting, if not as directly productive as I had hoped.

 

One thing that I was able to request and look at in the fantastic oval reading room was Le Chevalier de Tourville, the Boudriot monograph of the proposed 1680 First-Rate L’Ambiteaux.  It is an impressively documented project and a beautifully hand-drawn monograph.  The plans, in 1:48, give a strong impression of just how large a model one can produce from this set.  Even at 1:72, one needs a slipway to launch such a behemoth.

 

There were a few new plates of interest in the monograph that I hadn’t seen before:

 

Belle Viue is the same Brest sculptor and draftsman responsible for the following drawing of the highly fascinating Souverain of 1678:

As an added bonus, the following is the best and clearest image I have yet seen of the RL of 1692:

While I was really only skimming the monograph, in the interest of limited time (I had a 3 hour window that I stretched to 4), I will say that I was fascinated by Boudriot’s skepticism of the VdV drawings of La Reyne, with specific regard to the sheer and placement of the artillery.  Perhaps this is my personal failing in that I imbue the work of the VdV’s with a degree of photo-realism only paralleled by Puget for these times.  All I can say for sure is that I am no expert.

 

My primary objective for this visit was to see whether there were any catalogued references to the “Gilded Ghost” portrait:

Unfortunately, an image search produced no direct result.  Upon walking amongst the stacks, I realized that I happened to be in a room divided between artists both pre and post 1845.  And so, I did what I usually do when I visit the STRAND bookstore in NYC; I went in search of my coterie of famous French artists, sculptors and Dutch Master marine artists.

 

And so, I skimmed through the six books in the stacks for Charles LeBrun, the four for Antoine Coysevox, the six for Puget.  There was nothing in the stacks for Van Beecq.  Regrettably, I did not think to look for Francois Girardon.

 

Only the works on Puget made any specific pictorial reference to his work at the arsenal at Toulon; not much there that I hadn’t seen before.  But, then I found the three volume Robinson set on the Van de Veldes.  Again, if I had more time, I could probably have pulled more, but following are a number of fascinating portraits that help clarify things I couldn’t see clearly before.

 

For example, this whisper of a portrait:

Appears to have very much in-common with this portrait:

They do not appear to be the same vessel, but perhaps the same type of Second-Rate - that of the “interrupted” third deck (an un-armed and open waist).  Other corollaries:

I have never seen the following two before:

The boutielle, below seems out of proportion, but it is nonetheless fascinating:

 

Here is one of the early Holland-built ships of the 1660’s:

Fantastic detail!

 

A different perspective and fascinating study of La Royal Therese:

And then, of course, there were quite a number of fascinating studies of famous English ships.  SR’s early rival, the Royal Charles:

The London:

A particularly interesting re-fit of the Royal Sovereign:

And, a perhaps conjectural ship:

At least I can say there may be sound artistic precedent for pulling a ship out of thin air!

 

All interesting to me, and so the journey through Paris and maritime history continues!  Dad is having a great time, despite the expected travel exhaustion of his 88 years.

 

More to follow, and thank you for looking-in.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Hubac's Historian

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  'Love that 1692 RL drawing showing just main and topsails on the fore and main masts.  The flagstaffs above the topsails are short and spindly enough that they could (if they ever were so fitted) only handle the puniest of top gallants (which I doubt).  I saw a representation of the 1628 Vasa (aka Wasa) similarly rigged, which gives me a reason to try and finish the one I'm working on in that manner.  Given that Vasa was krank from the outset (perhaps the reason that a forecastle deck was not installed due the weight it would have added with ordinance), the 1692 RL configuration seems more likely.

[Hubac's Historian]

As I prepare for our special dinner at Lasserre, a thought occurred to me in the shower:

 

There is a strong possibility that I will never find the “Gilded Ghost” portrait, and even should I be so fortunate - I will still be making broad leaps of inductive reasoning and artistic license.

 

My mother, as long as she lived, always called my daughter her “Shining Star,” and Mairead certainly is every part of that.

 

I try to remain mindful and sensitive to the true historians and arsenal modelers of the world, and that is why I think I may rename my conjectural SR 1670 project: “L’Etoille Brillant, a Conjectural Construction of a French First-Rate, Circa 1670”.  This would be in honor of both my mother and daughter and in keeping with a time-honored tradition of naming beautiful ships after beautiful women.

 

The name would also be a loose reference to it’s inspiration, Le Soleil Royal - the most brilliant star we can understand on this earth.

 

It’s just a thought, but I think there is some sense in that.

[druxey]

Nice reasoning - do your best ideas come to you in the shower? (This question need not be answered!)

[Hubac's Historian]

4 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  'Love that 1692 RL drawing showing just main and topsails on the fore and main masts.  The flagstaffs above the topsails are short and spindly enough that they could (if they ever were so fitted) only handle the puniest of top gallants (which I doubt).  I saw a representation of the 1628 Vasa (aka Wasa) similarly rigged, which gives me a reason to try and finish the one I'm working on in that manner.  Given that Vasa was krank from the outset (perhaps the reason that a forecastle deck was not installed due the weight it would have added with ordinance), the 1692 RL configuration seems more likely.

Wow - SHJ, this is a fascinating observation and one that I hadn’t picked up on before.  There is no representation of a tiny t’gallant top and corresponding doubling with the flagstaff.  I’m not sure what to make of that, other than - WOW!

 

Good eye! 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  I was perusing 17th century warships and came across the wreck of the HMS Glouster (built 1652, wrecked 1682) recently located and now a protected site.   A painting shows the same course plus topsail configuration I was talking about.

 

[Hubac's Historian]

It does seem to be the case that warships ready for action only tended to carry main and topsails - the t’gallants shortened or removed for action, and usually the main sail furled to avoid sparking fire in the rigging.  I suppose the rationale had partly to do with a diversion of manpower (necessary) to manage the t’gallants, as well as the safety issue of more top-hamper crashing down and having to be cleared after a dismasting.

[John Ott]

Many thanks, Marc, for the treasure trove of drawings you posted. Your log continues to be a delight.

Back in January, planning my own Heller SR build, I grew frustrated at not having a reliable period rendering of the original 1669 ship, so I took Van de Velde's drawing of La Reine and "edited" it, figuring that the two back-to-back 1669 Laurent Hubac ships wouldn't have been that much different in looks (La Reine was about 10 ft. shorter, but had the same gun layout). I thought that if I could see a decent representation of the original ship, it might spark some inspiration. Long story short—it didn't. I opted for a simpler SR build (now in progress).

Hope you truly enjoyed France.

 

John O

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Wow, John-O!  You have truly blown my mind here with a masterful job of photo-editing; somehow you have taken a barely more than 2-dimensional Berain stern drawing, in plan view, and made a fully 3-D perspective drawing.  And you are pretty close to my own thinking on this subject.  I hope you don’t mind that I have screen-shotted your drawing for the sake of an over/under comparison:

One can see on the LR drawing that just to either side of the tafferal carving - the Arms of France - are two small arched port windows that correspond with two of the same ports at the quarters.  You are quite correct, in my view, to shorten LR’s tafferal from the bottom, so that you can introduce the upper tier of 6 stern lights for SR.

 

One gentle critique I’ll offer is that in manipulating the Berain drawing, the height of this upper balcony tier is a little too far reduced to make it practical; for a man of the times standing on this balcony, the cap rail might only reach mid-thigh.  See what I mean, comparatively, in plan view:

The height of the upper balcony bulwark is slightly reduced from that of the middle balcony, but not by half.

 

If you were to nudge that upper balcony rail upwards by an additional scale thickness of caprail - a highly imprecise measure, if there ever was one - you would arrive at a scale impression that at least looks more right to the eye.  This incremental increase should also be transferred to the top of that upper window tier so that it is just a little more closely aligned with the quarter port openings.  Right now, my eye reads that upper tier of lights as being just a bit lower than they should be.

 

”But Marc,” you might be saying to yourself right now, “that reduces the tafferal height for the big carving of Apollo and his quadriga.  WTF, man, don’t mess me up like that!”  You probably aren’t saying that exactly, John, but I like to amuse myself 😏

 

Okay, so, here are my thoughts on LR’s tafferal height.  By the time the VdVs are sketching the French fleet in 1673, it is reasonably likely that LR’s original sheer height of stern had been reduced, somewhat, to comply with the new Reglements of 1671.  Alterations to the height of stern and previously top-heavy ornamental figures were undertaken for the ships that were to be part of the allied French/English fleet.

 

The French did not wish to embarrass themselves in the eyes of the English, whom they were studying closely, in order to improve their own construction measures and proportions.  It is the particular observations of Tourville, Etienne Hubac and Seignelay while boarding and taking principal measurements of The Royal Charles in late 1672 that ultimately results in the comparative study between the RC and SR, presented to the construction councils in December of 1672.  As flagship, I think it likely that LR’s height and ornamental program would have been reduced to comply.

 

However, La Reyne was a commissioned warship, while Soleil Royal remained a symbolic beacon, at anchor, on the Penfeld.  There may not have been any immediate urgency for razee’ing her deadworks to comply with the Reglement of 1671, and it is known that her ornamental program, at the very least, took into account the failures and excesses of the Royal Louis of 1668; while SR still has large rounded figure carvings, they have been hollowed-out to reduce weight.

 

In consideration of your drawing, I think it is reasonable to raise the reverse-curve coronation a few scale feet (perhaps by the same height of the band of astrological symbols), in order to represent this higher sheer height of the earliest constructions (1667-1670), and to give more room to Apollo’s quadriga.  I suspect the overall impression of sheer height would have been quite similar or the same as that of the Monarque:

I also think that the shape and projection of the lower and middle balconies would have followed more closely what you see on the Monarque, or the refit Dauphin Royal (below in blue) but that the lower balcony was probably already a mere vestigial “shelf” for the Four Seasons figures.

 

Now, with regard to the number of stern lights that may have been present on the earliest ships, there does seem to be enough corroborating evidence among the Monarque, the RL and the Dauphin Royal to suggest seven windows between quarters.

 

The RL of 1668, as perhaps roughly sketched by LeBrun or Girardon:

 

A more finished version of the same:

And the DR:

That is conjecture, on my part, but there is some concrete reference to this possibility, in the form of the survey drawing of the original grand council chamber ceiling in May of 1688:

There are what appear to be five full window openings, bracketed by two half-lights at the extremities for a total of seven.

 

One exercise in drawing and proportion that I have not yet gotten to is to map out the stern widths at each level, which are also known and recorded from this same 1688 survey.  That might provide a reasonable guide of the ship’s degree of tumblehome at the stern, and ultimately may suggest whether it was possible or even likely to continue two additional upper tiers of seven stern lights.

 

It may be the case, though, that there is a reduction from seven on the lowest tier, with five full and two blank-panel reliefs on the middle tier, and five full on the top tier that are book-ended by ornamental pilasters.

 

If it is possible to cary seven at each level, I like very much what Tony Devroude arrived at for the framing of his DR of 1668:

(NRJ Vol. 55, No. 3, Fall 2010)

 

As for the particular ornamental differences between the original SR allegory, suggested by LeBrun and perfected by Puget, I am fascinated by the following excerpt from:

 

Sur la vie et les oeuvres de P. Puget , par D.-M.-J. Henry,...
Author : Henry, Dominique-Marie-Joseph (1778-1850). Auteur du texte
Publisher : impr. de E. Aurel (Toulon)
Publication date : 1853

 

…The stern of the Royal Sun, whose decoration is also due to the pencil of Puget, seems to testify to the account held by this artist of the need to restrict the extent of decoration. In the design of this new vessel the upper gallery, that is to say, the one which in the other vessel culminates in the coronation, is suppressed, and the figures are less gigantic. The vault
it is a duty and a real pleasure to express to this laborious writer all my gratitude for the obliging competition which he has kindly lent me by searching, in the archives of the Ministry of the Navy, the documents which could not be furnished to me by the archives of the port of Toulon, and sending me textually a copy of the various pieces of Colbert's official correspondence which I use in this work.
38 ON LIFE AND WORKS
other ornament than simple moldings and a mascaron to cover the opening of the jaumière. To this seems to be reduced the apparent modification made in the profusion of ornamental riches, the composition of the painting always retaining a great and noble character. It may be, however, that the absence of ornaments in the vault was less akin to the modification demanded by the minister, than to the quality of the vessel, which being of second rank did not admit so much luxury of decoration. The area that bears the name of the vessel, covered with beautiful arabesques, is, at the Sun Royal, supported by four baths indicating the seasons that the star of the day shares in its annual race, because it must be noted, everything is allegorical in the decoration of this building whose name itself alluded to the young monarch. The succession of seasons begins with the left, where winter is represented under the appearance of an old man wrapped in a drapery covering his head and body; the other three seasons are graceful figures of women carrying on their heads a basket full of flowers or fruits that characterize them. The gallery extends from one end of the stern to the other, and its two extremities serve as the seat of two beautiful figures representing warriors of lesser proportions than those of the first vessel. These warriors, whose defensive armor differs as well as attitude, still refer to the two great regions that the sun illuminates. The east, on the starboard side, had its helmet adorned with floating ostrich feathers, while the crest of the port warrior, composed of feathers of other birds, formed a broad plume framing with great taste all the top of the head . With the hands of the two hands, which were near the ship, on the cornice of the gallery, which served as their seat, both of them held up the arm on the opposite side, so that the hand served as support.
P. PUGET. 39
next to the top of the board. These sides are formed of an inverted console whose notch accommodated at the reentrant part of the flanks of the building, at the height of the second battery. A bust of a woman carrying on the head a basket of flowers for one, fruit for the other, comes out of the small winding of these consoles. The great bas-relief, left blank in the project of decoration of the first vessel, but drawn in this one which had already received its name, represents the young king under the figure of Phoebus, driving his chariot harnessed of the four mythological horses launched at a gallop, and in the ancient style, that is to say, thrown two on the right and two on the left. The coronation of this beautiful stern, of better taste than that of the other vessel, is formed by two figures of women seated with their legs extended along the very slightly arched border of this coronation, and turned on their hips so to present face all the upper body. Their costume still indicates in them the symbol of the East and the West. Nobly draped one by one, the figure of the west holds in his right hand a long scepter leaning on his shoulder, while in front of her, at her feet, a horse with a bristling, floating mane, with her head held high, her mouth open, and her nostrils wide, looks at her, neighing. To starboard, the symbol of the east carelessly holds in its hands, in front of it, a vase from which rises a plant apparently indicating that of perfumes. At the foot of this figure and symmetrically with that of the opposite side, is lying a tiger that a necklace passed around his neck seems to show as tame and submissive animal. This remarkable composition is, as we see, only an ingenious flattery by which Puget celebrated in his own way the glory of the young monarch, who at the same time dominates the East and the West, the East by the establishment created or
40 ON LIFE AND WORKS
encouraged, (1) the West by the power of its weapons, and making its domination accept with love. An immense royal crown placed between the two symbolic figures, in the middle of the arch of the coronation, serves as a support for the only stern lantern. As in the other vessel, the whole surface of the painting is still noticeable by the profusion of details of the accessory ornamentation: L-stamped cartridges, crisscrossed, faces of radiant sun, fleur-de-lis medallions, strips of lambrequins between all the carvings of which is showing a fleur de lys, and this.
The design of the Sun-Royal still bears, as we see, several great figures; that was splendor, brilliancy, magnificence, it flattered the vanity of the king, who was as dazzled by sumptuousness as by victory, and Colbert, whatever his conviction, was not a man to be opposed to. his master on this article: the large figures, a little modified as to size, were still tolerated despite the formal disapproval of sailors, despite their incessant claims. However, Puget, in order to remove the inconvenience of too great a weight, had decided to hollow out as much as possible these masses of wood, as we see by those of those figures which still remain. Ten years had elapsed in this sort of struggle since the great minister had engaged the great artist to diminish the proportions of these ornaments, when the Sun-Royal received the decoration which I have just described. As this sculpture work was executed in Brest and that this port lacked or (1)…
———

 

Among the notable differences are that the “vault,” or area above the stern chase ports and below the stern counter is relatively plain.  The Four Seasons figures are all female, with the exception of Winter.  There is the suggestion that the “warrior” figures of Africa and The Americas are male, and that they are seated upon the extremities of the middle balcony rail; this detail differs from Berain’s re-working of the design in 1689, in that Berain has these two figures perched above pass-through archways on the upper balcony tier.  I think the warrior figures seated on the middle balcony rail is actually what is being vaguely suggested in the Gilded Ghost portrait:

And more concretely confirmed by the RL and Monarque drawings, above.

 

One notable similarity is what appears to be the quarter pieces that support the side lanterns in Berain’s drawing.  Contradictorily, though, the author describes only a large central lantern for this early version of SR, which he suggests is of a lesser rank.  Frankly, this seems just wrong because as the principal ship of the Ponant (Atlantic) fleet, SR would always have been a first-rank ship with three stern lanterns.

 

The other truly fascinating difference is the “docile” tiger at the feet of the East, as opposed to Berain’s Camel.  I can only project that, if this was indeed Puget’s original design, perhaps Berain did not like the A-symmetry of the West’s proud horse with head raised high, opposite the East’s docile tiger with his head lowered upon his fore-paws.  Perhaps the solution, there, was to substitute a camel who also has his head raised high.  I don’t know.  I can only guess.

 

Returning to your drawing John, I like your extension of the tasseled lambrequin to the quarter galleries, below the window tier.  This seems a harmonious and fitting extension of the stern decor.  I think that early SR, though, would have had a cul-de-feu, or lower finishing of the quarter gallery that may have been comprised of some form of the following elements, drawn by LeBrun:

 

And I think early SR may still have had a vestigial balcony tier at the quarter deck level of the quarters, that was framed by a trompe l’oeil amortisement of foliate ornament - much as you see with the refit DR of 1680:

While I have some more or less specific ideas about how to assemble all of that into a coherent narrative that supports the stern allegory, I have yet to begin sketching any of that, myself.

 

It is fairly certain in my mind that early SR would have had a more elaborated upper bulwark frieze than the simple field of fleurs seen on La Reyne, though.

 

And one last thought, after my 12 days in Paris and Normandy, I have come to think that it is not unreasonable that the majority of ornament on the first version of SR likely was leafed in gold.  Despite the massive expense of the times associated with this extravagance in the 1660s, the Royal Palace at Versailles is covered in gold leaf and the richest paintings and tableaus imaginable.  Incroyable!

 

So, this is already a book unto itself.  I will conclude here, for now.  John, I really look forward to the continued development of your project - this is really great stuff, so far!

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Hubac's Historian

[yancovitch]

wow wow...this is comparable to me trying to read a dissertation on nuclear physics.....unbelievable detailed detective work.....i'm afraid it's beyond me 😁.....amazing.....

[Hubac's Historian]

Vic, you are both too kind to me and too modest of yourself.

[mtaylor]

Just an amazing amount of research and knowledge here leading to some compelling possibilities.   Way beyond my pay grade.  

[John Ott]

Marc, any reply to an offhand comment like you gifted me with deserves a detailed response of its own.

Although I never meant to go back to it, I've attached a new version of the sketch that incorporates a lot of your suggestions—higher taffrail, upper balcony balustrade and figures in better proportion, windows and decks lining up better, etc.  I left the lower and middle stern lights alone, since the whole point to the exercise was to see how well SR's features would graft onto a drawing of a real Hubac hull. I can very easily see that a seven-light solution would be practical, though, and Tony Devroude's DR framing corresponds nicely with similar diagrams in Peter Goodwin's book.

 

 

Not to be contrary, but the field of fleurs on the upper bulwarks was used on both Hubac ships that I have VDV drawings of (La Reine and Terrible). They also show up, as you pointed out, on Le Monarque and DR. Looks like it was a First Marine thing. So unless somebody can provide an authoritative description of the first SR's bulwarks, I'll stick with the fleurs. It's the lys amount of effort. Same goes for the vestigial QD upper balcony tier. No tiers shed.

Besides, if I work on this Photoshop thingie any more, it'll take time away from my own Heller SR build.

 

There were some other things in your reply that spark conversation. I—uh,—swiped the 1853 D-M-J Henry  description of the SR the first time you posted it. It looks like it was written by someone who saw this version of the stern drawing:

 

As opposed to the version we all know and love, and everybody wants to attribute to Bérain.

 

 

The mention of the ostrich feathers is a dead giveaway. Has anybody come to any conclusions about who did the original artwork and which version came first? The figure of Africa in the Bérain drawing has the same elephant-head headgear that's on Le Brun's Africa at Versailles. This might be a telltale as to who actually designed the SR figures.

It's weird that D-M-J Henry didn't mention that the figures represented continents, not just "East" and "West." Attributing the designs of the figures to "the pencil of Puget" seems to me a misplaced leap of faith, considering that Le Brun had already designed all the allegorical statuary with the same subjects and attributes for the Versailles gardens. Makes me doubt that Henry had any more insight into the ship than researchers have now.  

You mentioned all the gold leaf at Versailles and the likelihood the first version of the ship was adorned similarly. I recall that in one of your posts you discussed some period document that gave a budget for gold leaf for one of the warships. I can't find that post, but I remember that the amount was scarcely enough to do much more than gild the figurehead. I've been thinking about how to limit the amount of gold leaf on my own Second Marine SR build. One thought was to use most of the gilt on the stern Apollo frieze and the upper reaches of the quarter galleries—keep all the major areas of gold leaf high up on the structure surrounded by blue, just like at Versailles.

 

 

Under this plan, I'd paint the major figures in shaded faux gold (original formula was yellow ochre with lead-tin or Naples yellow highlights, and darker yellow—red ochre mixed in—for shadows. I painted the SR figurehead this way as an experiment. (I can still repaint it metallic gold if I want to.) There would still be the Bourbon crest and crown on the forecastle surrounded by gilded ornament, so there would be some gilding forward. Any thoughts on how much gold leaf seems appropriate for the Second Marine period?

 

 

Thanks again for the information and all the inspiration. This has been a sweet deal— I post an odd little Photoshop and get a college-level education in return. Looking forward to your next post. Building and painting 104 guns in the meantime.

 

John O