French FULMINANT rear castle

[HAIIAPHNK]

On 1/8/2024 at 12:58 PM, empathry said:

Your curved profiles are really smart Haiiaphnk, they remember me the basics of geometry ! 

I am presently inquiring upon a thesis which name is " French king's vessels sculpted and painted ornaments, from 1660 to 1792 " and it appears that a paper sample is stored at the Sorbonne library in Paris. 

I'm not anymore a student and will need to find for a pass to go there and examine it ! 

 

Geometry is one of the most interesting sciences. In my opinion. Of course, I will not argue that algebra, physics or chemistry have their own beautiful masterpieces. Our world is designed ingeniously and in it different sciences complement each other.
 And when you are engaged in the construction of architectural forms, you can feel yourself a little creator and see how you can solve complex problems with the help of a circular or the simplest measuring devices even without knowing long formulas. When it is not possible to do so, one can still feel the splendor of these tasks. And the fact that they did not succumb at that moment only emphasizes that this is really science and not just random lines on paper.

 

 

 

 

 

On 1/8/2024 at 1:34 PM, Hubac's Historian said:

Can I ask you, Empathry, who the author of this thesis is?

 

I'm interested in this question too. Tell me more about it, please.

[empathry]

The author is Magali Theron, the thesis (written on paper) has never been scanned, is dated 2003, and is referenced under # BUT 5735, stored at Bibliothèque Serpente (which belongs to the Sorbonne Institute).

 

It's summary is translated as follows :  

 

<< It was from 1668 onwards, at Colbert's instigation, that the State took a real interest in ship decoration. The profusion and luxury of these painted and sculpted ornaments were intended to "radiate the magnificence" of the king on the sea, and to serve as propaganda. Colbert entrusted Charles le Brun with the task of designing the decorations for first-rank ships, so that he could develop new decorative systems. This involvement of the first painter gave rise to three sumptuous decors that marked the evolution of naval ornamentation in France, and led to the creation of painting and sculpture workshops in the arsenals, whose influence was ensured by the appointment of renowned artists such as Pierre Puget. By giving freedom of enterprise to artists from all horizons, the arsenals encouraged exchanges and became, at least until the end of the Regency, artistic hotbeds, where influences mingled. >>

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Aha - okay!  I will also endeavor to track this down.  This is something new.  I thought, perhaps, that you were referencing the Portanier thesis, which had some good information in it, but which I did not find to be especially enlightening.

[Hubac's Historian]

There is this related paper from 2015, from Ms Theron, which I suspect covers much of the same ground:

 

https://www.academia.edu/41636304/La_bonne_fabrique_et_le_superbe_ornement_Pierre_Puget_s_ship_decoration

[empathry]

Hi ! Answering Hubac's Historian, it doesn't covers the same ground as it's 100 % completely oriented towards Pierre Puget.  Moreover, I have discovered (today) something new and quite interesting, but it is in the French language.  The name of this (other) thesis is : << La symbolique sur le vaisseau de guerre Français de 1661 à 1680 >> from Marie-Amélie PIN.

 

There are not many images, but a lot of authentic letters exchanged between shipyards, Colbert, the King, the sculptors etc. 

 

https://www.calameo.com/books/0004132413ae8127b68ba

 

You may open it free ("lire la publication") and translate it thereafter by using the "Google image translator". 

 

Upon pages 126 to 138 are an interesting table (the first time I see such a table) where are indicated (among other data) the former name of the vessel, and (years after) other further names, as the case may be. 

 

e.g. in feb. 1669 was a first rank vessel which was initially named "Ile de France" ... and was re-named "Lis" in june 1671

another vessel which was formerly named "Paris" in feb. 1669, has been re-named "Royale Thérèse" in june 1671.

 

As for Ambitieux "I" (H. Malet) and Fulminant (P. Masson), both of them were launched on december 1691 in Rochefort.  Ambitieux "I" was sunk and burnt in Barfleur and Ambitieux "II" (J. Guichard) was launched in december 1692, which means that (a) Fulminant is the real sister ship of Ambitieux "I" and (b) as Barfleur is dated 2 of june 1692, it took exactly 6 months to Rochefort to build the Ambitieux "II".          

 

 

  

Edited January 14 by empathry

[HAIIAPHNK]

What a pleasure to be in the company of people who are so deeply versed in ship engineering and French art history.
Maybe you can help me find answers to some of the questions that keep me awake? 
I have long been concerned with the subject of symbolism in art. And how this theme is revealed on a particular moment - the ship Fulminant.

Here I need to describe my question in more detail. We have already discussed it when we were trying to guess what could have stood on the ship's breakwater. What kind of sculpture would be there? And we ended up being right in our guesses. And it would seem that the fact that we found archive sketches with an accurate depiction of the main figure completely removes the question from the agenda. However, that's not entirely true. I am concerned and interested in who it is? Is it really Zeus? Or is it more correctly called Jupiter. Is it definitely him?
Why do I have questions? Let me try to explain. 

According to various sources, the Fulminant is a ship that was built from the beginning as a paired project with two ships. Fulminant and Ambitieux. Is that right? 

What in this case should be understood as a pair? These are two ships that started out being built on the same project, but it was just a cost saving for the engineers. They came up with one common framework, and then each master craftsman does whatever he wants? And then the ships have nothing to do with each other.
Or did the pair of two ships have one common idea, one goal?

If ships had names... mm-m-m-m, Phobos and Deimos, their unified meaning would be obvious. But with the existing names, I don't see anything unified. They are more independent. Or am I wrong?
And now I will move on to narrower issues. Let's first discuss the main figure in Ambitieux.

[HAIIAPHNK]

 

 

Who is it?
I have only indirect guesses. And they don't give me a definite answer. The figure has details that seem to mix together elements from different stories. If it were a modern interpretation, it could be described as follows: The figure is wearing a tight-fitting tricot with a spider in a web on the chest, a belt with a wide bat-shaped plaque, the figure holds a large hammer in one hand and a round shield with a star in the other, and a cloak with a stylized letter S fluttering behind him. That's roughly how I see what's drawn in Ambissier's sketch.
So who is it? The quickest theory that comes to mind is that it's Apollo.
What do the details in this figure symbolize? In one hand we see a dudki or some other wind musical instrument. On the same hand hangs a wreath. On the side we can notice a bag. 
These objects can be attributed to Apollo. So the wreath (made of laurel leaves) can give a reference to the story of Daphne. This tragic story is about Apollo's love for her, but the girl did not want to be Apollo's lover and asked to be turned into a laurel tree. And from that time Apollo had a special attitude to this tree, and the laurel wreath became a symbol of his feelings, and afterwards a symbol of Apollo himself. 

 

So the wreath could speak of Apollo being in front of us. What then must it symbolize that this wreath is hanging on his arm? Why isn't it on his head? And the wreath is exactly hanging on the arm, as if it has nowhere to go. That's how I tend to act when my hands are full. I can hold long objects with my arm against my body by placing the weight under my armpit. And something in the form of a ring I can put on my hand. But in the sketch, the figure has his other hand free. And why isn't the wreath on his head? Why is there a helmet? I have never seen any mention that he was once in military attire. Who are some of the ancient characters usually depicted wearing a helmet? First and foremost I think of Mars or Ares. These are the Roman and Greek gods of war. In the second place Athena or her Roman counterpart Minerva comes to mind. Maybe someone else wore a helmet at certain moments, but I don't quickly recall such instances. Nor do I recall Apollo wearing a helmet. Then it's not Apollo, but Mars? This version is possible, but in my opinion Mars has a lot more questions. Why does Mars have a wreath? Did he triumphantly defeat someone? Then why is the wreath hanging on his arm as an unimportant thing for him. If the warlord is victorious, then the wreath on his head signifies his feat. And victory means the battle is over and he can take off his helmet. If the helmet is on his head, it means that this figure is in battle right now. But then it is too early to talk about the wreath, he has not yet won the victory.
It is much more logical to assume that Apollo is here. The wreath is a permanent symbol for him. 

We can assume that he entered some military confrontation, took off his wreath for a while and put on the symbol of war. 

Why then is the wreath not in his hand? He has one hand free. In ordinary life, it could be an accident. But in this case, every little thing must have a meaning. A normal person would leave the wreath hanging only when the free hand is needed for specific actions. What then does the gesture of the left free hand mean? Is Apollo fixing his hair? Does he want to remove his helmet? Or to scratch himself? If he is about to take off his helmet, it could mean that his fight has just ended and the helmet is no longer needed. But in that case, wouldn't it make more sense to draw this figure a few seconds later, when the helmet is already in his hand? In this case, the gesture is not quite clear. And there are questions to this version from another point of view. The figure is standing on the breakwater of a warship. Usually the main figure should show either readiness for battle or determination already in battle. The moment after the battle looks more questionable to me. So maybe I'm wrong and Apollo is not going to take off his helmet? Maybe this gesture means something else? But what? He's not scratching his forehead, is he? 

What do the stars around his head mean? Perhaps it is again a symbol that is added to further strengthen the understanding that it is Apollo who stands before us. Among his many qualities, he is called Phebus, which means radiant, bright, shining. Though perhaps there are some other characters who could be shown with stars? I don't.

 

 

If you approach it ironically, it all comes together: the stars around your head, the hand that scratches your head looks like a moment from a cartoon. Tom and Jerry. Tom is once again hit, knocked on the head. It makes stars fly above his head, and he's confused, scratching the bump where he's bruised. 
This is the place for a joke, of course, it can't be used in serious reflection. I just don't have anything else to add, I am at a loss and don't know what exactly is encrypted in this place.

Let's move on to the following hints and symbols. What can we say about the musical trumpets. I don't know what to call them properly: dudes, whistles, vuvuzelas or something else.

This object, in my opinion, again returns to the fact that Apollo is in front of us. And we should consider the pipes together with the bag. There is one story in the legends of Apollo that is different from the others. And if Apollo in other adventures is personified as the god of beauty or patron of creative people, poets. In this story, Apollo shows his other side. And it can be interpreted very differently. This is the story of a contest with a satyr named Marsyas.
And I'll describe this part a little bit later. 

[HAIIAPHNK]

it just so happens that my introduction to the Marsius story started with this picture. And that put an imprint on the angle from which I perceived the whole story. So I'm going to tell the story of Apollo in a different way than it is described in other sources.
What do you think of her? What feelings does it evoke in you? What is it depicting? 

 

 

The plot is quite simple. There aren't a lot of participants flashing before your eyes. And it doesn't take time to make out their movements and understand what's going on. There's a young satyr playing a piper. Again, I don't know very well what kind of instrument it is, I know that it is definitely not a saxophone, but I'm not sure about the rest. So sometimes I can randomly use different terms, for which I apologize. But let's get back to the picture. The general mood can be called peaceful, everything is calm, even the frightened hares are serenely lying down and listening to the young Marsius playing. These little animals are depicted here not only to convey peace. They personify the satyr himself. He is just like them, harmless and naive. A person who is not familiar with the plot does not guess how disturbing an idea the artist has put into this picture. To fully understand the drama, one must familiarize oneself with ancient mythology.
One day the goddess Athena invents a flute - and immediately throws it away, and even with a curse: she did not like how ugly her cheeks swell when playing.
Marsyas, a goat-faced satyr, a forest dweller and friend of the shepherds, was lucky enough to find the instrument cursed by the goddess.

 

Marsius himself mastered the flute quickly, and taught it to his friends, so that the instrument, which was simple in manufacture - a reed stalk and seven holes - became a favorite pastoral pastime. But Marsius, to his misfortune, did not confine himself to his immediate surroundings. Emboldened by his musical success - all the beasts of the forest gathered to listen to him! - he challenged Apollo himself.

The end of the contest was as painful as it was predictable: Apollo, declared the winner, orders Marsius to be tied to a tree and skinned as punishment for his insolence.
Therefore, knowing what would happen later very pitifully for the young satyr.

The plot of the contest or its sad ending was drawn by many artists. And completely different emotions reign there. It is either a noisy banal argument between two musicians. Or almost sadistic pictures of the torture of the loser Marcius. In many sources, Marsius himself is shown as a negative character. He - an inferior being decided to challenge the most talented Apollo out of pride. And the punishment from him was deserved.

 

 

 

 

 

In the same painting, the artist Elih Vedder took a completely different path. He shows Marsius not an experienced and cunning old man, but a young boy. And the root of Marsius' self-inflicted misfortune is not pride, but naiveté.

 

It was not AMBITION that pushed him to challenge Apollo, but childish delight at the music he had just discovered. Foolishly, he had thought that Apollo, too, simply liked to play, and that the competition would be friendly. How was he, raised in the forest, to know that sophisticated culture could go hand in hand with sophisticated cruelty...

Of course, we're talking about a fictional story here. Even historical events can be interpreted from different angles, and in each case there will be a hero and an anti-hero. Let's not talk about a fairy tale. We can't tell you exactly what Marsius was like. Whether he was a naive young man who suffered from Apollo's jealousy or whether there was some evil intent in his challenge to the contest, because the winner should receive any reward he wishes. We are now discussing only the figure on the breakwater of the ship. And it is time to return to him. A little above I have specially emphasized the word which we had to single out from the whole ancient story about the contest between Apollo and Marsius. It's Ambition! After all, it is this quality that is presented as the name of the ship, its motto, its personification. 

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

But who is ambitious here? Usually this word is applied to someone who decides to challenge the stronger. If there is a long-time champion in the ring, who does not know defeats, and a young fighter comes out against him, it is the newcomer who is more likely to be called an ambitious fighter. You can't say that about the champion. The champion ambitiously went to the fight against a newcomer that no one has heard of! How can you say that? No.

 

 

So why was Apollo chosen for a ship of that name? After all, the whistles and the shepherd's bag on his shoulder hint that these are his trophies, which he has just taken off the defeated Marsius. If this particular confrontation was intended, it is hard to call Apollo Ambitious here. After all, he had other victories, for example, over the huge serpent Python. Now that feat fits much more under what might be called ambitious behavior.

In the context of the conflict with Marsius, one can draw quite different conclusions. For example, we can call ambition a negative quality. And then Apollo is the one who punished for this quality the one who decided to challenge him. 

In politics, this can also be noted. For example, the king on the throne believes that he has the right to rule by the supreme law. 
And anyone who wishes to defy him is only a nothingness and trash who has forgotten 
his place and encroaches on what he cannot be allowed to do. Don't be proud or I will punish you severely! 
Maybe that's the meaning behind the name and decoration of the king.
This may be true, especially remembering the ego and self-aggrandizement of the Sun-like Louis. Such a ruler was quite capable of showing everyone around him, both inside and outside his country, that he was two heads above the rest and would not tolerate challenge.

 

But again, it doesn't all add up. If this version presents ambition as an undesirable, wrong quality of an upstart, then that's not how the ship would have been named. On the contrary, it would be something else. Something that emphasizes the right to rule. Justice. God's power. Anointed. Anything at all. 

But the ship is called Ambition. And it's stumping me. I can't figure out exactly what the idea is here.

Maybe it's not Apollo. Maybe it's someone else. For example, there is something in this figure that very much breaks all the previous hints and found versions. It's the wings. I doubt any ancient character has wings at all. Unless Pegasus. But this thread leads nowhere at all. 

The only direction I can find is biblical references. Could it be some kind of angel? There are references in the Bible to angels blowing trumpets. But no matter how many times I look, the biblical options don't fit here at all. Especially when you look at the other symbols: bag, wreath, helmet.
In a word, I can't fully understand what exactly this figure wanted to show. I will not mention the bas-relief on the transom of the ship. Especially since I have practically no useful information on it at all. I am sure that there must be something there that will tell better about the meaning that was put into the decoration of the ship and its name.
If anyone has anything to suggest, I'd be very happy to hear all versions or accurate answers. 
It's not all that simple with the Fulminant either. And I have questions, but they are best put aside for now.

 

[empathry]

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 !!!                         

 

           

Edited January 18 by empathry

[HAIIAPHNK]

Hello, empathry.
Thank you very much for such an extensive material. I found a lot of new things in it for me. For example, I first learned about the Salamander as a Christian symbol. Before that, I thought it only had roots in ancient myths. You really surprised me. 
Thank you for clarifying the question about the extent to which two ships can be "related". I had thoughts that they are two parallel projects that are not connected together by a strong bond. The fact that they were made in different shipyards and by different craftsmen gave reason to consider them separate and independent. But at the same time, I needed a good reason to put a point in my brain and to be convinced that this was the only way and no other. 

I thought about the fact that in terms of structure and design they could be (and were) different ships, but in terms of symbolic meaning they could also carry some one story. 
And I was more concerned with the decorative difference in my question than the technical difference. And the story that the decoration of the two ships tells. 

I don't remember exactly what the scientific term is called, when a person makes up logical chains and connections in his head. And finds such justifications that he starts to believe in them himself. That's probably how a lot of conspiracy theories come about. So I realize that in the search for hints you can go very deep and come up with fantastic versions. But I also think that art now and art then are two big differences.  

 

You said that you are a Musician and have a good understanding of music. So I will give you an example that you will definitely understand. I once met an organist (a person who plays the organ). And he told me about the story behind Bach's Toccata. And I was just amazed. It's an epochal work, it's impressive. But when I learned that it is not just a beautiful combination of sounds, but that there is a story in its structure, the power and beauty of this work became a hundred times stronger and more impressive for me.
I've studied painting and I know for a fact that there are so many nuances and clues in fine art too that carry additional information. And I like to look for such nuances.
So I am in a very strange position. On the one hand, the decoration of the ship absolutely definitely has its own subtleties, it's not just a collection of different patterns. And on the other hand, you have to be careful, otherwise you can find (invent for yourself) meanings that the artist didn't have.

So I've already spent a lot of time trying to find some story that involved Jupiter and Apollo. Maybe jointly, or maybe they were opponents. 
So I'm already halfway to possibly creating a new conspiracy theory. This is a joke, of course. But there's truth in every joke. And in order to see if there was a possible connection at the level of symbolism, I had to, as a detective, look at this version as well.

 

So I want to thank you again for your hard work. It ranked high on my "evidence, alibis, and testimony" list.

I have a lot of questions about Jupiter. And you've raised some of them. But I'd like to put that aside for a moment.
Tell me, do you have any information that concerns the figure of Apollo? What do the objects that accompany him mean? Maybe you know why he was depicted in this particular image? Maybe you know something about the design of the transom of this ship?

I want to postpone the topic of Jupiter for a while for the reason that this sketch has just been found. And figure A... has been known for quite some time. Many people have built this ship or may have read some studies that deal with it. So the chance of finding people who can share something new is higher.
In the meantime, I'm reading and looking for information about the Jupiter. Maybe there will be more out there over time that I can subsequently show.

[druxey]

I wonder why Jupiter's figure was described as having un visage triste (a sad face)? Jupiter was god of thunder and lightning - very appropriate for a warship. Also, the mythical salamander was reputed to breathe fire (think dragon). All very martial!

[empathry]

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 ! 

 

           

Edited January 22 by empathry

[empathry]

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 ?    

Edited January 22 by empathry

[HAIIAPHNK]

Hello, empathry.
You continue to supply tons of interesting information. Thank you very much. I have already read somewhere about Beren as a not very skilled artist. But this is the first time I've heard about the decor below the water level. I'm in the evening now, my spouse has already gone to bed and I almost woke her up with my laughter. Or maybe I did. But I won't know until tomorrow morning.
Reading about your certainty that the content of the sketches does not carry the idea, I was upset. Of course, you may be right. We humans have a tendency to romanticize the past or the future. Or to see them in darker colors than they actually were. And we imagine the era of palaces and baroque ornaments as a time of elegance and refinement. Men were gallant knights and ladies were refined and beautiful. And at the same time we forget that even in luxurious palaces there were snuff boxes for catching fleas and colognes, with which they tried to stop the odors of dirt and excrement. Everything existed at the same time. 
So you may be absolutely right in what you say. But it would be a shame if the sculptures we're looking at really didn't have a particularly subtle intent. 
Then I will pause this line of questioning. There is no point in examining the details of Jupiter on Fulminant with the same magnitude. 
But I do have to ask a couple of questions. 

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

The first question I can ask right off the bat. I was suddenly thinking about this. Were there ever any cases where two or more ships were made as one set? So that together they would add up to a single overall idea? A lot is known about the existence of sisterships. But I can't remember instances when ships were not just made according to one set of drawings, but were "relatives" in names and decorations? Are there any such cases at all?

I will be able to ask the second question later, as I need to do a bit of photo searching for that. Might get a chance to ask it tomorrow. So please don't run far away from the computer 🙂. I would really like to continue the conversation as soon as possible.

[druxey]

Ah! So, 'triste' in context means 'serious', not 'sad'! Thank you.

[Hubac's Historian]

1 hour ago, HAIIAPHNK said:

The first question I can ask right off the bat. I was suddenly thinking about this. Were there ever any cases where two or more ships were made as one set? So that together they would add up to a single overall idea? A lot is known about the existence of sisterships. But I can't remember instances when ships were not just made according to one set of drawings, but were "relatives" in names and decorations? Are there any such cases at all?

I will be able to ask the second question later, as I need to do a bit of photo searching for that. Might get a chance to ask it tomorrow. So please don't run far away from the computer 🙂. I would really like to continue the conversation as soon as possible.

The one example of very close sister ships that comes to mind are La Superb, and L’Orgieullieux.

 

The following is often captioned as La Superb, but it must actually be L’Orgieulliex because La Superb was not present in English waters in 1672 for the Van de Velde’s to draw her.  It is said that these two ships were built to the same specs and that they were virtually identical, although the ornamental programs must have differed.

[empathry]

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 ?   

Edited January 23 by empathry

[HAIIAPHNK]

I'm confused. Reread several times about policy decisions and moves, but I can't find an answer, how does this answer the question about decorating ships with decor? 

Responding to the post about the  La Superb, and L’Orgieullieux:
You cite data that they are two "relatives". I guess I'm not articulating my thoughts very well after all, or the translator isn't quite translating me correctly after all. I was interested not just in the mere possibility of the existence of several ships that are built according to the same design. This fact does not require confirmation. Such ships were built in many countries. And there's no sensationalism here. I'm interested in whether there were ships with a common semantic idea.  La Superb, and L’Orgieullieux do not, as far as I know, carry any common meaning. If I am wrong and in fact they do not, that would be a great discovery for me.
My logic is simple. If there were no other examples in practice that ships had instances where there were "relatives in idea, history", then there is no reason to look for parallels in Fulminant and Ambitious. But if EVER it turns out that such a practice existed, and there are other examples with a common idea, then in this case it already makes sense to look for connections between our ships.

[Hubac's Historian]

With your most recent comments in mind, Haiiaphnk, I do not think the French ever designed the ornamental programs of a pair or even a series of ships to follow a single conceptual idea.  The ships were named individually, and their names reflected the multiple virtues of Louis XIV, while the capital ships like the Royal Louis and Soleil Royal were given ornamental programs that reflected the hegemony of Louis XIV’s reign.

 

The common threads are virtue and dominance above all other nations.  The ornamental programs of each vessel explored numerous stories from antiquity to express those ideas.

 

As I have been reading more recently in Ms Pin’s dissertation, La Symbolique Sur le Vaisseau de Guerre Francaise, individual ornamental programs were not literal representations of the actual influence and might of the monarch, but rather projections of his own grandiose self-conception.  Propaganda, in other words, with the intent of cowing the opposition.

Edited January 23 by Hubac's Historian

[HAIIAPHNK]

On 1/18/2024 at 8:33 PM, empathry said:

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.

 

I was interested in these lines. You say that Jupiter was not seen as a major figure until the Fulminant. However, I certainly have memories of seeing such figures. I tried to find similar examples, but of the French ships I quickly remembered only _le_Foudroyant_. 

 

 

I still have in my folder of this ship photographs from a ship built in 1724, that is, later than the _le_Foudroyant_. But I remember that there was a ship of the same name, but of earlier construction. В 1693. In a separate section where I keep the decals, there are images with Jupiter figures, but I have kept them without specifying exactly from which ships they are taken.

 

 

 

Therefore, I cannot say with one hundred percent certainty that these images accurately depict a figure from a ship built in 1693. 

 

 

This picture was shown in this post, here too le_Foudroyant is depicted.
The figure looks very much like a ship built in 1724. So I don't know for sure, either it is the same ship. Or the decoration is repeated from an earlier version of the ship in the early 18th century.
My library also has drawings of Danish ships. It would seem to be a bit of a mismatch because these are not French ships. However, the interesting point is that Danish ships are clones of their French counterparts, and the Danes were very meticulous in copying what they saw from the French. I even have images where the originals and the copies are side by side. And you can see how the Danes removed the royal lilies. 

You can see how diligent they were in redrawing the sketch. That is, their copies also show that France had ships with Jupiter figures. 

 

 

 

On the one hand you show me the conclusions, which are based on the work of people who are engaged in researches not the first day. And on the other hand I have images that have a different point of view. 
Foudran 1724 shows that there were definitely images after Fulminant. This ship built at the end of the 17th century I see only the transom. And purely from an artistic point of view I can say that making images of Jupiter on both stern and bow is not really logical. If I were decorating this ship, I would do it differently. And if there is already one Jupiter on the stern, I would show something different on the breakwater. I'm having trouble coming up with my own version. Most likely I would put a Jupiter on the breakwater and something different on the transom. 
And this is where I need your comment. What do you say?  Is my data and memories wrong?

[HAIIAPHNK]

1 hour ago, Hubac&#x27;s Historian said:

With your most recent comments in mind, Haiiaphnk, I do not think the French ever designed the ornamental programs of a pair or even a series of ships to follow a single conceptual idea.  The ships were named individually, and their names reflected the multiple virtues of Louis XIV, while the capital ships like the Royal Louis and Soleil Royal were given ornamental programs that reflected the hegemony of Louis XIV’s reign.

 

The common threads are virtue and dominance above all other nations.  The ornamental programs of each vessel explored numerous stories from antiquity to express those ideas.

 

As I have been reading more recently in Ms Pin’s dissertation, La Symbolique Sur le Vaisseau de Guerre Francaise, individual ornamental programs were not literal representations of the actual influence and might of the monarch, but rather projections of his own grandiose self-conception.  Propaganda, in other words, with the intent of cowing the opposition.

 

Thank you. This answer can be called a point in the question of common lore and symbolism in ships. 
If there is ever any evidence that we don't know everything yet, this version can be brought back. And even exclaim: Wow, I thought of that ten years ago. 
But until then, you can let go of this conspiracy theory with a clean heart and recognize it as dead. She died before she was even born. Amen.

[druxey]

Why not Jupiter on both the stem and the stern? Generally, only one is in view at any one time.

 

Also, not everyone was literate!

Edited January 23 by druxey

[empathry]

19 hours ago, HAIIAPHNK said:

 

It's written in latin and I translate that it's dated 13 th of march 1755, approved by "Frederich den Femte" who is Frederich V of Denmark (1723 - 1766).  It's not surprising that a Jupiter figurehead may be decorating a powerful Denmark vessel :

 

An historical reminder about Denmark navy : Oldenbourg royal dynasty reigned from XV th century upon Denmark AND Norway (the Oldenbourg's kingdom comprises the two countries reunited) and there was continuous threats posed by Sweden trading interests in the Baltic Sea.  The navies of the two kingdoms clashed on numerous occasions, notably during the Nordic Seven Years' War (1563 - 1570), the First Northern War (1657 - 1660), the Skane War (1675 - 1679) and the Great Northern War (1700 - 1721). Like for France and England joigning together against Dutch, business is always business !   

 

19 hours ago, HAIIAPHNK said:

 

However, the interesting point is that Danish ships are clones of their French counterparts, and the Danes were very meticulous in copying what they saw from the French. I even have images where the originals and the copies are side by side. And you can see how the Danes removed the royal lilies. 

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).

Edited January 24 by empathry

[empathry]

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.  

Edited January 24 by empathry

[HAIIAPHNK]

Your saying that the French adopted the experience of the Danes and copied their ships really surprised me. I even specifically started looking for sources that once served as a basis for my memory. And I found some of them.

For example, here:

The beginning of a long dynasty of truly talented sculptors who officially held the position of chief ship sculptor at the Holmen shipyard was started in 1729 by Johann Heimbrod, a sculptor from Saxony who had previously, in 1722, already participated in the design of ornaments for the ship "Drinning Anna Sophia". On the structural side, French and English styles dominated Danish shipbuilding, just as they did for the ship's decoration. Naturally, the chief sculptor was directly subordinate to the chief shipwright, and was given limited freedom of creativity. 
Heimbrod used both English and French styles in the decoration of Danish ships. The main difference between the two styles was that in England the lion was often used as a bow figure, a feature that was never used in France. Far more important was the fact that on English ships the galleries were not in the form of a balcony, but were closed, forming what was known as a loggia. The design of English ships in general represented a more compact and architecturally structured composition. 

 

French ships were not characterized by a carved hackabort, nor were the carved statues of large size that marked the transition from the stern to the quarterdeck galleries.

Heimbrod, being an extremely talented craftsman, completed a large number of commissions for the design of elements of ship decoration, serving only four years. He died in 1733 and was succeeded by Just Wiedewelt, a Danish-born sculptor who was chief sculptor at Holmen from 1733 to 1757. Many of the bow compositions of the period, known from models and drawings, reveal influences from the French palace style, which Wiedewelt discovered during his extended stay in Paris from 1698 to 1715. In creating the decorations of Danish ships, he often used copies of original French drawings, sketches from life, etc., which were modified to a greater or lesser extent to conform to local realities.....

 

Of course, all maritime countries tried to adopt the experience and design innovations of their neighbors. But still there were conditional "trendsetters", and there were those who tried to apply innovations found by others. And if we talk about copying not just individual elements of the design, but the whole hull, I still tend to believe that it was the Danes who could create "Chinese clones" of the French, and not vice versa.

 

But that doesn't really affect the crux of the matter. The more important thing is that I found errors in myself. And you correctly pointed them out. I made a mistake in my drawings.

 

This image belongs (as you correctly wrote) to the Danish ship HDMS Fridericus Quartus, (1699).

 

And this image

 

 

belongs to the HDMS Christianus Sixtus (1733(1734)).
And it is exactly a repeat of the French Foudrant 1724.
I have not found any data about Frederick that he is also copied from the French counterpart. So to claim that he is also a clone is not correct.

I've sorted that out.
However, I still have one question.

There were two ships named Foudrant. One was in 1724. But there was also a ship of that name in the late 17th century. And there may be some confusion with the story of juggling names from one ship to another. When the ships Hubac and Pangalo switched names Soleil Royal and Foudrant .
 At what stage of readiness did the swap take place. Did they already have sculptures on them? And what ended up on the Foudrant  breakwater? Going off of your findings that there were no images of Jupiter before the Fulminant, what stood then?

 

P.S. It's good that these dialogs are not seen by my customer. The case is simple. There are ready sketches. And I make a model based on them. All questions about the fact that on the breakwater should stand exactly Jupiter were removed from the agenda of discussions a long time ago. And found (oh wonder!) unknown sketches of Beren confirmed the guesses about Jupiter. I'm still interested in digging into the theory. 

[empathry]

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 !            

Edited January 24 by empathry