La Musique Tapestry by Francois Boucher

#20947

Tapestry  

10’ 4” x 17’ 8”

Wool and Silk pattern wefts on wool warp; warps/inch.

Beauvais, French Royal Tapestry Workshop under the direction of Nicolas Besnier and Jean – Baptiste Oudry (1734-1753), or A.C. Charron (1753-1780).

Designed by Francois Boucher

Subject: La Musique (Music) No. 9 of a set of 14 panels “Fetes Italiennes” or “Italian Scenes”, showing peasants and working-class folk with a few panels displaying members of the upper classes at play.  “Music” is one of these.

Boucher’s original drawings for Music (and other tapestries as well) are in The Stadelkunst Institute (Frankfort, Germany), and in a private collection in Paris.

This was Boucher’s first tapestry design commission for the Beauvais factory. His other work includes the “Nobles Pastorales” series in the 1750’s.

There is no complete set of all 14 tapestries extant and no complete set was ever woven for a single client.  The present panel lacks a mark in the outer plain blue border, now excised and replaced by a later restoration.  The mark would have given the place (Beauvais) and either Besnier’s or Charron’s name.

The entire set of the “Fetes Italiennes” comprises:

1. Le Operateur (The Charlatan)
2. La Bohemienne (The Gypsy Fortune Teller)
3. Les Pecheuses (The Fishing Girls)
4. Les Chasseurs (The Hunting Boys)
5. La Curiosite (Curiosity)
6. Les Filles aux Raisins (Girls Gathering Grapes)
7. La Danse (Dance)
8. La Collation (The Luncheon)
9. La Musique (Music)
10. Le Jardinier (The Gardener)
11. La Bergere
12. La Cabaretier (The Inn Keeper)
13. Le Perroquet (The Parrot)
14. Le Marchant d’Oeufs (The Eggseller)

Of the Fetes Italiennes, No. 9, Music was executed eleven times: 1745, 1746, 1750 4 times, 1751 twice, 1753 twice. 1754.

There was a partial set of six panels including Music sold in Paris, M.X…Collection, Galerie Georges Petit, 23.5.27 and all are illustrated in the catalogue.  The version of Music, lot 2 is shorter, 3.15 m. height, 2.90 m. long.

Only the right half of the whole composition appears, ending just to the left of the outstretched arm of the cellist in the center.  The trellised garden ledge and tower, along with two figures are not present.  Our panel is 8’ 8” longer than the 1927 example.  The double guilloche border is common to both versions and is one of the standard Beauvais borders used as late as 1774.  It also appears in the set in N.Y.

The sizes and subjects of the X … Collection pieces are as follows:

Dance             3.10 m x 4.75 m
Music             3.15 m x 2.90 m
Hunters         3.10 m x 2.75 m
Fishers           3.10 m x 2.0 m
Entrefenetre 3.05 m x 1.45 m
Entrefenetre  3.10 m x 1.40 m

Music is therefore, in its original form, the largest of the set.

The 1927 catalogue notes that there are longer replicas of Music with the additional personages to left.  This variation and reduction of scenes is not uncommon and because of the weaving process, here from right to left, is easy to accomplish.  The process proceeds horizontally, and the weavers can start or stop at any point in the cartoon.

Panel no. 9, Music, was woven in:

1745 for M. Gautier (nos. 7, 8, 9)
1746 for General Sale (nos. 7-10)
1750 for M. d’Aremberg (nos. 7-10)
1750 for Sueden (nos. 7, 9, 10)
1750 for M. Lalande (nos. 2, 8-10)
1750 for General Sale (nos. 1-4, 7-10)
1751 for M. Thibault (nos.1,3,4,7,9,10)
1751 for M. de Vermonoye (nos.7-9)
1753 for M. Duvocel (nos. 9-11)
1753 for Mme. Geoffrin (nos. 4,7-10)
1754 for M. Marchant (nos. 3,4,9,11)

Since our panel employs the full cartoon, it was likely one of the earlier editions, possibly as early as 1745 or 1746.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY has 9 pieces including one duplicate  slightly expanded to left.  Music is not included.  Standen is in error in stating that the Met’s set is complete.

The series is internally stylistically coherent and some of the same figures and scenic elements are reused.  For example, Music and The Gardener (no. 10) both employ the same trellised garden walls and the female in profile in The Gardener reappears almost exactly as the central girl close to the cellist in Music.  The putti riding dolphins in the fountain at the right of Music reappears in other examples of Boucher’s work.  The rustic leaning on the ledge is of the same laborer social class as The Gardener in no. 10.  The dimensions of “Music” are the greatest for any of the series and although it is unknown how many of the eleven editions of this design were produced in the fully extended large format, it was clearly a special creation.  No armorial device was ever present.  Sets were often split and recombined, and it is not possible to trace all the editions on individual panels.

Condition:

There has been selective color fading, but the reds have held up very well.  The condition is quite good and splitting is minor.  The silk has been replaced.  The borders have been shaved on the edges with the loss of any marks in the plain dark slip.  The plain strip has been replaced at the ends.

References:

1. Jules Badin, Le Manufacture de Tapisseriede Beauvais, Paris, 1909. The full chronology of all series is given, and it is still the essential primary source work.

2. Edith Standen, European Post-Medieval Tapestries in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, 2 Vols. Italian Village Scenes (Fetes Italiennes), No. 78 pp 507-533.

3. Trois Siecles de Tapisserie de Beauvais, Beauvais, 1964.

#40-570 Flander Tapestry: circa 1700

Flemish Tapestry Panel
Audenarde, c. 1600
8’1” x 9’5”
Warp: wool, ivory to light brown, some mixing, natural, Z-Z-S 8-9 warps/in., a few areas up to 12/in.
Weft: wool, Z-1, Z-Z-S, 28-30 pattern shouts/in;
Woven sideways, left to right, on a horizontal loom as finer pieces were done vertical looms.
Generally in good condition with colors well preserved; small areas of reweaving or re-wefting; plain outer salvage trimmed with loss of town and weaver’s marks. Some brown outlines improved.

Depicts:

King David (to right) gives Uriah the Hittite (on left) a secret order to be conveyed to the commending general ??????. This order places Uriah in the frost line of battle, thereby assuring his demise. Uriah is the husband of Bathsheba whom David covertly covets and who will marry him after Uriah is killed. David’s penitence will eventually follow.

Probably from a Life of David series or perhaps from a series of old Testament scenes. There seem to be no other panels from this cycle recorded in the literature.

Attribution: The attribution to the provincial weaving town of Audenarde is loused or close similarities to pieces possessing the town & weavers’ marks in the outer plain border. Diagnostic are the following stylized background elements:

1. The “building block” castle;
2. The round, puffy “cotton ball” trees in rows blanketing the landscape.
3. Pointy, sharply outlined distant mountains.

In comparison we may consider:

1. H. Gőbel, Tapestries of The Lowlands, no. 357, a landscape with similar, but better, mountains and trees.
2. Christie’s, London, Mayorcas Sale, 12.2.99, lot 316, Game Park 9’5” x 14’6”, 16c (late) with similar pointy mountains, cotton ball trees, identical trees, and similar foreground foliage elements. All wool, no silk. Probably from the same workshop as our example, but lacking identifying marks. Sold for ₤40,000 = $64,800
3. The same pointy mountains with cotton ball trees appear in a panel from a different Life of David set depicting the Death of Absalom, 3.27 x 5.25m, end of the 16c., Beaune, Musee des Hospices. Pub in Dhondt, no. 9.

The curly hair and beards arc virtually identical to our example which is from a                                                                                               somewhat less distinguished series, however.

Interestingly, de Meuter in her magisterial surrey of Audenarde weaving does not focus on any Life of David series. Could our example be from a later edition of the same cartoon as the Beaune examples, albeit with different borders? The Beaune piece has a town mark, but lacks that of the weaver.

4. The same mountains and trees recur in tapestry of Jason & Medea with Golden Fleece, c 1580-1600, 3.04m x 4.24 from the Abbey of Kremsműnster (de Meuter, p. 177)
5. The same larger trees, mountains, etc. again appear in a Game Park panel, 1580-1600, with an unidentified weaver’s mark from the Audenardo Galerie d’Art M. Ragge-De Baere (de Meauter, p. 178) The floral border with round cartouches centering each side is no identical to recent published examples, but there are the same useful parallels.
6. Similar elliptical/round cartouches in border centers appear on a Game Park examples, c.1580 – 1600 (de Meuter, p-143). The trees and mountains are also in the usual formula. The weaver’s mark, again & alas, is not identified. The border on our example was constructed from
   1. The left and right borders (left woven first) are identical in content and direction’s
   2. The top border is an axial reflection across the centre;
   3. The lower border uses the same cartoon as the upper with similar axial reflection, but in addition.
   4. The pumpkin still life is inverted from right to left;
   5. The central roundels with castles are unchanged in both end borders.

These simple manipulations of a few basic modules allow the weaver to produce variety without the expanse of additional cartoon. This is characteristic of production for the middle class in a provincial production centre.

Diagrammatically we see

The castles in the roundels are top/bottom and right/left identical, and are generic buildings with no reference to particular estates.

7. Gőbel, no. 448 has side borders repeated in the same direction and has roundels in the centers of all 4 sides. He dates it c.1640 but clearly it seems earlier, c.1610
8. A Brussels panel, early 17c. 8’8” x 11’4” with an unidentified Biblical scene was sold Sotheby’s N.Y., 23.5.03, lot 81, est. $10 – 15,000. It was of slightly finer execution and equally preserved color. (see p. for more comperanda).

Weaving in Audenarde is comprehensively covered in two recent exhibitions catalogues:

L. DeMeuter, M. Vanwelder, etc. al Tapesseries d’Audenarde du XVI au XVII Siecles, Tiele, 1999

L. Dhondt and F. Van Ommeslaeghe, Audenarde: Tapisseries Flamandes du XVI au XVIII Siecles, Arras, 1994

The illustrations only partly overlap and neither includes additional members of the series of our piece, thus it seems to be unknown to the specialist literature.

9. Of roughly the same quality and period, but slightly larger is a hunting tapestry from Audenarde, end 16c. 8’9” x 11’2”, sold Sotheby’s, N.Y., 13.1.95 lot 78, est. $20-25,000
10. A Biblical panel, c.1600 probably from nearby Enghien, 10’6” x 12’9” was sold Sotheby’s, N.Y. 6.6.94, lot 168, est. $20-25,000

#18888 Tapestry: circa 1650

Rug #18888
Subject: Scene from a life of Moses Series, probably the reconciliation of Miriam and Zipporah
Size:10’1” x 12’8” (3.07m x 3.86m).
Period: Late 16^th / early 17^th century.
Origin: Brussels, no mark
Maker: No mark.
Structure: Warp, wool, tan natural, Z-4-s, 19 – 20/in.
Weft: wool Z-2, 60-64/in and
Silk, Z-2 or z-3, 68-74/in

Iconography:

The likely cast of characters is follows:

1. Moses with halo in center, slightly to rear, presiding over the foreground event, the “horns” of the Old Testament text refer actually to rays of light. The goat-like protuberances of later art are really a literal and incorrect reading of the text.
2. The pair of figures on the left hefting an urn-like Ark of the Covenants one of which with a particularly fine back view and striped loincloth, are very Mannerist in style, indicating an origin in Italy, outside the Netherlands, in the circle of some early 16^th century artist, possibly Giulio Romano, Mark Antonio Raimondi, Rosso Fiorentino or someone else of that trend. The figures are imported as a unit into the composition. Interestingly the two figures and their burden reappear in the 17^th century French tapestry of the Triumph of Alexander after Charles Le Brun, but they have been swung around to nearly parallel the picture plane, although the rear orientation of the figure is still prominent.
3. The two female figure in the foreground may well be
   1. On the left Zipporah, the wife of Moses; and
   2. On the right Miriam, the sister of Moses.
4. A servant woman holds the train of Zipporah
5. Other Israelite women.

Miriam and Zipporah are reconciled after a long period during which Miriam criticizes and speaks out against Moses and his policies as tribal leader. For this she is punished by God: her skin instead of being the brownish hue of the Israelites becomes white. Only when she ceases her dissent is she healed. This event may be depicted here. (cf Ex.. 4:14-16, Micoh 6:11, Deut. 24:9 for details)

The life of Moses was depicted in various other sets from 1530’s on ward with among others the following subjects:

1. Passage of The Red Sea
2. Brazen Serpent
3. Finding Gathering of Manna
4. Moses Receiving The Tables of The Law
5. Rebecca and Eleazar
6. Moses Prohibited from Setting Foot in The Promise Land
7. Worship of The Golden Calf
8. Joshua Defeats Amalek at the Battle of Rephidim

Among the extant sets we may list:

1. The earliest a series of 9 panels (of 10), Brussels, 1530-40, designed by Bernard Van Orley and woven by Jan Gheetels, at Chateau Chateaudunt Somzee Coll.
2. Another set from the same cartoon also woven in Brussels, lacking a maker’s mark, 1545-1554, 9 panels (of 10) at the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.
3. Five panels (of 10), c. 1575 woven by Martin Reymbouts in Brussels now at the Chartres Musee De Beaux Arts, given in 1578 to the cathedral by Bishop Nicolas de Thou
4. Two panels (of 10) in the San Francisco Palace of The Legion of Honor; Brussels, c. 1550, possibly by Peter II van Aelst (unknown artist, but the same as that for the panel from the life of Jacob in the same museum, some of the same figures are even used)
5. 7 panels (of 10) from Oudenarde, 2^nd half of the 16^th century, now Monuments Historiques de France, much more traditional in style and lacking the Italianate mannerist elements. The whole effect is more planar and flat. The border could have come from a Verdure.

The Life of Moses was popular later, and a set of indeterminate size, was woven in 1660’s in Brussels by Jan Parmentier with one panel, in square format, surviving.

Apparently there are other panels surviving from The Life of Moses, but whether they constitute disjecta membra of true a series relating just Moses or whether they are single mosaic episodes along with other O.T. scenes in different cycles is open to question. They could belong with such non-mosaic scenes as Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, David and Goliah, Susanna and The Elders, David and Bathsheba, the Judgment of Solomon, etc. to illustrate various salient O.T. events.

The border is slightly broken into at the top and bottom centre. The same effect, though more prominent, appears on a 12 Months of The Year series by Jan Franz van den Hecke, Brussels, c. 1590. It is possible that our piece may have some connection with his workshop.

#17577 Aubusson: circa 1800

Rug #17577
Aubusson Carpet
France, Aubusson Workshops
Size: 15’6” x 25’6”
Period: Directoire, 1797-1804
Structure:
warp:    wool, tan to light brown, natural, Z-2-S, 8/in.
weft:     wool, Z-2-S, 24/in
technique: slit tapestry

This flatweave carpet is a fine example of the relatively short-lived “Pompeian” style with purely two-dimensional surface decoration popular in the years after the French Revolution, but before Napoleons’ grandiose imperial aspirations.  The open, classicizing ornament in distinct panels is an adaptation at several removes of wall frescoes discovered at Pompeii in the later 18^th century which came as a revelation to European designers who, except for the grotesques of the Golden House of Nero in Rome, had no experience of classical wall décor.  The light, airy, spare, elegant patterns were first promulgated in France by Percier le’Fontaine, particularly for furniture and objects, and were then interpreted by designers working for the major Aubusson workshops.  The artists include Koby, la Segliere Desfarges, Lagremee, Dubois, Barraband and most prominently Harmayde de Saint-Ange, the most innovative of the lot.  Unfortunately signed cartoons or sketches by these artists do not seem to have survived in any significant quantity and one cannot attribute particular carpets to individual artists.  But our piece is surely the work of one of these designers.

The period of popularity of the Pompeian style was quite short.  The Revolution abruptly cut off what was in the 1780s a steadily increasing demand for Aubusson rugs of all types.  May workshops closed so that by 1796 the local industry was at such a low evv that unemployed workers were rioting and a military regiment had to be garrisoned in town to prevent looting.  Thus, the style has to begin after that time as there is a radical break with what went before.

After 1804 style quite rapidly changes from Directoire neo-classical chasteness to the much heavier full Empire style with thick wreaths and garlands, military elements in abundance, and so obvious Imperial symbols, more three dimensional and generally richer and opulent appearance.  Thus our piece, of purely Pompeian character may securely be dated circa 1800.

It must be noted parenthetically that much of Aubusson production, especially after 1800 when a workshop was set up in Paris in the Marais district by Sallandrouze de Mornaiz, who previously operated only in Aubusson, to make pile carpets, is in full knotted structure and so it is incorrect to call all French, pile rugs Savonneries.  Sallandrouze became the leading merchant-entrepreneur in Aubusson, often collaborating with another dealer, Kegier.  He certainly had the resources to make rugs of any size and it is not impossible that our carpet may have some connection with him.  A third shop, that of Debel was also active in Aubusson at this time and his may be another candidate for its source.

By 1807 an improving economic situation had drawn other businesses to Aubusson and shops were owned by F. Roby, P. Maingonnat, L. Fournier, F. Desfarges, J. Peyroux and especially Bellanger & Vayson, but these are too late for our piece.  Unlike Brussels or Antwerp tapestries, pieces are not market to indicate workshops and the few designs do not have factory indications.

After 1806 Rogier & Sallandrouze were busy with many court commissions for pile rugs and the designer Saint-Ange who supplied them with designs had shifted to the heavier Empire style, but before that date that combination could be the source of our rug.  But any of the other designers could have done the work as well.  Thus Jarry gives neither designer nor workshop in her book’s plate captions.

As for a possible patron, the matter is inconclusive at best.  It has been suggested that the rampant lion in the central square and the lion masks in the corner squares are quasi-armorial, referring to the possible patron or at least to his status.  But there are many examples of this period where a pictorial motif appears in a setting of panel borders, geometric flowers, anthemion scrolls, garlands, rosettes, etc. with no external reference, and not just in rugs.  In silks designed by Rony of c. 1800 from Lyon we find a cupid on one, a nymph on another, in precisely the same sort of paneled array, among exactly these same decorative elements.  The same type of baguette with scroll ornaments and intermittent lozenges appears on another c. 1800 silk textile.  Eagles and cryphons appear on rugs of the period in central devices or in border medallions.  Similar border styles and ornamental panels with muchan or animal figures also appear on painted wallpaper of the period.  A good selection of these designs appears in Les Nouvelles Collections de l’Union Centrale des Arts Decoratifs, 19^th series, esp, pls. 85-7, 89, 91-2, 97, 106.  Therefore the lion is most unlikely to be referential, but merely decorative, and could be replaced by any one of several other animals or other devices appropriate to a neo-classical design scheme.

The use of borders with prominent square corner elements is very characteristic of the period.  The double panels at each end allows an otherwise square composition to be enlarged without changing the proportions of the central section.  For a somewhat shorter rug a single extra panel at each end would suffice.

The lion masks in the corners ensuite with the central beast provide a consistency of motif which again appears in any number of variants: musical instruments, classical military trophies, grapes (corners) and classical wine cup (centre), etc. (Cf. Nouvelles Colls. Pls. 88, 95, 100).  Other animals in the center may include the peacock.

Comparanda include:

Jarry, Carpets of Aubusson, fig. 35 and fig. 43.  For a closely related (pile) Savonnerie, see Jarry, Savonnerie, fig. 58.

 

*Post written by Peter Saunders, edited for Rahmanan by Katrina Mauro

#21100 French Tapestry

Rug # 21100

Tapestry, probably Beauvais, France

7’0” x 7’8”

Probably second half of the 19^th century

In the style of Francois Boucher (mid 18^th century)

.

Structure and Materials:

Warp: wool, natural, tan, Z-3-S, 19-20/in

Weft:    wool, Z-2-S, 50-60/in

silk, Z-2-S, 50-100/in

Description:

The present panel depicts a scene from classical mythology, but a full identification is not yet possible.  In a mountainous, wooded landscape a herdsman plays a flute beneath a tree on a hillock, all to the right.  A lyre rests at his feet and a shepherd’s crook lies in his lap.  At the upper right, Mercury (Hermes) flies in clutching a quiver and bow.  Behind the tree at far right are several cows.  A youthful, winged figure, almost certainly Cupid (Eros) listens raptly to the music.  Three maidens in dancing poses approach from the left up a slope.  The image is closed on the left by a full, leafy tree and floral garlands hang from trees on both sides.   There are still lifes of fruit in the foreground as well as naturalistically depicted flowering plants.

The subject of the tapestry hinges on the identity of the piping figure.  The lyre would indicate Apollo, but since it has been discarded in favor of the flute, the identification is less likely.

.

Remarks:

What Beauvais  series this is not from is easier to determine.  It is not a part of either The Loves of the Gods (Amour, des Dieux) nor Scenes from Operas, both executed at Beauvais from 1750 onward.  The former series has much larger (up to 14’0” x 17’0”) panels and more complex iconography.  The latter series of only four subjects is not comparable in subject matter.  The style is certainly derivative of Boucher, but the rendering seems less assured and more generic.  It is not the work of Gobelins: there is a Loves of the Gods series from that manufactory, but neither the large panels nor the subsidiary sections, executed from 1757 onwards, are in any way similar to the present piece even though a few share subject matter with the contemporary Beauvais ensemble.

We are left with two possibilities: first that this panel is part of a larger, untraced mid 18^th century tapestry, itself likely part of a series, of Beauvais origin.  Less likely since all the action is directed toward and converges near the Cupid figure.  Secondly, that it is a 19^th century quasi pastiche of Boucheresque themes and depictions.  The relatively small size (see below), a feature of 19^th century production, may militate in this direction.  The date, then, could well be in the 2^nd half of the 19^th century.  The standard work on Beauvais weaving (Jules Badini Le Manufacture des Tapisserie de Beauvais, 1909, Paris) does not discuss 19^th century production in any detail and is, in any case, out-of-date.  No such piece appears in major museum catalogues.

Condition:

Originally there was a faux giltwood picture frame border about 6”-8” wide, giving and overall size of 8’0”-8’4” x 8’8”-9’0”.  It has been slightly framed all around, especially on the right.  A plain woven two tone brown selvage has been added.

There are areas of wear and powdering in the silk; minor splitting, and creases.  The colors are slightly faded, but the red of the piping figure has held up well.  The distant landscape is quite pastel.

.

To view this tapestry on our website, please use the following link:

http://www.rahmanan.com/inventory/show/21100/

*Written and researched by Peter Saunders, edited by Katrina Mauro.

#20319 French Tapestry: circa 1900

Rug #: 20319

Tapestry, Gobelins Factory, France

9’0” x 6’4” (2.77 m x 1.92 m)

Circa 1900

“The Air” or “Aurora & Cephalus”, from a set of The Four Elements

From a design of Francois Boucher

Structure:

Slit tapestry weave.

Warp:   linen, natural, beige, Z-2-S, 25/in

Weft:    silk, Z-2, 90 wefts/in² , or

Wool, Z-2-S, plain tan edge and various small details

No marks of origin

Subject:

This panel is the first of a series of four depicting classical allegories of The Elements (Air, Earth, Water, Fire).  Francois Boucher created the original paintings around 1770 and the first edition of the set was woven between 1772 and 1776.  “Air” was the first woven and was 3.0m x 1.85m, a taller and narrower format than our example.

The figures are: male, Cephalus, dressed as a hunter; female, Aurora; and Cupid (Eros), all within a tall, airy pavilion supported by four thin colonettes and topped by a garlanded baldachin.  The figures rest on a garden seat and there are trees and flowers in the background.  A dog chases some birds in the foreground.  In the other tapestries in the series, there are similar male/female pairings (Vertumnus and Pomona for Earth, Neptune and Amymone for Water, and Venus and Vulcan for fire).

Remarks:

1. The series was copied several times between 1894 and 1897 from the original cartoons in the Louvre.  Our example is not copied exactly and is not one of the late 19^th Century copies.
   1. The design is reversed: in the original Cephalus is to the left and Aurora to the right;
   2. The proportions differ, the original is narrower and taller (3.5 m x 2.56 m);
   3. Elements are added or changed, e.g. the long vertical hanging garlands along the rear colonette of the pavilion; the dog (reversed in position) has changed his coat; the bases of the colonettes are more visible in the later version;
   4. The faces are sweeter and softer with Cephalus given a more youthful and feminine look;
   5. The background landscape has changed and the tree has been moved behind the rear upright; many other minor compositional changes are evident.

Now this process alone is not sufficient to imply a later date since as early as 1779 the models were modified in their details and the sizes were reduced in the case of a particular order.

This implies that our tapestry was not copied from an original cartoon but from another tapestry.  Most important, the entire composition is reversed and this occurs when a tapestry is copied from another: the original is placed face up behind the warps, but the weaver works from the back of the new piece, thus reversing the sense of the finished work.

The border in early pieces from this series is a brown, tone-on-tone mosaic imitating a picture frame while here it’s a plain brown band.

Date:

The quality of weaving is extremely high and is fully comparable to the best early work.  The soft tonality in beige-gold-rust tones differs from the fully colored period examples.  This panel is not of the dimensions of the 1894-97 series discussed by Fenaille (1906 and later).  He does not mention later editions.  The tonality is popular from the later 19^th century and appears on many late copies of earlier panels.  One may reasonably conclude that this panel is an early 20^th century reproduction.  The other three panels have not been recorded.  The Gobelins source is clear as the excellent quality of workmanship is not approached at Beauvais or Aubusson, and the designs have always been associated with Gobelins.  The shorter height indicates a smaller room, possibly in an urban context rather than in a country chateau.

To view this tapestry on our website use the following link:

http://www.rahmanan.com/inventory/show/20319/

*Written and researched by Peter Saunders, edited by Katrina Mauro.

#40-1150 Silvia Heyden Tapestry: circa 1965

Rug #:40-1150

Origin: America

Type: Tapestry

Size: 4’3″ x 7’7″

Construction: High warp linen tapestry

Circa: 1965

 

 

 

 

Silvia Heyden, born Silvia Stucky, in Basel Switzerland in 1927, studied at the School of Arts in Zürich from 1948-1953 .  After her marriage to Dr Siegfried Heyden in 1954, Silvia spent the following years with her children in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Berlin.

Her first tapestry loom was purchased in 1964 for a large commission for the Expo-Suisse in Lausanne, Switzerland.  The family moved to Durham, NC when Siegfried received a new position at the Duke University Medical Center in 1966.  This move would lead to her first major exhibit at the Duke University of Art Museum, in Durham in 1972.

From 1974-1992 Heyden took part in numerous large exhibits and worked on commissions in the US and Europe.  This particular piece was made in America, the label seen below (included with this tapestry), indicates the hometown of the designer.

*written and researched by: Katrina Mauro

Flemmish Tapestry #20440: circa 1700

Tapestry, Flemish, probably Brussels, depicting a scene from the Story of Tobias.

Late 17^th Century

7’ 2” x 10’ 2” (originally approximately 10-10’ 6” x 12’ 6”- 13”)

No weaver’s on town mark.

Rebordered in plain stripes; slightly reduced from larger piece.

Structure:

Warp: wool, beige, natural, Z-2-S, 11-12 warps/in

Pattern Wefts:

1. wool, Z-1
2. silk, golden-beige only, not original, several restoration campaigns.

Weft density: wool, 21-25 facing wefts (42-50 overall) /inch.

Subject: Tobias and the archangel Rafael.

The iconographic source is the Apocryphal Book of Tobit (O.T.). The present panel displays vigorous, almost life size figures of Tobias, son of Tobit and his escort Rafael in the guise of Azarias, and accompanied by his faithful dog. Tobias and the Angel are in semi-classical garb, thus placing the action in an ancient or mythical past. Further, Tobias is dressed as a hunter with spear and bow, but lacks quiver and arrows.  His dog is a hunting hound. The garments of both protagonists are wind blown, thus indicating rapid forward movement.

The iconography of Tobias varies in Western art, but here he is a young man with a blonde mustache, not the boy as is frequent in this tale. The angel is androgynous (the pearl earring) and lacks any angelic attributes. The wings are mimicked by the windblown drapery. They will only be revealed later. The figures pass through a pure, wooded landscape with no buildings or people visible in the small views through the forest. There is a variety of small flowering plants in the lower foreground.

This panel comes from a set of at least four (or probably six) tapestries which may have included some of the following scenes:

1. The blinding of old Tobit, Tobias’s father, from bird droppings in his eyes.
2. Tobias taking leave of his father in order to travel to Rhages to collect a debt before the old man’s demise;
3. Tobias and the angel en route to Rhages – our panel;
4. Tobias at the bank of the Tigris river catching the giant fish which has attacked him. The Angel informs him that certain innards of the fish will be useful and in particular, that the intestines or gall bladder will cure his father’s blindness;
5. Tobias applying the piscine entrails to his father’s eyes;
6. The Archangel, after having revealed himself, taking leave of the house of Tobias after the cure;
7. Tobias meeting or betrothing Sara, she of many husbands;
8. Tobias and Sara in prayer.

Because of the Tobias-Sara connection, these tapestry sets were popular in Europe in the upper classes as marriage gifts from the 16^th century onwards. A six piece set, late 17^th century of either Brussels or Dutch origin covered the walls of the Stadtholder of Friesland in his mansion in Leeuwarden.

Although the series was often a marriage present, there are a few sets surviving, Gobel (Wandteppichie, v.I) and Tapestry in the Baroque MMA 2008), do not illustrate or mention specific Flemish Tobias story series or panels.

Condition: although slightly reduced and rebordered, this piece is not a fragment of a much larger panel. There is some rewefting in the wool areas and a few small reweaves. The overall condition is good with strong colors across the entire palette, the reds and yellows have held up well. The silk areas which have been replaced are discreet and not light or “hot” as is the case with many injudicious restorations.

In general, the tapestry is very attractive with large, lively figures and clear colors, it is extremely decorative in the best sense.

*research and writing by Peter Saunders, edited by Katrina Mauro.