{"id":2686,"date":"2011-12-14T16:53:12","date_gmt":"2011-12-14T20:53:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.vassar.edu\/rosso\/"},"modified":"2012-08-16T16:19:16","modified_gmt":"2012-08-16T20:19:16","slug":"d-73-design-for-a-gilt-silver-cantoral-baton-for-notre-dame-paris","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/catalogues\/drawings\/d-73-design-for-a-gilt-silver-cantoral-baton-for-notre-dame-paris\/","title":{"rendered":"D.73 Design for a Gilt Silver Cantoral Baton for Notre Dame, Paris"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

D.73 Cantoral Baton<\/p><\/div>\n

Early 1538<\/p>\n

Paris (1988), Private Collection.<\/p>\n

Fig.D.73a<\/a> bw
\nFig.D.73b<\/a> bw, tempietto
\nFig.D.73c<\/a> bw, hand
\nFig.D.73d<\/a> bw, inscription<\/p>\n

Black chalk, pen and ink, gray-brown, bistre, and yellow washes,1<\/sup><\/a> over traces of black chalk, pin holes at some of the angles of the architecture (tempietto) at the head of the baton, 52 (at right edge) x 29.6 (bottom),2<\/sup><\/a> wm., bunch of grapes, similar to Briquet 13065.\u00a0 Inscribed in ink to the left of the head of the baton: L\u2019an mil cinq cens trente sept, le lundi dix huitiesme jour de fevrier, ce present pourtraict a est\u00e9 sign\u00e9 des notaries soubzsscriptz en ensuyvant certain march\u00e9 faict par Mac\u00e9 Begault, maistre orfevre \u00e0 Paris \u00e0 messieures de chappitre de Paris par devant les notaries soubzsscriptz<\/em> followed by the signatures of the two notaries of Ch\u00e2telet Boreau<\/em> and C. Martin<\/em> (Fig.D.73d<\/a>).3<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 On the verso<\/em> are two indecipherable numbers or letters (according to B\u00e9guin,1988 [1989], 8).<\/p>\n

PROVENANCE: Paris, Bruno de Bayser.<\/p>\n

LITERATURE:<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, 1988 (1989), and Figs. 1, 2, 12, as by Rosso.<\/p>\n

Grodecki, 1988 (1989), proved that the drawing was the model for a baton made for the Chapter of Notre Dame early in 1538 on Rosso\u2019s design and which can be found in the inventories of the chapter until the end of 1791.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This large drawing (Fig.D.73a<\/a>), which I know only from photographs, is a model for a cantoral baton in the actual size of the work that, according to the inscription, was to be executed by the goldsmith Mac\u00e9 Begault for the Chapter of Notre Dame in Paris.\u00a0 The image is slightly cut at the top but more extensively, it would seem, at the bottom, where much of the baton below the hand is missing.\u00a0 The inscription of February 18, 1538 (new style),4<\/sup><\/a> mentions an agreement that had been made with the goldsmith for the execution of this baton, but which has not survived among the papers of Claude Martin.\u00a0 This agreement was made sometime after December 14, 1537, when the chapter decided to have the baton made (Grodecki, 1988 [1989], 17, 29, n. 1) and the date on the drawing.\u00a0 The decision was made only three months after Rosso had become a canon of the Chapter of Notre Dame.\u00a0 The style and the details of the baton and the draughtsmanship of the drawing indicate that the drawing is by Rosso, as B\u00e9guin argued.\u00a0 The context in which the drawing was made and the baton actually executed, as thoroughly presented by Grodecki, supports this attribution.<\/p>\n

The architectural details of the little temple or baldachin that encloses the statue of the Virgin and Child (Fig.D.73b<\/a>) are virtually identical to what appear in Rosso\u2019s Design for an Altar<\/em> (Fig.D.38a<\/a>).\u00a0 The composite capitals are similarly very plain [as distinct from their elaborated and finished appearance in Alberti\u2019s engraving of the Altar<\/em> drawing (Fig.E.4a<\/a>)].\u00a0 Both drawings are executed in the same rudimentary fashion of simple outlines and a few broad washes to serve as clear models for sculpture.\u00a0 The draughtsmanship of the Baton<\/em> is also similar to that of Rosso\u2019s Design for a Chapel<\/em> (Fig.D.37a<\/a>).\u00a0 In all three of these drawings, the \u201cstatues\u201d are drawn in the same simplified manner, and the Christ Child in the Baton<\/em> drawing has the same bald pointed head that is found in the other drawings.\u00a0 An apparently bare-breasted Virgin is also found in Rosso\u2019s Annunciation <\/em>known from a copy in Dusseldorf (Fig.D.83<\/a>).\u00a0 Given the kind of modello<\/em> that it is, the drawing gives every appearance of being an autograph work by Rosso.<\/p>\n

The drawing would have been done after December 14, 1537 and before February 18, 1538, and probably in January or early February of 1538.<\/p>\n

From Grodecki\u2019s research, the further history of the cantoral baton, referred to in the margins of the relevant documents as \u201cBacculus domini cantoris ecclesie,\u201d is known.\u00a0 On April 15, 1538, the chapter designated the chorister, the under-chorister, and two canons, Malabry and Rosso himself, to verify that the newly made silver gilt baton conformed to what had been specified in the invoice for it:<\/p>\n

Paris, National Archives, LL 140, p. 230:<\/p>\n

Committunt domini cantor, succentor, Malabry et de Rossis ad videndum pastes aurifabri qui de novo reparavit baculum argenteum domini cantoris deauratum, ad referendum. (Grodecki, 1988 [1989], 17, 23, n. 2.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Two weeks later, the clerk of Notre Dame was authorized to pay the master goldsmith and the gilder for their work (Grodecki, 1988 [1989], 17, 23, n. 3).\u00a0 But while in the inscription on the drawing, the master goldsmith is given as Mac\u00e9 Begault, in the authorization statement he is named Nicolas Maire.\u00a0 The gilder\u2019s name is given as \u201cMatheo Begault.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Grodecki stated that this authorization indicates that the baton must have satisfied the four men who were asked to evaluate it on April 15.\u00a0 What, however, cannot be known is how closely the silver gilt baton resembled the model presented by Rosso\u2019s drawing.<\/p>\n

The baton was between 1.30 and 1.60 meters long, composed of the staff and the crowning element, an open tempietto containing a statuette of the standing Virgin and Child.\u00a0 The baton was the sign of the dignity of the chorister (chanter) of Notre Dame, who, after the Dean, was the most important dignitary of the Chapter of Notre Dame.\u00a0 In 1538, the chorister was Martin Ruz\u00e9, whose name, however, does not appear in any of the documents related to the baton.\u00a0 The baton is listed in the inventories of the Treasury of the chapter from 1538 until 1790.\u00a0 It seems to have been melted down along with most of the other treasures of the chapter in 1791.\u00a0 In the 1539 inventory, it is described as surmounted by a fleur de lys; a fleur de lys is at the top of the tempietto in Rosso\u2019s drawing.\u00a0 But in the inventory of 1626, it is described as surmounted by a false colored stone, which in 1790 is said to be red.\u00a0 Grodecki believed that this colored stone replaced the fleur de lys, but from a picture of the baton of 1669 (see below), it seems that the stone replaced only the uppermost part of it.<\/p>\n

Of the several representations of the baton, the best, as pointed out by Grodecki, appears in color as part of the decorative band at the top of a page of a large choir book painted in 1669 by \u00c9tienne Compardel (Fig.Compardel<\/a>; Fig.\u00c9tienne Compardel<\/a>) in the Mus\u00e9e Notre-Dame (Grodecki, 1988 [1989], 21, Figs. 4-5).\u00a0 Here it is depicted twice for the sake of the symmetry of the design.\u00a0 Although the painted batons are clearly related to that of Rosso\u2019s drawing, they are not identical to it.\u00a0 What cannot be known is whether these differences are those seen in the actual baton.\u00a0 Among various possibilities, the design could have been slightly altered by Rosso himself before the goldsmith executed it, or the design could have been altered by the goldsmith.\u00a0 Compardel may also have made changes.\u00a0 The proportions of the painted tempietto are more squat, while the supporting element beneath it is taller.\u00a0 In the miniature the arches of the tempietto spring from immediately behind the urns above the piers; they are set farther back in Rosso\u2019s drawing to form a less airy canopy than appears in the seventeenth century depiction.\u00a0 The Virgin carries the Child in her left arm and there is no indication of a book.\u00a0 The knob at the top of the staff has a different design.\u00a0 Furthermore, there is no unadorned area on the staff where in the drawing appears the hand that grasps the baton.\u00a0 But in the miniature the end section of one of the batons can be seen with its terminal ring and point.<\/p>\n

Grodecki pointed out that the single angel head beneath the base of the tempietto is replaced in the miniature by a small enameled shield, blue with nine gold spots, which, although impossible to identify, are probably fleurs de lys.\u00a0 The arms are not those of the chapter or of Martin Ruz\u00e9.\u00a0 Grodecki thought it might be a royal shield and hence indicate that the baton was originally partly paid for by the crown.\u00a0 Of course, it is possible that this shield is a replacement for the angel\u2019s head, perhaps made when the fake ruby was added to the top.<\/p>\n

I am inclined to believe that Compardel\u2019s batons, while based on the baton as executed, are not as faithful a representation of it as the finesse of the miniature might incline one to think.\u00a0 Their proportions are especially wrong.\u00a0 However, the canopy of the tempietto is similar to what appears in the depiction of the baton on a wood relief of the decoration of the choir stall (Fig.Choir stall relief<\/a>) that was made at the beginning of the seventeenth century (Grodecki, 1988 [1989], 21, Fig. 6, 22), suggesting either that the image of the relief was derived from Compardel\u2019s miniature, or that at some time before 1668 the original canopy of the baton was remade as it appears in that painting.\u00a0 This could have been before 1626, by which time the fake ruby appeared at the top.\u00a0 The armorial shield could also have been added then.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/a>1<\/sup> B\u00e9guin, 1988 (1989), 10, stated that the yellow wash was placed where the silver baton was to be gilt.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>2<\/sup> More specifically on the execution of the drawing: the hand and sleeve are drawn in black chalk with a pale gray-brown wash, but faint traces of black chalk are also found in the upper part of the drawing; the yellow wash to indicate gilt, apparently, is found on the ornamentation of the shaft, on the cherubs\u2019 heads, on some of the architectural elements of the baldachin; on the Virgin and Child, the yellow wash is mixed with the gray-brown wash.\u00a0 B\u00e9guin, 1988 (1989), 8, said the drawing was pricked, but she may be referring to the pin holes found in the \u201ctempietto,\u201d which were probably not for the transfer of this image but for the transfer from another perspective drawing by Rosso made in preparation for the finished drawing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>3<\/sup> From Grodecki, 1988 (1989), 17.\u00a0 George A. Wanklyn informed me that the principal notary is Claude Martin and that Boreau is another notary acting as a witness.\u00a0 The latter is either Jean Boreau (active 1516\/1517-1544) or Claude Boreau (active 1534-1588), both of whom appear in the documents pertaining to Rosso\u2019s activity published by Grodecki in Grodecki, 1975.\u00a0 Grodecki, 1988 (1989), identified Boreau as Jean Boreau, and Claude Martin as the notary attached to the chapter and the primary signer on the drawing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>4<\/sup> For another contract drawing of this type also to be used by Mac\u00e9 Begault and three other Parisian goldsmiths, see George A. Wanklyn, \u201cLe pr\u00e9sent offert \u00e0 Henri II par la Ville de Paris en 1549,\u201d RdA<\/em>, 46, 1979, 25-30, and B\u00e9guin, 1988 (1989), 8-9, 16, n. 11.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>5<\/sup> Grodecki, 1988 (1989), 17, gave his name as Mac\u00e9 Begault, the name of the master goldsmith on the drawing.\u00a0 But the document actually gives \u201cMatheo Begault.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Early 1538 Paris (1988), Private Collection. Fig.D.73a bw Fig.D.73b bw, tempietto Fig.D.73c bw, hand Fig.D.73d bw, inscription Black chalk, pen and ink, gray-brown, bistre, and yellow washes,1 over traces of black chalk, pin holes at some of the angles of the architecture (tempietto) at the head of the baton, 52 (at right edge) x 29.6 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"parent":820,"menu_order":77,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2686","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2686","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2686"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2686\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6515,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2686\/revisions\/6515"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/820"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2686"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}