{"id":9336,"date":"2013-06-04T16:31:36","date_gmt":"2013-06-04T20:31:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/?page_id=9336"},"modified":"2015-08-06T13:29:27","modified_gmt":"2015-08-06T17:29:27","slug":"summary-on-the-construction-and-decoration-of-the-gallery-of-francis-i","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/catalogues\/paintings\/p-22\/summary-on-the-construction-and-decoration-of-the-gallery-of-francis-i\/","title":{"rendered":"Summary on the Construction and Decoration of The Gallery of Francis I"},"content":{"rendered":"

The construction of the gallery was begun at some time after the specifications for it were set down in the document of 28 April 1528.1<\/a>\u00a0<\/sup> The interior of the gallery was to be approximately 64 m. long and 6 wide with casement windows in the long north and south walls. \u00a0At both the north and the south side there was to be erected a cabinet, about 4 m. square, with a window in each across from the one in the other cabinet, the specifications probably implying in the center of the gallery. \u00a0Within the gallery there was to be built, at the east end, a chapel, and at the west end, another cabinet. \u00a0A stairway was to be constructed at the west end to lead down to the buildings of the abbey that existed here. \u00a0Finally, there were to be built five chimneys to serve the gallery and cabinets most appropriately. \u00a0Construction seems to have been sufficiently well advanced by December 1529 for the gallery to be referred to as already existing in the document recording the purchase of half the land on which it is situated.2<\/a>\u00a0<\/sup> On 28 August 1533 payments were made to painters and other workers for the painting in the gallery of \u201cplusieurs histories anciennes et modernes\u201d within the months of July, August, and September of that year. \u00a0The two records of these payments differ in that one indicates work in the present and the other in the future, a difference which might be explained by the fact that the date of payment falls approximately in the middle of the quarter for which the payments were made. \u00a0But, whatever the length of time, it was within this third quarter of 1533 that painters were working on the decoration of the gallery.3<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Although this is the earliest documented reference to work on the decoration of the gallery Rosso\u2019s concern with this decoration must antedate this moment. \u00a0For Vasari indicates (see below) that the two oil paintings that Rosso made and that were placed in the center of the east and west walls of the gallery were painted before Primaticcio arrived in France. \u00a0It appears that he arrived some time between mid- or late January and late March 1532; he is documented as already working at Fontainebleau on 2 July 1533. \u00a0Rosso\u2019s lost paintings must, therefore, have been done before the latter date and quite possibly even before the spring of 1532.\u00a0 As it is known that they were oval in shape they must have been made for a setting planned for them as oval pictures were not made as independent paintings at this time.4<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/sup>Furthermore, as Vasari says they were placed in the gallery it must almost certainly be concluded that they were painted for that room. \u00a0Rosso would, then, have begun considering the decoration of the gallery before mid-1533 and probably before the spring of 1532, by which time the planned cabinet at the west and the chapel at the east could have been eliminated from the project.5<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 However, even without the evidence related to the oval paintings it would have to be assumed that there was a lengthy period of preparation for the decoration of the gallery before the painters and other workers began to execute the decoration in the gallery itself in the third quarter of 1533.<\/p>\n

Given the documents of payment for this period, it is very probable that a list of payments for the painting, stuccowork and gilding at Fontainebleau for the slightly later period of 31 December 1533 \u2013 24 March 1535 must also include payments for work done in the gallery. \u00a0The heading of this list mentions not only the Chambre du Roi and the Chambre de la Reine but also the gallery. \u00a0Unfortunately, while the first two rooms, done under Primaticcio\u2019s direction, are mentioned in some of the individual payments recorded in this list, the gallery is not. \u00a0At the same time not every entry in this list states the location of the work for which payment is made, or gives any other indication from which a location can be determined. \u00a0However, four payments for stuccowork in an unspecified location are made to artists that immediately subsequent lists indicate were active in the gallery. \u00a0Two of these payments also give the period of time for which they are made: one to Francesco Pellegrino for work done in the period from 12 April 1534 to 24 March 1535, the second to Andr\u00e9 Selon (elsewhere named Seron) for work done between 24 November 1534 to 24 March 1535. \u00a0It may, therefore, be necessary to recognize that stuccowork in the gallery was begun at least by 12 April 1534. \u00a0Following upon this list that gives payments for work to 24 March 1535 appears a list of payments only for stuccowork in the gallery from April 1535 to 34 April 1536. \u00a0Payments for stuccowork continued to be made until into the period after 1 January 1538.<\/p>\n

It has generally been recognized, and most probably correctly on the basis of the evidence of the documents, that the execution of the stuccoes in the gallery was begun and significantly advanced before the execution of the frescoes was started. \u00a0The list of payments from April 1535 to 30 April 1536 is headed as referring to both painting and stuccowork and contains within it payments specifically for painting. \u00a0The last item in this list records a payment to Rosso, \u201cconducteur desdits ouvrages de stucq et painture,\u201d probably for April 1536. \u00a0This is the earliest documentary reference to Rosso in relation to the gallery.6<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 But the list as a whole seems to indicate that the frescoes may have been begun as early as April 1535, or just one year after the stuccoes would seem to have been begun. \u00a0Rosso is then paid every month from April 1536, probably, through November 1536 which would seem to indicate the period of his most personal supervision of the frescoes and the period in which most of them were done.7<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 He may well have participated in the execution of them himself. \u00a0There is one payment in 1537 to Badouin for \u201cun grand pourtraict pour l\u2019un des tableaux\u2026 dedans la grande gallerie,\u201d which has been thought to refer to Primaticcio\u2019s Dana\u00eb<\/em>, but this is not proveable. \u00a0Within the period after 1 January 1538 there are a few more indications in the documents of painting in the gallery. \u00a0One item again records a payment to Rosso as director of the project. \u00a0The document of 2 April 1539 recording the revised specifications for the wood paneling, seats, and floor mentions the paintings and stuccoes as having been made. \u00a0Certainly it may be concluded that the paintings and stuccoes were completed by the time that the wood paneling, seats, and floor were installed sometime before 21 October 1539 when Scibec de Carpi received his final payment for them.8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

If the stuccoes were begun in April 1534 and the frescoes not until a year later it leaves unclear what the payment of 28 August 1533 was for. \u00a0The document refers to painters and other workers concerned with painting that the king ordered for his \u201cgrant gallerye.\u201d \u00a0Before the stuccowork was begun extensive preparations had to be made. \u00a0The walls would have to have been prepared to receive stuccoes and frescoes but also working drawings and cartoons would have to have been made for them. \u00a0It is therefore likely that this payment is for these kinds of preparatory work. \u00a0The huge space of the gallery would have provided good working space to make large cartoons.<\/p>\n

One detail in the chronology of the gallery that needs to be clarified is the moment of the elimination of the south cabinet and hence also the moment of the decision to add inside the gallery the wall that contains the Dana\u00eb<\/em> by Primaticcio set within a frame designed by Rosso. \u00a0The chapel at the east end and the cabinet at the west end that appear in the specifications of 28 April 1528 never again appear in the documents; their disappearance from the project probably occurred very early, at the very beginning of Rosso\u2019s consideration of the decoration of the gallery.9<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The north cabinet remained a part of the project. \u00a0The south cabinet was at least started. \u00a0As indicated in the document of final payment of 12 May 1535, the carpentry work of Josse Maillart in the galley and its adjoining cabinets was certified as done on 6 March 1535 [new style]. \u00a0This is the work the specifications of which in general terms were set down in the document of 28 April 1528 concerning carpentry. \u00a0Almost a year before this work was certified another set of masonry specifications was made, on 14 April 1534 (as known from the document of final payment of 18 February 1535 for work certified as done on 13 November 1534), for the construction of six kitchens and six larders carrying above them a terrace walkway adjoining the full length of the gallery on its south side. \u00a0The kitchens and larders were at ground level while the terrace was approximately at the level of the floor of the gallery although probably slightly lower. \u00a0After the foundation piers of the kitchens and larders were completed, by 13 November 1534, the carpenter Josse Maillart was contracted to build the centering for the arches that these piers would support, arches that in turn would support the terrace. \u00a0This contract was made on 4 March 1535, two days before his earlier work in the gallery and the cabinets was certified as finished. In this contract it is specified that in two of the larders would be enclosed the cabinet of the gallery, which can only mean the south cabinet. \u00a0It can also only mean the ground level support of this cabinet.10<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/sup>Here it must be recognized that the documents never speak of terraces (in the plural) which they might have had there been a cabinet above the ground level, with one terrace at its west, and one at its east side. \u00a0It is therefore probable that as early as 14 April 1534, when the masonry specifications of the kitchens, larders and terrace were set down, that the destruction of whatever had been built of the superstructure of the south cabinet was determined.11<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/sup>By this time the carpenter Josse Maillart had probably done some work on it for which he was later paid. \u00a0In the course of doing the masonry work of the kitchens, larders and terrace between April and November 1534 the upper part of the south cabinet was destroyed, or it was destroyed shortly thereafter while Josse Maillart was constructing the centering for the arches that supported the terrace. \u00a0A false window was then set into the center of the south fa\u00e7ade, giving this fa\u00e7ade the appearance that it has in the small fresco under the Venus and Minerva <\/em>(Fig.P.22, I N g<\/a>).12<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Inside the gallery the entrance to the south cabinet was filled in providing a new central wall area which was to receive Rosso\u2019s Nymph of Fontainebleau <\/em>(E.103<\/a>), known from the engraving by Milan and Boyvin (see below).<\/p>\n

What cannot be known is how much before 14 April 1534 the decision to abolish the south cabinet was made. \u00a0The evidence provided by the oval shape of a copy of a lost drawing by Rosso of his Education of Achilles<\/em> (D.53<\/a>) suggests an earlier scheme of alternating horizontal oval and horizontal rectangular pictures on the north and south walls, which may have followed an even earlier scheme with some upright rectangular frescoes.13<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The abandonment of the scheme of horizontal oval and rectangular pictures is probably related to the addition of the center section of the south wall to the gallery for which a horizontal oval picture was designed to be the only such picture in the gallery (perhaps from the shape of the pictures that were to be in the cabinets, on which, see below). \u00a0As Rosso would have seen that the decision to make this change effected the comparative appearance of other parts of the gallery, it would have to have been made before the stuccoers began to work. \u00a0These other parts would have been the center wall area of each of the four triads of walls at the east and west of the north and south sides of the gallery where the large frescoes were changed from oval to rectangular. \u00a0The redesigning of these four walls need not have taken a great deal of time but one should probably calculate a month or so for this activity. \u00a0Hence it is possible to assume that the decision to abandon the south cabinet took place within the first three months of 1534.14<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The stylistic evidence of the stuccoes and paintings in the gallery is sufficiently diverse to indicate that they were not all designed in one period.15<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 In the case of the Scene of Sacrifice (VII N) two versions are known. \u00a0The first version, known from copies of two lost drawings by Rosso (D.50A-D<\/a>, and D.51<\/a>) and from an engraving by Delaune (E.50<\/a>) derived from one of these copies, is closely related to the work that can be recognized as done early in Rosso\u2019s French period before the execution of decoration of the gallery was begun. \u00a0Stylistically the second and executed version of the Scene of Sacrifice<\/em> (Fig.P.22, VII N a<\/a>) can be associated with his Death of Adonis<\/em> (Fig.P.22, III S a<\/a>) that seems to have been designed in response to the death of the Dauphin on 10 August 1536.<\/p>\n

Between an early phase of activity in making designs for the gallery before the stuccoers began their work, and a late phase indicated by the executed Scene of Sacrifice<\/em> and the Death of Adonis,<\/em> another can be recognized. \u00a0This phase includes compositions the style of which shows Rosso expanding the character of his art not only as an extension of his earlier compositions but also on the basis of renewed interest in the Roman art of Raphael and Michelangelo. \u00a0To some extent this interest is determined by Rosso\u2019s memory of what he knew of their work when he was in Rome himself and which now he recalled as the requirements of the decoration of the gallery necessitated and encouraged further and further invention. \u00a0He had also Raphael\u2019s works in Francis I\u2019s collection to study as well as Michelangelo\u2019s Leda,<\/em> and possibly drawings by him as well that Antonio Mini brought to France in 1532. \u00a0Rosso must also have known something of Michelangelo\u2019s Last Judgement<\/em>, the cartoon of which was finished by 25 September 1534. \u00a0Knowledge of figures in this work by Michelangelo is clearly evident in Rosso\u2019s Revenge of Nauplius<\/em> (Fig.P.22, III N a<\/a>). \u00a0This second phase of activity in making designs for the gallery would seem to have begun after the execution of the decoration in the gallery had begun, or not before April 1534 when the documents suggest the beginning of that work. \u00a0However, as the references to Michelangelo\u2019s Last Judgement<\/em> could not have appeared until after September of that year and as some time must be allowed for the source of these references to arrive in France, it is reasonable to suppose that the second phase of Rosso\u2019s activity belongs to 1535 and 1536. \u00a0The documents indicate that the frescoes in the gallery were not begun before April 1535, and Rosso\u2019s own work in the gallery is documented as having begun probably only in April of the following year. \u00a0Throughout these months it can be assumed that Rosso was engaged in making designs for the gallery. \u00a0The second phase could have continued until the beginning of a last moment, beginning in mid-August 1536, when a few significant changes were made in the gallery. \u00a0But it is likely that already by April 1536 the majority of the designs of the second period had been made.<\/p>\n

The first phase of the activity in making designs for the gallery must have begun at the time that Rosso made his two lost oil paintings for the east and west walls, by which time the present full length of the gallery had been determined with the elimination of the planned west cabinet and of the chapel at the east. \u00a0Done, according to Vasari, before Primatiocio arrived in France, this first phase has to have begun at the latest early in 1532 and very possibly already within 1531. \u00a0It can be assumed that this phase lasted until the time that the stuccoers began their work in the gallery perhaps as early as April 1534. \u00a0By this time the project of the south cabinet had been abandoned and the center section of the south wall had become included within the scheme of the gallery to receive Rosso\u2019s Nymph of Fontainebleau<\/em> (P.22 IV S<\/a>; E.103<\/a>). \u00a0Before this moment there would have been invented an over-all design of alternating large rectangular and horizontal oval frescoes for the north and south walls, with upright oval oil paintings on the end walls, and including also a North Cabinet and a South Cabinet with a high doorway into each surrounded by decoration in the center of the north and south sides of the gallery. \u00a0Late in this phase the South Cabinet was eliminated and its entrance closed to form a new wall area in the gallery intended to receive a large horizontal oval scene while all the other large gallery pictures in fresco would be rectangular.<\/p>\n

To the first phase one can assign the two lost oval oil paintings as well as the surviving decoration of the West Wall and the decoration of the East Wall as it is known from d\u2019Orbay\u2019s drawing (Fig.d\u2019Orbay drawing b<\/a>), the style of both of which is similar to that of Rosso\u2019s early French works. \u00a0On the same stylistic basis the following parts of the gallery can be assigned to this first phase: the Education of Achilles<\/em> (II N), in its oval (D.53<\/a>) and its executed rectangular format (Fig.P.22, II N a<\/a>; but not the huge frescoed nudes that flank the central fresco, which seem to belong to Phase III), the entire wall of the Loss of Perpetual Youth<\/em> (Fig.P.22, II S a<\/a>), the first version of the Scene of Sacrifice<\/em> (see above) and the stuccoes of this wall (Fig.P.22, VII N a<\/a>), the Royal Elephant<\/em> (Fig.P.22, VI N a<\/a>), and the stuccoes surrounding it (but not the flanking frescoes of Saturn and Phylira<\/em> and Europa and the Bull<\/em> which seem to belong to Phase II), the entire wall of the Unity of the State<\/em> (Fig.P.22, VI S a<\/a>), the stuccoes flanking the Battle of Centaurs and Lapiths<\/em> (Fig.P.22, I S a<\/a>; but not the frescoes of this wall or the stucco relief (Fig.P.22, I S c<\/a>) beneath the central picture, which seem to belong to Phase II), and the stuccoes framing the Revenge of Nauplius<\/em> (Fig.P.22, III N a<\/a>; the central fresco seems to have been designed in Phase II). \u00a0It is possible that like the Education of Achilles<\/em>, the Loss of Perpetual Youth<\/em>, the Royal Elephant<\/em>, and the Unity of the State<\/em> had at first horizontal oval formats. \u00a0Late within this phase Rosso would have designed the wall (IV S) containing his Nymph of Fontainebleau<\/em> (but not, possibly, the compositions of the two small oval frescoes that decorate this wall which could have been designed in Phase III).<\/p>\n

In the second phase of 1535 to April 1536 can be situated the designs of the following parts of the gallery: the entire walls containing the Enlightenment of Francis I<\/em> (Fig.P.22, VII S a<\/a>), the Venus and Minerva<\/em> (Fig.P.22, I N a<\/a>), the Twins of Catania<\/em> (Fig.P.22 V N a<\/a>), and the Cleobis and Biton<\/em> (Fig.P.22 V S a<\/a>), as well as the Funeral of Hector<\/em>, known from two copies of a lost drawing (D.58A,B<\/a>) and from a print by Fantuzzi (E.72<\/a>), the composition that would seem was originally intended for the location where the Death of Adonis<\/em> (III S) was actually painted, the Europa<\/em> and Philyra<\/em> frescoes flanking the Royal Elephant<\/em> (VI N), the Battle of Centaurs and Lapiths<\/em> fresco, the frescoes around it, and the stucco relief beneath it (I S), the Revenge of the Nauplius<\/em> fresco (III N), and the decoration of the entrance to the North Cabinet of which the figure of Fame<\/em> is known from an engraving by Domenico del Barbiere (E.5<\/a>) and the Victory<\/em> from an anonymous etching (E.141<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In the third phase, beginning after mid-August 1536 and probably not extending beyond November of that year, can be placed the entire wall of the Death of Adonis<\/em> (III S), the Scene of Sacrifice<\/em> fresco (VII N), the huge nudes flanking the Education of Achilles<\/em> (II N), and possibly the two small oval frescoes of the center south wall (IV S).<\/p>\n

These three phases of designing the decorations the Gallery of Francis I are largely determined by what can be concluded from the variations of the style of the frescoes and stuccoes in relation to the evidence of the documents. \u00a0In general, the resulting division into an early, middle, and late phase seems satisfactory. \u00a0But it may not hold for all details. T he stuccoes flanking the Combat of Centaurs and Lapiths<\/em> appear in the smallness of their forms to be early while much of the other decoration of this wall seems to belong to a later period of larger inventions. \u00a0But it could be that the smallness of the stuccoes indicates a kind of intimacy that makes a deliberate stylistic and thematic contrast to the bigness and physical vulgarity of the other decoration of this wall. \u00a0The same may be true of the Revenge of Nauplius <\/em>and the stuccoes that surround it. \u00a0Therefore all the parts could in both instances have been invented at the same time. \u00a0But there still remains the possibility that the effect of contrast resulted from these walls having been designed in two periods which need not lessen the thematic significance of the differences of their parts. \u00a0It is suggested below that Rosso\u2019s Contest of Athena<\/em> and Poseidon<\/em> which, on the basis of its style, would seem to have been invented around 1536, may have had a place in the decoration of the East Wall the scheme of which would seem to have been designed early. In this case it could well be that the Contest<\/em>, which would have been quite small, was invented later when the time came to insert it into the scheme of the East Wall. \u00a0This may also have been the case with the two small oval paintings above the Dana\u00eb,<\/em> although they belonged to the earlier scheme of Rosso\u2019s Nymph of Fontainebleau<\/em> and are found in the Milan-Boyvin engraving. \u00a0But as executed in the gallery they seem late. \u00a0From other evidence, such as the two versions of the Scene of Sacrifice<\/em>, it is clear that the decoration of the Gallery of Francis I did not remain fixed from its original conception to its ultimate execution. \u00a0It could not even have been conceived at any one moment, but rather over a period of time. \u00a0The evolution of its overall conception became the evolution of the conception of its parts. \u00a0This in turn became related to the actual execution of those parts. \u00a0Within this process not every detail can now be precisely dated.<\/p>\n

Like the different designs of the sixteen wall areas, including the entrance to the North Cabinet, and the complex iconography of the entire room, the changes of style within the deocorative scheme of the gallery give that scheme an additional dramatic rhythm that it might well have lacked had the decoration of the entire gallery been wholly conceived at one early moment. \u00a0For those parts of the gallery that seem to have been designed first have, in spite of their own variety, a rather static and even-tempered quality that, carried throughout the gallery, would have been monotonous. \u00a0Designed at one time, the gallery might have had the appearance of a mere enlargement of the decoration of the small Pavilion of Pomona as planned or as executed. \u00a0This would have been a matter not of the ornamental aspects alone but of the narrative scenes as well. \u00a0For such pictures as the Loss of Perpetual Youth<\/em>, the Unity of the State<\/em>, and the Royal Elephant<\/em>, unusual as their subjects are, are not visually very exciting. \u00a0It is quite possible that Rosso, as he worked on the designs for the gallery and as his confidence with the project increased, sought both greater diversity and at the same time greater expressive concentration, wall for wall and within the entire scheme. \u00a0Hence, perhaps, once the center section of the south side was introduced into the scheme, he eliminated the regularly alternating oval and rectangular center frescoes, making them all rectangular instead, and introduced the very large stucco figures flanking the end frescoes of the Enlightenment of Francis I<\/em> at VII South and the Venus and Minerva<\/em> at I North to relate to the large stucco female triads flanking the central Nymph of Fontainebleau<\/em>, itself conceived as a relief, replaced by Primaticcio\u2019s frescoed Dana\u00eb<\/em>, at IV South. \u00a0A greater boldness in the conception of each wall, or at least of some of them\u2014in the large central frescoes as well as in the elements that frame them\u2014also brought about a further counter-force to the perspective pull of the length of the gallery determined by its architectural dimensions.<\/p>\n

The woodwork in the gallery must have been designed by Scibec de Carpi in collaboration with Rosso\u2019s plans and with the entire scheme of the structure, and decoration of the gallery.16<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The woodwork could have been designed by the time the stuccoers began to work perhaps as early as April 1534. \u00a0A payment to Scibec of 23 August 1535 indicates that some work had been done, perhaps by that time only on the seats, in oak, possibly only for the framework, and in brazilwood, for some of the carvings. \u00a0But from the revised specifications of 2 April 1539 it is clear that the original specifications were for woodwork on all four walls of the gallery and of the (North) cabinet, the embrassures of the windows and doors, and the floor of the gallery and of the cabinet. \u00a0Work had already been done, begun by Scibec and continued by Joachin Raoullant, in ebony, red and yellow brazilwood, and other foreign woods. \u00a0But the document of 23 August 1539 indicates that because these woods were difficult to work and because the King no longer found the original specifications pleasing it was decided that all the woodwork, except the floor, would be of walnut, with the unseen structural element of oak. \u00a0Scibec was to employ as many workers as necessary to proceed without any interruptions until all the work was finished. \u00a0Although the document gives no indication of the sudden need to get the project completed it would seem that the impending visit of Charles V was the reason. \u00a0The final payment to Scibec was made on 21 October 1539. \u00a0Two months later the Emperor visited Fontainebleau.<\/p>\n

The specifications of 2 April 1539, which may be new only in regard to the wood that was to be used, give an extensive description of what was to be made. \u00a0By this time Rosso\u2019s stuccoes and frescoes had been done\u2014so the document itself states\u2014and the scheme indicated must be one that was devised long before to match their arrangement and relation to the ceiling and its beams. \u00a0The document specifies that under the decoration of each of the north and south walls of each bay there were to be seven framed panels with the center panel wider. \u00a0That panel was to be about 2 meters wide and decorated in low relief with the arms of the King, festoons and other antique motifs. \u00a0At this center panel there was to be a seat about 1.64 meters long and about 0.44 meters deep to accommodate two persons. \u00a0The seat was to be supported by scrolls in the form of lion\u2019s paws with other antique decorative elements, and to have three arm rests, in the middle and at the ends in the form of scrolls and animals (bestions). \u00a0Of the six narrower panels flanking the broad center one, two were to be decorated in low relief with a salamander and a tablet carved with the motto that accompanies the salamander, two with the crowned F and two tablets with mottoes, and two were to be in the form of pilasters placed under the beams of the ceiling. \u00a0Small framed panels beneath the seven panels would form a base. \u00a0The end walls were to be similarly treated and have a seat beneath their pictures. \u00a0The cabinet was to have the same kind of woodwork with a seat against the wall across from the fireplace. \u00a0Gilt was to be applied to the carvings and elsewhere as fitting. \u00a0The floor of the gallery and the cabinet was to be made of oak lozenges and squares with bands of \u201cboys de quesse,\u201d17<\/sup><\/a> walnut, or other wood.<\/p>\n

While the design of the modern floor in the gallery is not related to the one planned in 1539,18<\/sup><\/a> the woodwork of the walls on the north and south walls, restored as it is, and with none of the panels probably original, reflects the scheme that Scibec was to make.19<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 It is possible, however, that the scheme was not entirely followed. \u00a0In the gallery the seats are wider than specified in 1539 and do not have a center arm rest. \u00a0There is now no seat under the Royal Elephant<\/em> because a later doorway replaces it, nor one under the Dana\u00eb<\/em>, nor at the wholly modern wall across from it where once was the doorway of the North Cabinet. \u00a0The absence of one under the Dana\u00eb<\/em> could be related to what was originally executed, in spite of the specifications of 1539, as seems also to have been the case at the end walls. \u00a0D\u2019Orbay’s drawing of the East Wall shows no seat. \u00a0The pilasters specified in 1535 are not found in the gallery but the central panel of each triad at the sides of each large central panel projects slightly forward to emphasize its position under the beam of the ceiling. \u00a0This reflects the intention of the originally planned pilasters without breaking the unified effect of the seven-panel wainscot as pilasters would have. \u00a0The salamander appears on the center panel of each triad and the crowned F on the two panels flanking it.<\/p>\n

The woodwork of the end walls is not now related to what was originally there when the center section beneath the oval picture of each was less high and the sides had doors and false doors. \u00a0The ceiling seems to follow the original design but its original color and detail have been lost.20<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>1<\/sup> Vanaise, 1973, 183, and n. 72, indicated that Francis I\u2019s first idea to enlarge the ch\u00e2teau went back to the autumn of 1527. \u00a0Guillaume, in B\u00e9guin, Guillaume, Roy, 1985, 24, n. 35, 33, suggested that at this time the gallery was conceived. \u00a0Gilles Le Breton was occupied at Fontainebleau since 1 August 1537 (Prinz and Kecks, 1985, 353).<\/p>\n

<\/a>2<\/sup> This was apparently the land west of a path or road to the lake that was, according to the specifications of 1528, to pass through two arches under the gallery; see Bray, 1935, 202, 203, plans opp. 174 and 182; Pressouyre, 1974, 30; and Guillaume, 1979, 230, 232, Fig. 9, 239, n. 19. \u00a0Babelon, 1989, 203, thought the entire gallery was originally carried on open arches, but the specifications of 1528 specify only two arches to accommodate the path. \u00a0Babelon also thought this path was closed when the Appartement des Bains was created, which did not take place until 1543\u20131545 (see following note). \u00a0But it may well be that with the purchase of the land in December 1529 the closing of the path and the elimination of the two arches were already prescribed, although Babelon believed the road was still there in 1531. \u00a0Or this could instead have happened when the six kitchens and six larders at ground level under the arches of a terrace were begun in April 1534 (see below). \u00a0Vanaise, 1973, 177, stated that an unpublished document indicates that at least half of the gallery was constructed by 30 September 1531.<\/p>\n

<\/a>3<\/sup> A document of late 1530\u20131532 (DOC.14<\/a>) records Rosso\u2019s purchase of pigments for frescoes for 300 gold scudoes; this very large sum indicates a quantity of pigments for a large project, or for a number of projects. One is inclined to believe that some, at least, of these pigments were intended for the frescoes of the gallery.<\/p>\n

<\/a>4<\/sup> Shearman, 1980, 8, believed the two paintings were made as independent pictures without the gallery in mind and that the whole decoration of the gallery was then arranged around these pre-existing works. \u00a0But this is most unlikely, especially as the paintings were oval\u2014unless one thinks of them as having been cut down from their rectangular shape, which again seems unlikely given the importance of the project for the French king who did not have to make do with two paintings that Rosso just happened to make for him. \u00a0Shearman related his idea to the placement of other pictures already owned by the king in stucco frames in the Appartement des Bains from about 1535 (with reference to Cox-Rearick, 1972, 10\u201311, who gave the period for the decoration of this suite as 1535\u20131540). \u00a0Although the bathing tubs seem to have been installed in 1536 (see Laborde, I, 1877, 108, and Prinz and Kecks, 1985, 422\u2013423), so far as I know there is no documentation for the decoration of the Appartement des Bains until after 1541 (see Dimier, 1900, 279\u2013284). \u00a0B\u00e9guin, 1989, 837, and n. 54, found Shearman\u2019s suggestion \u201cvery questionable\u201d and noted also the much later execution of the Appartement des Bains in 1543\u20131545.<\/p>\n

<\/a>5<\/sup> The specifications of 1528 for five brick chimneys could signify one chimney for the gallery proper and one each for its adjoining cabinets and chapel. \u00a0The frescoed view of the gallery (Fig.P.22, I N g<\/a>) shows six chimneys on the south side as do Du Cerceau\u2019s views (Fig.Du Cerceau View BM Drawing, Gallery<\/a>; Fig.Du Cerceau Print, Gallery<\/a>). \u00a0Du Cerceau\u2019s view from the north (Fig.Du Cerceau North detail<\/a>) shows one chimney connected to the North Cabinet. \u00a0The six southern chimneys are probably related to the kitchens under the terrace, the specifications for which called for \u201csix chemin\u00e9es\u201d (see above, 18 February 1535 and Pressouyre, \u201cCadre architectural,\u201d 1972, 23, n. 39). \u00a0Although the five chimneys specified in 1528 seem to have been intended for fireplaces in the gallery and its appended rooms, there do not seem to have been any fireplaces in the completed gallery. \u00a0Perhaps the gallery was heated by the system used in the kitchens and then in the Appartement des Bains.<\/p>\n

<\/a>6<\/sup> There is a document (DOC.29<\/a>; recorded, it seems, also in DOC.30<\/a> of 5 July 1534) probably of 1534 that records a payment to Rosso of 200 livres tournois above and beyond his ordinary wages for the year ending 31 December 1533. \u00a0There is some possibility that this extraordinary payment indicates Rosso\u2019s activity in the gallery.<\/p>\n

<\/a>7<\/sup> Vanaise, 1973, 185, thought the painting was first begun in April 1536.<\/p>\n

<\/a>8<\/sup> Adh\u00e9mar, 1974, wrongly believed from his reading of Vanaise, 1973, and of McAllister Johnson, \u201cDiplomatic Correspondence,\u201d 1972, that the stuccoes were by Primaticcio and that in 1540 three-fourths of the gallery remained incomplete.<\/p>\n

<\/a>9<\/sup> The chapel would seem to have been replaced by the Chapelle Haute du Roi built above the Chapel of Saint Saturnin, the latter contracted for on 5 August 1531 (A.4<\/a>). \u00a0The cabinet at the west end could have been a study planned to be related to the library above (on libraries and studies in French Renaissance chateaux and on the library at Fontainebleau, see Prinz and Kecks, 1985, 97, 141\u2013146, 423).<\/p>\n

<\/a>10<\/sup> The frescoed view in the gallery of the exterior of the building shows twelve arches (for the six kitchens and the six larders?) with a pier in the very center immediately below the false window where the South Cabinet had been (Fig.P.22, I N g<\/a>). \u00a0It could be that the two arches here\u2014one to the left of this pier and one to the right\u2014are those of the two larders that enclosed the foundations of the South Cabinet as indicated in the relevant document. \u00a0Du Cerceau\u2019s drawn view from the south (Fig.Du Cerceau View, BM Drawing<\/a>; Fig.Du Cerceau BM Drawing, Gallery<\/a>) shows nine arches; his printed view (Fig.Du Cerceau Print View<\/a>; Fig.Du Cerceau Print, Gallery<\/a>) and plan (Fig.Du Cerceau Engraving Plan<\/a>; Fig.Du Cerceau Engraving, detail<\/a>) show eleven arches. \u00a0These would seem to be incorrect.<\/p>\n

<\/a>11<\/sup> The existence of a South Cabinet and the conception of the terrace would seem to be incompatible. \u00a0Guillaume, in B\u00e9guin, Guillaume, Roy, 1985, 36, 38\u201339, thought that at first the terrace was built with the South Cabinet in place and with a small passage around its south side. \u00a0Then when it was recognized as an obstacle the cabinet was destroyed. \u00a0I am inclined to believe that the destruction of the cabinet followed from the decision to build the terrace, and that both are related to the new conception of the interior of the gallery and of the relation of the south fa\u00e7ade to the court in front of it. \u00a0On this relationship, see Prinz and Kecks, 1985, 425.<\/p>\n

<\/a>12<\/sup> Blind windows are also found in the Chapel of Saint Saturnin (A.4<\/a>).<\/p>\n

<\/a>13<\/sup> A scheme of horizontal oval frescoes alternating with upright rectangular frescoes set within a wall of somewhat greater height above a lower wainscoting is suggested by the upright rectangular shape of an etching of the Venus and Minerva<\/em> scene (E.138<\/a>) and the upright rectangular shape of the central area of an etching by Fantuzzi (E.87<\/a>) related to the Cleobis and Biton<\/em> wall.<\/p>\n

<\/a>14<\/sup> Zerner, in Actes<\/em>, 1975, 34, n. 6, believed that the entrance to the South Cabinet would have been in the woodwork at the center of the south wall, which would have been of the same height as elsewhere in the gallery. \u00a0Shearman, 1980, 1, 13, n. 4, believed the same. \u00a0This, then, would have been the same arrangement of the entrance to the North Cabinet. \u00a0But the decoration of this entrance wall as described by Dan and Guilbert (see Chapter VIII) indicates a bust-length figure of the king above the door and large painted figures at the sides of the door. \u00a0Thus there has to be envisioned wall areas at the sides<\/em> of the door, indicating a door rising higher than the general level of the paneling. \u00a0This would prescribe a bust-length portrait above it instead of a full-length figure that would have been possible had there been a continuous wall above the paneling. \u00a0See below on Mariette\u2019s reference to the entrance as an \u201carcade.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/a>15<\/sup> See B\u00e9guin, \u201cMa\u00eetre Roux,\u201d 1972, 144.<\/p>\n

<\/a>16<\/sup> Lossky, \u201cDessins,\u201d 1971, 35, stated that the invention of the wood paneling is attributed to Rosso, but so far as I know it has always been assigned to Scibec de Carpi, who is documented as having executed it and directed its execution. \u00a0Zerner, in EdF<\/em>, 1972, 326, under no. 424 bis suggested that Scibec may have been served by \u201cprojects\u201d of Rosso, an idea also expressed by B\u00e9guin and Pressouyre, 1972, 124. \u00a0It seems to me necessary that Scibec worked in conjunction with Rosso, but the design of the woodwork in its remade state gives no stylistic evidence that Rosso designed the original paneling. \u00a0There are five drawings in the Staatliche graphische Sammlungen, Munich (see below) that have been related to the wood paneling in the Gallery of Francis I (see Grancsay, Stephen V., \u201cThe Armor of Henry II of France from the Louvre Museum,\u201d Bulletin, The Metropolitan Museum of Art<\/em>, XI, 2, 1952, 74, 76, Figs., 78, suggesting that the drawings were made by Primaticcio; Pressouyre, \u201cCadre architectural,\u201d 1972, 20; and B\u00e9guin and Pressouyre, 1972, 141, with Figs.). \u00a0The drawings were fully published by Thomas, 1959, 36\u201338, with Figs. 31\u201336. \u00a0All are done in pen and brown ink over black chalk. \u00a0There is no reason to believe that they were done by Rosso. \u00a0If made for the paneling in the gallery, as Thomas believes, they could be by Scibec but this cannot be proved at the present time. \u00a0One drawing (no. 14737, 11.7 x 16.4, Fig.Munich 14737<\/a>) is related to the central motif of the broad center panel under the Unity of the State <\/em>(\u201cGalerie,\u201d RdA<\/em>, 1972, 21, Fig. 19; Fig.Paneling VI S<\/a>),<\/em> and would seem to be a study for it or for the original panel of which the present one may be a copy. \u00a0Another drawing (no. 34557, 14.1 x 13.9, Fig.Munich 34557<\/a>) showing a vertical relief with an F appears four times in the gallery, twice under the Dana\u00eb<\/em>, but without the fleur-de-lis above the F, and twice under the nineteenth century Nymph of Fontainebleau<\/em>. \u00a0As the panels seem to have been shifted around in the gallery the latter could still be original or copies of original panels showing the fleur-de-lis. \u00a0The missing fleur-de-lis of the former seems strange especially as these panels are across from the others. \u00a0The third drawing (no. 14667, 16.3 x 6.3, Fig.Munich 14667<\/a>) shows a vertical motif that appears seventeen times in the gallery, once on the north side, and four times under the Royal Elephant<\/em>, the Venus and Minerva<\/em>, the Combat of Centaurs and Lapiths<\/em>, and the Unity of the State<\/em> (Fig.Paneling VI S<\/a>). \u00a0Thomas believes that a fourth drawing (no. 34558, 13.7 x 7.5, Fig.Munich 34558<\/a>) would be for one of the small vertical panels the oval of which is filled with a salamander, but I do not find sufficient similarity with anything in the gallery that would verify this. \u00a0The fifth drawing (no. 14733, 13.5 x 5.2, Fig.Munich 14733<\/a>) would be, according to Thomas, for one of the central motifs of one of the broad center panels, but a corresponding relief is not actually found in the gallery. \u00a0It and the preceding drawing could have been made for lost panels, or for panels now in private collections, as suggested by Pressouyre. \u00a0It is also possible that the Munich drawings were for paneling made by Scibec for other rooms at Fontainebleau.<\/p>\n

Six prints, etched and engraved by D. Antoine Pierretz around 1647, show the kinds of designs of the vertical pilaster panels in the gallery (Paris, BN, Ba 12, pp. 99\u2013101, nos. 161\u2013166; Fig.Pierretz Paris 162<\/a>; Fig.Pierretz Paris 163<\/a>; Fig.Pierretz Paris 164<\/a>; Fig.Pierretz Paris 165<\/a>; Fig.Pierretz Paris 166<\/a>; no. 161, 31.1 x 11.2 S, numbered 1<\/em> at lower right; inscription in margin below partially cut; from an impression in the Staatliche Museum Kunstbibliothek, Berlin, OS 277, 04, 545, no. 1, a second state also numbered in center above margin: N-\u00b0. 29<\/em>, and in margin: Fueilliages Moderne faicts au Chateau Royal de Fontainebleau \/ de linvention de lexcellant Mestre Francisque \/ recherche\u00e9 et desseigne\u00e9 par A. Pierretz \/ A PARIS \/ Chez Pierre Mariette Rue St Jacques aux \/ colonnes dh\u00e8rculle avec privilege du Roy<\/em>, the name of Mariette replacing: chez La Vesne F. Langlois dict Chartres rue<\/em> (Fig.Pierretz Berlin<\/a>); others in set numbered consecutively at lower right; see D. Guilmard, Les Ma\u00eetres ornemistes<\/em>, Paris, 1800, Vol. I, 57\u201358, under no. 78, as in Paris, BN, volume Architecture H a 2\u2014Collection Carr\u00e9; Zerner, in EdF<\/em>, 1972, 326, no. 424 bis, two prints, nos. 3 and 4, Paris, Ba 12, 30.5 x 10.3 L and 29.5 x 10.3 L, as by Pierretz, French engraver, active around 1647; Pressouyre, \u201cCadre architectural,\u201d 1972, 20, as of 1646; B\u00e9guin and Pressouyre, 1972, 141, as after Scibec de Carpi). \u00a0Guilmard thought the name Francisque in the inscription referred to Primaticcio, but it was also the first name of Scibec. \u00a0The third of the series (Fig.Pierretz 163<\/a>) shows the design of one of the panels under the nineteenth century Nymph of Fontainebleau<\/em> (see \u201cGalerie,\u201d RdA<\/em>, 1972, 21, Fig. 25; Fig.Paneling North Wall<\/a>). \u00a0The second (Fig.Pierretz 162<\/a>) has a plaque at the top with the inscription: NVTRISCO -ET- EXTINGO<\/em>. \u00a0Only one print, the first (Fig.Pierretz Berlin<\/a>), does not show the salamander in the central oval, but instead three fleurs-de-lis. \u00a0Only the escutcheon of the broad center panels in the gallery show fleurs-de-lis but the design of the print is certainly not for such a location. \u00a0As Zerner pointed out, the value of these prints lies in the preservations of the designs of some of the pilaster panels in the gallery after which they seem to have been made.<\/p>\n

On the drawings that were made for the restoration of the paneling in the middle of the nineteenth century, see Lossky, \u201cDessins,\u201d 1972, 33, Fig. 4, 35.<\/p>\n

<\/a>17<\/sup> See Pressouyre, \u201cCadre architectural,\u201d 1972, 20; and McAllister Johnson, 1984, 137. \u00a0Vanaise, 1973, 183\u2013184, emphasized Francis I\u2019s role in the use of exotic woods in the first scheme and mentioned the return of Captain Briscet\u2019s ship, the Saint-Philippe, to Honfleur in August 1535, bringing the wood from Brazil that was delivered to the home of Scibec, which I have not been able to confirm.<\/p>\n

<\/a>18<\/sup> See Pressouyre, \u201cCadre architectural,\u201d 1972, 20.<\/p>\n

<\/a>19<\/sup> See Pressouyre, \u201cCadre architectural,\u201d 1972, 20, 21, Fig. 20 (at VII N, not VI N) and Fig. 25, who commented that all the paneling of the south wall seems to be copies ordered by Louis-Philippe, ably assembled, and that the paneling of the north wall, while showing many alterations, is old, \u201csinon toujours authentiques\u201d (Fig.Paneling North Wall<\/a> and Fig.Paneling VII N<\/a>).<\/p>\n

<\/a>20<\/sup> On the ceiling and its original color with reference to the evidence of drawings by Charles Percier, of the late eighteenth century (Fig.Percier drawing 2, Ceiling<\/a>), by Viollet-le-Duc of 1834 (Fig.Viollet-le-Duc drawing 1<\/a>; Fig.Viollet-le-Duc drawing 2<\/a>), and by Louis-Urbain Gounod of 1848 (Fig.Gounod ceiling drawing detail<\/a>), see Lossky, \u201cCinq dessins,\u201d 1970, 188\u2013190, Pl. XX, 1 (Fig.Viollet-le Duc drawing, ceiling detail<\/a>); Lossky, \u201cDessins,\u201d 1971, 34\u201335, Fig.3; Pressouyre, \u201cCadre architectural,\u201d 1972, 19, 33, Fig. 47, and 26, ns. 49\u201350. \u00a0Lossky pointed out that the date of the ceiling in 1539\u20131540 is mentioned in Paul Vanaise, De artistieke bedrijvigheid te Fontainebleau van 1527 tot 1571<\/em>, doctoral thesis, Ghent, 1965.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The construction of the gallery was begun at some time after the specifications for it were set down in the document of 28 April 1528.1\u00a0 The interior of the gallery was to be approximately 64 m. long and 6 wide with casement windows in the long north and south walls. \u00a0At both the north and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"parent":908,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-9336","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9336","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=9336"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9336\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11561,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9336\/revisions\/11561"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/908"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}