Antoine Pesne’s ‘Samson and Delilah’: the genesis of a morceau de reception for the Academy in Paris
byCHRISTOPH MARTIN VOGTHERR
ANTOINE PESNE (1683–1757) was trained in Paris by his father, Thomas, and by Charles de Lafosse, and then left for Italy by 1704. In 1710, aged twenty-seven, he was called from Italy to Berlin to become court painter to the first Prussian king, Friedrich I. In Germany, he joined a growing number of French painters working for the courts of the Holy Roman Empire, the most important at the time being Louis de Silvestre in Dresden. Friedrich I’s successor, Friedrich Wilhelm I, who came to the throne in 1713, was a much less enthusiastic patron than his father and slashed construction budgets as well as the salaries of court artists such as Pesne. In these difficult years of financial insecurity and decreasing status, Pesne began to consider alternatives. It is in this context that the painter travelled from Berlin to Dresden in 1718 and also applied to become a member of the Academy in Paris.
Pesne followed the official route to membership. He first had to show examples of his skills to become agréé (‘candidate’), then paint a work of a subject prescribed by the Academy as his morceau de reception in order, on its acceptance, to become reçu as a member. For Pesne, this process was potentially more difficult than for other artists because he had to apply and submit from a distance. Pesne was ordered by the Academy to paint Delilah cutting Samson’s hair. An oil-sketch, two compositional drawings and two large versions of the painting offer the opportunity to follow the careful creation of the painting through several stages. He was particularly eager not to appear out of touch with more recent developments in Paris and asked for advice in the French capital. He sent two drawings of different compositions to his friend Nicolas Vleughels in Paris, one of them showing Aria and Poetus – no painting of this subject is known – and the other Samson and Delilah, the subject of his morceau de reception 1 In the margins of these drawings, he asked Vleughels to give his opinion on the composition and, in the case of the latter drawing, to obtain Antoine Watteau’s comments. The answer from Paris is not recorded, but the different versions of the latter subject as well as our knowledge of Vleughels’s and Watteau’s work at the time, make it possible to reconstruct some of their criticisms as well as Pesne’s reaction to them. This material provides a remarkably full account of the morceau de reception’s genesis and adds to our understanding of Pesne’s stylistic developments at the time.
In their usual laconic way, the minutes of the Academy provide a chronological framework. At the meeting of 26th November
1 Pesne’s drawing of Samson and Delilah will be discussed below. The drawing of Aria and Poetus (Département des arts graphiques, Musée du Louvre, Paris; inv. no.32353), has the following text in the margins: ‘Dans Le Tablau La Composition a un peut plus de jeux et/le petus est un peut trop grand á porportion del autre figure du devant/jatends votre sentiment La desus je vous prie ne montré pas cela car Selanant [?] vaut pas La peine –’; E. Berckenhagen et al.: Antoine Pesne, Berlin 1958, p.216, no.578, fig.43; C. Legrand, with V. Forcione, V. Goarin and C. Scheck: Musée du Louvre, Département des arts graphiques: Musée d’Orsay. Inventaire général des dessins. Ecole française 13: de Pagnest à Puvis de Chavannes, Paris 1997, pp.301–02, no.1223.
2 A. de Montaiglon, ed.: Procès-verbaux de l’Académie Royale de peinture et de sculpture 1648–1793, vol.4: 1705–1725, Paris 1881, p.274, 26th November 1718: ‘Le Sieur Antoine Pesne, qui est à Berlin Peintre de Sa Majesté Prussienne, a envoyé des tableaux afin que la Compagnie pût juger de sa capacité, accompagnés d’une lettre respectueuse qu’il adresse à
1718, the Academy assessed a group of works that Pesne had sent for appraisal from Berlin. Their quality was regarded as sufficient, and Antoine Coypel, the Director, was asked to name a topic for Pesne’s reception piece, which he must have done immediately.2 Vleughels was present at the November meeting and had probably been contacted by Pesne in advance to provide support. At present, it is impossible to say which paintings Pesne sent to Paris. Pierre du Colombier was the first to claim that one of them was the Potsdam Self-portrait with his family (Fig.1), but there seems to be no evidence for this beyond the fact that the work is signed and dated 1718.3 Its large dimensions would have made it hard to
l’Académie, laquelle, après avoir pris les suffrages par les voix ordinaires, a agréé sa présentation. Monsieur le Directeur luy donnera un sujet pour son tableau de réception’.
3 P. du Colombier: ‘Pesne 1683 à 1757’, in L. Dimier, ed.: Les peintres français du XVIIIe siècle. Histoire des vies et catalogue des œuvres, II, Paris and Brussels 1930, pp.291–325, esp. pp.295–96; Berckenhagen, op. cit. (note 1), p.21 (introduction by Georg Poensgen), p.164, no.244b (quoted as Pesne’s reception piece).
4 Montaiglon, op. cit. (note 2), p.277, 7th January 1719: ‘Le sieur Pesne a aussy fait ses complimens à l’Accadémie par une lettre qui a été leue à la Compagnie, dans laquelle il marque sa reconnoissance sur son Agrément; elle est dattée de Berlin’.
5 Ibid., p.300, 27th July 1720: ‘Réception de M. Pesne. – Aujourd’huy, samedy vingt sept Juillet mil sept cens vingt, l’Académie s’est assemblée à l’ordinaire. Monsieur Antoine Pesne, né à Paris, Premier Peintre du Roy de Prusse, qui s’étoit présenté le vingt six novembre 1718, a fait apporter de Berlin le tableau qui luy avoit été ordonné, représentant Dalila qui couppe les cheveux
2. Samson and Delilah, by Antoine Pesne. c.1719. Canvas, 100 by 133 cm. (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin).
transport (even if rolled), and, more importantly, Pesne wished to be accepted as a history painter, not as a portraitist.
By 7th January of the following year, Pesne acknowledged that he had been accepted as a candidate.4 He was finally received as a full member on 27th July 1720 when ‘le tableau qui luy avoit été ordonné, représentant Dalila qui couppe les cheveux à Samson’ arrived at the Academy.5 He thanked the Academy in a letter that was read out during the meeting of 31st August.6 Pesne only attended his first meeting of the Academy on 30th October on his way from Berlin to London, and again, Vleughels was present.7
Five works by Pesne are all related to the reception piece and must have been made between the dates of the Academy meetings, 26th November 1718 and 27th July 1720. This article proposes a chronology of these five works, analyses Pesne’s changes, and reconstructs the influence that Vleughels and Watteau might have had on the finished work.
As already mentioned, early on in the process Pesne sent a drawing of a composition to Vleughels asking him for his advice (Fig.3).8 The drawing is neither signed nor does it indicate the à Samson. L’Académie, après avoir pris les voix par les fèves, l’a reçeu et reçoit Académicien, afin de jouir des honneurs attachez à cette qualité, et l’a tenu exemp(t) de tout droit pécuniaire’.
6 Ibid., p.301: ‘Monsieur Pesne, qui est à Berlin, a écrit une lettre à la Compagnie de remerciemens pour ce qu’Elle a bien voulu l’admettre dans son corps; elle a été lue par le Secrétaire’.
7 Ibid., p.364: ‘Monsieur Antoine Pesne, Peintre ordinaire du Roy de Prusse, qui a été reçue dans la Compagnie le vingt sept Juillet 1720, est venu prendre séance pour la première fois, ne l’ayant pu faire plustost, et a presté serment entre les mains de Mons. De Boullongne, Ecuyer, Chevalier de l’Ordre de St Michel, Recteur et Directeur, présidant ce jourd’huy à l’Assemblée’. Pesne was also present on 6th November of the same year (p.366).
8 In the margins is the following text: ‘je Vous envoie cette parti de mon tableau dacademie pour en cavoir vostre/sentiment en france vous i connoissé mieux qun autre Le soldat de devant est plus grand aux[!]/dans le tableaux et ille est inutille de vous faire concevoir que la lumière est sur la/Dalila. ne faitte point voir cette pensé car elle faitte vitte a gens du mestier ille entende a demie/mot
3. Samson and Delilah, by Antoine Pesne. c.1719. Red chalk, brown ink and wash, 17 by 22.6 cm. (Département des arts graphiques, Musée du Louvre, Paris).
a moins que ce que soit a mon pere – jatends reponse montré la aussi */*a monsieur Watau ille a des lumiere que je nez point/et point de flaterie je vous prie. Vous me Conoisez que ce n’est/pas Ca ce que je cherche. a Dieu reponce au plutot/Si Vous ni trouvé pas de chosses selon Vostre gout expliqué/Les moy par le crayons Vous mobligez infiniment’. On the drawing, see J. Herold and A. Vuaflart: Jean de Jullienne et les graveurs de Watteau au XVIIIe siècle I: Notices et documents biographiques, Paris 1929, pp.165–67; Colombier, op. cit. (note 3), pp.295–96 and 322, no.19; R. Rey: Quelques Satellites de Watteau, Paris 1931, pp.40–43, pl.I; Berckenhagen, op. cit. (note 1), p.216, no.579, fig.44; P. du Colombier: ‘Antoine Pesne und die französische Malerei’, in Berckenhagen, op. cit. (note 1), pp.33–50, esp. pp.33–34; R. Michaelis: ‘Un dessin préparatoire pour “Samson et Dalila”, morceau de reception d’Antoine Pesne (1683–1757) à l’Académie en 1720’, Revue du Louvre 43 (1994), pp.41–42; Legrand, op. cit. (note 1), p.301, no.1222; and R. Michaelis: Antoine Pesne (1683–1757). Die Werke des preussischen Hofmalers in der Berliner Gemäldegalerie (Bilder im Blickpunkt), Berlin 2003, pp.50–52.
name of the recipient, but both can be securely determined. The drawing is in the artist’s typical hesitant style, with little spatial depth and rounded, tentative contours. The faces are ill-defined, the eyes depicted by circular dots. The shoulders are rounded, and the necks and limbs are elongated.9 The text in the margin states that the drawing records ‘mon tableau dacadémie’, which firmly links the drawing with Pesne’s reception piece. Two facts confirm that the drawing was sent to Vleughels. The verso of the sheet – like that of the drawing of Aria and Poetus – shows rubbed traces of pastel sheets by Vleughels. Pesne’s drawings had apparently formed part of a bound volume of drawings by Vleughels which the painter had taken to Rome. They were later owned by Charles-Joseph Natoire and then by comte d’Orsay, who acquired them c.1777–78 during his stay in Rome, and today they are in the Louvre.10 Vleughels and Pesne might have known each other from Paris before they went on their respective visits to Italy, but they also lived in Italy at the same time. It is possible that in Venice or in Rome their paths crossed.11 Vleughels is also known to have been a close friend of Watteau, who is mentioned in Pesne’s annotation.12
The drawing in Paris is directly related to a painting in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin (Fig.2).13 Differences in composition between the drawing and the painting are minimal: the repoussoir in the drawing is larger; the floor pattern is different; and in the drawing a spear or stick can be seen under Delilah’s left foot. In his annotation, Pesne describes two differences between the drawing and an already existing painting – apparently the
9 Comparable drawings from Pesne’s earlier period are the portrait of a hunter in Vienna and his sketch for the family portrait of 1718 in Weimar: Berckenhagen, op. cit. (note 1), p.212, no.538, fig.40, and pp.212–13. A careful discussion of the style and attribution of Pesne’s drawings has not yet been attempted.
10 J.-F. Méjanès: exh. cat. Les collections du comte d’Orsay: dessins du Musée du Louvre. LXXVIIIe exposition du Cabinet des dessins, Paris (Musée du Louvre) 1983, pp.106–07, no.80.
11 It is most likely that the two artists met in Venice: B. Hercenberg: Nicolas Vleughels. Peintre et Directeur de l’Académie de France à Rome 1668–1737, Paris 1975, pp.35–43; and Berckenhagen, op. cit. (note 1), p.223.
12 Hercenberg, op. cit. (note 11); and M. Morgan Grasselli: ‘The Drawings of Antoine Watteau: Stylistic Development and Problems of Chronology’, Ph.D. diss. (Harvard University, Cambridge MA, 1987), pp.322–41. On Watteau and Vleughels, see M.
work in Berlin – and it is probable that he did not mention other minor differences. The drawing in the Louvre is in fact the ricordo of the Berlin painting, not a sketch for it as has sometimes been claimed.
The drawing must have been sent between 26th November 1718 and 27th July 1720, probably in 1719: in late 1718 Pesne first needed to ascertain the proposed subject for his reception piece. Only on 7th January 1719 did the Paris Academy receive Pesne’s written acknowledgment, at which point he might have started work on the painting.14 The drawing must have been made on the basis of the already well-advanced painting.
The final version of Pesne’s morceau de reception is in Carcassonne (Fig.6), and its provenance can be traced back to the collection of the Academy.15 The paintings in Berlin and Carcassonne have practically identical dimensions, indicating that the latter is the modified version of the earlier work. There are considerable differences between the two. Most of the composition has been mirrored, but Pesne has shifted the group of Delilah, her servant and Samson further to the right, and the two women are now looking in the opposite direction, where a group of soldiers are ready to restrain Samson. The soldiers are more prominent, and this new arrangement adds drama to the scene: the soldiers now more emphatically announce the violent ending of the story. Delilah is looking up to the soldiers, linking the two groups of figures. In order to achieve this, Samson’s body had to be moved to the other side, and the composition develops along a diagonal stretching into space, creating both drama and
Eidelberg: ‘Watteau’s Landscapes of the Environs of Rome and Venice’, 17th February 2011, http://watteauandhiscircle.org/landscapes%20final.htm (accessed July 2012).
13 R. Michaelis: ‘Christian Bernhard Rode. Eine Neuerwerbung’, MuseumsJournal 5/1 (1991), p.50; Michaelis 1994, op. cit. (note 8); S. Loire: ‘Antoine Pesne et son morceau de réception à l’Académie (1720): une nouvelle identification’, Revue du Louvre 5–6 (1995), pp.53–57; and Michaelis 2003, op. cit. (note 8), pp.50–52.
14 This date has been confused with the date when Pesne sent the drawing; P. Rosenbergand E. Camesasca: Tout l’œuvre peint de Watteau, Paris 1970 (first Italian ed.: Milan 1968, pp.84–85); and Hercenberg, op. cit. (note 11), p.39.
15 The painting has been identified by Stéphanie Loire; seeLoire, op. cit. (note 13).
See also Colombier, op. cit. (note 3), p.323, no.2; Michaelis 2003, op. cit. (note 8), pp.50–52; P. Le Leyzour and A. Daguerre de Hureaux et al.: exh. cat. Les peintres du
cohesion. While the figures in the Berlin version are more evenly lit, the Carcassonne painting displays more carefully selected highlights. Pesne added a brightly lit background between the soldiers and Delilah, while Delilah’s blue cloak immediately focuses our attention on her figure.
It is obvious that Pesne reconsidered the composition of the first version on the basis of advice received from Paris. A drawing (Fig.4) and an oil-sketch (Fig.5) must have been made while Pesne was reworking his initial design. He probably first made the drawing, experimenting with some of the suggestions he had received.16 He then improved the composition in the oil-sketch, reconsidering the distribution of colour and light. At least one more oil-sketch must have existed.17 The Edinburgh drawing introduces the new idea of mirroring the central group of figures and moving the soldiers to the left. Pesne added the female servant in red chalk at a slightly later stage, probably after he had first considered mirroring her position, but then decided against it. The soldiers are now looking away from the main group, obviously an unsuccessful idea. In other respects the drawing still closely follows the Berlin painting. In the Rouen oil-sketch Pesne brought the soldiers further into the foreground, thus providing a dramatic, dark repoussoir. Delilah gestures towards the first soldier, which creates a convincing sense of drama. Pesne’s use of light is much more effective: the main group is brightly lit, while the area behind the soldiers serves as a backdrop for the dark silhouettes of the armed soldiers.
In the final version in Carcassonne, Pesne made one further decisive adjustment. He moved the figures of Samson and of the female servant further to the right, allowing for a more direct relationship between Delilah and the commander of the soldiers. The space between these two figures is brightly lit, creating a Rembrandtesque contrast. The intense blue of Delilah’s cloak further emphasises the compositional centre. Earlier, Pesne had experimented with a strong blue for Samson’s cloak, but the figure of Samson had by then been moved away from the centre. This long process led to a clearer narrative and a compositional tightening of the scene.
What advice did Pesne receive? His first version is clearly related to Rubens’s rendering of the same subject (Fig.7). The overall composition, and the figures of Samson and of the servant in particular, are close to Pesne’s first solution. Rubens’s composition was easily available through Jacob Matham’s print after it, although that print is in reverse. It is possible that Pesne saw Rubens’s painting in the Liechtenstein collection in Vienna on his way to Berlin, which would explain similarities in the colours. Even closer is Rubens’s oil-sketch in Cincinnati, the early provenance of which is unknown.18 In Venice, Pesne had been in contact with Andrea Celesti, who could have provided a model for the tonality and for the composition of the main
roi 1648–1793, Tours (Musée des Beaux-Arts) and Toulouse (Musée des Augustins) 2000, p.253, no.R.210; and W. McAllister Johnson: ‘Les morceaux de reception: protocole et documentation’, in ibid., pp.31–49, esp. pp.44–45.
16 For the drawings, see M. Clarke: exh. cat. Poussin to Seurat. French Drawings from the National Gallery of Scotland, London (Wallace Collection) and Edinburgh (National Galleries of Scotland) 2010–11, pp.100–01, no.48 (entry by C.M. Vogtherr).
For the oil-sketch, see exh. cat. Harmonie des rencontres. Acquisitions et Donations de 1961 à 1978, Rouen (Musée des Beaux-Arts) 1980, p.40, no.208; and Loire, op. cit. (note 13), p.57, fig.4.
17 Daniel Chodowiecki owned two sketches by Pesne for the painting, c.23.5 by 43 and 25 by 41.5 cm., respectively. It is certainly possible that one of them is the sketch in Rouen, although the width differs considerably. Another sketch of the same subject was at some point owned by Pesne’s pupil Falbe. It might be
7. Samson and Delilah, by Peter Paul Rubens. c.1609–10. Panel, 185 by 205 cm. (National Gallery, London).
group and its position, slightly set back (unlike Rubens’s) but parallel to the picture plane.19 These features reflect works Pesne saw in Venice in the years around 1710.
When Pesne wrote to Vleughels for advice, a young generation of French painters had moved onto the scene in Paris: Watteau,
the same or could be a third oil-sketch; see Berckenhagen, op. cit. (note 1), p.208, nos.515b–d.
18 http://www.cincinnatiartmuseum.org/provenance/provenance/1972-459.html (accessed September 2012).
19 [M. Oesterreich:] Beschreibung von einer Sammlung verschiedener Original-Gemählde von italienischen, holländischen, französischen und deutschen Meistern, welche das Cabinet ausmachen von J G E [Johann Georg Eimbke] Banquier in Berlin, Berlin 1761, pp.44–45; and Berckenhagen, op. cit. (note 1), pp.15–17 (introduction by Georg Poensgen). It is likely that Pesne’s role was also crucial for the acquisition of a large number of Celesti’s works by Friedrich II of Prussia. On Celesti, see R. Pallucchini: La pittura veneziana del Seicento, Milan 1981, 2nd ed. 1993, I, pp.265–72 and 365–68; II, pp.820–39. Very similar in these respects is Celesti’s St Agatha healed by St Peter, II, p.830, fig.889.
for example, was received by the Academy in 1717; Vleughels himself had already become a member in 1716, and Lancret followed in 1719 (he had been agréé in 1718).20 Pesne applied for membership at exactly the moment when this new generation moved into important positions and received official recognition. It was obviously useful for him to obtain their views. The painting in Carcassonne demonstrates that Pesne absorbed some of the lessons of these up-and-coming artists, probably on Vleughels’s advice.
The most obvious difference between the earlier and later versions is in the lighter palette, with stronger local colours in the later one. This colour scheme is close to Vleughels’s exactly contemporary Lot and his daughters in Potsdam (Fig.8).21 Compared with the first version, Pesne’s reception piece features more dramatic light effects, a conscious staging of the scene through contrasts and a clear focus of attention on the main figures created by strong colour contrasts – all elements that can not be seen in the Berlin version but are obvious in Vleughels’s contemporary work. The composition has thus moved away from its initial source in Rubens. It has gained in tension and elegance: it is now strongly asymmetrical, the soldiers having been moved closer to the front, creating a diagonal movement. The lighting no longer simply follows the figures of the main group but cuts across each individual. Pesne has also followed Vleughels’s example in leaving parts of the surface empty and creating tension through a less even distribution of figures across the picture plane. The right side of the painting in Carcassonne is left virtually empty and dark and the drama is concentrated in the left half. Vleughels’s composition is more balanced than Pesne’s but employs the void in an equally effective way.
20 Le Leyzour and Daguerre de Hureaux et al., op. cit. (note 15), pp.251–53.
21 Hercenberg, op. cit. (note 11), p.78, no.65, fig.61; G. Bartoschek and C.M. Vogtherr: Zerstört Entführt Verschollen. Die Verluste der preussischen Schlösser im Zweiten Weltkrieg.Gemälde I, Potsdam 2004, p.560. The painting was restituted to the Prussian Palaces in 2010. Pesne incidentally made a drawing of the same scene directly inspired by Vleughels, possibly when the latter’s painting had already arrived in the royal
It is easy to imagine Vleughels’s comments on Pesne’s sketch. But what did Watteau add to the process – and was he asked by Vleughels? Comparing Pesne’s painting with Watteau’s from the same period such as the Fêtes Vénitiennes in Edinburgh (where Vleughels is featured as the male dancer on the left), the works of the two painters have hardly anything in common. In Watteau’s paintings individual figures are brightly lit and evenly distributed across the picture plane. Colour fields are broken up and structured by highlights and contrasting hues. The comparison suggests that Pesne might not have followed Watteau’s suggestions – or never received any.
Pesne must have felt grateful for Vleughels’s advice and help. When he came to Paris in 1723, he painted a portrait of his friend, one of his masterpieces and a moving testimony both to their friendship and to Vleughels’s unusual and quirky personality (Fig.9).22 In 1723, after having received helpful advice from Vleughels, Pesne had fully accepted that his strength lay in portrait painting. With help from his friends, he had, however, managed to be accepted as a full member of the Academy in Paris – as a history painter.
collection; see Berckenhagen, op. cit. (note 1), p.216, no.384, fig.243. The date of its acquisition by Friedrich II is not known.
22 Berckenhagen, op. cit. (note 1), p.184, no.320, fig.50; and Hercenberg, op. cit. (note 11), pp.53–54, no.1, fig.1. Hercenberg mistakenly dates the painting to after Vleughels’s arrival in Rome 1724, although Pesne did not go to Rome at that time.