Topic: St. Mandé, Bontemps or what?

[Nicholas.]

I recently bought this newel post finial, enclosing a sulphide of what appears to be Emperor Napoleon III, surrounded by millefiore canes. Three photos posted.

One of the canes in my finial appears to be very similar to those illustrated by Paul Dunlop in his article in the PCA 2008 Bulletin, Page 60, on a ring cup which he “hesitantly” attributes to George Bontemps at his Choisy le Roi factory. This attribution appears to be based solely on similarities between the formation of the bowl of his ring cup and an authenticated Bontemps example in the Musée National de la Céramique at Sevrès, illustrated on Page 75 of the PCA 2007 Bulletin.
 
However, I am not entirely convinced by Paul Dunlop’s attribution. It would seem to me to be more convincing to attribute his ring cup to St. Mandé, on the basis of the cross canes illustrated on Page 55 of George Kulles book, Identifying Antique Paperweights - The Less Familiar.

If this finial is by Bontemps, assuming the sulphide to be of Napoleon III, there would only have been a very short window of time in which it could have been made. Napoleon III came to power in 1848, before which it would not have been wise to produce objects bearing his likeness, and Bontemps had moved to England by 1849, his factory closing in 1851.
 
In addition it has been suggested that the closure of Choisy le Roi was, in part, as a result of the 1848 revolution, which would be a reason for Bontemps’ factory not to have honoured Napoleon in this manner, unless obliged to do so.
 
Is anyone able to recognise any of these millefiore canes? could they be St. Mandé? and are there any known sulphides attributed to either St. Mandé or Choisy le Roi?

[KevinH]

Hi Nicholas,

Interesting comments and questions. I think Paul Dunlop was right to be hesitant and I would be equally hesitant about your comment that one of the canes in the finial weight is similar to any illustrated in the Dunlop 2008 article. Which one do you think it is?

Also, even though the evidence for a range of cruciform canes is good for St Mande, I do not see any in the Kulles book that I would call a close match to the one in your item. In yours, the cross is set in a white core surrounded by a pink sleeve and the whole is formed as a 6 or 7 point "flower". I cannot see that cane, in its whole construction, in any of the Kulles illustrations.

But ... the look of the cross in your piece is somewhat like an aeroplane (with some imagination) and that appearance is something I have seen in a cruciform cane used to decorate an early (1920s perhaps) Monart vase and which I have not seen elsewhere in any later Ysart work. The vase would have been made, or at least finished, by Salvador Ysart. And Salvador was at Choisy-Le-Roi before migrating to Scotland in 1915 and may have had access to some (old?) French canes at the time. This, of course, is just another "hesitant" thought on my part, based on the look of a few, probably squashed, cross canes. I am not saying your item has anything to do with any Ysart work - but that a similar "aeroplane-looking" cross cane may, tentatively, tie in with Choisy-Le-Roi.

[SophieB]

Hi Nicholas,

KevH is much better placed than me to answer your questions regarding the canes in newel post. I am afraid I know too little to be of any help there.  

However I know quite lot about French political history.

I agree that it looks like a sulphide of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte (nice item by the way).

If the closure of the Bontemps factory at Choisy-le-Roy was partly due to the 1848 revolution, then Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte is innocent of any wrong-doing. He had nothing to do with the 1848 revolution (he was in exile until after it happened). On returning to Paris after the event, he was asked by the provisional government to leave the country again (which he did). Even though he was soon elected to Parliament in a number of constituencies, he resigned his seat as he was threatened again with formal bannishment. It took another round of elections to see him finally entering Parliament. The previous constitutional monarchies had regarded him as a threat, especially as the bonapartist movement had still a real following. And they were right to be worried if one considers the overwhelming majority with which he was elected President of the Republic at the end of 1848.

Still, Bontemps seems to have left France soon after Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte became president and closed the factory in the year that LNB organised a coup and seized power more permanently.  It may be that Bontemps had backed the Republicans (or the Monarchists) prior to, or at the very beginning of the 1848 Revolution, or that he quickly lost faith in LNB.

Also I would not be surprised if the item had been made before Louis-Naploeon Bonaparte came to power. Considering the strong Bonapartist movement, it would make sense for a fervent supporter to have an item like that made (even if the item would need to be kept out of sight for the most part). After all, LNB was the next in line in the imperial order of succession and the Bonapartist movement must have placed its hope in him long before it was realistic to do so.

I am not sure if any of this is useful, but I could not help it (once a pedant, always a pedant...).

SophieB

[Nicholas.]

Hi! KevH and SophieB, thank you both for your comments.

SophieB, your information on the historical context of this piece is by no means pedantic; it is both interesting and informative. It may help to give us some indication as to whether Bontemps’ factory could be considered as a possible contender for the production of this newel post finial. Anyway, I enjoyed reading it and learning something!!

Bearing in mind the usual location of a newel post finial, however, I do feel that a political supporter of Napoleon III would have been more likely to order a paperweight or a plaque, rather than this finial, as an item to keep out of sight as not only would his family and friends have seen it but any visitor to his home and his domestic staff as well, both friends and foes.

In addition, the very process of producing a sulphide portrait would suggest to me the making of a number of examples in a small production run, these for sale to various glass houses, not a specific commission for a one off piece. 

KevH, the cane that I felt might share some similarities is the cross/bird/aeroplane cane with the pink rim on Page 61 of the 2008 PCA Bulletin. I had reasoned, perhaps incorrectly, that these and similar motifs illustrated by Kulles and others were only elements in a cane and may well have been used with different outer sheaths. The system of production used for making such canes would have enabled the glassworker to change the latter at will.

I feel that an additional problem is that, with minor distortions in manufacture, these “cross” silhouettes transform themselves from crosses to aeroplane shapes, even to birds, thus rendering their classification and attribution even more difficult. Also the mundane nature of the other canes in my piece does not help it’s attribution greatly.       

KevH, your comment about Salvador Ysart, Choisy le Roi and the possibility of Salvador having access to old factory canes is fascinating and could well be a possible link between the finial and Bontemps’ factory. Thank you for that.

Nicholas
 

[KevinH]

Thanks for the clarification about the cane detail, Nicholas.

You are correct that canes are made up of separate elements which could appear in various combinations. This is partly why I raised the question and your comment has shown that it is the cruciform element that is being considered and not the whole cane with its outer colour and shape. You are also correct in stating that distortions can make classification and attribution difficult.

So, we are thinking about a cruciform element which may have undergone some distortion. If a distortion was made in the original forming of a cane before it is pulled into its small size, or even during the pulling, then it is quite likely that all cane slices from that pull will show the same shape caused by the distortion. But if a distortion is made during the setting of a cane into its main object, then its shape may be unique with no chance of a match anywhere else.

With a simple, or simpler, cruciform shape it will not be easy to be certain of anything.

If we cannot find a match elsewhere of one whole cane, or better still more than one, with the same colours and shape as in your piece then I think it will be difficult to be sure of anything. But there is still a chance of finding a general match to the overall look of the weight with its setting of the canes and that may help in the research.

[SophieB]

Hi Nicholas,

I thought of something else to support my argument that the newel post phinial was made early: the sulphide seems to me to depict a rather young(er) man. However, he was already 40 years old when he was elected President of the Republic in 1848 (and on average people did age more rapidly in those times). A portrait of him was painted by Frank Xaver Winterhalter in 1852 where he looks older (see below).

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Franz_Xaver_Winterhalter_Napoleon_III.jpg

In fact, I found a number of sulphide of him in paperweights looking on the internet and yours looks the youngest (and the best) by far. I doubt if this sample is representative but it would seem to indicate that your newel post phinial was made quite early (either before he came to power or very soon after that).

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/barker/gallery/?RollID=group01&FrameID=Ac141250NapIII
http://www.world-encheres.com/boisgirard/vo17032008/asp/index.asp
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/barker/gallery/?RollID=group02&FrameID=Ac208317napoleugen

Also we forgot to contemplate the possibility that the item may not have been made for the French market. All members of the Bonaparte family had been banned and were in exile as well as their entourage and close allies (although a few managed to survive and even serve many different regimes...). Apart from Napoleon I, they stayed mostly in Germany and Switzerland (Austria for Naploeon II); but they moved around and some were found in Brussels and in the UK.

Anyway, here are a few thoughts and a few pictures which may help you decide the matter (or not...).

Sophie

[Nicholas.]

Thanks Sophie and KevH for your comments.

KevH, I think that you’re absolutely right, it may only be possible to attribute this newel post from its general appearance. So many differing cross-like elements for canes exist and the remaining canes are somewhat nondescript.

Sarah, do I detect a certain enthusiasm for the subject of Louis Napoleon? I agree that he looks younger in my sulphide, however they all looked very different in their photos, including the lovely Eugenie. Do you not think that this could merely be a matter of flattery?

However, if a Clichy sulphide weight of say 1850/1855 depicts him as being much older, there could remain the possibility that this sulphide portrait itself was made rather earlier, before the advent of paperweights and newel post finials, intended for use in plaques and the like. Sarah, what do you think would have been the earliest date at which L N’s political career had attracted enough of a following to make a sulphide of him a commercially viable proposition?

I have found a sulphide which appears to be the same as that in my finial, it is listed amongst sold stock on the website of antique dealers named Liberty’s and is described by them as St. Mandé.
                                                                   http://www.libertys.com/li3/lib3611a.jpg
I’ve no idea why they plumped for St. Mandé, as the weight is only clear with the sulphide, no canes, perhaps it was the weight’s SG or fluorescence but it is a possible link to an attribution for this finial as well.

                                                                          Nicholas

[SophieB]

Hi Nicholas,

I hasten to say that I am not a secret Bonapartist!!! It is just my line of work!! And happily I have a lot of enthusiasm for it!!! :thup:

LNB would have attracted supporters (and become a commercially viable proposition) from the moment he became the next person in line of the imperial succession, i.e. after the death of Napoleon II and the death of his elders brothers. I will check which is earlier.

Don't forget to post this thread if you have a definitve answer one day, I have become quite hooked on this little mystery.

Sophie

[Nicholas.]

Hi Sophie,

           I bought this finial from a largish collection of Bonapartist items, mainly portrait miniatures, bronzes etc., however this was the only piece relating to Louis Napoleon and the only paperweight related item.

    It seems that portrait sulphides were often produced by specialist workshops for sale to glass companies, accounting for the presence of identical sulphides in the products of different glass manufacturers. Bearing this in mind, the original for this sulphide may have been sculpted as soon as LNB entered the political limelight, this with the purpose of selling it for use in plaques, letter weights, etc., slightly before the advent of the traditional paperweight as we know it. If the sulphide manufacturer still had stock of these sulphides, or access to the original mould, they could well have been sold a number of years later, for the inclusion in the rather later traditional glass paperweights, newel post finials and paperweight related products.

    I looked them up. LNB's elder brother died in 1831 and N II in 1832, thus leaving him as the eventual heir, after his uncle Joseph. So it would seem that LNB was a marketable commodity from about 1833 up until the end of the 1860's.

    I have a professional photo of the profile of this finial, too heavy to post here, if you would like it please email me.

    Nicholas

           

[SophieB]

Hi Nicholas,

Yes, you are right: LNB became the next person in line in the imperial order of succession at the death of Napoleon II in 1832 and considered himself to be the heir to the imperial throne from then on (he had a meeting with his uncle Joseph about it, if I remember well). Apparently, he started to contact et reorganise the Bonapartist movement in France from that date. But he became famous quite quickly: in 1831, he had already plotted (with his brother) against the Pope in Rome to help with the process of unification of Italy. He was expelled from Italy for this (and his brother died of illness at that time). In 1836, he attempted a military coup from Strasbourg which failed and which saw him deported to the USA!!!  However, he is soon back in Europe and attempts another military coup in France in 1840. This time he is caught, condemned and sent to prison for life (but escapes in 1846). During all this time, he writes pamphlets and works presenting his political ideas and ideals. In fact, it seems that he had no difficulty in leading a political campaign from his prison. LNB was a real political firebrand and a thorn in the side of the constitutional monarchy... And his political campaign was well organised and successful: one has to remember that he was elected President of the Republic in December 1848 by direct universal (men only, alas!) suffrage with 74% of the votes....

To answer your question, I suspect that LNB started to be really famous in his own right in France after the first attempted coup in 1836. He would definitely be a very commercial proposition then.

I hope this helps.  

Sophie

PS: I love a picture. You can email it at:

Sophie.BoyronATgooglemail.com (you need to replace AT with @)