Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Fontainebleau and Vaux-le-Vicomte


                I finally made it to two French chateaux in Ile-de-France I should have visited months ago.  I got out of bed a little before 7:00, and bought an all-day Ile-de-France transportation pass from the Gare de Lyon, in central Paris.  I took the RER southeast, well outside the city limits, and after about 40 minutes of Kindle-bliss, I hopped off the train, into a light drizzle at the town of Fontainebleau.  I easily found the bus waiting outside the station, jumped on, riding for just a few stops, and piling out with the rest of the riders at the stop aptly named “chateau.” 
                From the outside, Fontainebleau doesn’t look particularly impressive.  It has a fairly broad park (it was raining, so I didn’t explore too much), but except for its size, and a particularly fancy entry staircase in the shape of a broad horseshoe, it could be just another 17th-  or 18th-century bourgeois mansion, kind of like Cheverney.  But no, the Chateau de Fontainebleau is a royal residence, and an impressive one, too.  Although the original keep on the site dates from the 12th century, the current edifice dates mostly from the time of Francois I (i.e. from the early 16th century), and is the only French royal residence left entirely intact.  It isn’t as monstrous as Versailles, as grand as the Louvre, as picturesque as Chenonceau, or as imposing as Chambord, but it’s certainly one of the most interesting castles I’ve visited, and all the more worth the visit after seeing how the Italians preserve their historic monuments.
                The tour of the chateau begins with the apartments of Napoleon I, who made the castle his principal residence.  For this reason, they have a lot of his junk: one begins to wonder who conserved all of it, all of these years, and why it was not all lost.  The man certainly had a lot of ornamental swords, ceremonial outfits, and sets of shaving supplies.  He even had one of those cool forks which have joints in the handle, so that campers can stick them in their backpacks without impaling themselves on the tines -- except that Napoleon’s were made of gold, and campers’ aren’t.  Some Napoleon fan even saved his traveling chamber pot.  No, there was some pretty cool stuff there, that made me think of my Mother, the costume historian -- the suit that Napoleon wore to his imperial anointing, as seen in David’s famous painting, for instance.  Later in the tour of the museum, I was also surprised to find his throneroom -- complete with a throne, the identical twin of which I’ve seen in the Napoleon III apartments in the Louvre, golden bees and all.  Napoleon was into these bees: you can see them embroidered onto many of his royal outfits, if you look closely enough at paintings of him.  The irony is that these golden bees were symbols of French royalty; the French Revolution really had come full circle!  One of the greatest ironies was in the commemorative book made for his anointing ceremony (a lot like the programs for college graduations, but in hardcover), which gave the date of the ceremony as Frimaire, Year XII of the Republic, using the Revolutionary calendar to date the ascension of the Consul to his status as Emperor, and thus the end of the French First Republic.  Now we’re on the Fifth, which still hasn’t exceeded the length of the Third, even… What form of government will the French have when our grandchildren are our age?
                Despite the Napoleonic aspects of the visit, there is a very literal royal (Vallois as well as Bourbon) stamp upon the house -- because the various residents literally stamped and carved their initials onto all available space, wall and ceiling!  Francois I loved the letter F, and placed it, along with his other personal symbols of the salamander and the triple fleur-de-lis, all over his house.  His son and successor, Henri II, made the finishing touches on certain rooms, including one of the main dining rooms, and had the prerogative, therefore, of covering the surfaces with the letter H, with interlocking crescent moons (his own personal emblem), and the initials C and D, for his wife and mistress, respectively (just like at Chenonceau).  There was also an AA who made her mark at Fontainebleau (no, not you AA, but feel better!), namely Anne of Austria, mother of Louis XIV, especially in one of the two chapels (she was a deeply religious woman, after all).  I saw just a few back-to-back block Ls, too, characteristic of the biggest L of them all.  His successor, Louis XV, left a completely different kind of royal L behind: cursive, and, when paired, facing the other L head-on.  Although it seems as if I’m rambling, I’ve never seen so many royal initials displayed so prominently in any chateau.  I think that all of these people were trying to make a point: they owned this space.
                Only a small portion of the chateau is on display to visitors, but there is a great deal of art and furniture, even in this section.  The collections also have a historic dimension: I saw the table where, according to lore, Napoleon signed his resignation in 1814.  I did not see where Louis XIV issued the Edict of Fontainebleau, which revoked the famous Edict of Nantes of his grandfather, Henri IV, (it had given legal recognition and protection to Huguenots).  To be honest, that was the only event I had previously associated with Fontainebleau, so missing this, wherever it might have been, was a slight disappointment.  Nevertheless, there was so much to see at Fontainebleau!  There is the same array of royal bedchambers, chapels, wall and ceiling paintings, fine furniture, art objects, dining rooms, dancing halls, busts of famous Roman dudes, allegorical art, biblical art, classical art, seasonally-themed art, etc., at Versailles: for better or for worse, my eyes are just beginning to glaze over.  I
                It was nearly 3:00 pm by the time I left Fontainebleau.  I boarded the train in the direction of Paris, uncertain of whether or not I would stay on or get off when the train stopped at Melun, the closest railway station to Vaux-le-Vicomte.  I hadn’t eaten, and was tired from my visit to Fontainebleau; then I realized that I might never visit France again for years, and I thought about what I know certain friends and Mothers I know would do if they were in such a situation had such an opportunity to visit another chateau, and I felt my legs, of their own accord, stand me up and walk me to door, when the train stopped at Melun. 
                One reason for my hesitation was that I knew that the only ways to access Vaux-le-Vicomte are 1) by car, 2) by shuttle, and 3) by taxi.  I don’t have my own car here, and the shuttle only runs on Sunday, so I knew that I would need to take a taxi, in order to make it across the highway, and reach Vaux-le-Vicomte.  It was a 20-euro ride each way, according to the taxi driver waiting by the train station, a cost which I would normally not pay to access a single castle (this was in addition to the cost of my train ticket and of the entrance fee itself), but I reminded myself that I would kick myself for years for passing up the opportunity if I didn’t jump for it now, and that I had swallowed many such fees in Italy.  Louis would have taken a taxi, had he been around today.
                Vaux-le-Vicomte, like so many other chateaux in Paris, boasts that it inspired Versailles.  In my honest opinion, very few of these claims are sincere this, and, what’s more, encourage teleological thinking in the history of architecture and landscape architecture.  Vaux has a very real claim to inspiring Versailles, though.  For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Nicolas Fouquet, superintendant of finances under Louis XIV during the Sun King’s minority, hired the architect Vau to design him a splendid mansion.  The place had extensive gardens, which Fouquet hired the most important gardener (what we would now call a landscape architect), André Le Notre, to design, and included the world’s first fountains that shot the water upward in a jet (you need good engineering for that).  Fouquet was the friend, patron, and protector of many of the artists and intellectuals of the day, most famously, of La Fontaine and Moliere.  The Cardinal de Mazarin, who called the shots for the young king much as the Cardinal de Richelieu called the shots under Louis XIII (think The Three Musketeers) died in 1661, and Louis eagerly rose to take the reins of the kingdom fully in hand.  At this time, Fouquet’s job gave him immense power over the finances of the kingdom: every single bill approving the use of royal funds required his signature, thus giving him a tremendous veto power.  He had also been close to Mazarin.  In 1661, he invited the king, and everyone who was anyone in the French court, to a gigantic party at his house, a kind of open house.  Moliere had even prepared a new comedy-ballet especially for the occasion, Les Fâcheux (and by “prepare” I mean “write, direct, choreograph, and lead in”).   Louis didn’t take the party the way Fouquet had intended -- though it was nominally in honor of him, Louis considered such an evident display of wealth and power to be a threat.  Also somewhat in fear of seeing Fouquet become a new Mazarin or Richelieu, Louis had him arrested by none other than the Sieur d’Artagnan (yes, back to The Three Musketeers again -- he was a real person), and belligerently pursued his trial.  It was no longer a time when a king could straightaway order the execution of an innocent man, and so, the trial dragged on.  During this time, papers were discovered in Fouquet’s possession, indicating that Fouquet had fortified his fortress of Belle-Ile, to withdraw to, with his family, should fall from favor, as he did.  After three years or so, he was imprisoned, too few judges having voted for execution, and he died in prison in 1680.  Louis got his wish, and the post of superintendant of finances was abolished, and Louis had to sign every spending bill -- every one -- himself.  Fouquet’s job was unofficially taken by highly-efficient and quasi-despotic Jean-Baptist Colbert, who became Comptroller-General of Finances.  My Mother can tell you all about this guy, and his economic policy, and how he kidnapped lacemakers. 
                But Vaux-le-Vicomte lives on.  Unfortunately, the dome was under construction, but I could visit Fouquet’s private quarters, as well as the main castle, and the very extensive gardens.  Although they have some decent historical background, and some OK art, the visits are neither particularly informative, nor do they offer particularly memorable artwork.  Still, in many ways, it is easy to see how, if you took Vaux, and stretched it out until it was the size of Chambord, it would turn out looking something like Versailles.  The castle has good background information on Fouquet’s trial, and has done a good job identifying all of the artists, mathematicians, playwrights, poets, etc., who depended upon him.  The Fouquet family emblem was a squirrel rampant, which is depicted in painting and tapestry across the house.  Apparently, when Colbert seized some of Fouquet’s tapestry’s after the latter’s disgrace, arrest, and imprisonment, he had the embroidery of the squirrels removed, and his own emblem, that of a snake, replace it.  The ceilings and walls of the house were painted by Charles Le Brun, who went on to work at Versailles, just like Le Notre.  Not all of the ceiling paintings are finished, though: in one case, there’s nothing but an oval with clouds.  Perhaps some muse or allegory was planned to actually feature in the painting, but Le Brun never had the opportunity, because Fouquet was arrested first?  It seems likely.
                The castle also had a temporary exhibit on Le Notre, and the various gardens he designed.  He ended up being ennobled by Louis, and even had the opportunity to design his own coat of arms.  His design featured a cabbage, and three silver snails.  He was a very modest guy, and everyone at court liked and admired him -- he had no enemies.  I really wish someone who studies landscape architecture and such had been with me to appreciate (and explain to me) the 3D models. 
                It was nearly 6:00 pm when I finally left the castle proper, and walked out to the gardens.  I had a nice walk around the statues, which are, unfortunately, not in good repair.  Lack of maintenance has caused some of them to become so covered with moss and lichen that that they are no longer recognizable as the figures from Greco-Roman mythology which they once represented.  It would be a good place to have an enormous royal party, which was probably the point.
                When I left the castle, at about 6:40 pm, I realized that there were no taxis waiting.  I don’t think that there was any way for visitors who hadn’t driven to Vaux to make it home.  I realized that I either had to ask another tour group for a ride, or be stranded.  The group leaving right behind me was speaking English, and I asked me if they could drop me off in a town with a train station, it didn’t matter where, exactly, on their way back.  I realize that this probably wasn’t the safest thing to do, but they were friendly, and didn’t begrudge me the seat, or, as far as I can tell, redirect much from their route (they were driving in the opposite direction of Melun, which was only 10 minutes away).  I took the train back to Paris, took the Metro back to the d’Artagnan, and, the next morning (i.e. today, Tuesday), took the SNCF train back to Tours, to stay at the hostel there until  I leave on August 8th.
                I’m sorry that I’ve relocated again, but I was not entirely safe in my hostel in the 20th arrondissement, according to what the Rabbi’s wife told me on Shabbat.  So now, I have 8 days to relax, read… and write!  I’ve got about 19 pages of my thesis written, and hope to have finished the 1st draft by the time I arrive back home in Ithaca.
                I’m thinking of you all!

~JD

“Every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure G-d hath given to [hu]mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all [hu]mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society or security” (John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 2.11).

No comments:

Post a Comment