Koenraad Brosens and Guy Delmarcel
Postdoctoral Fellow of the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (Belgium) / Emeritus Professor Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Isaac Moillon, un peintre du roi à Aubusson. Some Reflections and Addenda

Last summer the Musée départemental de la tapisserie in Aubusson housed a highly interesting exhibition on the lesser-known French painter and tapestry designer Isaac Moillon (1614-1673). Nicole de Reyniès (conservateur général honoraire du Patrimoine) and Sylvain Laveissière (musée du Louvre, département des Peintures) co-authored the scholarly and lavishly illustrated book published on the occasion.(1) Laveissière surveyed the paintings by Moillon; de Reyniès dealt with the tapestry sets and isolated tapestries.

Moillon’s career as a tapestry designer is attested by archival evidence. Firstly, there is Félibien’s (1619-1695) statement that “Mouellon travailloit à des histoires pour des tapisseries”. Secondly, a mid-eighteenth-century document on the Aubusson workshops claims that Colbert appointed Moillon as tapestry designer to the local maîtres fabricants in 1665. Finally, a number of seventeenth-century documents reveal that Moillon was in contact with Aubusson tapestry entrepreneurs and that he resided in Aubusson in the 1650s.

There is, however, no archival material that links Moillon to specific tapestry sets. Yet there are two paintings that are of crucial importance to this debate: Ulysses Leaves Aeolus and Ulysses Wins the Archery Contest (cat. 43 and 44) - both were on show in Aubusson. These paintings were duly attributed to Moillon by Sylvie Béguin in 2001.(2) They are not signed, but they show close stylistic similarities with some of his signed works (especially cat. 36 and 37). As the Ulysses paintings reappear in Aubusson tapestries, they are the cornerstones of any research on Moillon’s tapestry sets.

Nicole de Reyniès reconstructed a group of tapestry sets based on designs by Moillon. She performed a Herculean work: she diligently studied hundreds of Aubusson pieces and managed to attribute no less than ten tapestry sets to Moillon: The Story of Paris, The Story of Achilles, The Story of Ulysses, The Story of Dido and Aeneas, The Story of Theseus, The Story of Perseus and Andromeda, The Story of Psyche, The Story of Cyrus, Illustrious Women from Antiquity, and The Story of Moses. She deserves the utmost praise for finally shedding light on this vast body of tapestries flooding the art market.

Obviously, not all of these sets were on show, yet the Moillon équipe managed to present an impressive selection: The Story of Paris, The Story of Achilles, The Story of Ulysses, The Story of Dido and Aeneas, and The Story of Psyche. Two or more tapestries depicting the very same scene were often included in the exhibition; these pieces revealed a remarkable variability in composition, dyes, and quality of the weave. Everybody who has had the opportunity to see the exhibition and examine the tapestries in person will surely have been struck by the marked contrast between downright crude pieces and some surprisingly high-quality tapestries. The Musée départemental de la tapisserie, however, is off the beaten track and only few hardcore tapestry scholars may have had the chance to pay Moillon a visit; in addition, the illustrations in the book fail to do justice to the remarkable contrasts (art history methodology course no. 1: ‘never trust photographs’), so there is a clear danger that the dissimilarities might pass unnoticed while they are actually among the major revelations of the exhibition. Fortunately, Nicole de Reyniès does not fail to emphasize the contrasts in quality, and scrupulously raises some important questions:

“Si l’on tient compte de la première date retrouvée, Moillon ne serait arrivé qu’à trente-six ans à Aubusson. Avait-il déjà travaillé pour la tapisserie? Et pour quelle manufacture? Quelques-uns des tissages retrouvés montrent une finesse de travail peu commune à Aubusson (voir un des tissages d’Énée portant Anchise) et des bordures de type très classicisant, faites de rinceaux (voir diverses pièces d’une tenture de Pâris et Hélène passées en vente publique et une pièce de Didon et Énée vue dans le commerce parisien) qui, à notre connaissance, sont ignorés en cette ville. Aurait-il travaillé tout d’abord pour un atelier parisien et acquis de ce fait une réputation dans ce domaine? Nous pouvons le supposer, mais pourquoi, alors, ne fit-il apparemment pas carrière à Paris, comme Michel Corneille?” (p. 114).

“Les tapisseries d’un même modèle ont été répertoriées afin de saisir les différentes qualités de tissage (et de réperer ainsi les plus proches du modèle original), les variantes de dessin et de couleurs (elles sont nombreuses et dues aux lissiers)” (p. 137).

These passages obviously demonstrate that Nicole de Reyniès has some serious doubts about the origin of some pieces. On page 131 she makes clear that she intends to compile a list of producers’ marks in order to shed more light on the issue. However, “Ce travail dépasse le cadre prévu et a été mis en attente. Il serait cependant essentiel dans la mesure où deux ou trois bordures pourraient provenir de Paris, ce qui inciterait le parcours du peintre”.

We do hope that she will be able to present this list in the near future. Even though the number of tapestries bearing marks or signatures is fairly limited, the intended survey might provide some important clues as to where some of the pieces were woven. Meanwhile, we would like to demonstrate that she is completely right in questioning Aubusson as the sole production centre where Moillon’s designs were transferred into tapestry.

First of all, it must be stressed that there is no archival evidence indicating that Moillon was a painter/tapestry designer living and making his career and fortune in Aubusson. A close reading of the excellent Chronologie (pages 19-31; by Sylvain Laveissière) in fact reveals that Isaac Moillon never quit Paris for Aubusson. To be sure, in the 1650s he resided in Aubusson (“résidant de présent en ceste ville”), yet Moillon’s home base seems to have been Paris, as Nicole de Reyniès hesitantly admits (“A vrai dire, il devait avoir double résidence”; p. 114). Was he really appointed as tapestry designer to the Aubusson workshops by Colbert in 1665 when the latter tried to rationalize tapestry production in France? According to a document written in the middle of the eighteenth century, he was; yet there is no shred of seventeenth-century archival evidence: “On finit même par se demander si Moillon fut réellement appointé par Colbert” (de Reyniès, p. 155). Consequently, the title of the exhibition and the book -un peintre du roi à Aubusson- is misleading and seems to be inspired by political motives and sentiments rather than historic facts.

So, Moillon was a Parisian painter whose network included maîtres fabricants or marchands tapissiers operating in Aubusson. He must have received commissions from his Aubusson connections, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that he worked exclusively for the Aubusson entrepreneurs, nor that his sets were woven exclusively in Aubusson.

In fact, an unpublished document discovered in the inexhaustible Minutier Central (Paris, Archives nationales) sheds new light on this issue. In July 1658 Salme Lacomme, maître et marchand tapissier living in the rue Saint Martin in Paris, engaged Guy de Lanoy, tapissier du Roi living close-by in the enclos du Temple.(3) De Lanoy promised Lacomme to weave “une tenture de tapisserie à la marche” [!] depicting “l’histoire de Paris et Helena suivant des dessins qui lui seront baillés par ledit Lacomme”. The document further shows that another edition of this set had already been woven by another Parisian tapissier. It can be assumed that this set is identical with The Story of Paris created by Moillon; in fact, as Nicole de Reyniès rightfully points out, “on ignore ce sujet dans les tissages parisiens” (p. 139). Lacomme himself might have owned the designs or he might have been engaged by an Aubusson entrepreneur to close the deal - the document is not conclusive about the ownership of the designs; either way, at least one edition of Moillon’s Story of Paris was woven in Paris prior to 1658 and a second edition is likely to have been woven in 1658-1659.

Interestingly, the document shows that Lacomme would provide De Lanoy with all base materials: “toutes les laines, soies et étoffes nécessaires pour la perfection dudits ouvrages, savoir une soie pour le vert, une autre pour le bleu et une autre pour le jaune et pour les visages de la laine très fine”. The production price was fixed at 50 livres per aune carrée. Two Story of Paris editions recorded in the probate inventory of the Aubusson tapestry entrepreneur Etienne Matheron in 1660 were priced at “23 livres 10 sols l’aune carrée” (p. 139), which demonstrates that the Parisian edition was far more valuable than the Aubusson sets. In other words: high-quality editions and tapestries (such as the Paris piece that is in the Musée d’art Roger Quilliot, Clermont-Ferrand; p. 143) are likely to have been woven in Paris. These prices further suggest that the Story of Paris set recorded in the probate inventory of Claude Charpentier, receveur des tailles à Moulins, in 1652 had been woven in Paris, for the tapestries measured about 60 aunes carrées and were valued at 3,000 livres or 50 livres per aune carrée.

Moillon thus opens a Pandora’s box as he directs attention towards the obscure Parisian and French tapestry production and dye works outside the well-known framework of royal or semi-royal workshops. Not all French tapestry designs were owned by French workshop managers: Jean Valdor (1616-1675), an engraver and entrepreneur from Liège living in Paris, owned Le Brun’s famous Meleager and Atalanta cartoons(4) and Adrien Parent, a French entrepreneur living in Brussels, owned the designs of The Story of Cleopatra created by Charles Poerson.(5) These entrepreneurs bought tapestry designs in Paris and subsequently leased them to whatever workshop they liked.

In fact, by 1672 Valdor seems to have owned Moillon’s designs of the Illustrious Women, as he leased them to Brussels tapestry producers(6) - although this lease is not recorded in the Repères historiques relating to the Tenture des Femmes Illustres (p. 280-281). An unpublished document discovered in the Minutier Central can also be added to the Repères historiques. In March 1658 Jean Bertrand, maître et marchand tapissier à Paris, declared that he owed Etienne Matheron, conseiller du Roi (the document fails to mention that he is also a marchand tapissier à Aubusson), about 2150 livres as Matheron had delivered four tapestry sets.(7) Three sets were Verdures; the remaining series was an edition of the Femmes Illustres.

Interestingly, Jean Bertrand might have sold other Moillon sets in Paris. According to an unpublished document recorded in 1653, he sold “une tenture de tapisserie de haute-lisse de l’histoire de Cyrus en sept pièces” to the widow of Antoine d’Amboise.(8) The wording “haute-lisse” may relate to the actual technique or the quality of the pieces; either way, it is not likely that this Cyrus set was woven in Aubusson. In fact, the dimensions and the price of the tapestries (c. 55/60 aunes carrées; 2,500 livres) shows that the pieces cost c. 45 livres per aune carrée - about the price that was fixed in the 1658 contract relating to the Parisian edition of the Story of Paris.

Unquestionably, the Moillon monograph is a milestone; Nicole de Reyniès once again demonstrates that she is one of the grandes dames of tapestry research. What we now need is a new (French) school of tapestry researchers who are willing to dive into the Minutier Central and try to unravel the Parisian production networks, for the new documents cited in this article are presumably just the tip of the iceberg.

Leuven and Antwerp, September 2005

(1) Nicole de Reyniès and Sylvain Laveissière, Isaac Moillon 1614-1673. Un peintre du Roi à Aubusson, Paris/Aubusson (Somogy Éditions d'Art/Musée départemental de la tapisserie) 2005 (ISBN 2-85056-885-6).

(2) Sylvie Béguin, 'Pour Isaac Moillon', in Mélanges en hommage à Pierre Rosenberg Paris (RMN) 2001: 72-81.

(3) Paris, Archives nationales, Minutier Central XXI, 174 (July 11, 1658).

(4) Koenraad Brosens, ‘Charles Le Brun’s Meleager and Atalanta and Brussels Tapestry c. 1675’, Studies in the Decorative Arts 11, 1 (Fall-Winter 2003-2004): 5-37.

(5) Koenraad Brosens, ‘Nouvelles données sur l’Histoire de Cléopâtre de Poerson. Le réseau Parent et la tapisserie bruxelloise à la française’, Revue belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art (2005); forthcoming.

(6) Brosens 2003-2004: 26.

(7) Paris, Archives nationales, Minutier Central I, 132 (22 March, 1658).

(8) Paris, Archives nationales, Minutier Central XLII, 140 (7 December, 1653).

Please refer to this article as: Koenraad Brosens and Guy Delmarcel (2005), Isaac Moillon, un peintre du roi à Aubusson. Some Reflections and Addenda, retrieved mm/dd/yyyy, from http://www.studiesinwesterntapestry.net

Back to top