Recollection of the Parisian painters in 1650–1800

Agratina Elena Evgen'evna ORCID: 0000-0001-9842-0967 PhD in Art History Associate Professor, Department of Choreography and Ballet Studies, Moscow State Academy of Choreography 119146, Russia, Moscow, 2nd frunzenskaya str., 5 agratina_elena@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The painter, who gained a certain reputation in the Parisian art community of the XVIII century, who made an academic career and received recognition from customers, quite reasonably expected to leave a memory for himself. For the XVIII century, the tradition of preserving memory in writing was extremely important. Biographies and autobiographies, commendatory words, short and detailed dictionary entries, obituaries are created. These are program documents written under the auspices of the Academy, which was interested not only in the personal glory of the master and the preservation of his memory, but also in its own history, as well as notes from the pen of relatives and friends of a particular master, usually also reviewed and approved by the Academy.

I think it would be very useful to trace the "policy" of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in relation to perpetuating the memory of its members. Through a careful study of the above-mentioned documents, we hope to explain the attitude to such concepts as glory and memory in the Parisian artistic environment of the period we are interested in, to supplement the ideas about the self-consciousness of the master of the XVIII century, about how he understood his own place in contemporary art and in the historical context, about what means were used to achieve the noble goal of remaining in the memory of descendants and inspire them to even greater achievements and how it was connected with national consciousness and understanding of their role in the world art arena. The relevance of this study is based on the almost complete absence of such works not only in Russian, but also in French historiography. Even if the issue of preserving the memory of the painter was indirectly reflected in the large-scale works of A. Corvisier, J. Chatelet, S. Guichard, A. Laal, A. Verger, M. Schneider, K. Pomyan, S. Roux and some other art historians, we have not found any special research on this topic. This state of affairs has become a prerequisite for direct work with original sources.

The problem of historical memory in relation to Renaissance artists has repeatedly attracted the attention of researchers, since the tradition was laid down by the monumental work of J. Vasari, to pass by which it was absolutely impossible for specialists in Renaissance art. With France of the XVII-XVIII centuries, things are somewhat different. Despite a significant number of biographies, autobiographies, commendatory words and similar texts, the interest of scientists belonged only to individual monuments of this kind. In this regard , the texts of contemporaries about A. are out of competition . Watteau and the autobiography of M.-L.-E. Viger-Lebrun. Firstly, because we are talking about very remarkable masters whose work is constantly at the center of scientific discussions. Secondly, because of the quality of the texts themselves. Thus, the autobiography of Viger-Lebrun is colorful, fascinating, replete with various details that vividly complement the look of the era. At the same time, it is completely overlooked that such outstanding literary works are in the context of a developed tradition, which, rooted in the Renaissance era, is actively developing in France of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Even the publishers of the texts forget to mention this, in particular, J.–P. Kuzen, under whose editorship Viger-Lebrun's memoirs were published in 2003. A whole corpus of texts, many of which are mentioned in this article, are still awaiting detailed analysis. Despite the fact that academic biographies were published as part of the multi-volume collection of conferences of the Royal Academy, they have not yet received full-fledged research. The French tradition of preserving the memory of the painters of the national school deserves to take a strong place in science after the Renaissance, because the quantity, quality, detail and reliability of its constituent texts are truly exceptional.

The ideas of "eternal" or "immortal" glory quite obviously date back to the Renaissance. Another predecessor of Vasari, Filippo Villani (1325 – 1407), the author of the Book on the Origin of Florence and its Famous Citizens, included among the great people and artists. Villani noted that, noting them among the outstanding of his compatriots, he acts "following the example of ancient writers" ^{[1, p. 36]}.

 Giorgio Vasari, creating his famous "Biographies ..." specifically emphasizes that he started his work in order to "praise the diligence and ... the memory of those who, having revived and decorated these occupations, do not deserve that their names and creations completely remain [in oblivion]" ^{[2, p. 9]}. Vasari also expresses noble indignation that the "valor" of the great masters "has remained hidden for so long and still remains hidden" ^{[2, p. 9]} and expresses the conviction that rivalry with the great "will serve as an incentive for everyone to work as best as possible and constantly move forward from good to better". ^{[2, p. 9]}. Vasari believes that "young men ... driven by fame ... will ignite, perhaps, by example in their desire for superiority" ^{[2, p. 9]}.

Renaissance masters keenly felt their dignity and appreciated their talents. L.-B. Alberti argued that "the purpose of painting is to win the artist gratitude, favor and fame to a much greater extent than wealth. And the painters will achieve this when their picture will delight anyone who looks at it ..." ^{[3, pp. 48-48]}. A. Filaret was also convinced that artists are fully worthy of fame, since the ancient masters "were glorified in their books by the most glorious authors, like Vitruvius, Tullius, Varro, Virgil and others [...] If it were not a worthy deed, they would not praise him and glorify him so" ^{[3, p. 90]}.

Alberti expresses the opinion that education greatly contributes to the fame of the artist: "I advise," he writes, "that every painter should maintain close communication with poets, rhetoricians and other similar people who are sophisticated in the sciences, because they will either give him new ideas, or, in any case, help to put together a story beautifully, thanks to to which, without a doubt, he acquires great fame and a name for himself with his painting" ^{[3, p. 50]}. Piero della Francesca, urging artists to study perspective, promises that by doing so they, following the example of ancient painters, will earn "eternal glory" ^{[3, p. 64]}.

The masters of the Renaissance in their texts did not hesitate to constantly touch on the topic of their own glory. Thus, Lorenzo Ghiberti, in his "Comments" describing the competition for the gates of the Florentine Baptistery, reports that "everyone, without exception, gave me glory" ^{[3, p. 64]}. The self-praise of such a master as Benvenuto Cellini has long been a common place.

The artists of the seventeenth century, on whose direct example the generation of masters we are interested in grew up, were characterized by an equally reverent attitude to their own glory. Salvator Rosa, despite the fact that he criticized the masters, eager for recognition, in his "Satire about Painting", he himself was very indifferent to this issue. In a letter to J. B. Ricciardi dated September 15, 1668, he wrote that "he dared everything in order to assert his glory" ^{[4, p. 60]}. Peter-Paul Rubens, jealously watching his reputation, complains that the writer Morizot, praising his canvases in verse, made inaccuracies: "... my works," the master writes, "deserved the honor of being glorified by such a great poet, while he turned out to be insufficiently aware of all the features of their plots ..." ^{[4, p. 200]}. Rubens promises to write to the poet and point out all his mistakes. Of course, such self–consciousness was inherited by the French masters of the late XVII - XVIII centuries, who were very sensitive to the issue of fame.

The glorification of the artists of the national school has always had a state significance, very clearly realized in the Renaissance. Thus, A. Shastel writes that, guided by the desire to glorify Florence as an art center, Lorenzo the Magnificent "began the official glorification of the names that make up the glory of Tuscan art, turning to the brightest figures of humanism for this purpose" ^{[5, p. 18]}. Thus, not only the artists themselves wanted to leave a memory for themselves, but official structures were also interested in the same thing.

The Paris Academy of Painting and Sculpture undoubtedly inherited ideas regarding the personal and state significance of glorifying the masters of the brush and chisel. The Academy considered its most important task to preserve the memory of the great and at the same time to provide new generations of artists with the best role models, persistently pushed artists to receive a broad humanitarian education and to communicate with educated people.

Most of the sources listed above, with the possible exception of personal letters, were known in the French artistic environment. Continuity with Italy was emphasized at the Paris Academy by the fact that many translated Italian works were read at the assemblies. One of these texts, dating from 1677, belonged to the Italian J.P. Bellori and was originally performed in his native language at the Academy of St. S. Lebrun, who was elected a member of this academy, found it useful to present this work to the French artistic community as well. Bellori's work has a very characteristic title "The honor brought by painting and sculpture". Quite in the spirit of the Renaissance, Bellori speaks of the respect that kings, princes and other lords showed towards the arts, as well as all those who practice them, and the earliest examples of Bellori, as usual, borrows from the history of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, recalling the names of Zeuxis, Timagoras, Parrasius, Phidias, Polygnot, Apelles and other ancient artists. Ignoring almost completely the Middle Ages and even the Proto-Renaissance, Bellori turns to such examples of famous Renaissance artists as Michelangelo, Raphael and Titian ^{[6, pp. 646-655]}.

When it comes to the masters of the past, universally recognized geniuses, then no one in France at the end of the XVII-XVIII century has any doubts that the memory of them will be preserved for centuries. In the case of modern painters, the situation seems somewhat more complicated. The Paris Academy of Painting and Sculpture has assumed the function of a guarantor of preserving the memory of them. The Academy was very concerned about the promotion of the French national school, wanted to create its own pantheon of great ones. Of course, Nicola Poussin becomes an iconic figure. Charles Lebrun, speaking on November 5, 1667, with a speech about one of the paintings of Poussin, who died just two years before, notes that this master "made the glory of our days and became an ornament of his country" ^{[7, p. 171]}. And returning to the work of this painter, in a report dated January 10, 1671, Lebrun considers it necessary to note that those who "will imitate this great man will achieve, like him, immortal glory through their works" ^{[8, p. 401]}.

Later, Poussin is joined by more and more names. As the first academicians age and leave the stage, the pantheon of great French masters enriches and grows. So, in 1689, J. de Saint-Georges, for many years the former historiographer of the Academy, made a report on the works of the late Jacques Sarazin. In the introduction to this speech, it is specifically noted that the Academy wishes to preserve the memory of its members who are no longer alive, to glorify their successes and rejoice in the fruits of their labors ^{[9, pp. 213-214]}. Initially, several years, and sometimes several decades, pass from the moment of the academician's death to the appearance of his biography. Thus, the aforementioned Sarazen died in 1660, and the essay about him appeared only in 1689. In the future, the process is significantly accelerated. The biography of Lebrun, who died in 1690, appears in 1693. In addition, the Academy, realizing its duty in the matter of maintaining the memory of its members, is in a hurry to present biographies of all deceased academicians who stood at its foundation. In 1690-1700, biographical notes were awarded to Michel Angier (1612-1686), Claude Audran (1634-1684), Eustache Lesueur (1617-1655), Philippe de Buyster (1595-1688), Charles Errard (1606-1689), Claude Vignon (1593-1670), Henri de Beaubrun (1603-1677), Etienne Leongre (1628-1690), Laurent de Lair (1606-1656), Thibaut Poissant (1605-1668) and Gilles Guerin (1611/12 – 1678). All these works belong to the pen of the historiographer of the Academy of Saint-Georges. Now the creation of biographies was the responsibility of this official. Biographies of those who leave in front of their biographers continue to be created. So, in 1721, the Academy read out a "Word of Praise" to Antoine Coisevaux, who died in 1720. It is curious that the biographies of the deceased masters are not sent after reading to the distant archives of the Academy. Works of this kind are constantly returned to, they are re-read at academic meetings, which is reflected in the protocols of the Academy ^[10]. So the work on Lebrun, created in 1693, was re-read at three meetings in 1720, and in 1723-1724 the biographies of almost all the first academicians were re-read again. This was done with the obvious purpose of familiarizing new generations of members and students of the Academy with the "pantheon of the great", i.e., in the literal sense of the word, to support the memory of them, not to let them go into oblivion.

In the XVIII century, the Academy continues to create countless biographies. Dubois de Saint-Jelly, who succeeded Saint-Georges as historiographer of the Academy, writes biographies of Antoine Benoit (1632-1717), Anselme Flamin (1647-1717), Nicolas Colombel (1644-1717), Charles de Lafosse (1636-1716), Jean Jouvenet (1749-1717), Bon Boulogne (1649-1717), Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674). Thus, the Academy is gradually filling in the gaps, striving to preserve the memory of as many of its members as possible. Instead of brief and somewhat outdated biographies of great academicians, new ones are being created – more detailed ones. Such an essay is no longer called a "commendable word" and not an "essay on the main works", but a "biography". If the historiographer of the Academy gets into the hands of new data, he can supplement his own previous work, even rewrite it. So, Saint-Jelly creates a new biography of Lebrun.

It should be noted that no matter what such a biographical work is called, in any case, the biography and creations of the master are in the center of attention. Sometimes not only questions of origin are touched upon, but also the history of the genus, if it can be considered ancient enough. Comparing, for example, the "Essay on the main works of Charles Lebrun" by Saint-Georges, written in 1693, and the "Life of Lebrun" of 1728, belonging to Saint-Jelly, and many other works of the same type, we find following the same plan. After presenting the necessary biographical information in a rather enthusiastic manner and listing the merits and virtues of the artist, a description of his main creations follows. Both essays end with praise for their hero and recognition of his outstanding achievements.

Dubois de Saint-Jelly, being a prolific writer and the official historiographer of the Academy, created biographies of dozens of masters belonging to the Academy. Some biographical references about minor painters are so concise that they resemble dictionary entries. Nevertheless, essays of this kind are created in large numbers, since the importance of preserving the memory of each member of the academic community is fully realized in these years.

The next historiographer of the Academy, Francois-Bernard Lepissier, who replaced Saint-Jelly in 1739, also compiles the biographies of academicians, even if their biographies already exist. But Saint-Jelly's writings are also re-read at academic assemblies. In 1740-1743, readings of these works occur regularly. The Academy was determined not to forget its outstanding members and to enlighten students in this regard, who had the right to attend academic meetings, and since 1748 were obliged to attend them.

Soon the compilation of biographies ceases to be the work of a historiographer alone. Honorary and free members, whom the Academy accepts into its bosom, and artists themselves, begin to deal with the biographies of academicians. One of the most active figures in this regard was the Comte de Quelus. The lives of the great masters of the French school were written by Claude-Francois Deport. Claude-Henri Watlet and Pierre-Jean Mariette worked in the same field. It can be said that in the 1740s-1750s, preserving the memory of members of the academic community became a common cause. The number of authors is growing, they act on their own, although, of course, with the encouragement of the Academy.

Such biographies were deliberately compiled with the aim of glorifying both the professional qualities of the deceased master and his personal virtues. However, it is not always necessary to perceive these works as a purely official tribute to memory. Now the authors often became close friends and even relatives of the deceased. Thus, Count de Quelus, who compiled Watteau's biography, was friendly with the artist, and therefore the text he created acquires a deeply personal intonation, and Watteau is being talked about not only as an artist, but also as a person and friend. Using the rights of a close friend, Kelus writes not only about the virtues of the master, but also about the shortcomings and difficulties of his character ^[11]. Watteau's life is described in a very fascinating way and represents the artist in all the ambiguity of his nature. The author did not turn his work into a panegyric, but portrayed the famous master of the gallant genre as a complex person, a "good and difficult friend", withdrawn and suspicious, suffering from a considerable number of shortcomings, the main of which Kelus considered "the spirit of impermanence". The biography created by Quelus is a unique historical evidence and is still considered the most important source of our knowledge about Antoine Watteau. For a long time, the biography was considered lost until it was found and published by the Goncourt brothers in the last third of the XIX century. Kelus finished this manuscript in 1748, then presented it at a meeting of the Academy of Painting and Sculpture, where it was unconditionally approved.

Friends often tried to speed up the appearance of biographies, which was completely in their power, if they themselves were the authors. If the biography of Jean-Baptiste Vanloo, who died in 1745, was published only in 1753, then his son Carl Vanloo, who died on July 15, 1765, was awarded a "Word of Commendation" with a detailed biographical reference already on September 7 of the same year. The author of this work was a close friend of the artist F.-M. Dandre is a Bardon, known for his writings on costume among ancient peoples. As an experienced writer, Dandre-Bardon easily adheres to the academic canon in the compilation of this biography, combining it with personal intonations. Stories about the successes of the young Karl Vanloo are interspersed with praises of his virtuous behavior and diligence. After a very touching narrative about the marriage of a young artist to a gifted musician Christina Somi, Dandre-Bardon proceeds to an enthusiastic description of the artist's mature works, about his service as the director of the School of selected students. The essay ends with a panegyric description of how the Academy appreciated Vanloo and how much his pupils owed him ^[12].

It happened that the relatives of the masters took up the compilation of their biographies, asking for permission from the Academy to acquaint it with the fruits of their labors. So, the daughter of J.-M. Nattier – Marie-Catherine Pauline Toquet – through her husband, the famous portraitist Louis Toquet, presented to the Academy the biography of her father compiled by her. The protocols of the institution indicate that "The Academy welcomed the feeling of filial tenderness, which dictated this essay, and asked Mr. Toke to convey to his wife the evidence of his pleasure" ^{[10, p. 353]}.

Nattier's biography was presented just three months after the master's death. The author's task was greatly simplified by the presence of a family archive. At the beginning of Ms. Toke's essay, it is said that the main facts were extracted from her father's personal papers. Some autobiographical notes by Nattier are also mentioned, which were not brought to the state of full-fledged memoirs ^{[13, p. 919]}. Naturally, the artist's relatives and heirs had access to such documents in the first place.

Despite Ms. Toke's personal feelings, the text of Nattier's biography is written in a slender and restrained language. In it, as is customary, a certain amount of information is given about the origin and student years of the artist. Special attention is paid to Nattier's relations with a foreign, in particular, a Russian royal customer, the satisfaction of high-ranking persons with the work of the master is emphasized and, at the same time, their dissatisfaction with the fact that Nattier refused to accept Peter I's invitation and go with him to Russia. The following narrates about the artist's successes in France. However, the plot would not have received due interest if it had not been told about certain difficulties that the young painter had to overcome. Ruined because of the infamous financial reform of Low, Nattier made a fortune anew, relying only on his own talent and hard work, became the favorite artist of the royal family. The last years of the master were described by his daughter as a series of sorrows associated with the loss of his son and new financial difficulties. The narration ends with a panegyric on Nattier's moral qualities.

This essay, gratefully accepted by the Paris Academy, may have served as an example for another text – the biography of Alexander Roslin, also written by the master's daughter. Susanna Roslin, married to Carteron de Barmon, created a detailed biography of her father. This manuscript dates from the late 1780s - early 1790s. Recorded from the words of a very elderly Roslin, his biography is very extensive. It includes not only detailed information about his student years and first travels, but also about a variety of meetings, relationships with people, adversities and experiences. The closest attention is paid to the artist's family affairs, the history of his marriage, relations with his wife and children. In many ways, this work approaches the genre of a sentimental novel-biography, ahead of previous experiences of this kind in terms of the degree of emotionality and the transfer of details of the master's personal world ^[14].

Of course, it was not enough to compose and read a biographical sketch at an academic meeting. Biographies of the great French masters needed to be immortalized in print, because that's what Renaissance biographers, in particular Vasari, did. Already in Roger de Peel's collection of biographies of artists published in 1699, book VI is dedicated to French masters.  In almost every biography , de Peel adheres to the same structure: first comes a biography, and then "reflections" on the works of the master.

In the preface, de Peel notes that "when Francis I brought Rosso and Primaticcio from Italy, France was no longer deprived of [its own] artists" ^{[15, p. 457]}. Thus, de Peel postulates the independence of the French school and its independence from the Italian one. De Peel begins his biographies not with the first academicians, but with masters of much more distant times: Jean Cousin (1490/1500-1560) and Martin Freminet (1567-1619), then pays attention to such major figures as Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665), Jacques Blanchard (1600-1638), Simon Vouet (1590-1649). De Peel's work ends with biographies of his contemporaries Charles Lebrun (1619-1690) and Claude Lorrain (1600-1682).

Biographies continued to be published later. As G. Mayes writes, the period from 1745 to 1755 became fruitful in this regard ^{[16, p. 171]}. During these years, the main publication dedicated to the masters of modernity was the work edited by the historiographer of the Academy F.-B. Lepissier – "Biographies of the First artists of the King". The collection was published in 1752 in two volumes. It includes biographies of Charles Lebrun, Pierre Mignard (1612-1695), Antoine Quapel (1661-1722), Louis de Boulogne (1654-1733) and Francois Lemoine (1688-1737). The authors were, respectively, K.-F. Deport, Count de Quelus, S. Kuapel, K.-A. Watle and again Count de Quelus. All these biographies were read out at academic meetings, and now they have been immortalized in print. In the preface, Lepissier notes that the purpose of this publication is "to present to the public the history of the Academy and its outstanding masters" ^{[17, vol. 1, p. V–VI]}. Thus, it is postulated that the memory of these artists should become public domain. It should be preserved not only within the walls of the Academy, but it should be much more widely distributed. It should be noted that in the 1750s the public became a serious force in the artistic life of France and this force must be taken into account. The public visits exhibitions, participates in the discussion of works of art, reads critical reviews. She is also ready for an in-depth acquaintance with the biographies of the masters. In the preface, Lepissier explains his vision of personality in history and expresses regret that people of science and art, unlike cruel conquerors and cunning politicians, rarely became the main characters of historical research. Although it is people belonging to the world of literature and art who not only serve the cause of improving human nature, but also present their lessons in an elegant and pleasant form. This is a very revealing reasoning that should have forced Lepissier's contemporaries to look differently at who deserves a place in history and "immortal glory". The worthy ones are not the conquerors and politicians who are busy with their ambitions, but the true "benefactors of humanity", whose activities serve to soften morals and the growth of virtues.

Lepissier, just like de Peel, does not believe that the history of French painting should begin with the emergence of the Academy. Immediately after the preface there is a text dedicated to "the state of painting and sculpture in France in the preceding centuries," although it says not only about French artists, but also about visiting Italians. The monumental biographies of the "First Artists of the King" rest on this impressive foundation, representing, as it were, a monument to several selected artists, the most significant, from the point of view of the compiler, for the prosperity of the French art school.

A very interesting publication is a three-volume collection of biographies of famous artists, compiled by Antoine-Joseph Desaliers-D'Argenville (1680-1765). Three volumes were published in the period from 1745 to 1752. The author of this work was an encyclopedic scientist, famous primarily for his interest in natural sciences and a treatise on gardening. In the collection of biographies, Desalieu–D'Argenville is mentioned as a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Montpellier, a branch of the Paris Academy of Sciences, which received a royal patent in 1706. It was through this Academy that Desalieu-D'Argenville would in 1748 be involved in the work on the famous encyclopedia of Diderot and D'Alembert. However, the essay on artists was created, obviously, in the closest cooperation with the Paris Academy of Arts. The three-volume volume is dedicated to Philibert Orry, Duke de Vignory (1689-1747), who was the director of the royal buildings and, accordingly, headed the Academy of Painting and Sculpture from 1736 to 1745.

The first volume of the extensive work is given to Italian artists, the second to northern and French artists. The third volume is presented as a "supplement", which contains a considerable number of names of masters of European schools: Italian, German, Swiss, Dutch, Flemish and French. The author arranges biographies in chronological order, according to the dates of birth of the masters. As G. Mayes notes, Desaliers-D'Argenville formed a certain structure, which he used when writing each biographical essay ^{[16, p. 172]}. First, the biography of the master is always presented, followed by a part devoted to the stylistic analysis of the works, and finally there is a section where it is said about the engravings taken from the master's canvases and in which collections you can get acquainted with his work. The last section was designed for the most educated part of readers: connoisseurs and amateurs. This approach can be called innovative, because it assumes that the reader will not only get acquainted with the biographies of artists, but also try to expand their visual experience.

The French masters in the second volume are presented with Jean Cousin, the last names are A. Watteau, F. Lemoine, N.-N. Kuapel and P.-J. Tremollera. The preface to the first part is essentially a small treatise on painting, its purpose, parts of its components, and about the most ancient artists who were known to the author from historical sources. Expressing the opinion that the Italian masters are "too much praised" by such biographers as Vasari and Malvasia, Desalle-D'Argenville claims to be "completely impartial" ^{[18, T. 1, p. VIII]}. In the preface to the third part, the author indicates that his own and similar works "aim to save from oblivion names worthy of immortality" ^{[18, T. 3, c. III]}. At the same time, Desaliers-D'Argenville believes that impartiality should be expressed in the fact that attention is paid not only to historical painters, but also to masters of other genres. A very significant fact is that the son of Desalieu-D'Argenville, Antoine-Nicolas, in 1749 published a guide book - "A Picturesque Journey through Paris", where he explained in even more detail and in detail in which Paris collections one can see the canvases of those masters whose biographies his father had just published, on which he references. In 1755, the second volume of the work of Desaliers-D'Argenville-son was published – "A picturesque journey through the environs of Paris". The guide was supposed to support the memory of the masters, translate their work "in real time", i.e. make it available for acquaintance here and now.

In addition to official academic biographies, biographical dictionaries are beginning to appear. A special place belongs here to "Ab?c?dario" P.-J. Marietta. The history of the creation of this multi-volume set of biographical data is as follows. Having studied the biographical dictionary of artists authored by P.-A. Orlandi, published in 1719 in Italian and known as "L'abecedario pittorico", Mariette was amazed at the number of errors in it. Mariette began to make notes on the margins of the copy belonging to him, correcting all the inaccuracies that came across to him. Then he began to paste whole sheets, supplementing Orlandi's biographical references, and later began to compile biographies of masters who did not get into the dictionary of the Italian author, including, of course, French ones. This work, having become daily, was promoted very actively. However, the publication of a huge work was carried out only in the XIX century by A. de Montaiglon. Six volumes were published from 1853 to 1862 ^[19].

If Mariette's work was not available to his contemporaries, except for a narrow circle of experts, then the dictionaries published in large editions won the recognition of the general public. In 1746, de Marcy's two-volume dictionary was published ^[20]. This is not a biographical dictionary, but a general dictionary, where everything related to fine art was collected. The names of the artists follow in alphabetical order and are interspersed with terms relating to painting, sculpture, engraving and architecture. In 1752, Lacombe's dictionary was published ^[21]. It is also primarily a dictionary of terms, built in alphabetical order. Among other things, the names of artists are placed in it, and their brief biographies are given. Such a structure, characteristic of both mentioned dictionaries, could be quite convenient, since the dictionary assumed a quick search for information on all sections of fine art. In 1757, the Perneti Dictionary appeared ^[22]. This author does not give separate biographies. However, the article "?cole" ("school") is extremely extensive and is dedicated to all the schools of painting known to the author, listing the artists belonging to them. A detailed purely biographical dictionary was published in 1776. Its author was the Abbot de Fontenay (1736-1806) ^[23].

For all the brevity of the biographies included in the dictionaries, they included hundreds of names and gave a broad picture of European artistic life. French artists were organically integrated into European culture, their names were interspersed with the names of Italian, Dutch, German and other masters. Dictionaries contributed to the development of a panoramic perception of art when transmitting basic information about individual outstanding masters, the need to preserve the memory of which was already taken for granted.

         It should be noted that although the Revolution became a watershed that put an end to the era of the "artists of the king", the memory of these masters continued to exist in the cultural environment of France. The epoch of the end of the Empire and the Restoration is especially significant in this regard. During these years, a new series of biographies and autobiographies of masters belonging to the XVIII century appeared. Thus, Caroline de Valori (1789-1875), being a student of Greuze and, moreover, a talented playwright, did a lot to preserve the memory of her teacher. In 1813, she wrote and staged in Paris the play "A Dream or a Village Engagement", using not only the plot, but also the composition of the canvas of the same name. The publication of the play also included a biography of Grez written by de Valori, very detailed and at the same time felt, all the more valuable because it was written by a person who knew the artist intimately. The text was not created without the influence of romantic tendencies peculiar to the new era. Almost half of the biography is devoted to the love story of Grez and an Italian aristocrat, whom he met in Rome and with whom he parted, sacrificing his own feelings for her well-being. Describes de Valori and the key works of Greuze, citing the opinions of his contemporaries about them and his own statements concerning both art and morality. It can be said that the figure of the Dream is being reinterpreted in accordance with the ideals of the new century, which, however, does not interfere with the general accuracy of the information provided by the author ^[24].

         Masters, a significant part of whose lives fell on the XIX century, could independently remind the public about themselves. Thus, Marie-Louise-Elisabeth Viger-Lebrun (1755-1842) wrote and published in 1835 memoirs, widely known as an example of the most detailed and fascinating essay of this kind ^[25]. Since Viger-Lebrun's work is constantly in the field of view of researchers, and has also been partially translated into Russian, we will not give a detailed description of it here. Let's just say that the Revolution, interrupting the processes that took place in the Parisian artistic environment, did not destroy the memory of the best masters of the past era. And although the demand for their work has significantly decreased for some time, they, in a certain sense, and thanks to the Revolution, which seems to have pushed everything that happened before 1789 far into the past, have turned into actors in history. And as such, they became interesting to the first researchers of the art of the XVIII century.

         From all of the above, some conclusions can be drawn. The authors of numerous written documents designed to preserve the memory of the masters of the French school asserted not only the continuity of France from Italy, but also a certain independence of their culture from the Italian one. If Italy was thought of as the cradle of the arts, then France of the XVIII century positioned itself as the undisputed leader of the modern artistic process, whose participants are no less worthy to remain in the memory of descendants than the masters of the Renaissance and the XVII century. Giving excursions into the history of French art of previous eras, the authors of biographies and compilers of dictionaries asserted the original independence of French art. And the multiplying brief biographical information about the lives of not only great, but even minor contemporary masters, placed in collections and dictionaries, were supposed to present a panoramic picture of the artistic life of France to the general educated public.

         Biographies written not by official academic persons, but by friends and relatives of the painters, were actively distributed in the middle and second half of the XVIII century. These works, which often depart from the academic canon of biography, are designed to arouse new interest in their characters. The artist appears as a private person, overcoming difficulties and experiencing a variety of feelings. In such works, the "adventures" and experiences of the hero are brought to the fore, while the descriptions of the works that came out from under his brush become fewer.

         All these sources are of undoubted value for understanding what place the Parisian painter occupied in the representation of his contemporaries and his own. Regardless of personal qualities, which, however, were almost always presented in a positive light, he was a carrier of French artistic culture, a person embodying modern painting. Factors such as excellent education, proximity to enlightened circles have always been emphasized with particular pleasure, as well as social and family virtues. In most cases, the reader finds himself in front of a refined, talented and educated person, a representative of the intellectual and creative elite, possessing qualities that put him in close proximity to the aristocracy. Biographies show that the French metropolitan master most often thought of himself as part of the aristocratic world, if not a full member, then the closest environment of the noble estate. By separating themselves from the craft environment through the creation of the Academy and placing themselves under the personal patronage of the king, artists in a certain sense equaled the aristocracy. Proximity to the highest circles greatly influenced the formation of mannerisms, the ability to conduct a conversation, dress appropriately. Evidence of this is constantly being found in biographical sources.

The best fate for the artist was to enter the pantheon of the great, but even minor masters could be proud of their involvement in the best modern European art school, which took a firm place next to the Italian and above all others. The descendants were to receive the most detailed written information about their predecessors and inherit a sense of pride both for their artistic culture as a whole and for its individual representatives.