#Charles-Marie Bouton

[stigmatam4rtyr]

La Salle des Sculptures du XIVe Siècle au Musée des Monuments Français (c. 1810) | Charles-Marie Bouton

[macarena93]

View of the Thermes de Cluny - Charles Marie Bouton

[lesser-known-composers]

Joseph Valette de Montigny (1665-1738) : 'Salvum me fac Deus', Grand Motet

00:00 I. Prélude et récit de taille : "Salvum me fac Deus" 03:53 II. Chœur : "Veni in altitudinem maris" 06:49 III. Récit de basse : "Multiplicati sunt super capillos" 08:34 IV. Chœur : "Effunde super eos" 10:52 V. Duo de basse-taille et basse : "Videant pauperes et lætentur" 13:24 VI. Chœur : "Laudent illum cæli" 16:17 VII. Récit de dessus : "Ego sum pauper" 19:39 VIII. Duo de haute-contre et basse-taille et chœur : "Laudabo nomen Dei"

Ensemble Antiphona, Rolandas Muleika Eva Tamisier, soprano Coline Bouton, soprano David Tricou, haute-contre Charles d’Hubert, haute-contre Pierre Perny, tenor Clément Lanfranchi, tenor Timothé Bougon, baritone Raphaël Marbaud, bass

[snacking-on-art-2022]

Gothic Chapel - Charles-Marie Bouton

Born: May 16, 1781

Died: June 28, 1853

[webionaire]

The diorama was a 19th century light-based medium that featured two immense paintings lit from the front and through the back inside an otherwise pitch-black, rotating auditorium. The diorama combined techniques of opaque and translucent painting with methods of manipulating natural light in a live spectacle.

The diorama was invented by the set designer and painter Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre (together with the architectural painter Charles Marie Bouton) seventeen years before he perfected the daguerreotype process of photography. The daguerreotype would, in the words of Daguerre, "fix the objects reflected in a camera obscura" (Daguerre 78). In contrast to the photographic impulse, the effectiveness of the dioramic image depended on the constant, visible movement of light manipulated with shutters and screens both onto and through a semi-translucent painting. The in-formation of light was thus performed and experienced in real-time, rather than captured and stored for future purpose. Similarly, the spectator expected the illusion "to represent the effects of nature" (Daguerre 84), not to secure "the objective ground of visual truth" (Crary 14) via camera obscura.

Realism and illusion: the right and wrong sides of the screen

The patent for the first diorama built in London in 1823 describes the device as “an improved Mode of publicly exhibiting Pictures or Painted Scenery of every Description and of distributing or directing the Day Light upon or through them, so as to produce many beautiful Effects of Light and Shade.” As this account indicates, the dioramic picture was both a transparent conduit and an opaque screen, with the effects of light and shade directed both upon and though its substance.

The diorama thus operated according to both catoptric and dioptric principles. As Daguerre describes, “the first effect painted on the right or front of the canvas is lighted by reflection…while the second effect—that painted on the wrong side—receives its light by refraction, that is, from behind only” (Daguerre 83). The right side, facing the spectator, is the realm of the "illusionizing potential of projection, the production of artificial reality" (Zielinski 86). The wrong side belongs to the operator and/or the painter, who performs the catoptric illusion by seeing through it.

The dioramic screen with worker behind and spectators in front, 1848.

On a semiotic level, the "wrong" or dioptric side of the painting was opaque to those who did not possess the knowledge of “dioramic art” (Daguerre 85). Painters schooled in the dioramic technique inscribed the back of the painting with functional nonsense, a language of light and shadow that, in a complete reversal of the painting’s façade, corresponded not the referent of the natural world, but to the forms showing through from the front of the canvas. This secondary inscription would be illegible to the spectator accustomed to representational images. In order to create a heightened illusion of reality, this mode of painting thus broke out of the camera obscura model that relied on a founding referent (Crary 14).

Though, like the mechanically reproduced image, the verso of the dioramic painting was abstracted from a stable, objective referent, the double-sided screen nevertheless divides the complex knowledge of the practitioner of realist illusion from its witness, the spectator. In contrast to the photograph, which, as Walter Benjamin described a century later in his celebration of film, freed the image of the cathedral to “meet the beholder halfway” (Benjamin 220), the image of the cathedral reproduced in the diorama is wrapped not only in the lux of spectacular illusion, but in the aura of an original work authored by a virtuosic artist-scientist.

References

Arrowsmith, John. Diorama Patent, British Patent No. 4899, February 10, 1824. Transcription from http://www.midley.co.uk/.

Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books, 1968.

Crary, Jonathan. Techniques of the Observer. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992.

Daguerre, Louis-Jacques-Mandé. An historical and descriptive account of the various processes of the daguerréotype and the diorama. London: McLean & Nutt, 1839.

Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Rev. ed. Detroit: Black & Red Books, 1977.

Gernsheim, Helmut and Alison. L.J.M. Daguerre: The History of the Diorama and the Daguerrotype. 2nd Rev. ed. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1968.

Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. Disenchanted Night: The Industrialization of Light in the Nineteenth Century. Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1995.

Zielinski, Siegfried. Deep Time of the Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.

[oldpaintings]

Gothic Chapel by Charles Marie Bouton (French, 1781–1853)

[carloskaplan]

Charles Marie Bouton: Capela gótica

[illustratus]

Gothic Chapel by Charles Marie Bouton

[sp-arqtec]

charles marie bouton

[gunnr-lp]

Gothic Chapel [1822]

Artist: Charles Marie Bouton

[stigmatam4rtyr]

Calvary Chapel in the Church of Saint-Roch (19th century) | Charles Marie Bouton

[macarena93]

Gothic Chapel (1822) - Charles Marie Bouton

[bforbetterthanyou]

Why do you think Anne Boleyn was born in 1507?

Ah this question again...

I’ve actually answered this before, but tbh, I’m kinda tired and I don’t want to have to go back and look for that post.

So I think the easiest way to do this is to go in chronological order:

Anne goes to the Netherlands in 1513. Gareth Russell has pointed out that she was escorted to the continent by a man named Claude Bouton. The reason this is so significant is because, according to Canon Law (the law of the Catholic Church) girls were considered of marriageable age at 12. If Anne had been born in 1501, then her being escorted to another country by a man simply would not have happened. Once boys and girls hit marriageable age, it was highly inappropriate for them to interact with each other without others present. So, in that regard, Anne had to have been younger than 12. There’s just no other explanation. If she had been 12 (or older) she would’ve been escorted by a woman.

From 1513-late 1514, Anne lives at the court of Margaret of Austria. At the time, the minimum age for a lady-in-waiting or maid of honor was 12, which is why some people say that’s how old Anne must’ve been because otherwise, why would she be there? (We’ll talk more about that later.) However, being a maid of honor isn’t the only reason Anne could’ve been at that court. It was a common practice during this time to take on a ward—basically, someone (usually of high rank and power) would take on someone else’s child and act as a guardian for them—tending to their well-being and also, more importantly, overseeing their education. (Anne herself took on the wardship of her nephew Henry Carey after his father, William Carey’s, death in 1528.) Margaret of Austria also took on the wardships of several of her nieces and nephews, including the future Charles V and Mary of Hungary. Mary of Hungary was born in 1505 and was sent to Archduchess Margaret’s court at around the same time as Anne. Now I know what you’re thinking “okay but all those other kids were of royal blood and Margaret’s own family...so why Anne?” Well, Thomas Boleyn served as the ambassador to Margaret’s court in 1513 and, apparently, Margaret was quite fond of him. So it stands to reason that Thomas, having a young daughter and knowing that Margaret could provide some of the best and most sophisticated education in Europe, asked if Margaret would take on Anne as well and Margaret, being so fond of Thomas as she was, agreed.

Thomas Boleyn and Margaret of Austria’s comments. In a letter to Margaret of Austria in 1514, Thomas refers to Anne as “la petite Boulaine” and in a letter to Thomas Boleyn, Margaret says Anne is “so pleasant for her young age”. If Anne was as old as the other ladies in waiting, why would both Thomas and Margaret emphasize how young and small she was?

Anne writes a letter to her father in 1514. Here’s the thing, I’m not really a fan of using this letter as an argument for either date because it’s just so circumstantial. 1501 believers say that the writing is too sophisticated for a 7 year old. 1507 believers say there are too many grammatical errors for a 13 year old. Meanwhile, I’m over here thinking “how do either of those arguments make sense?” Every child is different. Every child learns at a different pace. Some children can have skills far ahead of the average for their age and some children can have skills far behind the average for their age. Anne was known to be very clever so it’s possible her learning and skills were ahead of what we would consider average for a 7 year old. As for the “grammatical errors”, I’m in my 20s and I make grammatical errors all the time. The point is, I think, no matter which side you’re on, we should all just stop using this letter as evidence altogether. There’s no way you could ever prove definitively one way or the other. My mom is a lawyer and I can tell you, if this birth date debate was a legal case, this letter would be considered inadmissible.

Anne is appointed to serve Mary Tudor in France in 1514. Okay so here’s where we get into the “how could she be a lady in waiting if she was younger than 12″ question. To answer this, let me give you the example of Anne Brandon. Anne Brandon was the daughter of Charles Brandon and was probably born around 1506. She was sent to serve Mary Tudor in 1514 at age 8. At this point, Charles was still a pretty low-ranking member of court so if he could have an exception made for his daughter then I’m sure Thomas Boleyn—who was a highly respected and well-loved ambassador—could have an exception made for his daughter. Not to mention, Mary Tudor didn’t speak any French so she wanted ladies that could speak the language and Anne would’ve learned French at Margaret’s court. Also, Mary Boleyn was there too and might’ve been around 13 so she could’ve looked out for Anne and acted as her guardian.

Anne stays in France to serve Queen Claude. This goes along with the last point. Yes, technically, the minimum age for ladies in waiting was 12, but exceptions were made all the time. Also, just like Mary Tudor couldn’t speak French, Claude couldn’t speak English so she needed ladies around that could translate whenever there were English nobles and ambassadors visiting. So it’s not really implausible to think that Claude chose Anne to serve as a translator for her despite her age.

Anne is still unmarried in 1526. This one is probably the most glaringly obvious hole in the 1501 argument. At this time, women being married young (most of the time, before they were even 20) was the norm. Since men believed that a woman’s only function was to make babies, they thought women should be doing that as soon as they were biologically able (which is why the Church said girls could be married at 12). Now obviously this wasn’t always the case. Although girls could be married at 12, most people were aware of the danger of a girl having children too young. However, most women were still married in their late teens to early twenties and it was pretty rare to find a woman who had never been married at least once by the age of 25. If Anne was born in 1501, then she would’ve been 25 when she met the King in 1526 (or 24 if you believe they met in 1525) and yet, Anne had never been married. She had been engaged to James Butler and secretly engaged to Henry Percy, but neither of those matches panned out. And yet, there’s no evidence of Thomas actively looking for a new match for her after both of those engagements were broken off around 1523-24. Why? If Anne was already in her early 20s, why would Thomas just shrug and be like “oh I’m sure something will work out eventually”? At this point, he would’ve had absolutely no suspicions of what was coming for Anne. However, if Anne had been born in 1507, then she would’ve been around 15 at the time of her secret relationship with Henry Percy and 17 when her engagement to James Butler ended. Mary Boleyn had been married around 19 and George Boleyn was married around 20. So, at 17, Anne wouldn’t have been in any immediate need of a new match. Not to mention, after the whole Percy scandal, Wolsey called Anne a “foolish girl”: if Anne had been 22-23 at the time, Wolsey would certainly not have called her a “girl.” And also, if you ask me, defying your father by having a secret love affair seems more like the actions of a teenager rather than a grown woman.

Anne’s time as Queen-in-waiting. So during the betrothal period of 1527-1532, there were a lot of people who didn’t want Anne to be Queen (or didn’t think she could be) and they would do everything they could to blacken her name to hopefully convince Henry to set her aside. And yet, of all the arguments used against her, not once did anyone say she was too old. If she had been in her late 20s then that most certainly would’ve been used against her (I’ll go into that in more detail in the next point). There’s also the fact that in 1530 (I think it was 1530), Anne comments that her youth is passing her by. If she was born in 1501 then she would’ve been 29 at that time and her youth would’ve already passed her by. However, if she was born in 1507, she would’ve been 23 and therefore still relatively youthful (by Tudor standards).

Anne giving birth to Elizabeth in 1533. Let’s look at Elizabeth of York (Henry VIII’s mother) and Catherine of Aragon (Henry VIII’s first wife). Elizabeth of York had a few pregnancies in her 30s, but her last surviving child was Mary (Rose) who was born a month after Elizabeth’s 30th birthday. All of her subsequent children were either stillborn or died young (and her last pregnancy at age 37 caused her death). Catherine of Aragon also had pregnancies in her 30s but her last (technically only) surviving child was born 2 months after her 30th birthday. Her subsequent pregnancy at the age of 32 ended with the birth of a stillborn child and it was her last pregnancy ever recorded. If Anne had been born in 1501, she would’ve been 32 when she gave birth to Elizabeth (the same age Catherine was during her last pregnancy). If that was the case, why was Henry so confident she could still have more children? However, if Anne was born in 1507, she would’ve been 26 which means, if they played their cards right, she could’ve given birth to 4 or 5 children before she hit her 30s.

Jane Dormer and William Camden. I can’t believe that this evidence exists and there are still people that insist she was born in 1501. Jane Dormer was a lady in waiting to Mary I. In Jane Dormer’s biography, she makes a comment about how Anne was not yet 29 when she was executed which meant she was born sometime after May 19th in 1507. Yes, Jane was a Catholic and had no nice things to say about Anne, but why she (or more accurately, Mary) lie about this? If anything, you’d think she’d want to make Anne out to be older than she was to make her look like some old hag. William Camden wrote a biography about Elizabeth I (during Elizabeth’s lifetime) and was given access to private documents and papers. In his notes, he says that Anne was born in 1507 (and he writes it in Roman numerals instead of Arabic numerals so you can’t even make the argument that his ones just looked like sevens).

Pre-20th century sources. So if you go back and look at biographies from the Victorian period and earlier, pretty much all of them that talk about Anne’s birth or her age say that she was born in 1507. Elizabeth Benger who lived in the late 18th-early 19th centuries said Anne was born in 1507. John Weaver (who was writing in the 17th century) said that Henry had fallen in love with Anne in 1529 when he was 38 and she was 22 (and the fact that Henry was 38 in 1529 is indisputable because we know exactly when his birth date is). Basically, this 1501 argument is actually a pretty new thing. It’s like those people nowadays who say the earth is flat despite that being disproved centuries ago. The fact that Anne was born in 1507 seemed to be an unquestioned fact until very recently. Now, I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing to argue with long-held beliefs (I mean, for a long time people believed Anne was only using Henry for power and a lot of Anne historians have now argued that no, she in fact actually loved him), but there’s a difference between interpreting evidence a different way and outright ignoring evidence completely.

Now, despite all this, 1501ers would still say “oh but there are still holes and things that just don’t make sense”, but there aren’t really. Pretty much every piece of evidence can be explained. Meanwhile, the 1501 argument is pretty much “well she wrote that letter in 1514 and she served Mary in France”. In fact, several months ago, Suzannah Lipscomb did a live chat on the Talking Tudors Facebook page and when she was asked about Anne’s birth date she said Anne was born in 1501 because her 1514 letter was too sophisticated for a 7 year old. And Claire Ridgrway of the Anne Boleyn Files has an article where she presents all this evidence for 1507 and concludes it with “The main reason for me believing in 1501 is that I cannot believe that a 7 year old would have been chosen to accompany Mary Tudor to France, it just does not make sense” ...except, it does make sense why she was in Mary’s court as I explained above. To me, it just feels like people are just blatantly ignoring really solid evidence because it goes against the narrative they’ve already formed in their heads. “Well Eric Ives said 1501.” Eric Ives isn’t the only person whose ever written a biography about Anne Boleyn so just because he said it doesn’t automatically make it true. That’s why I have such a problem with people calling his book “the Anne Boleyn Bible”. The book is amazing and he clearly spent a lot of time researching, but it’s not gospel. Instead of blindly taking someone else’s word for it, actually go out and do research for yourself.

[meenaremembers]

Charles Marie Bouton

[webionaire]

Seventeen years before Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre (1759-1851) perfected the capture of images on a silver-coated copper plate (daguerreotypes), he created the Diorama with the help of the architectural painter Charles Marie Bouton (1781-1853). The barn-size building was elaborately constructed to present a life-size painting moving past spectators with constantly changing light effects that gave the illusion of changing times of days, or weather or seasons or other magically moving pictures.

Daguerre’s Diorama opened in Paris during the summer of 1822 and was an immediate success. Within a year, a second auditorium opened in London. Each 30 minute show presented two paintings, usually one outdoor scene and one religion interior.

[lescuriositesdelafoire]

Charles Marie Bouton (French, 1781–1853), Tombe de Napoléon à Sainte-Hélène