#Jean Baptiste Corneille

[christliche-kunstwerke]

Die Auferweckung des Lazarusvon Jean Baptiste CorneilleÖl auf Leinwand Musee des Beaux-Arts, Rouen, France

[sictransitgloriamvndi]

[k-i-l-l-e-r-b-e-e-6-9]

𝔙𝔞𝔫𝔦𝔱𝔞𝔰 𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔥 𝔖𝔨𝔢𝔩𝔢𝔱𝔬𝔫: 𝔇𝔢𝔞𝔱𝔥 𝔦𝔰 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔚𝔞𝔤𝔢𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔖𝔦𝔫, 𝔠𝔞. յճՑօ, 𝔐𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔢𝔩 𝔐𝔬𝔰𝔦𝔫 𝔞𝔣𝔱𝔢𝔯 𝔍𝔢𝔞𝔫-𝔅𝔞𝔭𝔱𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔢 ℭ𝔬𝔯𝔫𝔢𝔦𝔩𝔩𝔢.

[vorbarrsultana]

Lestat & books (TVL edition)

Featuring all works of literature mentioned in the text of The Vampire Lestat.

Mark Twain, mentioned without any specific works of his;

William Shakespeare, with "Macbet" being a particular favorite. "Tommorow, and tommorow, and tommorow" is also Lestat's favorite monologue to perform;

Henry Rider Haggard, a British novelist who wrote "King Solomon's Mines' and "Cleopatra";

Dashiell Hammet, "The Maltese Falcon" about the adventures of Sam Spades;

Poets of the Italian Renaissance: Francis Petrarch, Giovanni Boccaccio and Dante Alighieri are the most famous;

Charles Dickens ("A Tale of Two Cities", I imagine, or "Great Expectations". Post-trial Lestat might also like "A Christmas Carol")

Ernest Hemingway post-1930, possibly "For Whom the Bell Tolls", which seems to be his novel most in line with Lestat's taste in literature;

Denis Diderot, the Enlightenment philosopher and writer, co-creator & chief editor of The Encyclopédie, also wrote La Religieuse, a novel that featured very outspoken critique of the Catholic Church;

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who famously wrote "The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right" & "Discorse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men", and was the main inspiration of the Jacobins during the French Revolution;

Voltaire, both as philosopher ("Letters concerning the English Nation", "Idées républicaines", etc.) and playwright ("Oedipus", "Iréne", "Socrate", etc.);

Pierre Corneille (a playwright: "Le Cid", "Horace", "Cinna" and "Polyeucte");

Jean-Baptiste Racine (another Classicist French playwright, author of "Alexandre le Grand", "Andromaque" & "Iphigénie");

Molière, yet another French playwright ("Don Juan, or, The Stone Banquet", "L'Amour médecin", "Psyché");

Whatever classics Lestat has read in Latin during his & Gabrielle's stay in Venice. She specifically mentioned Plutarch, Egyptian and Greek myths;

John Polidori, "The Vampyre";

Sheridan Le Fanu, "Carmilla";

And, with great distaste, Bram Stoker's "Dracula"

[mask131]

The myth of Medea (2)

Next article, following a chronological order, is “Medea, from the 16th to the 18th centuries”, written by Patrick Werly.

During the Middle-Ages, Medea is depicted in several tales. Benoît de Sainte-Maure’s Roman de Troie, in the middle of the 12th century; Guillaume de Loris and Jean de Meng’s Roman de la Rose, in the 13th century; the anonymous Moralized Ovid of the 14th century ; the Jugement du Roy de Navarre by Guillaume de Machaut in the 14th century, etc…

Between the 16th and 18th centuries, Medea was mostly encountered on theater stages and within operas, in works that are more inspired by the tragedies of Seneca and Euripides, rather than by the Metamorphoses of Ovid. However, there was an effort of appropriation to be made: indeed, the myth of Medea the Scythian, of Medea the Barbarian, part of the classical works of Antiquity, was at risk of ruining the moral values and the aesthetic system that Europe had imposed upon itself. As such, a “displacement” of the figure was required. Three main authors have to be considered: Calderon de la Barca, Pierre Corneille, and Thomas Corneille as the librettist of Marc Antoine Charpentier.

I/ The allegorical reading

The authors of the 17th century mostly found their sources in a mythology manual that had been published in 1552 by Noël Conti (or Noël le Comte, in Latin Natalis Comes, 1520-1582), and which was titled: “Mythology, or the explanation of fables, containing the genealogies of the gods, the ceremonies of their sacrifices, their deeds, their adventures, their loves, and almost all of the principles of the natural and moral philosophy”. Corneille used it to write his Conquête de la Toison d’Or, Caderon also probably used it for his El divino Jason. The seventh chapter of the sixth book is dedicated to Medea: after retelling the myth, Noël Conti presents the “physical mythology”, then the “moral mythology”. In both cases, the process it to try to use the myth for the moral edification of the reader, through mean of the allegory. As such, the reason behind the “dissection and death of Medea’s brothers and children” is because she wanted to put behind her appetite and concupiscence: “if someone let themselves we trapped by the slimy nets of unreasonable pleasures of the flesh, of greed, of cruelty; then it is to no surprise that good advice and counsel climbs on its chariot and flies away in the sky with winged dragon”. According to the etymology offered by Noël Conti, and that Calderon will reuse, Medea is “the advice”, “the counsel”, that is to say, the scholastic tradition, the wise decision, the choice made after a deliberation. The mythographer is aware of the negative image of Medea: but it does not matter if she is good or evil for, in the tradition of the Moralized Ovid, Medea needs to have a usefulness for the moral and religious domains. “Whether we take Medea to be advice and prudence, or to be a very wicked and malevolent woman, the Ancients, through this Fable, intended to shape us and lead us to probity, and to the integrity of the mores”. This is the moral lesson we must keep: the violence of the myth is transposed for the benefit of virtue.

This allegory can be found in the self-sacramental El divino Jason, composed in 1634 by Calderon de la Barca (1600-1681). In this play, the allegory is explicitly Christian since Jason is the Christ, Hercules saint Peter, Orpheus saint John the Baptist, etc… The fleece represents the soul, the one of a lost sheep which fled from the herd of the Christ and that Jason is thus looking for. But the quest of Jason is a dual one, because the soul is also depicted by Medea, which is also the allegory for Gentilism. Jason says of her: “Medea, who means / Advisor and Knowledgeable in all / was once the Gentilism / which offered itself to the superstitious rites / of magic / and to its idols which are but air / smoke, dust and nothingness”. The task of Jason is to bring Medea with him on the Argo ship to take her away from the land of Colchis, but also to free her from the influence of Idolatry, an actual character of the play, which embodies the religion and the pagan wisdom of the Antiquity.

When Medea encounters Jason for the first time, on the shores of Colchis, she decides to simulate her love (“Amor le pienso fingir”), but Jason tells her he only came here to love her (“Vengo a amarte”), and then Medea is caught by her own trap, and falls in love truly (“Pensaba fingir amores / y va verdaderos son”). When she offers herself to Jason, she also offers at the same time the Fleece that he came here to seek (“Digo que de amores muero ; / tuyo sera el vellocino / que buscas, Jason divino”).

Follows a strange scene in which Theseus (here, saint Andre) pronounces a long, poetic speech filled with proper names (those of the Argonauts, of Medea, of Idolatry), with names of flowers, of colors, of virtues. Each, when they hear their name, or the name of their flower, color, virtue, answers Theseus. Medea chose the clover (a leaf without a flower, which makes a beautiful border for others’ bouquets), the color green, and the virtue of Hope. In this long passage, a baroque chorus presents the union of Medea to Jason as her union to Christianity, as well as her rejection of Idolatry (“No quiero / seguirte mas, fero monstruo / Oh, como y ate aborezeo!”)

Jason, to redeem the mistakes of Medea, will undergo the trial of taking the Golden Fleece away from its tree (which is also the Tree of Adam). At the top, he replaces the Fleece with a Lamb which bleeds, and whose light blinds and strikes down Idolatry, while Hell opens up below her. Calderon did not stage in any way the magical powers of Medea: here, she is only a sorceress by reputation. Magic is only due to the characters of the Idolatry, and of the King (which represents the World), but it is powerless against the Argonauts led by Jason. What replaces magic in terms of supernatural effects, is the miracle, the one that Jason accomplishes. In the dramaturgy of the play, the actions that go beyond the power of man are not those of magic, but those of religion, the one to which Medea converts herself. In this allegory, the barbarian, the wizardess, abandons all of her attributes to follow the pastor-Jason. The sheep found back its flock, the soul now belongs to the Church.

II/Medea as a victim

Médée is the first tragedy of Pierre Corneille, which was played during the season of 1634-1635. The play is already a work part of the classical canon (the author tries to respect the unicity of location, time and action), but it does not respect the rule of “bienséance”, since we see dying on stage the king and the princess. Corneille, in his letter-preface to his play, explains that poetry often makes “beautiful imitations of actions we should not imitate”, and he plays on the two meanings of the verb “imitate”. But it is also a trick of Corneille to keep the moral safe. Indeed, the actions of Medea can be explained by the fact that she is victim of a political conspiracy; it is an explanation that allows to rationalize her actions, and thus judge them by the light of “common reason”. Jason, the man that she loves, presents himself as such: “Thus I am not one of those vulgar lovers / I adjust my flame to the good of my businesses / And under whichever climate fate would throw me / I will be in love by State maxim” (I,1). And Creon, the king, talks about Egeus, who originally had to marry Creusa before she was promised to Jason: “Whichever reasons of State might satisfy him” (II,3). Marriage is thus placed under the sign of the “reason of the State”, of which Medea is the victim. She pleads her cause by herself in these words: “Anyone who condemns a criminal without hearing them / Even if they deserved a thousand times their punishment / Turns a just sentence into an injustice” (II,2).

Corneille thus introduced a judiciary dimension to his play: Medea was condemned to exile for the murder of Pelias, but she was not properly put on trial. She becomes the victim of Creon’s tyranny. But beyond her, it is all of her family, an entire dynastic branch that is victim of a tyrannical power. Indeed, Medea is the grand-daughter of the Sun, and if Jason marries Creusa, their children will dishonor the dynasty: “You will mingle, impious one, and put on the same rank / The nephews of Sisyphus and those of the Sun! / […] / I will gladly prevent this odious mixing, / Which dishonors together my family and my gods” (III,3). As such, the series of crimes is explained: Creusa’s death prevents the misalliance, while the death of the children both suppresses radically the cause of the dynastic troubles while also hurting Jason. Medea answers to the conspiracy created “by reason of State” by what was called in the 17th century a “coup d’Etat”, a premeditated act conceived in secret and that goes beyond common law. This coup d’Etat is here placed on the mythological terrain of magic, as Louis Marin analyzed. Pierre Corneille seems to be so far the only author to have turned the murder of Medea into a political act – the 20th century also made the myth politic, but in a different context.

Corneille wrote another play which features Medea: La Conquête de la Toison d’or (1660). Medea the sorceress is here also a garden architect: the setting of the first act is a French-style garden, seen in perspective, and the character of Absyrte reveals that it was conceived by Medea’s art, the only one able to create such a beauty in a savage and hostile nature. Magic is here linked to the laws of geometry ; but it can be vanquished by the laws of love, such as in the twelfth Héroïde of Ovid, or to be more precise by the superior power of love. Medea says to Jason that she cannot help but love him despite his treachery: “Are you in my art a greater master than me?” (II,2). This art, she later says to her brother Absyrte, “if it has on all else an absolute power / Far from charming hearts, it doesn’t see anything in them” (IV, 1). Thus, the tragedy exposes the limits of the power of Medea: we are far away from the supreme power of the 1635 tragedy.

III / Medea in the opera: the embodiment of division

In their 1693 lyrical tragedy Médée, Marc-Antoine Charpentier and Thomas Corneille use, just like Pierre Corneille did before them, Seneca as their main source, but their opera is not concerned with the political dimension of the tragedy. What is rather important here is to gather around the character of the sorceress the most spectacular elements. We see Medea, helped by demons, by Vengeance, and by Jealousy, preparing in a cauldron the poison that will kill her rival (III,7). We see the guards of the king trying to seize Medea, but turning their weapons against each other before seizing Creon, and finally leaving to pursue “ghosts with the shape of pleasant women” (IV, 7). At the end of the fourth act, the earth opens below Creon, and he sees Medea in the waters of the Styx, while the orchestra is divided into two very distinctive groups of instruments. A same motif recurs in those scenes, like a choreography: the idea of division and separation. The guards are divided by fighting against each other, then they turn against the king they receive order froms, then the earth splits open… Medea is the one who separates, she is the creator of strife and discord. In III, 4, she says about herself and Jason “And may the crime separate us / As the crime joined us”. In the final scene, after killing her children, she claims to Jason: “Unfaithful! After your betrayal / Should I have seen my sons in the sons of Jason?”, a sentence in which the “us” disappears for the “you”, and where Medea dissociates herself from her children.

But Medea herself is divided. As the king kills himself, she is herself fractured. In the scenes IV, 5 and V, 1, she deliberates about the murder of her children, and this deliberation (in a typical 17th century fashion) is divided, as much on a semantic level as on a musical one. When the oscillation of the wizardess’ mind makes her regret her decision, we hear a slow, deep, internal music of cord instruments ; but when she is resolved to commit her crime, the tempo becomes faster and the clavecin dominates. The two rhythm finally converge when she takes her decision, because her doubts are only there for a theatrical effct. Medea is still Medea (“When you boast of being king / Remember that I am Medea”, IV, 6), as she was with Seneca (Nunc sum Medea) and as she was with Corneille (“Madam, I am queen / - And I am Medea, Conquête, III, 4).

In the genre of the opera, other pieces of note include Il Giasone (1649) of Pier Francesco Cavalli, and Medea (1797) by Luigi Cherubini, on a French booklet by François Benoît Hoffmann, where Medea switches between supplications and threats, in a role that was made famous in the 20th century by Maria Callas.

IV/ Medea in paintings and drawings

Jean-François de Troy (1679-1752) painted, for an Histoire de Jason in seven pieces by the Gobelin manufacture, a Médée enlevée sur son char après avoir tué ses enfants (1746). This is an episode taken from the seventh book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and Ovid will indeed be the main source of painters, rather than Euripides or Seneca. Medea, on her chariot pulled by two winged dragons, has a cold, hateful stare. In one hand she holds her magic wand, with the other she points towards the body of her two dead children. Jason is trying to pull out his sword while a soldier restrains him. In the background, Corinth and Creon’s palace are burning. Two small Cupids are behind the chariot. One is breaking his bow with his knee, the other is ripping off his blindfold. This detail explains the meaning of the scene, its allegory: the two little gods of love refuse their own power, upon seeing the devastation of love when it turns into a jealousy-fueled hatred. Or maybe should we understand the message as: if such a disaster is to be avoided, love must stop to be blind. All in all, the depiction of the myth of Medea must have a moral purpose: love must be much more aware and conscious, and it should be treated with logic and reason.

To find back the tragedy and the violence of the antique myth, we must look at two drawings of Poussin from around 1645, the second being a cleaner variation of the first. The scene depicts Medea killing her second child: she holds the child naked, by the leg, his head upside-down, and she raises her arm to hit his heart with a dagger. The first child is dead on the floor, and a terrorized woman, crumpled near his body, turns herself towards Medea to stop her. A bit above, separated by a balcony, unable to stop her, Jason points his arms towards Medea while Creusa lifts her hands towards the heavens. On the second drawing, a statue of Minerva also lifts her arms to the sky, using her shield as a protection not to see what is about to happen. All the violence of the scene can be read in the way the hands are organized in this drawing – and this violence, rarely depicted in such a direct way during the 17th century, is the one of Seneca’s tragedy.

[art-allegory]

Allegory of Music. Portrait of Madame de Maintenon with the Natural Children of Louis XIV and Madame de Montespan

Artist: Antoine Coypel (French, 1661–1722)

Date: c. 1684

Medium: OIl on Canvas

Collection: Private Collection

It is one of only two or three remaining paintings from a project commissioned by Charles Perrault, a great literary figure and art theorist as well as an aide to Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV's chief minister. Although ostensibly an Allegory of Music, elements in the composition itself, as well as literary and external pictorial evidence, allow us to identify it as a Portrait of Mme. de Maintenon with the Natural Children of Louis XIV.

The picture was originally part of a complex ceiling design depicting the Arts and Sciences commissioned by Perrault for his house in the rue Neuve des Bon-Enfants, Paris. There were eleven separate compositions executed by some of the most popular painters in France in the 1680s, mainly pupils of Charles Le Brun, including, among others Charles de la Fosse, Jean-Baptiste Corneille, Louis de Boulogne, Claude Audran II and Antoine Coypel.

[cyniibar]

So, how about this idea of a manga for the Sanson family that's more "wholesome" and historically accurate :

-So, Charles-Henri attends Lycée Corneille as a boarding student. He struggles to fit it within this prestigious school, as he does come from an executioner family, so his knowledge of social life is limited by comparison to his classmates, which also makes him a target of bullying (because kids can be quite mean, especially in more conformistic cultures), and force him to accuse his father of being a janséniste. So, he sticks to himself and stays meek and quiet as to not draw attention. He speaks Yenish (thanks to his wetnurse and step grandad), quite well, and while his French is perfect, he does speak latin with a yenish accent, but most of his classmates who come from more Western regions of France aren't able to distinguish it from any other germanic accents. His only friend at school is the school's "corrector" (basically someone who spanks kids to complement his income), something he makes no secret off, mostly to scare off his bullies. He's also very clumsy, something he is very insecure about.

Jean-Baptiste: He's proud pillar of his community, deeply mentally disturbed and frankly, quite a jerk. He is abusive, mentally and physically, such as willingly exposes his son to school violence, not even as punishment, but so "he can learn to puddle in the kiddy pool before swimming to the river with the big boys", or making him immerse his lower half in cold water again and again, for almost an hour on end, so he learns to control his gasping reflex (Charles-Henri is a klutz, so he's mostly getting on the verge of hypothermia and not making progress). Or have his servant give Charles 30 strokes of the rod for jerking away when he needed his tongue cautherized after falling down the stares. Or calling rescueing him from a bullying episode that degenerated into recreational torture as "baby sitting", and that at 14 years old, Charles should know how to escape these sorts of situations. But, for all his flaws, Jean-Baptiste is a caring father. He's just a mixture of a kuudere and tsundere, and a very traumatized one at that, who works tirelessly to protect his children from a violent death, being kicked out on the streets and brutal torture. Which is not an easy one because he has a f-ck ton of rivals, and his neighbour is someone who enjoys sexually torturing women and girls of ill-repute, with high enough status to get away with it. Also, he is a brainwashed and crazy mama's boy. Add to that, his job consists of killing and torturing people, sometimes children, against his will, and that he has to keep good working relations with a guy who beats his mom since age 13, and he has plenty of reasons to be...Quite disturbed. In his work, he has a knack for using humiliation to obtain compliance.

Anne-Marthe: While being dominearing and a master of mind games, she's utterly devoted to keep the Sanson family at the summit of the executioner cast, sometimes undergoing great personal sacrifices to do so. Such as remarriying a violent man she didn't love, because he would ensure a stable "regency" until Jean-Baptiste came of age. She's a very manipulative woman, and milks her position of battered wife for everything it's worth, and more. She also teaches Charles-Henri to do the same, and constantly remind him that his assimilation to "respectable" society should never be internalized and should be kept pure acting, and that internalizing shame is weak and pathetic.

the most wholesome the Sansons can ever get I'm afraid.

[christophe76460]

LES DEUX REPENTANCES ET LES DEUX BAPTÊMES/1

Dès que Jésus a commencé son ministère, la première chose qu'IL a dite, c'est : repentez-vous ( Matthieu 4 verset 17). Avant Lui, jean baptiste lorsqu'il à commencé son ministère a également dit : repentez-vous. Le même mot est employé par jean baptiste et par Jésus mais pas pour parler de la même chose. Jean Baptiste était le dernier prophète de l'ancienne alliance. Il parlait de repentance en terme de revenir à Dieu pour le pardon des péchés. Jésus a parlé de repentance pour emmener les gens à le suivre ( Matthieu 4 verset 19) pour qu'IL ôte le péché et efface les péchés de ceux qui croient en Lui. Il y a une différence entre le pardon des péchés et l'oublie, l'effacement des péchés passés présents et futurs. Il y a également une différence entre le pardon des péchés venant du baptême de jean baptiste et le péché que Jésus est venu ôter. Dans Jean 1 verset 29 jean a présenté Jésus comme l'agneau de Dieu qui ôte le péché du monde. Enfin il y a une différence entre le péché et les péchés. Le péché est une nature que tous les hommes ont eu en héritage par le premier homme Adam. Jésus en ôtant le péché est venu emmener une nouvelle nature dans l'homme, celle qui s'obtient par la justification par la mort, la résurrection et l'assencion de Jésus Christ. Dans l'ancienne alliance les péchés ne pouvaient pas être effacés et le péché ne pouvait pas être ôté parce que personne n'avait le Saint Esprit en lui et un esprit nouveau. Le baptême de repentance de jean baptiste a été donné par Dieu pour emmener les gens à disposer leur cœur pour la venue de Jésus et a confesser leurs péchés selon ce qui est écrit dans Matthieu 3 versets 2 à 6 : jean baptiste disait : repentez-vous... Préparez le chemin du Seigneur, aplanissez ses sentiers ( disposez vos cœurs) , les habitants de Jérusalem et de toute la Judée venaient confesser leurs péchés et se faire baptiser par Lui dans le fleuve du Jourdain. Le baptême de repentance de jean baptiste n'a pas le pouvoir d'ôter le péché et de pardonner ou remettre les péchés passés, présents et futurs. Le baptême de repentance de jean baptiste ne donne pas le salut. Être baptisé dans l'eau sans ensuite recevoir le Saint Esprit ne sauvé pas. Dans Actes 19 versets 1 à 6, Paul a demandé à des disciples de jean baptiste s'ils avaient reçu le Saint Esprit quand ils ont cru et ces disciples ont répondu qu'ils n'ont même jamais entendu parler du Saint Esprit. Par conséquent ils ne l'avaient pas reçu. Ils ont été baptisés du baptême de jean baptiste mais pas du baptême au Nom de Jésus Christ. Jean Baptiste a dit Lui même dans Matthieu 3 verset 11 à ceux qui venaient à son baptême : Moi je vous baptiste d'eau pour vous emmener à la repentance ; mais celui qui vient après moi est plus puissant que moi.... Lui IL vous baptisera du Saint Esprit et de feu.On peut être baptisé d'eau sans être baptisé du Saint Esprit ni recevoir le Saint Esprit et par conséquent ne pas être sauvé. Tout est une question de disposition de coeur à suivre véritablement Jésus-Christ quand on se fait baptiser dans l'eau pour ensuite recevoir le Saint Esprit. On peut par contre être baptisé du Saint Esprit avant d'être baptisé d'eau. Ça a été le cas pour corneille et toute sa famille dans actes 10 versets 44 à 48.

Beaucoup de chrétiens sont baptisés dans l'eau mais n'ont jamais reçu le Saint Esprit... C'est dangereux de croire qu'on est sauvé alors que ce n'est pas le cas car Il est écrit dans Romains 8 verset 9 que celui qui n'a pas l'Esprit de Christ ne lui appartient pas ! À suivre....

[ladivinegrace]

Qui peut Baptiser du Saint-Esprit

     Le baptême du Saint-Esprit a lieu lors de la conversion et précède le baptême d'eau. Et Dieu seul a la prérogative, l'autorité et le pouvoir de baptiser les gens du Saint-Esprit. En tant qu’Auteur de la vie, Dieu régénère ceux qu’Il ​​a prédestinés à l'adoption en les baptisant de Son Esprit. Par le baptême de l'Esprit, ils reçoivent une nouvelle nature (la nature divine), et cette nouvelle nature est attestée par leur repentance et foi en Jésus-Christ le Fils de Dieu. Ce qui signifie que la régénération précède la foi. Et la foi est un don de Dieu implanté dans le cœur de ses élus au moment de leur régénération. Ceci dit, l’Eternel nous baptise du Saint-Esprit, nous conduit à la repentance et nous donne la foi pour croire en Lui, et Il nous scelle dans son amour éternel. 

     Personne d'autre que Dieu ne baptise de l'Esprit – le Saint-Esprit vient du ciel. Par exemple, lorsque Pierre prêchait la Bonne Nouvelle à Corneille, à sa famille et à ses amis intimes, il est écrit dans Actes 10:44, “Pendant que Pierre parlait encore, le Saint-Esprit descendit sur tous ceux qui écoutaient son message.” Verset 48a dit: “Et il leur ordonna de se faire baptiser au nom du Seigneur.” Ainsi, par l'intermédiaire de la Parole de Dieu prêchée par Pierre, le Saint-Esprit a régénéré ces hommes et ils ont commencé à parler en langues et à exalter Dieu (cf. v.46). Et Pierre, témoin de leur conversion, ordonna qu'ils soient baptisés d'eau.

     Il y a aujourd’hui de nombreux faux prédicateurs et soi-disant prophètes et apôtres  qui méprisent l’Esprit de grâce en prétendant détenir le pouvoir de baptiser de l’Esprit – une prérogative qui appartient exclusivement à Dieu. Ce sont des enfants du diable, ennemis de toute justice, pleins de toute sorte de ruse et de méchanceté, consacrés à l'œuvre de leur père le diable. Ils imposent leurs mains aux gens et les font entrer en transe, puis attribuent fallacieusement leurs stratagèmes sataniques au Saint-Esprit. Le Saint-Esprit n’est pas une force dont l’homme peut utiliser ou manipuler à sa guise, Il n’est pas non plus un être violent qui renverse les gens. Le Saint-Esprit est la troisième Personne du Dieu Trinitaire: Il est d’une même essence que le Père et le Fils, et égal à Eux en caractère. Il est Dieu et donc souverain. De plus, le Saint-Esprit est si tendre que lorsqu’Il descendit sur le Fils de Dieu lors de son baptême, Il avait l’apparence d’une colombe.

     L’activité de ces soi-disant faiseurs de miracles est donc un blasphème contre le Saint-Esprit. Car le baptême du Saint-Esprit est une prérogative exclusive du Christ. Personne d'autre que le Christ n'a l'autorité et le pouvoir de baptiser du Saint-Esprit. Dans Jean 1:32-34, Jean-Baptiste affirme l'autorité exclusive du Christ à baptiser du Saint-Esprit lorsqu’il donne ce témoignage: “J'ai vu l'Esprit descendre du ciel comme une colombe et s'arrêter sur Lui. Je ne le connaissais pas, mais Celui qui m'a envoyé baptiser d'eau m'a dit: ‘Celui sur qui tu verras l'Esprit descendre et s'arrêter, c'est Lui qui baptise du Saint-Esprit.’ Et moi, j'ai vu et j'atteste qu'Il est le Fils de Dieu.”

     Dans l’Ancien Testament, le Seigneur a promis de conclure une nouvelle alliance avec son peuple, non pas comme l’alliance qu’Il avait conclue autrefois avec leurs pères et à laquelle ils étaient infidèles, mais une alliance qu’ils ne violeraient pas; car Dieu Lui-même y veillera: le respect de cette nouvelle alliance par le peuple de Dieu se ferait grâce à la circoncision de leur cœur par le Seigneur. Par le baptême du Saint-Esprit, Dieu mettrait fin à la dureté de leur cœur et les ferait marcher selon ses préceptes. Par ailleurs, selon son amour constant, Dieu promit qu’Il pardonnerait leurs iniquités et annulerait leur culpabilité. Jérémie 31:31-34 dit: “Voici que les jours viennent, déclare l'Eternel, où Je conclurai avec la communauté d'Israël et la communauté de Juda une alliance nouvelle. Elle ne sera pas comme l’alliance que J’ai conclue avec leurs ancêtres le jour où Je les ai pris par la main pour les faire sortir d'Egypte. Eux, ils ont violé mon alliance, alors que Moi, J’étais leur Maître, déclare l'Eternel. Mais voici l'alliance que Je ferai avec la communauté d'Israël après ces jours-là, déclare l'Eternel: Je mettrai ma loi à l’intérieur d'eux, Je l'écrirai dans leur cœur, Je serai leur Dieu et ils seront mon peuple. Personne n'enseignera plus son prochain ni son frère en disant: “Vous devez connaître l'Eternel!” car tous Me connaîtront, depuis le plus petit jusqu'au plus grand d’entre eux, déclare l'Eternel. En effet, Je pardonnerai leur faute et Je ne Me souviendrai plus de leur péché.”

     Ézéchiel 11:17-20 nous donne une promesse parallèle à celle faite par Dieu dans Jérémie. On y lit: “Voici ce que dit le Seigneur, l'Eternel: Je vous rassemblerai du milieu des peuples, Je vous réunirai des pays où vous êtes éparpillés et Je vous donnerai le territoire d'Israël.’” C'est là qu'ils iront, et ils en retireront toutes les monstruosités et toutes les pratiques abominables. Je leur donnerai un seul cœur et Je mettrai en eux un esprit nouveau. Je retirerai de leur corps le cœur de pierre et Je leur donnerai un cœur de chair. Ainsi ils pourront suivre mes prescriptions, garder et respecter mes règles. Alors ils seront mon peuple et Je serai leur Dieu.”

     La promesse faite par Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament de circoncire le cœur des hommes et d'ôter leurs péchés ne se limite pas au peuple d’Israël mais s’étend aussi à ceux qui sont exclus de l’alliance mosaïque. Ainsi  déclare le Seigneur dans Joël 2:28-32, “Je répandrai mon Esprit sur toute chair; vos fils et vos filles prophétiseront, vos vieillards auront des songes, et vos jeunes gens des visions. Même sur les serviteurs et sur les servantes, dans ces jours-là, Je répandrai mon Esprit. Je ferai paraître des prodiges dans les cieux et sur la terre, du sang, du feu, et des colonnes de fumée; le soleil se changera en ténèbres, et la lune en sang, avant l’arrivée du jour de l’Eternel, de ce jour grand et terrible. Alors quiconque invoquera le nom de l’Eternel sera sauvé; le salut sera sur la montagne de Sion et à Jérusalem, comme a dit l’Eternel, et parmi les réchappés que l’Eternel appellera.” Dans Ésaïe 44:3-5, le Seigneur déclare: “En effet, Je verserai de l’eau sur la terre qui a soif et des ruisseaux sur le terrain sec; Je déverserai mon Esprit sur ta descendance et ma bénédiction sur tes rejetons. Ils pousseront au milieu de l'herbe comme les saules près des cours d'eau. L’un dira: “J’appartiens à l'Eternel”, l’autre voudra porter le nom de Jacob, un autre écrira sur sa main: “Propriété de l'Eternel!” et prendra avec fierté le nom d'Israël.”

     Avant sa crucifixion, suivie de sa résurrection et de son ascension vers la gloire, le Seigneur Jésus a promis à ses disciples la venue du Saint-Esprit, en disant: “Et Moi, Je prierai le Père, et Il vous donnera un autre Consolateur, afin qu’Il demeure éternellement avec vous, l’Esprit de vérité, que le monde ne peut recevoir, parce qu’il ne Le voit point et ne Le connaît point; mais vous, vous Le connaissez, car Il demeure avec vous, et Il sera en vous. Je ne vous laisserai pas orphelins, Je viendrai à vous. Encore un peu de temps, et le monde ne Me verra plus; mais vous, vous Me verrez, car Je vis, et vous vivrez aussi. En ce jour-là, vous connaîtrez que Je suis en mon Père, que vous êtes en Moi, et que Je suis en vous” (Jean 14:16-20). Durant son ministère sur terre, le Christ était physiquement avec ses disciples et serait en eux à la venue de l'Esprit de promesse. Car l'Esprit est l'Esprit du Christ, envoyé par le Christ pour rendre témoignage du Christ – comme le Christ Lui-même le dit dans Jean 15:26, “Quand sera venu le Consolateur, que Je vous enverrai de la part du Père, l’Esprit de vérité, qui vient du Père, Il rendra témoignage de Moi.” 

     Le jour de la Pentecôte, le Seigneur a tenu la promesse qu'Il avait faite à ses disciples – “Et ils furent tous remplis du Saint-Esprit et se mirent à parler en d'autres langues, selon que l'Esprit leur donnait de s'exprimer” (Actes 2:4). C'était la première fois que le Saint-Esprit descendit sur plusieurs disciples à la fois, environ 120 croyants juifs qui étaient tous ensemble dans le même lieu. Cet événement primordial, qui a marqué la transition d’Israël à l’Église, est une expression du dessein de Dieu visant à assurer la fidélité de son peuple à la nouvelle alliance qu’Il a conclue avec eux, alliance scellée avec le sang précieux de son propre Fils. Cela était suivi par des expériences similaires impliquant des croyants Samaritains et Gentils. Dans Actes 8, les Samaritains qui crurent à la Parole de Dieu proclamée par Philippe reçurent aussi le Saint-Esprit lorsque Pierre et Jean – envoyés de Jérusalem par leurs confrères Apôtres lorsqu'ils apprirent que la Samarie avait reçu la Parole de Dieu – leur imposèrent les mains après avoir offert une prière à Dieu. Dans Actes 10, le Seigneur baptisa de son Esprit Corneille, sa famille et amis proches – tous des Gentils – quand Pierre leur prêchait la Parole de Dieu. Tous ces événements constituent un accomplissement partiel de la prophétie de Joël. Car la prophétie de Joël s’accomplira complètement au retour du Christ, lorsqu’Il viendra établir son Règne millénaire.     

Le Seigneur est le pilier et la solide fondation de son Église. Il a chargé ses disciples de faire des disciples par la prédication et l'enseignement de sa parole et de les baptiser d'eau. Mais personne d’autre que le Christ Lui-même n’a la prérogative, le pouvoir et l’autorité de sceller les pécheurs dans la famille de Dieu. Le Seigneur est Celui qui baptise les pécheurs dans son corps; Il baptise les pécheurs de son Esprit selon son plan défini et les richesses de sa grâce.

[histoireettralala]

The Fall of Fouquet

Of those who sat in Louis XIV's council in March 1661, Nicolas Fouquet was beyond a shadow of a doubt the most charismatic and flamboyant. His background was typical of the upwardly mobile noblesse de robe, and his family like so many others had invested a fortune accumulated as drapers merchants in ennobling office. Fouquet’s grandfather and his father, François, had both served as judges in the Parlement of Paris, and his mother, Marie de Maupeou, was herself a member of another rising robe clan. The family had acquired an impressive reputation for piety, and its links to Saint Vincent de Paul, the parti dévot, and the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement had opened additional doors to the powerful. All six of Marie’s surviving daughters entered the religious life, as would three of her five sons. Nicolas, on the other hand, was destined for a career in royal service, joining first the Parlement of Metz, and then, following the route trekked by countless aspiring young robins, by purchasing the office of maître des requêtes and serving as an intendant, attracting the attention of Mazarin in the process. In 1650, he had bought the prestigious office of procureur général in the Parlement of Paris, and having proved himself scrupulously loyal to Mazarin he was rewarded with the post of surintendant des finances in 1653.

As surintendant he was responsible for government fiscal policy in the aftermath of the Fronde and was charged with finding the funds needed to prosecute the seemingly endless war with Spain, proving remarkably able and helping to secure a French victory consummated in the Peace of the Pyrenees of November 1659. Anyone capable of surviving for long in the cut-throat world of seventeenth-century finance was, almost by definition, talented, and no less certain to become fabulously rich. Fouquet was no exception, and by 1661 he had added prodigious wealth to an already substantial family fortune that was made manifest in the construction of the beautiful château of Vaux-le-Vicomte, only a few miles from the royal palace of Fontainebleau. Designed by the architect Louis Le Vau and with its interiors decorated by Charles Le Brun, Vaux-le-Vicomte was an aesthetic triumph set within majestic gardens, created by André Le Nôtre, complete with ornamental fountains that have rightly been seen as an inspiration for Versailles. A man of taste and refinement, Fouquet forged a reputation as a generous artistic patron, and, amongst others, Molière, Pierre Corneille, Jean de La Fontaine, and Paul Pellisson benefitted from the surintendant’s largesse. Despite his family’s impeccable dévot credentials, Nicolas moved in eclectic and heterodox intellectual circles, and, much to his mother’s chagrin, his reputed good looks and genuine charm had given him an established reputation as a gallant.

(Fouquet on the left, Louis XIV on the right)

Rich, self-confident, and having proved himself to be an able and loyal servant of the crown, Fouquet, at only forty-six years of age, had every reason to suppose that a long and profitable career stretched before him. His actions in the months following the cardinal’s death were certainly not those of a man harbouring any inner self-doubts. In August 1661, he agreed to sell his office of procureur général in the Parlement to his friend Achille de Harlay, presumably confident that his interests in the court would be well served as he also had close ties with its first president, Guillaume de Lamoignon. More dramatically, on 17 August 1661, Fouquet threw one of the most notorious parties in French history. Using the magnificence of Vaux-le-Vicomte as the setting, the guests, who included large swathes of the French governing elite, were treated to a sumptuous fête, with a theatrical performance directed by Molière, fireworks, and other entertainments all ostensibly in honour of the king. Popular tradition, reinforced by numerous literary and cinematic productions, maintains that Louis XIV, furious at being upstaged by a mere minister and convinced that such lavish display could only be at his own expense, swore revenge. Fouquet had undoubtedly been tactless as the interior of the château boasted a lavish state bedroom, complete with railed bed, which had been prepared as if the monarch was intending to be a regular guest of his munificent minister. Those aristocrats present were horrified that a mere robin should be so presumptuous and the king almost certainly shared their prejudices. If this was the case, he was nevertheless careful to conceal his fury and neither Fouquet nor contemporary witnesses interpreted events in quite the dramatic fashion of later commentators, and the minister continued to work almost daily with the king.

At the end of August, the monarch and his entourage began a tour of Brittany, timed to coincide with the assembly of the provincial estates. By now, the surintendant had received a number of quite explicit warnings about threats to his position and he was growing anxious. Despite his misgivings, he travelled to Nantes and while he was suffering from a fever the king had sent for news of his health, which must have helped to allay his fears. If Louis-Henri de Loménie de Brienne, who was present on the scene, is to be believed, Fouquet even had hopes that it would be Colbert who would be arrested and that his position was secure. On 5 September, the surintendant was well enough to work as normal with the king, but as he left the audience he was accosted by Charles d’Artagnan and a detachment of musketeers. D’Artagnan promptly arrested an astonished Fouquet, who is said to have exclaimed that ‘he thought that he held a higher place in the king’s esteem than anyone else in the kingdom’. If that was indeed the case, then it was a monumental misjudgement because he had just plunged into the most profound disgrace.

D'Artagnan (left) arrests Fouquet (right)

Almost immediately it became apparent that the fall of Fouquet was no momentary loss of favour. Instead it had been carefully premeditated over several months by Louis XIV and Jean-Baptiste Colbert, another aspiring robe noble who had made his fortune as the steward of Mazarin’s private fortune. Colbert not only replaced Fouquet at the head of government finances, but he also directed a trial that was intended to conclude in a death sentence against his imprisoned rival. Fouquet’s brothers, his wife, mother, and close associates were either arrested or exiled, his papers seized in circumstances that made a travesty of the law, and he was brought before a specially convoked commission, not the Parlement of Paris as would have been his right had he not sold his office to Achille de Harlay only a few weeks before. Fouquet had seriously undermined his own political position, and recent precedents were grim. Had Richelieu been directing affairs, Fouquet would have been fortunate indeed to escape the block. However, Colbert seems to have been determined to use Fouquet as a scapegoat for the endemic corruption that both men had profited from, and which had been one of the defining features of Mazarin’s ministry. Fouquet was therefore accused of péculat, an elastic term encompassing a wide range of financial misdemeanours. While burrowing around in Fouquet’s château of Saint-Mandé, the investigators also stumbled across some secret documents from 1658 outlining a strategy for revolt in the event of his arrest. Although it was clear that they were intended for use against Mazarin, not the king, it was decided to add the capital charge of lese-majesty to the existing accusations against the prisoner.

(Fouquet vs Colbert, there will be only one)

Raking up all manner of supposed earlier misdeeds against a disgracié was common practice. On this occasion it proved counterproductive, and had the government moved quickly it could conceivably have obtained a rapid judgement and the desired death sentence. Instead, it tried to dig up more and more evidence and the trial proper did not commence until 3 March 1662. Confronted by a complicated mass of financial accusations and with Fouquet putting up a spirited and effective defence of his actions, the case dragged on for over two years. Colbert and the king grew increasingly frustrated, meddling with legal procedure, seeking to intimidate judges and witnesses alike and making it clear that while they wanted to give the impression of a fair trial it should not be at the expense of a guilty verdict. Fouquet’s family and his many friends and admirers gradually recovered from the shock of his arrest and began an energetic campaign on his behalf, convincing a substantial part of public opinion that he was the victim of a vendetta. When the verdict was finally announced in December 1664, the judges did find the accused guilty of péculat, but rather than impose the death penalty as the government intended they voted by a small majority in favour of banishment and a substantial fine.

[..]

Fouquet’s spectacular fall is arguably the most dramatic and poignant example of the potentially calamitous consequences of ministerial disgrace. The first great political crisis of Louis XIV’s personal rule, it cast a long shadow and yet in many ways it marked the end rather than the beginning of a chapter as the age of the minister-favourite gave way to that of the secretary of state. Although Fouquet had escaped with his life, his draconian punishment was very much in the tradition of Louis XIII and Richelieu and arguably of late medieval monarchy. Rather than simply dismiss Fouquet and banish him from court, as a master would discard an unsatisfactory servant, Louis XIV had treated him as a criminal who had stolen from his treasury and plotted against his authority. It was a very political trial, one that brings to mind the treatment of Claude Barbin, following the murder of Concini, or that of the maréchal de Marillac, in the aftermath of the Day of Dupes. Indeed, Fouquet’s miserable existence in Pignerol almost bears comparison with that of cardinal Jean Balue, who according to popular legend was locked in an iron cage in the château of Loches after falling foul of Louis XI. The harsh treatment of Fouquet’s family and the confiscation of their property as well as the persecution of his friends and clients was again consistent with earlier practice, echoing in milder form the attacks on the Concini in 1617.

Julian Swann- Exile, Inprisonment or Death- The Politics of Disgrace in Bourbon France.

[mysterious-secret-garden]

Jean-Baptiste Corneille, after Michelangelo - The rape of Ganymede.

[painiac]

[thefugitivesaint]

Michel Mosin (active 1650-1700) (after Jean-Baptiste Corneille), ‘Stippendia Peccati Mors’ ‘ La Mort est La Solde et le Paiement du Péché’ (Death is the Balance and the Payment of Sin), 1680 Source

[philoursmars]

Marseille. Au MuCEM, la très intéressante expo “Pharaons Superstars” !  

- “Joseph expliquant les songes du roi Pharaon" - Epinal, 1837

- Joseph Güns - haggada de Pessah - la fille de Pharaon découvre Moïse - Vienne, 1933

- Djâmi - "Youssouf face au pharaon" - Iran, 1570

- Ishaq bin Ibrahim Sabur - "Qisas-i Qur'ân" , Moïse et le dragon s'apprêtant à tuer Firaoun (Pharaon) - Iran, 1581

- Jean-Baptiste Corneille - “Hercule assommant Busiris, roi d'Egypte”

- vase à eau, le massacre de Busiris par Héraklès - Cerveteri, Etrurie, 510 av. J-C.

- id

- tenture des Gobelins: l'histoire de Moïse - la Verge changée en Serpent'' - Paris, 1683

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: Je suis sûr que vous avez apprécié les œuvres de Molière. Qu'est-ce qui compose au fond le génie de Molière ? Un mauvais tragédien, devenu comédien par dépit ? Êtes-vous d'accord ?

Quelle drôle de question à poser à l'occasion du 400e anniversaire de la naissance de Molière ! Le fait que le répertoire moliéresque soit presqu’entièrement composé de farces et de comédies accrédite l’idée selon laquelle Molière aurait adopté la carrière comique par défaut, en raison de piètres talents pour la tragédie, genre noble par excellence dans la hiérarchie dramatique de l’époque classique. Mais je ne peux pas être d'accord avec ce point de vue.

La compagnie théâtrale de Molière, depuis les débuts de l’Illustre-Théâtre jusqu’à la troupe officielle des comédiens du roi, compte de nombreuses tragédies qui constituent le fond de son répertoire. Molière s’illustre dans les plus grands rôles tragiques, notamment dans le théâtre de Pierre Corneille avec Nicomède, Rodogune, Cinna, Pompée, Attila, ou encore Tite et Bérénice, mais également dans celui du jeune Racine, de Rotrou ou encore de Tristan L’Hermite. Et ce, même si son originalité comme comédien s’exprime davantage dans le genre comique.

Cette vision trompeuse est née de la campagne de diffamation de la troupe concurrente de l’Hôtel de Bourgogne, furieuse que Molière ait pu critiquer le caractère grandiloquent de sa déclamation - inspirée par la rhétorique - au nom d’un jeu « naturel ». Antoine Jacob, dit Montfleury fils, membre de ladite troupe rivale, lui répond par L’Impromptu de l’hôtel de Condé (1663) qui ironise sur son interprétation de César dans La Mort de Pompée de Pierre Corneille.

C’est pourtant dans ce rôle que le peintre Nicolas Mignard a immortalisé le comédien dans son célèbre portrait daté de 1658, tout comme, la même année, sous les traits du dieu Mars dans Mars et Vénus (1658).

Parfois réduite à son inspiration farcesque, l’œuvre de Molière est considérée comme la quintessence du genre comique. C’est oublier que l’auteur s’est essayé à la comédie héroïque avec Dom Garcie de Navarre (1661), à la tragédie-ballet avec Psyché (1671) et à la poésie avec La Gloire du Val de Grâce (1669). Il a également prouvé son talent dans la grande comédie en cinq actes et en vers, en particulier dans la comédie-ballet, nouveau genre lyrique qu’il invente avec Jean-Baptiste Lully et qui préfigure l’opéra français.

En outre, des œuvres telles que Dom Juan ou Le Misanthrope relèvent d’une puissance tragique particulière, tout comme certaines scènes pathétiques de L’Avare ou du Malade imaginaire. Quant au personnage de Dorante, dans La Critique de l’École des femmes (1663), il met sur un pied d’égalité les ambitions de l’auteur comique et de l’auteur tragique.

Qu'est-ce qui compose au fond le génie de Molière ? Vous êtes sérieux ? Hmmm.

Le génie de Molière s'explique à mon avis par sa trajectoire. À la différence de Corneille ou Racine, il n'a pas commencé par être un poète qui vient tout de suite à l'écriture théâtrale et qui va proposer ses pièces de théâtre. Lui, quand il abandonne les études de droit qu'il avait entreprises, c'est pour se jeter dans l'aventure théâtrale, en tant que comédien. Et c'est le comédien qui va se mettre à écrire des pièces de théâtre. C'est le comédien qui va aborder le théâtre avec un irrespect absolu vis-à-vis de ce qui est le modèle théâtral antique, de ce qui est l'adaptation du modèle théâtral antique en France, qu'on va appeler plus tard le classicisme, mais qui se fonde sur un système de règles.

Molière fait exactement comme les acteurs auteurs italiens qu'il a croisés à de nombreuses reprises lorsque, de 1646 à 1658, il était en province. Il prend un modèle de pièce, il le découpe et prend les morceaux forts qui sont susceptibles de faire des effets comiques sur le public. Il dépouille donc l'original de deux éléments qui lui paraissent le plus intéressant, le plus important et le plus porteur théâtralement. Il vire le reste et il ajoute des éléments de son cru qui vont dans le sens des séquences qu'il a conservées. Et il fabrique ainsi des pièces qui sont fondées exclusivement sur l'effet produit sur le public. C'est cela qui lui permet d'avoir cette puissance comique.

Il va avoir aussi cette idée géniale de rencontrer un public qui partage avec lui un comique de connivence. Parce que chez les galants, dans l'aristocratie mondaine, parmi les jeux de dérision les uns vis-à-vis des autres, on a aussi l'autodérision. De se voir moqué à travers des caricatures, on ne pense jamais que c’est soi qui est moqué. C'est toujours le voisin. C'est cela qui va permettre à Molière d'enfoncer plus avant le clou, de continuer sur cette trajectoire en jouant sur les deux tableaux, sur celui de la moquerie humoristique vis-à-vis des personnages aristocratiques et de la caricature burlesque avec les personnages que l'aristocratie repousse. Et cet ensemble-là, joint à la mise en scène des comportements et des valeurs, fait le génie de Molière. Mais j'insiste sur le fait que ce génie tient d'abord au fait que Molière est un acteur-auteur et non pas un auteur poète venu au théâtre, dans le silence de son cabinet.

Merci pour votre question.

[pompadourpink]

hi could you share the names or works of french+ black people pls

Hello,

In music:

Corneille

Oxmo Puccino

Booba

Soprano

Maître Gims

Aya Nakamura

Ninho

Sexion d’assaut

Wejdene

NTM

Hatik

Passi (...)

In literature:

Le Comte de Monte-Cristo + Les Trois Mousquetaires - Alexandre Dumas

Hosties noires + Ethiopiques - Léopold Sédar Senghor

Cahier d'un retour au pays natal 1939 - Aimé Césaire

Le rocher de Tanios - Amin Maalouf

Moi TItuba sorcière - Maryse Condé

Négritude et négrologues - Stanislas Spero Adotevi

Allah n’est pas obligé - Ahmadou Kourouma

Batouala - René Maran 

Histoire de la littérature négro-africaine - Lilyan Kesteloot

Les enfants du nouveau monde - Assia Djebar

La Grève des bàttu ou les déchets humains - Aminata Sow Fall

Mémoires de porc-épic - Alain Mabanckou

L'intérieur de la nuit - Léonora Miano

Matins noirs - Karfa Diallo

Poètes d'expression française - Léon-Gontran Damas

Le temps du martyre - David Diop 

From la Créolité movement: L'éloge de la Créolité (collective), Texaco - Patrick Chamoiseau, Le nègre et l’amiral - Raphaël Confiant, Le Partage des ancêtres - Jean Bernabé

In movies/shows:

Négritude : Naissance et expansion du concept - Jean-Baptiste and Nathalie Fave (documentary about négritude)

Bande de Filles - Céline Sciamma (and many more movies about growing up in the Parisian suburbs (la banlieue) and experiencing racism)

Intouchables - Olivier Nakache (staring Omar Sy)

30° couleur - Lucien Jean-Baptiste (about a man who forgot his roots)

Validé - Franck Gambastide (about rap music/culture)

Polisse - Maiwenn (staring Joey Starr)

Âme noire - Martine Chartrand (canadian, about black culture/music)

In art:

Etude d’homme (Joseph) - Théodore Géricault 

Joseph le nègre - Adolphe Brune

Le Noir Scipion - Paul Cézanne

Etude de nègre - Théodore Chassériau

Portrait de Laure - Edouard Manet 

Seïd Enkess - Charles Cordier

Portrait d’une négresse (Madeleine) - Marie-Guillemine Benoist

La chasse au nègre - Félix Martin

I’m afraid I wasn’t able to find black artists in painting or sculpture. Also, I’m sorry about using slurs in this last paragraph, just copying the titles.

Hope this helps! x