University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications - Modern Languages and Modern Languages and Literatures, Department Literatures of June 2002 Through the Talking Glass: Translucence and Translation in the Condé Museum’s Psyche Gallery Russell J. Ganim University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/modlangfacpub Part of the Modern Languages Commons Ganim, Russell J., "Through the Talking Glass: Translucence and Translation in the Condé Museum’s Psyche Gallery" (2002). Faculty Publications - Modern Languages and Literatures. 14. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/modlangfacpub/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Modern Languages and Literatures, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Modern Languages and Literatures by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Th e Shape of Change: Essays in Early Modern Literature and Th rough the Talking Glass: La Fontaine in Honor of David Lee Rubin, edited by Anne L. Birberick and Russell Ganim. Rodopi: Amsterdam & New York, 2002. Pp. 53–89. Translucence and Translation Copyright © 2002 Editions Rodopi B.V. Used by permission. in the Condé Museum’s Psyche Gallery Russell Ganim Th e forty-four stained-glass windows (dating from 1540–44) that re- count the mythological tale of Psyche in Chantilly’s Condé Museum pres- ent a unique semeiological challenge to scholars. Accompanied by lyric inscriptions of either four or eight lines, the panels reveal an image/text combination that represents a literal example of the Renaissance notion of ut pictura poesis.1 Th ese seldom-discussed panels merit inquiry because they refl ect certain historic, artistic, and literary trends that illustrate fac- tional and intellectual movements crucial to understanding France of the early to mid-sixteenth century. In its examination of these issues, this es- say asks three questions: 1) What is the political signifi cance of the gallery? 2) Why are the panels important in terms of Renaissance aesthetics, and how do they enhance the viewer’s knowledge of image-text interaction? And 3) What examples can be given of how pictura and poesis, as they are uniquely presented in the gallery, enrich the narrative process depicted in these windows? In answering the fi rst question, I will argue that the win- dows represent a political allegory that alludes to the disgrace and exile of their patron, Anne de Montmorency (1493–1567), Francis I’s “Consta- ble of France.” Montmorency’s choice of Psyche lies in the desire to illus- trate his struggle via a character who will elicit sympathy in a profound, but discreet manner. Like Psyche, who incurs the wrath and envy of Ve- nus, the Constable falls prey to a powerful woman, specifi cally, Francis’s mistress, Madame d’Etampes, whose jealousy forces Montmorency’s de- parture from the court. With the political statement comes aesthetic com- mentary as well. Specifi cally, the Psyche windows illustrate from a struc- tural perspec tive the Renaissance idea that art deemed “religious” in nature may be considered not merely as a “receptacle of the holy” but as a work of independent, discriminating merit (Belting, Likeness and Presence 458). 54 Russell Ganim Th rough the Talking Glass 55 Within this new mentality, a “religious form” such as stained glass, need and ending with Francis’s death in 1547.2 To under stand the political nar- not necessarily depict a theme one would traditionally fi nd in a church or rative conveyed by the panels, certain facets of Montmorency’s life war- cathedral. Changes in aesthetics and religion went hand in hand during rant highlighting. Descending from an Ile-de-France clan whose nobil- this time, as Protestant, especially Calvinist, emphasis on the ‘“Word” ity had been certifi ed since the end of the tenth century, Montmorency of God over His “Image” indirectly gave rise to a heightened presence of (named for his godmother Anne de Bretagne) defi ned himself through the word in art throughout the early to mid-sixteenth century. Th e pres- wealth, power, and association with the monarchy. A childhood compan- ence of the lyric inscriptions in the Chantilly windows can be attribut- ion of Francis, Montmor ency earned the king’s respect in battle, fi ghting ed at least in part to the emergence of the word in artistic expression at in several of Francis’s Italian campaigns against Charles V in the 1520s, this time. and helping negotiate the monarch’s release from prison as part of the To understand the relationship between verba and imago as it exists Treaty of Madrid in 1525. Th e following year, Montmorency was named in the panels themselves, this essay will draw on the literary criticism of governor of the Languedoc and “Grand Maître de France,” which meant W. J. T. Mitchell, the historical analysis of Hans Belting, and the trans- that Montmorency oversaw the royal household, setting the king’s sched- lation theory of George Steiner, Roman Jakobson, and André Lefevere. ule and regulating his visits. He became one of the king’s chief domes- What these theories have in common is the notion that a certain fl uidity tic and foreign advisers, and played a major role in concluding the Peace exists between sets of signs. In the case of the Psyche gallery, the “herme- of Cambrai in 1529, and then in defeating the Emperor in northern It- neutic motion” (Steiner 296) that exists between word and picture allows aly and Provence in 1536. After engineering the Peace of Aigues-Mortes for a dynamic exchange between the two principal narrative elements of with the Hapsburgs in 1538, Francis bestowed the tide of “Connétable the panel. Yet, the symmetry between word and image is often only par- de France” upon Montmorency. His reputation as Francis’s emissary led tial, since these modes of discourse sometimes diverge as much as they to associations with a host of European rulers, among them Charles V, converge. Th e poems and win dows translate each other, but often only in the Pope, and Henry VIII of England. Now bearing the rank of “Con- translucent, semi-trans parent ways. Consequently, the meaning word and stable,” Montmorency became the head of all royal armies, and was the image convey together is problematic and ambiguous almost as frequently king’s chief diplo mat. Th e Constable’s acquisition of political and military as it is reciprocal. Accordingly, the viewer is required to mediate between power was matched by his ravenous desire to increase his personal wealth. pictura and poesis, rendering his/her role more active in determining the Th rough various land acquisitions, Montmorency’s already vast reve nues signifi cance of the panels, and in shaping the critical debate over the in- multiplied nine times between 1521 and 1561. Even by the time of his teraction between these means of expression. However, the narrative re- fi rst disgrace in 1541, Montmorency had amassed an enormous fortune, lated by the verba/imago relationship within the panels themselves cannot making him one of the richest men in Europe, and the second most pow- be fully appreciated without a more global under standing of the historical erful man in France.3 and critical circumstances in which the windows were created. Th ese gen- Accumulation of fi nancial, military, and political power begat Montmo- eral conditions comprise a narrative of their own. rency numerous enemies and led to his downfall. As Francis’s health began to fail in the late 1530s, the infl uence of his favorite, Anne de Pisseleu (the Genesis and Political Allegory Duchess of Etampes), grew to the point where the historian Robert Knecht It is not coincidental that Montmorency’s commission of the lyric in- characterizes her as the court’s “supreme dispenser of favours and disfa- scriptions and stained-glass images between 1540 and 1544 over lapped vours” (557). Madame d’Etampes’s reasons for trying to remove the Con- greatly with his fi rst “disgrace” from court, offi cially beginning in 1541, stable were many. First, in her eff ort to consolidate power with her circle 56 Russell Ganim Th rough the Talking Glass 57 that included Cardinals Tournon, du Bellay, and the “Chancellor of following the king’s example, drew the parallel between art and authority. In France” Guillaume Poyet, Montmorency presented a direct obstacle. Sec- his many projects, the Constable engaged the services of French School spe- ondly, the Constable gained the support of Francis’s second wife, queen cialists such as Palissy, Goujon, Limousin, and the Clouet brothers, as well Eleanor, the Emperor’s sister. Madame d’Etampes despised the Haps- as Fontainebleau School artists, among them Cellini, Rosso, d’Oggiono, and burgs, and had even planned to capture Charles V during an offi cial state Durantino, whose masterpieces adorn Montmorency’s chateaux at Ecouen visit. More dangerous to the Duchess, however, was Montmorency’s ex- and Chantilly (the Psyche panels were originally designed for Ecouen, then tremely close association with the Dauphin Henri and his (and Fran- moved to Chantilly in the nineteenth century), his Parisian residences, and cis’s ex-) mistress Diane de Poitiers, whom she suspected of conspiring to the collegial church at Montmorency. As one can imagine, the paintings and seize the monarchy from Francis. Th e rift between the Constable and the sculptures in the castles consisted mainly of family portraits and representa- clique centered around the Duchess became so great as to prompt the vis- tions of the Constable’s battles. With respect to stained glass, Montmorency’s itor Mary of Hungary to describe the situation in the following manner: taste for the religious form of the medium found expression at the church of Ecouen, as well as the collégiale at Montmorency, where members of his fam- As for the government of the court, Madame d’Etampes has more credit than ever.