.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The present painting is a version of a larger sketch by David, now in the Louvre (MI 1050), that was almost certainly made in preparation for a full portrait that the artist was never to execute. The attribution to David of the Louvre sketch has never been in doubt, but questions about the authorship of the present, virtually identical, sketch have been raised. Philippe Bordes challenged the traditional attribution of the Cailleux sketch and ascribed it to one of the artist's gifted pupils, while its attribution to David has, at least tentatively, been retained by Schnapper (loc. cit., 1989). Although, when compared to the Louvre sketch, the present work lacks the surety of the master's touch in certain passages, for example in the outlines of the jacket, one should perhaps see it as a collaboration between David and an anonymous pupil, particularly as it is known that he would often retouch copies of his own works that had been made by studio assistants.
The early history of the two sketches also raises some interesting questions, which have yet to be fully answered. The present work was on the same canvas as another portrait sketch - that of the Prior of the Marne (now in the Museum of Versailles) - as late as 1928, when the two were offered together for sale (see provenance above), and after which time the canvas was cut and the paintings separated. Given the connection between the two works, it is possible that they were the pair mentioned in the inventory of David's estate of 26 February 1826 and offered for sale later that year as nos. 20 and 20bis, 'Prieur de la Marne' and 'Kervelgand ancien maire de Nantes'- titles which correspond to the inscriptions on both sketches. However it must be conceded that the two prices recorded for lots 20 and 20bis, indicates that the portraits sold under these lot numbers were individual works and thus to be identified with the larger sketch now in the Louvre and, possibly, a second sketch of the Prior of the Marne, currently in the Museum of Besanon (see Ph. Bordes and A. Schnapper, op. cit.).
The present sketch is identical in style and format to portrait studies made in preparation for David's monumental, unfinished painting dedicated to The Oath of the Tennis Court (1789), one of the artist's principal commissions during the Revolutionary period. However, the subject of the sketch does not appear in the fragmentary remains of The Oath, or in compositonal drawings for the final project, a fact which led to the supposition that the sketch might have been a rejected study for that major work.
The identity of the sitter, too, has caused some debate, due principally to the fact that the inscription on the present work is most likely incorrect, as it was probably added by Prignon, a cataloguer, when he drew up the inventory of the artist's estate some thirty-six years after the sketch was made. Successive identifications have passed from Bailly, the Mayor of Paris in 1789, to Kervelegan, an obscure Breton deputy, and then, in 1981, to Filippo Mazzei, an American patriot of Italian descent who became a friend of the artist when in Paris between 1785-1791 (see Ph. Bordes, op. cit., 1981).
However the publication, in 1983, of three portraits of one Danyel de Kervegan, Mayor of Nantes from 22 August 1789 to 30 November 1791, in an article by Claude Cosneau (Un grand project de J.L. David (1789-1790) - L'Art et la revolution a Nantes, in Revue du Louvre, no. 4, 1983) would seem to have finally settled the matter. Although seen in profile in all three works, the sitter's features are very close to those in the present sketch. Additionally, the similarity of the name to that of Kervelegan would explain the erroneous inscription. Furthermore, David is known to have been in Nantes in the spring of 1790 working on various commissions for the local council, one of which was a portrait of the current mayor. However, the affair ended badly, with the artist petitioning for compensation on 1 July 1792. The claim itself included 'cinquante louis pour le portrait de M. Kervegan que je renverrai a la municipalite', and it is this which explains why a finished portrait of Kervegan was never produced.
In a neoclassical carved giltwood frame, with egg-and-dart outer edge, fluted center and stiff leaf sight edge.
The early history of the two sketches also raises some interesting questions, which have yet to be fully answered. The present work was on the same canvas as another portrait sketch - that of the Prior of the Marne (now in the Museum of Versailles) - as late as 1928, when the two were offered together for sale (see provenance above), and after which time the canvas was cut and the paintings separated. Given the connection between the two works, it is possible that they were the pair mentioned in the inventory of David's estate of 26 February 1826 and offered for sale later that year as nos. 20 and 20bis, 'Prieur de la Marne' and 'Kervelgand ancien maire de Nantes'- titles which correspond to the inscriptions on both sketches. However it must be conceded that the two prices recorded for lots 20 and 20bis, indicates that the portraits sold under these lot numbers were individual works and thus to be identified with the larger sketch now in the Louvre and, possibly, a second sketch of the Prior of the Marne, currently in the Museum of Besanon (see Ph. Bordes and A. Schnapper, op. cit.).
The present sketch is identical in style and format to portrait studies made in preparation for David's monumental, unfinished painting dedicated to The Oath of the Tennis Court (1789), one of the artist's principal commissions during the Revolutionary period. However, the subject of the sketch does not appear in the fragmentary remains of The Oath, or in compositonal drawings for the final project, a fact which led to the supposition that the sketch might have been a rejected study for that major work.
The identity of the sitter, too, has caused some debate, due principally to the fact that the inscription on the present work is most likely incorrect, as it was probably added by Prignon, a cataloguer, when he drew up the inventory of the artist's estate some thirty-six years after the sketch was made. Successive identifications have passed from Bailly, the Mayor of Paris in 1789, to Kervelegan, an obscure Breton deputy, and then, in 1981, to Filippo Mazzei, an American patriot of Italian descent who became a friend of the artist when in Paris between 1785-1791 (see Ph. Bordes, op. cit., 1981).
However the publication, in 1983, of three portraits of one Danyel de Kervegan, Mayor of Nantes from 22 August 1789 to 30 November 1791, in an article by Claude Cosneau (Un grand project de J.L. David (1789-1790) - L'Art et la revolution a Nantes, in Revue du Louvre, no. 4, 1983) would seem to have finally settled the matter. Although seen in profile in all three works, the sitter's features are very close to those in the present sketch. Additionally, the similarity of the name to that of Kervelegan would explain the erroneous inscription. Furthermore, David is known to have been in Nantes in the spring of 1790 working on various commissions for the local council, one of which was a portrait of the current mayor. However, the affair ended badly, with the artist petitioning for compensation on 1 July 1792. The claim itself included 'cinquante louis pour le portrait de M. Kervegan que je renverrai a la municipalite', and it is this which explains why a finished portrait of Kervegan was never produced.
In a neoclassical carved giltwood frame, with egg-and-dart outer edge, fluted center and stiff leaf sight edge.