It is delightful to approach thus to a being that I have always been accustomed to contemplate as something in the clouds. Admirable and amiable as my charming new acquaintance is in a hundred ways, her past intimacy and ever-enduring affection for Madame de Staël have given her a still higher interest in my eyes.
LETTER XXXI.
Exhibition of Sèvres China at the Louvre. — Gobelins and Beauvais Tapestry. — Legitimatist Father and Doctrinaire Son. — Copies from the Medicean Gallery.
We are just returned from an exhibition at the Louvre; and a very splendid exhibition it is — though, alas! but a poor consolation for the hidden treasures of the picture-gallery. Several magnificent rooms are now open for the display of works in tapestry and Sèvres porcelain; and however much we might have preferred seeing something else there, it is impossible to deny that these rooms contain many objects as wonderful perhaps in their way as any that the higher branches of art ever produced.
The copy of Titian’s portrait of his mistress, on porcelain, and still more perhaps that of Raphaël’s “Virgin and St. John watching the sleep of the infant Jesus,” (the Parce somnum rumpere,) are, I think, the most remarkable; both being of the same size as the originals, and performed with a perfection of colouring that is almost inconceivable.
That the fragile clay of which porcelain is fabricated should so lend itself to the skill of the workman, — or rather, that the workman’s skill should so triumph over the million chances which exist against bringing unbroken out of the fire a smooth and level plaque of such extent, — is indeed most wonderful. Still more so is the skill which has enabled the artist to prophesy, as he painted with his greys and his greens, that the tints which flowed from his pencil of one colour, should assume, from the nicely-regulated action of an element the most difficult to govern, hues and shades so exquisitely imitative of his great original.
But having acknowledged this, I have nothing more to say in praise of a tour de force which, in my opinion, can only be attempted by the sacrifice of common sense. The chefs-d’oeuvre of a Titian or a Raphaël are treasures of which we may lawfully covet an imitation; but why should it be attempted in a manner the most difficult, the most laborious, the most likely to fail, and the most liable to destruction when completed? — not to mention that, after all, there is in the most perfect copy on porcelain a something — I am mistress of no words to define it — which does not satisfy the mind.
As far as regards my own feelings indeed, I could go farther, and say that the effect produced is to a certain degree positively disagreeable, — not quite unlike that occasioned by examining needlework performed without fingers, or watch-papers exquisitely cut out by feet instead of hands. The admiration demanded is less for the thing itself, than for the very defective means employed to produce it. Were there indeed none other, the inventor would deserve a statue, and the artist, like Trisotin, should take the air “en carrosse doré:” but as it is, I would rather see a good copy on canvass than on china.
Far different, however, is the effect produced by this beautiful and ingenious branch of art when displayed in the embellishment of cups and plates, vases and tea-trays. I never saw anything more gracefully appropriate to the last high finish of domestic elegance than all the articles of this description exhibited this year at the Louvre. It is impossible to admire or to praise them too much; or to deny that, wonderfully as similar manufactories have improved in England within the last thirty years, we have still nothing equal to the finer specimens of the Sèvres porcelain.
These rooms were, like every other place in Paris where human beings know that they shall meet each other, extremely full of company; and I have certainly never seen such ecstasy of admiration produced by any objects exhibited to the public eye, as was elicited by some of the articles displayed on this occasion: they are indeed most beautiful; the form, the material, the workmanship, all perfect.
The Sèvres manufactory must, I think, have some individuals attached to it who have made the theory of colour an especial study. It is worth while to walk round the vast table, or rather platform, raised in the middle of the apartment, for the purpose of examining the different sets, with a view only to observe the effect produced on the eye by the arrangement of colours in each.
The finest specimens, after the wonderful copies from pictures which I have already mentioned, are small breakfast-sets — for a tête-à-tête, I believe, — enclosed in large cases lined either with white satin or white velvet. These cases are all open for inspection, but with a stout brass bar around, to protect them from the peril of too near an approach. The lid is so formed as exactly to receive the tray; while the articles to be placed upon it, when in use, are arranged each in its own delicate recess, with such an attention to composition and general effect as to show all and everything to the greatest possible advantage.
Some of these exquisite specimens are decorated with flowers, some with landscapes, and others with figures, or miniatures of heads, either superlative in beauty or distinguished by fame. These beautiful decorations, admirable as they all are in design and execution, struck me less than the perfect taste with which the reigning colour which pervades each set, either as background, lining, or border, is made to harmonize with the ornaments upon it.
It is a positive pleasure, independent of the amusement which may be derived from a closer examination, to cast the eye over the general effect produced by the consummate taste and skill thus displayed. Those curious affinities and antipathies among colours, which I have seen made the subject of many pretty experimental lectures, must, I am sure, have been studied and acted upon by the colour-master of each department; and the result is to my feelings productive of a pleasure, from the contemplation of the effect produced, as distinct from the examination of the design, or of any other circumstance connected with the art, as the gratification produced by the smell of an orange-blossom or a rose: it is a pleasure which has no connexion with the intellect, but arises solely from its agreeable effect on the sense.
The eye seems to be unconsciously soothed and gratified, and lingers upon the rich, the soft, or the brilliant hues, with a satisfaction that positively amounts to enjoyment.
Whoever may be occupied by the “delightful task” of fitting up a sumptuous drawing-room, will do well to take a tour round a room filled with sets of Sèvres porcelain. The important question of “What colours shall we mix?” would receive an answer there, with the delightful certainty that no solecism in taste could possibly be committed by obeying it.
The Gobelins and Beauvais work for chairs, screens, cushions, and various other articles, makes a great display this year. It is very beautiful, both in design and execution; and at the present moment, when the stately magnificence of the age of Louis Quinze is so much in vogue — in compliment, it is said, to the taste of the Duc d’Orléans, — this costly manufacture is likely again to flourish.
Never can a large and lofty chamber present an appearance of more princely magnificence than when thus decorated; and the manner in which this elaborate style of ancient embellishment is now adopted to modern use, is equally ingenious and elegant.
Some political economists talk of the national advantage of decreasing labour by machinery, while others advocate every fashion which demands the work of hands. I will not attempt to decide on which side wisdom lies; but, in our present imperfect condition, everything that brings an innocent and profitable occupation to women appears to me desirable.
The needles of France are assuredly the most skilful in the world; and set to work as they are upon designs that rival those of the Vatican in elegance, they produce a perfection of embroidery that sets all competition at defiance.
In pursuing my way along the rail which encloses the specimens exhibited — a progress which was necessarily very slow from the pressure of the crowd, — I followed close behind a tall, elegant, aristocratic-looking gentleman, who was accompanied by his son — decidedly his son, — the boy “fathered himself;” I nev
er saw a stronger likeness. Their conversation, which I overheard by no act of impertinent listening, but because I could not possibly avoid it, amused me much. I am seldom thrown into such close contact with strangers without making a fancy-sketch of who and what they are; but upon this occasion I was thrown out, — it was like reading a novel, the dénouement of which is so well concealed as to evade guessing. The boy and his father were not of one mind; their observations were made in the spirit of different parties: the father, I suspect, was a royalist, — the son, I am sure, was a young doctrinaire. The crowd hung long upon the spot where a magnificent collection of embroidery for the seats and backs of a set of chairs was displayed. “They are for the Duke of Orleans,” said the father.
“Yes, yes,” said the boy; “they are fit for him — they are princely.”
“They are fit for a king!” said the father with a sigh.
The lad paused for a moment, and then said, avec intention, as the stage directions express it, “Mais lui aussi, il est fils de St. Louis; n’est-ce pas?” The father answered not, and the crowd moved on.
All I could make of this was, that the boy’s instructor, whether male or female, was a faithful disciple of the “PARCEQU’il est Bourbon” school; and whatever leaven of wavering faith may be mixed up with this doctrine, it forms perhaps the best defence to be found for attachment to the reigning dynasty amongst those who are too young to enter fully into the expediency part of the question.
In the last of the suite of rooms opened for this exhibition, are displayed splendid pieces of tapestry from subjects taken from Rubens’ Medicean Gallery.
That the achievement of these enormous combinations of stitches must have been a labour of extreme difficulty, there can be no doubt; but notwithstanding my admiration for French needles, I am tempted to add, in the words of our uncompromising moralist, “Would it had been impossible!”
LETTER XXXII.
Eglise Apostolique Française. — Its doctrine. — L’Abbé Auzou. — His Sermon on “les Plaisirs Populaires.”
Among the multitude of friendly injunctions to see this, and to hear that, which have produced me so much agreeable occupation, I have more than once been very earnestly recommended to visit the “Eglise Apostolique Française” on the Boulevard St. Denis, for the purpose of hearing l’Abbé Auzou, and still more, that I might have an opportunity of observing the peculiarities of this mode of worship, or rather of doctrine; for, in fact, the ceremonies at the altar differ but little, as far as I can perceive, from those of the Church of Rome, excepting that the evident poverty of the establishment precludes the splendour which usually attends the performance of its offices. I have no very satisfactory data by which to judge of the degree of estimation in which this new sect is held: by some I have heard them spoken of as apostles, and by others as a Paria caste unworthy of any notice.
Before hearing M. L’Abbé Auzou, or attending the service at his church, I wished to read some of the publications which explain their tenets, and accordingly called at the little bureau behind their chapel on the Boulevard St. Denis, where we were told these publications could be found. Having purchased several pamphlets containing catechism, hymns, sermons, and so forth, we entered into conversation with the young man who presided in this obscure and dark closet, dignified by the name of “Secrétariat de l’Eglise Apostolique Française.”
He told us that he was assistant minister of the chapel, and we found him extremely conversible and communicative.
The chief differences between this new church and those which have preceded it in the reform of the Roman Catholic religion, appears to consist in the preservation of the external forms of worship, which other reformers have rejected, and also of several dogmas, purely doctrinal, and wholly unconnected with those principles of church power and church discipline, the abuse of which was the immediate cause of all protestant reform.
They acknowledge the real presence. I find in the Catéchisme these questions and answers:
“Jésus-Christ est-il sous le pain, ou bien sous le vin? — Il est sous les deux espèces à la fois.
“Et quand l’hostie est partagée? — Jésus-Christ est tout entier en chaque partie.
“Que faut-il faire pendant le jour où l’on a communié? — Assister aux offices, et ensuite se réjouir de son bonheur avec ses parens et ses amis.”
* * * * *
Their clergy are permitted to marry. They deny that any power of absolution rests with the priest, allowing him only that of intercession by prayer for the forgiveness of the penitent. Auricular confession is not enjoined, but recommended as useful to children. They profess entire toleration to every variety of Christian belief; but as the “Eglise Française” refuses to acknowledge dependance upon any secte étrangère, — by which phrase I conceive the Church of Rome to be meant, — they also declare, “d’après l’Evangile, que la religion ne doit jamais intervenir dans les gouvernemens temporels.”
They recognise the seven sacraments, only modifying that of penitence, as above mentioned. They deny the eternity of punishment, but I find no mention of purgatory. They do not enjoin fasting. I find in the Catéchisme the following explanation of their doctrine on this head, which appears to be extremely reasonable.
“L’Eglise Française n’impose donc pas le jeûne et l’abstinence? — Non; l’Eglise Apostolique Française s’en rapporte pour le jeûne aux fidèles eux-mêmes, et ne reconnaît en aucune façon le précepte de l’abstinence; mais, plus prudente dans ses principes, elle substitue à un jeûne de quelques jours une sobriété continuelle, et remplace une abstinence périodique par une tempérance de chaque jour, de chaque année, de toute la vie.”
In all this there appears little in doctrine, excepting the admission of the divine presence in the elements of the eucharist, that differs greatly from most other reformed churches: nevertheless, the ceremonies are entirely similar to those of the Roman Catholic religion.
But whatever there may be either of good or of evil in this mixture, its effect must, I think, prove absolutely nugatory on society, from the entire absence of any church government or discipline whatever. That this is in fact the case, is thus plainly stated in the preface to their published Catechism: —
“L’Eglise Apostolique Française ne reconnaît aucune hiérarchie; elle repousse en conséquence l’autorité de tout pouvoir spirituel étranger, et de tout autre pouvoir qui en dépend ou qui s’y soumet. Elle ne reconnaît d’autre autorité spirituelle que celle qu’exercerait la réunion de ses fidèles; réunion qui, suivant les principes des apôtres, constitue seule ce que de leur temps on appelait EGLISE.
“Elle n’est point salariée par l’état. L’administration de ses secours spirituels est gratuite. Elle n’a de tarif, ni pour les baptêmes, ni pour les mariages, ni enfin pour les inhumations. Elle vit de peu, et s’en remet à la générosité, ou plutôt à la volonté, des fidèles.
“Ne reconnaissant pas d’hiérarchie, elle ne reconnaît pas non plus de division de territoire, soit en arrondissement, soit en paroisse: elle accueille donc tous les Chrétiens qui se présentent à elle pour mander à ses prêtres l’accomplissement des fonctions de ministres de Jésus-Christ.”
* * * * *
The décousu principles of the day can hardly be carried farther than this. A rope of sand is the only fitting emblem for a congregation so constituted; and, like a rope of sand, it must of necessity fall asunder, for there is no principle of union to prevent it.
After I had finished my studies on the subject, I heard a sermon preached in the church, — not, however, by M. l’Abbé Auzou, who was ill, but by the same person with whom we had conversed at the Secrétariat. His sermon was a strong exposition of the abuses practised by the clergy of the Church of Rome, — a theme certainly more fertile than new.
In reading some of the most celebrated discourses of the Abbé Auzou, I was the most struck with one entitled— “Discours sur les Plaisirs Populaires, les Bals, et les Spectacles.” The text is from St.
Matthew,— “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest ... for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
In this singular discourse, among some things that are reasonable, and more that are plausible, it is impossible to avoid seeing a spirit of lawless uncontrol, which seems to breathe more of revolution than of piety.
I am no advocate for a Judaical observance of the Sabbath, nor am I ignorant of the fearful abuses which have arisen from man’s daring to arrogate to himself a power vested in God alone, — the power of forgiving the sins of man. The undue authority assumed by the sovereign pontiff of Rome is likewise sufficiently evident, as are many other abuses justly reprobated in the sermons of the Abbé Auzou. Nevertheless, education, observation, and I might say experience, have taught me that religion requires and demands that care, protection, and government which are so absolutely essential to the well-being of every community of human beings who would unite together for one general object. To talk of a self-governing church, is just as absurd as to talk of a self-governing ship, or a self-governing family.
It should seem, by the reprobation expressed against the severity of the Roman Catholic clergy in these sermons, as well as from anecdotes which I have occasionally heard in society, that the Church of Rome and the Church of Calvin are alike hostile to every kind of dissipation, and that at the present moment they have many points of discipline in common — at least as respects the injunctions laid upon their congregations respecting their private conduct.
Collected Works of Frances Trollope Page 529
