Artykuły w czasopismach na temat „Arts décoratifs – France – 1800-”

A small, anonymous grisaille(Figure 1)from the collection of the Musée des Arts Décoratifs in Paris is among the more familiar images of seventeenth-century French theatre history. It depicts Cardinal Richelieu, Louis XIII, and other members of the royal family at the theatre. The setting for the scene is the Grande Salle of Richelieu's Parisian home, the Palais Cardinal. Designed by the palace architect Jacques Lemercier and completed in 1641, this theatre was among the first purpose-built proscenium theatres in France. In the 1660s it became the site of the public performances of Molière's most successful plays; after the playwright's death, it housed the Paris Opéra until a fire destroyed it in 1763.

The French museum world is dominated by large public institution. The cradle of public museology, France boasts a long-standing tradition of central management in this domain, whose continuation can be found in the current legislative solutions (Act of 4 January 2002) organizing the system of museum activity, their approval, and financing modes. It is all based on the musée de France status that can be granted to institutions owned either by the state or to any other legal entity under public law or legal entity under private law engaged in a non-profit activity. The latter, belonging to associations and foundations, or run by them, in order to win the state’s recognition and support, have to comply with specific requirements defined in particular with respect to conservation and scientific elaboration of the collections, as well as to making them available for public viewing. What dominates among ‘private’ museums are institutions of the public benefit organization status, whose model was shaped in the 19th century, e.g. the Paris Union Centrale des Arts Décoratifs or Cinémathèque Française, to a substantial degree financed with public resources. Some of them, e.g. ecomuseums and industrial museums in Mulhouse, are almost self-sufficient financially. Another form of a ‘private’ museum is a foundation set up by a company/ concern or artists and patrons. The latter group includes institutions that are owned by e.g. Institut de France in Paris, Musée Calvet in Avignon, or Fondation Maeght in Saint-Paul-de-Vence, as well as first of all those involved in mounting big Paris exhibitions, foundations – museums of modern art: Fondation Cartier, Fondation Louis Vuitton, or Collection Pinault which is currently being established. Thanks to their spectacular architectural settings, aggressive publicity policy, and astounding turn-out successes, these new private museums are substantially transforming the artistic stage in France.

AbstractThis article argues that the early nineteenth century was a critical period in the development of operatic aesthetics in France: fuelled by post-Revolutionary notions about theatre's importance in processes of nation-building, the Opéra sought to strengthen its reputation as the ‘Académie that unites all the arts’. The intertwinement of this aesthetic and political aim is conspicuous in the production of Jean-François Le Sueur's Ossian ou les bardes (1804), loosely based on James Macpherson's Ossianic ‘translations’. The work's meticulous coordination of the arts sought to bring third-century bardic society back to life and make audiences feel part of this long-forgotten, supposedly ‘historical’ and French, past. Thus, this article points to the Opéra's intensifying interaction with nationalism and genealogical historiography around 1800 as it sought to define its role as a national theatre. It also challenges the common scholarly notion that the Opéra's productions served primarily to aggrandise Napoleon.

The Upper Saintonge region of western France was one of the primary production centres for the supply of exotic pottery to Britain and northern Europe between the thirteenth and the eighteenth centuries. The principal manufacturing sites were rural workshops in the parishes neighbouring La Chapelle-des-Pots, on the wooded, limestone plateau north east of Saintes and some fifty kilometres down the river Charente from the maritime port of La Rochelle. The expansion of rural industries, producing for extra-regional markets, was a Europe-wide phenomenon between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. The theory of proto-industrialisation has been used to explain this process. It has been argued that regionally-dense, rural industries grew up as urban merchants sought cheap production methods to profit from growing overseas demand for manufactured goods, especially textiles and metals. By the later eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, the participation of large numbers of country people in industrial work altered traditional regional demographic and agrarian regimes, resulting in population growth, land-holding fragmentation and the creation of mercantile profit. This provided labour, finance and motive for a ‘second phase’ in the transition from feudal to capitalist economic relations in some regions of Europe and fully-developed industrialisation in others.

AbstractThe nucleus of the collection of paintings in the Mauritshuis around 130 pictures - came from the hereditary stadholder Prince William v. It is widely believed to have become, the property of the State at the beginning of the 19th century, but how this happened is still. unclear. A hand-written notebook on this subject, compiled in 1876 by - the director Jonkheer J. K. L. de Jonge is in the archives of the Mauritshuis Note 4). On this basis a clnsor systematic and chronological investigation has been carried out into the stadholder's. property rights in respect of his collectcons and the changes these underwent between 1795 and 1816. Royal decrees and other documents of the period 1814- 16 in particular giae a clearer picture of whal look place. 0n 18 January 1795 William V (Fig. 2) left the Netherlands and fled to England. On 22 January the Dutch Republic was occupied by French armies. Since France had declared war on the stadholder, the ownership of all his propergy in the Netherlands, passed to France, in accordance with the laws of war of the time. His famous art collections on the Builerth of in. The Hague were taken to Paris, but the remaining art objects, distributed over his various houses, remained in the Netherlands. On 16 May 1795 the French concluded a treaty with the Batavian Republic, recognizing it as an independent power. All the properties of William v in the Netehrlands but not those taken to France, were made over to the Republic (Note 14), which proceeded to sell objects from the collections, at least seven sales taking place until 1798 (Note 15). A plan was then evolved to bring the remaining treasures together in a museum in emulation of the French. On the initiative of J. A. Gogel, the Nationale Konst-Galerij', the first national museum in the .Netherlands, was estahlished in The Hague and opened to the public on ,31 May 1800. Nothing was ever sold from lhe former stadholder's library and in 1798 a Nationale Bibliotheek was founded as well. In 1796, quite soon after the French had carried off the Stadholder, possessions to Paris or made them over to the Batavian Republic, indemnification was already mentioned (Note 19). However, only in the Trealy of Amiens of 180 and a subaequent agreement, between France ararl Prussia of 1 802, in which the Prince of Orarage renounced his and his heirs' rights in the Netherlands, did Prussia provide a certain compensation in the form of l.artds in Weslphalia and Swabia (Note 24) - William v left the management of these areas to the hereditary prince , who had already been involved in the problems oncerning his father's former possessions. In 1804 the Balavian Republic offered a sum of five million guilders 10 plenipotentiaries of the prince as compensation for the sequestrated titles and goods, including furniture, paintings, books and rarities'. This was accepted (Notes 27, 28), but the agreement was never carried out as the Batavian Republic failed to ratify the payment. In the meantime the Nationale Bibliolkeek and the Nationale Konst-Galerij had begun to develop, albeit at first on a small scale. The advent of Louis Napoleon as King of Hollarad in 1806 brought great changes. He made a start on a structured art policy. In 1806 the library, now called `Royal', was moved to the Mauritshuis and in 1808 the collectiorts in The Hague were transferred to Amsterdam, where a Koninklijk Museum was founded, which was housed in the former town hall. This collection was subsequertly to remain in Amsterdam, forming the nucleus of the later Rijksmuseum. The library too was intended to be transferred to Amsterdam, but this never happened and it remained in the Mauritshuis until 1819. Both institutions underwent a great expansion in the period 1806-10, the library's holdings increasing from around 10,000 to over 45,000 books and objects, while the museum acquired a number of paintings, the most important being Rembrandt's Night Watch and Syndics, which were placed in the new museum by the City of Amsterdam in 1808 (Note 44). In 1810 the Netherlands was incorporated into France. In the art field there was now a complete standstill and in 1812 books and in particular prints (around 11,000 of them) were again taken from The Hague to Paris. In November 1813 the French dominion was ended and on 2 December the hereditary prince, William Frederick, was declared sovereign ruler. He was inaugurated as constitutional monarch on 30 March 1814. On January 3rd the provisional council of The Hague had already declared that the city was in (unlawful' possession of a library, a collection of paintings, prints and other objects of art and science and requested the king tot take them back. The war was over and what had been confiscated from William under the laws of war could now be given back, but this never happened. By Royal Decree of 14 January 1814 Mr. ( later Baron) A. J. C. Lampsins (Fig. I ) was commissioned to come to an understanding with the burgomaster of The Hague over this transfer, to bring out a report on the condition of the objects and to formulate a proposal on the measures to be taken (Note 48). On 17 January Lampsins submitted a memorandum on the taking over of the Library as the private property of His Royal Highness the Sovereign of the United Netherlartds'. Although Lampsins was granted the right to bear the title 'Interim Director of the Royal Library' by a Royal Decree of 9 February 1814, William I did not propose to pay The costs himself ; they were to be carried by the Home Office (Note 52). Thus he left the question of ownership undecided. On 18 April Lampsins brought out a detailed report on all the measures to be taken (Appendix IIa ) . His suggestion was that the objects, formerly belonging to the stadholder should be removed from the former royal museum, now the Rijksmuseum, in Amsterdam and to return the 'Library', as the collectiort of books, paintings and prints in The Hague was called, to the place where they had been in 1795. Once again the king's reaction was not very clear. Among other things, he said that he wanted to wait until it was known how extensive the restitution of objects from Paris would be and to consider in zvhich scholarly context the collections would best, fit (Note 54) . While the ownership of the former collections of Prince William I was thus left undecided, a ruling had already been enacted in respect of the immovable property. By the Constitution of 1814, which came into effect on 30 March, the king was granted a high income, partly to make up for the losses he had sulfered. A Royal Decree of 22 January 1815 does, however, imply that William had renounced the right to his, father's collections, for he let it be known that he had not only accepted the situation that had developed in the Netherlands since 1795, but also wished it to be continued (Note 62). The restitution of the collections carried off to France could only be considered in its entirety after the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June 1815- This was no simple matter, but in the end most, though not all, of the former possessions of William V were returned to the Netherlands. What was not or could not be recovered then (inc.uding 66 paintings, for example) is still in France today (Note 71)- On 20 November 1815 127 paintings, including Paulus Potter's Young Bull (Fig. 15), made a ceremonial entry into The Hague. But on 6 October, before anything had actually been returned, it had already been stipulated by Royal Decree that the control of the objects would hence forlh be in the hands of the State (Note 72). Thus William I no longer regarded his father's collections as the private property of the House of Orange, but he did retain the right to decide on the fulure destiny of the... painting.s and objects of art and science'. For the time being the paintings were replaced in the Gallery on the Buitenhof, from which they had been removed in 1795 (Note 73). In November 1815 the natural history collection was made the property of Leiden University (Note 74), becoming the basis for the Rijksmuseum voor Natuurlijke Historie, The print collection, part of the Royal Library in The Hague, was exchanged in May 1816 for the national collectiort of coins and medals, part of the Rijksmuseum. As of 1 Jufy 1816 directors were appointed for four different institutions in The Hague, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (with the Koninklijk Penningkabinet ) , the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen and the Yoninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden (Note 80) . From that time these institutions led independenl lives. The king continued to lake a keen interest in them and not merely in respect of collecting Their accommodation in The Hague was already too cramped in 1816. By a Royal Decree of 18 May 1819 the Hotel Huguetan, the former palace of the. crown prince on Lange Voorhout, was earmarked for the Koninklijke Bibliotheek and the Koninklijk Penningkabinet (Note 87) . while at the king's behest the Mauritshuis, which had been rented up to then, was bought by the State on 27 March 1820 and on IO July allotted to the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen and the Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden (Note 88). Only the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen is still in the place assigned to it by William and the collection has meanwhile become so identified with its home that it is generally known as the Mauritshui.s'. William i's most important gift was made in July 1816,just after the foundation of the four royal institutions, when he had deposited most of the objects that his father had taken first to England and later to Oranienstein in the Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden. The rarities (Fig. 17), curios (Fig. 18) and paintings (Fig. 19), remained there (Note 84), while the other art objects were sorted and divided between the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (the manuscripts and books) and the koninklijk Penningkabinet (the cameos and gems) (Note 85). In 1819 and 182 the king also gave the Koninklijke Bibliotheek an important part of the Nassau Library from the castle at Dillenburg. Clearly he is one of the European monarchs who in the second half of the 18th and the 19th century made their collectiorts accessible to the public, and thus laid the foundatinns of many of today's museums. But William 1 also made purchases on behalf of the institutions he had created. For the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, for example, he had the 'Tweede Historiebijbel', made in Utrecht around 1430, bought in Louvain in 1829 for 1, 134 guilders (Pigs.30,3 I, Note 92). For the Koninkijk Penningkabinet he bought a collection of 62 gems and four cameos , for ,50,000 guilders in 1819. This had belonged to the philosopher Frans Hemsterhuis, the keeper of his father's cabinet of antiquities (Note 95) . The most spectacular acquisition. for the Penninukabinet., however, was a cameo carved in onyx, a late Roman work with the Triumph of Claudius, which the king bought in 1823 for 50,000 guilders, an enormous sum in those days. The Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamhedert also received princely gifts. In 1821- the so-called doll's house of Tzar Peter was bought out of the king's special funds for 2.800 guilders (Figs.33, 34, ,Note 97) , while even in 1838, when no more money was available for art, unnecessary expenditure on luxury' the Von Siebold ethnographical collection was bought at the king's behest for over 55,000 guilders (Note 98). The Koninklijk Kabinel van Schilderyen must have been close to the hearl of the king, who regarded it as an extension of the palace (Notes 99, 100) . The old master paintings he acquzred for it are among the most important in the collection (the modern pictures, not dealt with here, were transferred to the Paviljoen Welgelegen in Haarlem in 1838, Note 104). For instance, in 1820 he bought a portrait of Johan Maurice of Nassau (Fig.35)., while in 1822, against the advice of the then director, he bought Vermeer' s View of Delft for 2,900 guilders (Fig.36, Note 105) and in 1827 it was made known, from Brussels that His Majesty had recommended the purchase of Rogier van der Weyden's Lamentation (Fig.37) . The most spectacular example of the king's love for 'his' museum, however, is the purchase in 1828 of Rembrandt's Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp for 32,000 guilders. The director of the Rijksmuseum, C. Apostool, cortsidered this Rembrandt'sfinest painting and had already drawn attention to it in 1817, At the king'.s behest the picture, the purchase of which had been financed in part by the sale of a number of painlings from. the Rijksmuseum, was placed in the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen in The Hague. On his accession King William I had left the art objects which had become state propery after being ceded by the French to the Batavian Republic in 1795 as they were. He reclaimed the collections carried off to France as his own property, but it can be deduced from the Royal Decrees of 1815 and 1816 that it Was his wish that they should be made over to the State, including those paintings that form the nucleus of the collection in the Mauritshuis. In addition, in 1816 he handed over many art objects which his father had taken with him into exile. His son, William II, later accepted this, after having the matter investigated (Note 107 and Appendix IV). Thus William I'S munificence proves to have been much more extensive than has ever been realized.

AbstractAs was the case with silversmiths (Note 3), many more cabinet-makers were wcrking in Amsterdam during the second half of the 18th century than in any other city in the Dutch Republic, the names of 195 of them being now known as opposed to 57 in The Hague and 32 in Rotterdam (Note 2). Most of those 195 names have been culled from the few surviving documents of the Guild of St. Joseph in Amsterdam, to which the cabinet-makers belonged (Note 4), supplemented by other sources, such as printed registers of craftsmen and shopkeepers (Note 6). Another important source is the newspaper the Amsterdamsche Courant with its advertisements placed by craftsmen themselves, with notices of sales, bankruptcies, lotteries and annual fairs and with advertisements concerning subsidiary or related trades. Since these advertisements were directed at the consumer, they often contain stylistic descriptions such as are not found elsewhere. Moreover, they aford valuable clues to archival material. Hence an investigation of all the advertisements from the years 1751-1800 has formed the basis for a study of Amsterdam cabinet-making, some results of which are presented here. Such a study is doomed largely to remain theoretical. The records can hardly ever be linked with surviving pieces, as these are virtually always anonymous since Amsterdam cabinet-makers were not required to stamp or sign their work. Moreover, only a few pieces of Dutch 18th-century furniture have a known provenance, so that it is only rarely possible to link a piece with a bill or another document and identify its maker. Thus it is not yet possible to form a reliable picture of a local Amsterdam style, let alone embark on attributions to individual makers (Note 8). In this light special importance may be attached to two commodes of the third quarter of the century which are exceptional in that they bear a signature, that of Andries Bongen (Figs. 1, 2, Notes 10, 11). These commodes, being entirely French-inspired, illustrate a specific and little-known aspect of Amsterdam cabinet-making. French furniture was so sought after in Amsterdam at that period that in 1771 a strict ban was imposed on its importation in order to protect local cabinet-makers (Note 12). It had begun to be imitated even before that and the commodes by Bongen exemplify this development. Andries Bongen, who was probably born in Geldern, south of Cleves and just east of the border of the Dutch Republic, is first recorded in Amsterdam in May 1763 on his marriage to Willemina, daughter of the smith Lambert van der Beek. He registered as a citizen on 5 July 1763 and became a master cabinet-maker some time between March 1763 and March 1764 (Note 19), so that, accordirtg to the Guild regulations, he must previously have trained for two years under an Amsterdam master (Note 20). At the time of his marriage he was living in St. Jorisstraat, but by the end of 1766 he had moved to Spui and between 1769 and 1771 he moved again, to Muiderpleinlje. When he and his wife made their will in 1772, their possessions were worth something under 8000 guilders (Note 23). This suggests that the business was quite flourishing, which seems to be confirmed by the fact that Bongen received a commission from the city of Amsterdam in 1771. Two more pieces were made for the city in 1786 and 1789, but in the latter year Bongen was declared bankrupt. The inventory of his possessions drawn up then (see Appeytdix) shows how parlous his conditions had become, his goods being valued at only 300 guilders. The reference to a shop indicates that Bongen sold his own furniture, although he had no stock to speak of at that point. The mention of eight work-benches, however, sugests that his output had previously been quite large. This is confirmed by the extent of his debts, notably that to the timber merchant Jan van Mekeren (Note 27). Other creditors included 'Rudolfeus Eyk', who probably supplied iron trelliszvork for bookcases and the like (Note 28), and the glass merchants Boswel en Zonen (Note 29) No debtors are listed and the only customer who can tentatively be identified is a 'Heer Hasselaar' who might be Pieter Cornelis Hasselaer (1720-95), several times burgomaster of Amsterdam between 1773 and 1794 (Note 30). Bongen died three years after his bankruptcy, at which time he was living in Nieuwe Looiersstraat. He appears to have continued working as a cabiytet-maker up to his death and his widow probably carried on the business until her own death in 1808, but nothing is known of this later period. The clearest insight into the character of part of Bongen's output is aforded by the advertisement he placed in the Amsterdamsehe Courant of 4 December 1766, describing three pieces of furniture 'in the French manner'. This is the first announcement by an 18th-century Amsterdam cabinet-maker of work in the French style. Bongen mentions two commodes decorated with floral marquetry, a technique which had flourished in Amsterdam in the late 17th and early 18th centuries (Note 34), but which had largely fallen into disuse on the advent around 1715 of a more sober type of furniture with plain walnut veneers on the English model (Note 36). In France a form of floral marquetry reappeared in the 1740s, being further developed in the following decade under the influence of Jean-François Oeben (1721-63). From the late 1750s there are indications of the presence of pieces of French marquetry furniture in the new style in Amsterdam (Notes 42, 43). The earliest explicit description of floral marquetry appears in a sale catalogue of 5 June 1765 (Note 44), while in another of 25 March 1766 (Note 46) many French pieces are detailed. Obviously, then, Bongen was endeavouring to capture a share, of this new market. The reappearance of elaborate marquetry on Amsterdam-made furniture was the result of a desire to emulate the French examples. The two commodes described in Bongen's advertisement can be identified with the one now in Amsterdam (Fig.2) and the one sold in London in 1947 (Fig.1). The latter still had more of its original mounts at the time nf the sale (Fig. 4) and the two probably formed a pair originally. The unusual fact that they are signed indicates that Bongen intended them to serve as show-pieces to demonstrate his skill at the beginning of his career (cf. Note 51, for another craftsman from abroad who began his career in Amsterdam by similarly advertising a spectacular piece). The commode in Amsterdam, with all its original mounts, demonstrates most clearly how close Bongen came to French prototypes, although his work has many personal traits nonetheless. In the marquetry the vase on a plinth on the front and the composition of the bouquets on the sides are notable (Fig.5), as are the large, full-blown blooms. The carcase, made entirely of oak, is remarkably well constructed and has a heavy, solid character. The commodes are outstanding for the complete integration of the marquetry and the mounts, in the manner of the finesl French furniture. The mounts presenl a problem, as it is not clear where they were made. They do not appear to be French or English, but one hesitates to attribute them to Amsterdam, as it is clear from documentary material that ornamental furniture-mounts were hardly ever made there in the second half of the 18th century. The mounts advertised by Ernst Meyrink in 1752 (Note 53) were probably still of the plain variety of the early part of the century and there is no further mention of mounts made in Amsterdam in the Amsterdamsche Courant. Once, in 1768, the silversmith J. H. Strixner placed an advertisement which refers to their gilding (Note 55). There is virtually no indication either of French mounts being imported and there is little Dutch furniture of this period that bears mounts which are indisputably French. In contrast to this, a large number of advertisements from as early as 1735 show that many mounts were imported from England, while among English manufacturers who came to sell their wares in Amsterdam were Robert Marshall of London (Note 60), James Scott (Note 61), William Tottie of Rotterdam (Note 62), whose business was continued after his death by Klaas Pieter Sent (Note 64), and H. Jelloly, again of Rotterdam (Notes 66, 67). It seems surprising that in a period when the French style reigned supreme so many mounts were imported from England, but the English manufacturers, mainly working in Birmingham, produced many mounts in the French style, probably often directed expressly at foreign markets. On the two commodes by Bongen only the corner mounts and the handles are of types found in the trade-catalogues of the English manufacturers (Figs. 7, 8, Notes 65, 70). The corner mounts are of a common type also found on French furniture (Note 71), so they doubtless copy a French model. The remaining mounts, however, are the ones which are so well integrated with the marquetry and these are not found elsewhere. Recently a third commode signed by Bongen has come to light, of similar character to the first two (Fig.3). Here all the mounts are of types found in the catalogues (Figs.7-10, Note 72). Apparently Bongen could not, or did not choose to, obtain the special mounts any more, although he clearly wanted to follow the same design (Fig. 6). This third commode was undoubtedly made somewhal later than the other two. The marquetry on it is the best preserved and it is possible to see how Bongen enlivened it with fine engraving. Because this piece is less exceptional, it also allows us to attribute some unsigned pieces to Bongen on the basis of their closeness to it, namely a commode sold in London in 1962 (Fig.11, Note 73) and two smaller, simpler commodes, which may originally have formed a pair, one sold in London in 1967 (Fig.12, Nole 74) and the other in a Dutch private collection (Figs.13, 14). The first one has a highly original marquetry decoration of a basket of flowers falling down. On the sides of this piece, and on the front of the two smaller ones, are bouquets tied with ribbons. These were doubtless influenced by contemporary engravings, but no direct models have been identified. The construction of the commode in the Netherlands tallies completely with tltat of the signed example in Amsterdam. The mounts are probably all English, although they have not all been found in English catalogues (Fig.15, Note 76). A seventh commode attributable to Bongen was sold in Switzerland in 1956 (Fig.16, Note 77). It is unusual in that walnut is employed as the background for the floral marquetry, something virtually unknown in Paris, but not uncommon on German work of French inspiration (Note 78). That commodes constitute the largest group among the furniture in the French style attributable to Bongen should cause no surprise, for the commode was the most sought after of all the pieces produced by the ébénistes not only in France, but all over Europe. Two other pieces which reveal Bongen's hand are two tables which look like side-tables, but which have fold-out tops to transform them into card-tables, a type seldom found in France, but common in England and the Netherlands (Note 80). One is at Bowhill in Scotland (Figs.17, 19, 20), the other was sold in London in 1972 (Fig.18, Note 79). The corner mounts on the Bowhill table, which probably also graced the other one originally, are the same as those on the two small commodes, while the handles are again to be found in an English catalogue (Fig.21, Note 81). What sounds like a similar card-table was sold at auction in Amsterdam in 1772 (Note 82). In Bongen's advertisement of 1766 mention is also made of a secretaire, this being the first appearance of this term in the Amsterdamsche Courant and Bongen finding it necessary to define it. No secretaire is known that can be attributed to him. A medal-cabinet in the form of a secretaire in Leiden (Figs.22, 23) hasfloral marquetry somewhat reminiscent of his work, but lacking its elegance, liveliness and equilibrium. Here the floral marquetry is combined with trompe l'oeil cubes and an interlaced border, early Neo-Classical elements which were first employed in France in the 1750s, so that this piece represents a later stage than those attributable to Bongen, which are all in a pure Louis xvstyle. Virtually identical in form to the medal-cabinet is a secretaire decorated solely with floral marquetry (Fig. 24, Note 87). This also appears not to be by Bongen, but both pieces may have been made under his influence. The picture we can form of Bongen's work on the basis of the signed commodes is clearly incomplete. His secretaire was decorated with '4 Children representing Trade', an exceptionally modern and original idea in 1766 even by French standards (Note 88). His ambitions in marquetry obviously wentfar beyondflowers, but no piece has yet beenfound which evinces this, nor is anything known of the Neo-Classical work which he may have produced after this style was introduced in Amsterdam around 1770. Bongen may perhaps have been the first Amsterdam cabinet-maker to produce marquetry furniture in the French style, but he was not to remain the only one. In 1771 and 1772 furniture in both the Dutch and French mode was advertised for sale at the Kistenmakerspand in Kalverstraat, where all furniture-makers belonging to the Guild of St. Joseph could sell their wares (Note 89). The 'French' pieces were probably decorated with marquetry. Only a small number of cabinet-makers are known to have worked in this style, however. They include Arnoldus Gerritsen of Rheestraat, who became a master in 1769 and sold his stock, including a 'small French inlaid Commode', in 1772, and Johan Jobst Swenebart (c.1747 - active up to 1806 or later), who became a master in 1774 and advertised in 1775 that he made 'all sorts of choice Cabinet- and Flower-works', the last term referring to furniture decorated with floral marquetry. Not only French types of furniture, but also traditional Dutch pieces were now decorated with French-inspired marquetry,for example a collector's cabinet advertised in 1775 by Johan Jacob Breytspraak (c.1739-95), who had become a master in 1769-70; a bureau-bookcase, a form introduced in the first half of the century probably under English influence (Note 100), exhibited in 1772 (Note 99); and a display cabinet for porcelain supplied, though not necessarily made, by Pieter Uylenburg en Zoon in 1775 (Notes 101, 102). Even long-case clocks were enriched with marquetry, witness the one advertised by the clock-maker J. H. Kühn in 1775 and another by him which was sold by auction in Edam in 1777 (Note 104). The latter was, like the bureau-bookcase exhibited in 1772, decorated with musical instruments, again a motif borrowed from France, where it was used increasingly from the 1760s onwards (Note 105). A clock signed by the Amsterdam clock-maker J. George Grüning also has a case with marquetry of musical instruments. This must date from about 1775-80, but its maker is unknown (Fig. 25, Notes 106, 107). All four of the Amsterdam cabinet-makers known to have done marquetry around 1770 came from Germany and all were then only recently established in Amsterdam. In fact half of the 144 Amsterdam cabinet-makers working in the second half of the 18th century whose origins it has been possible to trace came from Germany, so the German element was even stronger there than in Paris, where Germans comprised about a third of the ébénistes (Note 108) and where they had again played an important role in the revival of marquetry. None qf the four in Amsterdam was exclusively concerned with marquetry. Indeed, for some of them it may only have been a secondary aspect of their work. This was not true of Bongen, but he too made plain pieces, witness the four mahogany gueridons he made for the city of Amsterdam in 1771 or the two cupboards also made for the city in 1786 and 1789 (Notes 111, 112).No marquetry is listed in his inventory either. Perhaps fashions had changed by the time of his bankruptcy. Such scant knowledge as we have of Amsterdam cabinet-making between 1775 and 1785 certainly seems to suggest this. In the descriptions of the prizes for furraiture-lotteries, such as took place regularly from 1773 onwards (Note 114), marquetry is mentioned in 1773 and 1775 (Notes 115, 116), but after that there is no reference to itfor about tenyears. Nor is there any mention of marquetry in the very few cabinet-makers' advertisements of this period. When the clock-maker Kühn again advertised long-case clocks in 1777 and 1785, the cases were of carved mahogany (Notes 121, 122). Certainly in France the popularity of marquetry began to wane shortly before 1780 and developments in the Netherlands were probably influenced by this. Towards the end of the 1780s, however, pieces described as French and others decorated with 'inlaid work' again appear as prizes in lotteries, such as those organized by Johan Frederik Reinbregt (active 1785-95 or later), who came from Hanover (Note 128), and Swenebart. The latter advertised an inlaid mahogany secretaire in 1793 (Note 132) and similar pieces are listed in the announcement of the sale of the stock of Jean-Matthijs Chaisneux (c.1734-92), one of a small group of French upholsterers first mentioned in Amsterdam in the 1760s, who played an important part in the spread of French influence there (Note 134). In this later period, however, reference is only made to French furniture when English pieces are also mentioned, so a new juxtaposition is implied and 'French' need not mean richly decorated with marquetry as it did in the 1760s. In fact the marquetry of this period was probably of a much more modest character. A large number of pieces of Dutch furniture in the late Neo-Classical style are known, generally veneered with rosewood or mahogany, where the marquetry is confined to trophies, medallions on ribbons, geometric borders and suchlike. A sideboard in the Rijksmuseum is an exceptionally fine and elaborately decorated example of this light and elegant style (Fig. 26) None of this furniture is known for certain to have been made in Amsterdam, but two tobacco boxes with restrained marquetry decoration (Fig.27, Note 136) were made in Haarlem in 1789 by Johan Gottfried Fremming (c.1753-1832) of Leipzig, who had probably trained in Amsterdam and whose style will not have differed much from that current in the capital. Boxes of this type are mentioned in the 1789 inventory of the Amsterdam cabinet-maker Johan Christiaan Molle (c.1748-89) as the only pieces decorated with inlay (Note 138). In the 1792 inventory of Jacob Keesinger (active 1764-92) from Ziegenhain there are larger pieces of marquetry furniture as well (Note 139), but they are greatly in the minority, as is also the case with a sale of cabinet-makers' wares held in 1794 (Note 141), which included a book-case of the type in Fig.28 (Note 142). Similarly the 1795 inventory of Johan Jacob Breytspraak, one of the most important and prosperous cabinet-makers of the day, contains only a few marquetry pieces (Note 144). The 1793 inventory of Hendrik Melters (1720-93) lists tools and patterns for marquetry, but no pieces decorated with it (Note 145). Melters seems to have specialized in cases for long-case clocks, the Amsterdam clock-maker Rutgerus van Meurs (1738-1800) being one of his clients (Note 146). The cases of clocks signed by Van Meurs bear only simple marquetry motifs (Note 147). The Dutch late Neo-Classical furniture with restrained marquetry decoration has no equivalent in France; it is more reminiscent of English work (Note 148). The pattern-books of Hepplewhite and Sheraton undoubtedly found their way to the Dutch Republic and the 'English' furniture mentioned in Amsterdam sources from 1787 probably reflected their influence. However, the introduction of the late, restrained Neo-Classical style in furniture was not the result of English influence alone. Rather, the two countries witnessed a parallel development. In England, too, marquetry was re-introduced under French influence around 1760 and it gradually became much simpler during the last quarter of the century, French influences being amalgamated into a national style (Notes 150, 151). On the whole, the Frertch models were followed more closely in the Netherlands than in England. Even at the end of the century French proportions still very much influenced Dutch cabinet-making. Thus the typically Dutch late Neo-Classical style sprang from a combirtation of French and English influences. This makes it difficult to understand what exactly was meant by the distinction made between ;French' and 'English' furniture at this time. The sources offer few clues here and this is even true of the description of the sale of the stock of the only English cabinet-maker working in Amsterdam at this period, Joseph Bull of London, who was active between 1787 and 1792, when his goods were sold (Notes 155, 156).

RESUMENEl objetivo de este artículo es reflexionar sobre los mecanismos de financiación y de control de las instituciones religiosas por los laicos en las primeras décadas de la conquista y colonización de Hispanoamérica. Investigar sobre la inversión laica en lo sagrado supone en un primer lugar aclarar la historiografía sobre laicos, religión y dinero en las sociedades de Antiguo Régimen y su trasposición en América, planteando una mirada desde el punto de vista de las motivaciones múltiples de los actores seglares. A través del ejemplo de restituciones, donaciones y legados en losAndes, se explora el papel de los laicos españoles, y también de las poblaciones indígenas, en el establecimiento de la densa red de instituciones católicas que se construye entonces. La propuesta postula el protagonismo de actores laicos en la construcción de un espacio cristiano en los Andes peruanos en el siglo XVI y principios del XVII, donde la inversión económica permite contribuir a la transición de una sociedad de guerra y conquista a una sociedad corporativa pacificada.PALABRAS CLAVE: Hispanoamérica-Andes, religión, economía, encomienda, siglos XVI y XVII.ABSTRACTThis article aims to reflect on the mechanisms of financing and control of religious institutions by the laity in the first decades of the conquest and colonization of Spanish America. Investigating lay investment in the sacred sphere means first of all to clarifying historiography on laity, religion and money within Ancien Régime societies and their transposition to America, taking into account the multiple motivations of secular actors. The example of restitutions, donations and legacies inthe Andes enables us to explore the role of the Spanish laity and indigenous populations in the establishment of the dense network of Catholic institutions that was established during this period. The proposal postulates the role of lay actors in the construction of a Christian space in the Peruvian Andes in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, when economic investment contributed to the transition from a society of war and conquest to a pacified, corporate society.KEY WORDS: Hispanic America-Andes, religion, economics, encomienda, 16th and 17th centuries. BIBLIOGRAFIAAbercrombie, T., “Tributes to Bad Conscience: Charity, Restitution, and Inheritance in Cacique and Encomendero Testaments of 16th-Century Charcas”, en Kellogg, S. y Restall, M. (eds.), Dead Giveaways, Indigenous Testaments of Colonial Mesoamerica end the Andes, Salt Lake city, University of Utah Press, 1998, pp. 249-289.Aladjidi, P., Le roi, père des pauvres: France XIIIe-XVe siècle, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2008.Alberro, S., Les Espagnols dans le Mexique colonial: histoire d’une acculturation, Paris, A. Colin, 1992.Alden, D., The making of an enterprise: the Society of Jesus in Portugal, its empire, and beyond 1540-1750, Stanford California, Stanford University Press, 1996.Angulo, D., “El capitán Gómez de León, vecino fundador de la ciudad de Arequipa. Probança e información de los servicios que hizo a S. M. en estos Reynos del Piru el Cap. Gomez de León, vecino que fue de cibdad de Ariquipa, fecha el año MCXXXI a pedimento de sus hijos y herederos”, Revista del archivo nacional del Perú, Tomo VI, entrega II, Julio-diciembre 1928, pp. 95-148.Atienza López, Á., Tiempos de conventos: una historia social de las fundaciones en la España moderna, Madrid, Marcial Pons Historia, 2008.Azpilcueta Navarro, M. de, Manual de penitentes, Estella, Adrián de Anvers, 1566.Baschet, J., “Un Moyen Âge mondialisé? Remarques sur les ressorts précoces de la dynamique occidentale”, en Renaud, O., Schaub, J.-F., Thireau, I. (eds.), Faire des sciences sociales, comparer, Paris, éditions de l’EHESS, 2012, pp. 23-59.Boltanski, A. y Maldavsky, A., “Laity and Procurement of Funds», en Fabre, P.-A., Rurale, F. (eds.), Claudio Acquaviva SJ (1581-1615). A Jesuit Generalship at the time of the invention of the modern Catholicism, Leyden, Brill, 2017, pp. 191-216.Borges Morán, P., El envío de misioneros a América durante la época española, Salamanca, Universidad Pontifícia, 1977.Bourdieu, P., “L’économie des biens symboliques», Raisons pratiques: sur la théorie de l’action, Paris, Seuil, [1994] 1996, pp. 177-213.Brizuela Molina, S., “¿Cómo se funda un convento? Algunas consideraciones en torno al surgimiento de la vida monástica femenina en Santa Fe de Bogotá (1578-1645)”, Anuario de historia regional y de las Fronteras, vol. 22, n. 2, 2017, pp. 165-192.Brown, P., Le prix du salut. Les chrétiens, l’argent et l’au-delà en Occident (IIIe-VIIIe siècle), Paris, Belin, 2016.Burke, P., La Renaissance européenne, Paris, Seuil, 2000.Burns, K., Hábitos coloniales: los conventos y la economía espiritual del Cuzco, Lima, Quellca, IFEA, 2008.Cabanes, B y Piketty, G., “Sortir de la guerre: jalons pour une histoire en chantier”, Histoire@Politique. Politique, culture, société, n. 3, nov.-dic. 2007.Cantú, F., “Evoluzione et significato della dottrina della restituzione in Bartolomé de Las Casas. Con il contributo di un documento inedito”, Critica Storica XII-Nuova serie, n. 2-3-4, 1975, pp. 231-319.Castelnau-L’Estoile, C. de, “Les fils soumis de la Très sainte Église, esclavages et stratégies matrimoniales à Rio de Janeiro au début du XVIIIe siècle», en Cottias, M., Mattos, H. (eds.), Esclavage et Subjectivités dans l’Atlantique luso-brésilien et français (XVIIe-XXe), [OpenEdition Press, avril 2016. Internet : <http://books.openedition.org/ http://books.openedition.org/oep/1501>. ISBN : 9782821855861]Celestino, O. y Meyers, A., Las cofradías en el Perú, Francfort, Iberoamericana, 1981.Celestino, O., “Confréries religieuses, noblesse indienne et économie agraire”, L’Homme, 1992, vol. 32, n. 122-124, pp. 99-113.Châtellier Louis, L’Europe des dévots, Paris, Flammarion, 1987.Christian, W., Religiosidad local en la España de Felipe II, Madrid, Nerea, 1991.Christin, O., Confesser sa foi. Conflits confessionnels et identités religieuses dans l’Europe moderne (XVIe-XVIIe siècles), Seyssel, Champ Vallon, 2009.Christin, O., La paix de religion: l’autonomisation de la raison politique au XVIe siècle, Paris, Seuil, 1997.Clavero, B., Antidora: Antropología católica de la economía moderna, Milan, Giuffrè, 1991.Cobo Betancourt, “Los caciques muiscas y el patrocinio de lo sagrado en el Nuevo Reino de Granada”, en A. Maldavsky y R. Di Stefano (eds.), Invertir en lo sagrado: salvación y dominación territorial en América y Europa (siglos XVI-XX), Santa Rosa, EdUNLPam, 2018, cap. 1, mobi.Colmenares, G., Haciendas de los jesuitas en el Nuevo Reino de Granada, siglo XVIII, Bogotá, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1969.Comaroff, J. y Comaroff, J., Of Revelation and Revolution. Vol. 1, Christianity, Colonialism, and Consciousness in South Africa, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1991.Costeloe, M. P., Church wealth in Mexico: a study of the “Juzgado de Capellanias” in the archbishopric of Mexico 1800-1856, London, Cambridge University Press, 1967.Croq, L. y Garrioch, D., La religion vécue. Les laïcs dans l’Europe moderne, Rennes, PUR, 2013.Cushner, N. P., Farm and Factory: The Jesuits and the development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600-1767, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1982.Cushner, N. P., Jesuit Ranches and the Agrarian Development of Colonial Argentina, 1650-1767, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1983.Cushner, N. P., Why have we come here? The Jesuits and the First Evangelization of Native America, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006.De Boer, W., La conquista dell’anima, Turin, Einaudi, 2004.De Certeau M., “La beauté du mort : le concept de ‘culture populaire’», Politique aujourd’hui, décembre 1970, pp. 3-23.De Certeau, M., L’invention du quotidien. T. 1. Arts de Faire, Paris, Gallimard, 1990.De la Puente Brunke, J., Encomienda y encomenderos en el Perú. Estudio social y político de una institución, Sevilla, Diputación provincial de Sevilla, 1992.Del Río M., “Riquezas y poder: las restituciones a los indios del repartimiento de Paria”, en T. Bouysse-Cassagne (ed.), Saberes y Memorias en los Andes. In memoriam Thierry Saignes, Paris, IHEAL-IFEA, 1997, pp. 261-278.Van Deusen, N. E., Between the sacred and the worldly: the institutional and cultural practice of recogimiento in Colonial Lima, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2001.Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 1937, s.v. “Restitution”.Durkheim, É., Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1960 [1912].Duviols, P. La lutte contre les religions autochtones dans le Pérou colonial: l’extirpation de l’idolâtrie entre 1532 et 1660, Lima, IFEA, 1971.Espinoza, Augusto, “De Guerras y de Dagas: crédito y parentesco en una familia limeña del siglo XVII”, Histórica, XXXVII.1 (2013), pp. 7-56.Estenssoro Fuchs, J.-C., Del paganismo a la santidad: la incorporación de los Indios del Perú al catolicismo, 1532-1750, Lima, IFEA, 2003.Fontaine, L., L’économie morale: pauvreté, crédit et confiance dans l’Europe préindustrielle, Paris, Gallimard, 2008.Froeschlé-Chopard, M.-H., La Religion populaire en Provence orientale au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, Beauchesne, 1980.Glave, L. M., De rosa y espinas: economía, sociedad y mentalidades andinas, siglo XVII. Lima, IEP, BCRP, 1998.Godelier, M., L’énigme du don, Paris, Fayard, 1997.Goffman, E., Encounters: two studies in the sociology of interaction, MansfieldCentre, Martino publishing, 2013.Grosse, C., “La ‘religion populaire’. L’invention d’un nouvel horizon de l’altérité religieuse à l’époque moderne», en Prescendi, F. y Volokhine, Y (eds.), Dans le laboratoire de l’historien des religions. Mélanges offerts à Philippe Borgeaud, Genève, Labor et fides, 2011, pp. 104-122.Grosse, C., “Le ‘tournant culturel’ de l’histoire ‘religieuse’ et ‘ecclésiastique’», Histoire, monde et cultures religieuses, 26 (2013), pp. 75-94.Hall, S., “Cultural studies and its Theoretical Legacy”, en Grossberg, L., Nelson, C. y Treichler, P. (eds.), Cultural Studies, New York, Routledge, 1986, pp. 277-294.Horne, J., “Démobilisations culturelles après la Grande Guerre”, 14-18, Aujourd’hui, Today, Heute, Paris, Éditions Noésis, mai 2002, pp. 45-5.Iogna-Prat, D., “Sacré’ sacré ou l’histoire d’un substantif qui a d’abord été un qualificatif”, en Souza, M. de, Peters-Custot, A. y Romanacce, F.-X., Le sacré dans tous ses états: catégories du vocabulaire religieux et sociétés, de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Saint-Étienne, Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne, 2012, pp. 359-367.Iogna-Prat, D., Cité de Dieu. Cité des hommes. L’Église et l’architecture de la société, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 2016.Kalifa, D., “Les historiens français et ‘le populaire’», Hermès, 42, 2005, pp. 54-59.Knowlton, R. J., “Chaplaincies and the Mexican Reform”, The Hispanic American Historical Review, 48.3 (1968), pp. 421-443.Lamana, G., Domination without Dominance: Inca-Spanish Encounters in Early Colonial Peru, Durham, Duke University Press, 2008.Las Casas B. de, Aqui se contienen unos avisos y reglas para los que oyeren confessiones de los Españoles que son o han sido en cargo a los indios de las Indias del mas Océano (Sevilla : Sebastián Trujillo, 1552). Edición moderna en Las Casas B. de, Obras escogidas, t. V, Opusculos, cartas y memoriales, Madrid, Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, 1958, pp. 235-249.Lavenia, V., L’infamia e il perdono: tributi, pene e confessione nella teologia morale della prima età moderna, Bologne, Il Mulino, 2004.Lempérière, A., Entre Dieu et le Roi, la République: Mexico, XVIe-XIXe siècle, Paris, les Belles Lettres, 2004.Lenoble, C., L’exercice de la pauvreté: économie et religion chez les franciscains d’Avignon (XIIIe-XVe siècle), Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2013.León Portilla, M., Visión de los vencidos: relaciones indígenas de la conquista, México, Universidad nacional autónoma, 1959.Levaggi, A., Las capellanías en la argentina: estudio histórico-jurídico, Buenos Aires, Facultad de derecho y ciencias sociales U. B. A., Instituto de investigaciones Jurídicas y sociales Ambrosio L. Gioja, 1992.Lohmann Villena, G., “La restitución por conquistadores y encomenderos: un aspecto de la incidencia lascasiana en el Perú”, Anuario de Estudios americanos 23 (1966) 21-89.Luna, P., El tránsito de la Buenamuerte por Lima. Auge y declive de una orden religiosa azucarera, siglos XVIII y XIX, Francfort, Universidad de navarra-Iberoamericana-Vervuert, 2017.Macera, P., Instrucciones para el manejo de las haciendas jesuitas del Perú (ss. XVII-XVIII), Lima, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1966.Málaga Medina, A., “Los corregimientos de Arequipa. Siglo XVI”, Histórica, n. 1, 1975, pp. 47-85.Maldavsky, A., “Encomenderos, indios y religiosos en la región de Arequipa (siglo XVI): restitución y formación de un territorio cristiano y señoril”, en A. Maldavsky yR. Di Stefano (eds.), Invertir en lo sagrado: salvación y dominación territorial en América y Europa (siglos XVI-XX), Santa Rosa, EdUNLPam, 2018, cap. 3, mobi.Maldavsky, A., “Finances missionnaires et salut des laïcs. La donation de Juan Clemente de Fuentes, marchand des Andes, à la Compagnie de Jésus au milieu du XVIIe siècle”, ASSR, publicación prevista en 2020.Maldavsky, A., “Giving for the Mission: The Encomenderos and Christian Space in the Andes of the Late Sixteenth Century”, en Boer W., Maldavsky A., Marcocci G. y Pavan I. (eds.), Space and Conversion in Global Perspective, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2014, pp. 260-284.Maldavsky, A., “Teología moral, restitución y sociedad colonial en los Andes en el siglo XVI”, Revista portuguesa de teología, en prensa, 2019.Margairaz, D., Minard, P., “Le marché dans son histoire”, Revue de synthèse, 2006/2, pp. 241-252.Martínez López-Cano, M. del P., Speckman Guerra, E., Wobeser, G. von (eds.) La Iglesia y sus bienes: de la amortización a la nacionalización, México, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, 2004.Mauss, M., “Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques (1923-1924)”, en Mauss, M., Sociologie et anthropologie, Paris, Presses universitaire de France, 1950, pp. 145-279.Mendoza, D. de, Chronica de la Provincia de San Antonio de los Charcas, Madrid, s.-e., 1665.Mills K., Idolatry and its Enemies. Colonial andean religion and extirpation, 1640-1750, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1997.Mörner, M., The Political and Economic Activities of the Jesuits in the La Plata Region: The Hapsburg Era, Stockholm, Library and Institute of Ibero-American Studies, 1953.Morales Padrón, F., Teoría y leyes de la conquista, Madrid, Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperación, 1979.“Nuevos avances en el estudio de las reducciones toledanas”, Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology, 39(1), 2014, pp. 123-167.O’Gorman, E., Destierro de sombras: luz en el origen de la imagen y culto de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe del Tepeyac, México, Universidad nacional autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, 1986.Pompa, C., Religião como tradução: Missionários, Tupi e Tapuia no Brasil colonial, São Paulo, ANPOCS, 2003.Prodi, P. Una historia de la justicia. De la pluralidad de fueros al dualismo moderno entre conciencia y derecho, Buenos Aires-Madrid, Katz, 2008.Ragon, P., “Entre religion métisse et christianisme baroque : les catholicités mexicaines, XVIe-XVIIIe siècles», Histoire, monde et cultures religieuses, 2008/1, n°5, pp. 15-36.Ragon, P., “Histoire et christianisation en Amérique espagnole», en Kouamé, Nathalie (éd.), Historiographies d’ailleurs: comment écrit-on l’histoire en dehors du monde occidental ?, Paris, Karthala, 2014, pp. 239-248.Ramos G., Muerte y conversión en los Andes, Lima, IFEA, IEP, 2010.Rodríguez, D., Por un lugar en el cielo. Juan Martínez Rengifo y su legado a los jesuitas, 1560-1592, Lima, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 2005.Romano, R., Les mécanismes de la conquête coloniale: les conquistadores, Paris, Flammarion, 1972.Saignes, T., “The Colonial Condition in the Quechua-Aymara Heartland (1570–1780)”, en Salomon, F. y Schwartz, S.(eds.), The Cambridge History of theNative Peoples of the Americas. Vol. 3, South America, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 58–137.Saignes, T., Caciques, tribute and migration in the Southern Andes: Indian society and the 17th century colonial order (Audiencia de Charcas), Londres, Inst. of Latin American Studies, 1985.Schmitt, J.-C., “‘Religion populaire’ et culture folklorique (note critique) [A propos de Etienne Delaruelle, La piété populaire au Moyen Age, avant- propos de Ph. Wolff, introduction par R. Manselli et André Vauchez] «, Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 31/5, 1976, pp. 941953.Schwaller, J. F., Origins of Church Wealth in Mexico. Ecclesiastical Revenues and Church Finances, 1523-1600, Albuquerque, University of New Mexico press, 1985.Spalding, K., Huarochirí, an Andean society under Inca and Spanish rule, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1984.Stern, S. J., Los pueblos indígenas del Perú y el desafío de la conquista española: Huamanga hasta 1640, Madrid, Alianza, 1986.Taylor, W. B., Magistrates of the Sacred: Priests and Parishioners in Eighteenth-Century Mexico. Stanford University Press, 1996.Thomas, Y., “La valeur des choses. Le droit romain hors la religion”, Annales, Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 2002/T, 57 année, pp. 1431-1462.Thornton, J. K., Africa and Africans in the Formation of the Atlantic World, 1400–1680), New York, Cambridge University Press, 1998.Tibesar, A., Franciscan beginnings in colonial Peru, Washington, Academy of American Franciscan History, 1953.Tibesar A., “Instructions for the Confessors of Conquistadores Issued by the Archbishop of Lima in 1560”, The Americas 3, n. 4 (Apr. 1947), pp. 514-534.Todeschini, G., Richesse franciscaine: de la pauvreté volontaire à la société de marché, Lagrasse, Verdier, 2008.Toneatto, V., “La richesse des Franciscains. Autour du débat sur les rapports entre économie et religion au Moyen Âge”, Médiévales. Langues, Textes, Histoire 60, n. 60 (30 juin 2011), pp. 187202.Toneatto, V., Les banquiers du Seigneur: évêques et moines face à la richesse, IVe-début IXe siècle, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2012.Toquica Clavijo, M. C., A falta de oro: linaje, crédito y salvación, Bogotá, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Ministero de Cultura, Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia, 2008.Torre, A., “‘Faire communauté’. Confréries et localité dans une vallée du Piémont (XVIIe -XVIIIe siècle)”, Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 2007/1 (año 62), pp. 101-135.Torre, A., “Politics Cloaked in Worship: State, Church and Local Power in Piedmont 1570-1770”, Past and Present, 134, 1992, pp. 42-92.Vargas Ugarte, R., “Archivo de la beneficencia del Cuzco”, Revista del Archivo Histórico del Cuzco, no. 4 (1953), pp. 105-106.Vauchez A., Les laïcs au Moyen Age. Pratiques et expériences religieuses, Paris, Cerf, 1987.Vincent, C., “Laïcs (Moyen Âge)”, en Levillain, P. (ed.), Dictionnaire historique de la papauté, Paris, Fayard, 2003, pp. 993-995.Vincent, C., Les confréries médiévales dans le royaume de France: XIIIe-XVe siècle, Paris, A. Michel, 1994.Valle Pavón, G. del, Finanzas piadosas y redes de negocios. Los mercaderes de la ciudad de México ante la crisis de Nueva España, 1804-1808, México, Instituto Mora, Historia económica, 2012.Vovelle, M., Piété baroque et déchristianisation en Provence au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, Plon, 1972.Wachtel, N., La Vision des vaincus: les Indiens du Pérou devant la Conquête espagnole, Paris, Gallimard, 1971.Wilde, G., Religión y poder en las misiones de guaraníes, Buenos Aires, Ed. Sb, 2009.Wobeser, G. von, El crédito eclesiástico en la Nueva España, siglo XVIII, México, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, 1994.Wobeser, G. von, Vida eterna y preocupaciones terrenales. Las capellanías de misas en la Nueva España, 1600-1821, Mexico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2005.Zavala, S., La encomienda indiana, Madrid, Junta para ampliación de estudios e investigaciones científicas-Centro de estudios históricos, 1935.Zemon Davis, N., Essai sur le don dans la France du XVIe siècle, Paris, Seuil, 2003.

Abstract A hitherto unrecorded engraving, dated 1803, can now be shown to be the first depiction of an Australian Crimson Rosella (Platycercus elegans) made in France. The engraving was made by François Nicolas Martinet, the ornithological specialist famous for his work with the Comte de Buffon. Quite apart from the intrinsic interest of the image, its history sheds light on the earliest phase of the collection of Josephine Bonaparte at Malmaison, her property on the western outskirts of Paris, and the substantial work she was overseeing in the first years of the century, especially in respect of the natural history collections made during the voyage to Australia of Nicolas Baudin in 1800–04. The plate also provides the key to the story of Martinet’s final, abandoned publication, a work that was advertised in 1804 but never completed, copies of which are held in the Smithsonian Libraries and Archives and in Trinity College, Hartford, CT.