17th-century French painting mistreated by the Louvre

One of the Louvre’s missions is indispensable, not only because it is the largest museum in France, but also because it is the only one in the world to have the resources (collections, exhibition spaces, acquisition budgets, etc.) to present the history of French art in the best possible way. We will begin, both for reasons of taste and because there are many quality works available on the market, by focusing on French painting of the 17th-century.
In order to remain as objective as possible, this report is based on a precise count of the works: those kept there and those presented to the public.

We were expecting the results to be dismal, but we were nonetheless surprised by the far worse outcome, which goes beyond a mere impression. Not only is the Louvre far from showing 17th-century French painting in all its diversity, but it seems to have almost abandoned this part of the collection. Not just in terms of acquisitions, as we showed in the previous article, but also in terms of presentation. Of course, Laurence des Cars is not solely responsible for this situation, which she has largely inherited. Her predecessors, Jean-Luc Martinez and no doubt Henri Loyrette, cannot be exonerated. But what has she done since her arrival? Nothing, of course, other than a desire to further reduce the number of works on display. As for the heads of the department over the last twenty years, their names are Vincent Pomarède and then Sébastien Allard.

So, using the collections database, we looked at which artists were kept and presented at the Louvre and how many works were deposited in other museums. We checked in the galleries to see whether the database was up to date and whether the works listed as being hung were really there. This proved to be essentially accurate. Two paintings (a Le Brun and a La Hyre, said to be "not on show") are in fact on display. These are about the only two errors we were able to detect.
We have not been able to check whether the paintings deposited elsewhere are exhibited or not. Some are indicated as not being exhibited. That’s how we counted them. We have counted all the others as "exhibited", with the exception of those in closed museums whose reopening date is unknown (for example, the Musée du Berry) or paintings in the École nationale supérieure des beaux-Arts, or those deposited in government offices or at the Élysée Palace. Museums due to reopen soon (the Musée Bonnat, for example, at the end of the year) are counted as "on display", which is optimistic. The "works on display" column is therefore certainly overestimated, as is the percentage of Louvre works on display, whether in Paris or in the provinces. We provide our readers with this Excel file here.

The abundance of masterpieces on display in the galleries probably prevents us from realising just how partial the presentation of 17th-century painting is. Thirty-six paintings by Poussin, fourteen by Claude, six by Georges de La Tour, sixteen by Philippe de Champaigne, twenty-six by Eustache Le Sueur, seven by Laurent de La Hyre, seven by Sébastien Bourdon, nineteen by Le Nain, five by Valentin de Boullogne, eleven by Simon Vouet... These figures may make you dizzy, but they conceal a far less brilliant reality.

Let’s start by looking at the major names in 17th-century French painting absent from the picture rails of the museum, which could be displaying them but prefers to keep them in storage.
How can the Louvre justify not exhibiting any paintings by Claude Vignon, of whom it keeps five in storage? Although this artist produced too much, he also painted some remarkable pictures, some of which are in the Louvre (ill. 1 and 2), including a recent acquisition (ill. 3; see the news item of 24/1/08). Charles Poerson was one of Vouet’s best pupils. The Louvre could show one of them (ill. 4), which would already be very few. It exhibits none.
How can we explain the fact that Gaspard Dughet, Nicolas Poussin’s brother-in-law, is nowhere to be seen, even though four paintings by him are kept in storage (ill. 5 and 6)?

We are only talking here about artists whose works are kept in the Louvre. Some others are no longer in the museum, as all the paintings are on deposit in other ones. There is obviously no question of depriving these museums, for example Rennes or Grenoble, of the paintings deposited by the Louvre when they offer them to the public. But this is not always the case, and some are not presented by the museums that have received them. And even when they are, it would be possible in some cases, via deposit exchanges, to show the Louvre artists it is missing.

But obviously this is not the museum’s policy at all. Certain currents in painting are - deliberately? - sacrificed. For example, apart from Claude and Nicolas Poussin, classical French landscape painting is virtually invisible at the Louvre. As we have seen, there is no Gaspard Dughet on show. But there is also no Jean Lemaire-Poussin, even though he has one painting in storage, no Henri Mauperché (a fine one is in storage - ill. 7), no Francisque Millet (two are in storage), no Pierre-Antoine Patel (no fewer than six paintings are in storage - ill. 8). Pierre Patel is only shown in the two small landscapes from the Hôtel Lambert, but none of his five other paintings are displayed in the rooms (ill. 9). It is no coincidence that of La Hyre’s two landscapes, the one most directly related to this genre (Landscape with Bathers - ill. 10) is in storage. Philippe de Champaigne, a major artist who is nevertheless very visible in the galleries, has one of his two landscapes in the storage room (ill. 11). It is hard to believe that this is not due to an (incomprehensible) decision not to show 17th-century French landscapes.

As for Thomas Blanchet - the Louvre holds two paintings, one of which is not shown (ill. 12) - he combines both the obvious disadvantage of often being a landscapist, and a provincial painter. Indeed, the provinces are also very poorly represented in the Louvre.
Louis Cretey, another painter from Lyon and a major artist, sometimes also a landscapist, is not present at all, even though works by him are regularly found on the art market, which the Louvre seems not to care about [1]. Michel Descours regularly offers them, and a very fine painting by him is currently on sale at Éric Coatalem (ill. 13).

None of the Nicolas Mignard paintings in the Louvre inventory are kept there; six have been deposited [2]. One (a probable attribution) is in storage in Lyon and, above all, another has been deposited... at the Vaucluse prefecture (ill. 14), in other words completely illegally, as we have already had occasion to demonstrate (see article). The Louvre could very well recover it, but it would no doubt be sent to storage.

For if we leave aside the leading painters of provincial origin (Georges de La Tour, Claude, the Le Nains...), the other provincial artists are either absent from the Louvre’s collections, without the Louvre ever seeking to fill these gaps, or in storage. Jean Tassel ? In storage (ill. 15). Charles Mellin? In storage (ill. 16). Claude Deruet? In storage (ill. 17). Jean Chalette? Two paintings on deposit. Jérémie Le Pilleur ? In storage. François Puget ? In storage (ill. 18). Arnould de Vuez ? In storage.
Only Guy François and Jean Le Clerc (each with a painting close to Carlo Saraceni), Isaac Moillon, Georges Lallemant (with a painting of disputed attribution) and Quentin Varin (exhibited with the 16th century) are lucky enough to have a painting exhibited.

As for the Provincials absent from collections, they are innumerable. Admittedly, it is rare for indisputable works by them to come up for sale, but it does happen, and the Louvre loses interest every time, even though prices are often very low. A painting by Jean Daret was offered subject to usufruct, as we saw in a previous article, as was a Nicolas de Bar (originally from Bar-le-Duc). But Jacques Bellange (admittedly almost impossible to find), Trophime Bigot, Jean Boucher, Charles Dauphin, René Dudot, Louis Finson, Horace Le Blanc (also almost impossible to find), Pierre Le Tellier, Jacques de Létin, Reynaud Levieux, Jean Mosnier, Adrien Sacquespée, Jean de Saint-Igny, Daniel Sarrabat, Jean Senelle, Michel Serre... - We are forgetting many others - are all painters who are absent from the Louvre, even though it is, or was, possible to acquire paintings by some of them.

Let’s take a few examples. Several works by Reynaud Levieux have come onto the art market in recent years. French museums (Strasbourg and the Musée du Grand Siècle) have even acquired works in this way. A masterpiece was offered by Éric Coatalem a few years ago (ill. 19) while a Virgin and Child was sold at Christie’s in Paris in 2020.
Louis Finson is a very important painter, not only for his links with Caravaggio but also for the quality of some of his paintings. These sometimes come up for sale, such as a fascinating painting presented at Tefaf by the Rob Smeets gallery, which remained available there for a long time (ill. 20).

From Jean Tassel, the Louvre has in its reserves a work from his studio, and as we said a religious painting by his hand, which could very well be exhibited (ill. 15). And to complete its representation in the Louvre, this museum could buy, again from Éric Coatalem, a very fine Bacchus and Ariadne (ill. 21). But what is the point if it is not to be exhibited?
Trophime Bigot is a difficult artist to get to grips with. But in recent years, at least two fine paintings have been sold under his name, both at Christie’s, and both at least within the generic art of The Candlelight Master. One of them was sold by the Wildenstein gallery in aid of the restoration of Notre-Dame in New York (ill. 22). Its purchase by the Louvre would also have been a good deed for French heritage. But the museum did not move.

Some people often speak of the "Louvre quality" when they dismiss with disdain works by "lesser masters" that would have no place on its picture rails. But Jean Michelin, the Master of the Processions and Isaac Moillon are indisputably "lesser masters", and yet they are happily on display, providing a better understanding of French painting at the time. Artists such as René Dudot, a painter from Rouen, may be modest, but they are by no means unworthy of this museum. Over the last twenty years, several of his paintings have been sold by public auction, and another is still on sale today in the Galerie Le Serbon (ill. 23). A delightful work (and for a tiny fraction of the price of a Chardin) that would not be out of place in a room devoted to provincial painting.
Adrien Sacquespée, another painter from Rouen, is almost impossible to find outside the region’s churches and its museum. The museum is to be congratulated on its purchase of the only painting to have recently come up for sale, in 2014, at Christie’s, a very fine Christ on the Cross (see the news item of 1/4/14) that could very well have been acquired by the Louvre... By the Lorrain painter Charles Dauphin, we should mention a Flight into Egypt at Sotheby’s in 2008.
Of course, Jean Boucher, Jean and Pierre Mosnier, Jean de Saint-Igny, Pierre Le Tellier, Daniel Sarrabat and others are almost impossible to find. But who would think, given the observations we have made here, that the day a major work by their hand comes up for sale, the Louvre might be interested?

We could add to this list Meiffren Conte, of whom only one painting is on the Louvre’s inventory, but sent immediately after its purchase in 1952 to the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Marseille. This important artist undoubtedly presents a double handicap for the Louvre: he is provincial, and he painted still lifes in the second half of the 17th-century. Although this genre - apart from the incomprehensible absence of a Paul Liégeois, which remains in the museum’s reserves (ill. 24) - was fairly well represented in the museum’s galleries in the first half of the century, the Louvre was unable to buy a painting that was destined for it because of its quality and rarity, the Jérémie Plume, which was finally acquired by the Louvre Abu-Dhabi (see article). With Louise Moillon, François Garnier, Pierre Dupuis, Lubin Baugin and even, by way of exception, Sébastien Stoskopff from Strasbourg, this genre was completely sacrificed in the second half of the century.

Judge for yourself: the Louvre’s Department of Paintings, which nevertheless holds paintings by these artists, does not show a single work by Jean-Baptiste Blin de Fontenay, Jacques Hupin (ill. 25), Jean-Baptiste Monnoyer (ill. 26) or Antoine Monnoyer... Not to mention the lesser-known Joseph Yvart or Nicolas Baudesson [3]. The fact that we can see a Blin de Fontenay and an Antoine Monnoyer in the Objets d’Art department does not excuse their absence from the painting galleries: they are not just illustrators, they are also worthy representatives of the still life genre.

Landscapes, still lifes from the second half of the century, provincial painters... The Louvre’s forgotten artists are countless. The history painters of the second half of the 17th-century are not much better treated. Charles Le Brun’s pupils in particular. Although most of them have been deposited, the Louvre still has two paintings by François Verdier, who is a better painter than is generally thought, neither of them is on display (ill. 27).
The Louvre only keeps two large paintings by René-Antoine Houasse (all the others have been deposited elsewhere, many of them in Versailles), including his May, one ruined and the other in poor condition and therefore not on display. One or two paintings could be recovered from Versailles (which does not show them all) to represent the art of this pupil of Le Brun in the Louvre (ill. 28).

Jean-Baptiste de Champaigne, though an excellent painter even if inferior to his uncle, is incredibly absent: the Louvre has seven paintings by him. Six are in storage, and one very fine one is in storage... in Lyon. Among those conserved in Paris are his portrait by Philippe de Champaigne and a very fine 1986 acquisition, Aurora and Night (ill. 29), part of the décor of the Tuileries. The four other paintings from the Tuileries décor are also in reserve.

Dynasties are often forgotten. The Louvre shows nothing of the Boullognes. Of Bon Boullogne, four paintings are in the Louvre, yet none is on display (ill. 30), when two could be (the other two should be restored). Of Louis I de Boullogne, the Louvre has two paintings, one of which is ruined and the other (his May) in need of restoration. As for Louis II de Boullogne, the Louvre holds nothing. However, works by him have recently come up for sale, and the most beautiful, a Supper at Emmaus, was recently at Éric Coatalem’s (ill. 31).

Are the Boullognes neglected? The Corneilles are no less so. The Louvre has nothing of Michel I Corneille (either in Paris or on deposit). Paintings by this artist, a pupil of Simon Vouet, were nevertheless available on the market. Fortunately, the Musée du Grand Siècle has acquired the one that recently went on sale (see the news item of 28/6/22). Note that a Zénobie was offered by Artcurial in November 2024 and that in 2013, the CMN bought a Samson for the Château de Maisons (see the news item of 24/9/13). And a few years ago Éric Coatalem had a Virgin and Child that probably belonged to him. Even if the attribution was not absolutely certain, its quality, which was close to that of Simon Vouet’s works, showed that its author was, in any case, one of his best pupils. But apart from Eustache Le Sueur, Simon Vouet’s pupils are not very well treated either. While Aubin Vouet is absent from the Louvre and virtually impossible to find, and the fine paintings by Jacques de Létin are no less so, we have seen that no Charles Poerson was exhibited, nor was Charles Dauphin (already seen because he was from Lorraine).

It is true that Nicolas Chaperon is shown in a painting, and Michel Dorigny, another pupil (and son-in-law) of Simon Vouet, is better considered, since three works by his hand are presented. However, although elements of the decoration from Vincennes were reassembled on the ceiling in 1832 in the first room of the Colonnade (Egyptian Antiquities, The New Kingdom - Tutankhamun and his successors), where no one thought to look at them, three other ceiling paintings, Temperance (ill. 32), Fortitude and Prudence (ill. 33) and Peace Embracing Justice, of the same provenance, are in storage although they would make it possible to evoke the great 17th-century vasetising decoration that has become so rare.

Knowledge of Simon Vouet’s pupils is still patchy, and we are eagerly awaiting the exhibition that Guillaume Kazerouni is preparing at the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Rennes next year. One thing is certain: much remains to be discovered, and some fine paintings by Vouet’s pupils, whose authors remain undetermined, sometimes come up for sale. But the Louvre does not like anonymous works, at least from the 17th-century onwards, when it comes to hanging them, and even less so when it comes to acquisitions. If we are not mistaken, when we recently revisited all the rooms displaying 17th-century French paintings, we found only one work without authorship, a remarkable one at that, from Vouet’s workshop, Christ on the Column [4]. We should therefore salute Versailles for its ability to acquire anonymous works such as a superb "Circle of Simon Vouet" (see the news item of 5/6/19).

We could go on and on with this litany of paintings absent from the Louvre or kept in storage. Juste d’Egmont: two paintings in the Louvre, in storage (ill. 34); Nicolas Loir: two paintings in the Louvre, in storage, and his reception piece deposited at Versailles but not exhibited (ill. 35); Louis Licherie: one painting in the Louvre, in storage (ill. 36).
And let us add to this the important, yet unexhibited paintings by major artists who are otherwise relatively well shown. Why are two paintings by Jacques Blanchard, The Virgin and Child with a Bishop and Saint Jacques (ill. 37) and Christ and the Adulteress, in storage? Why are they not showing this Roman History Scene (ill. 38), a gift from the Friends of the Louvre, by Sébastien Bourdon, and no portrait of this painter?

Why can we not see the Landscape with the Stigmatisation of Saint François [5] (ill. 39) or the Rest during the Flight into Egypt by Laurent de La Hyre? Why aren’t three very fine paintings by Philippe de Champaigne ( in addition to the landscape already mentioned) in the galleries (ill. 40)? Why is Charles Le Brun’s Saint Magdalen (ill. 41), one of his best-known and most copied paintings, absent from the picture rails? If François Perrier is rather well represented with three paintings, why doesn’t the Louvre, which has no religious paintings by him, buy one, when there is a fine one for sale at Éric Coatalem’s (ill. 42)?

We are told that the Louvre lacks space. This is obviously a joke. In addition to the fact that certain rooms could be made a little denser, there is nothing to prevent the recovery of other rooms (ill. 43) currently devoted to the display of old frames [6], the adjacent empty room that now serves no purpose, the often unused room that temporarily displays six Spanish paintings, the room that once housed the painting of the month and now has only two paintings hanging on the wall...

This gives us more than a third of the works not exhibited at the Louvre among those that are physically kept there, and roughly the same percentage for all the works in its inventory, including those that are exhibited (and in both cases we exclude those that have been ruined). This assessment is necessarily optimistic, as we have certainly forgotten many paintings in storage, and a large number of those we have counted as exhibited, among the deposits, are not in fact exhibited.
No, the Louvre and its Department of Paintings really don’t like 17th-century France. You might even say that they don’t like painting...