DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61669#0046
HOLBEIN’S “AMBASSADORS
post in this succession of changes. Some more stable home must
surely have been found for it.
Neither does it appear likely that M. de Cessac sold the one
picture he had been at pains to preserve, when he parted with Polisy,
its home of generations.1
The natural inference is that he took the “ Ambassadors ” with
him to one of his residences in the south.
The three principal estates were Cazillac and Cessac in Quercy,
and Milhars in Languedoc.
The Barony of Cazillac was sold as early as 1689 by the grand-
daughter of the Marquis de Cessac; and, after that date, falls out of
the competition. Nevertheless, this place has a point of interest for the
present investigation. In 1665 the Marquis de Cessac bestowed it
upon his cousin, Roger de Guenegaud, with the condition that he should
in future bear the name and arms of Cazillac. The estate was, how-
ever, too tightly entailed on the immediate heirs of M. de Cessac for
the donation to take effect; and the result was merely to add one more
to the crowd of litigants who put in claims to the various property on
M. de Cessac’s demise. Had the intention succeeded, this would have
1 Camusat himself possessed portraits of Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz, and
Gaucher, Seigneur de Vanlay, brothers of Jean the Ambassador, as well as that of their
cousin, Joachim de Dinteville, head of the elder branch of the family, whose residence
was at Dinteville in Champagne. The two first-named portraits Camusat left by will
(Paris, Bibl. de 1’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, vol. 308, f. 116), to D’Hozier, author of the
“Nobiliaire de Champagne ” ; that of Joachim de Dinteville, to the Abbe Bonhomme, a
well-known collector of the time at Troyes. (See Bonnaffe, “ Les Collectionneurs de
1’ancienne France ”). The indifference displayed by the Marquis de Cessac to Dinteville
records, in allowing Camusat to acquire these portraits (either at the time of the sale of
Polisy, or earlier), brings into strong relief the value placed upon “The Ambassadors,”
which seems to have been the only picture retained. This is the more striking, as M. de
Cessac possessed, it appears, a “ Cabinet ” of portraits of some interest, derived from the
neighbourhood of his family estates, Cessac and Cazillac. Two of these were reproduced
for Du Chesne’s “ Hist, des Cardinaux Francois ” (Paris, 1660, pages 426 and 521). The
two Cardinals in question belonged respectively to the dioceses of Cahors and Limoges;
proving sufficiently that the Marquis de Cessac who owned their portraits was Frangois de
Cazillac, and not, as M. Bonaffe states*(“ Diet, des Amateurs francais ”), Louis de Castelnau,
the notorious card-player, whose property lay in quite a different part of the country. (See
also note, page 15.)
24
post in this succession of changes. Some more stable home must
surely have been found for it.
Neither does it appear likely that M. de Cessac sold the one
picture he had been at pains to preserve, when he parted with Polisy,
its home of generations.1
The natural inference is that he took the “ Ambassadors ” with
him to one of his residences in the south.
The three principal estates were Cazillac and Cessac in Quercy,
and Milhars in Languedoc.
The Barony of Cazillac was sold as early as 1689 by the grand-
daughter of the Marquis de Cessac; and, after that date, falls out of
the competition. Nevertheless, this place has a point of interest for the
present investigation. In 1665 the Marquis de Cessac bestowed it
upon his cousin, Roger de Guenegaud, with the condition that he should
in future bear the name and arms of Cazillac. The estate was, how-
ever, too tightly entailed on the immediate heirs of M. de Cessac for
the donation to take effect; and the result was merely to add one more
to the crowd of litigants who put in claims to the various property on
M. de Cessac’s demise. Had the intention succeeded, this would have
1 Camusat himself possessed portraits of Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz, and
Gaucher, Seigneur de Vanlay, brothers of Jean the Ambassador, as well as that of their
cousin, Joachim de Dinteville, head of the elder branch of the family, whose residence
was at Dinteville in Champagne. The two first-named portraits Camusat left by will
(Paris, Bibl. de 1’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, vol. 308, f. 116), to D’Hozier, author of the
“Nobiliaire de Champagne ” ; that of Joachim de Dinteville, to the Abbe Bonhomme, a
well-known collector of the time at Troyes. (See Bonnaffe, “ Les Collectionneurs de
1’ancienne France ”). The indifference displayed by the Marquis de Cessac to Dinteville
records, in allowing Camusat to acquire these portraits (either at the time of the sale of
Polisy, or earlier), brings into strong relief the value placed upon “The Ambassadors,”
which seems to have been the only picture retained. This is the more striking, as M. de
Cessac possessed, it appears, a “ Cabinet ” of portraits of some interest, derived from the
neighbourhood of his family estates, Cessac and Cazillac. Two of these were reproduced
for Du Chesne’s “ Hist, des Cardinaux Francois ” (Paris, 1660, pages 426 and 521). The
two Cardinals in question belonged respectively to the dioceses of Cahors and Limoges;
proving sufficiently that the Marquis de Cessac who owned their portraits was Frangois de
Cazillac, and not, as M. Bonaffe states*(“ Diet, des Amateurs francais ”), Louis de Castelnau,
the notorious card-player, whose property lay in quite a different part of the country. (See
also note, page 15.)
24