We are digressing here for a moment in looking at this Dubuisson mosaic masterpiece W.Cat.574 that may have been executed as Barber suggested around 1746. The Bibliotheque nationale de France has Pierre Paul Dubuisson in their list of binders and they show a measly 2 bindings as representative of his work, this alone should alert us to the fact the BnF is not a dependable source of information concerning their 18th century decorative bookbinders, especially considering that Dubuisson was possibly the greatest artist of all the 18th century binders. His work has been falsely attributed here to J.A Derome and elsewhere to Padeloup who hired Dubuisson to decorate his bindings and elsewhere to Derome le jeune (see Michon and Esmerian). In one of the two Dubuisson bindings shown by the BnF we find an example of his tickets.
this is found on a plaque binding that the BnF estimates as being from 1742-1743. They state that he was licensed as a binder in 1746 and only show him in activity as of that date? He is supposed as the originator of the famous Dubuisson plaques that can be found on an Almanach Royal destined for the King of Spain as early as 1741. Barber states, on speaking about these plaques, that the first plaque appeared on an Almanach Royal in 1744 obviously he never looked at Dubuisson's profile in the BnF. More astonishing are Barber's remarks about W.Cat.423 that has a similar Dubuisson ticket inside, Barber doubts the authenticity of the ticket although he notes that identical tools are found on another binding that also contains Dubuisson's ticket, but finishes his appraisal by stating: "Alternatively it may be attributed to J.A. Derome.!!!???" While under the color reproduction of W.Cat.423 we find Barber's text: 'Bound by J.A Derome or P.-P. Dubuisson". We see here a case of researcher refusing to see any evidence that contradicts his pet theory. These Dubuisson tickets should have been a huge red flag for Barber who, as we can plainly see, knew nothing of Dubuisson's work . Barber manages to devote pages of speculation about what he calls the Caged Bird Tool fer à l'oiseau (Barber, 2013, Vol. I, page 272-4) without ever considering that Dubuisson was the originator of many of these tools. Here again Barber knew that the Dubuisson's decorated bindings for Padeloup yet preferred to maintain that the caged bird tool found in the decoration of bindings signed by Padeloup belonged to Padeloup and then invented theories to explain how Padeloup's tool was still in circulation 2 decades and more after Padeloups death, including a theory that Padeloups tools were passed on to Derome le jeune, a theory/legend of which there is absolutely no proof or evidence... thus he was blinded by his own caged bird theories and ignored all the evidence that should have alerted him to this error. However when you discover Dubuisson and study his tools you will find that all your previous theories about who decorated what in the 18th century need to be swept out with the dust, which for Barber would have been a painful exercise and demand the entire rewriting of his volumous work.
If you don't know Dubuisson you don't know French 18th century bookbinding.
|
