{"title":"疯狂之石夏尔科对亨利-梅杰(Henry Meige)提到的老彼得-勃鲁盖尔(Pieter Bruegel Sr.)作品的兴趣。","authors":"Peter J Koehler","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2024.2348421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) is known to have possessed interesting works of art, e.g. Jan Steen's <i>Marriage at Cana</i>. In 1899, his pupil and colleague Henry Meige (1866-1940) wrote that Charcot had been interested in a painting (after a drawing) by Bruegel, named <i>Les Arracheurs de Pierres de Teste</i>. At the time the painting belonged to Charcot's contemporary Ernest Mesnet (1825-1898). When Charcot visited Mesnet, he offered him a considerable amount of money. The owner did not want to sell it, but promised to leave it to Charcot in his will. As Charcot died earlier than Mesnet, the painting went to the latter's heirs. In 1899, it was possessed by dermatologist dr. Paul de Molènes-Mahon (b. 1857). Meige published an article, in which he criticized the quality of the copy. Surgeon Henri Gaudier (1866-1942) wrote about the original painting in the Museum of St. Omer and confirmed Meige's opinion about the copy. I will illustrate the St. Omer painting and describe Meige's and Gaudier's comments by comparing it with the black & white copy in Meige's 1899 article. My study looks at Charcot <i>as a collector of paintings</i>, which is a minimally studied topic. He may have been interested in the Paris Bruegel copy for clinical and medical-historical reasons, rather than on aesthetic grounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The stone of madness: Charcot's interest in a copy after Pieter Bruegel Sr. as referred to by Henry Meige.\",\"authors\":\"Peter J Koehler\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0964704X.2024.2348421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) is known to have possessed interesting works of art, e.g. Jan Steen's <i>Marriage at Cana</i>. In 1899, his pupil and colleague Henry Meige (1866-1940) wrote that Charcot had been interested in a painting (after a drawing) by Bruegel, named <i>Les Arracheurs de Pierres de Teste</i>. At the time the painting belonged to Charcot's contemporary Ernest Mesnet (1825-1898). When Charcot visited Mesnet, he offered him a considerable amount of money. The owner did not want to sell it, but promised to leave it to Charcot in his will. As Charcot died earlier than Mesnet, the painting went to the latter's heirs. In 1899, it was possessed by dermatologist dr. Paul de Molènes-Mahon (b. 1857). Meige published an article, in which he criticized the quality of the copy. Surgeon Henri Gaudier (1866-1942) wrote about the original painting in the Museum of St. Omer and confirmed Meige's opinion about the copy. I will illustrate the St. Omer painting and describe Meige's and Gaudier's comments by comparing it with the black & white copy in Meige's 1899 article. My study looks at Charcot <i>as a collector of paintings</i>, which is a minimally studied topic. He may have been interested in the Paris Bruegel copy for clinical and medical-historical reasons, rather than on aesthetic grounds.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2024.2348421\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2024.2348421","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
让-马丁-沙尔科(Jean-Martin Charcot,1825-1893 年)拥有许多有趣的艺术作品,例如扬-斯泰恩(Jan Steen)的《迦拿的婚礼》(Marriage at Cana)。1899 年,他的学生和同事亨利-梅杰(Henry Meige,1866-1940 年)写道,沙尔科对勃鲁盖尔的一幅名为《Les Arracheurs de Pierres de Teste》的油画(根据一幅素描)很感兴趣。当时,这幅画属于沙尔科的同时代人欧内斯特-梅斯内(Ernest Mesnet,1825-1898 年)。当夏尔科拜访梅斯内时,他给了他一大笔钱。画的主人不想卖画,但答应在遗嘱中将画留给沙尔科。由于沙尔科比梅斯内死得早,这幅画就归了后者的继承人。1899 年,皮肤科医生保罗-德-莫莱纳斯-马洪(Paul de Molènes-Mahon,生于 1857 年)拥有了这幅画。梅杰发表了一篇文章,批评了临摹作品的质量。外科医生亨利-高迪埃(Henri Gaudier,1866-1942 年)撰文介绍了圣奥美博物馆中的原画,并证实了梅杰对复制品的看法。我将为这幅圣奥马尔画作绘制插图,并通过将其与梅杰 1899 年文章中的黑白摹本进行比较来描述梅杰和高迪耶的评论。我的研究着眼于沙尔科作为绘画收藏家的身份,而这是一个很少有人研究的话题。他之所以对巴黎勃鲁盖尔的复制品感兴趣,可能是出于临床和医学史方面的原因,而非审美方面的原因。
The stone of madness: Charcot's interest in a copy after Pieter Bruegel Sr. as referred to by Henry Meige.
Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893) is known to have possessed interesting works of art, e.g. Jan Steen's Marriage at Cana. In 1899, his pupil and colleague Henry Meige (1866-1940) wrote that Charcot had been interested in a painting (after a drawing) by Bruegel, named Les Arracheurs de Pierres de Teste. At the time the painting belonged to Charcot's contemporary Ernest Mesnet (1825-1898). When Charcot visited Mesnet, he offered him a considerable amount of money. The owner did not want to sell it, but promised to leave it to Charcot in his will. As Charcot died earlier than Mesnet, the painting went to the latter's heirs. In 1899, it was possessed by dermatologist dr. Paul de Molènes-Mahon (b. 1857). Meige published an article, in which he criticized the quality of the copy. Surgeon Henri Gaudier (1866-1942) wrote about the original painting in the Museum of St. Omer and confirmed Meige's opinion about the copy. I will illustrate the St. Omer painting and describe Meige's and Gaudier's comments by comparing it with the black & white copy in Meige's 1899 article. My study looks at Charcot as a collector of paintings, which is a minimally studied topic. He may have been interested in the Paris Bruegel copy for clinical and medical-historical reasons, rather than on aesthetic grounds.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is the leading communication platform dealing with the historical roots of the basic and applied neurosciences. Its domains cover historical perspectives and developments, including biographical studies, disorders, institutions, documents, and instrumentation in neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, and the behavioral neurosciences. The history of ideas, changes in society and medicine, and the connections with other disciplines (e.g., the arts, philosophy, psychology) are welcome. In addition to original, full-length papers, the journal welcomes informative short communications, letters to the editors, book reviews, and contributions to its NeuroWords and Neurognostics columns. All manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by an Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, full- and short-length papers are subject to peer review (double blind, if requested) by at least 2 anonymous referees.