Talk:Tomb of Philippe Pot

Inscriptions

The full inscriptions are in capital letters, and read: cy demorra messire philippe pot chevalier seigneur de la roiche de nolay de chastelneuf en l’auxois et de gevrey en chalonois pour la plus part grant seneschal de bourgogne seigneur de thorey sur oische et de neesles qui fut [norry] en l’host[el] / de monseig[neur] le bon duc philippe darrain trespasse lequel le fit chevalier fut parrain d’icelluy et par l’election des chevalier de l’ordre de la toison d’or lui donna et mist au col lui fit de grans biens et honneurs en plusieurs et diverses manieres et en divers estas selon le aige qu’il le servit et tant que environ ii ou iii an avant son trespas il le mist en l’estat / de premier chambellan et luy donna les capitaineries du chastel et des villes de lisle / douhay et orchies apres la mort de son dit mastre fut retenu par monseigneur le duc charles son filz en son service l’un de ses principaulx chambellans et generalment luy laissa tous les offices dont il le trouva en possession auquel / lui demoura la vie durant de son dit seig[neu]ret maistre apres la mort duquel par ceulx de / la ville de lisle tant officier comme tous autres il fut mis hors du chastel et de la dite ville de lisle et par le commandement de mademoiselle de bourgogne qui pour lors estoit dame des dits lieux et luy fut force de soy retirer en / la ville de tournay en laquelle pour ce temps les gens du roy et de ma dite damoiselle aloient et / venoient par la consentement des dessus dits seigneur et dame auquel lieu le roi envoia querr le dit seigneur d[e] la roiche et le voulut avoir a son service lui fit de grans biens et lui osta la dite ordre qu’il portoit en lui faisant / cest honneur que de lui donner la si[enne] et le crean[t gra]nt se[ne]chal de bourgogne en telle prerogative et drois comme le grant seneschal de n[or]mandie [tr]epassa le… jour du mois de…[7]bre l’an mil ccccxci[v]refJugie (2019), pp. 16–17

Why is this not in the article section "Inscriptions"? I would think it should be the left of two columns, the right of which should be an English translation. Nick Beeson (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

TFA

Hello Ceoil, love this article! I've just made some minor tweaks in anticipation of TFA. These are a few leftover questions I had, nothing serious, just trying to reduce possible changes on the day...

• "with four shades of black paint" - but black has no shades? I can't see the cites so can only suggest tweaking to something like "with four dark shades of near-black paint" or similar?
• "slightly less than life-sized, allowing" - would they be "life-sized" if they were standing tall i.e., not reverently stooping?
• Consistency cap - battle of Nancy v Battle of Nancy
• "a feat described by Jugie, as" - should her intro, (appearing below in Condition section "Sophie Jugie, director of the Department of Sculptures at the Louvre.") be moved up to this first mention?
• Ref 38 "Base Joconde: Tomb of Philip Pot, Grand Seneschal of Burgundy, French Ministry of Culture. (in French) - needs closing quote mark?

No need to reply to these, just tweak anything you deem worthwhile. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; all good points and all now done. Always good to see your productive suggestions on my watchlist; you are always astute and appreciate the help a lot. Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! JennyOz (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Beautiful article! Well done. John (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Pierre de Beauffremont ?

Bonsoir, hello. When I ask for this subject on French WP, I find « Pierre de Beauffremont » [1] and not «  Tombeau de Philippe Pot » [2]. Can somebody fix this error ? (I’m sorry I’m unable to write properly the links of the French articles.) Thanks a lot. Punctilla (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's really weird, granted this is the first time I actually try to edit the links, but the wikidata page seems correct https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3531160#sitelinks-wikipedia Whatever you do, I'm probably not interested. (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes that does seem to be the case - odd. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Typo

Hi, fascinating article, thank you for the hard work. Tiny little bit of nitpicking: in the Provenance section, the name of Charles Edouard de Beaumont's painting is "Au Soleil", not Au Solei. I'd correct it myself, but rules are rules. Have a great day! 2A02:8428:6E68:3D01:6C43:A504:8056:BDC3 (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right. I amended the article accordingly. Thanks for your vigilance. John (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Dates of completion/mention

The article makes a few conflicting or ambiguous statements:

• The monument is recorded as having been completed in 1480 but there is no mention of its designers or craftsmen. (Lead)
• Plans for Pot's tomb first appear in the historical records on 28 August 1480... Although the dates of its construction are unknown, it is generally assumed to have been between 1480 and 1483... (Life and death)
• It was first mentioned as completed in 1649 by Pierre Palliot, a bookseller and printer in Dijon, when he described the coats of arms and the inscriptions. (Provenance)

If the dates of construction are assumed, it can't have been recorded as having been completed in 1480. The lead should probably say, "recorded as having been commissioned in 1480", or just "first recorded in 1480".

Presumably 1649 modifies the mention, but the wording is ambiguous. "Mentioned as completed" is also confusing because readers may incorrectly infer that the tomb remained uncompleted for over 150 years. A better wording might be, "The first recorded mention after its completion was made in 1649 by Pierre Palliot..." --Paul_012 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, "stolen during the French Revolution" in the lead reads as rather POV, and doesn't reflect the body which just says "nationalised". "Seized" might be an alternative. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Paul_012, have clarified on those points now. Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Post-restoration photos?

Great article, Ceoil! I see that the tomb had a major restoration in 2018–2019, but the images in the article all seem to have earlier dates (2009, 2010, 2013, 2015). Given that the analysis and restoration seems to have been so thorough, does it make sense to choose at least some post-restoration images to illustrate the article? I see that Commons has three from 2024: [3], [4], [5]. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rupert, many thanks for the links and will definitely incorporate those. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Rupert, as an update, have switched to some of the new pictures. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)