BEYLIÉ Léon de (EN)

Biographical article

General de Beylié (1849–1910) spent much of his military career overseas, mainly in French Indo-China (Klein, J.-F., 2010, pp. 45–68). An indefatigable traveller, he profited from his foreign campaigns to indulge in his passion for the arts and architecture, and his love of scholarship. An amateur scholar, he wrote several opuscules on art and architecture (see the bibliography), and conducted archaeological excavations. He is best known as a collector and sponsor, notably for the exceptional collection of Asian art that he donated to the Musée de Grenoble.

Léon Marie Eugène de Beylié was born in Strasbourg in 1849. German through his mother, he spent some of his early childhood in Alsace and Bavaria. He was brought up in an aristocratic milieu, which nurtured his taste for weapons, the arts, and culture. His father, Joseph de Beylié (1814–1881), who came from a long line of officers, was destined to pursue a military career, which he abandoned after his studies at Saint-Cyr to start a family. He devoted the rest of his life to art, becoming a painter and sculptor, as well as a promoter and collector of art. He was notably the president of the Société des Arts in Grenoble. Passionate about the history of art, he soon passed on his passion to the young Léon. His mother also played an important role in his cultural initiation. Aimée, née du Moulin (dates unknown), the daughter of General Charles du Moulin, was a well-known pianist and an important figure on the cultural scene in Grenoble. The salons she held met with great success. A central figure in her son’s life, she kept up a lengthy correspondence with him until his death in 1910 (letters held in the de Beylié family archives, abridged as AFB).

Léon de Beylié was brought up by the Jesuits, at first in Paris, where his family moved when he was six, then at Villefranche-sur-Saône near Lyon, and finally in Grenoble, where he spent his teenage years. Given his lineage, a military career was the obvious path for him. At the Lycée de Grenoble, he prepared himself for the admission tests for the École Spéciale Militaire Impériale in Saint-Cyr, where he was admitted in 1869 (SHD, Military File/Dossier Militaire (DM) 12Y93). He enlisted even though he was only nineteen. Several months later, in 1870, the Franco-Prussian War broke out. He distinguished himself through his bravery and was made a Chevalier de la Légion d’Honneur. Promoted to the rank of lieutenant in 1873, he spent the following years in Paris, where he attended courses at the École de Guerre, and in various garrison towns: Belfort, Dreux, Lorient, and Clermont-Ferrand. He continued with his training, climbing up through the ranks (SHD, DM, Series 12Y93). It was in the 1880s that he began travelling. In Europe initially, particularly in Italy in 1882, then he undertook more distant travels as of 1884. That year, he travelled around India for five weeks. He brough back many photographs and a great many objects, including weapons and jewels (Bal, D., 2010, pp. 11–44). The same year, as he requested, he participated in his first campaign in French Indo-China. The French conquest was not yet over and de Beylié participated in several battles in the Franco-Chinese war, in which he distinguished himself through various exploits. He took part, in particular, in the Lạng Sơn campaign, which was particularly bloody (Klein, J.-F., 2010, p. 51). In 1886, he profited from his vacation to visit Japan, and was subsequently entrusted with a mission in China. Returning to France the same year, he was the aide-de-camp to the Maritime Prefect of Toulon; then he was transferred to the same post in Lorient for a three-year period (SHD, DM, Series 12Y93). This did not prevent him from travelling regularly as part of his post or aside from it. He visited Bavaria and Russia, and joined an archaeological mission in Samarkand in 1889 for scientific and geopolitical reasons (Beylié, L., 1889). This first excavation prompted his love of archaeology. 

De Beylié returned to French Indo-China in 1890 (SHD, DM, Series 12Y93). The aim was to ‘pacify’ French Indo-China, to employ the vocabulary of the times. He took part in new battles on the border with China. These border areas were strategically vital for the French presence and were declared ‘military regions’. They had their own special regime under the direct administration of the French, while the rest of the north of French Indo-China—Tonkin—was a protectorate. De Beylié was initially placed in charge of the fourth military region, and was subsequently responsible for the military region of Lao Cai. He was particularly delighted with this post, where in his words he was the ‘sovereign, civil, and military master’ (AFB, letter from de Beylié to his mother, 30/08/1891). In 1893, after the second Tonkin campaign, he departed on a mission to Madagascar, where he was appointed head of intelligence (Beylié, L., 1895). Finally, his career was progressing and he was promoted to the rank of colonel in 1896 (SHD, DM, Series 12Y93). After a brief stay in France, he left the country on a mission to Algeria and Tunisia. He wanted to continue to work overseas and, in 1898, he was again sent to the border regions of Tonkin, but this time his mission involved establishing the French presence in these regions that had now been ‘pacified’. His role wax mainly to oversee various development projects in North Tonkin. In Viet Tri, he established a river port, then he had a road constructed that linked Lao Cai to China (SHD, DM, 12 Y 93). A builder by nature, he found fulfilment in this post, which gave him both autonomy and responsibilities (Klein, J.-F., 2010, p. 54). It also gave him a chance to demonstrate his talents as a constructor and develop the intelligence services, a field in which he excelled (AFB, letter from de Beylié to his mother, Lao Cai, 27/05/1899). When he returned to France in 1900, he requested his retirement (SHD, DM, 6/11/1900) but, after several weeks spent holidaying in Italy, he withdrew his request and worked in Toulon, where he was promoted to the rank of general in 1902. That year he went to Constantinople, and was then sent in the autumn on a mission to inspect the colonial infantry in Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Guyana (SHD, DM, 12Y93). As he did not like the Caribbean, he was delighted when he was asked to go back to French Indo-China, this time in the southern colony of Cochin-China (ANOM, GGI 26131). He stayed there until 1905, but he was bored and used his stay to conduct various archaeological digs. As on previous occasions, scientific goals and military intelligence were certainly combined (Klein, J.-F., 2010, pp. 45–68). He carried out many excavations in Siam (present-day Thailand) in the province of Siem Reap, just when the region was caught up in the imperial geopolitical rivalry between France and England and was about to be retroceded to Cambodia (Klein, J.-F., 2010, p. 58). De Beylié took the side of the French authorities, which encouraged France to wage war on Siam, believing that a conflict would be to their advantage (AFB, letter from de Beylié to his mother, 18/06/1903). In Angkor he had many moulds made of Khmer art stored in the new museum of Saigon and some of them were sent to the Musée du Trocadéro (Beylié, L., 1904). In 1906, he embarked on a journey, on what seemed to be a tour of the British Empire. Again, these trips certainly had some strategic importance. He began with the British Indies, carrying out a campaign of excavations in Prome in Burma (Beylié, L., 1907). He then visited Egypt, Yemen, India, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon (Beylié, L., 1906). He spent 1907 and 1908 between Paris and Saigon, but above all he directed excavation work in Algeria at the Kalaa of the Beni Hammad (Beylié, L., 1909). In the autumn of 1908, he was sent on his last mission to French Indo-China. He was appointed commander of the third brigade of the troops in French Indo-China (SHD, DM, 12Y93). He implemented a system to defend the Indo-Chinese Union, which enabled the troops to travel from the south to the north of the territory, while conducting military engineering work (Klein, J.-F., 2010). He returned to Siem Reap and contributed to the introduction of tourism on the site by building a road that facilitated visitors’ access to the temples (Beylié, L., 1909). In June 1910, he travelled to Laos to set up a road that accompanied the Mekong, in accordance with his defence plan. Just as his mission to Laos was coming to an end, La Grandière, the gunboat he was travelling on, sank in the Mekong rapids when it collided with a tree trunk (ANV, RST 22973). After being buried in Pak Lay, his body was transferred to Saigon. The following year, his coffin was transferred to Grenoble, where a lavish funeral was held by the City of Grenoble on 17 September 1911. A monument was erected in honour of his memory in Saigon (ANV, RST 2512).

The collection

In line with the prevailing spirit at the end of the nineteenth century, General de Beylié’s collection attested to a distinct love of eclecticism. The diversity of the types of objects collected was complemented by the diverse eras and, above all, the provenances of the items. Hence, Javanese puppets were collected alongside panoplies of Renaissance weapons, and sixteenth-century German locks were displayed alongside a statue of Quan Am (Bal, D., 2010). But aside from the abundance of objects in his collection, it is the specific approach he adopted to their acquisition and their context that made it unique. Hence, de Beylié’s motivations were varied: a love of exoticism, a need to affirm his identity as a colonial aesthete, scientific curiosity, and a desire to introduce his peers to the ‘Oriental’ arts (Herbelin, C., 2010a). In other words, all the characteristics shared by colonial collectors united in one man who was larger than life. The collection’s richness and documentation make it truly remarkable. For this obsessive art collector meticulously recorded his acquisitions and described them in great detail in letters he wrote to his mother until his death (letters held in the de Beylié family archives (AFB)).

For decades, only the European section of the de Beylié collection was familiar to and seen by the public in the Musée de Grenoble. A section of the catalogue published in 1995 was devoted specifically to this ensemble of around 130 paintings and sculptures (Chevillot, C., 1995, pp. 29–47). The focus on this aspect of the collection was in no way surprising, as de Beylié’s donations to the museum comprised several historical masterpieces of European art. They included four canvasses by Francisco de Zurbarán (1598–1664): The Annunciation, The Adoration of the Shepherds, The Adoration of the Magi, and The Circumcision. The collection also included fine pieces from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, but the General also acquired works by very contemporary painters and sculptors: Jean-François Millet (1814–1875), Ary Scheffer (1795–1858), and Alexandre Falguière (1831–1900). Although his interest in European art began in his youth, in particular during his voyage to Italy in 1882, his main acquisitions were made later, after most of his Asian collection had been compiled (Bal, D., 2010, p. 12). Was this a quest for legitimacy? These acquisitions may be explained by circumstances: less mobile, the General lived in Paris and travelled around Europe during the latter years of his life.

While it is important to mention the European works, most of de Beylié’s collection was ‘Oriental’, to use the expression of the times, that is to say that it came from the Maghreb, the Middle East, and the Far East. Naturally, French Indo-China predominated, but aside from the fact that he spent much of his time there, his letters attest to his profound love of the local cultures in the colony (AFB, letters, passim). Beylié did indeed have greater affinities with certain regions of the globe than others. Hence, he brought back nothing from his time in the Caribbean. His love of objects and other countries developed early on in his life and it is difficult to say whether it was his passion for collecting that motivated his travels or vice versa. He acquired the first eastern objects in department stores, from antique dealers, and auction houses in the 1880s, when he was a young officer (AFB, letter, 26/12/1884). He set out to create a unique decor for the interior of his home (Herbelin, C., 2016, pp. 277–334). The fact that he moved house very often in no way impeded this ambition, because he set up his apartment every time he was transferred. This meant, for example, that he had to displace two mannequins of Japanese warriors between Marseilles and Brest (Bal, D., 2010, p. 13). He also sent objects to Grenoble, which were received with surprise and horror by his mother (AFB, letter, 2/5/1886). The collection of rare objects from far-flung lands was of course a common way of establishing social distinction, but it is interesting to note that de Beylié saw his acquisitions as a way of being modern. ‘(My apartment) was based, in its layout, on the ideas of modern artists—Parisian ideas—, and I can affirm that no one in Grenoble, expect for Hébert and Ducoin, could have arranged an apartment from a decorative standpoint as I have done (…). It’s a genre that you could not be familiar with, as it has only been around for twenty years. The accumulation of objects of curiosity, wall hangings, and copper items makes quite an impact, but it mustn’t be used everywhere. This effect needs to be confined to the salon and the study’ (Bal, D., 2010, p. 13, letter, 18/08/1884).

When he went to French Indo-China, de Beylié took the idea of using objects as an expression of identity in his private life even further (Herbelin, C., 2016, pp. 320–324). The hunter of ornaments in the auction houses and the collector and traveller was now a colonial. It was no longer a question of evoking the cultures of far-off lands but rather of living in, adapting, and appropriating them. De Beylié bought furniture just after he arrived in Hanoi, and, above all, he commissioned local craftsmen to make furniture (AFB, letter, 28/12/1884). He himself drew the models, adapting local forms to his own needs and tastes (AFB, letters and carnets, passim). This resulted in hybrid forms, which were diverted from their original functions and the signification of the initial models (Herbelin, C., 2010a). Hence, the two finest examples of this genre were a secretaire and an armchair that bore the coat-of-arms and the name de Beylié in ideograms, with an application of red and gilded lacquer, which was usually reserved for religious furniture (Herbelin, C., 2010b, pp. 104–107). This form of decoration would never have been used locally. Certain items of furniture and decorative elements acquired by de Beylié were reused objects taken from dismantled architectural ensembles. It was common practice amongst local dealers to sell these assembled objects to a European clientele. The dealers soon adapted themselves to the requirements of foreigners and particularly soldiers, even as the conquest was underway. And the collectors prided themselves on working hand-in-hand with the indigenous sellers and having a special relation with them as regular customers that passing tourists did not have (Peyssonaux, J.-H.-E., 1921). Hence, de Beylié described how he made a point of going to see the various artisans to inspect their workshops and compare their offers. It is also interesting to note the important role played by the expertise and advice of his servant in his acquisitions (AFB, letters and notebooks, passim). The General’s acquisitions show how the local sellers soon adapted to the requirements of foreigners and particularly soldiers, even as the conquest was underway. The General did not, however, hide the fact that part of his collections also came from pillaging carried out during military operations. This concerned a small number of objects in the collection, mainly woodcarvings (Bal, D., 2010, p. 18). Although the General himself deplored—in a rather contradictory manner—the resulting exactions and destruction, it highlights the fact that these transactions, even when they were commercial, were made in a context of war and domination.

De Beylié’s correspondence underlines how in the colony the collection was interconnected with the development of a colonial microcosm. Hence, in 1898, de Beylié had his house in Viet Trì completely refurbished under his direction, from the layout of the flowers in the garden to the walls (he asked local artists to create frescos representing scenes of the conquest of Tonkin). Each area of the house was carefully thought out and associated with the objects in his collection (AFB, letter dated 28 June 1898). This was characteristic of colonial collections. The usual practice amongst standard collectors—as described by Krzysztof Pomian (Pomian, K., 1987)—was to highlight an object and isolate it in order to enhance it as such and that is why collectors often specialised in these kinds of objects. But colonial collectors would collect all kinds of objects, creating an ensemble of complementary pieces rather than series of objects. 

Although de Beylié sought objects for his own satisfaction, the desire to share his discoveries with the public was a very important criterion in his selections. His parents had encouraged him to appreciate the finer things in life, as well as the notion of sharing them with others. From this perspective, the many visits he made to the museum with his father since his childhood were formative and his letters show that, even in adulthood, they continued to influence his acquisitions (Bal, D., 2010, p. 13). Hence, it was quite natural for de Beylié, who had neither awife nor children, to decide to donate some of his acquisitions to the Musée de Grenoble (which was called the Musée Génin at the time). He did not do this by bequeathing his property once his travels were over or after his death, as was the case with many colonial collectors, but by collecting directly for the museum. The general’s first donations were integrated into the museum in 1887, but during de Beylié’s second campaign in Tonkin in 1890 the shipments of objects became considerable and de Beylié actively acquired objects with the aim of exhibiting them to the public (Bal, D., 2010, pp. 19–23). His donations were so large that the museum’s curator, Jules Bernard (1849–1917), decided to devote an entire room to the de Beylié Collection, which was inaugurated in July 1900 (Bal, D., 2010, pp. 34–35). As Danièle Bal observed, de Beylié’s approach went beyond that of a private collection and became an educational project (Bal, D., 2010, p. 28). Hence, on his travels, the soldier collected ensembles of ceramics, bronzes, statues, and religious furniture that he considered representative. Many of the statues he brought back were copies that he had made after works he had seen in temples. Likewise, he made moulds in the temples of Angkor, which he sent to the Museum of Saigon and the Musée du Trocadéro in Paris (Parmentier, H., 1927, p. 245), focusing more on the informative side and less on authenticity. His educational approach led him to make recommendations on the way in which the donated objects should be displayed in the Musée (AFB, letter, 17/05/1903). It is worth noting that he had the first catalogue of the collections in the Musée de Grenoble printed at his own expense (Beylié, L., 1909b).

His eagerness to share his collection with the public went hand in hand with his desire to be acknowledged as an amateur scientist. He was a correspondent member of the Institut de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Letters (Pottier, E., 1910), and of the Commission Archéologique de l’Indochine et de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient (Finot, L., 1910). His insatiable curiosity led him to seriously study the architecture of the countries he visited and to carry out many archaeological excavations. These interests did not conflict with his military missions and, on the contrary, this pastime was certainly intertwined with intelligence gathering missions (Klein, J.-F., 2010). His studies led to the publication of several brochures (see the bibliography). The documentary aspect of the published sketches, engravings, and photographs was unanimously acclaimed. His hasty interpretations were less well received, and he was not exempt from criticism by well-established scientists (Finot, L., 1904; Singaravélou, P., 1999, p. 228).

De Beylié was convinced that he had a talent and expertise that made his collection unique and authentic. Hence, when he started out as a collector, while he was still in France, he boasted about discoveries that had no value on the art market and that he selected not on the basis of aesthetic criteria, but rather for their inherent qualities (AFB, letter, 2/5/1886). In French Indo-China, he was committed to a documentary mission to promote an art form that was ignored, compared with Far-Eastern arts, as attested in the following extract from a letter written in 1892 about a shipment of bronze vases: ‘Of course, all my bronze wares come from Tonkin. (…) These bronzes are not to be confused with the more finely made Japanese bronzes that saturate the markets. The latter are very decorative, but they don’t belong in museums. Despite their dimensions and their style, they’re bazaar objects. My Tonkin bronzes are often crudely made and barely cleaned up after being cast. They will never be worth much. They are the last vestiges of a local art that’s disappearing. No one wants to buy them. And the museum’s collection may be considered an absolute rarity that will only be appreciated in the future. I shall complement it later with an incense burner that I still have in my house. Again, there’s no comparison between the Japanese bronzes, which were made for the purposes of export and which come to France by the shipload, and modest bronzes that attract no speculators and which will never be sold in France. Besides, they’re only made in Hanoi, and even then in small quantities.’ (AFB, letter 1892, quoted by Bal, D., 2010, p. 30). De Beylié applied the same ethnographic approach to his collection of small figurines (Mourer, R., 2010), games, weapons, and theatre costumes. These objects, which were rare¾even unique in French collections¾, and the hybrid objets in the collection now give it its historical value: the latter are precious milestones in the material history of the French presence in Indo-China.