Niet naleven van de Pragmatieke Sanctie 1742

Curator: At first glance, it looks like a stage for enacting treaties or agreements—maybe even the reverse. Editor: Indeed, what we are observing is a medal from 1742. Its title translates to 'Non-Compliance with the Pragmatic Sanction,' and it resides here at the Rijksmuseum. It appears to be crafted from metal, possibly bronze, and features a relief sculpture on both sides. Curator: The textures and the light play across the raised surfaces. There is a somber mood despite what feels like celebratory attire and gestures. One side shows men gathered around what looks like a discarded document, while the other depicts a mother and child. Editor: That “discarded document” speaks volumes. The Pragmatic Sanction aimed to ensure Maria Theresa's succession to the Habsburg throne, a move many European powers initially agreed to, then... well, didn't. It is, at its core, about power, succession, and violated agreements in a patriarchal society. Curator: It’s intriguing how symbols cluster. The grouping around a table with men almost mimics depictions of the Last Supper, creating a narrative tension between allegiance and betrayal that resonates in political contexts throughout time. The image of the woman echoes timeless depictions of maternal care and royalty combined in the iconography of powerful matriarchs across cultures. Editor: The artist uses very pointed symbolism, contrasting the collaborative aspirations of diplomacy on one side, literally shattered by male ambition, against an image of female leadership carrying on in spite of political treachery. Note how Maria Theresa holds her son, ensuring dynastic continuity amid crisis. This composition really encapsulates how women carry forward legacies even through male created instability. Curator: Given that context, there is a depth to how it plays with these dualities of legacy versus destruction. Seeing history presented as something tangible really emphasizes that history and the memories and messages from it should not be forgotten or carelessly tossed aside. Editor: Precisely. It provokes questions about accountability in diplomacy and what traditions of solidarity we chose to uphold or betray, offering no easy answers but plenty of points for discussion—resonating even today.