DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61284#0065
A SCHOOL THAT FAILED
19
with her usual work, but bored her terribly. Most of these pupils were
older than their teacher, and she found it very hard to maintain discipline.
“ I had set up this school in an old loft, across the ceiling of which there
were some very thick beams. One morning I went up and found that
my pupils had tied a cord to one of the beams, and were trying who could
swing the highest. I pulled a serious face, I scowled, I talked finely about
the waste of time—and then, I couldn’t resist having a swing, and enjoyed
it more than all the others.” Who can wonder that the school was soon
closed ! She had pupils after this time who worked in her studio, among
them Mademoiselle Emilie Laville-Leroux (Madame Benoist) of whom
Vigee-Lebrun was the first teacher.
The “ rainy days” came, but the young couple were not flooded out,
though at one time they were very near to a public exposure of their
difficulties.
Possibly at the instigation of Lebrun (who, as a debtor, may have
thought it convenient to have no attachable share in his wife’s earnings),
a petition for a separation of goods between husband and wife was drawn
up in her name for presentation to the proper legal authorities. This
document set out that Madame Lebrun had been “ cruelly deceived” as
to her prospects of easy circumstances in marriage. Her husband, by bad
investments, had lost so much money that he was pursued by creditors,
and she (in the language of the petition) “ finds herself at the moment
liable to be reduced to the last degree of poverty ; and sees no other means
of preventing the complete loss of her fortune than to take such action
as the law provides—that is to say, by the separation of goods.”
Such petitions were as common in the Paris of that age as petitions
of divorce are to-day—indeed, they were relatively more numerous.
Divorce itself was not yet possible by any process of law open to the general
public, but considerable pressure could be brought to bear on a wearisome
or too-fickle husband by the wife’s proposal to dissolve the partnership in
worldly goods, if not actually to end his claim on her society, which,
in such cases as the Lebruns’, he did not usually value so highly as his
power to spend her money.
Nothing came of the petition, and, indeed, the picture-dealer soon
found his business much improved. He was able, out of his wife’s earn-
ings, to build a large gallery in the courtyard of their house, where he could
show and sell his “ old masters” and whatever other examples of art he
might have in stock. In his opinion his wife owed a good deal of her
19
with her usual work, but bored her terribly. Most of these pupils were
older than their teacher, and she found it very hard to maintain discipline.
“ I had set up this school in an old loft, across the ceiling of which there
were some very thick beams. One morning I went up and found that
my pupils had tied a cord to one of the beams, and were trying who could
swing the highest. I pulled a serious face, I scowled, I talked finely about
the waste of time—and then, I couldn’t resist having a swing, and enjoyed
it more than all the others.” Who can wonder that the school was soon
closed ! She had pupils after this time who worked in her studio, among
them Mademoiselle Emilie Laville-Leroux (Madame Benoist) of whom
Vigee-Lebrun was the first teacher.
The “ rainy days” came, but the young couple were not flooded out,
though at one time they were very near to a public exposure of their
difficulties.
Possibly at the instigation of Lebrun (who, as a debtor, may have
thought it convenient to have no attachable share in his wife’s earnings),
a petition for a separation of goods between husband and wife was drawn
up in her name for presentation to the proper legal authorities. This
document set out that Madame Lebrun had been “ cruelly deceived” as
to her prospects of easy circumstances in marriage. Her husband, by bad
investments, had lost so much money that he was pursued by creditors,
and she (in the language of the petition) “ finds herself at the moment
liable to be reduced to the last degree of poverty ; and sees no other means
of preventing the complete loss of her fortune than to take such action
as the law provides—that is to say, by the separation of goods.”
Such petitions were as common in the Paris of that age as petitions
of divorce are to-day—indeed, they were relatively more numerous.
Divorce itself was not yet possible by any process of law open to the general
public, but considerable pressure could be brought to bear on a wearisome
or too-fickle husband by the wife’s proposal to dissolve the partnership in
worldly goods, if not actually to end his claim on her society, which,
in such cases as the Lebruns’, he did not usually value so highly as his
power to spend her money.
Nothing came of the petition, and, indeed, the picture-dealer soon
found his business much improved. He was able, out of his wife’s earn-
ings, to build a large gallery in the courtyard of their house, where he could
show and sell his “ old masters” and whatever other examples of art he
might have in stock. In his opinion his wife owed a good deal of her