DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61284#0079
3o VIGEE-LEBRUN
a little reserve. On the whole, it is as clear an account of Marie Antoinette
at the height of her good looks as history possesses. She was, as we hear
from her favourite artist, “ tall, with an admirable figure, rather plump,
but not too much so. Her arms were superb, her hands small and per-
fectly formed, her feet were charming. She walked better than any other
woman in France, carrying her head very erect, with a majesty which
made the Sovereign recognisable in the midst of all her court, without
detracting from the sweetness and benevolence of her aspect. It is really
very difficult to convey to those who have never seen the Queen any idea
of the union of so many graces and so much nobility. Her features were
not regular ; she inherited the long and narrow oval face peculiar to her
Austrian nationality. Her eyes were rather small, their colour was nearly
blue ; her expression was intelligent and gentle. Her nose was small
and pretty, and her mouth was not too big, although the lips were rather
thick. But the most remarkable thing about her face was the brilliance of
her complexion. I have never seen another to equal it, and brilliant is
the right word to use ; for her skin was so transparent that it did not
take a shadow (elle ne prenait point d’ombre). I could not render it to my
satisfaction : the colours were wanting that could paint that freshness,
those tints so fine which belonged only to that charming face and which
I have never found again on any other woman.”
It is a not uncommon criticism of Madame Lebrun’s portraits of
Marie Antoinette that they are not really “ portraits ” at all, but flatteries.
After examining representations of the Queen by other hands, and noting
where they agree with or differ from the portraits by Madame Vigee-Lebrun,
or among themselves, I am convinced that most of those done by Madame
Lebrun from life are no more unlike their human original than the
works of Romney, of Gainsborough, or of Lawrence are unlike the people
(especially the ladies) who sat for them. Let us compare, for example, the
portraits of Mrs. Robinson, by Gainsborough and by Romney (Wallace
Gallery), or those of Mrs. Siddons, by Lawrence and by Gainsborough
(National Gallery), and decide what those ladies really were to the eye.
Not only are all Vigee-Lebrun’s portraits of Marie Antoinette at Versailles
(with the possible exception of that first one of 1779) consistent with each
other, and with others from her hand in various collections, but they are
consistent with the charming bust of the Queen in early youth by Augustin
Pajou (the elder), also at Versailles, and with portraits by other artists.
As for engravings, the Queen’s face was, with the possible exception of
a little reserve. On the whole, it is as clear an account of Marie Antoinette
at the height of her good looks as history possesses. She was, as we hear
from her favourite artist, “ tall, with an admirable figure, rather plump,
but not too much so. Her arms were superb, her hands small and per-
fectly formed, her feet were charming. She walked better than any other
woman in France, carrying her head very erect, with a majesty which
made the Sovereign recognisable in the midst of all her court, without
detracting from the sweetness and benevolence of her aspect. It is really
very difficult to convey to those who have never seen the Queen any idea
of the union of so many graces and so much nobility. Her features were
not regular ; she inherited the long and narrow oval face peculiar to her
Austrian nationality. Her eyes were rather small, their colour was nearly
blue ; her expression was intelligent and gentle. Her nose was small
and pretty, and her mouth was not too big, although the lips were rather
thick. But the most remarkable thing about her face was the brilliance of
her complexion. I have never seen another to equal it, and brilliant is
the right word to use ; for her skin was so transparent that it did not
take a shadow (elle ne prenait point d’ombre). I could not render it to my
satisfaction : the colours were wanting that could paint that freshness,
those tints so fine which belonged only to that charming face and which
I have never found again on any other woman.”
It is a not uncommon criticism of Madame Lebrun’s portraits of
Marie Antoinette that they are not really “ portraits ” at all, but flatteries.
After examining representations of the Queen by other hands, and noting
where they agree with or differ from the portraits by Madame Vigee-Lebrun,
or among themselves, I am convinced that most of those done by Madame
Lebrun from life are no more unlike their human original than the
works of Romney, of Gainsborough, or of Lawrence are unlike the people
(especially the ladies) who sat for them. Let us compare, for example, the
portraits of Mrs. Robinson, by Gainsborough and by Romney (Wallace
Gallery), or those of Mrs. Siddons, by Lawrence and by Gainsborough
(National Gallery), and decide what those ladies really were to the eye.
Not only are all Vigee-Lebrun’s portraits of Marie Antoinette at Versailles
(with the possible exception of that first one of 1779) consistent with each
other, and with others from her hand in various collections, but they are
consistent with the charming bust of the Queen in early youth by Augustin
Pajou (the elder), also at Versailles, and with portraits by other artists.
As for engravings, the Queen’s face was, with the possible exception of