With regard to the productions of the mind, it becomes necessary to establish a well-defined distinction, at least in so far as the past, anterior to the 19th century, is concerned, between the position of women artists and that of literary women. The literary woman, like the man of letters, was not subjected to any special obligation beyond the official sanction granting her the privilege of publication—a sanction which bore only on the question of morals and religion. Every woman was free to write without let or hindrance, without any preliminary education, and even without going through the formalities of publication or the necessities of printing, since a famous woman like Madame de Sévigné owed her celebrity to letters which were not destined to be made public. This explains the number of charming writers among women who have added lustre to French literature by their novels, stories, or simply by their letters, and enables one to realise how these women authors are, in contradistinction to women artists, persons of high standing. The chronicles of the Hôtel de Rambouillet constitute an interesting little chapter in the history of letters in France, just as the "Précieuses Ridicules" or the "Femmes Savantes" of Molière reveal to us the defects and eccentricities into which the literary pretensions of the feminine world had fallen in the 17th century. It cannot, however, be denied that the fair sex freely infused into the literature of that period spontaneity, life and spirit, piquancy, affectation, and the delicate sentiments inherent to its nature, and that it had its share of influence on French taste at that time.
Altogether different is the position of their sisters, the women-painters. Let us first look into that of the men. Painters formerly were part of a Guild such as that of the Drapers, Bakers and Butchers, and in their case it was a Guild which was far from occupying the first place in the hierarchy of Guilds. The Butchers were beyond doubt higher up in the scale than the painters. The painters were subjected to narrow and despotic regulations; rigorous conditions governed both apprenticeship and mastership, conditions hardly encouraging to those who had a vocation, more especially in the case of women, ill-protected by the weakness of their sex, by prevalent custom, and ill-adapted for the struggle. The régime of the Académies, which followed that of the Guilds, did not bring in its wake conditions in any degree profitable to womankind. The Académie de Saint-Luc, while pretending to safeguard the professional interests of artists, displayed such tyrannical pretensions that a certain number of artists rose in revolt against it, and appealed to the Royal power, which, approached by its chief painter, Charles Le Brun, came to their rescue, by helping them to found the celebrated Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture (1666). The Académie Royale proved itself somewhat more liberal. It set no limits to the reception of those who seemed worthy of its suffrages; we know that it welcomed into its bosom a number of strangers of merit, and that it opened its doors to women. Therein lies a victory of appreciable importance, if one considers the energy and the talent which women artists were compelled to display, in order to conquer ancient prejudices in so signal a fashion. Henceforth a place was assigned in art to women, a place still hedged in with limitations, and which could be attained only by the few privileged ones. For, in its turn, the Académie served the purpose of a few, but not that of the many. The Académie reserved the monopoly of exhibitions exclusively for its members; and artists who did not, in one way or other, belong to this congregation, were allowed to exhibit their works in public only once a year. It was on the one day of the Octave of Corpus Christi, for a space of two hours, in the open air, and within the circumference of the Place Dauphine. All great artists had to submit to this treatment, ere they could force the portals of the Académie. But times have changed! Our contemporaries, so inconstant, so impatient, who wear out the attention of the public by the excessive multiplicity of their exhibitory manifestations, should occasionally think of the conditions under which their forerunners laboured.
Imagine a woman placed in the midst of these quarrels and struggles of rival Academies, with men in strong and often fierce antagonism on all sides of her; picture not only these general difficulties, but those of a more particular sort which arise from the disabilities of her sex, her subordinate state; think of the drawbacks—the prejudices, the convenances to be considered, and then the embarrassing promiscuity of life in studio and school, particularly as regards the study from the living model—and one can realise how brave, how energetic, or how ambitious must be the woman who would win the title of Artist.
It is clear that the Royal Academy's liberal measure in opening its doors to women of talent was an event of some importance, from the moral point of view at any rate. It was the public recognition of woman's capacity in matters of art, the official consecration of merit which might come to light; also it afforded a goal to strive for—a goal hard to reach and very remote, doubtless, but still a goal possible of attainment to the most courageous and the most hopeful among women. The real, as distinct from the moral, advantages were, however, rather limited. From 1663, the date which marks the admission of the first woman artist, to 1783, when the last was admitted—that is to say during a period of eighty years—exactly fifteen women painters were elected, and among them were three foreigners. In 1770, indeed, on the nomination of Mlle. Giroust, wife of Roslin, the painter, it was decided that, as there were already in the company two other women previously elected, there must not be more than four women in all within the Academy. This measure of restriction was renewed in 1783 and ratified by Royal ordinance on the election of Mme. Vigée Le Brun.
Nevertheless there was an appreciable number of women artists in France throughout the course of the 18th century. Their social rank was strictly confined. There were no "women of quality," such as were to be found in the world of letters, no representatives of the bourgeoisie even. The women artists, with very rare exceptions, all belonged to artist families. They were the wives, the daughters, the sisters or the nieces of artists, and this tradition, as we shall see, even continued long into the 19th century. Catherine Duchemin, the first woman elected to the Academy, was the wife of the sculptor, Girardon, while Geneviève and Madelaine Boulogne, both academicians, were related to distinguished painters of that name. Mlle. Reboul was Mme. Vien, and Mme. Labille des Vertus became Mme. Vincent on her second marriage. Then we have Mlle. Natoire, sister of the director of the Academy of France, Catherine van Loo, one of the innumerable family of Van Loo, Mme. de Valsaureaux, née Parrocel, of the no less numerous family of Parrocel, Mme. Therbouch, née Liscewska, all this family, father, mother, and daughters alike, being painters; and Mme. Vigée herself, who married the picture dealer Le Brun, was the daughter of a portrait painter.
During the 17th and 18th centuries these great artist families intermarried to such an extent as to form a series of veritable dynasties—for instance, those of the Coypels, the Coustous, the Van Loos, the Boulognes, the Parrocels, and the Vernets, to name but a few of the most renowned. Artist families became allied just as do those of lawyers and merchants. Thus their social life grew more limited, each category more and more distinct and apart, for these artist families rarely strayed beyond their own milieu. And those very circumstances which tended to retard the development of the artistic calling in woman exerted their influence over the inspiration of the female artist. The impossibility of pursuing very far the study of anatomical drawing, owing to the nudity of the model, diverted them almost entirely to the studies of observation and of imitation, to portrait work, and flowers and animals and still-life. Later, when they obtained greater liberty, they devoted themselves to genre of a size and kind demanding less substantial preparation. But as for composition, they never touched "history," as it was termed—that is, lofty, heroic or allegorical subjects—and if there should chance to have been any exception to this rule, it was simply in the direction of religious motifs.
French School, about 1793-1824
PORTRAIT OF GAËTANO APOLLINO BALDASSARE VESTRIS,
DANCER (1729-1808).
REPRODUCED FROM A PHOTOGRAPH
BY PERMISSION OF BRAUN, CLÉMENT & CO., PARIS
Madame Adèle Romany, née de Romance, Painter
exhibited from 1793 to 1824