The Hybridized Identity of Marie-Antoinette
By
Mandy Paige-Lovingood
Senior Honors Thesis
Department of Art History
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
November 11, 2014
Approved:
__________________________________
Dr. Mary Sheriff, Thesis Advisor
Dr. Mary Pardo, Reader
“Am I to be Austrian or the Dauphine of France?” “You must be both.”
-Conversation between Maria-Antoinette and Count Mercy in Sofia Coppola’s Marie-Antoinette
A diatribe against Marie-Antoinette originated in France during the mid-eighteenth-century and has carried on into present day discourse. Sadly, our views of Marie-Antoinette tend to be shaped by two hundred year-old opinions that were likely not fully accurate. So who was Marie-Antoinette? Over the past century, more and more scholars, biographers, and filmmakers have attempted to answer this question. Yet have we received a proper depiction of Marie-Antoinette or are we still presented with a representation that communicates the past condemnations of eighteenth-century France? Is it possible that Marie-Antoinette was the foolish and thoughtless woman Norma Shearer played in the Stephan Zweig inspired biopic Marie-Antoinette? Or maybe she was the sweet, naive, and careless dauphine/queen who never fully understood the importance of her position that was depicted in Sofia Coppola’s film Marie-Antoinette. Similarly, Benoît Jacquot’s movie Farewell My Queen, based on Chantal Thomas’ book, also tried to offer its viewer a softer image of the queen, but Marie-Antoinette still came off as a selfish woman. Although all are excellent in their own way, they do not explore who Marie-Antoinette really was both before and after her arrival to France. These depictions fail to investigate how Marie-Antoinette was able to be both the archduchess of Austria and the dauphine and queen of France at the same time.
family, upbringing, and country had on the development of her adult identity. Like the French courtiers of 1770, historians regard Marie-Antoinette’s remise as the moment in which she completely surrendered her Austrian identity in exchange for her newly assigned role as dauphine of France. But how could Marie Antoinette be expected to abandon her Austrian identity upon demand? Can a ceremonial stripping of garments in which she retains nothing belonging to her former foreign court, actually erase her past? To answer these questions, my thesis will take an art historical approach to the
connection between biographical accounts and visual representations to see how Marie-Antoinette as both the subject and patron fashioned her image. I will analyze artworks of Marie-Antoinette to present an image of her that was defined by and recognized through a combination of Austrian and French gender and social class ideologies.
Moreover, I will examine the relationship between the historical and the
theoretical to provide a deeper understanding of the complexities associated with being a foreign queen in France. For this task, I utilize twentieth century psychoanalyst Karen Horney’s relations theory in which she suggests that behavior is a consequence of cultural distinctions and values and believes identity is the result of one’s social and economic surroundings.1 At the age of fourteen, Maria-Antoinia was betrothed to the dauphin of France, officially becoming the dauphine in 1770 and the queen of France in 1774. As the dauphine and queen, she was unable to keep her given name or retain any aspect of her national and cultural Austrian identity. She was renamed Marie-Antoinette, the French translation of Maria-Antonia, and was expected to embody the epitome of French femininity as the ideal subject to the king. At the same time, Empress Maria Theresa of Austria embarked on a ten-year correspondence with her daughter in which
1
she attempted to dictate the characteristics Marie-Antoinette must embody as a “good Austrian” woman living in France.
Austria
Maria-Antonia, Archduchess of Austria (figure 1) was the fifteenth of sixteen children and the last daughter born on November 2, 1755 to emperor Francis-Stefan and empress Maria-Theresa of Austria. From the outset, Maria-Antonia’s familial dynamic was unlike that of most traditional eighteenth-century royal families. In contrast to the typical male monarchical figurehead, it was Maria-Theresa, the only sovereign female monarch in Habsburg history, who ruled both the family and the Austrian Holy Roman Empire Empire. But how did Maria-Theresa attain her complex and unusual position? Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI, Maria-Theresa’s father, wrote the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, a decree that authorized for his surviving daughters the right to inherit his titles “above and beyond any contenders from within or outside the family.”2 The decree had multiple stipulations within it before a female successor could rule, such as if Charles or his brother Joseph failed to produce a male heir it was only then that a female heir would be considered. Art historian Michael Yonan states in his book Empress Maria Theresa and the Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art that above all else Charles VI was mainly concerned with keeping the Austrian crownlands together and strictly forbade the
division of the country into separate monarchies.3 In fact, Charles did not write the decree with the intended purpose of his daughters taking over. Rather, the document was written several years before the birth of Maria-Theresa and her sisters as a pre-calculated
protection order over Austrian territory in 1740. However, the Pragmatic Sanction ended up as the catalyst for Maria-Theresa’s accession to the throne. In light of Maria-Theresa’s monarchical position, one may question how she was able to fuse the roles of both mother and monarch together to fulfill all of her responsibilities.
2Michael Elia Yonan, Empress Maria Theresa and the Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art, (University Park, Pa.:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011), 18
As empress, Maria-Theresa was required to occupy both the male monarchical and female maternal roles to maintain the power within her position. Because of her dual roles, the Empress was perpetually preoccupied with state responsibilities, which often overshadowed her maternal obligations. Antonia Fraser states in her biography Marie-Antoinette: The Journey that, “Maria-Theresa hated to waste time and so while in labor with Maria-Antonia, she also tended to her state paperwork.”4 Fraser obtained this account from the diary of Johann Joseph Khevenhüller-Metsch, a close friend and the Austrian court chancellor to Maria-Theresa, who was known for his “meticulous details on court activities and the monarchs themselves.”5 Similarly, Madame Campan, Marie-Antoinette’s lady-in-waiting in France, also indicated in her account, The Private Life of Marie-Antoinette, that the empress was “too taken up with political interests to have it in her power to devote herself entirely to maternal attentions.”6 Both Fraser and Campan’s accounts seem to suggest that Maria-Theresa was concerned with fulfilling her maternal duty but political duties often called for her full attention and, when time was available, she also had quite a few other children vying for her attention. Maria-Theresa’s
monarchical and familial obligations therefore created a somewhat disconnected relationship with Marie-Antoinette.
In contrast to Fraser and Campan, Austrian biographer Stefan Zweig offers a more malicious, opinionated description in Marie-Antoinette: The Portrait of an Average Woman, suggesting that Maria-Theresa was “Empress rather than mother, more
concerned about the power of the Habsburgs than about her daughter’s happiness.”7 Zweig’s book is commonly used as a reliable source, yet his account appears to be biased
4
Antonia Fraser, Marie Antoinette : the Journey, (New York: N.A. Talese/Doubleday, 2001), 3
5Yonan, Empress Maria Theresa and the Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art, 5
6Mme Campan, (Jeanne-Louise-Henriette), The Private Life of Marie Antoinette. (New York: 1500 Books, 2006), 33
(Madame Campan’s memoires are used in all reputable biographical accounts of Marie- Antoinette’s life but, since her diary was written after the death of Marie-Antoinette and she was a royalist, I approach her book with some skepticism.)
7
and not based on any particular historical evidence because there are no footnotes, bibliography, or any documented sources attached to his text. Therefore, because of the lack of citation I cannot take his narration as truth. However, Michael Yonan offers a somewhat unpleasant account of Maria-Theresa as the mother/empress figure that is not based on personal opinion and is known as a renowned Austrian tale. Yonan recalls the Habsburg legend that retold the instant in which Maria-Theresa asked the Hungarians for assistance to defend the Austrian territory against an invasion. When she pleaded for their support, she did so with Joseph, only an infant, pressed against her breast. The maternal gesture moved the Hungarians so much that they “threw themselves at her feet and swore their eternal support” to her.8 Of course, cynicism is attached to this story, as skeptics later proclaimed that Maria-Theresa pinched Joseph and therefore caused him to cry to “heighten the drama” of the moment. Whether or not this additional information is fully accurate is unknown but, as Yonan suggests, Maria-Theresa definitely knew how to play motherhood for political value.9
Maria-Theresa clearly drew in her children when it was necessary to make a strong political statement as the Imperial Empress. It appears that motherhood helped soften her image in her masculine monarch role and make her seem less threatening as a female ruler. Evidence in Madame Campan and Khevenhüller-Metsch’s accounts also indicate that it was common for Maria-Antonia and her siblings to go several days without seeing their mother. But none of the accounts deem Maria-Theresa a neglectful mother, as Zweig has suggested. Rather, as Michael Yonan indicates, Maria-Theresa’s position required her to reject socially acceptable concepts of eighteenth-century
femininity, and instead she combined “wife, queen, king, diplomat, empress, mother, and later widow” into one figure.10 The Empress had to redefine Viennese femininity through 8Yonan, Empress Maria Theresa and the Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art, 2
a conflation of the traditional feminine qualities of piety, modesty, and fertility with customary male traits of heroism, physical strength, and the image of a powerful leader.11 Maria-Theresa’s combined image likely presented Maria-Antonia with a conflicting representation of the female role in eighteenth-century Austrian aristocratic society. As a consequence, the empress’s blended role offered an atypical ideal to her children and specifically her daughter, Maria-Antonia. But, did Maria-Theresa’s adoption of a combined male/female role affect the construction of Maria-Antonia’s identity?
Karen Horney’s relational approach examines the long-term effect of parenting, specifically, the bond between mother and daughter. Horney views behavior as a
consequence of cultural distinctions and values and believes identity is the result of one’s social and economic surroundings.12 If Horney’s theory is employed to examine the early relationship between Maria-Antonia and Maria-Theresa, one can understand how the construction of Maria-Antonia’s future identity results from her early experiences and relationship with her mother. Horney suggests that the foundation of the ‘self’
materializes out of the cultural and social forces learned during early childhood. During infancy, the child feels “helpless and vulnerable.” If the child is raised in the presence of a nurturing mother, the child will grow up feeling protected. However, if there is more neglect than affection, “the child will feel basic hostility, anxiety, isolation, and helplessness in their ensuing environments” and become neurotic.13 Horney’s theory suggests that Maria-Theresa’s extraordinary position as Empress, which resulted in a lack of, but not an absence of maternal care, caused Maria-Antonia to suppress her anxiety towards her mother’s unavailability. It is likely that Maria-Antonia hid any and all signs of unease towards her mother because it was too risky for her to express such emotions for fear of being punished or losing “whatever love” she might receive from her mother. 11Ibid.,15
Therefore, to understand Maria-Antonia’s anxiety towards her mother, we first need to know what caused it.
Turning to Maria-Antonia’s early years, Antonia Fraser’s Marie-Antoinette: The Journey and Madame Campan’s account detail Maria-Theresa’s unavailability to her children. When Maria-Theresa did have time to spend with them, her primary focus remained on the Archduke Joseph, her successor to the Holy Roman Empire. Since Joseph’s birth in 1741, Maria-Theresa had been able to attain and maintain her power and support by providing a male heir to the dynasty.14 Seeing that Joseph was next in line for the throne, Maria-Theresa needed to groom him for his political position and,
consequently, her other children were regularly cared for by a governess. Maria-Antonia, the youngest of the Habsburg daughters, lived under the care of a number of governesses who aimed at attaining the title of friend rather than caretaker and supervisor. This created an environment in which Maria-Antonia lived without a consistent and proper maternal role model to observe. More precisely, Madame Campan suggests that the governesses indulged Maria-Antonia too much by allowing her to act as she pleased and get what she wanted and, in many cases, they had even completed Antonia’s schoolwork for her.15 The validity of Campan’s statement cannot be taken as complete truth since her narrative was written in the early nineteenth-century. One must also take into account the possibility that Campan’s retelling of the life of Marie-Antoinette may have been
influenced by typical French gossip. Yet, historical accounts from Maria-Theresa’s close court confidants, Count Mercy and Khevenhüller-Metsch, indicate that Maria-Antonia was known to have had assistance with her schoolwork and letter writing. Therefore, this indicated a period of flux and coddling in the archduchess’s life which marks the
beginning of her stubborn tendencies and disinterest in her education; she would much
rather concern herself with outdoor play, singing, dancing, playing music, and acting in theatrical plays. By age eleven, Antonia’s education had been severely neglected and she was deficient in reading, speaking, and writing in both the French and German languages, as well as in her knowledge of her own country’s history.16
Although Madame Campan had stated that Maria-Antonia did not have a consistent female role model, she appears to have overlooked the close relationship Antonia had with her siblings. One can look at her relationship with her sister Maria-Carolina, also known as Charlotte and the future Queen of Naples, as evidence of female bonding in Antonia’s youth. Charlotte was born just three years earlier than Antonia and records from Khevenhüller-Metsch’s diary state that the two sisters were paired together at a young age and raised as if they were twins.17 Antonia Fraser indicates that the bond between the two was based on Charlotte as the dominant elder and Antonia as the dependent younger sibling who looked up to her big sister. A visual representation of the two sisters is found in a miniature watercolor portrait (figure 2) on display in the Austrian National Library. The image displays the paired siblings side by side, Antonia on the left and Charlotte to the right, to emphasize their resemblance. The two are dressed in almost identical gowns with the exception of color: Maria-Antonia in pink and Charlotte in purple. Their hair has been styled in the same curled up-do and topped with a blooming floral arrangement. The resemblance between the two is uncanny. It is clear that age is the only factor that displays a difference between them. Because of the three-year difference, Charlotte is slightly taller than her sister, with facial features much more defined and prominent when compared to the fuller, youthful face of then nine-year-old Maria-Antonia. The image portrays the two siblings as having a close relationship and, when taking this possible bond into consideration, it is probable to think that
Antonia was closer with her sister than with her mother. Fraser mentions that the two archduchesses went without a great deal of attention from Maria-Theresa and that shared experience caused them to bond with one another.18 As we will later see, Maria-Theresa will use the two siblings close bond as leverage to try to persuade Maria-Antonia to listen to her advice.
Scholastic education was not a priority for Maria-Antonia; however, court etiquette was often the focus of her schooling. Rather than concern herself with academic studies, Maria-Theresa required that her daughter practice appearing feminine and performing gracefully during public court ceremonies. Yohan Georg Weikert’s painting, Fête Organized to Celebrate the Marriage of the Emperor Joseph II to Princess Marie-Josèphe of Bavaria 23/24 January 1765 (figure 3), exhibits Maria-Antonia at the age of ten publically performing at her eldest brother Joseph’s wedding. The archduchess and her brother, Archduke Ferdinand, play the roles of bride and groom. It is clear that, at age ten, Antonia appears to have mastered the proper way to carry herself in public.
Weikert’s portrait, albeit idealized, displays her upright posture and famous deportment within the portrait and her extended arms help to create a balanced and poised image of the young archduchess. Maria-Antonia’s turned head and pointed toe display her graceful movements to her audience. The ability to perform was extremely important to all princesses in the eighteenth-century. As a member of the Imperial family, Maria-Antonia lived her life in the public eye and hence was instructed on how to behave at banquets, balls, mass, and other court functions. Weikert’s painting exhibits an image of Maria-Antonia as pleasing; a quality Maria-Theresa often praised her for possessing. I imagine Maria-Theresa was very pleased with her daughter’s image at this particular moment as the portrait was hung in Schönbrunn for all to see. Weikert’s portrait clearly displays
Maria-Antonia as the ideal image of the feminine, elegant Habsburg daughter that her mother wanted her to be.
It is reasonable to think that Maria-Theresa’s court and familial requirements stemmed from the belief that, as a Habsburg daughter and future bride, Antonia was“ born to obey and must learn to do so in good time.”19 Madame Campan’s account indicates that the archduchess was first taught to fear and respect her mother, “who inspired awe by her great qualities,” and to love her second. If this is the case and if Antonia was always submissive to her mother, then her desire to please Maria-Theresa likely came before her other responsibilities. Moreover, evidence also suggests that Maria-Theresa emphasized the importance of representing the ideal image of Habsburg femininity; as a daughter born of the empress, Antonia needed to be graceful, submissive, pious, modest, and, hopefully, fertile.20 Although the Empress’s concepts of femininity for her daughter aligned with traditional eighteenth-century gender roles, Maria-Theresa did not follow them herself, which again presented her as a conflicting and complicated role model. The insights of Karen Horney’s relational approach suggest that the Empress’s confusing image might have caused Maria-Antonia anxiety, but she would still have a strong desire for her mother’s approval. One may ask, under these circumstances, how could Maria-Antonia deal with her anxiety? Horney claims that an individual may act out in three different ways: they may rationalize, deny, or avoid thoughts, feelings, impulses and situations that could trigger anxiety.21 Based on Maria-Theresa’s preference for obedience, it is likely that Maria-Antonia rationalized her anxiety in her youth. Antonia needed her mother and wanted to please her, but was often too afraid or desired to penalize Maria-Theresa, as we will see later, because although she
19Ibid., 14
20Yonan, Empress Maria Theresa and the Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art, 19
was absent, she still wanted Antonia to abide by her rules.22 Since Maria-Theresa was far from the typical obedient and docile wife, it is possible that, at a very young age, Maria-Antonia learned from her mother’s example to live beyond the small and restrictive nature of the domestic sphere.
In 1768, Theresa began preparations for what she described to Maria-Antonia as her greatest happiness: marriage. At the age of fourteen, Maria-Maria-Antonia was betrothed to the Dauphin of France to solidify a political alliance. In preparation for the marriage, the empress commissioned a portrait of her daughter in which she would personify the essence of both a French and Austrian royal woman. Maria-Antonia’s mother stressed the importance of rendering her daughter “French” because Louis XV refused to seal the alliance between Austria and France or agree to the marriage until the arrival and approval of the finished portrait.23 For this reason, Joseph Ducreux’s painting, Marie-Antoinette, Archduchess of Austria, future Queen of France, (figure 4) is the first instance in which a pictorial representation of Maria-Antonia’s hybridized identity is visualized.
In preparation for Ducreux’s painting, Maria-Theresa, wanting the portrait to be perfect, required the archduchess to undergo an extensive and vital transformation. French historian and art critic Louis Marin stated, “to be elegant is to show that a great number of people have worked to produce the effect. Signs of work at work show how one can make others work.”24 Evidence of Marin’s description of ‘work,’ or royal signifiers, is apparent in Antonia’s physical features, hair, and clothing. Maria-Theresa’s strategy consisted of an imported Parisian hairdresser and seamstress to re-style her daughter’s hair and clothing after current French trends of the period.
Maria-22Horney, Feminine Psychology; [papers], 9
23Mary Sheriff, ‘The Portrait of a Queen’ in Marie-Antoinette:Writings on the Body of a Queen, (New York: Routledge,
2003), 42-43
Antonia’s teeth, which were quite crooked, were corrected through a French orthodontics system called the ‘pelican,’ much like modern day braces, in which wires were attached to her teeth for three months to straighten out the misalignment.25 Antonia was also fitted for several corsets, which she wore at all times to correct the unevenness of her
shoulders; one was slightly higher than the other. Along with re-fashioning Maria-Antonia’s physical appearance, Maria-Theresa, now aware of Maria-Antonia’s poor education, took sufficient pains in reforming her daughter’s character and education to suit a princess, “destined to share the throne of France.”26 It was absolutely necessary for the future Queen of France to possess wit and elegance to be welcomed by the royal court. Immediately after Maria-Antonia’s refashioning was completed, Maria-Theresa required her daughter to endure five long sittings before Ducreux’s portrait was sent to France.27
Executed for Louis XV, Marie-Antoinette, Archduchess of Austria, future Queen of France is an idealized image of the young Maria-Antonia. Ducreux’s bust portrait, much like Jean-Étienne Liotard’s 1762 painting, Portrait of Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria at the age of seven years (figure 5), depicts Antonia as older than her current age of fourteen. Although the two portraits differ in their origin, Ducreux’s work was made as an image for Louis XV and Liotard’s piece is a private portrait for the empress, both paintings combine the same principal elements of monarchical status within their compositions. In each we see an image of the pretty young archduchess of noble status through the positioning of Maria-Antonia’s body, her luxurious lace decorated clothing, and her neatly styled hair. In both portraits, Antonia appears completely at ease; her body is slightly turned to the left, with her shoulders lacking any tension or sense of
discomfort. Both artists use soft white highlights across her body to emphasize her royal distinction and to imprint the painting with Maria-Antonia’s delicate presence. The 25Fraser, Marie Antoinette: the Journey, 30
purpose of both portraits is to convey Maria-Antonia’s grace and elegance to the viewer, whether the viewer is her mother or the French king.
Beyond the similarities of meaning and the compositional structure of Liotard and Ducreux’s paintings, the two portraits of the archduchess deviate from the elements and features representing monarchical femininity. As one can see in Liotard’s Maria-Antonia, she appears older than seven, but still maintains a child-like semblance through her rounded facial shape. The archduchess’s girlishness is evident in the arrangement of the brilliant pastel pink and bright blue colors of her dress, instilling an awareness of her energetic youth. Her neckline, although still dipping quite low in the center, covers her shoulders completely to present a modest, yet alluring image suitable for her young age. Moreover, Antonia’s facial features are decorated with pink and red cosmetics to accentuate her childish vitality, but hide her still immature physiognomy. Even more critical to the archduchess’s Habsburg femininity, the painting displays a bouquet of pink roses atop of Maria-Antonia’s head. As a daughter of Maria-Theresa, each girl is given the first name Maria, a reminder of the bond all Habsburg daughters have with the Virgin Mary.28 The pink rose, an icon often associated with the Virgin, connects Maria-Antonia to the piety of the Habsburg women, but also serve as an iconographical reference to the fecundity associated with her. As a daughter of Maria-Theresa, who was rightfully deemed the picture perfect image of fecundity because of her sixteen children, the rose reminds the viewer of her familial ties and the potential for future heirs.
To impress the King of France, Ducreux rendered the portrait as a clear picture of idealized health and beauty. The image is meant to convey the archduchess’s social value to the French monarch; as a daughter of Maria-Theresa, known throughout Europe for her abundant fecundity, Maria-Antonia would also, hopefully, fulfill her duties as a woman
Empress Maria-Theresa at age ten (figure 6), functions as a marriage invitation by
illustrating Maria-Antonia as a coveted bride.29 Likewise, the composition refers to
Maria-Theresa’s famous Habsburg ideals of femininity: beauty and fertility. In both
Möller and Ducreux’s portraits, Maria-Theresa and Maria-Antonia’s beauty are portrayed
through their, “huge eyes and a calm face that bespeak of welcoming, unthreatening
constitution and convey elegant amiability.”30 Moreover, the two Habsburg women are
wearing blue silk gowns to represent the divinity pertaining to the Hapsburg Empire. Customarily seen on the clothing of the Virgin, the color blue suggests both Maria-Theresa and Maria-Antonia bear the same heavenly and maternal traits as the Virgin Mary.31 Prior to the Archduchess’s departure from Austria, Maria-Theresa took her daughter on a pilgrimage to Mariazell.32 The trip served as a bonding experience between mother and daughter, but it was also to remind Maria-Antonia of the special devotion the House of Habsburg had with the Virgin Mary, and the importance of maintaining that connection while in France.33 In spite of the presence of both Habsburg beauty and maternal capacity, the similarities between the two portraits end, much like that of Liotard’s portrait, with Ducreux’s painting, Marie-Antoinette, Archduchess of Austria, future Queen of France, which is lacking any elements of iconography pointing to the Habsburg throne. When Maria-Theresa commissioned Ducreux to paint her daughter’s portrait, her concept of ‘Frenchness’ only involved the incorporation of French aesthetics. The importance of Maria-Antonia’s image was centered on her hairstyle, make-up, and clothing. Maria-Theresa had removed all traditional symbols of Austria, specifically, the
29
Yonan, Empress Maria Theresa and the Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art, 23
30
Ibid.
31
Arnold Whittick, Symbols, Signs and Their Meaning, (L. Hill, 1960), 47
32
Maria-Theresa made her first communion in the cathedral when she was young and wanted Maria-Antonia to do the same
before she left for France.
imperial crown, a symbol meant to remind the viewer of the Empress’s singular position as both emperor and empress, both of which are present in Möller’s portrait.
What makes Ducreux’s painting so unique in representing Maria-Antonia’s monarchical femininity is the absence of the rose, or any type of flower, to connect Antonia with the well-known promise of fertility she could have as a Habsburg daughter. Generally, eighteenth-century portraits of young girls and women incorporated floral elements into the composition to emphasize beauty and insinuate a sense of perfection.34 The rose was also a symbol of the genesis of life commonly associated with the Greek deity Flora, the goddess of spring. Why would Ducreux deviate from traditional
representations of fertility when the portrait was destined for the King of France? Surely Louis XV would want to be reassured of Maria-Antonia’s ability to carry on the Bourbon lineage. It appears that Ducreux refers to the promise of fertility through representing the archduchess’s health.35 The artist illuminated her beauty and youth first and then offers a hint of her future fecundity through a small coquettish detail: Antonia’s bare shoulders and low décolletage. However, in the absence of any obvious iconographical reference to fertility, I would like to consider Maria-Antonia’s overall image of health and Ducreux’s use of bright pink on the archduchess’s cheeks as indications of fecundity. In an effort to call attention to Antonia’s general good health and appearance, the artist places her porcelain-like figure against a dark background, fashioning her skin tone as like the powdered faces of women belonging to high French society. There is also a noticeable application of bright pink paint to her cheeks and the bridge of her nose, acting as rouge, another French favorite, to imitate a warm flush spreading across her face. Her
translucent skin manifests through smooth, blended brushwork, beckoning the viewer towards her exposed and somewhat angular shoulders and her low, sweeping neckline.
34Whittick, Symbols, Signs and Their Meaning, 134
Ducreux employs long serpentine lines to construct the boundaries of Antonia’s curving silhouette and there further instill in the viewer the prominence of her liveliness and her blossoming femininity. The work displays the archduchess’s, “graceful bearing which would one day become Marie-Antoinette’s celebrated queenly carriage.”36The artist completes the Archduchess’s image with two bows, one around her neck and the other placed at the center of her bust in an effort to evoke the gift Maria-Theresa was presenting to Louis XV.
When considering the relationship between Habsburg mother and daughter, Maria-Theresa’s extensive reconfiguration of Maria-Antonia’s outward appearance as French could have caused unresolved interpersonal issues between them. In addition to Maria-Antonia’s new appearance, there are also reports that Maria-Theresa had her daughter sleep in her bedroom with her for the last two months of her time in Austria. Andre Castelot suggests in his biography Queen of France “Maria-Theresa, with an affectionate eye, watched her little archduchess fall asleep every night” for her remaining two months in Austria so she could bond with her daughter.37 Horney states, “children may live up to the standards imposed by their parents because they have been made to feel they are not acceptable unless they fulfill other people’s expectations.”38 In
considering the great lengths Maria-Theresa took in making her daughter act and appear more desirable to the French court, Horney’s principles suggest that Maria-Antonia’s relationship with her mother and the actions she observed would be adapted and modified later in life. Maria-Antonia would likely internalize her inadequacies and attempt to fix what appeared to be lacking in her.39 As a result, Antonia could take Maria-Theresa’s direct and indirect forms of domination as signs of disapproval of her own 36André Castelot, Marie-Antoinette, (Paris: Rombaldi, 1962), 3
37Ibid., 2
38Karen Horney, The Unknown Karen Horney: Essays on Gender, Culture, and Psychoanalysis, (Conn.:Yale University
Press. 2000), 103
actions and visible appearance. Therefore, to recapture the approval of her mother and capture that of the French court, she would have to self-fashion her image after her mother’s model of queenship combined with new requirements of the French court in an idealized image.
Horney is convinced that the construction of an idealized image can be a “potent engine of destruction” due to the unrealistic and deceptive nature of the idealized self.40 Since the individual makes extraordinary goals for the idealized self, which are often mistaken for high standards, when the idealized self is unable to meet these goals, the real self is denigrated. Any failure or unreciprocated act of love is magnified by the idealized self and is perceived as evidence of their true self’s inadequacy.41 For every goal that is achieved, however, the ideal self becomes increasingly more convinced that it is special and that the ideal self is the true one. If one considers the damage an idealized image can cause, how much more detrimental is an idealized image that is constructed by another person? Since Theresa is the first person to construct the hybrid identity of Maria-Antonia, it is likely that Antonia felt her hybridized image was the reason for her successful marriage and the peace alliance between France and Austria. Thus, Marie-Antoinette may have felt that her mother’s image of her was special and that it must be her true self. Based on Horney’s theory, Maria-Antonia would now have to constantly live up to the image her mother created. She would be responsible for maintaining the hybridized identity on her own, in France. The continuation of this facade would only harm her, as we will see later in her life.
On April 21st, 1770, six months after Ducreux’s painting was completed, Maria-Theresa sent Maria-Antonia off to France to fulfill the marriage agreement between France and Austria. The ceremonial handover took place on the neutral grounds of the
island Kehl, a small uninhibited piece of land between French and Austrian territory. A large pavilion was erected to provide Maria-Antonia’s Austrian Court and attendants with one apartment and the French Court, along with the new dauphine, and her attendants, with another. During Maria-Antonia’s remise, she was undressed entirely by the French court so she retain nothing belonging to her former foreign court.42 Once she was stripped of her Austrian garments and dressed from head to toe in French attire, she was
transformed, along with her name, into a French aristocratic woman. She entered Kehl as Maria-Antonia, archduchess of Austria, and exited the island as Marie-Antoinette, dauphine of France.
France
On the day of Maria-Antonia’s departure from Austria, Maria-Theresa also began a ten-year letter writing campaign in which she attempted to dictate to her daughter the characteristics she should embody as an Austrian woman living in France. Maria-Theresa’s first letter instructed Marie-Antoinette to reread it once a month and reminded her of her lifelong duty to the state of Austria as the emblem of the political alliance. Maria-Theresa insisted her daughter should always remain a “good Austrian” and trusted she would rule in such a way as to “ensure the welfare of their people only insomuch as it did not conflict with Austria’s interest.”43 As a ‘good Austrian,’ Marie-Antoinette needed to attend church regularly and remember the special devotion to the Holy Virgin, who had long offered her homeland special protection. Maria-Theresa advised to never bother with curiosities of intrigue, especially ones pertaining to “underlings.” She counseled that Marie-Antoinette greet everyone with “grace and dignity,” but that she also learn to be
42Campan, The Private Life of Marie Antoinette, 42-43. 43
bold and have the ability to say no. Her mother stressed that in all matters of etiquette and custom, Marie-Antoinette must
always conform to French customs and never try to introduce anything new or unusual, nor cite our customs, nor ask that they be imitated; on the contrary, you must absolutely lend yourself to what the Court is accustomed to doing. Ask Madame Noailles how to act, demand that they tell you how, as a foreigner who wants to please your new country, how you must behave.44
In France, Marie-Antoinette’s acceptability was dependent upon her acclimation to French court customs. If she were to continue practicing Vienna’s traditions, she would appear to be loyal to her native country rather than to her new home. A foreign bride should always live with France’s best intentions at heart, to do otherwise would invoke rumors of espionage. However, Maria-Theresa’s advice seems to be contradictory since she advised Marie-Antoinette to be a good Austrian and then told her to conform to French customs. Even more alarming, her lack of explanation on how to carry out this dual representation had been left open to be interpreted by a fifteen-year-old girl. Instead, Maria-Theresa recommended that Marie-Antoinette write to specific family members, especially her sister Maria-Carolina, The queen of Naples, for advice on how to behave in a foreign court. Maria-Theresa suggested that Maria-Carolina would supply her with “reasonable and useful things; her example should serve you as a model and as encouragement, her situation having been in everything and being still much more difficult than yours.”45 Because of the close relationship between the two siblings, Maria-Theresa felt that Maria-Carolina’s “intelligence and respectful manner allowed her to overcome many great obstacles,” would be a good example as to how Marie-Antoinette could acclimate to her new home.46 Lastly, her mother instructs her daughter “to listen to no one” if she wanted to maintain a peaceful life in France.47
44Bernier, Marie Antoinette, Queen. Secrets of Marie Antoinette. 1st ed,, 32 45Ibid.
Within the first letter, Maria-Theresa’s urging of Marie-Antoinette to maintain an Austrian heart appears problematic seeing that the customary ceremony, in which Marie-Antoinette renounced her Austrian heredity and succession, entailed her acceptance of a new identity.48 Additionally, as a daughter of Maria-Theresa it was Antoinette’s dynastic duty to marry and leave Austria for her new home and rule out any thought of inheritance from the Austrian court.49 Could this act of relinquishing one’s identity in exchange for a new self cause confusion? Surely Marie-Antoinette was aware at a very young age that she would be leaving Austria to marry. Yet, at the age of
fourteen, it would likely still be confusing for her both to conform to French customs and to live as a good Austrian.
Karen Horney’s relations approach can be used to analyze Marie-Antoinette’s behavior during her time of social and cultural transition. Horney’s theory suggests that at this juncture, Marie-Antoinette would adopt all or one of the three “selfs” to manage her anxiety.50 She could be compliant and move towards her mother for the love and
protection she missed as a child. She could be aggressive and move away from Maria-Theresa to gain freedom and protect herself from being perceived as vulnerable. Or, lastly, Marie-Antoinette could detach from her ‘true self’ and assume an idealized self for protection. I have already argued that Marie-Antoinette took on an idealized identity to please both her mother and the requirements of the French court. It seems likely that Marie-Antoinette would continue to ‘measure up’ to the demands through her new idealized self. In the next section of the paper, I will demonstrate how Marie-Antoinette, in part, adopted all three of Horney’s possible behaviors. The correspondence between mother and daughter confirms that along with her hybridized identity, as dauphine,
48The ceremonial remise is standard eighteenth-century protocol for all queens coming into a foreign court. 49Yonan, Empress Maria Theresa and the Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art, 19
Marie-Antoinette also had a push-pull relationship with her mother in which at times she complied with, and at others, defied her mother’s advice.
As dauphine, Marie-Antoinette was able to balance her mother’s advice with the requirements of French etiquette, customs, and rules. The Parisian citizens perceived her desire to assimilate to the French culture as general goodness, and her many acts of generous charity boosted her growing popularity. Madame Campan described the public’s reception of Marie-Antoinette shortly after her marriage to Louis XVI and indicated that the dauphine’s entry into Paris was received “with great transports of joy,” and after dining in the Tuileries, “she was forced, by the reiterated shouts of the
multitude, with whom the garden was filled, to present herself upon the balcony.”51 Several engravings depict the public’s approval of Marie-Antoinette, such as Maria Antonia, Delphina Françise, nata Archid Austrice (figure 7). The engraving thematizes the fusing of two countries within two allegorical characters representing France and Austria. The figure on the left side of the image symbolizes France and displays a shield decorated with the Bourbon symbol, the fleur de lys. On the right side of the engraving, the figure is holding a shield adorned with a solid white stripe and topped with the imperial crown to represent Austria. The right arm of France intertwines with the left arm of Austria, locking their grip above a globe to symbolize the gesture of friendship. This engraving unmistakably exhibits a clear celebration of the unification of the House of Habsburg with that of the Bourbons. Just above the harmonious scene sits a medallion portrait of Marie-Antoinette. Her figured body, much like the allegorical representation underneath, personifies the merging of the two countries as the peace emblem of a political alliance. The artist conveys this merging by aligning Marie-Antoinette’s body above the globe and the symbol of friendship. Putti and a strand of floral garland decorate
the arched border of the portrait to suggest that a loving bond between two countries solidified because of the dauphine.
Despite Marie-Antoinette’s popularity with the public, which was at its peak in 1770, she struggled to acclimate to the public aspect of court life. The dauphine
expressed her disapproval of her daily rituals to her mother, “Anyone can come in as long as they belong to the court. I put on my rouge and wash my hands in front of everyone; then the men leave and the ladies stay and I dress in front of them.”52 Unlike the public court life at Versailles, the Austrian court provided Marie-Antoinette with both a private and public life. She spent a majority of her time at the Habsburg vacation home in Laxenburg, in an etiquette-free environment that was far from the public eye and court rituals of Schönbrunn. Antonia Fraser states that Maria-Theresa believed in the
distinction between the state ceremonial and private life and “one is to be carried out as a matter of duty, and as magnificent as possible; while the other is to be enjoyed.”53 Marie-Antoinette likely longed for her previous private life in Austria and that may have caused her to contest the court rituals of Versailles. For that reason, the dauphine, who neglected her mother’s advice to never introduce foreign rituals into the French court, disregarded all of Madame Noailles direction and banished traditional court customs that had been put in place by Louis XIV, instead of following traditional custom she invented new ones of her own.
Upon having received a letter from Count Mercy that indicated her daughter had disobeyed her guidance, Maria-Theresa wrote:
I advise you to show a greater reserve than ever about all of the current events, to allow yourself neither confidences nor curiosity, if you want to have a peaceful life and retain, as you have perfectly until now, everyone’s approval.54
52Campan, The Private Life of Marie Antoinette, 42 53Fraser, Marie Antoinette: the Journey, 15
Yet, despite Maria-Theresa’s advice, Marie-Antoinette had retreated away from the public formalities of court, such as the morning toilette, opting instead to have her own hairdresser rather than the court appointed stylist. She spent much of her time with Louis’s brothers and their wives, the Comte and Comtesse de Provence and the Comte and Comtesse d’Artois. Since they were close in age, there was a sense of camaraderie from which most courtiers felt alienated. The group took their meals together and evening activities, formerly held at Madame Adélaïde’s apartment since the death of Queen Maria Leszczynska, were moved to the Comtesse de Provence’s house. Madame Campan disclosed that they “adopted the plan of learning and performing all the best plays of the French theater, but Louis XVI was the only spectator.”55 Marie-Antoinette “maintained her new customs with the utmost perseverance” and, because of the hostility it generated between her and the courtiers, spent a majority of her time in the privacy of her own apartment. Despite her popularity with the public, the courtiers viewed Marie-Antoinette’s banishment of customs as a threat to French tradition. Her thoughtless actions, when considering her position within the court, were perceived as a disapproval of French ways. News, or likely court gossip, of her rejection of court etiquette had spread rapidly throughout Versailles. A newfound disapproval of the dauphine had overcome the courtiers and enemies now surrounded her.56
Adding fuel to the fire, and most worrisome to both the French throne and Maria-Theresa, Marie-Antoinette had yet to consummate her marriage. In response to this matter, Maria-Theresa wrote her daughter in effort to direct her on how she needed to represent herself as a wife and dauphine.57 Her mother dictated “the wife must be completely submissive to her husband and must have no business other than to please him and obey him. The only true happiness in this world is a happy marriage: I can say so 55Campan, The Private Life of Marie Antoinette, 55
56Ibid., 57
freely. All depends on the wife, on her being willing, sweet, and amusing.”58 If we refer back to Karen Horney’s relational approach as a means of explaining the influence Marie-Antoinette’s early years of childhood had on the construction of her identity, then we can see the effect Maria-Theresa’s past actions had on her daughter. Maria-Theresa’s insistence on her daughter being a “submissive wife,” despite her own past rejections of traditional female gender and social roles, and her promotion of a separate public and private life can be viewed as pivotal factors in the cause of Marie-Antoinette’s rejection of court life at Versailles.
To say that Marie-Antoinette despised all aspects of court life would be unfair. There are many elements of French aristocratic life in which the dauphine took pleasure, such as playing cards, spending time at the Petit Trianon and Fontainebleau, horseback riding, and attending fêtes and operas in Paris. Unfortunately, the activities that Marie-Antoinette did enjoy were all considered frivolities by the critics of this period. In any case, the Dauphine was so consumed with her amusements that she was not concerned with keeping up with her appearance. Count Mercy relayed in a letter to Maria-Theresa, “Her Royal Highness sometimes forgets herself in the way she sits at her meals or her card games. Often her clothes are untidied by the little amusements of the day.”59 Maria-Theresa, shocked by this news, instructed her daughter, “I ask you not to let yourself go: this would suit neither your age nor your place; it brings with it uncleanliness,
negligence, and even a general carelessness...It is for you to set the tone at Versailles.”60 Once more, Horney’s relational theory illuminates Marie-Antoinette’s response to her mother’s advice. On the one hand, Marie-Antoinette still had a strong need for Maria-Theresa’s approval, stating, “you must be sure of the lively and respectful love that your
58Bernier, Marie Antoinette, Queen. Secrets of Marie Antoinette. 1st ed, 35 59Ibid., 36
very obedient daughter will have for you her whole life.”61 However, Marie-Antoinette preferred spending her time engaged in her amusements, therefore directly disregarding her mother’s advice as a way to penalize her. This conflict between Marie-Antoinette and Maria-Theresa marks the act of “daughter pushing away from mother” exemplifying the dynamic that describes one of Horney’s interpersonal relations. Marie-Antoinette’s “pushing away” was apparent in the rejection of most of the advice Maria-Theresa gave in the first letter. For example, Marie-Antoinette openly rejected court customs and shunned the guidance of Madame Noailles. She also refused to converse with Madame du Barry and therefore had upset the king. It is possible that had Marie-Antoinette followed her mother’s advice instead of defying it, she would have been more welcomed by the court. However, she did not reject all of her mother’s advice.
Seen in the context of interpersonal relations between mother and daughter, Joseph Krantzinger’s pastel portrait La dauphine en habits d’amazone (figure 8) exhibits a clear example of Marie-Antoinette’s hybridized identity along with Horney’s push-pull conflict. We can see Marie-Antoinette “moving towards” her mother’s suggestion to “set the tone.” Within the portrait one can read Marie-Antoinette’s desire to conform to French trends, as her mother insisted, but also recognize the dauphine’s apparent
rejection of her mother’s advice to not “dress like a man,” and to avoid horseback riding. In a letter dated September 30, 1771 Maria-Theresa wrote to Marie-Antoinette “you must begin to act on your own and must know how to play your role if you want to be
respected.”62 Upon first glace, one may see Krantzinger’s portrait of Marie-Antoinette as proof of her assimilation into French life, just as her mother had wished for. The
dauphine had been spending time with her aunts, Louis XV’s daughters Marie-Adélaïde and Victoire, and had taken up one of their favorite pastimes, horseback riding. Dressing
en amazone and horseback riding were not unfamiliar to the queens, dauphines, and mistresses of the French court. However, Maria-Theresa, worried about the two aunts’ negative influence and the threat horseback riding was to fertility, warned her daughter that she foresaw great troubles ahead of her, if she carried on with these games. Yet, Marie-Antoinette continued to ride and dress in manly fashions.
Krantzinger’s work offers a feminized portrait of the dauphine dressed in a masculine-like fashion. Unlike the equestrian image of Madame du Barry engaged in the hunt (figure 9), Krantinger’s portrait removes the masculine action and softens the dauphine’s image by showing her from the waist up, in a seated position. There is no evidence of actual horseback riding. Rather, the lack of movement is key to presenting a ladylike image of the dauphine. If we refer to the image of Madame du Barry on
La dauphine en habits d’amazone depicts Marie-Antoinette en amazone, a popular eighteenth-century costume women wore that resembled a man’s riding coat (figure 11). The half-length portrait exhibits her dressed in a fitted red and gold silk overcoat, a white waistcoat decorated with gold and white stripes with small pink roses, a red skirt, and a black and gold tricorne hat. Antoinette’s white lace cravat protrudes from underneath her lapels and the matching lace from her chemise pokes out of her coat sleeves. Since Maria-Theresa commissioned the portrait, it seems fitting that Marie-Antoinette, although dressed as a man, maintains a feminine semblance about her.63 To capture this likeness, Krantzinger painted Marie-Antoinette’s face with a cool, soft cream color and highlighted the bridge of her nose and cheeks with a vibrant peach-pink. Her lips are stained with a hue slightly darker than her cheeks, drawing the viewer’s eye to her slight, and very important smile. To keep focus on Marie-Antoinette’s face, her hair has been pulled back, allowing only a few powdered curls to fall to her shoulder. She makes direct eye contact with the viewer, her mother, and, paired with her smile, seems to imply that en amazone is only a playful interest. Corresponding to Marie-Antoinette’s smile, the lack of action also helps to convey a sense of leisure to her pleasurable activity. The artist manages this absence by restricting most of the movement in her arms. Instead, Marie-Antoinette’s right elbow is propped on top of a white and grey marble table while her left arm rests in her lap. In similar fashion, both of her hands gently hold a gold riding crop lying across her lap. Marie-Antoinette is depicted as a non-active participant in the hunt. Surely an image of Marie-Antoinette such as Krantzinger’s wouldn’t upset Maria-Theresa.
During Maria-Theresa’s ceremonial coronation in 1741, she mounted a horse, rode to a cliff and lifted Saint Stephan’s sword up into the air in four directions as, “an
63
act that metaphorized her oath to protect the Hungarians from foreign attack.”64 As mentioned by Michael Yonan, an equestrian portrait by Phillip Ferdinand von Hamilton (figure 12) depicts this imperial gesture and also exhibits the empress’s adoption of traditional masculine symbols of power-the horse and sword. This appropriation had demonstrated to the viewer her ability to be both empress and emperor, and to rule as a man. But these spectacles ended after the coronation and reverted back to titles that matched her gender.65 Since Maria-Theresa only used these elements to make a strong political statement, it is possible that she may have felt her daughter was trying to do the same. Marie-Antoinette’s mother, knowing that her daughter’s position within court was not solidified until an heir was born, may have felt that her daughter engaged in hunts and horseback riding for political gain. The correspondence between them shows that the empress was adamant that her daughter should suspend these activities and urged her stay away from politics altogether.66 Nevertheless, once the portrait arrived in Austria all of the empress’s qualms were eased. Albeit that Marie-Antoinette was dressed “like a man,” Maria-Theresa had expressed her approval of this portrait, “since it represented her daughter as she was, enjoying her activities.”67 She liked it so much that she wrote to her daughter “I have received your portrait in pastel, it is a good resemblance and it pleases me...It is in the cabinet where I work and a second is framed in my bedroom...I have you with me before my eyes and you are always profoundly in my heart.”68 What could have caused Maria-Theresa to appreciate an image of her daughter that clearly rebels against her advice in which she had continuously asked her daughter to not ride?
Krantzinger’s painting exhibits the emergence of Marie-Antoinette’s take-over of how her identity is represented. Much like her mother’s rendition in Ducreux’s earlier 64Yonan, Empress Maria Theresa and the Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art, 29
65Ibid., 30
66Bernier, Marie Antoinette, Queen. Secrets of Marie Antoinette. 1st ed, 31
portrait for the King of France, Marie-Antoinette is dressed in French fashions and is not overly adorned with elements of her status, such as jewels, crowns, or furs. But, unlike her mother, she inserts one element of Austria into her portrait. Underneath her red waistcoat, her cutaway vest has small pink roses embroidered onto the fabric. If one recalls why the rose was a customary symbol of the Habsburg daughters, then it becomes fairly clear that Marie-Antoinette still held Austria, and her mother, near and dear. Likely, the act of incorporating the rose into a painting may have confirmed to Maria-Theresa that her daughter was trying to keep her promise and maintain an “Austrian heart.” But despite Maria-Theresa’s contentment with Krantzinger’s portrait, she still closed her letter with, “I am impatient to receive Liotard’s painting, and want to see you in a Court dress, not in a negligee or dressed as a man, because I like to see you in a place which suits you.”69 This desire to see Marie-Antoinette in a place that suits her will not be fulfilled for several years.
Still, Marie-Antoinette had good reason to carry on with horseback riding. She had been spending several days a week riding horses with Louis XV and Louis XVI on royal hunts. Caroline Weber suggests in her book What Marie-Antoinette Wore to the Revolution that she joined the royal hunts because of the special attention that Louis XV had given her on these outings.70 The King’s approval of Marie-Antoinette was absolutely necessary at this moment because of the unconsummated marriage. Rumors had begun to circulate around court that that the king might wish to send her back to Austria in favor of another bride better suited for Louis XVI. Therefore, Marie-Antoinette took it upon herself to bond with her husband in another way-- through hunting, an activity that pleased him. Even more, she may have thought that her mother would have approved of her tactics in finding another way to form a bond between herself and Louis XVI. Since
69Bernier, Marie Antoinette, Queen. Secrets of Marie Antoinette. 1st ed, 49-50 70
Maria-Theresa said to “set the tone” and to “play your role,” Marie-Antoinette seems to have abided by her mother’s protocol for proper royal behavior. This would be especially the case since all members of the Imperial dynasty were able to take part in hunting, and “women were not necessarily less keen participants than men.”71
From the end of 1771 on through 1773, Maria-Theresa’s letters were filled with worry that Marie-Antoinette was still misbehaving and resisting to her advice. In a letter dated October 31, 1771, the empress wrote, “I see you striding with a nonchalant calm toward ruin, or at least very serious mistakes. What pain, what efforts you will have to endure before you can make up for all this.”72 At this time, Marie-Antoinette continued to partake in frivolous activities such as high-stakes gambling, attending late night fêtes in Paris, and spending most of her time at the Petit Trianon, out of the public’s view. This behavior was certainly cause for concern and in turn, Maria-Theresa suggested that her daughter should follow Count Mercy’s advice since “he thinks in a French way as a good German.”73 Attempting to calm her mother’s unease, Marie-Antoinette wrote back about the love the Parisian citizens had shown her and Louis XVI upon their visit to Paris. At this time, the dauphin and dauphine still offered a sense of hope to the French people that their reign would be different from that of Louis XV. But that same sense of hope was not present within the walls of Versailles where rising hostility emerged from the court.74
Queen of France
By 1774, Marie-Antoinette had immersed herself in French fashion, and her excessive frivolity had reached its zenith. Crowned Queen of France the same year, at the
71
Jeroen Frans Duindam, Vienna and Versailles: the Courts of Europe’s Dynastic Rivals, 1550-1780, (Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 148
72Bernier, Marie Antoinette, Queen. Secrets of Marie Antoinette. 1st ed, 82 73Ibid., 109
74
age of nineteen, Marie-Antoinette’s social identity was in desperate need of refining. The French perceived the queen’s overindulgence and her rebellious behavior as immature; her lust for excessive and expensive items made her appear inexperienced and
disinterested in fulfilling her duty to France. As queen, her official duty was to provide an heir to the throne. However, after four years of marriage, this task seemed impossible due to her unconsummated marriage. Marie-Antoinette’s inability to provide an heir did not rest solely on her. On the contrary, the failure stemmed from Louis XVI’s timidity, indifference to sex, and his rejection of his wife’s sexual cajoles due to a likely impotence problem.75 Marie-Antoinette responded to Louis XV’s lack of sexual interest by partaking in late night fêtes and extreme gambling at the Petit Trianon. However, in spite of their unconsummated marriage, the king and queen had begun to form a very close
relationship, which caused alarm among the French court and citizens. Since the reign of Louis XIV, it was common for kings to have several mistresses because a “wife, an official mistress, and a proliferation of unofficial ones helped ensure that female power was fragmented.”76 Louis XVI defied this notion and maintained his relationship with Marie-Antoinette. The unconventional relationship between the king and queen sparked fear in the court. Seeing that she was the daughter of Maria-Theresa, who was an
extremely powerful female ruler, many suspected that Marie-Antoinette wanted to follow in her mother’s footsteps. Rumors spread throughout Paris and Versailles that Marie-Antoinette abused this closeness and utilized her relationship with the king to assist in gaining favor for Austria’s political goals rather than France’s needs.
In light of the rising hostility and resentment against Marie-Antoinette, the Bâtiments commissioned Jean-Baptiste-Andre Gautier d'Agoty in 1775 to paint the royal portrait Marie-Antoinette, Queen of France (figure 13). Historically, the Bâtiments 75
The validity of Louis XVI’s impotence problem is widely debated. Recent research has shown that there are no lengthy breaks in time in Louis’ hunting diary and, therefore, any rumors of a medical procedure to correct his problems are likely false.
orchestrated all of the official royal portraits for the crown and their main concern for a portrait of the queen was to depict the force and power of the King through the queen’s body.77 The portrait introduced Marie-Antoinette as a queen adhering to state protocol and French culture. Unlike Martin van Meyten’s work, Portrait of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria (figure 14), there are no signs of the masculine or powerful-leader qualities found in her mother’s empress/queen portraits for the Austrian Empire. Therefore, an incorporation of this particular work offers a straightforward example of how French monarchical concepts of queenship were represented in royal portraiture. Marie-Antoinette, considered a cunning study of femininity and majesty combined, promotes a new image of the queen’s social identity and acts as a rebuttal to the public’s negative perception of her as a detached queen only concerned with dissipation.78
Eighteenth-century art critic Diderot had earlier remarked, “Those who, in all times, have ruled over people have always used paintings and statues in order better to inspire in their subjects the sentiments they wanted them to have, either in religion or in politics.”79 In other words, Gautier d’Agoty’s portrait provided inspiration to viewers of new and positive thoughts on Marie-Antoinette’s dedication to her position as both queen and wife to Louis XVI. With the intention of promoting a favorable queen, how does this portrait attempt to rectify the social identity of Marie-Antoinette?
The large-scale coronation portrait delineates Marie-Antoinette as an honorable and obedient wife of Louis XVI through the strategic positioning of her body. Gautier d’Agoty places a portrait of Louis XVI, held by a statue of Minerva, the figure of France, above Marie-Antoinette in the upper left-hand corner of the composition. As a rule, royal portraits place the body of the queen underneath the king’s image or include an
77Ibid., 49
78Fraser, Marie Antoinette: the Journey, 122
79Chevalier de Louis Juacourt. "Painting." The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project.
iconographic element representing the king to signify the power and influence the king has over the queen. Thus, by placing Marie-Antoinette directly below the king and in his gaze the portrait echoes the subject, “Queen of France.”80 A careful study of the painting also uncovers two Roman columns placed between the portrait of king and the body of the queen, in the background. In an effort to exhibit the solidity of their relationship, Gautier d’Agoty refers to ancient architectural structures known to withstand war, natural disaster, and pillage, structures that have stood the test of time, for the purpose of
shutting down any questions about the stability of their relationship despite their still non-consummated marriage.
Given the importance of the Bâtiments-commissioned portrait, the artist fuses Marie-Antoinette’s body with a number of conventional monarchical symbols to promote her queenship. Marie-Antoinette is clothed in a lavish power-blue robe-a-la-française decorated with white lilies, the flower of France, gold embroidery, tassels, and wide, sweeping layers of drapery. She wears an ermine-lined, fleur-de-lis robe similar to that which Louis XVI wore in Antoine François Callet’s painting, Portrait of King Louis XVI in Full Coronation Regalia (figure 15). Here it is draped around her shoulders and her body. In conjunction with the robe, France’s royal crown rests on top of a pillow on a nearby table on the left side of the image, reminding the viewer of her status as the queen of France. Hence, the piece erases any sign of her Austrian past in an effort to dispel any fears one may have had about her personal and political motivations. Well, almost all signs of Austria.
Since Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI’s marriage was the event that sealed the alliance between Austria and France, naturally the portrait would refer to the union in some manner. And it does. Underneath the crown, on the left side of the composition, there is a floral bouquet consisting of the pink Habsburg rose and the white Bourbon lily.
Nevertheless, the flowers are not the only remnants of Austria. In fact, there are several components on Marie-Antoinette’s dress, such as excessive ornamentation, and in her hair that move away from traditional monarchical representations of the queen. As Caroline Weber writes,
Marie-Antoinette was the first Queen of France to break with the tradition of self-effacement to which the wives of Louis XIV or XV had submitted before her. She was the first to lend Versailles her style, to impose her imprint on it, and to promulgate the dictates of fashion.81
When considering Weber’s quote, we can refer back to Maria-Theresa’s statement to her daughter in which she tells her to “set the tone at Versailles” to see from where Marie-Antoinette’s breaking from tradition materialized from. Still, Marie-Antoinette would have also been accustomed to seeing state portraits of her mother in which she was dressed in Austrian court protocol. These images, as Michael Yonan suggests, often represented Maria-Theresa as a monarch, but also as a fashionable woman. For example, Martin van Meytens State Portrait of Empress Maria-Theresa (figure 16) depicts the empress wearing a gown that is made of large spans of Belgian lace, the most prized and sought after material throughout Europe.82 The amount of lace on her dress would have been available to only the wealthiest individuals and, therefore, the incorporation of the costly lace projected an image of extravagant living. When comparing the court costumes between mother and daughter, they both seem to emulate the same idea: grandeur. Both compositions are concerned with the representation of their monarchical position, but also focus on the external elements, such as the garnishing on their gowns, that reflect the title’s affluence.
In a letter dating one week after the death of Louis XV, Maria-Theresa insisted, “This is a decisive moment for the Queen’s happiness. She has never nor will ever need her august mother’s advice so badly; but your Majesty will know the best way to express 81Weber, Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution, 295
this advice.”83 If Gautier d'Agoty’s Marie-Antoinette, Queen of France is compared to Jean-Baptiste van Loo’s 1730 painting, Portrait of Marie Leszczyńska (figure 17), one can see that similar elements of monarchical power are present in both compositions. However, Marie Leszczyńska, wife of Louis XV, offers a simple and elegant version of a French queen through her unembellished hair and lack of elaborate decoration on her court costume. Van Loo’s painting focuses on the dignity and importance of the Queen by resting her hand next to the royal crown. This painting offers no other purpose other than to refer to Marie Leszczyńska’s royal position within the court. In contrast, Marie-Antoinette’s portrait projects an imperious attitude by placing her hand atop a globe. This gesture refers to her high position within the entire social hierarchy, not just her
monarchical position, but also sends forth to the viewer the idea that the she has an understanding of the world. Similarly, the portrait again deviates from van Loo’s portrait by illustrating Marie-Antoinette highly stylized and decked out in the latest pouf hairstyle that is over a foot tall and topped with ostrich feathers and jewels. The Queen’s dress, much like her hair, is decorated with an abundance of garnishing over top wide panniers. Historian Caroline Weber states that Marie-Antoinette preferred to dress in a
contemporary, very gallant style.84 Meaning, Marie-Antoinette liked to look more like a fashionista in her court costume rather than reflect an image of a typical and traditional queen. Her preference for high fashion was largely in part due to the public’s early fascination with Marie-Antoinette’s image. Although the gown she is wearing in Gautier d’Agoty’s would not have been worn in Paris, the people encouraged her to come to the city to show off her new dresses and hairstyles. But, over time Marie-Antoinette’s continued descent into excess only reinforced the rumors of her frivolity. This was the exact opposite of what the Bâtiments and her mother had in mind for her social identity.
