University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
Spring 2012
Portraits of Maintenon: edifying depictions of a
royal mistress
Ashley Marie Mason
University of Iowa
Copyright 2012 Ashley Marie Mason
This thesis is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/2938
Recommended Citation
Mason, Ashley Marie. "Portraits of Maintenon: edifying depictions of a royal mistress." MA (Master of Arts) thesis, University of Iowa,
2012.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/2938.
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons
PORTRAITS OF MAINTENON:
EDIFYING DEPICTIONS OF A ROYAL MISTRESS
by
Ashley Marie Mason
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of
Arts degree in Art History in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa
May 2012
Thesis Supervisor: Professor Dorothy Johnson
Copyright by
ASHLEY MARIE MASON
2012
All Rights Reserved
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
____________________________!
MASTER’S THESIS
______________!
This is to certify that the Master’s thesis of
Ashley Marie Mason
has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement
for the Master of Arts degree in Art History at the May 2012 graduation.
Thesis Committee: ______________________________________________________
Dorothy Johnson, Thesis Supervisor
______________________________________________________
Wallace Tomasini
______________________________________________________
Julie Hochstrasser
To my parents and Lisle
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank many people who helped to make this thesis a
reality. First, I would like to acknowledge my parents, Vi and William Mason,
for their endless emotional and financial support.
To my thesis advisor, Professor Dorothy Johnson, thank you for your
invaluable encouragement and expertise. In addition, I greatly appreciate the
other members of my thesis committee, Professors Wallace Tomasini and
Julie Hochstrasser, for devoting their time and attention to my project. All of
the faculty members of the Art History Department at the University of Iowa
have been inspirational to me, and my fellow graduate students have been a
source of boundless support and assistance.
I would also like to recognize the professor who sparked my passion for
this period, Professor Michael Yonan at the University of Missouri. I greatly
appreciate the time and attention all of the faculty members at the
University of Missouri dedicated to my studies.
Lastly, to my poodle Lisle, thank you for staying out of my lap long
enough for me to finish this.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. v
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
Maîtresse du roi as patron ............................................................ 2
Françoise d’Aubigné, the Marquise de Maintenon....................... 5
Scholarship of portraits of Maintenon ........................................ 11
CHAPTER 1:
LOUIS FERDINAND ELLE II’S PORTRAIT OF
MARQUISE DE MAINTENON AND HER NIECE:
PORTRAIT OF A CHARITABLE EDUCATOR............... 20
CHAPTER 2:
PIERRE MIGNARD’S PORTRAIT OF MARQUISE
DE MAINTENON AS ST. FRANCES OF ROME:
DIDACTIC PORTRAIT OF A PROPER SPIRITUAL
ROLE MODEL .................................................................. 33
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 53
APPENDIX:
FIGURES .......................................................................... 58
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 66
iv LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A1.
Louis Ferdinand Elle II, Portrait of the Marquise de Maintenon
and her Niece (c. 1689), oil on canvas, Château de
Versailles ................................................................................... 58
Figure A2.
Pierre Mignard, Portrait of the Marquise de Maintenon as St.
Frances of Rome (c. 1691), oil on canvas, Musée du
Louvre ....................................................................................... 58
Figure A3.
François­Hubert Drouais, Madame de Pompadour as a
Vestal (c. 1763), oil on canvas, Stewart Museum, Montreal ... 59
Figure A4.
Detail of Figure A1 .................................................................... 59
Figure A5.
Unknown artist. Louis XIV Holding the Plans for Saint­ Cyr
(c. 1650­1700), oil on canvas, Château de Versailles ............... 60
Figure A6.
Suggested pendant portraits ..................................................... 60
Figure A7.
Hyacinthe Rigaud, Portrait of Louis XIV (1701), oil on
canvas, Château de Versailles .................................................. 61
Figure A8.
Frontispiece to Scarron aparu à Madame de Maintenon . . .
(c. 1694) ..................................................................................... 61
Figure A9.
Antoine Trouvain, Portrait of Madame de Maintenon (1695),
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Département des Estampes ... 62
Figure A10.
Detail of Figure A2 .................................................................... 62
Figure A11.
Full portrait version of Figure A2............................................. 63
Figure A12.
Pierre Mignard, Madame de Montespan (1668?), oil on
canvas, 77 x 57 inches, Troyes Museum ................................... 63
Figure A13.
Unknown artist, Portrait of Isabelle de Ludres as Mary
Magdalen (c. 1670), Versailles .................................................. 64
Figure A14.
Julie Philipaut, Racine Reading before Louis XIV and Madame
de Maintenon (c. 1800­1825), oil on canvas, Musée du
Louvre ........................................................................................ 64
v Figure A15.
Edouard Henri­Théophile Pingret, Madame de Maintenon at
Saint­Cyr (c. 1835), oil on canvas, Saint­Quentin, Musée
Antoine Lécuyer......................................................................... 65
vi 1!
INTRODUCTION
Within the past twenty years, there has been an unprecedented
interest in the art commissioned by and involving the royal mistresses of
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century French monarchs. However, while some
mistresses have been the focus of numerous studies, others have been
inexplicably ignored. The crux of this trend is undoubtedly Jeanne Antoinette
Poisson, the Marquise de Pompadour, who had arguably the greatest
influence on art of any French maîtresse du roi, and about whom numerous
articles, books, and exhibitions have been devoted within the past thirty
years. On the other hand, Françoise d’Aubigné, the Marquise de Maintenon,
has not been the topic of any major study in relation to her portraits. This is
likely because there are so few in existence, whereas Pompadour was a more
prominent and prolific patron of the arts. In addition, while both mistresses
have complex legacies influenced by harsh contemporary criticism, numerous
fictionalized biographies, and scholarship tinged with sexism, much modern
writing about Maintenon remains remarkably hostile. In this thesis, using
the prolific research on Pompadour as a framework for my study, I aim to
locate Maintenon’s original intention within her two major public portraits
that would have originally been located in her school at Saint-Cyr. In
addition, by analyzing the relationship between her most famed portraits and
her legacy, I hope to reveal that, rather than successfully exemplifying a
charitable, pious, and humble woman, the ambiguity of these portraits has
2!
instead served to propagate the negative characterization of Maintenon as an
ambitious, dissimulating religious bigot.
Maîtresse du roi as patron
To an extent, the various fictional books and movies that have
sensationalized the role of maîtresse du roi to the general public provide an
initial obstacle for the legitimacy of academic interest in this area. However,
as scholarship relating to issues of gender and power has risen in importance
in the study of European art in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the
understanding has emerged that study of royal mistresses supremely
encompasses these issues. There have always been scholars who are rather
reserved in their assessments of mistress’ possible influence on art. For
example, Donald Posner gives credit to Pompadour for using art successfully
as “public relations,” but defends the rather antiquated belief put forth by
Jean Cordey that she had no especial taste or critical interest in art; Posner
even states “Cordey’s conclusion seems to me indisputable: ‘One cannot
therefore suppose that Mme. de Pompadour loved painting for itself, that she
sought to exercise the least influence on its evolution. She saw in it only an
indispensable element for the decoration of her apartments.’”1 Colin Jones
also undermines Pompadour’s role as a connoisseur by stating “even though
many parts of her collections were unrivalled in quality, Pompadour was less
a collector—a term that denotes choice, selection, and discrimination—than a
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Jean Cordey, Inventaire des biens de Madame de Pompadour rédigé après son décès
(Paris: Francisque Lefrançois, 1939), quoted in Donald Posner, “Mme. de Pompadour as a
Patron of the Visual Arts,” The Art Bulletin 72, no. 1 (March 1990): 98.
3!
cultural accumulator.”2 These anachronistic accounts of Pompadour speak to
the occasional resistance within our field to attribute cultivated taste to a
maîtresse du roi.
A number of notable responses to Posner and Jones emerged, many of
which highlighted the issues of gender underlying the critical assessments of
Pompadour as a “cultural accumulator” rather than connoisseur, or even
collector. Tess Lewis and Clarissa Campbell Orr each provide a harsh review
of Jones’ book, criticizing the way in which he diminishes Pompadour’s
obvious interest in and knowledge of art.3 Eunice Lipton denounces Posner
and Jones for their “insulting” tones and suggests that they lack “the
understanding that Madame de Pompadour was a person with desire and
subjectivity. . . . No one but [Elise] Goodman sees her as she might have seen
herself.”4 In the introduction of her own book about the portraits of
Pompadour, Goodman states that “Posner underestimates Pompadour’s
refined sensibility” and that “when Posner casts Pompadour as a mere ‘public
relations’ expert rather than a woman of learning and intellectual substance,
his argument contradicts the testimony of contemporaries and modern
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 Colin Jones, Madame de Pompadour: Images of a Mistress (London: National
Gallery, 2002).
Tess Lewis, “Madame de Pompadour: Eminence without Honor,” The Hudson
Review 56, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 303-314. Clarissa Campbell Orr, “Rococo Queen,” History
Workshop Journal, no. 56 (Autumn 2003): 245-250.
3
4 Eunice Lipton, “A Tarnished Reputation: Madame de Pompadour Still Gets No
Respect,” The Women’s Review of Books 20, no. 6 (March 2003): 12-13.
4!
evaluations.”5 Instead, Elise Goodman shows how Pompadour was the
quintessential femme savante who intelligently orchestrated her depicted
identity within portraiture.6 Goodman uses strong historical evidence, often
discussing philosophical, literary, and artistic figures who were known to
have social connections to Madame de Pompadour. In addition, she uses clear
visual evidence, citing the many portraits in which Madame de Pompadour is
shown surrounded by books, music, and art. In the end, rather than studying
the art surrounding Madame de Pompadour in isolation from her biography,
or focusing on opinions of her biased detractors, Goodman reconstructs the
public identity that Madame de Pompadour attempted to propagate.
Lipton does note that Goodman is perhaps “excessively positive.”7
While this is probably true, Goodman’s book serves as an instrumental
framework for discussing an educated and cultivated maîtresse du roi in
relation to her public image and artistic patronage. Such studies of
Pompadour serve as a foundation for understanding the relationship between
other mistresses, and any women possessing power and influence, to art
associated with them. I certainly do not intend to argue that Maintenon had
the power, influence, or even interest in art to rival that of Pompadour.
However, Maintenon was an educated woman, well versed in intellectual
salon etiquette, who undoubtedly played a role in the construction of her own
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 Elise Goodman, Portraits of Madame de Pompadour: Celebrating the Femme
Savante (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 1-2.
6
Ibid., 4-5.
7
Lipton, 12.
5!
public identity.
Françoise d’Aubigné, Marquise de Maintenon
Françoise d’Aubigné was born in 1635 to an impoverished but noble
family. 8 Granddaughter of the famous Huguenot poet, Agrippa d’Aubigné,
her birthplace is somewhat unclear, although her critics maintain that she
was born at a prison in Niort. Cardinal Richelieu imprisoned her father,
Constant d’Aubigné, for treasonous activities. Upon Constant’s release in
1639, he travelled with his family to Martinique where he believed he had
been made governor.9 Ultimately, he abandoned his family and returned to
France, and his wife was eventually able to earn the money to return with
her children later. Shortly after their return, Constant died, leaving his wife
and children without support.
Although Maintenon was baptized by her Catholic mother, she was
raised as a Protestant and was cared for by her paternal aunt, Madame de
Villette, an ardent Protestant, after her mother’s death in 1647. The next
year, however, Madame de Neuillant, a Catholic relative, was awarded
custody of d’Aubigné and promptly attempted to convert her to Catholicism.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are numerous biographies of Maintenon in existence. The most recent and
progressive accounts are: Éric Le Nabour, La marquise de Maintenon (Paris: Pygmalion,
2007); John J. Conley, “Introduction,” in Madame de Maintenon, Dialogues and Addresses
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004), 1-25; André Castelot, Madame de
Maintenon: La reine secrète (Paris: Perrin, 1996); and Éric Le Nabour, La porteuse d’ombre:
Madame de Maintenon et le Roi-Soleil (Paris: Tallandier, 1999). Another relatively factual
account is Charlotte Haldane, Madame de Maintenon: Uncrowned Queen of France
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970). Most of the biographical information included here is
consistent throughout these sources; however, in instances in which inconsistencies exist, I
cite the most credible source.
8
9
Conley, “Introduction,” 2.
6!
This conversion process, by all accounts, was a very difficult process and John
J. Conley, who recently translated Madame de Maintenon’s Dialogues and
Addresses, suggests that this led her to have “a lifelong disdain for convent
education.”10 Upon exiting the convent, d’Aubigné found herself broke and
without significant connections in society.
Before long, in 1652, Maintenon accepted an offer of marriage from the
renowned poet Paul Scarron, who was crippled by arthritis, twenty-five years
her elder, possibly impotent, and known for his caustic wit. Despite this, most
accounts describe their marriage as pleasant and happy. Maintenon is said to
have taken care of him until he died and, while he was living, she acted as
the hostess to his esteemed salon. While we cannot be sure of the extent to
which Maintenon was educated by her mother, her aunt Madame de Villette,
or the convent, at her husband’s salon she was undisputedly exposed to many
of the foremost literary, philosophical, and artistic ideas of her time.11 She
also had the opportunity to meet many important literary and intellectual
figures and perhaps even began to establish a relationship with artists such
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Conley, “Introduction,” 3. He also discusses Madame de Maintenon in John J.
Conley, Suspicion of Virtue: Women Philosophers in Neoclassical France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 2002). Conley is the only recent researcher working in the English
language who seems to be attempting to break away from the fictionalization that surrounds
Madame de Maintenon’s legacy.
10
11
Ibid.
7!
as Pierre Mignard.12 While it is likely that Maintenon was reasonably welleducated before marrying Scarron, this involvement with salons would have
provided an invaluable exposure to the educated elite and experience
interacting with the greatest minds in France. After Scarron died in 1660,
she was left without means. However, in 1669, through one of the connections
she made in Scarron’s salon, Maintenon was able to get a position caring for
the children of the marquise de Montespan, the current maîtresse du roi, and
Louis XIV.
Excelling in the role of governess, Maintenon was awarded an
endowment by Louis in 1675, enabling her to purchase the chateau of
Maintenon. With this new wealth and aristocratic title, she assumed a new
role in Louis’ court, quickly becoming his close confidante. The breakdown of
the relationship between Louis and Montespan led Maintenon to encourage
his reconciliation with his estranged wife, Marie-Thérèse d’Autriche.
However, after the queen’s death in 1683, Maintenon and Louis entered into
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12 Hannah Clay, “Madame Scarron, her Friends and Relatives,” The Ladies’
Companion, vol. 3, second series (London: Rogerson and Tuxford, 1853), 140. “Mignard was
an intimate friend; Scarron ordered pictures likewise of him. He painted the first and last
portraits of Madame de Maintenon; the one in 1659, the other in 1694.” The former portrait
is lost, although engravings seem to have been made after it. J. J. Jusserand, “Introduction,”
in Paul Scarron, The Comical Romance, and Other Tales, trans. Tom Brown and John
Savage, vol. 1 (London: Lawrence and Bullen, 1892), xxii. “Mignard who, when he came back
from Rome, found Scarron married . . . was a frequent guest during the last years of the
poet’s life.” Charlotte Lady Blennerhassett, Louis XIV and Madame de Maintenon (London:
George Allen & Sons, 1910), 16. “The portrait of Madame Scarron, by Mignard, who belonged
to Scarron’s circle, is unfortunately lost.” A number of authors describe a close friendship
between Paul Scarron and Pierre Mignard.
8!
a morganatic marriage.13 The major portraits that still exist of Maintenon
come from this period, after her marriage to Louis XIV.
The subsequent events in Maintenon’s life with which this study will
be concerned relate primarily to the school at Saint-Cyr she founded in 1686
to educate daughters of impoverished nobility. Often, Maintenon’s founding
of her school is viewed as a response to her experience of being educated in a
convent. The curriculum developed by Maintenon for her school can be seen
as an attempt to correct the flaws she found in her own convent education. At
this time, young girls would enter a convent and were taught devotion to
God, the king, and eventually a husband. Practical subjects were often
neglected and there was a general belief that girls were not adequately
prepared for marriage or to resist the rampant temptation and vice of court
life.14 Maintenon seems to have tried to rectify this problem. Information
concerning her curriculum for Saint-Cyr will be discussed more in depth in
Chapter Two, as will ensuing controversy following the influence of Madame
Guyon, the head of the Quietist movement in France.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Conley, “Introduction,” 7-8. A morganatic marriage is one in which a person of high
rank marries someone of a lower station with the stipulation that neither the low-ranking
spouse nor their children will have any claim to the high-ranking person’s titles or property.
Modern scholars do not dispute that the morganatic marriage took place, but do debate the
date it occurred. John J. Conley provides evidence for the marriage occurring in October of
1683, just seven months after the death of the queen.
13
14 For more information concerning Maintenon and education, refer to John J.
Conley, “Introduction;” John J. Conley “The Suspicion of Virtue;” Madeleine Daniélou,
Madeleine, Madame de Maintenon, éducatrice (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1946); Carlo François,
Précieuses et autres indociles: Aspects du féminisme dans la littérature française du XVIIe
siècle (Birmingham, AL: Summa Publications, 1987); and Carolyn Lougee, Le paradis des
femmes: Women, Salons, and Social Stratification in Seventeenth-Century France
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976).
9!
Both the contemporary and immediate posthumous reputation of
Maintenon was largely negative. Various accounts represent Maintenon as a
dissimulator who manipulated Louis XIV into pursuing the persecution of
Protestants, especially those of Charlotte-Elisabeth of Bavaria, duchesse
d’Orléans and Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon. In 1752, the Huguenot
author Laurent Angliviel de La Beaumelle published a supposed collection of
Maintenon’s letters, which were later found to be falsified and fictionalized.15
La Beaumelle’s letters were immensely popular and served to inform
generations of opinions about Maintenon. Discovery of the counterfeit nature
of many of the most incriminating letters did little to change the various
negative stigmas associated with Maintenon. Instead, these various biased
and fictionalized accounts have become ingrained within the popular
understanding of Maintenon’s character.16
Beginning in the nineteenth century, however, after Théophile
Lavallée’s publication of the works of Maintenon (1854-66), renewed interest
in Maintenon’s dialogues promoted her as a moraliste and educators began to
stress the suitability of her texts for emphasizing the necessary virtues to
young girls.17 Subsequent publications of these dialogues assembled by Cadet
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15 La Beaumelle, The Life of Madame de Maintenon, trans. unknown (London:
Printed for J. Robinson, G. Woodfall, and Lockyer Davis, 1753-60).
This can still be seen in modern fictionalized accounts, such as Maintenon’s
characterization as a manipulative bigot in the film Saint-Cyr (Patricia Mazuy, 2000).
16
17 Madame de Maintenon, Lettres et entretiens sur l’éducation des filles, ed.
Théophile Lavallée, 2 vols (Paris: Charpentier, 1854). Marquise de Maintenon, Conseils et
instructions aux demoiselles pour leur conduite dans le monde, ed. Théophile Lavallée, 2 vols
(Paris: Charpentier, 1857).
10!
(1884), Faguet (1885), and Jacquinet (1888) were thus treated as functional
textbooks for modern educators.18 Interestingly, the religious nature of these
dialogues was often de-emphasized in favor of a focus on the more secular
virtues. While this began to change the way people understood Maintenon
within the realm of education, it did little to change the widely held belief of
her extreme religious zealousness and possible bigotry.
Within the twentieth-century, feminist scholarship has been
particularly critical of Maintenon. Carolyn Lougee and Carlo François
dismiss any beneficial or innovative qualities in Maintenon’s texts,
emphasizing that within her educational experiments, women were still
confined to domestic and convent spheres of society.19 Within this area of
scholarship, Maintenon becomes associated with anti-feminism. A few
studies, however, have attempted to emphasize the positive qualities of
Maintenon’s writings, such as Madeleine Daniélou and, most recently, John
Conley.20 Conley, in particular, attempts to move beyond the biases and
fictionalization of Maintenon to attempt a relatively objective and scholarly
analysis of Maintenon’s life and texts.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
18 Madame de Maintenon, Eugène Darin, and Félix Cadet, Éducation et morale, choix
de letters, entretiens et instructions (Paris: C. Delagrave, 1884). Madame de Maintenon and
Émile Faguet, Madame de Maintneon, institutrice: extraits de ses letters, avis, entretiens,
conversations et proverbs sur l’éducation (Paris: Librairie classique H. Oudin, 1885).
Madame de Maintenon and Paul Jacquinet, Mme de Maintenon dans le monde et à SaintCyr: choix de ses letters et entretiens avec une introduction et des notes historiques et
littéraires (Paris: Librairie classique Eugène Belin, 1888).
19
Lougee, Le paradis des femmes; François, Précieuses et autres indociles.
20 Daniélou, Madeleine. Madame de Maintenon, éducatrice. Paris: Bloud & Gay,
1946. Conley, John. The Suspicion of Virtue: Women Philosophers in Neoclassical France.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002. pp. 124-56.
11!
Scholarship of portraits of Maintenon
There are two major firmly attributed portraits of Maintenon in
existence that can essentially be understood as public portraits. The first is
Louis Ferdinand Elle II’s Portrait of the Marquise de Maintenon with her
Niece, currently located at Versailles (see Fig. A1). Louis Elle is not well
studied and, to my knowledge, this portrait has not been discussed in any
literature expressly concerned with him. Instead, it is exclusively discussed
as a representation of Maintenon. The only major scholarly description of this
painting was included very recently in Elise Goodman’s The Cultivated
Woman: Portraiture in Seventeenth-Century France, in which she uses this
portrait to discuss Maintenon’s role as an educator of young girls at her
school at Saint-Cyr; she argues that this portrait is actually “an emblem of
Maintenon’s professional role as guardian of her pupils at Saint-Cyr.”21 She
rightly discusses the importance of the “encoded references to Maintenon’s
relationship with her royal husband and to their joint project, Saint-Cyr.”22
However, she perpetuates the regressive understanding of Maintenon as an
anti-feminist, stating that the curriculum at her school was “bound by
Maintenon’s low opinion of her own gender.”23 In addition, Goodman
undermines Maintenon’s cultural knowledge, emphasizing that she “had been
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21 Elise Goodman, The Cultivated Woman: Portraiture in Seventeenth-Century
France (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 2008), 31-32.
22
Ibid., 31-32.
23
Ibid., 27.
12!
only minimally formally educated.”24 Overall, her description of the portrait
and analysis of its iconography is strong, but Goodman uses it as a
representation of an unenlightened educator—a view that is simplistic and
does not acknowledge contradictory evidence from Maintenon’s
contemporaries.25
Louis Elle’s portrait is also included in two surveys of works at
Versailles. Thierry Bajou’s more recent Painting at Versailles: XVIIth
Century includes a focus on connoisseurship, provenance, and description
rather than a discussion of the portrait’s significance within historical or
cultural contexts.26 Of interest in Bajou’s account is the suggestion that this
portrait was a gift to the school at Saint-Cyr from Louis XIV and the
acknowledgement that the artist was a Protestant.27 Alden R. Gordon’s
Masterpieces from Versailles: Three Centuries of French Portraiture provides
a slightly more nuanced discussion of Maintenon’s costume in Louis Elle’s
portrait, suggesting a relationship to formal portraits of government officials
and the royal family.28
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Goodman, The Cultivated Woman, 33. It is strange that Goodman uses rather
unfamiliar, uncommon (and undated) prints to illustrate her points but does not even
mention the well known Mignard portrait, even though it has been repeatedly suggested that
numerous copies existed in Maintenon’s school at Saint-Cyr.
24
25 This is somewhat ironic considering Goodman’s defense of Pompadour’s cultivation
and enlightened status.
Thierry Bajou, Painting at Versailles, XVIIth Century (Paris: Buchet – Chastel/
Réunion deas Musées Nationaux, 1998), 254.
26
27
Ibid., 254.
Alden R. Gordon, Masterpieces from Versailles: Three Centuries of French
Portraiture (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1983), 22. In The Cultivated
Woman, Goodman elaborates upon this idea.
28
13!
The other major portrait is Pierre Mignard’s Marquise de Maintenon
as St. Frances of Rome (see Fig. A2). Although Mignard is more familiar to a
modern audience than Louis Elle, there are actually very few comprehensive
studies of Mignard. The only monograph is Lada Nikolenko’s Pierre Mignard:
The Portrait Painter of the Grand Siècle, which is composed of a general
biography of Pierre Mignard and includes information that would primarily
be of interest to a connoisseur or collector. 29 It includes an elaborate listing
of possible attributions known through photographs, supposedly false
attributions, copies after lost portraits, works not seen because they lack
reproductions, engravings after lost portraits, and plates of the “authentic”
portraits. Unfortunately, there is only identification information about the
Maintenon as St. Frances; no additional description or discussion is included
in this volume. However, there is important information included in the
listing. Specifically, it states that the painting is not signed or dated and that
multiple versions of this painting exist.30 This is, of course, both problematic
and intriguing, and will be an issue discussed in chapter 2. While this
monograph contains no analysis or even basic description of the Portrait of
the Marquise de Maintenon, it is helpful to have a list of works firmly
attributed to Mignard to use for comparison.
Bajou briefly describes the provenance of Mignard’s painting: “royal
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lada Nikolenko, Pierre Mignard: The Portrait Painter of the Grand Siècle
(München: Nitz Verlag, 1982-3), 73-74.
29
30
Nikolenko, 73-74.
14!
house of Saint-Cyr; Revolutionary seizure; presence reported at Trianon
before 1814; 1833, Louvre; placed soon afterwards at Versailles.”31 The formal
elements of the painting are actually rather neglected, but a thorough
explanation is given for why the date is thought to be before 1694. Bajou
states a letter (quoted at the beginning of Chapter 2) was written in 1694 and
that it is likely Madame de Coulanges had seen the painting right after it
was finished. In addition, Bajou states that an early biographer of Mignard
from the eighteenth century listed that the Portrait of the Marquise de
Maintenon was one of Mignard’s last works.32 Since Mignard died in 1695,
the 1694 attribution seems credible.
Bajou also makes a suggestion of why this painting was commissioned.
Addressing the many replicas, he states that there would have likely been
versions throughout the classrooms at Maintenon’s school at Saint-Cyr. This
explains the multiple listings in Nikolenko’s monograph of Mignard. Bajou
clarifies that there are three known versions of this same work that survive
and that the two in the best condition are found in the Louvre and
Versailles.33 He also suggests that the ermine, not usually seen in the
portraits of anyone not belonging to the immediate royal family, would have
referenced Maintenon’s morganatic marriage to Louis XIV, which Bajou
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
31
Bajou, 266.
32
Ibid.
33 Ibid. Nikolenko lists two more known replicas: an oval version at the Musée des
Beaux-Arts de Rouen (SR 82) and another at the château de Maintenon. The object listing on
the website of the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Rouen references a copy at the château de
Bussy-Rabutin, but I have been unable to confirm that a copy exists at this location.
15!
suggests took place in 1683 after the death of Maria Theresa.34 In addition,
Bajou describes some of the iconography in the portrait in a rather
interesting way:
In spite of this pomp, Mme de Maintenon is actually portrayed as St.
Frances of Rome, her patron saint. She holds a pious work written by
the saint, in which a verse had miraculously appeared in letters of
gold, showing God’s satisfaction at the obedience of this Roman widow
(1394-1440) in answering the divine call. The hourglass placed on the
table, its upper half still full, recalls the swiftness of her acceptance.
The book was kept in Rome, in the church on the forum which is
dedicated to her, and Mignard may have seen it there during his stay
in Italy.35
The author does not make much of this, but it is significant that the book
held by Madame de Maintenon in this fictive scene is possibly a
representation of an actual book that was involved in a miracle, that Mignard
may have seen in person in Italy.36
While Bajou contributed many interesting facts to contribute to the
understanding of this painting, he did not analyze the portrait. For example,
Bajou seems to suggest that the representation of Maintenon in ermine as St.
Frances of Rome is contradictory; however, could it not be that this was
actually the only acceptable way that Maintenon could have been represented
in ermine—in the guise of her patron saint? Surely in any other depiction,
contemporaries would have deemed Maintenon wearing ermine
inappropriate. In fact, due to the immense positive contemporary response to
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
34
Most other scholars suggest a later date for the morganatic marriage, in 1685.
35
Bajou, 266.
36 Unfortunately, despite my efforts, I have been unable to discover any definite
information about the actual book to which Bajou refers.
16!
this portrait, it seems possible that viewers realized the genius of a subject
that allows for a royal treatment of Maintenon without risk of controversy.
In her aforementioned book about the portraits of Pompadour,
Goodman includes a chapter entitled “The New Montespan / The New
Maintenon,” in which she addresses the way in which Pompadour seems to
have emulated Maintenon, especially after her physical relations with Louis
XV are believed to have ceased.37 Interestingly, neither Louis Elle’s nor
Mignard’s portrait is mentioned, despite the fact that both had prints made
after them and were likely the best known depictions of Maintenon in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In both portraits, pious and charitable
qualities of Maintenon are emphasized over her beauty or physical appeal,
which is the idea Goodman suggests that Pompadour borrows. However, she
does not incorporate either of these portraits, both of which would have made
her case stronger.
More recently, however, the comparison between Madame de
Maintenon and Madame de Pompadour is also discussed in Melissa Hyde’s
Making up the Rococo: François Boucher and His Critics.38 In this book, Hyde
uses Mignard’s portrait of Maintenon in comparison with François-Hubert
Drouis’ Madame de Pompadour as a Vestal to convincingly argue that
Madame de Pompadour was attempting to emulate Madame de Maintenon
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
37
Goodman, The Portraits of Madame de Pompadour, 50-80.
38 Melissa Hyde, Making up the Rococo: François Boucher and His Critics (Los
Angeles, CA: The Getty Research Institute Publications Program, 2006), 130-133.
17!
not only in life, but also in painting (see Fig. A3). Whereas Goodman tended
to focus on generalized iconographic elements and social history, Hyde directs
her attention more to the paintings themselves and combines formalism with
an emphasis on feminist, social, and iconographic issues. Her overall
argument is comparable to that of Goodman. Hyde uses details from the
paintings by Mignard and Drouais and provides a convincing analysis of their
connection. While Hyde suggests that there were “deliberate affinities, both
formal and thematic” between the two paintings, she is also careful to note
the differences; she notes the lack of rouge in the portrait of Maintenon and
discusses the significance of the emphasis on rouge in that of Pompadour.39
Kathleen Nicholson wrote an essay called “The Ideology of Feminine
‘Virtue’: The Vestal Virgin in French Eighteenth-Century Allegorical
Portraiture” in which she includes Drouais’ portrait of Pompadour.40
Nicholson states:
The subject of the vestal virgin had appeared only rarely in French
portraiture prior to the eighteenth century, and without the heroic
overtones and didacticism of an exemplary, identifiable ancient vestal
such as Tuccia, the lesson of whose steadfast virginity was so
effectively appropriated in sixteenth-century England for state
portraits of Elizabeth I. Rather, in France, in the age of libertinage and
royal mistresses, the topic of vestal virgins would seem to have been
loaded and ironising – its erotic undertones heightened precisely
through the notion of virginity to be despoiled.41
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
39
Hyde, 130-133.
Kathleen Nicholson, “The Ideology of Feminine ‘Virtue’: The Vestal Virgin in
French Eighteenth-Century Allegorical Portraiture,” in Joanna Woodall, ed., Portraiture:
Facing the Subject (New York: Manchester University Press, 1997), 52-72.
40
41
Ibid., 58.
18!
Nicholson does not mention Mignard’s Portrait of the Marquise de
Maintenon, yet her description of what a portrait would mean depicting an
influential woman as an eternal virgin is interesting. In relation to Drouais’
portrait, she states that it “strikes a note of parody in the seemingly odd fit of
the king’s former mistress in the guise of a vestal.”42 Representing Maintenon
as a saint seems to be similarly absurd. This theme of representing royal
mistresses as virgins is interesting and obviously problematic, yet has not
been thoroughly discussed in reference to Mignard’s portrait.
Both major portraits by Louis Elle and Mignard are frequently
reproduced in the various factual and fictional biographies of Maintenon, but
have only been significantly mentioned by art historians in broader studies of
the period or in comparison to other portraits. However, these portraits
deserve to be significantly and singularly addressed in a larger study of
Maintenon as patron. Both have connections to events occurring in the life of
Maintenon at the time of their creation and can be clearly understood as
representations of her intended public identity. Also, these portraits seem to
have an interesting relationship to both negative contemporary criticism of
Maintenon and to her subsequent legacy. I hope to address each of these
issues within the following three chapters.
My chapters are ordered in a chronological fashion and each will
involve a discussion of the meaningful visual elements in each portrait. As
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
42
Nicholson, 65.
19!
the earliest portrait that can be firmly considered part of Maintenon’s
constructed public identity, Louis Elle’s Marquise de Maintenon and her
Niece will be the focus of the first chapter.43 An analysis of the many possible
layers of meaning within this portrait will be discussed in relation to
Maintenon’s complicated legacy. The second chapter will center upon
revealing the original function of Mignard’s Marquise de Maintenon as St.
Frances of Rome and its relationship to the controversy involving Quietism
with which Maintenon was involved at the time of the portrait’s creation. In
the final chapter, the way in which these portraits influence Maintenon’s
legacy will be analyzed. Finally, in my conclusion, I will discuss the obstacles
involved in the study of representations of Maintenon and present
suggestions of issues requiring further study.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
43 There are earlier known portraits of Maintenon, such as one by Mignard painted
while she was still Madame Scarron, which I believe is at the château de Maintenon.
Unfortunately, I have not received confirmation of any information from this institution.
There is yet another by Mignard, which I also believe is at the château de Maintenon, that
has not been firmly attributed by Lada Nikolendo as representing Maintenon, although
numerous fictionalized books present it as a firmly attributed portrait. Regardless, if this
painting does represent Maintenon, it likely date from before the period in which she became
the maîtresse du roi, and therefore is not necessarily involved with the creation of a public
identity.
20
CHAPTER I:
LOUIS FERDINAND ELLE II’S PORTRAIT OF MARQUISE DE
MAINTENON AND HER NIECE: PORTRAIT OF A CHARITABLE
EDUCATOR
In Louis Ferdinand Elle II’s imposing portrait, Maintenon and
her Niece, currently in the collection at the château de Versailles, Maintenon
is represented with her niece and namesake, Françoise d’Aubigné, who was
the daughter of her brother, Charles d’Aubigné (see Fig. A1). The young girl,
dressed in a luxurious golden gown, is shown respectfully kneeling before her
aunt, affectionately holding her hand and leaning upon Maintenon’s knees.
Maintenon, wearing a rather austere black velvet gown and elaborate veiled
headdress, sits in a majestic throne-like chair. While gently clasping the
wrist of her niece with her left hand, Maintenon touches a beautiful bouquet
of pink and white flowers with her right hand, resting upon a large tasseled
cushion. Directly above, through what appears to be an opening in a
monumental colonnade, Maintenon’s school at Saint-Cyr can be seen, set
within a magnificent landscape (see Fig. A4). The school was located on the
outskirts of the immense grounds of Versailles. Maintenon and her niece,
therefore, are within the great château, in an opulently palatial room. Lush
drapery serves as an immediate background to the figures, and obscures
almost all details of the room itself.
Young Françoise would eventually become the inheritor of Maintenon’s
grand estate. The clasping of hands reveals the intimacy of the relationship
21
between Maintenon and her niece. Even at this time, Madame de Maintenon
knew that she would make this young girl her heir. This would have been a
magnificent gift to a girl who otherwise would have received nothing and
who, like Maintenon, was descended from a noble family but was born into
relative poverty. Unlike Maintenon who repeatedly found herself without
money—after her father died, after her mother died, after the death of her
first husband Paul Scarron—perhaps Françoise would be able to avoid the
two endings Maintenon repeatedly describes in the dialogues she wrote for
her school at Saint-Cyr: instead of being forced to choose between entering a
convent or a loveless marriage, the two most likely options available to
women born into their class, maybe Françoise would be able, like her aunt, to
use her wealth and influence to help others.
Almost certainly painted after Maintenon’s morganatic marriage to
Louis XIV, which is usually said to have occurred in 1685, this portrait
incorporates complex and layered meanings. It can easily be understood as a
representation of Maintenon’s love for her niece, whom she raised as a
daughter. Yet, because it incorporates her school at Saint-Cyr, this scene
might also serve as an emblem of her love for all of the young girls under her
tutelage and care.1 Perhaps the bouquet of flowers placed immediately
beneath the school itself is meant to symbolize this.
Placed upon a richly embellished cushion, the bouquet can also be
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Gordon, 48. This is the primary emphasis of Gordon’s interpretation of this
painting. He does not note the symbolic nature of the bouquet or the chain of influence being
visually represented.
22
understood as a symbol for the king himself.2 In numerous portraits, the king
is shown with his feet resting upon a cushion, likely so that his divine limbs
are not represented touching the ground. This can be seen in Louis XIV
Holding the Plans for Saint-Cyr, a portrait by an unknown artist also located
at the château de Versailles (see Fig. A5). In this portrait, the king is shown
in formal ceremonial regalia seated at a table upon which plans for the school
at Saint-Cyr are resting, and behind which his royal crown can be seen.
Presumably, this scene is set within Versailles, and his right foot is placed
prominently upon an embellished cushion, almost identical to the one within
the portrait of Maintenon by Louis Elle.
Interestingly, Thierry Bajou makes the following suggestion
concerning the portrait of Maintenon by Louis Elle:
. . . it may well be one of the pictures that Louis XIV gave to the
community [the school at Saint-Cyr] following his visit there in May
1689. These included an Ecce Homo by Pierre Mignard (1690; Rouen,
Musée des Beaux-Arts), a portrait of himself and one of Mme de
Maintenon by Ferdinand Elle.3
It seems extremely likely that this is the portrait given by Louis XIV to the
school at Saint-Cyr, perhaps as a companion piece to the portrait of
Maintenon by Louis Elle. They are of comparable sizes, as the portrait of
Maintenon is 224 by 155 centimeters, while that of Louis XIV is 221 by 165
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Goodman, The Cultivated Woman, 31-32. While briefly stating this point and
mentioning the Portrait of Louis XIV Holding the Plans for Saint-Cyr (Fig. A5), she does not
suggest that this portrait could actually be the pendant mentioned by Bajou, which I will do
here.
2
3 Bajou, 254. Bajou does not cite where he got this specific information and I have
been unable to locate a possible source. It seems that while he was able to identify the Ecce
Homo, he did not know to which portrait of Louis XIV this information referred.
23
centimeters. Being of largely equal heights, these two portraits would have
looked very appropriate together. The overall composition of the two scenes
including the positioning of the window and table, the inclusion of the same
embellished cushion, and the references to Saint-Cyr clearly unite these two
portraits. In fact, when placed side-by-side, it seems possible that these two
portraits are meant to suggest that the king and Maintenon are on opposite
sides of the same room (see Fig. A6).4 While the specific furniture included,
tablecloth, architecture, and drapery do not match exactly, these pendant
portraits are certainly meant to reveal that Maintenon and the king are
united in their interest in the success of the school at Saint-Cyr.
It is interesting to consider the extent to which contemporaries would
have viewed the connections between these two portraits and understood the
various layers of Louis Elle’s portrait of Maintenon. Even if my theory is
incorrect, or if these two portraits were not positioned near each other, the
cushion would have undoubtedly suggested another way in which this
element was usually used—to hold a crown. Often in royal portraits from this
time, a crown is depicted resting upon a pillow to assert the king’s position
and emphasize the monarch’s authority over the state. One famous example
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 While Goodman briefly mentions this portrait of Louis XIV as an example of the
formal style of portrait emulated by this portrait of Maintenon and suggests formal
similarities, she does not suggest it as a pendant to the portrait of Maintenon or try to
understand them as works that would have been meant to be seen together. In addition,
there are discrepancies between her illustration of this portrait and the way in which it
appears in the Joconde database. It is reversed in her book from the way in which it is
displayed in the database and while the database states that the artist is unknown,
Goodman states it is by Nicolas-René Jollain. For some reason, the painting does not appear
in the château de Versailles’ online database, so I have been unable to verify the orientation
and attribution given by the museum.
24
of this can be seen in the iconic portrait of Louis XIV, painted by Rigaud (see
Fig. A7). In this portrait, despite the crown literally placed beneath Louis’
shadow, the staff in his hand leads the viewer’s eye directly to it.
In addition, even at this time bouquets held an association with
romance and lovers that would have certainly been understood by all viewers
of this portrait. These implied references are rather clear, but are not so
explicit that the portrait seems anything but appropriate for Maintenon’s
position at court and for display at her school at Saint-Cyr. With this
portrait, Maintenon seems to both promote her proximity to the king and
illustrate what good work her connection enabled her to undertake.
Maintenon’s school at Saint-Cyr was only founded because of the combination
of Maintenon’s interest in the education of young girls and the generosity of
Louis XIV. The placement of the bouquet in relation to both the depiction of
Saint-Cyr and Maintenon herself clearly suggests an association between
Louis and the benevolent founding of the school for impoverished girls.
As Elise Goodman has already shown in her discussion of this portrait,
because the creation of the school at Saint-Cyr was a project worked upon by
both Louis XIV and Maintenon, “the rose, a canonical symbol of love, could
signify Maintenon’s deep feelings for and gratitude to her spouse, the
supportive royal husband.”5 Going a step further, this portrait can be read as
an illustration of the succession of power from the king, symbolized by the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
Goodman, The Cultivated Woman, 31.
25
bouquet, to Maintenon, and then to her niece. This portrait can clearly be
read as not only a representation of Maintenon as a devoted and charitable
aunt, but also as a powerful patroness with a close relationship to the king.
In addition, by touching the bouquet, symbolizing Louis XIV, with one hand
and her niece with the other, the portrait clearly seems to be illustrating that
she is using authority and wealth derived from her closeness to the king in
order to provide a fortune to her young heir. Thus, within one portrait,
Maintenon is characterized as both influential and charitable, having the
power to acquire a great estate to bequeath to her niece and also the
munificence to found a school for girls born into impoverished nobility, a
position she had experienced herself. Yet, it is also made explicit that
Maintenon is thoroughly acknowledging Louis XIV’s role in her ability to do
both of these things. Maintenon is presented here as having humility,
kindness, and benevolence—all the things her contemporary detractors
declare that she lacks.
Criticism Maintenon faced during her lifetime would likely have
influenced the way in which she wished to be depicted in commissioned
portraiture, especially those that were likely meant for a largely public
setting like her school at Saint-Cyr. One intriguing example of contemporary
criticism concerning Maintenon is in the form of an engraved frontispiece
that accompanied Scarron aparu à Madame de Maintenon et les reproches
qu’il lui fait sur ses amours avec Louis le Grand, a satire in which Maintenon
26
is rebuked by her first husband, Paul Scarron, for her relationship with the
king (see Fig. A8).6 In the frontispiece, Maintenon has retired to bed after an
evening masquerade and sits at her dressing table reading Reflections upon
the Mercy of God by Louise de La Vallière, a previous mistress of Louis XIV,
when ghost of Scarron appears, along with three of his popular literary
characters, and begins to tell her he is miserable in purgatory because he has
to hear of how evil her life is everyday and how she will end up in the worst
part of hell after her death.7 Instead of being most concerned by the fact that
Maintenon entered a relationship with the king, or anything relating to
moral impropriety, the evil acts he discusses relate to her supposed influence
over the king. Scarron says to Maintenon:
The king listens to your advice, and you are guide to the chariot of his
counsels and his government. Yet all the world too apparently sees,
that all his conquests are hardly able to support him. I remember I
have observed in history, that Hercules . . . after all his unparalleled
achievements and exploits, at length became the slave of women. His
love for Omphale, Queen of Lydia, was so violent, as to make him
exchange his club for a distaff, and spin in petticoats among her maids,
only that he might have the opportunity to gaze upon her beauty, and
the honor to be her waiting-woman. . . It is a softness that effeminates
the courage of a hero, and extinguishes the luster of his most sublime
qualities.8
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous, Scarron aparu a Madame de Maintenon et les reproches qu’il lui fait
sur les amours avec Louis le Grand (Cologne: Chez Jean le Blanc, 1694). There is another
satire concerning Maintenon called L’esprit familier du Trianon, ou lapparition de la
duchesse de Fontange (The Familiar Spirit of the Trianon, or the Apparition of the Duchess
de Fontange) (1695) in which Louis XIV and Maintenon are confronted by the king’s former
mistress.
6
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid., 21-23.
27
Written after Louis XIV’s Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), this satire
was likely brought to fruition by an enemy of Maintenon who was critical of
the persecution of Protestants and suspicious of the closeness of the mistress
to the king.
This frontispiece effectively brings to light various negative
contemporary opinions about Maintenon. Apparently before initially
speaking to Maintenon, Scarron’s ghost and his three humorous literary
characters watch Maintenon as she sits at the dressing table. She is shown
before a flamboyantly ornate mirror in a rather ridiculously grandiloquent
costume reading a book concerning religious philosophy and clutches a rosary
in her right hand. Her dress is unlike any from Maintenon’s commissioned
portraiture and is even more absurd than the fashion plates by Antoine
Trouvain in which she is featured (see Fig. A9). In Maintenon’s commissioned
portraiture, she is usually shown in a relatively restrained style of dress, very
different from the fashion plates. The scene seems to be set at Versailles, as
both the title of the accompanying satire and the lavishly decorated interior
suggest. Above the figures, ceremonial draperies hang from the ceiling, which
are reminiscent of the curtains on a stage. In fact, to the modern viewer, this
almost seems like a dressing room in a theater with a costumed actress
rehearsing before a mirror. This image would have produced similar
associations in the mind of a seventeenth-century viewer because the
drapery, even then, would have suggested the curtains of a stage, especially
28
when combined with a ghost and characters from Scarron’s fiction.
Many saw Maintenon as a woman concerned only with social status
and wealth who hid behind a mask of religious piety.9 A nineteenth-century
account of Maintenon expresses the commonly held belief that “her declared
ambition, and known dissimulation, would tend to induce the belief that she
acted from less noble motives.”10 This view of Maintenon as a hypocritical
social climber is clearly represented in this engraving. She is depicted
reading a religious text, but is also shown enjoying the prosperity that her
newly-attained position of mistress would have afforded. The fact that
Maintenon is shown before a mirror also has significance. Mirrors often
symbolize vanity and self-absorption, characteristics contrary to those of
piety and humility, which are emphasized in Maintenon’s commissioned
portraiture. These criticisms of vanity and dissimulation, however, seem
secondary to the widespread fear of her influence on Louis XIV.
In her founding of the school at Saint-Cyr, Maintenon was constructing
her legacy. She had an undeniable interest in the education of young girls.
This possibly stems from the fact that educating children brought her to the
court of Louis XIV, but Maintenon was also genuinely dedicated to her school.
This interest is unusual for a maîtresse du roi, as is the fact that Maintenon
entered into a morganatic marriage with the king. While Louis Elle’s portrait
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9
Maud Crutwell, Madame de Maintenon (London: Unwin Brothers Limited, 1930),
xvii.
10 Introduction in The Secret Correspondence of Madame de Maintenon, vol. 1
(London: printed for Geo. B. Whittaker, Ave Maria Lane, 1827), xi.
29
clearly represents the connection between Maintenon and the king, the
subject, format, and style of the portrait is extremely unusual for that of a
royal mistress. Rather than representing a maîtresse du roi by focusing on
her beauty and allure, this portrait instead represents Maintenon as an
illustrious educator.
After the death of Queen Marie-Thérèse in 1683, it is believed that
Maintenon became Louis’ morganatic wife in 1685, the year of the Revocation
of the Edict of Nantes. This undoubtedly placed Maintenon within a difficult
position. While Maintenon’s new role came with more power and influence, it
also made her a target and, because not publically married to the king, left
her vulnerable to attacks upon her character. Considering Louis’ firmly held
belief that marriages should be made for political gain, his own marriage to
someone not of royal birth, even when supposedly kept secret, was extremely
unpopular amongst those in his court and even today, Maintenon remains a
greatly criticized figure.
There is no evidence to support the idea that Maintenon manipulated
her way to the court, yet modern scholars continue to perpetuate this myth.
Goodman states: “Pious and rigidly Catholic, Maintenon was also ambitious,
and she was willing to exploit her allure in pursuit of power.”11 Such
sensationalized language has no basis in fact, yet seems to be continued for
lack of evidence to the contrary. This is ironic considering the various biases
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11
Goodman, The Cultivated Woman, 29.
30
Goodman must have had to overcome in her study of Pompadour. Goodman
goes on to suggest that “Maintenon’s portraits contradict her espousal of
modesty and her advice to all women ‘to shun taking the principal place;’
instead, they trumpet her unabashed pride in her self-appointed role as the
founder of Saint-Cyr.”12 However, while Maintenon is certainly depicted as a
powerful patroness, she also emphasizes charity and piety in both major
public portraits. Certainly compared to Louis XIV’s other mistresses,
Maintenon’s portrayal in Louis Elle’s portrait can be considered exceptionally
austere and modest.
A number of scholars have noted the way in which Pompadour
attempted to emulate Maintenon in the 1750s. The specific ways in which
Pompadour is known to have done this have been thoroughly outlined by
Danielle Gallet, Elise Goodman, and Melissa Hyde.13 Specifically, Pompadour
is known to have moved to the apartments in which Maintenon once lived,
visited Saint-Cyr and was herself involved with a school for girls in Poissy,
and acquired numerous editions of Maintenon’s letters and memoirs in
which, Goodman suggests, “she would have read about Maintenon’s
curriculum at Saint-Cyr, and would have been struck by its reflection of her
own tastes and talents, as they are encoded in her portraits: writing,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Goodman, The Cultivated Woman, 28. She seems to rely on antiquated biographies
and studies of Maintenon, ignoring more recent and enlightened scholarship in existence.
12
13 Danielle Gallet, “Madame de Pompadour et l’appartement d’en bas au château de
Versailles,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 117 (1991): 129-138. Goodman, The Portraits of Madame
de Pompadour, 50-80. Hyde, 130-133.
31
literature, geography, drawing, and music.”14 In addition, as was mentioned
in the introduction, at least one portrait by Drouais was clearly influenced by
portraits of Maintenon.
Because of a general lack of interest in Maintenon, this trend has
really only been looked at from the point of view of Pompadour. However,
Pompadour’s obvious interest in emulating Maintenon would have been fairly
obvious to her contemporaries and likely affected the legacy of Maintenon.
Like most royal mistresses, Pompadour was harshly criticized by
contemporaries and was often characterized as a duplicitous, dissimulating,
power-hungry manipulator. Many of these same charges have been made
about Maintenon, whose reputation certainly did not benefit from the
association of so controversial a figure as Pompadour.
While Maintenon likely had high hopes for the portrait created by
Louis Elle, it has not been understood as was originally intended. Instead of
illustrating her position as role model for the girls at her school at Saint-Cyr
along with her charitable nature, contemporary viewers seemed to
understand this portrait as reinforcing all of their worst suspicions
concerning her involvement in the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. While
the bouquet of flowers is likely meant as some sort of tribute to Louis XIV, it
is instead easy to perceive it as a symbol of power and closeness to the king.
Including her school at Saint-Cyr was probably supposed to depict
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14
Goodman, The Portraits of Madame de Pompadour, 58.
32
Maintenon’s charitable works, but instead serves as a visual symbol of her
ability to attain resources and favor from the king. Being represented with
her young niece who she raised as a daughter was seemingly an illustration
of her affection, but was instead read as an emblem of the wealth and power
that would be transferred to this undeserving young girl. The dualistic
nature of this portrait is extremely problematic and the work of modern
scholars has only marginally improved upon this. Instead of attempting to
consider only reliable and factual information, many scholars have found it
easiest to resort to fictionalized, sensationalized, and antiquated accounts of
Maintenon’s life and relationship with Louis XIV. It is much easier to view
Maintenon as an ambitious upstart, interested only in power and influence.
Attempting to view her as a real person with complex emotions and with
varied motivations for her actions has yet to be accomplished successfully.
However, it seems apparent that Maintenon’s likely intention of being
represented as a charitable role model for her students was complicated by
the ambiguity of this portrait; in fact, it is possible that the ambiguity of this
portrait actually served to reinforce the various negative stigmas associated
with Maintenon’s legacy.
33
CHAPTER II:
PIERRE MIGNARD’S PORTRAIT OF MARQUISE DE MAINTENON
AS ST. FRANCES OF ROME: DIDACTIC PORTRAIT OF A PROPER
SPIRITUAL ROLE MODEL
I have seen, madam, the most beautiful thing that can be imagined: it
is a portrait of madame de Maintenon, by Mignard; she is dressed in
the costume of Saint Frances. Mignard has embellished it; but it is
without fulsomeness, without the lily, without the carnation, without
the air of youth; and though all these perfections are wanting, he
shows a countenance, a physiognomy, superior to any thing that can be
said of it; animated eyes, perfect grace, no ornaments, yet the most
beautiful picture that ever was seen.1
Madame de Coulanges, Letter dated October 29, 1694
Despite having painted many of the most significant personages in the
court of Louis XIV, including about ten portraits of the king himself, Pierre
Mignard has received little attention within the past century. Unfortunately,
he is an example of a painter who was considerably more famous during his
lifetime than after. Many art histories of seventeenth-century France
mention Mignard, but usually only in relation to his rivalry with Charles Le
Brun. In fact, the numerous studies of Le Brun in existence quite overwhelm
attention given to any other artists from this period and region. Le Brun,
although commissioned for occasional royal portraits, specialized in history
and religious paintings. Mignard also created history and religious paintings,
especially toward the end of his career, but he was most renowned for his
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Madame de Sévigné, trans. unknown, Letters of Madame de Sévigné to Her
Daughter and Her Friends (BiblioLife), 172-3. While this book is generally composed of
letters by Madame de Sévigné, this particular letter, as is stated, is by Madame de
Coulanges to her daughter.
34
portraits, such as the Portrait of Marquise de Maintenon as St. Frances of
Rome, described by Madame de Coulanges in the above letter.
Born in 1612, Mignard first trained in Bourges with Jean Boucher, a
painter of primarily religious subjects, who was heavily influenced by travel
to Rome. Later, in 1633, Mignard entered the studio of Simon Vouet. At this
time, he would have had his first interaction with Charles Le Brun, who
studied with Vouet at the same time before leaving in the mid-1630s. Like
Boucher, Vouet’s work was informed by extensive travel in Italy to Venice,
Rome, Genoa, and probably Parma, Bologna, and Florence. Likely inspired by
his two early mentors, Mignard traveled considerably in Italy from 1635 to
1657. Mignard was fully trained within the Italian school of painting, even
becoming a respected member of the Accademia di San Luca of Rome.
Mignard was considered a Rubéniste by contemporaries, but was also
certainly influenced by the Bolognese school of painting, apparent in his
emphasis on detailed representation of textures and use of rich, saturated
colors.
Upon returning to France in 1657, Mignard found a greatly changed
world of art in France, which had been transformed by the creation of the
Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture in his absence. The Academy
was founded in 1648 and was initially under the influence of Le Brun and his
steadfast patron, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the Minister of Finances to Louis
XIV. When faced with the decision of whether to enter the decade-old
35
Academy led by his former peer, Mignard instead decided to remain faithful
to the Académie de Saint-Luc of Paris, a counterpart of the guild he had
previously joined in Rome, which had been in existence since the fourteenth
century and was more associated with the traditional guild system. Mignard
was doubtless the most successful artist of this period working outside of the
Academy in France. Having returned with an esteemed reputation for his
ability with portraits, Mignard painted Louis XIV in 1658 and continued to
receive occasional royal commissions in addition to those from other members
of the court.2 After 1683, Mignard began to receive many more commissions
and his oeuvre even expanded to include a greater number of historical
paintings and religious compositions, at least in part because of the death of
Colbert, Le Brun’s primary protector. In 1690, after Le Brun’s death,
Mignard succeeded him in the role of Premier peintre du Roi and, despite his
earlier refusal to join the Academy, the directorship of the Academy. While
Le Brun’s legacy frequently eclipses the significance of his contemporaries
and is usually described as the most popular, prolific, and skilled history
painter of this period, Mignard was certainly his compeer in portraiture.
Mignard’s masterly ability in this area is apparent in his Portrait of
Marquise de Maintenon as St. Frances of Rome, which is arguably the most
historically iconic portrait of Maintenon (see Fig. A2). As the title suggests,
this full-length portrait represents Maintenon in the garb of her patron saint
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 Lada Nikolenko, s.v. “Mignard: (2) Pierre Mignard I,” Grove Dictionary of Art.
Nikolenko states that the original of this portrait, along with the many others done by
Mignard of Louis XIV, is indistinguishable among the many copies that were made.
36
and namesake, St. Frances of Rome. In the guise of the saint, Maintenon is
represented in an opulent golden dress with a scroll print that is bejeweled at
the wrists, corded at the waist, and features a large brooch with a dangling
pearl at the neckline. The style of the dress does not seem to be of
seventeenth-century France, but instead a fanciful interpretation of the
Renaissance fashion St. Frances was imagined to have worn. Within the
pretext of her role as a saint, Maintenon is shown wrapped in a majestic
ermine cloak. Seated in an ornate tasseled velvet chair at a table covered by
rich cloth, she is shown resting an open book on her left thigh as she leans
her left elbow lightly on the table. On the table, there is a golden hourglass
with the top still half-filled with sand and two books. In the book she holds
open, we see a verse that has just been illuminated in gold; Maintenon stares
out at the viewer clutching her right hand to her chest in surprise.
Maintenon, as St. Frances, has been taken aback because she is experiencing
a miracle in which the viewer is also participating.
Themes relating to the representation of a femme savante and vestal
virgin both seem somewhat related to the subject and iconography of this
portrait; yet, interestingly, neither theme fits precisely. The presence of books
inherently reveals Maintenon, in the guise of St. Frances, to be an educated
and literate woman, or femme savante. Elise Goodman describes a femme
37
savante as a “woman of beauty, intelligence, learning, and sophistication.”3
Generally, it is thought that portraits showing women reading or surrounded
by books relate to this theme. Also associated with this are music, art, and
symbols of knowledge such as scrolls or globes. There are two engravings in
existence by Antoine Trouvain that were officially commissioned and
represent Maintenon as a femme savante (Ills. 2 and 3). The engravings were
both created following Mignard’s portrait and seem to be related to it in
terms of style and composition. However, neither incorporates religious
narrative; instead, both depict Maintenon as herself, reading texts that are
not necessarily religious in nature. In each of the engravings, she is shown in
elaborate, ornate, and fashionable costumes and has been interrupted while
studiously reading. There are, of course, many social implications of a woman
being represented as a femme savante. During this period, only women who
were wealthy and of a high social status would have been thoroughly
educated. Education for poorer, less-fortunate girls was a controversial
subject in which Maintenon, by opening and running her school at Saint-Cyr,
became intricately involved.
The iconography, depicted text, and overtly religious subject matter
are clearly the main point of this portrait. The hourglass is traditionally
understood to be associated with the passage of time. Because the hourglass
is still full, Thierry Bajou convincingly suggests that it can be understood as
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 Goodman, The Portraits of Madame de Pompadour, 2. In her book, she uses these
two engravings to explore the relationship between representations of the femme savante in
the portraits of Marquise de Pompadour and Marquise de Maintenon.
38
a symbol of instant deference to God’s will.4 The text in the opened book,
which she has turned toward the viewer to enable us to share in her
experience, states the following, beginning at the top of the page, with a
translation on the right, and the illuminated phrase italicized (see Fig. A10):
benedicat nos Deus:
et metuant eum omnes
fines terrae.
Ant. In odorem unguentorum tuorum
currimus: adoescentulae dilexerunt
te nimis.
Ant: Benedicta filia.
Canticum trium puerorum:
Benedicite omnia opera
Domini Domino:
laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.
God bless us:
and let all the ends
of the earth fear him.
Ant. Into the odor
of thy ointments we do
run: young
maidens have loved
thee exceedingly.
Ant. Thou daughter art blessed.
Song of the three children:
All of the works of our Lord
Bless ye our Lord:
praise and extol
him forever.5
This passage does not seem to be particularly associated with St. Frances and
is included in various devotional books. However, when understood as being
part of a portrait that would have been studied by young girls, this passage
seems a logical choice. In fact, the entire portrait seems to be an illustration
of correct and proper spirituality that is both restrained and real. Emphasis
is placed on the religious text rather than an illusionistic miracle.
The subject involves St. Frances of Rome (1384-1440), who was born to
a wealthy family and married well. However, she is known for sacrificing her
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
Bajou, 266.
5 Glenn Gunhouse, “Officium Beatae Mariae: Ad Laudes (The Office of Our Blessed
Lady: At Lauds,” Glenn Gunhouse, http://www.medievalist.net/hourstxt/home.htm (accessed
Dec 4, 2010). The italics denote which portion of the passage is illuminated in the portrait.
The translation of this text came from a website maintained by an art historian.
39
wealth and devoting her life to helping the poor. She founded an association
of oblates attached to the Church of Santa Maria Nuova in Rome that was
not cloistered, but instead consisted of women like her who rejected lives of
excessive wealth and gaiety and instead embraced prayer and helping those
in need. Within the varied accounts of the saint’s life, she is usually described
as having practiced abstinence with her husband’s consent. Beyond charity
and chastity, St. Frances was also known for her miracles and mystical
visions, and there are numerous stories associated with her that relate to
this. One story involving a miracle seems clearly connected to the way in
which Mignard has represented Maintenon as St. Frances of Rome in this
portrait:
Whilst she was at her Prayers, or in any other Exercise of Devotion,
and was called by her Husband, or desired by any the meanest person
of the Family to order something about the House, she laid all aside to
obey most readily. Nor did she take it to be any want of Respect to
Almighty God to discontinue her Devotions in such Occasions; for she
was wont to say, It is most laudable in a married Woman to be devout,
yet so that she forget not that she is a Housewife: And that sometimes
she is to leave God at the Altar, to find him in her household Affairs.
And God was pleased to confirm this Persuasion of hers as an assured
Verity, by evident Signs and Miracles; for once as she was hearing
Mass in the Church, and at the same Time with an extraordinary
Devotion was reading our Lady’s Office, her Husband coming home,
sent a Page to call her. The Boy comes and telleth her, Madam, my
Master sendeth for you; and without any Reply she shuts her Primmer,
riseth from mass, and was at home as soon as the Messenger. Having
satisfied her Husband, she retireth herself and resuming her Primmer,
beginneth again the Verse in which she had been interrupted; but
before she had ended it, she was called upon the second Time, and then
again the third and the fourth Time; for so often she had begun, and
not ended one Verse. But when she came to open her Book the fifth
Time, she found the said Verse written in golden Letters. And the
Apostle St. Paul told her afterwards that her good Angel had writ it in
40
Gold, to let her understand the Merit of Obedience.6
The actual book in which this miracle is believed to have occurred existed in
Rome and was located in a church dedicated to St. Frances; Thierry Bajou
suggests that Mignard could have seen this book during his extensive travel
in Italy.7 As there are no existing documents relating to the commissioning of
this portrait, it is interesting to consider to whom the conceptualization of the
subject matter should be attributed. While a case could be made for Mignard
suggesting this subject matter after having potentially seen the miraculous
book in Rome, the inherent didactic nature of the portrait seems clearly
related to the values Maintenon wished to instill in her students at SaintCyr.
In her dialogues for Saint-Cyr, Maintenon seems to have been a
persuasive teacher, rather than a strict disciplinarian. She did not explicitly
tell her students the right and wrong positions on the questions with which
they were faced. Instead, Maintenon presented many views and, through
discussion and debate, revealed the advantages and drawbacks of each
argument. Many lessons remain and show us her method of teaching. She
wrote dialogues for the girls to recite and act concerning various topics
deemed worthy of contemplation. These dialogues were written as if a group
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pedro de Ribadeneira, Lives of Saints, with other Feasts of the Year, According to
the Roman Calendar, trans. W. P. Esq., part 1, 2nd ed. (London: B. S., 1730), 214.
6
7 Thierry Bajou, 266. I have been unable to discover whether this book is still in
existence. It would seem that it should be at the Tor de’ Specchi Monastery in Rome, which is
the home of the Oblates of St. Frances of Rome, but more research is needed on this potential
source for Mignard.
41
of students decided to discuss a topic of interest to them. Often, there are one
or two girls in particular who seem to lead the conversation to its eventual
conclusion, and these characters can be seen as representing Maintenon’s
personal beliefs and giving warnings she felt were important. In “On
Courage,” the character Emily is believed to represent Maintenon’s primary
viewpoint, while others need to be persuaded as to what the true meaning of
courage entails. Emily states that the trials girls must endure at school “are
only trifles if we compare them with the poverty we may find in the future
and with the foul mood of those with whom we shall have to deal.”8 This
seems a sobering message to teach young girls, but also very practical. In “On
True Glory,” Maintenon, in the character of Irene, makes the following
assertion concerning temptation:
Don’t you think it requires great courage for a young person to prefer
to be poorly clothed rather than receive attractive dresses? To prefer
boredom rather than amusement, because she fears risking her
reputation? To prefer serving her mother and her father, the poor and
the sick, rather than going in search of diversion?9
This is the harsh reality of decisions with which the girls at Saint-Cyr were
presented. These statements also show the value for one’s reputation that
Maintenon hoped to instill in her students. In the following passage from “On
the Drawbacks of Marriage,” Alexandrina is the voice of Maintenon:
Alexandrina: A devoted wife arises early in the morning to have
more time. She starts with prayer. She gives her orders to the
servants. She takes care of her children and is involved in their
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8
Maintenon, Dialogues and Addresses, 38.
9
Ibid., 41.
42
education. She hosts guests whom her husband brings occasionally to
dinner, even if these guests are not always to her liking. She is the
premier servant for making sure that everything is properly prepared.
After the meal, she remains with her guests regardless of her own
desires. After she is left alone, she works on her needlepoint or at her
business. She writes to merchants. She rarely goes out. That is how
the day ends. It starts the same way the next day.
Melanie: If that’s how a wife has to live, I’d rather become a
hermit.
Athena: Yet, this wife is not an especially unhappy one.
Alexandrina: True enough. I tried to make a portrait of a happy,
serene, and relatively affluent wife.
Cecilia: Do you mean that it’s possible to have a picture of one
worse off?10
This presentation of different views on life is innovative and challenges the
previous notion of convent education in which girls were sometimes taught
more educational and worldly subjects, but were not prepared for the difficult
lives they would be forced to lead. By presenting the world as one in which
true happiness is impossible to find, Maintenon leaves the girls at Saint-Cyr
with realistic goals and expectations. It seems Maintenon provided the girls
with the education she would like to have received and taught them the
things she wishes she would have known.
In addition, St. Frances of Rome can be understood as an emblem of
servitude that is significantly different than the blind passivity encouraged
by the Quietist movement. Therefore, in this portrait, Maintenon seems to be
asserting both charity and study of devotional texts as necessary
prerequisites for a spiritual or miraculous experience such as the one
depicted; she also seems to be referencing the importance of obedience and
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
Maintenon, Dialogues and Addresses, 64.
43
deference to leading a moral life.
There are actually multiple versions of Mignard’s Portrait of Marquise
de Maintenon as St. Frances of Rome. While the full-length portrait was
described earlier, at least two copies of a three-quarter-length portrait are in
existence (see Fig. A11). These two paintings are extremely similar to the
full-length portrait, but are not set within a defined architectural interior
space. Instead, the background is indistinct and neutral, although a bright
light source shines from the upper left, perhaps symbolizing the light of God.
In addition, the two books on the table have been eliminated. Bajou suggests
that multiple versions exist because they were originally located in various
classrooms at Saint-Cyr. 11 Although he does not clearly expound upon this
point, his evidence may come from a letter written by Horace Walpole upon
visiting Saint-Cyr in the year of Maintenon’s death: “Of Madame de
Maintenon we did not see fewer than twenty pictures . . . . That in the royal
mantle, of which you know I have a copy, is the most repeated.”12 Later,
Walpole describes observing the students at Saint-Cyr : “In the others, they
acted before us the proverbs or conversations written by Madame de
Maintenon for their instruction; for she was not only their foundress but their
saint, and their adoration of her memory has quite eclipsed the Virgin
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11
Bajou, 266.
12 Horace Walpole, Letters of Horace Walpole, ed. Charles Duke Yonge, vol. 2 (New
York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890), 112. I have found multiple versions of this letter in which
there are slight differences in the language but have been unable to determine which is most
true to the original.
44
Mary.”13 This passage suggests not only that more than three copies of this
painting used to exist, but also that prints of some type were widely
available, even outside of France.
There are known versions in the Louvre, at Versailles, an oval version
at the Rouen Museum, and what are described as replicas at Versailles and
the château de Maintenon. It has also been suggested that there is a version
at the château de Bussy-Rabutin.14 In comparison with the other works
included within Mignard’s oeuvre, this large number of copies and replicas
seems unusual, especially when compared to Mignard’s portraits of Madame
de Montespan, Maintenon’s predecessor. Mignard created two portraits that
are firmly identified as Montespan, and neither is known to have any known
copies or replicas (see Fig. A12).
This subject matter is also unusual within the context of seventeenthcentury French portraits, especially considering the person represented.
While a number of other portraits from the court of Louis XIV that
represented women in the guise of saints or other religious figures may have
at one time existed, there are very few surviving examples. In fact, I have not
been able to find any with firm attributions. However, one such portrait in
the collection at Versailles is believed to be a Portrait of Isabelle de Ludres as
Mary-Magdalene (see Fig. A13). As the title states, Isabelle, a short-lived
mistress to Louis XIV, is shown as Mary-Magdalene. During this period in
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13
Walpole, 113.
14
This is mentioned in the online database of the Rouen Museum.
45
France, Mary-Magdalene was a popular saint in the Catholic Church, which
tended to emphasize her attractiveness and eventual repentance and reform.
Despite the religious nature of this portrait, the subject seems appropriate for
a mistress to Louis XIV. The way in which Isabelle, in the guise of MaryMagdalene, is represented also seems opportune; instead of emphasizing her
religiosity or piety, Isabelle’s beauty is the primary focus and the religious
subject matter seems entirely secondary.
A related type that is much more common to this period shows women
in the guise of mythological figures. This trend was extremely prevalent and,
while the subjects are generally innately different than that of Mignard’s
Portrait of Marquise de Maintenon as St. Frances of Rome, a number of
issues unify these two types. Both are portraits of one person represented as
someone else, thereby leading to complex questions concerning identity. In
these paintings, women are often shown as personifications of ideal
characteristics, in the guise of mythological or historical figures, or are shown
with either personifications or mythological figures as attributes. An example
of the latter is the Portrait of Madame de Montespan, which has also been
attributed to Mignard by Lada Nikolenko (see Fig. A12).15 In this painting,
an oval portrait is being held up by the three Graces as two Cupids adorn the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15 Nikolenko, 73-74. This portrait is also included in the section entitled “The
authentic portraits by Pierre Mignard.” In her brief discussion of this portrait, Nikolenko
reveals that this attribution has been questioned but that she strongly believes it to be
correct. The earliest description we have of this portrait comes from Simon P. Monville, La
Vie de Pierre Mignard, Premier peintre du Roy (Paris: Jean Boudot and Jacques Guerin,
1731), 138. In addition, this portrait was acquired by the Troyes Museum in 1864 as a work
by Mignard from the collection of the Orléans family at Château de Belfort.
46
portrait with a garland of beautiful flowers. The presence of the three Graces
and Cupids, often shown as the handmaidens of Venus and her attendants,
respectively, reveals that this painting puts forth Madame de Montespan as
an embodiment of the goddess of love. Shown in this way, Madame de
Montespan unifies both love, represented by the cupids, and the ideal virtues
personified by the three Graces. This type of portrait was extremely popular
among women in the court of Louis XIV. A multitude of contemporary
examples of this type at one time existed, both by Mignard and other artists.
However, the subject for Mignard’s portrait of Maintenon is extremely
unusual for a royal mistress and seems to be largely without precedent.
Rather than focusing on Maintenon’s beauty or education, this portrait seems
to be primarily concerned with communicating a didactic message. The
strangeness of this was not lost on contemporaries. Cardinal Dubois who
seems to have seen Mignard’s portrait with Madame de Coulanges, quoted at
the beginning of the chapter, left the following description in his memoirs:
I paid a visit to a portrait of Madame de Maintenon painted by
Mignard; all the Court went there; there is no one sensible enough to
withstand the fashion. One was never greeted by anyone at Versailles
but with the words: “Have you seen Mignard’s Sainte-Françoise?” In
fact, the painter’s flattery had disguised Madame de Maintenon as a
saint, at the risk of the storm of jests which this burlesque involved.
Mignard had a remarkable talent, but it did not bear analysis. His
colours are marvellously [sic] varied, but one often does not know
whether he desired to paint flesh or wood. This portrait, which
attracted such a crowd, surpassed even that of Turenne. It was an
angelic face, resembling, however, the model, thanks to the water of
youth. The defects occurred chiefly in the composition, and the Roman
Sainte-Françoise, in an ermine-lined mantle, was supremely
grotesque. It was said, referring to this mantle, the distinctive mark of
47
royalty, that Madame de Feuquières, Mignard’s daughter, had asked
the King if it might figure on the shoulders of Madame de Maintenon?
“Yes,” replied the Monarch, “Sainte-Françoise fully deserves it.”
Madame de Feuquières returned to the attack, no doubt at the
Maintenon’s instigation, and asked for the Queen’s crown for the
portrait.
“It is useless,” said the King; “saints have no need of crowns.”
While visiting the portrait, I found myself in the company of
sundry persons whom I had already seen at Versailles. Madame de
Sévigné and Madame de Coulanges accompanied the Abbé Tétu, and I
took as much pleasure in observing them as in listening to their
conversation . . . .
The conversation turned to the hands of Madame de Maintenon.
“They were her most beautiful feature,” said Madame de
Sévigné, “and my daughter, Madame de Grignan, was so much in love
with her hands that she wished the like to the Blessed Virgin.”
“Mon Dieu,” cried Madame de Coulanges, “what would she do
with them? I defy her to make them pure . . . .”
We did not see Mignard, who was then painting the portrait of
Louis XIV, for the tenth time, to serve as a pendant to that of SainteFrançoise.16
This account of the painting is interesting for various reasons. First, it
suggests a popularity that is certainly significant within this period. Despite
the overtly religious subject matter, this portrait still seems to have inspired
trends in art and fashion. In addition, Dubois is surprisingly harsh upon
Mignard’s represented textures in this work. The issue of the ermine-lined
cloak is also discussed, and, although Dubois suggests that Maintenon
manipulated the situation to enable its inclusion (and even tried for the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16 Guillaume Dubois, trans. Ernest Dowson, Memoirs of Cardinal Dubois (London:
Leonard Smithers and Co., 1899), vol. 1, 160-163. In the passage, “Turenne” refers to a famed
commander who achieved military success in both the Fronde, the Dutch War, and was
eventually made a Marshal General of France. Dubois states that both Madame de
Coulanges and Madame de Sévigné were present when he viewed Mignard’s Portrait of
Marquise de Maintenon as St. Frances of Rome, which raises the question of why a letter
exists from the mother to her daughter describing the portrait (included at the beginning of
the chapter). This is an issue I have been unable to resolve. Dubois also suggests that a
corresponding pendant representing Louis XIV at one time existed; however, I do yet feel
able to suggest that a portrait still exists that matches this description.
48
Queen’s crown!), he should not be accepted as an objective observer as he had
known ties to Madame de Montespan, Maintenon’s predecessor.
While Mignard’s Portrait of the Marquise de Maintenon shows
Marquise de Maintenon reading, and there are social implications involved
with the depiction of a femme savante, this portrait seems to be more clearly
related to the religious controversy that occurred at Maintenon’s school at
Saint-Cyr during the time of this portrait’s creation. In 1693-94, at
conferences in Issy, the Catholic church largely condemned Quietism, a
Christian philosophy associated with mysticism that encouraged passivity for
a deeper connection to God. These conferences were spurred by concerns
about a major proponent of Quietism, Jeanne Bouvier de la Motte Guyon
(1648-1717), who was teaching at the Maison royale de Saint-Louis at SaintCyr, the school founded and run by Maintenon. Amid great controversy and
scandal, Guyon fled the school to avoid imprisonment but was arrested in
1695 and remained confined for eight years. Neither the exact year that
Maintenon began to be concerned by the potential impropriety of advocating
Quietism nor the exact year that Mignard painted this portrait are known, so
the question arises: was this portrait inspired by the mystical elements of
Quietism or does this work represent an attempt to distance Maintenon from
the controversial Guyon?
In order to understand Maintenon’s reasoning, it is necessary to be
aware of information about the school at Saint-Cyr and Madame Guyon’s
49
views concerning quietism. Conley suggests that there were three eras at
Maintenon’s school at Saint-Cyr: the “‘worldly’ era” (1686-89), the “‘mystical’
era” (1690-97), and the “‘normal’ era” (beginning in 1698).17 The first era was
primarily influenced by Maintenon’s marriage to Paul Scarron and her
resulting familiarity with contemporary intellectual salons. Initially,
Maintenon incorporated subjects not usually associated with the education of
girls of this class. Cultural education was given attention and the girls were
exposed to plays, concerts, dancing, painting, and singing. The girls who
emerged from the school during this period, however, apparently did not live
up to Maintenon’s expectations so she eventually deemphasized these
cultural subjects and attempted to incorporate a greater focus on spirituality
and piety.
Eventually, the school came under the influence of Madame Guyon and
initially, Maintenon supported Guyon’s methods strongly. Guyon’s teachings
encouraged a personal relationship with God and promoted the idea of pure
love of Him.18 While Guyon was known to have engaged in charitable works,
she tended to emphasize submission to God’s will as the path to salvation,
rather than focusing on service. Elements of mysticism also exist within her
belief system, as she seemed to have dreams that she felt were granted by
God. Guyon also insisted on the primacy of God over the monarch, and in an
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17
Conley, “Introduction,” 7-8.
18 Catharine Randall, “Loosening the Stays: Madame Guyon’s Quietist Opposition to
Absolutism,” Mystics Quarterly 26, no. 1 (March 2000): 12-13.
50
article concerning Guyon, Catharine Randall explains how Guyon’s role as an
“unsubmissive,” “powerful woman” who was “a-hierarchical” represented a
threat to the French monarchical, religious, and social establishments.19
Maintenon was likely attracted to Quietism because of its simple austerity
and the emphasis it placed on spirituality, but Randall does not engage with
Maintenon’s peculiar position as supporter of Guyon and morganatic wife to
Louis XIV. However, it seems probable that once learning of controversy
involving Quietism and Guyon, a swift and sudden change in Maintenon’s
opinions would have been appropriate, as Maintenon surely would not have
wanted to risk her position or reputation. Conley explains that spiritual
illusion had become problematic at the school, and “pupils who barely
understood the Decalogue boasted of their experiences of mystical
marriage.”20 This must have placed Maintenon in an extremely difficult
position between a spiritual philosophy she had once supported and the
reality that Quietism was too subversive and she had yet again failed her
students. Therefore, she enacted various methods to eliminate Quietism from
Saint-Cyr including having Guyon arrested in 1695. Seen in this context, it
becomes clear that Pierre Mignard’s Portrait of Marquise de Maintenon as St.
Frances of Rome is doubtless in conversation with these scandalous events.
How can the moment depicted in Mignard’s portrait be understood
within this context? As aforementioned, a miracle is occurring, and
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
19Randall,
20
9-10.
Conley, “Introduction,” 8.
51
Maintenon, in the guise of St. Frances of Rome, is sharing it with the viewers
of this portrait. The subject of a miracle is related to Guyon’s mystical
dreams. The passage of the text that is illuminated, while not particularly
associated with St. Frances, is reminiscent of Guyon’s emphasis on pure love
and abandonment to God’s will, as is the golden hourglass symbolizing St.
Frances’ swift acceptance of God’s message. However, St. Frances was widely
renowned for her charitable works, which is contrary to Guyon’s belief on how
to attain grace from God. The luxurious ermine and jewels of Maintenon’s
depicted costume clashes with Guyon’s rejection of worldly importance. In
addition, the expression of Maintenon’s face is exceptionally placid and
impassive, especially considering that a miraculous event is supposed to be
occurring. This seems to be an example of correct and proper spirituality that
is both restrained and real. The fact that the ermine references her
connection to Louis XIV also incorporates an illustration of appropriate
simultaneous devotion to both God and the monarch.
A number of other facts reinforce the interpretation of Mignard’s
portrait as a rejection of Quietism. The number of copies known to exist
suggests an attempt to proliferate an image of Maintenon that worked
against the controversy in which she found herself involved. As the passage
from Walpole suggests, these portraits were still hung at Saint-Cyr at the
time of Maintenon’s death. Surely if these portraits had been intended as
affirmations of her belief in Quietism, Maintenon would have had them
52
removed, repainted, or destroyed after the scandals of the 1690s. Not only did
these various copies remain, but also a print of this portrait of Maintenon
was made and circulated throughout Europe. This truly suggests that this
portrait is directly responding to the controversy surrounding Guyon and
Quietism, and that the intended didactic message of acceptable and correct
spirituality was primarily constructed by Maintenon herself. Again, however,
there is a duality within this portrait that has likely contributed to negative
associations with Maintenon. There is clearly an attempt to promote herself
as an appropriately pious and religious woman, but the inclusion of the
ermine and the theatrical associations with the subject contributes to an
ambiguity that enables two contradictory readings of this portrait, thereby
complicating Maintenon’s legacy.
53!
CONCLUSION
While the truth of Maintenon’s role in the court of Louis XIV remains
enigmatic, it is important to consider the obvious role she would have played
in the conception and perpetuation of her public identity. It has been
suggested that both of the portraits of Maintenon, by Louis Elle and Mignard,
were meant to be viewed at the school at Saint-Cyr.1 Louis Elle’s Marquise de
Maintenon and her Niece was probably presented by Louis XIV to the school
at Saint-Cyr as a pendant to Louis XIV Holding the Plans for Saint-Cyr, in
celebration of the school’s opening. Rather than emphasizing her beauty or
allure, which was traditionally the focus in portraits of royal mistresses,
Maintenon’s modesty and charity is illustrated, and her connection to the
school at Saint-Cyr is exemplified. While the characteristics that are stressed
in this portrait directly contradict contemporary criticism of Maintenon, the
portrait has also been read as an overly direct illustration of her power and
influence over Louis XIV. In Mignard’s Marquise de Maintenon as St.
Frances of Rome, instead of belaboring Maintenon’s attractiveness or her
appeal, her religiosity and piety are revealed to the viewer. Again, although
this was most likely originally meant to be an edifying portrait for the young
girls to emulate, the inclusion of an ermine-lined cloak and the potentially
theatrical associations of this subject can also be related to the common belief
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Louis Elle: Bajou, 154. Mignard: Bajou, 266.
54!
that Maintenon was an ambitious dissimulator. In both portraits, the
ambiguity of interpretation presents a challenge for modern viewers.
While some scholars might choose to interpret these portraits as
illustrating the various criticisms that have been made against Maintenon,
these interpretations are based primarily upon a negative evaluation of her
character. If known events in Maintenon’s life are instead considered, it
becomes clear that Louis Elle’s portrait is most likely a tribute to the
founding of her school and can be understood as a reinforcement of her
association with this charitable institution. Mignard’s portrait, created
during the Quietism scandal, is likely meant to emphasize Maintenon’s overt
religiosity and Catholicism during a time in which it may have been
questioned. The portraits by Louis Elle and Mignard can both be read as
illustrations of Maintenon’s good character, but they also function as a
didactic lesson for her students at Saint-Cyr.
Because of the duality of the interpretations that can be applied to
these portraits, it is likely that they have contributed to the complications
implicit within Maintenon’s legacy. Unanswerable questions remain a major
obstacle to scholarship of her role as patron of the arts. Did she ingratiate
herself to Montespan in order to steal the position of maîtresse du roi? How
much political influence did Maintenon have in the court of Louis XIV? Was
she a fanatical Catholic who encouraged Louis’ Revocation of the Edict of
Nantes (1685) and the subsequent persecution of Huguenots? Or, did
55!
Maintenon merely use religiosity as a façade in order to gain respectability
within the competitive court? In her education of young girls, was Maintenon
an anti-feminist who perpetuated the subservience of women? Or was she an
innovator who realized the inadequacy of the convent system and attempted
to educate women in a more effective manner? These enduring questions
continue to stigmatize the legacy of Maintenon and prevent an objective
study of her life and portraits.
There are numerous other depictions of Maintenon that have been
attributed with various levels of certainty. A comprehensive study of all these
portraits would certainly be interesting, but is beyond the scope of this study.
While I have thus focused on the major formal portraits of Maintenon that
were likely originally intended to be viewed in her school at Saint-Cyr, there
are many other representations of her that have the potential for valuable
study.
For example, there are depictions of Maintenon from the nineteenth
century that would be interesting to analyze in relation to her legacy within
this period. Two that highlight her role as an educator are Julie Philipaut’s
Racine Reading Athalie before Louis XIV and Madame de Maintenon and
Edouard Henri Théophile Pingret’s Madame de Maintenon at Saint-Cyr (see
Ills. 13-14). Both reference the controversial plays that were acted during
what Conley calls “the ‘worldly’ era” (1686-1689) of Maintenon’s school at
56!
Saint-Cyr.2 It seems that Maintenon was dissatisfied with the existing
educational materials in existence, and thus commissioned Racine to write a
work that would be edifying for the young girls at her school.3 The resulting
play, Esther, was very successful but also caused problems at Saint-Cyr.
After being performed before the court, the students’ acting was widely
praised.
In order to put on the play, musicians were brought to the school along
with opera singers, and these were not people with whom the young girls at
Saint-Cyr would have interacted. Courtiers also became interested in the
young girls, resulting in at least one marriage and perhaps other intrigues.4
It is likely that Maintenon received criticism for allowing these influences
into her the school, or perhaps felt some guilt for not anticipating these
problems. This likely led to the stricter and more traditional curriculum that
would be subsequently enacted at Saint-Cyr. In addition, it is likely that
members of court would have understood the subject of Esther as a metaphor
for events occurring in court. In Jean Racine: Life and Legend, John Sayer
discusses this issue in depth.5 Consequently, this trend of putting on
elaborate plays at Saint-Cyr did not last.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
Conley, “Introduction,” 7-8.
3
John Sayer, Jean Racine: Life and Legend (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2006), 299.
4
Ibid., 302.
5
Ibid., Refer to chapter 11, Esther and Athalie, 297-331.
57!
Examining depictions of Maintenon from the nineteenth century in
relation to her legacy would be extremely valuable. Considering the
continuing interest within art history of royal mistresses and issues of gender
and power, the subject of Maintenon has the potential to be very fruitful and
could lead to a more informed discussion of Pompadour’s later emulation of
her. Regardless, until scholars are able to successfully separate what is
factual from what has been constructed, we will never know the real
Maintenon. To do this, it is necessary to avoid the fictionalized and often
biased accounts of Maintenon, instead judging her by known actions, original
and genuine letters, texts she developed for her school at Saint-Cyr, and
factual information we can ascertain from her biographies. As outlined in my
introduction, the objectivity and accuracy of contemporary accounts of
Maintenon cannot be verified and, because all subsequent biographies of
Maintenon rely on these contemporary descriptions, a truly objective
biography of Maintenon does not, and likely cannot, exist. There have been
recent efforts made, such as those by John Conley, to redefine Maintenon as
an enlightened and innovative educator. Applying this new view to the
portraits of Maintenon has been a goal within this thesis and I hope
continues in subsequent discussions of this maîtresse du roi.
58!
APPENDIX:
FIGURES
Figure A1. Louis Ferdinand Elle II. Portrait of the Marquise de Maintenon
and her Niece (c. 1689). Oil on canvas. Château de Versailles.
!
Figure A2. Pierre Mignard. Portrait of the Marquise de Maintenon as St.
Frances of Rome (c. 1691). Oil on canvas. Musée du Louvre.
!
59!
Figure A3. François-Hubert Drouais. Madame de Pompadour as a Vestal (c.
1763). Oil on canvas. Stewart Museum, Montreal.
Figure A4. Detail of Figure A1.
!
60!
Figure A5. Unknown artist. Louis XIV Holding the Plans for Saint-Cyr (c.
1650-1700). Oil on canvas. Château de Versailles.
Figure A6. Suggested pendant portraits.
!
61!
Figure A7. Hyacinthe Rigaud. Portrait of Louis XIV (1701). Oil on canvas.
Château de Versailles.
Figure A8. Frontispiece to Scarron aparu à Madame de Maintenon . . . (c.
1694).
!
62!
Figure A9. Antoine Trouvain, Portrait of Madame de Maintenon (1695),
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Département des Estampes.
!
!
Figure A10. Detail of Figure A2.
!
63!
Figure A11. Full portrait version of Figure A2
!
!
Figure A12. Pierre Mignard, Madame de Montespan (1668?). Oil on canvas.
Troyes Museum.
!
64!
Figure A13. Unknown artist, Portrait of Isabelle de Ludres as Mary
Magdalen (c. 1670). Château de Versailles.
Figure A14. Julie Philipaut. Racine Reading before Louis XIV and Madame
de Maintenon (c. 1800-1825). Oil on canvas. Musée du Louvre.
!
65!
Figure A15. Edouard Henri-Théophile Pingret. Madame de Maintenon at
Saint-Cyr (c. 1835). Oil on canvas. Saint-Quentin, Musée Antoine Lécuyer.
!
66!
REFERENCES
Anonymous. Scarron aparu a Madame de Maintenon et les reproches qu’il lui
fait sur les amours avec Louis le Grand. Cologne: Chez Jean le Blanc,
1694.
Bajou, Thierry. Painting at Versailles, XVIIth Century. Paris: Buchet –
Chastel / Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1998.
Campbell Orr, Clarissa. “Rococo Queen.” History Workshop Journal, no. 56
(Autumn 2003): 245-250.
Castelot, André. Madame de Maintenon: La reine secrète. Paris: Perrin,
1996.
Conley, John J. “Introduction.” In Madame de Maintenon, Dialogues and
Addresses.
. Suspicion of Virtue: Women Philosophers in Neoclassical France
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002.
Cordey, Jean. Inventaire des biens de Madame de Pompadour rédigé après
son décès. Paris: Francisque Lefrançois, 1939.
Crutwell, Maud. Madame de Maintenon. London: Unwin Brothers Limited,
1930.
Daniélou, Madeleine. Madame de Maintenon, éducatrice. Paris: Bloud & Gay,
1946.
Dubois, Guillaume. Memoirs of Cardinal Dubois. Trans. Ernest Dowson. Vol.
1. London: Leonard Smithers and Co., 1899.
François, Carlo. Précieuses et autres indociles: Aspects du féminisme dans la
littérature française du XVIIe siècle. Birmingham, AL: Summa
Publications, 1987.
Gallet, Danielle. “Madame de Pompadour et l’appartement d’en bas au
château de Versailles.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 117 (1991): 129-138.
Gordon, Alden R. Masterpieces from Versailles, Three Centuries of French
Portraiture. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1983.
Goodman, Elise. The Cultivated Woman: Portraiture in Seventeenth-Century
France. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 2008.
. The Portraits of Madame de Pompadour: Celebrating the Femme
Savante. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press,
2000.
67!
Gunhouse, Glenn. “Officium Beatae Mariae: Ad Laudes (The Office of Our
Blessed Lady: At Lauds.” Glenn Gunhouse.
http://www.medievalist.net/hourstxt/home.htm (accessed Dec 4, 2010).
Haldane, Charlotte. Madame de Maintenon: Uncrowned Queen of France.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970.
Hyde, Melissa. Making up the Rococo: Francois Boucher and His Critics. Los
Angeles, CA: The Getty Research Institute Publications Program,
2006.
Introduction in The Secret Correspondence of Madame de Maintenon. Vol. 1.
London: printed for Geo. B. Whittaker, Ave Maria Lane, 1827.
Jones, Colin. Madame de Pompadour: Images of a Mistress. London: National
Gallery, 2002.
La Beaumelle. The Life of Madame de Maintenon. Translator unknown.
London: Printed for J. Robinson, G. Woodfall, and Lockyer Davis,
1753-60.
Le Nabour, Éric. La marquise de Maintenon. Paris: Pygmalion, 2007.
Lewis, Tess. “Madame de Pompadour: Eminence without Honor.” The
Hudson Review 56, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 303-314.
Lipton, Eunice. “A Tarnished Reputation: Madame de Pompadour Still Gets
No Respect.” The Women’s Review of Books 20, no. 6 (March 2003): 1213.
Lougee, Carolyn. Le paradis des femmes: Women, Salons, and Social
Stratification in Seventeenth-Century France. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1976.
Maintenon, Madame de. Conseils et instructions aux demoiselles pour leur
conduite dans le monde. Ed. Théophile Lavallée. 2 vols. Paris:
Charpentier, 1857.
. Dialogues and Addresses. Edited and Translated by John C. Conley.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004.
. Lettres et entretiens sur l’éducation des filles. Ed. Théophile Lavallée.
2 vols. Paris: Charpentier, 1854.
. Extraits de ses Lettres, Avis, Entretiens, Conversations et Proverbes.
4th ed. Ed. Octave Gréard. Paris: Hachette, 1886.
Maintenon, Madame de, Eugène Darin, and Félix Cadet. Éducation et
morale, choix de letters, entretiens et instructions. Paris: C. Delagrave,
1884.
68!
Maintenon, Madame de, and Émile Faguet. Madame de Maintneon,
institutrice: extraits de ses letters, avis, entretiens, conversations et
proverbs sur l’éducation. Paris: Librairie classique H. Oudin, 1885.
Maintenon, Madame de, and Paul Jacquinet. Mme de Maintenon dans le
monde et à Saint-Cyr: choix de ses letters et entretiens avec une
introduction et des notes historiques et littéraires. Paris: Librairie
classique Eugène Belin, 1888.
Nicholson, Kathleen. “The Ideology of Feminine ‘Virtue’: The Vestal Virgin in
French Eighteenth-Century Allegorical Portraiture.” In Joanna
Woodall, ed., Portraiture: Facing the Subject, 52-72. New York:
Manchester University Press, 1997.
Nikolenko, Lada. Pierre Mignard: The Portrait Painter of the Grand Siècle.
München: Nitz Verlag, 1982-3.
Posner, Donald. “Madame de Pompadour as a Patron of the Visual Arts.” The
Art Bulletin. Vol. 72, No. 1 (Mar., 1990), 74-105.
Randall, Catherine. “Loosening the Stays: Madame Guyon’s Quietist
Opposition to Absolutism.” Mystics Quarterly 26, no. 1 (March 2000):
8-30.
Ribadeneira, Pedro de. Lives of Saints, with other Feasts of the Year,
According to the Roman Calendar. Trans. W. P. Esq. Part 1, 2nd ed.
London: B. S., 1730.
Sayer, John. Jean Racine: Life and Legend. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2006.
Sévigné, Madame de. Translator unknown. Letters of Madame de Sévigné to
Her Daughter and Her Friends. BiblioLife.
Walpole, Horace. Letters of Horace Walpole. Ed. Charles Duke Yonge. Vol. 2.
New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890.