Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 45

[cahn]

Unfortunately, there was then at Berlin a King who pursued one policy only, who deceived his enemies, but not his servants, and who lied without scruple, but never without necessity.

(from The King's Secret - by Duke de Broglie, grand-nephew of the subject of the book, Comte de Broglie, and grandfather of the physicist) )

Comments

Re: Poniatowski: Hot or Not

[cahn]

It will never not be hilarious to me that hot or not? is a total thing with everyone! Even when they're writing their self-portraits!

LOL, well, Lehndorff is the guy who called Heinrich beautiful.

LOL, I had this same reaction!

Though I then thought that he doesn't call Heinrich beautiful until he falls for him, right? So maybe one should take his response to Poniatowski more at face value?

Ha, his legs do look good in that portrait. Though I must confess this is all more thinking about legs than I usually do!

Re: Poniatowski: Hot or Not

[selenak]

Though I then thought that he doesn't call Heinrich beautiful until he falls for him, right?

True.

So maybe one should take his response to Poniatowski more at face value?

Yes and no. Yes in that he wasn't in love with Poniatowski, though clearly he was charmed and thought him hot, no in that Lehndorff was always a bit bedazzled by a crown. Except in EC's case, obviously; or if he ever was, he didn't yet write diaries at the time. My point being that royalty at least initially gets a bonus from him, and this was the first time he met Poniatowski while the later was King of Poland. (Though he had met him many years before in Berlin and remembered it, back when 19 years old Poniatowski was miserable and Hanbury-Williams was furiously humiliated and miserable and they adopted each other. Remember, H-W actually hung out at EC's court and mentioned she and Luise deserved better from their respective husbands in his reports.) (H-W never mentions Lehndorff; Lehndorff mentions H-W only in the "finally he's gotten transferred" sense and later when the news of H-W having gone insane and having become a Fritz stan hits the court; Lehndorff's write-up does include remembering how H-W "was always our enemy" back in the day. So I'm assuming young P and Lehndorff didn't really interact, but Poniatowski mentions the Queen and her little court in his memoirs, too, so he did undoubtedly present himself.

Though I must confess this is all more thinking about legs than I usually do!

Legs make it into practically every historic "hot or not?" write up, though. Well, I guess not anymore when we're talking female legs in the 19th century, because there diplomats would have been terribly disrespectful and immoral to mention a Queen's looks below the waistline, and even above, but 18th century and before envoys and travellers definitely had to mention whether someone's legs were shapely, both for men and women. (And if they were Voltaire, they made cracks like Fritz' liking for Barbarina possibly being connected to her strong Ballerina legs, hint, hint.)

Going back a bit further in time, Catherine de' Medici was never described as pretty, but one of the few physical attributes even hostile sources grant were attractive about her when she was young were her legs, which everyone was in a position to notice because Catherine was a good rider and impressed her father-in-law by keeping up with him during the hunt. (She is also credited for introducing the female saddle to France, which if you only see the female saddle as more cumbersome than the male version might puzzle you, but (aristocratic) women in France before that era didn't ride on saddles like the men did, they practically were put in little boxes carried by patient steeds.

(Whether Catherine was really the first person to ride with this particular saddle in France is disputed, but she certainly helped making it popular for the ladies for the next few centuries, and it was a way to ride at the same speed which the men did.)

Re: Poniatowski: Hot or Not

[mildred_of_midgard]

It's also worth mentioning that Elizaveta and Catherine the Great both liked cross-dressing, as men's clothes showed off their well-formed legs and women's did not.

From the bio of the Chevalier d'Eon, some commentary on the differences between their cross-dressing balls that I hadn't been aware of:

Masquerade balls were in vogue throughout Europe, and it was not uncommon at these events for men to dress as women and vice versa. But for the monarch to decree that every participant crossdress was unprecedented. Moreover, according to Catherine, the Empress also ordered every guest to appear without a mask, a practice that was completely different from other masquerades, where aristocrats of both sexes wore masks until the end of the evening. By eliminating the masks, Elizabeth was significantly altering the meaning of the masquerade. Ordinarily, a person who came to such a party posed as someone (s) he was not. The implicit deceit made the evening fun and exciting, as guests played at guessing one another's true identities. By making men and women crossdress without masks, Elizabeth put everyone in a kind of ambivalent status. Noblemen would masquerade as a female version of themselves: they might crossdress, but their identity was never in question...

The extent to which gender lines were blurred here becomes especially clear when we look at the behavior of the Empress Elizabeth herself. Catherine recalled: "The only woman who looked really well and completely a man was the Empress herself. As she was tall and powerful, male attire suited her. She had the handsomest leg I have ever seen on any man and her feet were admirably proportioned. She dressed to perfection and everything she did had the same special grace whether she dressed as a man or a woman...

Catherine also recalled that many of the noblemen resented these balls, and even she grew tired of them. Nonetheless, Catherine did not do away with them completely after she became empress in 1762. She continued to hold many masquerade balls, but unlike those during Elizabeth's reign, Catherine's were conventional masked affairs where participants posed as other people. Catherine herself derived much pleasure from dressing as a man and keeping her true identity a secret.

BTW, the Chevalier d'Eon's bio is WILD, y'all. I am looking forward to giving you the next update(s) on the secret diplomacy!

Re: Poniatowski: Hot or Not

[luzula]

Re: legs, from what I have read, legs would have been regarded differently in the mid 18th century compared to the early 19th century. (Maybe you guys all know this already, but going ahead anyway...) Waistcoats were still fairly long in the mid 18th century, which meant that breeches could be baggy and comfortable in the upper thighs, crotch, and ass (and they still had button flies). As I understand it, though, calves were a thing people looked at, which were displayed in tight stockings. (And there's the full-skirted coat, which I happen to really like! I wish I had one.)

But towards the end of the 18th century, waistcoats became short, and the coat was cut away in the front to display the thighs and crotch. Breeches get fall fronts instead, presumably to display a smooth swath of fabric in front. And they look really tight--I assume the thighs became a thing to admire at this point. The only place left for them to be baggy was in the back. They really had to be baggy somewhere, or they would split when people moved (no stretch fabrics yet)! The weird thing is that in art from this period, men often look kind of like they have no cock and balls? Almost like they’re women in drag--it's like the opposite of the cod piece. I wonder why--is it the 19th century prudishness? But then why display the crotch at all?

Re: Poniatowski: Hot or Not

[selenak]

The mystery of the missing cod piece! Now that you say it, that is weird, but yes, I'm guessing the non-depiction has to do with 19th century morality.

Counter argument for argument's sake: wasn't there a nude non-Ken like statue of Napoleon which Wellington ended up having in his house?

Re: Poniatowski: Hot or Not

[luzula]

Counter argument for argument's sake: wasn't there a nude non-Ken like statue of Napoleon which Wellington ended up having in his house?
This actually turned up in a fic I recently read! : D Assuming the author had done her research, the statue had a fig leaf over the crotch.

Napoleon: Hot or Not

[selenak]

*googles*

There is, but there is also an, err, indication of what's behind. Mind you, that statue doesn't look anything like Napoleon, but see for yourself:







Now why Wellington wanted that statue with him all the time...

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[luzula]

In the fic, it was a gift from the Prince Regent, so he couldn't get rid of it. IRL, I have no idea if that's true...

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[selenak]

This is what Wiki has to say:

Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker is a colossal heroic nude statue by the Italian artist Antonio Canova, of Napoleon I of France in the guise of the Roman god Mars. He holds a gilded Nike or Victory standing on an orb in his right hand and a staff in his left. It was produced between 1802 and 1806 and stands 3.45 metres to the raised left hand. Once on display in the Louvre in Paris, it was purchased from Louis XVIII in 1816 by the British government, which granted it to the Duke of Wellington. It is now on display in Robert Adam's stairwell at the Duke's London residence, Apsley House.

History:

At Napoleon's personal and insistent demand, Canova went to Paris in 1802 to model a bust of him. In 1803, after his return to Rome, he began work on the full-length sculpture; it was completed in 1806.  Its idealised nude physique draws on the iconography of Augustus, and it was always intended for an interior entrance-hall setting rather than as a freestanding piazza sculpture, though some accounts give the centre of the courtyard of the Palazzo del Senato as the original intended site for the sculpture, following plans drawn up by the architect Luigi Canonica. France's ambassador in Rome François Cacault and the director of French museums Vivant Denon both saw the sculpture while it was a work in progress: Cacault wrote in 1803 that it "must become the most perfect work of this century", whilst Denon wrote back to Napoleon in 1806 that it belonged indoors in the Musée Napoléon "among the emperors and in the niche where the Laocoon is, in such a manner that it would be the first object that one sees on entering". In late 1810 the sculpture was transported to France, reaching Paris on 1 January 1811 100  When Napoleon saw it there in April 1811 he refused to accept it, calling it "too athletic" and banning the public from seeing it.

By 1814 the sculpture was in the Salle des Hommes Illustres, hidden behind a canvas screen, where it was probably first seen by Wellington. In the era after the battle of Waterloo, Canova, who was still regarded as the best living artist, with his works in great demand from English patrons in particular, supported the return of looted sculptures from the Musée Napoléon to their original collections. The Musée Napoléon reverted to being the Louvre and its looted sculptures such as the Apollo Belvedere were returned to their original collections. The removal of the Napoleon was also mooted, and Canova offered to re-purchase it. It was sold to the British government in 1816 instead for 66,000 francs (then under £3,000), which the Louvre spent on re-installing its Salle des Antiques. Works by Canova were already being collected by the Duke, and the Prince Regent presented it to him later that year. It was moved to the stairwell in Apsley House in 1817, where the floor under the statue was specially strengthened in order to accommodate the additional weight. It is still on display there.

Meanwhile, this website offers a slightly different version:

The Duke of Wellington’s collection of art works is of exceptional wealth and quality. Because of his military rank and prestige, he received many official gifts, in particular a number of paintings from the Royal Spanish collection including four works by Velazquez. It is also composed of many paintings from the Italian school, of Dutch and Flemish paintings from the 17th century and of an equestrian work by Goya.
This collection contains a great many works of art linked with Napoleon, such as the famous almost-nude statue by the celebrated sculptor Canova, representing the Emperor as Mars. The sculpture, which was completed in 1806, was commissioned by Napoleon in 1801 and arrived in Paris on 6 February, 1811. Inspired by the heroic nudes of antiquity, it caused considerable embarrassment to the Emperor who could not see any likeness between himself and the marble athlete. Put away in a corner of the Louvre, King Louis-Philippe sold it to the British government for 60,000 francs. It was then given to Wellington.

A few paintings depict the Emperor and his family: Emperor Napoleon, Empress Josephine, Joseph, King of Spain and Pauline, Borghese princess by Robert Lefèvre, Napoleon Bonaparte and Joseph, King of Spain by Gérard, Napoleon Bonaparte, First Consul by Dabos. Among the china is a beautiful Sèvres china set decorated in an Egyptian style which dates back to 1810-1812. It was commissioned by Napoleon for Josephine and given to Wellington in 1818 by Louis XVIII. There are also embroidered flags of the French departments which were paraded in front of Napoleon at the Champ de Mai ceremony on the Champ de Mars in June 1815. They were subsequently given to Wellington by Louis XVIII.

Both seem to agree on Napoleon thinking it didn't look anthing like him and being embarassed, and the Bourbons selling it to the British government who gave it to Wellington, who was into collecting Napoleon trophies. To each their own kink, Wellington.

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[luzula]

To each their own kink, Wellington.
Heh.

But yeah, that at least shows some humility/connection to reality on Napoleon's part. Or maybe it says something about the development of art styles, and the expectation of paintings/sculptures to actually look like their subjects, and not abstractly glorify them?

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[selenak]

Yes and no, I mean, earlier portraits were supposed to have some resemblance and glorify/prettify their subjects, too, and Napoleon wasn't immune to being put on a dashing horse in Alpine scenery by David, which presumably is also a scene that didn't happen thusly, but with David you can rely on some actual resemblance, with added horsemanship but minus super athletic looks. (His Napoleon portraits are pretty consistent and highly recognizable, forming our idea of what Napoleon looked like to this day. (The death mask shows very similar features, admittedly.) But I think what counted as a tolerable resemblance started to change with the 19th century, not least because the wigs went completely away. (It's much harder to differentiate people when they're wearing wigs.)

I mean: contemporary to Napoleon, there's Goya's famously unflattering portrait of the Spanish Bourbons, and he was the court painter. Nor was the unflattering realism a once off. Some months ago I linked a traditional portrait of the Queen which was pointed shortly after her wedding (very Rokoko like depiction of pretty girl) to a portrait of hers by Goya, and the difference is shocking. Given Goya was paid repeatedly for the realistic stuff, as opposed to fired, clearly what at least some royals wanted of their portrait had changed.

Reminder, Goya's portrait of the Spanish Royals:



close-up of the woman paying for this, the Queen (the King was an amiable nonetity, the Queen was the younger sister of Joseph II's wife Isabella of Parma)

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[luzula]

Yeah, I remember you posting that painting--they look like normal people! And it was what made me think about changing ideals in paintings...

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[mildred_of_midgard]

That is a singularly ineffective fig leaf!

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[selenak]

I'll say. Meanwhile, Voltaire's nude statue has a strategically placed bit of robe, not a fig leaf, as a reminder:

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[mildred_of_midgard]

Let us not forget Duke Mazarin*, who chopped off and painted over all the genitalia in the art collection he'd inherited, in the 17th century!

* cahn and luzula, not the famous Mazarin, but a nephew of Richelieu who became Duke Mazarin by marrying Mazarin's niece Hortense Mancini.

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[cahn]

Aww, Voltaire!

I have a confession: It wasn't until reading about him in Proud Destiny that I realized I'd always mistakenly assumed he was tall (despite seeing this and other pictures)! I think the actor who played him in the musical was tall, and also apparently I associate him with a tall coworker of mine who has that quality of being willing to do anything for his friends, but also who trolls everyone!

Re: Napoleon: Hot or Not

[selenak]

I never wondered about Voltaire's size, but given that he and Fritz are depicted as about equal in stature in any drawings, engravings and the like showing them both together...

Breeches

[mildred_of_midgard]

I did not know those details about the calves vs thighs, and the make of breeches!

I assume at least the lower thighs had to be tight in riding breeches? My impression is that the reason breeches are tight is that your legs will get chafed if you ride with baggy pants, and that's why the upper classes wore breeches and the lower classes (literally "sans-culottes", "without breeches") did not. One class was riding regularly, and the other was not.

Re: Breeches

[luzula]

Early to mid-18th century breeches look to be really ingeniously constructed! Check out this post from a guy who does historical sewing. The post has examples of historical breeches and also examples from paintings. They are splayed, so that when you sit astride a horse, they will presumably lie flat along the butt and underside of your thighs. But when you're standing, that extra fabric will bunch up, making the breeches presumably loose enough to be comfortable and give you freedom of movement. And of course, if they bunch up in the crotch that doesn't give you any chafing when you're riding. But that didn't work with the later short waistcoats, since apparently no one wanted to see the bunched-up fabric at the crotch.

Not sure how later breeches managed to be comfortable when riding, since they were straighter and tighter! Perhaps something about the construction in the butt? Hmm, must investigate further...

Re: Breeches

[mildred_of_midgard]

Oh, that's neat, thank you! Bookmarked!

Re: Breeches

[cahn]

Oh, that's neat! I hadn't realized that much thought would have to go into them. Let us know when you find out about later breeches :)

Re: Breeches

[luzula]

This Twitter thread is amusing and has more on 18th century breeches! It's not said outright, but I now suspect that the fall front of late 18th breeches is there to conceal a similar sort of bunching as we see on earlier breeches.

Re: Breeches

[mildred_of_midgard]

That was great, thank you for sharing!

Salon update: this week is going to be brutal at work, but my 14-hour days are paying off and I'm catching up on work, and I hope to be back to salon next weekend. I may even manage to read (no promises about replying to) Selena's many FS posts, which I have been looking forward to, tomorrow. (Usually when I'm behind on salon for this long, it's behind on replying, not on reading--I think this is the first time I've fallen this far behind on reading!)

Looking forward to seeing you all again soon!

Re: Poniatowski: Hot or Not

[cahn]

Lol, the great thing is that whatever it is, I am unlikely to know it (and even less likely to know the chronology), so you should say it! :D

I have seen those pictures with the seemingly missing cock and balls! (And I think when I first made acquaintance with them was when I was relatively young, so it never really occurred to me that they should be there, lol.)

The full-skirted coat is really cool, I agree!

Re: Poniatowski: Hot or Not

[mildred_of_midgard]

Lol, the great thing is that whatever it is, I am unlikely to know it (and even less likely to know the chronology), so you should say it! :D

It's true, that's why we have a salon! If not for cahn, I'd spend all my time going, "I bet Selena knows this, I don't want to insult her by Mildred-splaining history to her..." and never end up saying anything, but when one of us says something to cahn, the other can riff off of it, sparking a discussion in which we all learn things!

We call this alchemy. :D (The kind that doesn't use mercury and cause health problems.)