The Transformation of Women's Roles in Fashion in Eighteenth-Century France Femininity, Fashion, and Frivolity in Fiction

The Transformation of Women's Roles in Fashion in

Eighteenth-Century France: Femininity, Fashion, and

Frivolity in Fiction

Introduction

Review of Existing Literature.

A considerable body of scholarship exists which provides historical context for my dissertation.

The works that I refer to as a foundation for my dissertation focus on three major topics: the

consumer revolution that took place in France during the eighteenth century, the new professions

that emerged as a result of this revolution, and the impact that it had on ideas about women’s

involvement in labor and, within this context, what women’s involvement in labor meant in

relation to their sexuality and morally acceptable behavior.

A) The consumer revolution in France.

The mid- to- late eighteenth century was a transformative moment in time for France in

terms of production, expenditure, and the creation of objects related to fashion. Works relevant to

this topic include The Essence of Style: How the French Invented High Fashion, Fine Food, Chic

Cafés, Style, Sophistication, and Glamour by Joan DeJean, who analyzes the global image of

Paris during the eighteenth century which came about as a result of its consumer revolution.

DeJean claims that the changes that occurred in France throughout the seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries cemented France’s reputation as a dominating force of culture and style

(DeJean 3). As evidenced in DeJean’s work, as well as by the work of other historians such as

Daniel Roche, author of The Culture of Clothing: Dress and Fashion in the "Ancien Régime,” the

eighteenthcentury solidified France’s reputation as a paragon of elegance and taste. This is due to

several factors, notably new accessibility to fashion by the middle classes, as well as new efforts

by the

French to distribute their fashions abroad. Other essential works to this component include

Revolution in Fashion: European Clothing, 1715-1815, which focuses on the physical changes in

style and variety of clothing, and Modes Et Usages Au Temps De Marie-Antoinette...Livre-

journal De Madame Éloffe, compiled by Gustave-Armand Henri de Reiset, which details

purchases made by aristocratic women, including cloth, differentiations in the cuts of clothing,

varieties of color, and the amount spent on these purchases.

B) Economic and demographic changes due to the consumer revolution.

Owing to the greater prominence of fashion, eighteenth-century France experienced an

unprecedented expansion in the numbers of people employed by the textile and fashion

industries, as well as in the range of jobs available to them. Daniel Roche estimates in his work

The Culture of Clothing: Dress and Fashion in the Ancien Regime that the amount of people

employed in this kind of work was roughly 20,000 people (278). Not only was the amount of

workers employed by the fashion trades expanding, the influence that these workers held was

growing as well. While the majority of workers were still considered laborers and wage-earners

rather than entrepreneurs, some were able to ascend the ranks and establish themselves as sought-

after shop owners, artisans and stylists. References include "Gender and the Guild Order: The

Garment Trades in EighteenthCentury Paris" and The Politics of Women's Work: The Paris

Garment Trades by Judith G. Coffin, as well as works by Clare Haru Crowston, Natacha

Coquery, William M. Reddy, and Elizabeth

Wallace. In her article “Luxury, Morality, and Social Change: Why There Was No Middle-Class

Consciousness in Prerevolutionary France,” Sarah Maza discusses the impact of the changes

occurring in the hierarchy of classes as a result of what some historians name the “consumer

revolution” of eighteenth-century France. She explains that while most historians will

acknowledge that eighteenth-century France was the site of much upheaval, social change, and

an increase in production and consumption, scholars have continued to debate over whether or

not a middle-class really existed in eighteenth-century France, and what sort of influence it had

on the landscape of French society. Maza believes that there was a rising middle-class in the

eighteenthcentury, but it is often not acknowledged by scholars because it does not fit the

modern definition of middle-class. As she puts it, it is difficult to even define what middle-class

is because it “exists by definition only in relation to other social groups” (Maza 201). Several

chapters of this dissertation will touch upon the impact that the emergence of a middle class had

on the fashion industry, and the criticisms that writers leveled against the bourgeoisie.

William H. Sewell also discusses the expansion of the fashion industry and the consumer

industry/the rise of capitalism in France. He deliberates upon the argument of scholars as to

whether or not it is possible to discern a middle class in eighteenth-century France, but, in

addition, he pays particular attention to the important role that fashion had in France’s changing

economy. What Sewell establishes is that the glamour and finery of the French court served a

dual purpose: to boost the reputation of the French court as the most stylish in all of Europe and

possibly the world, and to stimulate the French economy as working-class citizens strove to

mimic the new and ever-changing trends displayed by the highest levels of the French nobility.

These claims are important to my scholarship because one result of the increased significance of

fashion in the French economy was that clothing became more widely and easily produced,

making traditionally more expensive fashions available to middle and even lower class

Frenchmen and women. This trickling down of fashion from the upper classes to the lower

classes was often criticized by moralists and authors, because it expanded the number of people

affected by the corruptive influences of luxury.

C) Changing public perception of women as a result of a newfound focus on fashion, beauty and

femininity.

Fashion became exceptionally important in France perhaps in large relation to the

ascension of Marie-Antoinette as Dauphine and eventually Queen of France. Marie-Antoinette

was the first French queen who made it her business to dictate trends in clothing. This change in

attitude can be attributed, at least in part, to the influence of Rose Bertin, the marchande de

modes who was eventually given a title created especially for her of “Ministre de la Mode”

(Minister of Fashion). Not only did Bertin succeed in transforming Marie-Antoinette into

France’s foremost fashion icon, she also contributed to the image of Marie-Antoinette as a

frivolous and extravagant woman who was unconcerned about the people of France; an image

which would haunt the queen during the Revolution and which remains even today. Although

Marie-Antoinette is a key figure in the study of the significance of fashion in the Ancien Régime,

there is already an extensive body of research surrounding her life, and she will therefore serve as

a peripheral figure in this dissertation. The works pertinent to this topic demonstrate a changing

public perception of femininity and sexuality, and an increased apprehension about the

consequences of women participating in the labor force. This body of scholarship lays the

groundwork for many of the works of fiction analyzed in this dissertation, because many of the

authors used figures such as Marie-Antoinette and Rose Bertin as inspiration for their material,

which usually served to either criticize or approve of the changes that were occurring in fashion.

D) Gender Identity and Clothing

Another important aspect of the study of fashion is its effect on gender identity and

traditionally prescribed gender roles. Several works related to this topic will be utilized in this

dissertation. One such work is Ellen Rosenman’s article “Fear of Fashion: How the Coquette Got

a Bad Name” which appeared in ANQ in 2002. While Rosenman focuses on the Victorian era,

her observations can be applied to the changes that occurred in eighteenth-century France.

Rosenman explains the male fear of feminine fashion, something that is often constructed behind

closed doors, which men are not privy to and cannot fully understand. She also claims that men

feared women’s involvement in fashion because it threatened traditional relationships. Men

discovered that women’s interest in fashion was not only in order to attract and keep a mate, but

it also possessed a self-contained quality of enjoyment. The danger of this self-contained

enjoyment is that it detracted from the traditional ultimate goal of fashion and beauty: to please

men, and, more specifically, husbands. Jean-Jacques Rousseau also advocated for a system in

which women would be allowed to enjoy fashion, but only insofar as it would serve as a way to

please their husbands. Rosenman considers the powerlessness men felt as they noticed their

wives making themselves attractive for themselves and for others, and the male fear that this end

to reliance on men would lead to complete self-sufficiency by women.

Another work germane to the discourse of gender identity and the root of woman’s

interest in fashion is The Americanization of Narcissism by Elizabeth Lunbeck. This work

focuses on the emergence of self-love and narcissism in twentieth-century America, but her

examination of fashion and the significance of clothing are relevant to the importance of clothing

to women in eighteenth-century France as well. Lunbeck relies heavily on twentieth-century

philosophers such as Freud and Flügel to investigate women’s investment in fashion. This

discussion mirrors criticisms levelled against the explosion of women’s fashions in the

eighteenth-century- that there was a difference between the production of women’s clothing and

materials as a means to stimulate the economy, and the fanciful, self-indulgent wish to obtain

fashions as a means of outdoing other women and vying for the title of most fashionable. Jean-

Jacques Rousseau in particular uses these ideas in his criticisms against fashion- that it is

acceptable, as long as it is used within the proper context, and does not descend into the sinful

ranks of what he would consider “luxury.” Lunbeck discusses issues of vanity, narcissism,

consumerism, etc., and suggests why women’s interest in clothing was and still is a subject of

scrutiny. She also touches upon the divide between women’s and men’s fashions that occurred

largely in the eighteenth century when men appeared to accede fashion to women as their

domain- by the eighteenth century, men’s fashion, which had traditionally been more developed

and ornate, became rather uniform and drab. In the eighteenth century, fashion not only became

of intense interest to women, it also further divided gender identity as women found more and

more ways to distinguish themselves and men reverted to more classical, uniform ways of

dressing. The emerging consumer society in eighteenth-century France posed a threat not only

because of the possibility that it would upend the established social order and prescribed gender

roles, but also because it enabled women to actively participate in the labor necessary to produce

fashions. Both the women producing the fashions and the ladies wearing them threatened men in

different ways, and therefore, men found themselves in some sense expendable as they realized

that women did not lust after fashion for the sake of pleasing men, but for the sake of fashion

itself and the pleasures it afforded them.

E) Luxury

Closely related to arguments about consumerism and narcissism are debates about luxury.

Luxury is a term that is closely tied to eighteenth-century France, and images of “luxury” conjure

up contrasting images of French revolutionaries and peasants starving due to the high cost of

bread while members of the aristocracy and nobility wear the finest clothing and eat the richest

food. Luxury is also linked to morality, and is scrutinized by philosophers such as Rousseau. In

this sense, luxury was often associated with corruption and excess, and, according to critics, it

took away attention from duty to God and to society. It upended the moral and social order and

allowed for too much blurring of gender and societal roles. One of the major criticisms

accompanying the consumer revolution was that, with the cheaper production of goods and the

re-appropriation of clothing and accessories, it enabled men and women of lower classes to dress

and therefore, presume to act, like men and women of the upper classes and aristocracy.

Nowadays, we might refer to people who use new money and material goods to “buy” influence

and acceptance in society as “social climbers” or “new money.” The debate on luxury, and

whether it exerted a positive or negative influence of eighteenth-century French society, will be

further explored in this dissertation.

While the selection of works in this dissertation might appear arbitrary, they were mainly

selected because there has not been exhaustive discussion of them. There are two works included

which have been the subject of much discussion: Émile, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Manon

Lescaut, by Abbé Prévost. These works serve to clarify larger ideas about the eighteenth-century

and what was expected of women, particularly in relation to fashion. The other works are lesser

known, and have therefore been included to demonstrate that there is a substantial amount of

literature less recognizable than the works of great writers such as Rousseau and Prévost, but

which is nonetheless able to highlight similar shared ideas.

I. Chapter Breakdown.

This dissertation is broken down into five chapters. Chapter one sets the scene for my analysis

by describing how France had attained its reputation as a capital of fashion, elegance, taste, and

luxury by the beginning of the eighteenth century, drawing from previously established

scholarship to detail the changes in the role of fashion in society, and why this was a

controversial topic. On the one hand, the fashion industry was seen as a positive force because it

stimulated the economy and served as a means for breaking down barriers between classes.

Many critics disliked the lessening of distinctions between classes, and also resented and

criticized the middle and lower classes obtaining privileges that had traditionally been reserved

for the nobility. Additionally, many believed that there was a risk that increased spending on

luxuries would weaken the economy, drive a wedge between women and their families, and

possibly also provoke women into resorting to sinful means of obtaining the desired clothing and

accessories if they did not have the honest means to purchase them. This first chapter thus

introduces ideas and concerns about how women’s increased involvement in fashion could affect

society.

The second chapter focuses on the positive portrayals of women in the literary works under

examination. These include women who manage to escape drudgery by establishing their own

careers in fashion, as well as women who provide jobs and even shelter for young ladies in need

of moral instruction. These works include La Marchande De Modes: Parodie De La Vestale by

Étienne de Jouy, which examines a shop owner’s instruction of her young protégées, as well as

"Brevet D'apprentissage D'une Fille De Mode » by A. Amantonte, a poem which describes how

businesswomen should train young female apprentices. This chapter also testifies to the

pedagogical aspect of these works, further exploring the role of literature in society, in particular

as evidenced by the play « La Marchande de Modes » by Stéphanie Félicité de Genlis, which

appears in a compilation of works of theater whose intention is to instruct young people (Théâtre

À L'usage Des Jeunes Personnes).

Chapter three shifts to the works of literature which display negative and critical points of view

of women’s relationships to fashion. In these works, arguments are made that women’s focus

should remain on their home and family, that professions in fashion are fronts for sin and even

prostitution, and that women are willing to debase themselves in order to satisfy their desire to be

fashionable. These works bring into discussion the debates and concerns about the association

between morality and extravagance/ luxury that were occurring at the time. The women featured

in these works range from figures who waste their husbands’ money on clothing and accessories,

as evidenced by works like Le Voile D'Angleterre Ou, La Revendeuse à La Toilette by Charles

François Jean Baptiste Moreau, to women who resort to trickery and seduction in order to obtain

the most up to date clothing and accessories.

The fourth chapter focuses on a single novel, Manon Lescaut, which also serves a pedagogical

purpose, although the novel can also be viewed as an indulgence of the declining morals of the

time. However, unlike works such as the plays of Mme. de Genlis referenced in Chapter One,

Prévost’s novel, although intended to be scandalizing and tantalizing, also demonstrates the

dangers of luxury and fashion. In addition, Prévost’s novel makes commentaries about the nature

of women in general, and what might occur if women are allowed to hold influence in areas

other than the home.

The last chapter uses established historical data about the consumer revolution in France to

reveal what is taking place in the selected literary texts. While historical data will be used

throughout chapters two, three, and four to support authors’ interpretations of women in fashion,

to conclude this dissertation I will examine what historians have previously claimed about

women’s growing participation in active society, in the context of the realm of fashion, and

establish what the body of literature I have selected confirms or denies about these claims. This

is the question that I purport to answer in my dissertation: how did writers of fiction during the

eighteenth century deal with women in fashion, and do their interpretations reflect what has been

established as historical fact?

Chapter One:

The Establishment of France as an Epicenter of Fashion, Fashion’s Increasing Significance in the

French Economy, and the Expansion of the French Economy and Establishment of

Capitalism in France

Today, France remains a driving force in the circulation of luxury goods and a pillar of style and

taste. Chic women all over the world carry bags labeled “Longchamp” and “Louis Vuitton.”

Ladies pore over magazines advertising “French style.” Particularly in the United States, the

impression is that the French come by their style and elegance naturally and effortlessly.

However, this reputation has been hard-earned over more than three hundred years, and it does

not show signs of stopping any time soon.

The perception of France as a country with the reputation of cultured, elegant citizens started

developing long before the eighteenth century. Although it is difficult to precisely pinpoint when

the concept of “fashion” emerged, “scholars, particularly in art and costume history, have argued

and accepted that fashion was not really born before around 1350” (Heller 1).While this

dissertation focuses on the transformations in the fashion and luxury trades that occurred in the

eighteenth century, it is impossible to talk about the developments of the eighteenth century

without reference to the people and practices that established France as a producer and consumer

of luxury goods in previous centuries. Of particular significance to the eighteenth century is the

differences that occurred in women’s fashion. “Men, it should be noted, were at the forefront of

consumption and display through the Middle Ages (and arguably up to the late eighteenth

century), having primary control of finances and selection” (Heller 4). It can therefore be argued

that in addition to the shift in social classes that occurred during the eighteenth century, which

enabled a wider group of people to dress for pleasure and display rather than merely for function,

another significant change in fashion during the eighteenth century is that it not only transitioned

to include women, but actually transformed primarily into their domain.

Another important element of the changes occurring in fashion during the seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries is that, from the seventeenth century on, due to economic reasons and

perhaps the pure ego of its rulers, France sought to be an epicenter for fashion and taste for the

first time. It can be suggested that Louis XIV, King of France for the majority of the seventeenth

century, set out to make his court the most envied of all of Europe, and perhaps the entire world.

He was able to accomplish this through a clever combination of “advertising,” intelligent

economics, and aesthetic touches throughout the country. In The Essence of Style: How the

French Invented High Fashion, Fine Food, Chic Cafés, Style, Sophistication, and Glamour, Joan

DeJean describes the overhaul that France underwent during the Sun King’s reign:

When his reign began, his nation in no way exercised dominion over the realm of

fashion. By its end, his subjects had become accepted all over the Western world

as the absolute arbiters in matters of style and taste, and his nation had found an

economic mission: it ruled over the sectors of the luxury trade that have

dominated that commerce ever since. (2)

While this description could plausibly serve to argue that the seventeenth, and not eighteenth,

century was the most transformative period in France’s economic and creative history, I purport

that this honor belongs to the eighteenth century, when new developments made it possible for

the luxury trades to reach new corners of the world and to affect not just the nobility, but the

middle and lower classes. However, it is still necessary to discuss how the beginning of these

transformations was made possible by the efforts of Louis XIV and his advisors. It is important

to remember that the establishment of France as the epicenter of culture and taste was not merely

an aesthetic endeavor, but an economic and political one as well. By dictating the clothing that

would be required at court, Louis XIV was not only able to surround himself with the kind of

luxury that he sought to represent the France, but he would also gain funds for the state treasury

that would aid in financing the expenses of the court, recently relocated to Versailles.In

attempting to transform France into a refined, respected country, Louis XIV also made it possible

to control the economic markets that produced luxury goods. This was executed in part by his

financial minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. DeJean describes the accomplishments of Louis XIV

and Colbert as follows:

Colbert’s bottom line was plain: first, to make sure that all the goods Louis XIV

considered essential to the promotion of his image as the wealthiest, the most

sophisticated, and the most powerful monarch in Europe would be produced in France

and by French workers; and second, to make sure that as many people as possible would

be slavishly following the Sun King’s dictates and buying only the same French-made

luxury goods that the King featured at Versailles…The King created new standards for

luxury that were accepted as inherently French, and Colbert saw to it that every product

that could be linked to that look had been marketed as widely as possible. (8)

Through these actions and decrees, Louis XIV and his financial minister established the modern

idea of the importance of domestically-made products. While traditionally products were often

imported from other countries where labor was cheaper, or materials were more readily

available, by making the most sought-after products in France ones that were actually produced

in France,

Louis and Colbert not only stimulated the economy, but they also opened up more jobs for

French citizens. The boom in the luxury trades was significant not only because France became a

larger producer of luxury goods, it also demanded the participation of more French citizens in the

production of said goods. Once the luxury trade’s dominance had taken hold, new professions

emerged everywhere in order to suit the ever-changing and increasing needs of fashionable

people. Although the new developments being made in the fashion and luxury trades helped to

establish France’s chic reputation and stimulated the economy, the expenses required to

transform Louis XIV into Europe’s most fashionable monarch, and France into its most

fashionable country, were significant, and people were understandably worried that the Sun King

would eventually lead France into financial ruin. In effect, Louis’ transformation of the court

was, in many ways, a smokescreen for the financial decline of the French monarchy and a signal

that the court was losing power and prestige as the bourgeoisie expanded and gained influence.

In discussing Roberto Rossellini’s film La Prise de Pouvoir par Louis XIV, James Roy Macbean

explains how the film hints at the fallibility of Louis XIV’s image of extravagance and luxury:

“Particularly the later sequences dealing with Versailles…suggest quite clearly that despite the

flamboyance of Louis’s court, his reign is by no means a healthy, fruitful flowering of the French

monarchy. Rather, it is simply the last flowering- dazzling in its sickly hues- of a dying plant

artificially kept alive in a hothouse. And what a hothouse!” (Macbean 27). Macbean and

Rossellini both convey that the appearance of success and prestige that Louis XIV was

attempting to display may have led the people of France to falsely believe that the country was in

a state of strong economic health and success, when in reality one might argue that the court of

Louis XIV was the basis of the financial ruin that would eventually plague France and lead to the

Revolution, and not the court of MarieAntoinette and Louis XVI as many have suggested, and as

many French citizens were led to believe. Essentially, although Louis XIV’s court may have

given France and the world the impression that France was the model of luxury and refinement,

and by that definition, success, Louis XIV was ultimately, albeit slowly, leading the country to

ruin.

However, as the adage goes, one must spend money to make money, and in response to critics of

Louis XIV’s finances and expenditures, DeJean queries “Was it all worth it? The King might

have said that without his extravagant spending, the luxurious experiences for which his country

is still celebrated would not have come into existence. The businessman might have added that

without it, tourism would not be France’s number one industry today” (16). Certainly without the

influence of Louis XIV, France might never have been established as a country of luxury and

taste. Perhaps the extraordinary works of great French philosophers, writers, artists, and

architects would still have attracted the millions of tourists that frequent France today, but the

luxury trade might not still be dominated by French brands and names. This renown is not

without a downside however, and as this dissertation will examine, the expenditures of the

luxury trade during the eighteenth century could have ruined France. Many critics of the ancien

régime and the luxury trades did believe that they would ruin France not only economically, but

also morally. Some blamed the flamboyant and frivolous Queen Marie-Antoinette for these

eventualities, but even if he was not the direct cause, one could certainly argue that Louis XIV

was the person who set up the country for this ruin.

Another problematic aspect of the expansion of the fashion and luxury trades during the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were the moral, philosophical, and social questions it

provoked. Daniel Roche writes in his work The Culture of Clothing: Dress and Fashion in the

Ancien Regime “From the seventeenth century, especially after the great movement of religious

reflection following the Catholic and Protestant Reformations, clothing was at the center of

debates about wealth and poverty, excess and necessity, superfluity and sufficiency, luxury and

adequacy”

(5). The luxury and fashion industries had both critics and supporters, and they commented not

only on whether the fashion and luxury trades had a positive or negative effect on the economy,

but also on what increased investment in fashion and luxury could mean for social constructs, for

questions of morality, and for issues of gender and sexuality.

In the modern world, “luxury” usually has a positive connotation. It tends to mean that a product

is of high-quality and good taste, and that it will provide a pleasurable experience for its

purchaser. However, as noted in Helena Rosenblatt’s encyclopedia article on luxury, it had a

very different implication during the eighteenth century: “The eighteenth century inherited a

notion of luxury that linked it closely with corruption, in both a republican and a Christian sense.

Its basic association with disobedience, and in particular, with forgetting one’s place in the God-

given order were established as far back as Genesis, where the abiding connection between

luxury and the sin of woman was also confirmed” (440). This explanation is particularly relevant

in regards to the relationship between women and luxury, because it targets the negative

connotation luxury had in connection with women and desire; in this case not only sexual desire,

but the desire for material goods. The eighteenth century is fascinating in particular in relation to

women, because they were simultaneously becoming more autonomous and more influential at

the same time that moral critics advocated for an increased awareness of women’s importance to

the domestic sphere. Such critics cited feminine seduction and manipulation, enhanced by new

means of adorning themselves, as factors that would lead to the decline of the French family and

society as a whole. It is also important to examine the effect that the changes in the textile and

luxury industries had on social hierarchy and the organization of society. Dress had traditionally

been one of the simplest, most visible ways of denoting rank and influence. With the increased

availability of luxury materials such as lace and silk in the eighteenth century, and less strict

sumptuary laws, the lines between social classes became less clear and more permeable. Before

this time, there were strict laws about who was allowed to wear what, but in the eighteenth-

century, due to increased production and easier access, as well as the circulation of second-hand

clothing and the possibility of appearing of a higher rank through strategic use of accessories,

largely driven by the marchandes de modes, it was now much more difficult to visibly

distinguish between members of different social classes. One could argue that the eighteenth

century, through the fashion industry, established the notion of the “social climber.” Daniel

Roche uses Louis-Sébastien Mercier’s Tableau de Paris to illustrate this phenomenon :

In his Tableau de Paris, Louis-Sébastien Mercier devoted himself to tracing the signs of

these shifts and displacements, whose driving forces were imitation and social mobility

and whose result was a society less easy to read and a more complex hierarchy of values.

Fashion existed in a niche between mimetism and protectionism. We should remember

that a whole economy and a whole society were dependent on it-manufacturers and

merchants, the development of new patterns and fabrics, the new shapes and

arrangements which were both cause and consequence of sartorial competitiveness. (7)

What both Roche and Mercier observe is that the phenomenon begun by Louis XIV in the

seventeenth century of imitating the fashions displayed by the highest ranking nobility became a

tangible possibility in the eighteenth century, and was compounded by the evolution of the

bourgeoisie. William Sewell, quoting Cissie Fairchild, argues that “the ‘luxury’ trades catered

not only for a wealthy clientele, but increasingly also found ways to make what she calls

‘populuxe’ goods-umbrellas, canes, snuff boxes, furniture, watches, fans, coffee pots and the

like- available to a broad consuming public” (115). Not only were the groups who were able to

access luxury goods changing and increasing, the goods themselves were changing and

increasing, and were now not limited to clothing, but expanded to toiletries, furniture, and

household items. Joan DeJean also comments on how fashion and style became more available to

the lower classes through the use of accessories and color if the expensive fabrics worn by the

aristocracy were not available or affordable: “The lower classes might not have been able to own

much, but accessories such as ribbons and stockings-and above all, the production of less

expensive fabrics with patterns and bright colors, from which they could make clothing- began to

transform the appearance of the French population” (40-41). The sheer number of items that one

could now use to display his or her taste and social standing is astonishing, and one can pinpoint

the eighteenth century, at least in France, as the moment when personal appearance and

expression of taste became a form of art.

Facilitating all of these changes were the people involved in the fashion industries, both

consumers and producers. In eighteenth-century France, both the numbers and demographics of

people involved in consuming fashion changed greatly, while those producing fashion changed

mainly in number and in the increased participation of women in these professions. Ladies of the

nobility did not participate in the production of fashion; they were, however, crucial in

stimulating this production. Fashion became a cutthroat industry, with the highest-ranking ladies

of the court vying for the title of most fashionable, and the workers who produced clothing and

accessories fighting to be the sought-after people for providing ladies of rank with the most up-

to-date fashions and trends. Shopkeepers, merchants, tailors, and other laborers and skilled

professionals took advantage of the ever-increasing urgency that high-ranking, and now even

middle-class men and women experienced when trying to obtain the latest fashions. Natacha

Coquery writes about the ways in which those involved in the production of luxury goods

profited from this frenzy as fashions became more extraordinary and dynamic:“The uniqueness

of Paris as a market rested on the strong influence of the court. Craftsmen and shopkeepers

knowingly exploited the rule of distinction borne by their clients and invented novelties and

launched fashions capable of enticing them…always on the lookout for novelty, aristocrats were

the great suppliers of quality goods” (71). She also remarks on how it became possible for groups

other than the nobility to obtain new fashions through clever advertising by shopkeepers and

craftsmen: “High quality and imitation, new and old: shopkeepers used a wide qualitative

vocabulary to attract customers. This is how the semi-luxury market developed also among the

less affluent” (71). Along these lines, one can make several conclusions about the textile and

fashion industries in eighteenth-century France: that the expansion of the textile industry had a

significant effect on the social hierarchy of the period, that both those who consumed luxury

goods and those who produced them contributed to this effect, and that the demand for new

fashions encouraged the production of unique items, and in turn created a need for new

professions whose purpose was to produce and sell these very specific items.

Did a consumer revolution occur in eighteenth-century France?

This question has provided speculation, particularly recently, for scholars of the eighteenth

century. One of the main reasons that France might be excluded from works examining

consumer revolutions is that this “revolution” took place quietly and did not occur due to any

major technological developments, but rather to an increased demand for luxury and semi-luxury

goods, and an increased availability of these goods to a wider range of consumers. Coquery

outlines two of the contributing factors to this expansion in the distribution and consumption of

goods:

“invention” and “imitation”:

Given the specific character of the Parisian market, which combined the

sound beginnings of a flourishing luxury industry and the tenacious end of a

‘court society’, it is most likely that both attitudes prevailed in the French

case: invention and imitation reigning equals. Semi-luxury goods were

successful, first, because they were new and fashionable and, secondly,

because in terms of price and function they were fitted to satisfy consumer

taste for fancy goods. Privileged or unprivileged… consumers resembled one

another more and more …Fashion traders invested in a new sector, a market

for imitation and plated wares, which flourished in the second half of the

eighteenth century. These imitations not only put within reach of the French

bourgeoisie and working class cheap substitutes, fully acknowledged as such,

for aristocratic luxuries; they simultaneously made available genuine

inventions, imitations of such convincing illusion as to provoke dreams of

acquisition. Shopkeepers were keen enough to offer such a wide diversity of

quality or value in order to attract at one and the same time aristocratic,

bourgeois and less privileged classes. (72)

What Coquery states here is that there were major changes in the amount and manner in which

people in eighteenth-century France consumed goods, but these changes may have gone

unnoticed or been dismissed as minimally significant because the changes were not as major as

those happening in England, for example. Often the changes made to a product in order to resell

it or market it as ‘luxury’ were small and subtle- some ribbons or lace were added, the color

changed, etc. As fashions became more and more flamboyant and constantly changed within the

court, nobles strove to find new, quicker ways to either transform the clothing and goods they

already possessed, or to find ways to replace these goods by selling the old ones. One way in

which this could be accomplished was by selling clothing and goods to merchants who would

then resell these to the lower classes. Shopkeepers had to do everything in their power to appeal

to the largest clientele, and made efforts to entice both the higher and lower classes by stocking a

wide variety of goods of various levels of quality and price. This observation reflects what was

occurring in

France not only in regard to clothing and goods, but in regard to the whole structure of power in

France. France was caught between the old and the new. While members of the court set the

trends and provided the inspiration for most of the new luxury goods, the emerging “middle

class” was now able to enter a circle of consumption and possession that had previously been

unavailable to them. As Daniel Roche phrases it, “Fashion ceased to be the prerogative of birth

alone” (187). If one attempts to answer whether or not there was a consumer revolution in

France, and it is determined that this “consumer revolution” is largely dependent on the increased

demand and availability of luxury and semi-luxury goods to the bourgeoisie and lower classes, it

is also important to ask if it is possible to distinguish particular classes below the nobility. This is

another question that has troubled scholars of eighteenth-century France. One often hears the

terms “bourgeois” and “middle-class” inserted into conversations about this time period, but it is

almost impossible for historians to agree on whether or not there actually was a middle class.

Sarah Maza, in her article “Luxury, Morality, and Social Change: Why There Was No Middle‐

Class Consciousness in Prerevolutionary France,” gives a simple version of why scholars have

such difficulty with this concept: “The reason why attempts to locate and describe a middle class

( in the twenty-first sense) or bourgeoisie in eighteenth-century France have failed is that such

efforts always amount to forcing nineteenth-and-twentieth-century categories onto a society that

would not have recognized them” (208). Maza’s point is that modern historians and scholars are

unable to label or define a particular group because they judge that group by modern standards,

and also because the middle class (“le tiers état”) did not recognize itself as a class until the end

of the eighteenth century. What further complicates the act of trying to locate a middle class is

that it is “defined” by what it is not, rather than by what it is. “The middle class…is the most

obviously artificial among familiar social groupings. The middle class exists by definition only

in relation to other social groups” (201). While it is easy to locate the nobility within society,

especially due to the use of titles, and the lower classes, usually due to their low income or the

type of jobs they held, the amount of income and the type of job held by members of the “middle

class” or “bourgeoisie” was not always evident, and it could be argued that a certain profession

belonged in the lower classes, while another historian might argue that it could be considered

middle-class. Another reason why it is difficult to locate the middle class in eighteenth-century

France is that the lines between the classes were becoming more and more confused by the

increased availability of luxury goods to classes other than the nobility. While buying luxury

goods certainly did not give members of the middle class a noble title, or allow them to circulate

in the same social circles as the aristocracy, it did make it more difficult to distinguish class on

an everyday basis. One of the major arguments against consumerism and luxury in the eighteenth

century, often championed by moralists like Rousseau and Prévost, was that it undermined the

system of power and rank that had existed for centuries in France. With the right clothing and

accessories, it was now possible for bourgeois men and women to attend events without it being

externally obvious what class they belonged to. While certain privileges were once limited to a

specific rank or group, many of these privileges, especially the right to wear certain colors or

fabrics, were increasingly being conferred upon members of the “middle class.” It is this

confusion of classes in part that contributed to moralists decrying the increased consumption of

luxury goods. Indeed, luxury, or le luxe, became a sort of all-encompassing topic that could

explain everything that was wrong with eighteenth-century French society. One of the reasons

that luxury provided such scope for criticism was that it possessed a variety of meanings and

traditionally had negative connotations. When one thinks of luxury, terms like debauchery, vice,

and immorality often accompany it. A mistrust of luxury was and still is often rooted in Christian

traditions, and it is one reason that moralists denounced the invasion of eighteenth-century

society by le luxe:

Luxury, as commentators have pointed out, was a singularly protean concept. In

eighteenth-century France it brought together such different concepts as the state

of Christian values, worries about aristocratic profligacy, the effects of commerce

and consumerism on society, and the condition of the countryside; in sum, it was

a convenient code for all of society’s perceived problems. (Rosenblatt)

Luxury thus provided a convenient rationale for what many perceived to be the decline of society

in France. Although the production and consumption of goods allowed for the stimulation of

France’s economy and created more jobs, it also led to a diminished focus on family life and

devotion to God, as well as increased amounts of debt, and perhaps even sexual licentiousness.

Moralists and anti-luxury critics used the omnipresence of luxury as an easy way to explain why

the centuries-old political and social systems of France were slowly working their way toward

destruction. While consumption is certainly not the only cause of the French Revolution, it is

possible that it was a contributing factor. For example, the French people found a convenient

scapegoat for their problems in Queen Marie-Antoinette, who was nicknamed, among other,

more vulgar monikers, “Queen of Debt.” Perhaps a reason for this is the visibility of expense and

luxury exhibited by the extravagant creations donned by the members of the highest-ranking

nobility like Marie-Antoinette. While the lavish expenditures of the nobility on clothing and

accessories were not entirely to blame for the decline of France’s economy, they provided

physical evidence of the lines that divided the rich and the poor, and made it easier for lower

classes to place blame on those who spent an inordinate amount of money on luxury goods.

Interestingly enough, although critics and moralists often blamed a decline in moral values and

civilized society on the increased focus on consumption and luxury, it has been suggested that

Christianity might have been one of the forces contributing to the increase in circulation of

goods. If one stops thinking of “luxury” as something hedonistic and lavish, and rather thinks

about it as anything that is not a necessity, it is possible that one could trace the origins of the

increase in consumption in eighteenth-century France back to religious objects. In Visions and

Revisions of

Eighteenth-Century France, Cissie Fairchilds contributes an interesting chapter entitled

“Marketing the Counter-Reformation: Religious Objects and Consumerism in Early Modern

France.” In this chapter, Fairchilds discusses the effect that the importance of religious objects in

France might have had on the increase in consumption in France, especially by the lower classes.

Fairchilds writes: “Historians and art historians are beginning to realize that the church’s

promotion of objects and images as aids to devotion must have had a major impact on

consumption habits and therefore on the European economy throughout its long history; indeed,

Christianity may be one reason why modern capitalism developed in the West” (33). Fairchilds’

statement seems counterintuitive if one defines consumption as greedy or luxurious. However, if

one thinks instead of consumption as merely anything that is not an absolute necessity, it is easy

to see why religious objects could have been the forerunners of luxury goods.

Fairchilds supposes that the church, in its promotion of religious objects as necessary for the

practice of Christianity, stimulated a demand for such objects, which in turn could have inspired

the same people purchasing religious objects to purchase small luxury goods (again, luxury in

this case referring to anything that was not a necessity). These observations are in reference to

members of the middle and lower classes who traditionally would not have purchased non-

necessity items. Fairchilds ventures that “once such people were lured into the market they might

have purchased secular goods as well, goods produced and distributed through networks that had

originated to cater to religious demands” (35). While this logic can perhaps not be applied to

clothing or accessories, it could be relevant to household items or accessories. Although the

connection between the purchase of religious goods and luxury goods might appear tenuous,

Fairchilds attributes it to what she calls the “first purchase phenomenon”: “A rosary or a

religious print may have represented a first step into the world of goods for poor or reluctant

consumers who hitherto had bought only the basic necessities of life” (47). Essentially, religious

objects could have provided a stepping-stone into the world of goods. For pious members of the

lower classes, religious objects could be considered necessities rather than luxuries, but because

they did not belong to the most basic necessities (food, water, shelter, etc.) their purchase still

represented the “acquisitive impulse” that Fairchilds refers to.And this “acquisitive impulse” that

inspired lower classes to purchase religious goods may have expanded into a desire for the

luxury and semi-luxury goods which were eventually made available to the lower classes.

Changes in Women’s Participation in Buying and Producing Luxury Goods

One of the most important effects of the expansion of the luxury industry in eighteenthcentury

France was the divide it created between male and female practices of buying and selling, and

the way in which consumption and “shopping,” a relatively new concept at the time, became

gendered. In her chapter of the book The Sex of Things: Gender and Consumption in Historical

Perspective entitled “‘Coquettes and Grisettes’: Women Buying and Selling in Ancien Régime

Paris,” Jennifer Jones discusses a ‘troubling’ shift in how the buying and selling of goods was

conducted. The shift from the more traditional practice of people selling clothing and accessories

coming to the homes of noble men and women to these same noble men and women venturing

out to the shops of dressmakers, marchandes de modes, etc., was problematic for two main

reasons. The first was that, traditionally, any “shopping” that occurred was generally conducted

by males, and “shopping” was less about the exchange of goods and money than it was about

sexual

interaction:

When contemporaries imagined the act of retail buying, they imagined a male

consumer and a female merchant. The model for shopping was courtship

(although in the harsh light of its critics shopping might look more akin to

prostitution), a decidedly heterosexual encounter between carefree but self-

interested shop girls and desirous male customers. (Jones 32)

Although this description of shopping might seem scandalous, according to contemporaries, the

real scandal was the idea that middle-class women, who up until this period of time generally

remained in the home, might begin participating in the world of shopping, thereby disrupting the

established system in a couple of ways. First, male shopping was considered acceptable because

it was a mirror of heterosexual courtship: “The model of shopping as courtship worked to

normalize, rationalize, and naturalize male shopping” (Jones 32). If males were to enter the

“demimonde” of shopping, they could purchase their goods and enjoy a flirtatious interaction

without compromising their money or their integrity. However, the prevailing belief at the time

was that it was inappropriate for women to enter the shopping areas, where genders and classes

mixed. One of the other main issues of the expansion of the luxury industry and the increased

availability of luxury goods to a wider range of social classes was that it blurred the distinction

between ranks even further. Jones mentions writers such as Louis-Sébastien Mercier, who

observed that it was becoming increasingly difficult to tell on the streets of Paris who was

royalty and who was merely a well-dressed bourgeoise.

Changes in the Image and Functions of Women in Eighteenth-Century France

Another main concern regarding the effect that the “consumer revolution” had on women was

that it made them more concerned with obtaining the latest fashions than with presiding over

their household. This concern had not necessarily been relevant up until this point, since ladies of

the court, who had ample help in taking care of their homes and children, could afford to spend

their time and money on pastimes like shopping. Contemporaries were also concerned that

women were beginning to want to dress and decorate themselves purely for enjoyment and the

ability to compete with other women as sexual rivals, whereas it was often believed that women

should be dressing and decorating themselves for the enjoyment of men: “For countess or shop

girl, the pursuit of fashion was acceptable if it took place within the confines of pleasing a

husband or attracting legitimate suitors” (Jones 38). Therefore, it was suitable for women to

dress for men, but not for themselves or other women, a contrast perhaps to the modern

environment in which it is often acknowledged that women dress for themselves and the

approval of other women. The general consensus at the time for critics of the luxury industry was

that it was permissible for women to spend money on looking enticing and feminine, as long as

their objective was to entice or please men, and not just because of selfish desires.

Another contemporary debate compounding the issues of shopping and acceptable

behavior for women in the evolving society were the debates held by great thinkers of the day on

what the nature of women was. In a society that was shifting its focus from a long-held tradition

of patriarchal, monarchal rule to a more citizen-centric society, Enlightenment thinkers

deliberated over what kind of involvement, if any, women should have in the new societal

model, and what might be acceptable roles for them. As society became increasingly gendered, it

became difficult to discern how society could best benefit from such changes.

One of the most prominent and important Enlightenment thinkers is of course the great

philosopher and writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote about the roles and responsibilities of

men and women in his works Émile and Sophie. A modern criticism of Rousseau is that his

expectations for women and the roles he prescribed for them were misogynistic because they

excluded them from participating in the new society in which men had a say in government and

politics. In Rousseau in Drag: Deconstructing Gender, Rosanne Kennedy analyzes some of the

arguments that have been made against the philosopher. Kennedy focuses on the contradictions

of Rousseau’s pronouncements on women: “Rousseau was able both to be committed to the new

values of democratic freedom and equality and to insist on the subordination of women and their

exclusion from the public sphere and political life attests…to the persistence and entrenchment

of patriarchy despite the progressivism of the politics” (Kennedy 6). While the structure of

society was evolving in France, and the differences between men and women as well as the

nature of women in general were being re-examined, these developments still maintained the

inferiority of the female sex. Furthermore, thinkers and moralists actually used the new models

of difference between men and women to argue that because of these differences, women should

not be involved in the public sphere: “The fear that women might gain access to the new public

spaces opening up with reference to the egalitarian rhetoric of liberal and republican discourse

engendered new justifications for the exclusion of women based on a model of rigid sexual

difference” (Kennedy 7). Essentially, the new republic spouted ideals of equality and liberty, but

this equality and liberty was reserved exclusively for male citizens.

While many critics and historians have argued that Rousseau was misogynistic and antiwoman,

Kennedy’s analysis of Rousseau’s writings on gender demonstrates that this is an

oversimplification, although she does acknowledge Rousseau’s stance as problematic. However,

he is not misogynistic perhaps in the sometimes violent, hateful way in which misogyny is often

conveyed in the twenty-first century. Rousseau does not advocate for the mistreatment of women

or for violence against them. In fact, he rejects notions of extreme paternal authority and asserts

that women play a very important role in society. Where his arguments become paternalistic is

through their assertions that women must remain in the private sphere of the home, rather than

inserting themselves into the new public spheres emerging as a result of the changing political

climate in France.

Therein lies the contradiction Rosanne Kennedy discusses in Rousseau in Drag. Rousseau does

not argue for any kind of mistreatment of women, nor does he argue that they are useless to

society. However, he does contribute to the exclusion of women from public roles in society by

advocating that women belong at home. In addition, he criticizes the idea of women deriving

enjoyment from anything that is not directed towards pleasing a husband or raising children.

Therefore, amusing themselves with choosing new clothing and being fashionable is detrimental

to the family and society in general. As evidenced in Lieselotte Steinbrügge’s work The Moral

Sex, in a society where the concept of “usefulness” was being established for the first time,

thinkers like Rousseau, who worried about the possibility of women attempting to become

“useful” and therefore abandoning their duties as wives and mothers, attempted to demonstrate

how women could be useful and contribute to society by being good wives and mothers.

Unmarried women could become models for single young women through moral instruction,

which would presumably aid in preventing them from becoming involved in immoral activities

such as

prostitution.

One of the most interesting observations that Steinbrügge makes is the concept of the “useful”

member of society. The “useful” person is an idea mainly reserved for the bourgeois, as it was

considered neither necessary nor appropriate for members of the aristocracy to be productive.

This was especially true for female members of the aristocracy, for whom it was considered

acceptable to attend the theater or go shopping as forms of diversion, whereas it was still

considered inappropriate for bourgeois women to enter such circles, where sexes and classes

mixed. Therein lies another important distinction between the women of the aristocracy and

bourgeois women: women of the aristocracy were not expected to be particularly good mothers.

While they were expected to produce children, particularly males so that titles could be passed

down, the structure of the aristocracy was such that there were many women living within one

palace or manor, accompanied by many servants. Aristocratic mothers were not expected to raise

children alone, and had significant help in taking care of their children. In The Reign of Women

in Eighteenth-Century France, Vera Lee describes how little noble mothers were involved in

their children’s day-to-day lives: “Contact between mother and daughter is limited to only a few

times a day” (Lee 6). Young girls briefly entered their mother’s chambers to update them on

daily progress and to be admired by their mother, who they in turn admired as she completed her

morning toilette. The young girl would then be returned to the care of nurses, governesses, and

tutors.

Even tasks like breastfeeding were considered inappropriate for noblewomen, and wet nurses

were called upon for this reason. Instruction of children was also not reserved solely for their

mothers within aristocratic circles. Young children, even girls, had tutors, and although the

young female members of aristocratic society were not expected to exercise a profession or be

well-educated, they were expected to know some basics of language and religion, as well as

more practical, domestic occupations such as needlework, and forms of entertainment to make

them more appealing for suitors- singing, dance, etc.

The fact that women of the aristocracy were not expected to be exemplary mothers was

not necessarily considered a positive aspect of the nobility. For example, Mme. de Puisieux

wrote about the decrease in birthrate and the high infant mortality rate, which were mainly

evident among the nobility. Puisieux remarks in Les Caractères that “Only women in the

provinces and the common women of Paris are having many children and producing them

healthy and well-formed. Among noble families, one rarely sees healthy offspring” (Théré 553).

Furthermore, she “blames the weak constitution of high-born women for the comparatively high

infant mortality” (553). Breastfeeding advocates also criticized noblewomen for allowing lower-

class women to nourish and nurture their offspring, although this was a common practice at the

time, and it was generally considered inappropriate for noblewomen to breastfeed their own

children. Writers who supported breastfeeding argued that these practices had ill effects on both

mother and baby, and also that the practice of using wet nurses contributed to the decrease in

population.

At this time, it was believed by many that breastfeeding would prevent a woman from

conceiving another child. However, the use of wet nurses contributed to the population decrease

rather than allowing it to increase by shortening the intervals between children for noblewomen.

Mme. Le Rebours, in Avis Aux Mères, explains the contradictory effect of allowing

noblewomen to entrust their children to wet nurses: “Women in the cities, who, refusing to nurse,

give birth every year, are far from contributing to population growth. In fact, they harm it doubly

as, having been entrusted to mercenary breasts, “many of these children do not grow up,” and

moreover, “they cause many wet nurses to perish as well” (Théré 554-5). Therefore, both the

mothers of the nobility and the wet nurses they charged their children with were implicated in the

population decrease and in the weak physical condition of children of the higher classes. Women

of the lower classes, who not only breastfed their children but who also possessed better general

health, were more likely to have healthy children who would reach adulthood.

Therefore, according to many thinkers of the time, it was of the utmost importance for bourgeois

and lower-class women that they focus on being good wives and mothers, both by producing

strong, healthy children who would reach adulthood, and by raising these children to positively

contribute to society. Having strong family units at the bourgeois level was important for

multiple reasons. First of all, it meant that future generations would be raised with good morals

and would thus become productive members of society. Second, it would free men from most

domestic obligations, allowing them to participate in the re-imagining of society. Third of all, it

occupied women and therefore prevented them from attempting to insert themselves into the

public, political spheres. In general, marriage was highly valued because it was intended to

produce healthy, robust children and contribute to population growth and the solidification of

French society. The family was the starting point for France’s success. If mothers and children

remained at home, completing lessons or domestic tasks, it allowed men, the heads of household,

to focus on their work, or, at higher levels of society, on political matters: “Political, social, and

economic order in the kingdom depended on the reproduction and solidification of the natural

lines of authority within the conjugal family” (Tuttle 8). In order for France to function correctly,

the family had to function first.

Philosophers and writers alike argued over what rights women might have in the changing

society. By the mid-eighteenth century, many professions allowed for women to continue their

husband’s work if he died, or to inherit their father’s work if he died and left no male heir. More

and more opportunities became available to single women and to young girls, especially as the

luxury and textile trades expanded. Aristocrats were not expected to work, but even in the

“bourgeois” classes, almost everyone, including women, participated somehow in the “working

world.” Vera Lee opens her study of women in eighteenth-century France with a shrewd

observation on the effect that the eighteenth-century had on what women could do and how they

were viewed. No matter her rank, no matter how important and influential she may one day grow

to be, she always started her life off as less desired, less important, simply because of her sex.

“Although she could eventually achieve enormous prestige and power she started her life as a

disappointment. A girl baby? But only a boy could preserve the family name and patrimony”

(Lee

5). This observation recalls a moment in the 2006 Sofia Coppola film Marie Antoinette, based on

Antonia Fraser’s Marie-Antoinette: The Journey, in which the young queen observes that her

firstborn child, Marie-Thérèse, was “not what was desired…a boy would have been the Son of

France” (Coppola). Marie-Thérèse, while celebrated, did not bring the joy and relief that the

royal family and the country would have felt upon acquiring a dauphin- a crown prince- due to

Salic law, which prevented female members of royal families from inheriting the throne.

But the importance and influence of women grew exponentially during the eighteenth

century, and the nature of women was analyzed and scrutinized as never before. Furthermore,

perceptions and portrayals of women varied drastically during the eighteenth-century. Women

were portrayed as virtuous mothers, as harlots, as hardworking, robust women, as silly spinsters,

as ninnies, etc. No one seemed to agree on what a woman should be, or what kind of role she

should play in society: “If eighteenth-century writers discussed the what-is-woman problem at

all, it was in order to tackle a more immediate question, that is: what should she be?” (Lee 47).

Of course, there was no concrete answer to this question. While the eighteenth century began

with more traditional views on femininity, beauty, and female duty, women gained more

visibility and more influence as the century progressed.

At the highest levels, sexual influence and intrigue could have a profound effect on

society: “Let us remember… that generals, cardinals and ministers were made or undone in the

privacy of the royal boudoir and that milady’s approval or disapproval could even mean the

difference between war and peace” (Lee 115). Royal mistresses, notably Madame Du Barry,

impacted royal decisions. But this kind of influence began to wane as the eighteenth century

progressed. For one, due to Louis XVI’s lack of a mistress, the queen herself rather than the

king’s mistress began to hold more sway and became more visible, whereas before she had often

remained relatively inconspicuous, focusing on her faith and family. In the eighteenth century,

Marie-Antoinette, though young, made it a goal for young ladies to be fashionable and charming.

More importantly, it was now common, if not necessarily acceptable, to be fashionable and

charming not only for the enjoyment of men, but for one’s own enjoyment.

The influence of Marie-Antoinette on fashion during the eighteenth century and her role in the

development of new styles and professions

In attempting to pinpoint a single person who has had the most influence on fashion

throughout the course of history, Marie-Antoinette, if not the singular person who has had the

most influence, would certainly figure among the most significant. This is a surprising fact given

that so few of her actual clothes and accessories survived the French Revolution; however,

through art and records, including purchase records kept by her fashion merchants, particularly

Mlle. Bertin and Mme. Éloffe, it is clear that Marie-Antoinette possessed an unprecedented

amount of clothing and accessories, and that she encouraged her “peers” and subjects to do the

same. Several factors directly related to Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI’s reign prompted

expansion in the amount of clothing people purchased and what kind of clothing they wore. First

of all, the sumptuary laws which had been so strict under the reign of Louis XIV were no longer

strictly enforced, even though they technically remained in effect:

Historically, dress had corresponded with status; people were what they wore.

Anyone could tell a duchess from a dairymaid at a glance. The aristocratic,

professional, and working classes each had their own strict dress codes,

reinforced…by sumptuary laws. After the death of Louis XIV in 1715, these

laws- never very effective- quietly fell into disuse. For the first time, people of all

classes could wear fashionable, luxurious dress; that is, if they could afford to.

(Chrisman-

Campbell 8)

This first effect of Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI’s reign in relation to fashion was

problematic in many ways, as conservative critics believed that status by birth, not acquired

money, should allow people to dress in a certain way. These changes were criticized by men like

Rousseau and Mercier, who thought it ridiculous and insulting that bourgeois and even working-

class women were attempting to dress like princesses. But with the introduction of new

technologies, more affordable materials, and more people involved in the production of fashion,

making it more available to a wider public, it seemed inevitable that dressing well would

eventually reach the lower classes.

Two other major changes in fashion occurred as a direct result of the growth in numbers and

influence of the figures known as the marchandes de modes who are the focus of this

dissertation. The important thing to note about the marchande de modes, which is directly

related to the influence they held, is that they did not actually make much clothing, but focused

on accessorizing and embellishing clothing already made by couturières (seamstresses): “In

practice, marchandes de modes did make some types of garments, including cloaks and the grand

habit, the elaborate formal gown worn at court. But they were best known for providing ‘all the

little objects used in dress, of women particularly’” (Chrisman-Campbell 52). Kimberley

Chrisman-Campbell, author of Fashion Victims: Dress at the Court of Louis XVI and Marie-

Antoinette, points out the importance of the details and ornamentation of women’s gowns. The

gowns themselves might not be spectacular, though they often were, but they could be decorated

with so many ornaments that the outfit would appear unique. This was often the work of the

marchandes de modes who concerned themselves with these details:

Fashion was in the details. Often, a woman’s gown was barely visible under the

profusion of feathers, ribbons, tassels, lace, artificial flowers, and other ornaments

with which it was adorned. And no ensemble was complete without a headdress,

fan, gloves, and jewels. These trimmings and accessories were often even more

expensive than the textiles onto which they were sewn. (Chrisman-Campbell 52)

The marchandes de modes’ influence lay more within her ability to enhance than

to create.

Similarly, because the marchandes de modes focused on ribbons, artificial flowers, trimmings,

etcetera, one of their biggest assets in influencing fashion was that they were able to update

things quickly and thus monopolize trendsetting. In fact, we conceivably owe the modern

concept of being “trendy” to the eighteenth century, when fashions truly started to become

temporary and up-to-the-minute: “The reign of Louis XVI witnessed the perfection of what is

called planned obsolescence; marchandes de modes brought fashion up to the very minute, with

the cooperation…of the malleable young queen and the emerging fashion press”

(ChrismanCampbell 7). The fashions created by the marchandes de modes were not intended to

be longlasting, and this is perhaps one of the more minor reasons that the marchandes de modes

all but disappeared in the nineteenth century, the major reason being that many of them were

forced to leave France because of the Revolution, in favor of more durable, classic fashions

created by department stores and couturiers. At the time, however, the temporality of the

fashions created by the marchandes de modes increased their influence, as clients were

constantly coming to them for the newest fashion updates.

The influence of the marchandes de modes is connected to another reason why lower

classes could now be fashionable; since being fashionable no longer solely meant wearing certain

colors or cloths, but being able to correctly accent clothing, it was more likely that a bourgeois or

working-class woman could appear stylish if that meant choosing the right hat or hairstyle, or

being able to afford a ribbon or trim that might make an otherwise plain gown more elegant.

Bourgeois and lower class women were also able to access more stylish clothing through

repurposing and reselling of clothing. Even the queen herself, who was generally restricted by

rules allowing her to wear a gown only a certain number of times during a season, would often

refurbish her clothing: “Marie-Antoinette frequently went to the trouble of having her gowns

altered or re-trimmed before their second appearance- another example of how etiquette rather

than personal preference dictated many of her fashion choices” (Chrisman-Campbell 24). While

the queen updated her clothing in order to enhance her status, bourgeois and lower-class women

could benefit from the modifications made by the marchandes de modes by making their less-

thanroyal clothing appear luxurious and stylish.

Thus far I have given an overview of some of the ways in which fashion expanded and

changed during the eighteenth century, particularly in relation to those who brought about these

changes. While there are many figures who made fashion more visible and accessible throughout

the eighteenth century, aside from the queen herself, no figure was more influential or

controversial than the marchande de modes. In the following chapter this figure will be examined

more thoroughly. Who were the marchandes de modes, and what did their contemporaries think

of them?

Chapter Two:

The Virtuous Marchande de Modes and Arguments in Favor of

Developments in Fashion and Luxury Items

There was widespread concern during the eighteenth-century regarding how an increased focus

on fashion might affect society. Women, already objects of scrutiny, were regarded more

suspiciously than ever. This included not only those working in fashion industries, but also the

women who purchased the frivolities and fripperies that were becoming all the rage. Critics of

fashion’s protean nature would eventually go so far as to propose a national costume for both

men and women; for example, “Monsieur” in Suard’s Sur la Mode. “Monsieur,” who

corresponds with a female advocate for fashion and women’s ability to choose their clothing

from a wide variety of options, declares « Je veux un costume national qui ne varie point au gré

des modistes » (Suard 210). The woman in this exchange reminds “Monsieur” that if women’s

interest in fashion and the ability to pursue different trends as a kind of hobby were taken away,

women would have to be involved in more serious endeavors: « D’ailleurs, si vous nous ôtez la

faculté de varier les modes, vous ferez donc des académies des femmes; vous nous donnerez des

places au tribunal; au conseil; vous nous permettrez l’ambition, l’amour de la gloire; etc; car il

faut bien nous amuser à quelque chose » (Suard 214). “Madame” points out that women must be

able to occupy their time somehow, and argues that if women are discouraged from amusing

themselves with fashion and beauty, the natural progression of things is that eventually they will

want to be more involved in society. It seems that “Madame” is claiming that fashion is a

relatively harmless pursuit for women. Furthermore, although “Monsieur” believes that fashion

is frivolous and even dangerous, there are many examples of literary works during this time

period which indicate that women involved in the creation and expansion of fashion could not

only be upstanding, ethical women, but they might even use their positions in the fashion

industry to influence young women and mold them into virtuous, productive members of society.

In turn, such occupation might prevent young women with no other means to support themselves

from engaging in illicit activities. The women portrayed in works of literature include those who

have managed to escape drudgery by establishing their own careers in fashion, as well as women

who provide jobs and even shelter for young ladies. These works include La Marchande De

Modes: Parodie De La Vestale by Étienne de Jouy,which examines a shop owner’s instruction of

her young protégées, as well as "Brevet d’Apprentissage d’une Fille de Mode » by A.

Amantonte, a poem that describes how businesswomen should train female apprentices. Some of

these works are even pedagogical, aimed at shaping young women into honest members of

society, and instructing the older women who are charged with assisting them. This is

particularly evidenced by the plays « La Marchande de Modes» and « La Lingère » by Stéphanie

Félicité de Genlis, which appear in a compilation of pedagogical works of theater that attempt to

instruct young people (Théâtre à l’Usage des Jeunes Personnes).

If critics of the increased focus on material goods, shopping, and women’s participation in both

the buying and selling of goods argued that women had no business earning a living outside of

the home, and that the desire to purchase luxury goods was borne of feminine weakness and

sinfulness, it could also be argued that the increasing demand for luxury goods and the

consequent proliferation of jobs available to women would prevent them from resorting to the

ever-present danger of prostitution: “Most enlightened thinkers…realized that work was in fact a

necessity for many women. The task, then, was to find jobs appropriate for women” (Jones 41).

Jobs in the clothing industry were appropriate in many ways because they were linked with more

traditional discipline. While some viewed boutiques and ateliers as fronts for prostitution, one

could also argue that in the appropriate setting under the watchful eye of a marchande de mode,

young girls could learn to practice skills that could be useful in the case of a future marriage,

such as needlework and even the handling of money. Furthermore, if girls and young women

were occupied making clothing, and had some form of income, they would be less likely to turn

to prostitution. The fear was that unmarried women with no means of supporting themselves

would resort to prostitution. There are literary examples of this exact fear occurring; Fantine in

Les Misérables comes to mind. Having been fired from her job at a factory, and needing to send

money to support her daughter, she resorts to prostitution. However, there are many literary

examples of working women who were not only able to support themselves, but to instruct the

young women under their supervision to lead respectable, virtuous lives. In fact, in many of the

examples that follow, more focus is placed on the young girls in their care learning to be

virtuous, sensible, and chaste than on actually learning a skill or trade.

In order to examine literary examples of virtuous women in fashion professions, it is necessary

to more distinctly define the professions that were influential at the time. Doing so, however, has

proven difficult in the past with regard to professions such as the marchandes de modes, which

seem to both appear and disappear within the eighteenth century. The marchande de modes

emerges during the eighteenth century, and although she is extensively referenced during the

nineteenth century, actual practicing marchandes de modes had essentially vanished by that time,

both in favor of what eventually became department stores, and because the French Revolution

forced many of those who had served the aristocracy to emigrate. One of the most significant

obstacles in studying the influence and legacy of the marchande de modes is that her occupation

is so difficult to define:

The marchande de modes (or milliner in English) was a child of the

eighteenth century. She was first noticed in France, but soon had counterparts

in England, Sweden, Italy, and other European countries. Previously,

marchandes de modes had been indistinguishable from merciers (mercers)

and couturières (seamstresses); this was owing to the shifting demands of

fashion as well as strict labor laws, which lumped the clothing trades together.

Indeed, “marchande de modes” was such a new occupation that

contemporaries struggled to define it…An important distinction was

beginning to be made between fabric and fashion, between the technical

process of cutting and sewing to the more creative realm of trimming and

accessorizing. (Chrisman-Campbell 50)

Essentially, the marchande de modes was a stylist. She did not design or sew gowns herself; she

rendered them more unique by adding a special feather or ribbon, and she also embellished hats

and hairstyles. It is difficult to comprehend how a profession with such a puzzling definition

could become so prominent. While the actual profession of the marchande de modes would

eventually become more or less defunct, her influence throughout the eighteenth century in

particular is undeniable.

Although eventually the marchande de modes would become a symbol of frivolity and excess,

largely due to the prominence of Rose Bertin and her influence over Marie-Antoinette, in the

early eighteenth century, by contrast, many people asserted that employment in a relatively

honest profession would keep young women away from prostitution. They also argued that it was

more appropriate for women and girls to be dressed by other women rather than by male tailors.

In addition, at the outset of the appearance of the marchande de modes, employment in the

clothing trades was initially seen as a way to keep women off the streets. Furthermore, honest

employment could prove an opportunity to show young girls the merit of hard work. If the

circumstances were correct, a young girl of the lower classes, usually a grisette who was not

subject to an arranged marriage, might even succeed in making an acceptable match with one of

the shop’s customers. Facilitating this devotion to hard work and virtue were the older, often

widowed or never married marchande de modes or couturière figures who appear in a number of

plays and novels throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Several such

pedagogical plays are authored by the Comtesse de Genlis, who used these plays as a means of

pedagogy for young women.

Stéphanie Félicité, comtesse de Genlis, full name Stéphanie Félicité du Crest de SaintAubin,

Comtesse de Genlis, became a countess through marriage at a young age. She continued with her

education even after her marriage, and was very interested in the instruction of young people.

Genlis was raised with a strong commitment to religion and morals, and to disseminating these

values to young people, especially young women. Her most well-known works were the

“morality plays” that she wrote, several of which appear in Théâtre À L'usage des Jeunes

Personnes. The two works most pertinent to this dissertation are « La Marchande de Modes » and

« La Lingère ». Both center on women who have managed to establish themselves as respected

figures in the fashion industries, and who are the mistresses of a shop or business. These women

use their influence to train young women not only in the production of fashion, but also in proper

behavior. They instruct their young charges on the importance of piety, modesty, and the value

of honest work.

In the preface of Théâtre À L'usage des Jeunes Personnes, Genlis explains the purpose of the

plays which are to follow:

Ce volume est uniquement destiné à l’éducation des enfans de marchands,

d’artisans ; et même les personnes au-dessous de cette classe pourront y

trouver encore des leçons ; les femmes-de-chambre, les jeunes filles de

boutique, y verront le détail de leurs obligations et de leurs devoirs. Elles y

verront en action une vérité dont on désire qu’elles soient frappées ; c’est que

le moyen le plus certain de réussir, c’est d’être honnête, et que l’intérêt

personnel bien entendu nous conseille de suivre le même plan de conduite que

la vertu prescrit et sait chérir. (Genlis Marchande 1)

In reading this introduction, one can assume that Genlis, in referring to the “enfans” of merchants

and artisans, etc., does not only mean the actual children of these professions, but also their

young apprentices. Genlis makes a more specific note about what the audience/readers should

take from the characters who appear in these works: « On trouve en général, dans cette classe, de

la piété, des mœurs pures, et l’union la plus touchante dans les familles; et l’auteur peut ajouter

avec vérité, que les personnes vertueux de ces petites pièces ne sont point des caractères

chimériques, mais qu’ils existent, et sont ici représentés sans aucune espèce d’exagération »

(Genlis Marchande 7). Genlis appears to be making a point about the assumptions society made

at the time regarding the members of this class and the tasks that they performed. By

emphasizing that the virtuous characters who appear in these plays are not “fanciful” but real,

she is confirming for critics that not only are the young women employed in these professions

neither immoral nor depraved, but they can even be virtuous and honorable. Furthermore, Genlis

uses this description of the working class to highlight an important criticism of the nobility.

While these young women are occupied in a productive manner and are overseen by a kind of

“mother” figure, the young members of the ruling class are separated from their mothers, raised

by a governess, and will presumably perpetuate the vicious cycle of laziness and idleness begun

by their mothers. In his article about Genlis’ theatrical works, Lester Krakeur remarks upon the

superficiality of the ruling class depicted in these pedagogical plays : « On la voit dans leur

éducation, qui ne vise qu’à les préparer à briller dans les salons, qui étouffe les instincts enfantins

naturels, et à laquelle Mme de Genlis, disciple de Rousseau, s’oppose vigoureusement » (190). In

contrast to the arguments made that the clothing trades are immoral and dangerous, Genlis’ plays

seek to show the opposite: that it is better to be a member of the bourgeois or lower class

occupied in a respectable craft, than a member of the aristocracy who squanders time and money,

and who will not grow up to do anything productive, including raising one’s own children.

The first of Genlis’ plays is « La Marchande de Modes, » which portrays Madame Dupré, a

fashion merchant, and the young girls who work in her shop in Paris: Justine, Annette, Marthe,

Joséphine, and Isabelle. The young girls are first introduced while working in the shop and

laughing among themselves, and their benefactress chastises them by asking if she must always

keep an eye on them, reminding the girls of the importance of hard work (Genlis Marchande 99).

Later, she reminds them what she expects of them while they are working: « Je ne trouve point

mauvais que vous vous divertissiez ; mais ce que je vous demande expressément, c’est de ne me

point faire des cachoteries...vous devez toutes me regarder comme votre mère, et vous auriez tort

d’avoir des secrets pour moi » (Genlis Marchande 100-101). From the very beginning of the

play, Genlis depicts the marchande not as a woman who exploits her clients and takes advantage

of them, but as a woman who wants to raise her apprentices to be hardworking and devoted to

their clients. Madame Dupré’s strict instructions for her young charges reflect the moral code

that Genlis is trying to convey to « les jeunes personnes » referenced in the title of her collection

of plays. Throughout the play there are various examples of Madame Dupré instructing her

apprentices on how to conduct themselves. Justine, the “first apprentice” of the shop, serves as

the moral compass when Madame Dupré is absent. For example, when the girls are mocking a

client who dresses in a ridiculously youthful manner, Justine chastens them : « Est-il joli de se

moquer comme cela de son prochain, et surtout des personnes à qui on doit du respect ? » (Genlis

Marchande 111). These passages are significant because they indicate that to Genlis, being

virtuous and moral includes being respectful of one’s elders and superiors. The other girls agree

with Justine, and they discuss how Madame Dupré has taught them to be “reasonable” and

“prudent” (112). Throughout the play, there are various references to how the apprentices should

act, and also the rules that govern the marchande’s business: « Il y a des bornes que la conscience

ne permet pas de passer ; et comme dit Madame Dupré, jamais rien ne peut autoriser un

marchand à devenir usurier » (Genlis Marchande 137). This description of the moral code that

the marchande de modes follows varies greatly from the marchandes de modes who are

portrayed in later works depicting them as conniving and greedy.

The end result of this particular play is that Madame Dupré is asked by one of her clients, a

marquess, if she can take her apprentice, Justine, as a chambermaid. Upon Justine’s departure,

Madame Dupré instructs her as to how she can remain in her mistress’s good graces: « Conserve

ces honnêtes sentimens, ma chère fille ; sois toujours pieuse, vertueuse ; préfère l’honneur à tout,

et dans ton humble condition tu seras respectable, honorée, et la fortune même viendra te

chercher et previendra tes vœux » (Genlis Marchande 147). Once again, Genlis’ own values are

inserted into her plays in order that they might influence the young people reading and viewing

them. Krakeur remarks : « Il serait inutile de faire la liste de toutes les vertus que prêche Mme de

Genlis- la charité, l’amour de la vie rurale par opposition à la vie corrompue…de la Cour, la

modestie, le sérieux, la moderation au lieu du luxe- tout cela basé sur la religion » (188). The

purpose of Madame Dupré’s instruction has been to prepare her young charges to be humble,

upstanding members of society, and to contribute something by helping members of the higher

class. Madame Dupré emphasizes the exact opposite of what critics of fashion merchants argue

at this time- that they, and all women working under their instruction, are immoral and greedy. In

fact, Madame

Dupré even hints at a possibility that Justine could be called to a convent, or might enter into a

suitable marriage. She ambiguously states « la fortune même viendra te chercher et previendra

tes vœux » (147). There is no distinction as to whether Madame Dupré means marriage or

religious vows, and therefore, one could make the argument that she is preparing Justine for the

possibility of entering a convent, which was a common path for young women who did not find

husbands. The next play in this collection, « La Lingère », focuses less on hard work and

dedication, and more on honesty and modesty. « La Lingère » centers on Madame Durocher,

marchande lingère, and the young ladies who work in her boutique, as well as her own daughter,

Silvie. The play opens with a monologue from Aline, the apprentice in Madame Durocher’s

shop, who has just learned of a problem with her father, whom she has never met. Another

apprentice, Catherine, sees Aline crying, and Aline claims that she is crying because she received

a letter from her elderly aunt who is in trouble. Aline claims that she wants to sell her clothing so

she can send money to help this aunt. Catherine suspects that it is actually a love letter, and tells

Aline that at fifteen years old, she is too young for a romantic relationship. Catherine is still

suspicious, but admits that Aline has never lied before. When she wonders why Aline doesn’t

want to confide in Madame Durocher, Aline explains that she is worried Madame Durocher

won’t approve of selling her clothing, and might offer her the money, which would embarrass

her. Catherine agrees that she won’t say anything to Madame Durocher until the next day, when

Aline will explain the situation to Madame Durocher.

However, Madame Durocher notices that something is wrong with Aline and confronts her.

Aline denies that anything is wrong, to which Madame Durocher replies « Vous m’êtes confiée,

je dois répondre de votre conduite ; ainsi, puisque vous ne voulez pas me parler à cœur ouvert, je

vous préviens que je vous veillerai de si près, que je découvrirai le mystère que vous me cachez.

Est-ce qu’une fille à votre âge doit avoir des secrets ? » (Genlis Lingère 166).Aline continues to

deny that there is any mystery to hide, and Madame Durocher wonders what Aline could be

hiding, saying, « Elle n’a que quinze ans, et elle paroit avoir tant de sagesse et de modestie »

(Genlis Lingère 166).

In the next scene, Madame Durocher’s daughter, Silvie, appears wearing a robe à la

polonaise, which is the latest fashion in court, and an elegant hat. Presumably these are items

being held for a customer, and Silvie is playing dress-up. Madame Durocher chastises her, saying

that she looks ridiculous. Silvie reminds her mother that the ladies at court wear this style

exclusively, perhaps attempting to convince her mother that by wearing this clothing she is

elevating herself to the status of courtier. Madame Durocher is unimpressed, and responds :

Mais les dames font faire leurs polonaises par des bonnes couturières, et paient douze

francs de façon. Les dames prennent leurs chapeaux chez les meilleures marchandes ; êtes-vous

en état de faire toute cette dépense ? Non ; vous n’avez donc pas l’air d’une dame, et vous ne

passerez que pour une petite bourgeoise ridiculement habillée ; ou bien, si vous joignez à toutes

ces fanfreluches-là... ce n’est pas pour une dame qu’on vous prendra, ni pour la fille d’une

honnête marchande, mais pour ce qu’il y a de pis…Fi donc…voilà tout ce qu’on peut gagner à

vouloir sortir de son état. (Genlis Lingère 169) Once again, the female merchant, who has

managed to establish herself as a respectable businesswoman, points out to her protégées the

dangers that are associated with their professions.

First of all, because they come into contact with the materials, clothing, and accessories

worn by noblewomen, there is a temptation to don this clothing and act above their class. This is

one of the concerns that critics at the time held regarding the increasing circulation of clothing

between classes that threatened class distinction. One of the most important results of the

“fashion revolution” that took place during the eighteenth century is that, due to secondhand

clothing merchants and the increasingly lax enforcement of sumptuary laws, people of lower

classes could imitate noblemen and women through their dress. Madame Durocher, in her speech

to Silvie, criticizes the idea of women trying to act like like women of higher classes, and warns

her against it, not only because it makes Silvie seem ridiculous, but also because it undermines

the relatively honest and reputable position that they occupy as merchant linen maids. By

dressing up in a noblewoman’s clothing, but without the help of the best seamstresses and

fashion merchants, Silvie risks making herself appear cheap. Madame Durocher’s concern is

highlighted in the words « ce qu’il y a de pis ». Although it is not said explicitly, one can infer

that the “ce qu’il y a de pis » refers to a prostitute. Genlis appears to be using this passage as a

warning to the young ladies employed by merchants and artisans that they should remain humble

and modest, and how easy it is for young women to become objects of ridicule and criticism if

they do not behave appropriately. Madame Durocher then questions Silvie about Aline’s recent

odd behavior, and Silvie and Georgette confirm that they saw Aline being approached by a man.

Madame Durocher believes her fears have been confirmed that Aline is in fact involved with a

man, and has thus been lying to her. Madame Durocher’s niece, Madame Bertrand, arrives with

her daughter, who has recently had her hair done and has received new shoes and is showing

them off to her aunt. Madame Durocher speaks privately with her niece and criticizes her

indulgence of her daughter, allowing her to play dress up and treating her as a peer: « Dans

toutes les conditions une jeune personne coquette sera méprisée, mais dans notre état surtout,

celle à qui l’on n’a pas inspiré la plus grande modestie, peut d’un moment à l’autre, déshonorer

ses parens, puisqu’elle est exposée à des dangers et à des séductions qui n’existent pas pour des

filles de qualité » (Genlis Lingère 185).Once again, Madame Durocher emphasizes the

importance of modesty in their position, which is already subject to scrutiny. Any attempt to

appear coquettish makes them licentious and puts them in danger of being seduced. Madame

Durocher emphasizes to her niece the importance of correctly instructing their daughters to be

dutiful and modest.

An interesting aspect of this play is the notes included about why Madame Durocher

might teach her apprentices and children in this way. At this particular moment in the play there

is a note indicating what Madame Durocher should have added to her speech about how to

instruct young ladies:

Madame Durocher devoit ajouter qu’on peut aussi donner aux filles dont elle parle

quelques talens agréables…sans négliger de leur apprendre aussi tous les petits

ouvrages de femmes…au lieu de dépenser de l’argent inutilement en achetant les

chiffons dont elles ont besoin. Enfin, il faut surtout les accoutumer à se mêler des soins

du ménage, les instruire avec détail de la manière dont on doit conduire une maison, et

leur donner l’exemple de la piété, de l’économie et de l’activité. (Genlis Lingère 188)

This passage highlights the fact that this is a morality play and indicates that even when women

are employed, their biggest concern should be about eventually becoming a wife and mother and

maintaining a household. Genlis appears to have two possible motives in including this passage.

First of all, it could be seen as an attempt to alleviate her own fears that traditional values of

marriage and motherhood are becoming obsolete in the increasingly hedonistic Parisian society.

Although Genlis does advocate for the education and training of young women, she values being

a good wife and properly raising one’s children above all else, and she herself abandoned

societal obligations to focus on her children. The passage also appears to fight back against the

concerns and criticisms leveled at women working in fashion professions by “reassuring” men

that women can uphold traditional values while working. She is therefore also attempting to

assuage fears about women working in fashion having loose morals.

The scene continues with the women discussing a play that they saw recently which they

deemed inappropriate and depraved, and they again make comments about the declining morals

of society. They discuss Aline’s odd behavior, commenting that up until this point she has been

very modest and pious, and they don’t understand why she has become so secretive. They

discuss her background- her mother died in childbirth and her father went into the military and

apparently also died, but the circumstances of his death are rather mysterious. Madame de

Solanges, a marquess, took her in and she was eventually lent to Madame Durocher as an

apprentice.

In the second act, Aline disappears. Catherine claims that Aline told her it was because she

needed to help her elderly aunt. Catherine mentions that the Marquis d’Olsey was in the boutique

that morning, and she is convinced that he seduced Aline and they have run off together.

Catherine did not inform Madame Durocher because Aline was worried Madame Durocher

would want to help her by giving her money and she felt embarrassed. Aline returns, claiming

that she received money and a letter from the Marquis d’Olsey, and that she went to return it to

his mother.

His mother, Comtesse d’Olsey, eventually arrives. The countess explains that Aline’s father, who

had left for the islands when he was in the army, returned to Paris in order to see his daughter.

While there, he was involved in a dispute with another officer and, thinking that he had killed his

comrade, fled and hid. He then wrote a letter to Aline attempting to explain what had happened,

which was the letter that Catherine assumed was a love letter. The Marquis d’Olsey was Aline’s

father’s colonel, and Aline communicated with her father through him, leading the girls in the

shop to believe that he was attempting to seduce Aline. The money that Aline needed was to help

her father, who had not, in fact, killed his comrade.

After hearing the Countess’ explanation, Madame Durocher expresses her horror at the situation

and what Aline has been through, and praises her character. « La pauvre petite...si jeune, se

comporter avec tant de prudence et de sagesse » (Genlis Lingère 217).The Countess tells

Madame Durocher that she is going to bring Aline to see her father. Aline leaves with the

countess and Georgette remarks : « Ma foi, voilà un beau jour pour mademoiselle Aline ; il y a

toujours à gagner à faire son devoir, je vois ben ça. Mademoiselle Georgette, vous êtes soucieuse

; vous avez du chagrin d’avoir tant médit de mademoiselle Aline, pas vrai ? Dame, y ne faut pas

être si preste à mal penser de son prochain… » (Genlis Lingère 219-20). The play ends with the

two leaving to see the Countess and Aline off.

This play emphasizes the importance of young women adhering to a moral code and being

hardworking, and also underlines the value of honesty. Madame Durocher tells Aline that if she

had explained the situation in the first place, Mme. Durocher could have helped her, and many of

the issues that occurred throughout the play could have been avoided. This suggestion implies

that young ladies in the employ of a mistress seamstress or merchant should view her as a mother

and obey her as such. Thus, in these two particular plays by Genlis, the marchande embodies a

mother figure and serves as a force for shaping her charges’ lives and future situations. While the

intention of the play might not have been to contradict critics claiming that the linen maids and

fashion merchants were corrupting young women, certainly Genlis establishes that workers and

apprentices in these professions could be upstanding women, and that the introduction of women

into the labor force and the expansion of the fashion industry could be positive for society. While

Genlis does not make any claims about women’s rights, nor does she advocate for their

independence, she does indicate that the morals and education of young women need to be

addressed. Furthermore, she seems to advocate that women can participate in the labor force

without upheaving class structures and gender constructs, which were two significant fears that

moralists and social critics had at the time. One persuasive argument for this line of thinking is

that employing women in honest work would lessen their chances of being forced into

prostitution, and also that if young women were kept occupied, they would have less time to

dwell on improper subjects or activities; namely engaging in pre-martial sexual relations.

Genlis also seemed to understand that because of the limited opportunities available to women at

the time, it was important to teach them not only to accept the kind of life they were destined to,

but to thrive in it: “If women were to be happy…they must be trained to accept their lot in life,

avoiding anything that might lead to frustration or discontent” (Trouille 284). Therefore,

although Genlis does advocate young women being educated to a certain extent, and even

advocates them being able to support themselves, she does not suggest that women should be

striving for equality; she is simply acknowledging the unavoidable within society: that

sometimes girls are required to work in order to survive, and if they must do so, they should do it

under the care of a respectable woman. In the most positive of outcomes, the young charges

would keep out of trouble and learn valuable skills that would prepare them to eventually be a

wife and mother. In this sense, Genlis was actually upholding traditional domestic values.

Practically, it made sense for young women not belonging to the aristocracy and upper-

bourgeoisie to learn useful skills that might enable them to contribute to supporting a future

family. Although aristocratic and many bourgeois women would never need to work, families in

the poor and working classes often could not rely solely on a husband’s income; therefore, the

majority of the time, the wife would also have to earn wages and it was preferable for her to do

so through the less grueling work of the garment industries.

Furthermore, having a useful skill that would aid in the support of a future family might even

benefit a woman in acquiring a husband in the first place: “If she could offer skill in some branch

of textile production, say as spinner, stocking knitter, or lacemaker, it could be a potential source

of income…thus an industrial skill might make her a doubly attractive proposition while

broadening her prospects” (Hufton 3). The reality was that, unless a young woman belonged to

the aristocracy or bourgeoisie, she was going to have to prepare herself for the fact that life

would probably be a constant struggle to provide for a family. Although Genlis supported a

devotion to motherhood and the family, she did not appear to idealize it as some did. She

acknowledged that being a wife and mother was the most important role a woman could hold,

but did not encourage women to attend to their children at the expense of being able to provide

for them. Indeed, for the poor and lower classes, “the rearing of children was a rather peripheral

activity; a parent’s main concern…was to maintain a regular supply of food” (Hufton 13). By

possessing useful skills that might have been acquired in the boutiques as described in Genlis’

works, working-class women might have been able to avoid both falling into poverty in their

younger years and resorting to prostitution, but also being unable to feed their children later on.

The mistress/apprentice relationship in the clothing industries also appeared in poetry and

advocated similar values as Genlis’ plays. The 1769 poem addressed to “Amatonte” entitled «

Brevet D’Agnès Pompon, Aprentisse Fille de Mode » describes the duties and moral

responsibilities of Agnès Pompon, a girl of just under fourteen years of age, who has been

apprenticed to her widowed aunt, a mistress fashion merchant in Paris. The poem describes the

relationship between the two, and what each woman is morally bound to do for the other. Agnès

is required to work for her aunt for six years. Her aunt, in return, must teach her the profession of

linen maid and fashion merchant, and will also house and clothe her:

De plus elle promet aussi…

Lui donner tout le nécessaire,

Le lit, le feu et la lumière ;

S’oblige de l’entretenir

De jupe et de robe galante39

This declaration reflects the relationships between mistress and apprentice that has been explored

in Genlis’ plays. These relationships were mutually beneficial, with the mistresses receiving both

labor and loyalty, and the apprentice receiving instruction, preparation for a future life as a wife

and mother, and often shelter and clothing. In addition, the mistresses of the shops were able to

uphold their reputations by training apprentices who would reflect positively upon them and their

39 Amatonte, A. "Brevet D'apprentissage D'une Fille De Mode." Gallica. N.p., 11 Dec. 2008. Web.

09 Apr. 2015. “What’s more, she promises too…To give her all necessities, A bed, a fire, and light, And is

obligated to provide her with clothing.”

businesses. At this point in time, it was still relatively new for women to be manage their own

business, and this was done out of necessity rather than a particular interest in mastering a trade.

Women who were able to master a trade and have the right to run their own shop and hire

apprentices did so in order to avoid the poverty that would likely come if they never found a

husband or were widowed: “Female masters might be encouraged to hope that continuity in their

own trade would help them avoid the economic deprivation that widowhood usually entailed”

(Hafter Ribbonmaking 12). The establishment of a widow/apprentice relationship was therefore

beneficial in alleviating both moral and economic concerns.

Since women involved in the fashion industries were not always viewed as trustworthy or

respectable, people often believed that boutiques were fronts for prostitution or escort services,

although these beliefs would become much more prevalent in the second half of the eighteenth

century. In the plays and poems discussed here, virtue and hard work is still emphasized and

valued by the mistresses of these boutiques. The instructions in this particular poem go a step

further by also emphasizing religion. They state that Pompon should only follow her mistress’

instructions if they are compatible with her religion:

En outre, elle promet aussi

D’exécuter avec souplesse

Ce qui lui dira sa maîtresse,

Pourvu que la religion

Ne contredise sa leçon

Pompon’s apprenticeship and morality is therefore based not only on her behavior, but also

contingent upon the orders given to her by her mistress. If it turns out her mistress is giving her

orders which are immoral or against her religion, she should not comply with them. Although

there is no indication that the mistress of this poem would lead Agnès to act immorally, perhaps

the instructions are making a wider assumption about the nature of the garment trades and

insinuating that it is possible for women working in them to be led astray. On the other hand, it is

also possible that the poem is trying to disprove beliefs that women in the garment trades are

immoral by indicating that religion is the highest law a woman should follow.

The brevet changes tone slightly and begins to describe the decadent nature of clothing and

accessories boutiques which is often criticized:

Enfin, la docile Pompon,

Pour faire en toute occasion,

L’avantage de sa maîtresse,

Se propose de consentir,

À satisfaire le désir

De voluptueuses pratiques

Qui soutiennent tant de boutiques

Qui brillent de cette façon

The contract is therefore admitting that boutiques like this are “upheld by voluptuous practices.”

Whether that means prostitution or just satisfying the frivolous desires of women, the author

appears to be implying that in spite of her mistress’s good reputation, this is still not work that is

entirely without reproach. In addition, the author seems to imply that Pompon is agreeing to do

whatever it takes to bring in business for her mistress. This portion of the contract is

contradictory- the author has previously said that Pompon should only carry out her mistress’s

wishes if they are consistent with morality and her religion, but now they appear to be suggesting

that Pompon has agreed to work to her mistress’s advantage at any occasion. However, the poem

does not suggest anything explicitly immoral, and perhaps it is merely emphasizing the need for

Pompon to work hard.

The last paragraphs of the contract focus on the terms of Pompon breaking the contract for her

apprenticeship and discuss the nature of hiring a young woman to be an apprentice:

Si par aventure,

La jeune apprentisse Pompon,

Pour suivre une fringate allure,

Ou chose de cette nature…

Et se retire à la sourdine

Avant que les six ans prescrits

Fussent tout à fait accomplis,

Dans ce cas que l’on imagine,

La susdite veuve Couvreur

Donne sa parole d’honneur

De faire chercher la coquine

Depuis Paris jusqu’à la Chine

This passage emphasizes the importance of Pompon following the terms of her apprenticeship

and the lengths her mistress will go to in order to uphold them. If Pompon decides that having

fun and adventure is more important than her apprenticeship, her mistress will “go all the way to

China” to find her. What’s more, the author indicates the consequences if Pompon does this:

Enfin de fureter partout

Jusqu’à ce qu’elle vienne à bout

De retrouver la libertine

Afin de la rendre aussitôt

À sa bonne et chère maîtresse

Non sans la punir comme il faut

De ce petit tour de jeunesse,

Pour ensuite plus sagement

Achever son apprentissage

If Pompon abandons her apprenticeship, her mistress will stop at nothing to retrieve her and

make her fulfill the terms of her contract. This passage underlines the importance of Pompon’s

education and moral upbringing, and highlights the widow’s investment in instructing her. The

passage assumes that Pompon, being a young lady, especially one involved in the fashion

industry, will want to leave her apprenticeship at some point to see the world and amuse herself.

While this is a rather fair assumption, the author notes that if Pompon does do this, she will be

punished, and will have to work even harder upon her return. This passage makes a contrast with

the previous one, noting that while the nature of Pompon’s and the widow’s work is rather

frivolous, it is important for Pompon to complete her apprenticeship in a dignified and

productive manner.

This poem, along with the plays of Mme de Genlis, offers several insights into the positive

aspects of girls and women participating in the garment trades, and why one might have argued

in favor of women being able to work in a limited set of occupations. First of all, with the

expansion of the garment trades during the eighteenth century, it was undeniably necessary that

more labor was needed. This labor was not going to be completed by men (as Rousseau says in

Émile, “the same hand that holds the sword should not thread the needle”), nor by aristocratic

women. Although this work did involve fabricating clothing and accessories worn by fashionable

ladies, it was by no means glamorous. It was difficult, tiring, and sometimes even dangerous:

“women and girls…were regularly exploited, underpaid, and, due to their working conditions,

often prone to diseases such as tuberculosis” (Bellhouse 118). Although the scenes depicted in

the works discussed in this chapter do not imply a dangerous environment, being a working girl

or woman had dangers and disadvantages, and it is clear that even the young ladies in a

wellestablished shop worked there out of necessity.

However, although there were dangers to be considered, working in the garment trades at this

time also provided advantages. The mistress of the boutique often served as a mother figure and

was able to keep an eye on her charges and instruct them in how to behave as good, modest

young ladies. If these young ladies were employed in honest work, they would not have time to

get themselves into trouble- perhaps engaging in prostitution or merely extramarital relations. In

spite of being involved in the “frivolous” clothing industries, the writers of these works do not

advocate idleness and excess, but usefulness and restraint. Genlis, although she herself was a

member of the nobility, effectively withdrew herself from court circles in order to focus on her

family, and she reportedly even went so far as to ignore protocol because she was focused on

being a good mother and teacher. Apparently, Genlis created a conflict between herself and

Queen Marie-Antoinette because she did not pay the queen a customary visit after the birth of

her child. Although this hardly confirms that Genlis disapproved of the nobility in general, it

does perhaps hint that she did not agree with many of its rules and customs, or its excess.

Further supporting the argument for young girls being involved in the production of

clothing, it is clear that their mistresses believed that the skills they learned might prepare them

to become a wife and mother someday, enabling them to instruct their future children, especially

female children, and helping them to provide for the family. In conclusion, these depictions of

both the mistresses of boutiques and marchandes, as well as their young charges, demonstrate

that, at the outset of their introduction to society, such women participated in the fashion

industries with good intentions, and made the best of difficult economic situations. While none

of the characters in these works appear to be working toward wealth or notoriety, they are at least

able to support themselves and prepare themselves for their future lives through honest, hard

work.

Chapter 3: The Fall from Grace of the Marchande de Modes

Although many marchandes de modes and other women involved in the clothing

industries were merely attempting to make an honest living for themselves and pass on their

knowledge and skills, these figures are more strongly remembered for the negative images and

criticism they eventually inspired. This criticism likely stemmed, at least in part, from

disapproval of the most famous marchande de modes, Rose Bertin. It is imperative to discuss

Bertin if we link the evolution of the fashion and luxury industries with the marchandes de

modes. She is significant for several reasons: she was a “social climber,” becoming well-known

and successful not because of her birth but because of her talent; she was the first woman

involved in the creation of fashion whose fame and success offered her a “celebrity status,” and

she held previously unheard-of influence over the production and consumption of clothing and

accessories thanks to her relationship with Queen Marie-Antoinette and other prominent women.

Mademoiselle Bertin held incredible sway over the fashionable women of France, and women

were fascinated with her. This fascination was likely due to several factors. First of all, Bertin did

not come from a wealthy background, and her success was almost entirely self-made, although

she did depend on the patronage of wealthy and important women in order to get her start.

Before becoming the most famous marchande de modes in France, Bertin was apprenticed to

another marchande de modes. Eventually she was able to ascend the social ladder and open her

own shop, Le Grand Mogol, in the fashionable Rue Saint-Honoré. A space such as Bertin’s

magasin de modes was relatively new; previously, while bourgeois women might frequent shops

in Paris, the highest members of the aristocracy ordered clothing to be brought to them at court,

as it was not considered appropriate for them to mix with people of other classes. As such, one

consequence of Bertin’s notoriety was a new co-mingling of classes and a new set of issues

regarding etiquette. Bertin’s shop inspired a frenzy in women of both high and low birth.

The marchande de modes’ shop, and that of Bertin in particular, was therefore

problematic because of the near-hysterical attitudes it provoked in supposedly respectable

women of the bourgeois and of the court mixing with those of the lower classes. Furthermore,

the lavish displays of the marchandes’ boutiques posed a moral problem as well, sending their

admirers into what were almost lustful hysterics:

Neither artist nor merchant, the marchande de modes acted as a bridge-or a

buffer- between the working classes and the aristocracy, enjoying intimate

access to the bedchambers and bodies of her social superiors, male and

female; alternatively, the classes might mingle in her own luxurious magasin.

As such, marchandes de modes were convenient (if problematic) symbols of

class, consumption, and sexuality. By displaying themselves to public view in

magasins de modes (fashion shops) and in the streets, marchandes de modes

provoked controversy and curiosity. Furthermore, because they sold fashions

to men as well as women, they were vulnerable to both moral attacks and

physical importunities. (Chrisman-Campbell 54-5)

The marchandes de modes, while simultaneously enjoying great success and notoriety, were

therefore also criticized as people who overstepped the boundaries of traditional etiquette and

facilitated interaction between classes. Furthermore, because they sold to both men and women,

their shops often fell under suspicion of being false fronts for prostitution. The sexual undertones

of business transactions between shop girls and their male customers made for a compelling

argument that these exchanges were not made with money alone. Eventually, the marchandes de

modes, who were once seen as decent and hardworking, were relegated to the ranks of prostitutes

and madams.

Therefore, in sharp contrast to the benevolent, motherly figures described in the previous

chapter, there were also many negative portrayals of women involved in fashion during the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Long-held fears about fashion and luxury and how they

could corrupt morals, notably those of women, were evidenced in works of literature at the time

that featured marchandes de modes, lingères, etc. While in the early eighteenth century many

contemporaries approved of marchandes de modes and agreed that it was better for women to

dress other women, the marchandes’ positive reputation was short-lived. Kimberley

ChrismanCampbell explains how the marchandes gained this unfortunate reputation in the later

eighteenth century:

Early eighteenth-century works of art and literature portray millinery as an

honest and practical trade for a single woman, often in direct contrast to

prostitution. By the late eighteenth century, however, “marchande de modes”

was practically a code name for “whore.” The fact that Louis XV’s unpopular

mistress Madame Du Barry had once been a marchande de modes may have

contributed to the association. Racy novels like Nougaret’s Les Jolis Pechés

d’une marchande de modes capitalized on the public’s eagerness to believe

the worst, perpetuating false stereotypes in the process. (64)

While many of these literary works do not go to such extremes as characterizing the marchande

de modes as “whores,” they were often portrayed as manipulative and self-serving, greedy, and

immoral. At the very least, even if the women themselves did not commit any wrongdoings in

their boutiques, they often aided women in their deceptions by enabling them to manipulate their

husbands into spending money on clothing and accessories. The crime of these women was not

only acting out of greed and vanity, but their actions also provided justification for men’s fears

that fashion led women to be deceptive. As a result, men began to wonder if their wives might be

deceiving them in other areas by being sexually unfaithful.

These kind of negative portrayals were also prevalent in works of theater at the time. One of the

more practical reasons for an increase in these kinds of figures was that younger actresses wanted

more roles which would allow them to play their own age as opposed to older women. Roles for

women became more available in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as the practice of

having men perform women’s roles began to decline. One of the reasons that younger female

characters began to appear in the theater, particularly in comedies, was that it was more difficult

for a man to portray a young, beautiful woman than to play an older woman who could be

caricaturized through heavy makeup and costumes.

Many of the plays that portrayed producers of fashion or their clients as manipulative or

deceitful were not necessarily doing so in order to convey a moral warning, but rather to simply

provide entertainment. The women in these plays were not particularly evil or immoral, but

playwrights played upon women’s need for constant novelty and the effect these needs had on

their husbands. This created comical situations in which there was often a misunderstanding

between husband and wife. Such situations were especially evident in farcical plays, where

marital disputes provided fodder for comic relief: “Important in the new comic vision were the

manipulative femme d’intrigues, the demimondaine seeking respectability, and the rich widows

on the hunt for titles of nobility” (Scott 208). In these farcical plays, male and female stereotypes

played off one another in order to create a comical situation. The men were stingy and boring,

and their shrewish wives fought against this by spending their husband’s money on frivolous

pursuits such as fashion. Further complicating these matters, and adding to the irony of the plays,

was the fact that the husbands were often penny-pinching because they were spending money on

their mistresses, and often the wife’s desire to appear beautiful was to impress younger men.

Another issue demonstrated in these theatrical works was that the new system of fashion, taste,

and consumption was upending traditional rules and order. It was often no longer possible to

discern a person’s social status based on his or her clothing. This was due in large part to the

increasing availability and fluidity of fashion, which disrupted long-established rules linked to

class. Along with confusion about the rules governing what clothing people could wear came the

blurring of rules governing who had access to the highest levels of the nobility, and who had

influence on society. The middle and lower classes were gaining momentum and obtaining

influence, and it was now possible for members of the bourgeoisie to purchase titles of nobility

rather than obtaining them by birth or through marriage. While purchasing a noble title was not

possible for a woman, it was possible for a woman to set her sights on a title by marrying a

member of the nobility. As evidenced in many of the works in this chapter, some bourgeoises

were no longer satisfied with living a relatively comfortable “middle-class” lifestyle; they

wanted to attain even higher levels of social status and wealth, and truly feel that they belonged

in the highest elite. These issues are demonstrated in many theatrical works of the later

eighteenth century, where it was no longer possible to rely on traditional orders and systems. The

new and continuously evolving social situation in France forced new forms of literature and

theater to appear, as old themes and structures longer made sense: “Classical comedy assumes a

predictable world with known outcomes, but the late-century stage reflects a world in which

appearance rules, class and rank are fluctuating and volatile, and that everything that that once

was fixed is now unstable.

According to Guy Spielmann, ‘the most significant dislocation was that of the family and

marriage’” (Scott 208). While “dislocation” is perhaps an extreme term for the phenomenon

occurring in the eighteenth century, many of the literary works of the time reflect a rejection of

traditional family values. The breakdown of the traditional marriage and family portrayed in

these plays could be perceived as criticism of the rejection of marriage and the family that had

occurred in the early eighteenth century because by the end of the eighteenth century, France was

returning to more traditional values. One major change was that by this point in time, even

women of the aristocracy were being entreated to focus on their marriages and families in favor

of the pursuit of pleasures and courtly distractions.

These farcical plays testify to the more problematic concerns that lurked behind criticism of

fashion and luxury. While these works were comical, they also portrayed the serious problems

occurring in male-female interactions, particularly within the realm of marriage. The first play

analyzed in this chapter, Les Bourgeoises à la Mode, by Florent Dancourt, depicts two difficult

situations that arose because of the new social order and changing values of the time: the

dissolution of traditional marriage and family values, as well as the trend of bourgeoise women

attempting to improve social standing with excessive luxury. The main characters in the play are

M. Simon, a notary, his wife, Angélique, and their daughter, Mariane; M. Griffard, a

commissioner, and his wife Araminte; Lisette, Angélique’s chambermaid; Mme Amelin, the

fashion merchant; Le Chevalier (the Knight), who is in love with Mariane, and Frontin, the

“schemer.” Frontin’s actual title is “Intriguant,” and he serves as a go-between for all of the

intrigues occurring during the play.

The play opens with Frontin and Le Chevalier discussing Le Chevalier’s love interest, Mariane,

and her mother, Angélique. Angélique is mocked for her excessive spending, which everyone is

aware of except her, and she is used as a stereotypical representation of women who spend

money in excess in order to improve their social situation. Her character testifies to the fears that

once people in more social strati had access to luxury items, they would not be satisfied with

what was already available to them, but would be constantly craving more, sending themselves

into debt and upsetting the social and familial order.

Angélique is not a working woman, and therefore all of the money she spends and the debts

she creates belong to her husband. Although Angélique is mocked, her spending habits create an

advantage for Le Chevalier because he has convinced her to organize gambling games at her

home, allowing him more time around Mariane. When Frontin asks Le Chevalier what

Angélique’s husband thinks of all her spending and gambling, Le Chevalier reassures him that

the notary takes little notice of what his wife does because he is in love with Araminte, the

Commissioner’s wife. The audience learns that Le Chevalier also likes gambling and women,

and that these propensities have gained him a reputation. The implication is that in order to have

a reputation as someone of status, a certain kind of image is required; in this case, that of a

playboy and gambler. In present times, if someone is rich, they need to flaunt their wealth in

order to be noticed by the right kind of people. This attitude testifies to the current changing

social climate which favors visible wealth over rights and possessions obtained by birth.

Lisette, the chambermaid, further confirms that Angélique is the head of the household and not

her husband. When Frontin questions her about the notary and how much he knows about

Angélique’s gambling and spending, she answers that the notary is not really in charge, but this

is now typical of many bourgeois families. This situation also demonstrates the breakdown in

traditional marriage and family values where the husband would be in charge of most aspects of

family life, with the exception of raising children.

It becomes evident that Angélique only cares about her personal enjoyment in Scene

V. When she finds out that her husband is in love with another woman, she is not heartbroken or

betrayed, merely disappointed about her social status. Angélique serves as a symbol of the kind

of woman many critics of the time feared would upend the traditional social and familial order;

JeanJacques Rousseau being among them. Rousseau advocated for respect and restraint in

women, and believed they should work hard to please their husbands and to raise their children

well. Angélique embodies the opposite of these values. She has no desire to please her husband;

rather, she delights in taking his money and complaining about him, and she has no real interest

in her child other than attempting to make her a good marriage match in order to improve her

own social situation. Angélique laments that she is not higher up in the social structure by asking

Lisette « N’est-il pas vrai que j’étois née pour être tout au moins Marquise, Lisette? », and

Lisette responds wisely,

« Assurément. Mais aussi, Madame, ne faites-vous pas comme si vous l’étiez » (Dancourt 15).

This exchange echoes the sentiments of Genlis, whose virtuous characters warn women not to act

above their birth and their means, as well as Madame Ducostume. Angélique responds by

complaining that she does not wish harm on anyone, she just wants to be able to enjoy herself,

and she cannot do this as much as she would like because she is merely a notary’s wife.

The audience is then introduced to Mme Amelin, the marchande de modes, who arrives at

Angelique’s home, asking to be paid what she is owed. As Angélique does not have any money,

she asks Lisette to offer a diamond to Mme Amelin as payment. Angélique and Mme Amelin

discuss the debts that are owed to Mme Amelin; many of her clients have borrowed from her or

paid on credit, and she is sure that she will never be repaid all that she is owed. This exchange

reflects another alarming trend at the time: many bourgeoise and aristocratic women paid

merchants exclusively through a system of credit; this is one of the reasons that many

marchandes de modes, despite being successful at one time, ended up penniless, and perhaps

helps to explain why their trade eventually essentially disappeared in favor of larger shops.

Furthermore, Mme Amelin confesses that she has a son who spends all of their money on

women and gambling. She complains that the world has adopted an attitude of spending

frivolously and pretending to be of higher social rank than one actually is: « C’est comme tout le

monde aujourd’hui. On veut paroître ce qu’on n’est pas… » (Dancourt 23).Ironically, Madame

Amelin is against someone pretending to have money when they do not, even though it is this

kind of behavior that supports her business.

The audience then learns that Le Chevalier is Mme Amelin’s son, and his real name is Jannot.

Mme Amelin confronts him, and asks him why he refuses to acknowledge her as his mother, and

complains that he must be ashamed of her. Le Chevalier assures her that if he is recognized as

her son, he will not be able to marry Mariane, because it would not be appropriate for the son of

a fashion merchant to marry the daughter of a notary. When Le Chevalier encounters his mother

at the notary’s home, he pretends to have no idea who she is. Mme Amelin, however, remarks

that the Chevalier seems to be a good person, and Lisette reiterates that good people no longer

exist and that good times are over. Mme Amelin also becomes aware that Angélique does not

have the money to pay her; but she agrees to accept the diamond as collateral for the money that

she is owed. Lisette confides in her Angélique’s problem with gambling, and that, although she

has the diamond, she needs cash in order to play. The first act ends with Lisette complaining that

she must serve as the go-between for everyone else.

In the second act, Angélique prepares to receive guests for gambling by spending money

on furniture and items for playing, such as dice. She also receives a visit from Araminte, and the

two ladies complain about their “stingy” husbands. In Scene VI, Lisette describes to the audience

the plot Araminte and Angélique have created to “ruin” their husbands : « Elles vont tenir

entre’elles un petit conseil contre leurs Maris, & sans cela que feroient-elles. Grace à l’avarice et

la bizarrerie des hommes, c’est aujourd’hui la plus nécessaire occupation qu’ayent les Femmes »

(Dancourt 43). This monologue reflects concerns about the breakdown of marriage and the

family. Many members of the middle classes, particularly women, (although it is clear by the

case of Jannot/Le Chevalier that this affected men as well) now thought that it was necessary to

spend money in order to appear as someone who belonged in the right social circles. This being

the case, obligations of marriage, family, and household were often cast aside, threatening the

balance between genders and social classes.

The breakdown of marriage and the family in favor of appearance and social mobility is further

confirmed by Lisette in Scene VIII. According to Lisette, it is now accepted as “natural” that

husbands and wives are unhappy. M. Griffard, the Commissioner, arrives to question Lisette

about her mistress and her husband. He asks about the state of their marriage and how they live

together. Lisette responds : « Comme un Mari & une Femme. Ils sont toujours fâchez, se

querellent souvent, se raccommodent peu, boudent sans cesse, se plaignent fort l’un de l’autre, &

peut-être ont tous deux raison. C’est tout comme chez vous enfin, & n’est-ce pas par tout de

même ? » (Dancourt 51).

Lisette expresses that marriage equals misery, and the discord between her master and

his wife is now commonplace. Rather than rejoicing in traditional domesticity, wives and

husbands argue, complain, and live separate lives. The notary and his wife are perfect examples;

the notary does not know what his wife is plotting behind his back, and he is unaware that she

actually knows about his love for Araminte. Lisette senses that Griffard is also unhappy with his

wife, and asks him if he might be in love with someone else (his “neighbor’s wife”). Here, the

audience learns that Griffard is in love with Angélique, just as M. Simon is in love with his wife.

Lisette warns Griffard to be careful, as it is impossible to trade wives, convenient as that would

be. In the second act, Lisette makes more observations about the fragile state of M. and Mme

Simon’s marriage, remarking that Simon seems to take care to avoid his wife: « La grande

merveille! Vous dormez quand elle revient, vous voulez la voir quand elle dort, ou vous êtes sorti

quand elle s’éveille, le moyen de vous rencontrer » (Dancourt 58). Even worse, Simon indicates

to Lisette that his wife should be taking care of her household, and Lisette questions why

Angélique, a notary’s wife, should lower herself to such levels. M. Simon responds that he only

wishes her to remain in the household rather than going out constantly, and that he has no

problem with her inviting people over, and he suggests Araminte as a good candidate for

company. Of course, the audience knows that he suggests this in order that he might see more of

Araminte. As this is what Angélique desires anyway, Lisette makes a final comment at the end of

Act II: « Ah que les pauvres Maris sont bien nez pour être dupes! il va quereller sa Femme pour

lui faire faire quelque chose qu’elle souhaite » (Dancourt 60).

The focus of the plot then shifts onto the relationship between the Chevalier and

Mariane. Lisette and Mariane are still unaware of Le Chevalier’s true identity as Jannot. Mme

Amelin comes to the notary’s home, asking about the diamond that Lisette supposedly brought to

her, because she cannot find it. She complains to Lisette that her mischievous son must have

taken it. She then asks Lisette if there are any young girls in the household who need to be

married, and although she claims that she is just asking out of curiosity, Lisette suspects that she

actually wants to try and make a match between her son and Mariane. Lisette is suspicious of this

because Mme Amelin has consistently complained about her son being capricious and

untrustworthy.

In a discussion between Lisette and Frontin, the two come to realize the irony of the situation

concerning Araminte and Angélique and the fact that their husbands are in love with one

another’s wives. In the next scene, rather than being angry that their husbands are in love with

the wrong wives, Araminte and Angélique decide that the situation is a perfect way to enact

revenge on their husbands for being greedy and cheap. The two women once again demonstrate

that their personal enjoyment is more important than the love and happiness of their husbands,

and the health of their marriage. Frontin and Lisette agree to help Angélique and Araminte enact

their revenge. M. Griffard returns to the notary’s home, and Lisette confesses that she has told

her mistress about his feelings. She also admits to him that Angélique has money problems, but

she warns Griffard not to try and act the hero by helping her because it will only embarrass

Angélique. She does, however, come up with a way in which he can help her. Lisettes confides

to Griffard that Angélique likes to gamble, and that she does not always play with the most

trustworthy people. She therefore encourages him to anonymously send Angélique money.

Lisette explains that this is the most gallant way to help out Angélique; it will save her from

embarrassment and also will avoid Griffard having any trouble with M. Simon, because he will

never know who provided the money.

Although it has not been a focal point for the plot as of yet, the intrigue still remains of

Jannot, who is posing as Le Chevalier. In the next scene, Lisette ironically points out to Le

Chevalier that he might have a rival for Mariane’s affections: Jannot, the son of Mme Amelin,

whom the audience knows to be one and the same. Another complication is added to the plot:

Frontin threatens to reveal Le Chevalier as Jannot if he does not help him after his marriage is

concluded. He asks for some materials in order to establish himself. One of the reasons for

Frontin’s behavior is that he feels he should not be left behind by Jannot’s marriage, as they have

grown up together and are essentially of the same social standing. Jannot, however, in pretending

to be Le Chevalier and in securing a good marriage for himself, will move up the social strata,

leaving Frontin in a tenuous situation. All that Frontin asks is for Jannot to help him, and, if he

does so, Frontin promises « j’oublie l’égalité de nos naissances, & je vous regarde comme le

Gentilhomme de France le moins roturier » (Dancourt 93). This exchange between Frontin and

Janot emphasizes one of the key problems of the new society, which is based neither on birth nor

on merit, but on wealth and image. Jannot is not noble by birth, and he is described several times

as being roguish and soppy, so his character is not particularly admirable. However, because he

looks and acts the part of someone wealthy and successful, he is accepted as so. One of the

criticisms of the increased focus French society has on appearances and luxury at this time is that

it allows people to be duped into believing that members of the common classes possess the

same qualities as the aristocracy, and that birth and heritage are no longer the sole identifiers of

class and birth.

The next scene again highlights the disintegration of marriage and family that often inspired

farces such as Les Bourgeoises à la Mode. Le Chevalier finally makes his affections known to Mariane

and proposes to her. Mariane is reticent because, having her mother and father as examples, she is under

the impression that marriage means the end of love. Her desire for romantic love does not coincide with

her understanding of marriage. The next scene between Angélique and M. Simon confirms this.

Angélique claims that she has a headache, and M. Simon wonders how she is still alive after all the

complaints that she has. They begin to exchange insults and list one another’s shortcomings, and a major

part of their disagreement seems to be that each of them has a fundamental misunderstanding of the

opposite sex. Angélique doesn’t understand men’s strange behavior, and Simon remarks that women

complain too much. This passage demonstrates another contemporary issue: an increasing awareness of

the differences between men and women and a difficulty bridging a gap between these differences.

Previously, women were essentially viewed as weaker versions of men. They were expected to fulfill

only the roles of wife and mother, and little thought was put into what might drive them and distinguish

them from men. As perceptions of women changed, and women gained more independence, men were

often left frustrated, not understanding why their wives were unhappy with the roles previously ascribed

to them. In turn, many women did not understand why men wouldn’t go to any lengths to make their

wives happy. Angélique and M. Simon’s marriage reflects an inherent lack of understanding between

the sexes.

Lisette and Angélique then set into motion their plan to organize card games at home.

M. Simon has already complained that Angélique is never home; Angélique calls their house her

“prison,” but indicates that there might be a way to make it more bearable. She says that she

should at least be able to enjoy herself at home, and Simon says that he has no problem with

letting her entertain people, and suggests Araminte for company. Lisette points out that it could

be to Simon’s benefit that Angélique holds a card game at home, since she could win a lot of

money, and then he would not have to give her any more: « Les femmes à qui leurs maris ne

donnent point d’argent, ne sont pas toujours celles qui en dépensent le moins » (Dancourt 111).

In reminding him that Angélique will find a way to spend money no matter what, Lisette

manages to convince Simon to allow Angélique to hold a card game at their home, in spite of his

concerns that the situation will make it seem as through he is putting on airs.

Frontin then tells M. Simon that Araminte is in debt and will be in trouble if her husband finds

out, but that there is no way to help without embarrassing and upsetting her. Frontin therefore

offers himself as a go-between: he will take the money and bring it to the people that Araminte

owes. In the next scene, Le Chevalier complains that he is never going to convince Mariane to

marry him without her father’s permission, and for this he needs money. Frontin reassures him

that with the diamond he possesses they will find a way to obtain the necessary money, and

suggests that they bring the diamond to a goldsmith to pawn. In Scene V of Act V, Lisette gives

Angélique money and admits to her that the money was given to Frontin by M. Simon for

Araminte- so the money that Simon intended for Araminte has been given directly back to his

wife. The audience now knows that Frontin has been playing as a double agent. Angélique is

angry that Simon gave Araminte so much when he refuses her, but Lisette reminds her that she is

getting what she wants and taking revenge on M. Simon: « Nous nous vangeons assez bien de

son avarice, il ne faut pas se plaindre » (Dancourt 212).

In the next scene, the goldsmith arrives at M. Simon’s, bringing with him the diamond that has

caused so much trouble, and telling him that a young man brought it to him to sell. M. Simon

tells him that this young man must be arrested. He discovers that it was Frontin who brought the

diamond to the goldsmith, and naturally assumes that Frontin stole the diamond from him. Simon

asks Frontin how he obtained the diamond, and Frontin tells him that his friend, Jannot, gave it to

him, but Simon does not believe him. They argue: Simon demands his money, and Frontin

demands the diamond. Lisette, Angélique, Mariane, Araminte and M. Griffard hear them

arguing. In order to keep Frontin from being arrested and herself for being found out, Angélique

pretends that Simon is mistaking the diamond for the one she owned and claims that it is not the

same one.

Mme. Amelin arrives, and explains that Angélique gave the diamond to her in order to pay her

debts while waiting for cash. M. Simon is shocked, but Angélique tells him that if he were not so

stingy, she would not have had to resort to such drastic measures: « J’ai honte pour vous que

l’excès de votre avarice me reduire à mettre en gage mes pierreries, vous m’auriez épargné cette

confusion, en me donnant ce Billet de mille écus, dont vous avez fait present à Madame »

(Dancourt 228). M. Griffard now knows that Simon offered Araminte one thousand écus, and

when he becomes angry, Araminte reassures him that she only accepted it in order to replace the

two hundred louis that he gave to Angélique. Both men now realize that their wives have known

about their misdirected affections all along. Mme. Amelin demands the money she is owed from

M. Simon, and Angélique tells him that if he will give Mme. Amelin the money that is owed, she

will forgive him for having given a thousand écus to Araminte. Upon hearing this, M. Simon

claims « J’enrage : Je créve, & je renonce à toutes les femmes » (Dancourt 230).56 In the end,

both Araminte and Angélique have paid their debts and gotten revenge on their husbands for

being in love with another woman.

In the final scene, Mme Amelin reveals that Le Chevalier is her son, Jannot. Mme. Amelin then

tells Angélique that Jannot will inherit twenty thousand écus from her, and Angélique says that

she will find a way to convince Simon to consent to Mariane and Jannot’s marriage, and also

promises Araminte that she will find a way to fix things between her and Griffard. Lisette makes

one final remark: « Par ma foi si les hommes donnoient à leurs femmes ce qu’ils dépensent pour

leurs maîtresses, ils feroient mieux leurs comptes de toutes manières » (Dancourt 233).

Essentially, if men put in the same effort with their wives as they did with their “mistresses,”

both husbands and wives would be much happier. Lisette confirms much of what has been said

throughout the play: that the solidity of a couple depends on the wife’s happiness.

Several important themes can be observed throughout the play, and several components

contribute to its farcical nature. First of all, the play reflects the “breakdown of marriage and

family” that is often depicted in farces at this time. Both husbands and wives contribute to this

breakdown. The husbands deceive their wives and are emotionally, if not sexually, unfaithful. On

the other hand, the wives only care about money and appearances, and they are willing to ruin

their husbands financially in order to obtain the luxuries they desire.

Furthermore, the play also demonstrates the relegation of maternal care to tutors and nurses that

bourgeoise women took advantage once they had access to more wealth and a wider variety of

activities, and which was a concern for many conservative, traditional critics. Although Mariane

is not young and does not rely on her mother for care, she and Angélique do not share a strong

mother-daughter bond. The two barely interact, and most of Mariane’s time is spent either with

the chambermaid, Lisette, or her tutors, while her mother spends her time with her friends or out

doing errands or shopping. Several comments throughout the play reflect that this has become

the norm: children remain at home in the care of nurses and tutors until they either begin a

profession (in the case of males) or marry. Before, this behavior was mainly limited to

aristocratic women, who were sometimes required to leave their children in the care of others as

they fulfilled social duties. Now, with increased wealth circulating within the bourgeoisie, and

increased pressure on members of the bourgeoisie to act and dress a certain way, bourgeoise

women have now fallen into similar patterns. The play therefore also demonstrates the

breakdown of the home and domestic realm. The wives (Angélique and Araminte) do not take

any pride in raising their children or running their home. They prefer to be outside, being seen

and interacting with others. Angélique even goes as far as to call her home a prison. This

demonstrates that society is becoming more open and more fluid: more people are allowed to

interact with one another in a wider variety of settings than ever before, especially in the case of

women.

The play also deals with the breakdown of traditional French society, and the role that the

fashion and luxury industries have played in its restructuring. People can no longer rely on birth

or even professions to distinguish who belongs to what class, as people often dress above their

class and act above their means. For example, Jannot dresses and acts above his station, and is

accepted as being Le Chevalier simply because he dresses and acts the part. Money apparently

fixes everything in the new society, as evidenced by Angélique’s reaction when she finds out that

Jannot is going to inherit twenty thousand écus, and is now willing to accept him as a viable

suitor for her daughter. The women in the play are obsessed with fashion and appearances. The

men are called stingy and greedy, but there is no actual indication that they are stingy and greedy

apart from their wives’ complaints about not having sufficient funds for gambling or shopping; it

is certainly not a case of the women going without basic needs. However, the women’s attitude

implies that being able to purchase the latest luxury goods and accessories and having the means

to appear to be of a certain status are basic needs. All of these elements render this play a farce,

and in doing so, the play puts into action concerns about the breakdown of family and marriage,

and while the tone of the play might be comical, the content was a serious concern for critics at

the time.

A similar play is Le Voile D'Angleterre Ou, La Revendeuse à La Toilette. Comédievaudeville

En Un Acte by Charles François Moreau. This play centers on two couples, the De Sennevilles

and the Bernards. M. de Senneville is a banker, and M. Bernard is a former merchant. The play

opens with Madame de Senneville receiving letters asking her for money, but she already has

many debts of her own. Madame Pichard, the marchande, arrives with a veil that she wants Mme

de Senneville to buy. She attempts to convince Mme de Senneville to purchase the veil by

describing its illustrious previous owners. Madame Pichard is not just a merchant, but is better

categorized as a revendeuse à la toilette. Unlike marchandes de modes, who supplied the

accoutrements for already-made gowns, and also provided accessories for hairstyles, a

revendeuse would re-sell (“revendre” being the French word for “resell”) used items. She served

as a kind of portable secondhand shop. By purchasing from and selling to revendeuses, women

could update their wardrobes while spending less money. Even noblewomen often sold to

revendeuses and then purchased new items, as under some circumstances they were only allowed

to wear items a certain number of times in formal settings.

Madame Pichard tells Mme de Senneville that the veil was originally commissioned by

an English nobleman, and that the previous owner was a young woman who wanted to resell it to

pay her debts. Mme de Senneville confides to Pichard that not only can she not purchase the veil,

but she already owes money. Mme Pichard has a clever idea: they will convince M. de

Senneville to purchase the veil as a gift for Mme de Senneville, and then they will resell the veil

and Mme de Senneville can use the money to pay her debts. Mme Pichard claims to know the

perfect person to resell the veil to: « Je connais…une grosse bourgeoise, qui demeure à deux pas

d’ici, et qui paie tout comptant; elle achètera votre voile » (Moreau 6). However, Madame

Pichard tells Mme de Senneville that they must be quick about selling the veil to this woman, as

usually she debates over purchases with others, especially her husband, making sure that the item

does not cost too much or make her look ridiculous. Mme Pichard claims that this makes her

classless: « Cela a de l’ordre, des scrupules…Ce sont de petites gens » (Moreau 6). The

implication here is that, by being frugal with money, this bourgeoise woman is not of the same

class and good taste as Mme de Senneville.

Mme de Senneville does feel guilty about deceiving her husband, unlike the women in

Les Bourgeoises à la Mode, but Mme Pichard reassures her that this kind of behavior from wives

is normal now: « Toutes les femmes aiment la dépense; les maris ne préchent que l’économie; il

faut donc qu’un tiers intervienne pour assurer le paix du ménage » (Moreau 7). Contemporary

gender stereotypes are reinforced here: wives want to spend money, and their husbands prevent

them from doing so. Because of this conflict, there should be a way to keep both parties happy.

In this case, “keeping the peace” involves the wife spending money without her husband finding

out. The marchande serves as a manipulative outside influence who is willing to ruin marriages

in order to earn money. By implying that it is low-class to have scruples about spending money

and deceiving one’s husband, Mme Pichard gives the impression that she herself is without

scruples, and reinforces negative stereotypes of marchandes. She is by no means evil, but

certainly a bad influence and an enabler. In Scene IV, there is further implication that bourgeoise

women are always seeking to improve their social status. M. de Senneville tells his wife that he

has invited over M. Bernard and his wife, and Mme de Senneville protests, claiming that the

couple are merely former merchants and that they should try and spend their time with people of

a higher rank. Even amongst the bourgeoisie, there is competition, and “social climbers” like

Mme de Senneville are always attempting to improve their social standing, be it through the right

clothing or the right friends.

Mme de Senneville and Mme Pichard then put their plan into action. Mme Pichard

arrives, and Mme de Senneville pretends that she has not already seen her, and complains to her

husband that Mme Pichard is always pestering her to buy something. Mme Pichard apologizes by

saying that she believed only M. de Senneville was at home, and she wanted to suggest the veil

as a gift. In order to soften M. de Senneville, Mme. Pichard talks about how frugal Mme de

Senneville is, and that she never wants to buy anything. This is, of course, merely part of the

game she is playing to convince M. de Senneville to purchase the veil. M. de Senneville agrees to

purchase the veil, despite his wife’s many protests that it is too expensive and that she does not

need it. This provokes the question of why M. de Senneville agrees to buy the veil, which no one

expects when Mme de Senneville and M. Pichard hatch their plan. There are two probable

reasons: first of all, although M. de Senneville is likely frugal, he is not portrayed as being as

stingy and strict as the husbands in Les Bourgeoises à la Mode. It almost appears as though M.

de Senneville purchases the veil because he does not want to be thought of as stingy. Also,

although there is clearly a disconnect between husband and wife in this play, M. de Senneville

does appear to actually love his wife. He treats her kindly, and appears reasonable, so it is

possible that he wanted to purchase the veil to make her happy.

The audience is then introduced to Madame de Saint-Hilaire, an actress who is an

acquaintance of Mme de Senneville. Mme de Senneville tells her that she is expecting a visit

from an annoying bourgeoise (Mme Bernard), and Mme de Saint-Hilaire agrees to stay so they

may entertain themselves by making fun of Mme Bernard. M. and Mme Bernard arrive, and M.

Senneville, upon seeing Mme Bernard, asks « C’est donc la journée aux voiles? », noticing that

Mme Bernard is wearing a veil extremely similar to the one he just purchased for his wife. Mme

de Senneville realizes with horror that Mme Pichard was referring to Mme Bernard when talking

about the scrupulous bourgeoise, and that Mme Pichard has resold the veil that M. de Senneville

just purchased to Mme Bernard. The couples discuss how funny it is that Mme de Senneville and

Mme Bernard have similar veils, and M. Bernard jokes about the situation that the two husbands

are unknowingly in: « Le plus plaisant de l’aventure, c’est qu’on prétend que c’est un mari qui

vient d’acheter ce voile et que sa femme le fait revendre, à son insçu, pour payer des dettes dont

l’époux n’a pas connaissance » (Moreau 18). Mme de Senneville is horrified at the direction the

conversation is taking, and steers them away from the discussion. M. de Senneville remarks that

one of them is certainly being deceived. The discussion continues, with Mme de Senneville

telling her husband that he is the one who “forced” her to buy the veil in the first place, and Mme

Bernard complains that her husband never buys her anything, but bought her the veil. Mme de

Senneville senses that her deception is going to be revealed, and laments « Ah! Je le vois bien, la

ruse tourne presque toujours contre celui qui l’invente » (Moreau 23). She then admits her

predicament to Mme de Saint-Hilaire, who understands and agrees to lend her the money she

needs to pay her debts so that her husband will not find out about the money she owes : « Entre

femmes il faut s’obliger » (Moreau 25). This exchange could be seen as a means of highlighting

the fears that men are currently experiencing; that women’s desire for luxury is overtaking their

affection for their husbands, and that women are conspiring against men, at the very least in

order to mock them, but also potentially in order to live without them. At the time, there was also

criticism against women having close friendships with other women. Women who spent too

much time with other women were often accused of neglecting their husbands and children, and

this occasionally led to accusations of unnatural relations between women. Marie-Antoinette, for

example, fell prey to these kinds of accusations when she spent an extraordinary amount of time

in the company of her closest friends, the Duchesse de Polignac and the Princesse de Lamballe,

rather than spending time with her husband and children.

In the next scene between Mme Bernard and Mme Pichard, Mme Bernard asks Mme

Pichard to sell her the cheaper version of the veil, insisting that her husband will never know the

difference. Mme Pichard exclaims that she has never found herself in such a predicament: « Que

j’ai été surprise tantôt, en voyant ici madame Bernard! Depuis que je vends à la toilette, jamais

pareille chose m’était arrivée ; et cependant j’en ai bien vu ! » (Moreau 28). The following scene

threatens to reveal the women’s deceit. M. de Senneville, who earlier has suggested that Mme de

Senneville put on her veil, suspecting that what M. Bernard was joking about earlier is true, asks

her again to put on the veil. Mme de Senneville refuses, saying that it would be pretentious and

ridiculous to wear a veil in one’s own home, and M. de Senneville becomes angry, ordering her

to put on the veil: « Ce n’est plus une prière que je vous adresse, c’est un ordre que je vous donne

(Moreau 32). Mme de Senneville and Mme de Saint-Hilaire pretend to be shocked at his cruelty,

and after it has been proven that the veil that Mme Bernard has is not the same as the one he

purchased for his wife (Mme Bernard having switched her veil for the cheaper version), Mme de

Saint-Hilaire rebukes M. de Senneville for accusing his wife and then attempting to apologize

and remedy things straightaway:

Voilà bien les hommes ! …On a une femme charmante, fidelle, attaché à ses devoirs ; qui

nous aime, nous chérit. Un caprice nous passe par la tête ; on injurie, on tourmente cette

pauvre femme ; on l’accable de mauvais procédés. L’instant d’après, on reconnaît son

erreur ; et l’on croit tout réparer en demandant pardon (Moreau 35-6)

M. de Senneville apologizes and offers to repurchase the veil, but Mme de Senneville says that it

will remind her too much of the whole difficult situation. The play ends with Mme de Saint-

Hilaire admonishing M. de Senneville, saying that he has ended up spending more money than

originally needed as a result of not believing his wife about the veil in the first place: « Vous

n’aviez d’abord payé ce voile que quinze cents francs; et maintenant il vous coute mille écus.

Voilà ce qu’on gagne à soupçonner sa femme » (Moreau 37). M. de Senneville feels awful, Mme

de Senneville is vindicated, and Mme Pichard receives her money. Once again the women

succeed in tricking their husbands, and the marchande makes a profit. Although the play shares

similar elements with Les

Bourgeoises à la Mode, they are different in many ways. The main difference is that, while Le

Voile d’Angleterre does employ the stereotype of the spendthrift wife who goes into debt behind

her husband’s back, the marital discord within the couple is less obvious. While there is a

conflict at the end with M. de Senneville “ordering” his wife to try on her veil, and Mme de

Saint-Hilaire criticizing him for his attitude, overall, it does not appear as though the de

Sennevilles have an unhappy marriage. M. de Senneville compliments his wife when Mme

Pichard praises her frugality, and even though Mme Pichard is lying, there is a tender exchange

between the De Sennevilles, as opposed to the Simons, who have only negative things to say

about one another. Although both plays can be categorized as farces, Le Voile d’Angleterre is

more light-hearted and comical, playing on the irony that Mme Bernard shows up in the veil that

Mme de Senneville has just resold. On the contrary, Les Bourgeoises à la Mode portrays most of

the characters as unpleasant and manipulative, and reinforces the idea that many people now see

marriage as a miserable institution.

In a dissertation entitled Defying domesticity: Prostitute-heroines of eighteenth-century french

memoir novels and the public sphere, Alistaire Tallent (of Vanderbilt University) writes about

“erotic pseudo-memoirs” being one of the major categories of literary works during the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries centered upon what he terms “prostitute-heroines.” For

Tallent, the category is rather broad, and he definines a prostitute as “a female character who

accepts some kind of financial support from a man in exchange for sexual favors outside

marriage” (Tallent 82). While this definition seems obvious, it does allow for a certain amount of

interpretation and imagination. Although Tallent does not discuss the following novel in his

dissertation, one relatively well-known work which was popular at the time of its publication

which combines the concept of prostitute-heroines with the declining morals of the marchande de

modes is the “racy” novel Les Jolis Péchés d’une Marchande de Modes, ou Ainsi Va le Monde

by Pierre-Jean-Baptiste Nougaret. While the novel is not written in the first-person narrative as

are the memoirs that Tallent writes about, the main female character could be categorized as a

prostitute-heroine.

The novel follows the lives of d’Ornival, a poor lawyer in Paris, and Rose, a marchande de

modes. D’Ornival is an idealist who believes that hard work and talent will bring him fortune,

whereas the narrator indicates that at the time in France, success and notoriety are not a result of

hard work and personal merit; rather, one obtains them through connections and appearances,

themes that echo the character of Jannot in Les Bourgeoises à la Mode. When the reader is

introduced to d’Ornival, he is dying of hunger because he spends his time and money trying to

become a member of high society: « Il ne songeait qu’à des titres, qu’à des places, qu’à des

dignités; il ne s’occupait sans cesse que des moyens d’y parvenir; et, tandis qu’il se repaissait de

ces brillantes chimères, il mourait de faim » (Nougaret 8-9).

D’Ornival senses the importance of good standing in society; however, his approach is rooted in

a desire for self-improvement and the belief that hard work and talent can help one to reach his

or her goals. While this can be true, the narrator emphasizes that talent and hard work are not

always sufficient, especially when such a small group of members of society decide what is

worthy of notice and what is not. It is clear from the beginning of the novel that d’Ornival is not

going to reach his goals, and what is worse, as the reader soon learns, d’Ornival’s life is going to

become even more difficult because he is going to fall in love: « Un malheur ne vient jamais

seul…Nous venons de voir le héros de ce livre mourir de faim, ne pouvant percer dans le

monde…rebuté des libraires et des comédiens; pour comble d’infortune, il va devenir amoureux

» (Nougaret 26).

The object of d’Ornival’s affection is Rose, the marchande de mode of the novel’s title.

This choice of name is interesting: perhaps it merely references the marchande’s youthful beauty,

or perhaps it is a nod to the famous marchande de modes, Rose Bertin. The novel’s “heroine”

comes from humble beginnings similar to those of Rose Bertin, being from a peasant family in a

Provençal village who will eventually make a name for herself as a marchande de modes. Unlike

Bertin, however, the novel’s Rose does not owe her success solely to her own ingenuity and the

protection of powerful people, but to those people who wanted to benefit from her youth and

beauty. Drawing from stereotypes about marchandes de mode and other women involved in the

luxury trades, Rose becomes a courtesan/prostitute, and also a “fille entretenue,” or “kept

woman.” One of the main themes of the novel is the trajectory a woman’s life might take if she is

attracted to luxury and high society, which is a concern many people had for women at the time

if a marriage had not already been arranged, if the woman was not intending to become a nun, or

if she was not employed in some kind of work deemed appropriate for women.

As previously mentioned, Rose came from humble beginnings but dreamed of having a better

life. Throughout the novel she is courted by many men, but she deems none of them worthy of

her. Eventually she is courted by a marquis, who whisks her away to Paris where she presumes

that she will enjoy a life of luxury. However, the marquis abandons her, and she finds herself

without protection or means. Fortunately, her landlady has a plan: she will introduce Rose to a

magistrate who will have pity on her and take her under his protection. Rose agrees and is

thankful for the landlady’s help; however, this help does not come without a price. The narrator

describes the landlady and foreshadows what is to become of Rose: « L’hôtesse…aimait

beaucoup à rendre service a son prochain, pourvu qu’elle y trouvât son compte. Elle était fertile

en inventions, et n’était pas scrupuleuse sur les moyens d’amasser de l’argent » (Nougaret

36).The landlady introduces Rose to the magistrate, who claims that her situation has touched

him and he feels obligated to help her, but as the reader can guess, the magistrate’s sole interest

is not being of help to an orphan: «Ce n’était pas tout-à-fait les intentions du magistrate; il

voulait que sa protégée le récompensât de ses bienfaits » (Nougaret 39).

So begins Rose’s time spent as a “fille entretenue.” The landlady helps Rose by procuring her

wealthy and willing suitors; in reality, the landlady is her madam, taking a share of Rose’s

profits. The landlady promises Rose that she will take care of her if Rose shares part of her

profits in exchange, and Rose abandons her virtue in order to benefit from the rewards bestowed

upon her by her suitors: « L’argent faisait triompher les petits scrupules de la jeune innocente,

qui profitait à merveille des leçons de sa rusée conductrice » (Nougaret 41). Rose continues to

benefit from the many suitors she receives, until she eventually settles on one man as her

benefactor.

Rondin is a financier who has become successful through his ambition and hard work, and

mostly his tenacity. As evidence that Rondin actually cares for Rose, he encourages her to find a

way to establish herself so that she will never again find herself in the state of ruin that occurred

after the marquis left her. Rondin decides that the ideal “career” for Rose would be that of a

marchande de modes. With the current emphasis on fashion and the desire for the new and novel,

it is a lucrative trade. Furthermore, because this profession involves interacting with people of

good taste and breeding, it is to Rose’s benefit that she is young and beautiful, because people

will be more likely to buy from her. With the proper instruction, Rose can become successful in

her own right as a marchande de modes. One of the most well-known marchande de modes

becomes Rose’s instructress, and Rose becomes learned in the profession. Everything seems to

be in Rose’s favor until she meets a new lover.

This new lover turns out to be a cousin of Rondin’s who, finding himself in dire financial

circumstances, becomes a beggar, and comes to Rondin looking for help. Rose takes pity on this

cousin and vows to convince Rondin to help him, remarking that it is strange that Rondin gives

her so much but is unwilling to help his relative. Of course, this is because Rondin and Rose’s

“relationship” is mutually beneficial; Rose receives financial help and security, and Rondin

benefits from their sexual relationship. Rondin refuses to help, however, and chastises Rose for

daring to approach him with a request for help for his cousin. He leaves Rose, and his cousin,

who has become Rose’s lover, is eventually arrested and sent to the colonies, where he is never

heard from again. Rose is left alone once more.

However, this time, rather than falling into misery, Rose sells many of the things Rondin gave

her, and uses the profits to establish a boutique in the fashionable rue Honoré. Eventually,

Rose’s boutique becomes famous and sought-after. The parallels between the novel’s fictional

Rose and Rose Bertin are clear. After receiving the patronage of Marie-Antoinette and other

noblewomen and highly-placed bourgeoises, Bertin’s shop became the most fashionable and

successful marchande de modes boutique. Although Rose of the novel’s patrons are not as

illustrious as the queen herself, her shop is frequented by the fashionable elite of Paris, and « les

dames ne voulaient être parées que des mains de la belle Rose, qui avait seule la vogue »

(Nougaret

62).This description of Rose’s boutique mirrors that of Rose Bertins boutique Le Grand Mogol.

It, too, was located on rue Honoré, and it also became the only place for the truly fashionable to

frequent once Marie-Antoinette had endorsed it.

After describing Rose’s background, the narrator returns to d’Ornival, who has the misfortune of

being ambitious but poor and unknown, and furthermore, now that he has discovered the

beautiful Rose, in love with someone he cannot hope to obtain. To make overtures to Rose,

d’Ornival enters her boutique frequently, buying things that he cannot afford. Rose treats him

kindly, but rejects his advances. D’Ornival becomes even more determined to become successful

in order to become worthy of Rose’s love. The novel now introduces d’Ornival’s long-lost

brother, an abbot who has become successful in Paris society through flattery and the right

connections.

The narrator highlights the difference between the abbot and d’Ornival on their quests for

fortune: « l’abbé…ne prétendait percer dans le monde qu’à force des intrigues et de soupless; au

lieu que d’Ornival s’imaginait bonnement que le mérite seul conduisait à la fortune » (Nougaret

71). The abbot describes to d’Ornival how he came to be successful through his connections with

a duchess. After regaling d’Ornival with the story of his success, the abbot promises to help his

brother. He begins thinking about what he could do to help when he is approached by an English

stranger. The Englishman explains that he is in possession of paperwork which apparently claim

that he is the descendant of Portuguese royalty, making him a prince, but he cannot understand

the documents. The Englishman feels in his heart that he is a great man, especially because he

likes gambling and beautiful women as all successful, wealthy men do. Furthermore, he suggests,

« Ce qui prouve encore mieux que je suis véritablement un grand seigneur, c’est que j’aime

beaucoup à jouir de tout sans rien payer » (Nougaret 97-8). Nougaret appears to be making fun

of the nobility who take advantage of the finer things in life without having to pay for them. The

abbot agrees to translate the documents for the Englishman, but when the Englishman returns a

few days later, the abbot tells him that, unfortunately, the papers are merely letters and other

documents of little value, and have nothing to do with him being a prince.

The narrator shifts focus back to Rose, who has become increasingly successful. She has

numerous clients and suitors, and sometimes the men who enter her shop serve as both. She also

still sees d’Ornival often, and eventually she realizes her love for him, but she does not admit it.

However, at one point, d’Ornival disappears from her view. His brusque departure causes Rose

to realize how much she loved him, and she falls into despair. Meanwhile, although Rose has

been successful and has managed to stock her boutique with the most current fashions, she

eventually finds herself in financial trouble again because her wealthiest patrons have all been

paying on credit, a common practice at the time which eventually ruined many marchandes de

modes and other members of the fashion trades: « Elle faisait…tant de crédits, qu’insensiblement

elle épuisa son fonds. Il n’y avait guère que les bourgeoises et les gens du commun qui payassent

comptant chez elle » (Nougaret 109).Rose attempts to collect from those who owe her money,

and is not repaid but rather rebuffed by all those who owe money to her. The people who sought

her out to satisfy their needs for the latest fashions now refuse to even meet with her. In order to

not end up completely destitute once again, she becomes a chambermaid for a countess. The

countess is haughty and treats Rose cruelly, and even the Count dislikes his wife, which inspires

him to seduce Rose: « On pretend que notre femme-de-chambre sut resister aux caresses, aux

offres séduisantes du vieux comte: je laisse au lecteur la liberté d’en croire ce qu’il lui plaira »

(Nougaret 118). Rose lives miserably as a chambermaid for a while, until one day a beautiful

carriage arrives at the home of the Count. A completely transformed d’Ornival arrives and claims

he has come to take his princess away. He rescues Rose and explains to her why he disappeared

for so long. He sought to become worthy of her, and sought help from his brother the abbot, who

found a way to help by turning d’Ornival into a prince. The abbot explains about the documents

that the Englishman gave him, which actually did indicate the possession of a royal title. The

abbot decided to use these to turn d’Ornival into a foreign prince, himself being too recognizable

to attempt this. The abbot and d’Ornival use the titles and some well-crafted stories to turn him

into a wealthy and respected man. Upon establishing his fortune, d’Ornival seeks out Rose, who

leaves with him to become a princess. She is then transformed into a spoiled noblewoman similar

to the countess she worked for: she is always complaining and is constantly ill. She has also

become vain and ridiculous : « On ne savait guère de quelle couleur était son teint ; le rouge et le

blanc le couvraient d’un demi-pied. Ses oreilles, chargées des pendeloques, portaient un poids

énorme, que la vanité lui rendait léger » (Nougaret 133).Rose has transformed into one of the

vain, besotted women she used to serve, and d’Ornival has abandoned his principles about hard

work and personal merit in order to be rich and have Rose as his wife.

Eventually, Rose and d’Ornival, listening to the abbot’s wise advice, decide that they need to be

careful about flaunting their wealth, fearing that someone could discover their secret. Rose and

d’Ornival leave the country with their fortune to establish themselves quietly in a country where

nobody can recognize them. The narrator makes some final remarks about Rose’s

trajectory :

Ainsi finit l’histoire du fameux d’Ornival et de mademoiselle Rose qui, de

paysanne devint fille entretenue, ensuite marchande-de-modes, après cela

femme-de-chambre, puis princesse, et de princesse rien du tout. Son amant et

elle jugèrent à propos de se retirer prudemment, sans doute pour nous montrer

que la grandeur ne doit pas durer toujours. (Nougaret 141-2)

The narrator makes a commentary about grandeur not lasting forever, especially when that

grandeur has been achieved through false means, possibly indicating a stance that grandeur is

only genuine when acquired at birth. He also makes an interesting commentary about the

possible reception of this novel. While the novel takes place post-Revolution, it has been

included in this dissertation because it demonstrates the aforementioned “fall” of the marchande

de mode, who was once regarded as a benevolent figure, but who eventually attained the

reputation of prostitute. However, although the novel was published after the Revolution, the

narrator is clearly referring to the time before the fall of the ancien régime when marchandes de

modes were prevalent. Therefore, he makes a commentary to those who might accuse him of

being too concerned with the past: « Qu’on ne m’accuse pas de n’avoir tracé que les mœurs et les

ridicules de l’ancien tems, dans cette esquisse fidelle des travers du monde. Il m’est facile de

faire voir…que les républicains Français, malgré leurs graves prétentions, seront tout aussi peu

raisonnables, aussi vicieux, que lorsqu’ils vivaient sous le régime corrupteur des rois » (Nougaret

143). The narrator boldly criticizes the new social order by stating that every new generation or

new regime thinks themselves better, more enlightened, more intelligent than the previous one,

but men’s nature will never change, and people will always be vying for a better place in society,

and will always be willing to abandon their principles in order to improve their situation.

The narrator finishes with commentaries about people in high positions and those attempting to

achieve higher positions: people will always try to become richer at the expense of others and

will allow others to live in misery while they live in luxury; people will always look down at

people in worse positions, even positions that they formerly occupied. In short, people are

hypocrites and are unlikely to change. This commentary applies to Rose, a peasant who became a

princess and who, in doing so, began to look down at those who had once looked down on her.

For example, rather than remembering her own misery and treating her former mistress, the

countess, with kindness, once Rose has become a princess, she treats the countess with disdain.

In turn, the countess grovels before Rose, and the narrator indicates that the reader might find

this strange.

Why would a countess act this way toward her former chambermaid? The narrator responds, «

L’on a de la hauteur que pour ceux qui sont moins que nous » (Nougaret 135). This phenomenon

mirrors the narrator’s earlier comments that, in spite of the lofty and high-minded ideals of the

new French republic, people will always be attempting to improve their situation, and they are

willing to do so at the expense of others.

Lastly, the narrator makes a comment about women and their « jolis péchés », invoking the

novel’s title : « Est-ce que la plupart des femmes ne seront pas toujours d’aimables trompeuses,

qui ne connaîtront la constance, la fidelité, que dans les romans, et dont la vie ne sera qu’une

suite des jolis péchés ? » (Nougaret 144). Once again, a comment is made about woman’s nature.

The narrator implies that women will remain the same no matter how society changes. Certain

women will always use their beauty and charm for trickery and deceit, and in doing so, they will

never have stable lives. The narrator does not seem to begrudge women their actions, he simply

accepts that this is the way of the world. This is again reflected in the novel’s alternate title, «

Ainsi va le monde », roughly translated as “Thus goes the world.” However, the narrator is

possibly making a commentary that women would lead happier lives if they could learn to be

content with what they have rather than constantly searching for the next luxury or new trend.

What can be taken from this novel is that the nature of people will never change even as society

does; in spite of the fact that the Revolution has abolished the nobility and there is a new focus

on returning to classic values, people are still selfish and hypocritical at heart. The tone of

Nougaret’s novel is not bitter; rather, the narrator appears amused at the hypocritical behaviors of

high-minded men and women, and accepts that this is the way of the world and always will be.

His perception of the world contradicts the political and social atmosphere at the time, which

implies that change is important and necessary, and that people should always be attempting to

improve themselves.

Rose could certainly be categorized as a “prostitute-heroine,” although she does not possess all

of the same qualities of the characters discussed in Defying Domesticity, nor does she

necessarily have the same experiences (for example, almost all of the women Tallent refers to die

by the end of the novel). However, she does fit into the larger idea of what a prostitute-heroine is

able to accomplish through her defiance of traditional female domestic roles. Tallent discusses

the freedoms these prostitute-heroines achieve by “defying domesticity” and being able to

support themselves: “these characters…transgress social boundaries through their careers and

adventures…the general pattern is the rise of a woman of low class…to wealth, fame and status

thanks to her sexual liaisons with nobler and wealthier men” (Tallent 128). While Rose is

eventually able to support herself on her own through her marchande de modes business, her

business was only made possible through the patronage of a wealthy man. And while it may

seem that these prostitute-heroines are independent, Tallent cautions that male fantasy permeates

the novels, and therefore, the women are never truly independent. For example, in Les Jolis

Péchés, one can think of d’Ornival’s gazing at Rose through her shop window, making her an

object of male desire even as she is establishing her own business. The novels are also written

by men, and and these two elements prevents these novels from being interpreted as feminist

works. Be that as it may, these novels do present an alternative to the virtuous model of

womanhood and domesticity that philosophers and writers like Rousseau advocated for at the

end of the eighteenth century, and, as Tallent points out, “It was a time when characters who did

not normally fit into society were given a voice” (199). A novel such as Les Jolis Péchés thus

embodies several important themes. It presents an alternative path of life for women, it

demonstrates the fall of the marchande de modes, who is now associated with prostitution rather

than virtue or social mobility, and it touches on questions of wealth, social status, and the social

order of the New Republic. One of the ways that Les Jolis Péchés can be distinguished from

other novels depicting a descent into prostitution during the eighteenth century is that Rose is

eventually able to extricate herself from her situation by establishing herself as a marchande de

modes. However, at the outset, without a benefactor, Rose, who has no skills or marriage

prospects, has few options for supporting herself. When she is first obligated to prostitute herself,

“supporting herself” truly means being able to find lodging and food. By making an agreement

with her landlady/madam, Rose can remain in her apartment, and still has a benefactor, although

in this case their relationship is strictly business. This sequence of events seems to support

critics’ arguments that women without skills or marriage prospects would fall into prostitution,

and that a stable occupation might prevent this from occurring. In Rose’s case, her eventual job

as a marchande de modes allows her to stop being a prostitute, although it is hinted that she does

still “entertain” men, but perhaps that is for her own sexual enjoyment or desire for

companionship.

The next play differs from the previous plays included in this study because it does not focus on

household disputes and deceit, nor does it make commentaries on the state of marriage and the

family. La Lingère du Marais: Ou, La Nouvelle Manon Lescaut: Vaudeville En Trois Actes, by

Achilles Dartois, does, however, showcase women employed in the clothing trades using

coquetry to achieve higher social standing and/or obtain material goods. In La Lingère du

Marais, the central female character is not a marchande de modes but a lingère, a woman who

made or sold linens; although a marchande de modes does appear as a secondary character; she is

the cousin of Manon, the lingère. The play opens with Adolphe, an architect, and his friend,

Saint-Gervais, walking in the Boulevard du Temple, in the area of Paris known as Le Marais.

They are watching the various merchants and looking for Manon, a lingère whom Adolphe

admires and wants to point out to Saint-Gervais. Adolphe mentions to Saint-Gervais that she is

nicknamed “Manon Lescaut” because she comes from a town on the L’Escaut river, and Saint-

Gervais remarks « C’est un nom qui promet », certainly referring to the anti-heroine of the novel

Manon Lescaut, a central eighteenth-century novel which will be discussed in the next chapter

(Dartois 6). The audience soon learns that Manon is already being courted by a man named

Débineux, and Débineux’s father has just promised him the money to ask for Manon’s hand in

marriage. In the following scene, Manon and her cousin Prudence, a marchande de modes,

remark that it seems that fewer young people are getting married lately. Manon remarks « Les

femmes sont peut-être trop coquettes »86 as a possible reason for the current attitude toward

marriage, and Prudence replies « C’est le climat de Paris », indicating that Paris is becoming

increasingly immoral and people are abandoning traditional values such as marriage (Dartois 11).

As the women walk with Débineux, various merchants try to tempt them with finery, such as a

necklace or some cashmere. Débineux remarks that it is sad that he cannot buy any of these

things for Manon: « Ça me fend le cœur! ...ne pas pouvoir lui faire un petit cadeau! » (Dartois

14). Débineux has clearly recognized that Manon would like to have more money, judging by the

delighted reaction she has while looking at the finery.

In Scene V, Adolphe and Saint-Gervais approach Manon and Prudence, and Saint-Gervais

remarks to the audience how “charming” he finds their modesty. They ask the two women to

attend the ballet with them, and although Manon is reluctant, Prudence reassures her that

Débineux will never know. However, while attending the ballet, a fight breaks out between

Adolphe and another patron, who turns out to be Débineux, who is subsequently arrested.

Manon, upon recognizing Débineux, faints. Act II opens with Manon being revived, and Saint-

Gervais explains to Manon that Débineux has been arrested because Saint-Gervais and Adolphe

planted a watch on him and pretended that he stole it from them. However, Prudence arrives to

explain that this is all an innocent mistake. Manon asks Adolphe if he can help Débineux because

he was only trying to make her happy and there was nothing sinister behind his actions. In order

to leave Adolphe alone with Manon, Saint-Gervais offers to accompany Prudence to her

boutique.

The next scene implies the lengths women are willing to go to in order to acquire status and

wealth. Adolphe agrees to help Débineux, but tells Manon that that Débineux is his rival,

because he loves her, too. Manon, surprised, answers « Vous m’aimez ? Un homme riche comme

vous, une petite lingère comme moi…c’est-il glorieux ! Mais, j’y pense, moi ! si vous m’aimez,

vous devez m’obéir et faire Adolphe tout ce que je voudrai ! » (Dartois 29). Adolphe agrees to

this and says that the only thing he asks of her is that she accept an apartment and some jewels

from him. However, he adds that she may no longer see Débineux, and although at first Manon

claims that she cannot live without him, she quickly agrees to try and forget him, and she

becomes the mistress of Adolphe’s apartment. It eventually becomes clear that Saint-Gervais

also has designs on Manon, and he attempts to seduce her with champagne. While Saint-Gervais

goes to look for the champagne, Manon describes the new luxury surrounding her: « Moi

devenue maîtresse de maison, logée, parée comme une banquière » (Dartois 35). The use of the

word “mistress” is interesting and significant. While “mistress” is intended by Manon to mean

that she is in charge of the household, it also seems to imply that Manon is a mistress in the

sexual sense, as she has no actual connection to Adolphe.

However, in the next scene Manon reveals that she has not yet engaged in relations with

Adolphe. While she is admiring herself and talking to herself about her new status, Débineux has

scaled the wall and climbed through the window. Débineux points out to Manon what his love

for her has driven him to do, and asks her what she has exchanged for her new riches and status:

« Et qu’as tu donné, toi, pour tout cela? », but surprisingly Manon replies « Je n’ai rien donné…

encore » (Dartois 36-7). Although it is surprising that Manon has “given nothing” yet, the

implication is that she owes Adolphe for all of the gifts and status he has given her, and that

eventually she will repay him with sex. As such, although Manon is not being portrayed as a

prostitute, once she has had relations with Adolphe, she can be considered a “fille entretenue.”

Débineux reminds her that no amount of riches can replace what she is willing to give up:

Tu n’auras pas tant d’élégance,

Tu n’auras pas diamans, et coetera…

Mais il t’rest’ra ton innocence,

Et rien ne vaut ce bijou-là !...

The “bijou” that Débineux mentions is Manon’s virginity, which is an important theme

throughout the play and an important moral and societal theme at the time. Questions of

virginity, morality, modesty, and purity were all considered important factors in determining a

woman’s character and worth. It is also implied earlier in the play that Manon’s purity and

virginity are attractive factors, especially to Saint-Gervais, who exclaims that her modesty is

charming. What is interesting in Manon’s case is that, unlike Rose in Les Jolis Péchés, Manon

does not particularly need a male benefactor to support her. She supported herself as a lingère

before she met any of the men pursuing her, and she was engaged to Débineux, who, although

the reader never learns his profession, seems to be of good standing and was going to receive

money from Manon’s father before asking for her hand in marriage. Therefore, Manon’s

acceptance of Adolphe’s proposal appears to be entirely based on a desire to improve her social

standing and have access to more luxuries. However, unlike many of the women portrayed in the

literary works discussed here, Manon does not appear to orchestrate this out of greed or spite,

and she seems to genuinely care for all of the male figures in the play. Rather than being

portrayed as manipulative and acquisitive, she is portrayed as naïve, perhaps merely too dazzled

by the riches bestowed upon her by Adolphe to realize what she is doing to her virtue and how

she has abandoned Débineux.

In the following scene, Saint-Gervais and Adolphe enter. Débineux, having been drenched by

the storm while climbing up to Manon’s room, is wearing Adolphe’s dressing gown and eating

the supper intended for Manon and Saint-Gervais. Calling him a thief, Adolphe and Saint-

Gervais chase Débineux out of the house. Act III opens, and it is revealed that Manon has been

put in the care of her uncle Lefort, an innkeeper. He is keeping her under lock and key in a room

at his inn, in order to put a stop to the escapades in which she has participated. Lefort makes an

important comment about Manon’s appearance even while under house arrest: « Ce que c’est que

la coquetterie!...malgré le costume grossier que je lui ai fait prendre, elle a encore trouvé le

moyen d’avoir un air requinqué ». This description of Manon once again reinforces her image of

innocence, youth, and freshness: even in an ugly outfit she appears beautiful and young, and with

the simplest adornments she remains charming and desirable. Lefort notices a few additions to

Manon’s outfit, which she explains have all been given to her as gifts from various male

members of his staff, and which include a rose and a scarf. She has used all of these gifts to

embellish her outfit. This scene emphasizes that even under lock and key, Manon still receives

male attention. Since Lefort is preparing for a wedding at the inn, he hires a local lady named

Madame

Gervais to watch over Manon while he is busy. In reality, the woman is Saint-Gervais in

disguise. While he is in disguise, Saint-Gervais attempts to discover Manon’s feelings for him.

When “he” suggests Saint-Gervais as a worthy candidate of Manon’s affections, Manon exclaims

« Si vous saviez, ma bonne, c’est qu’il est bien laid! » (Dartois 51). Saint-Gervais brushes

Manon off, saying that men with looks like Saint-Gervais’ will always be in style. The wedding

festivities begin, and in the next scene, it is revealed that Adolphe is also at the wedding,

disguised as a sailor. Manon realizes that one of the members of the wedding band, a blind

violinist, is also known as a kind of fortune teller, and asks “Madame Gervais” to take her to him

so that she can ask what awaits her in the future. Adolphe appears at Manon’s side, saying that

he is willing to run away with her; meanwhile, Saint-Gervais tells the blind fortune-teller to

mention him to Manon so that she will believe her future is with him. The blind man is revealed

to be Débineux. After some dancing, Manon is returned to her room, but when “Madame

Gervais” arrives to check on her, she is gone- the bars on her window have been broken, and her

window looks out over the river. SaintGervais goes in search of Lefort, who laments having

locked Manon up, believing that she must have drowned after escaping her room. Lefort clearly

believes that Manon either escaped trying to rejoin her lover and drowned, or that she committed

suicide out of despair.

In the next scene, however, the opposite is revealed: Manon appears wearing a wedding gown

and is on Débineux’s arm; clearly they have just been married. Adolphe explains « C’est

Prudence et moi qui avons arrangé tout cela pour ce petit nigaud de Débineux » (Dartois 67).

Lefort asks how this was possible when the wedding was arranged and paid for by a bourgeois,

and Adolphe explains « C’est moi le bourgeois…c’était pour le marriage de Manon » (Dartois

68). Saint-Gervais, still disguised as Madame Gervais, admonishes Manon, « Jeune fille, souffrez

un petit grain de morale…Plus de coquetterie dorénavant » (Dartois 68). When Manon reassures

“Madame Gervais” that she will no longer be a coquette, Saint-Gervais mutters under his breath,

clearly bitter, and says to the audience « Votre penitence n’est pas finie! Elle commence! »

(Dartois 68).99 This exclamation could be interpreted as Saint-Gervais intending to seek revenge

for having been tricked and losing Manon, but more than likely it is a comment that Manon’s

penance for all of her coquetry will be that she will be bored and lonely once she is married.

The ending of this particular play is quite confusing to the audience/reader. Of the other works

discussed here, its ending most closely resembles that of Les Jolis Péchés: it ends happily with a

wedding, which was a common way to end a comedy (and remains so today). However, there is

no resolution at the end as there is with many of the other works discussed. While it does end

with what appears to be a moral lesson from “Madame Gervais,” there is no rational process

leading up to this ending, and the audience is left with many questions and possible reasons as to

how and why the surprise ending occurred. There is no explanation of why Adolphe and

Prudence arranged for Manon and Débineux to have their surprise wedding, and why Adolphe

appears to have given up on Manon. One possible explanation is that Adolphe preferred

Prudence to Manon and they formed a couple, but in this case it makes little sense as to why they

arranged a wedding for Manon and not themselves, and no actual indication of a romantic

relationship is made. Another possible explanation is that Adolphe realized that Manon could

never love him like she loved

Débineux, and in an act of generosity and kindness, Adolphe decided to help them. Perhaps

Adolphe did still love Manon, but decided her happiness was more important than his. Whatever

the true reason, this particular play differs from other works discussed here because, while

Manon is coquettish and perhaps a bit manipulative, she does preserve her innocence as far as the

audience knows and presumably remains a virgin until her marriage. All the moral warnings

about the dangers of coquetry seem to have affected her, and the truly “immoral” character in

this particular play is Saint-Gervais, who attempts to seduce Manon and who has no scruples

about doing so, even behind his best friend’s back. Perhaps, then, the moral lesson of this play is

not a lesson against greed, materialism, and women’s sexual immorality, but a warning about

male lust and the danger it poses to young girls.

The last play to be examined in this chapter is Les Lanciers et Les Marchandes De Modes: Pièce

en Un Acte, Mêlée de Couplets by Benjamin Antier. At first, this play resembles the pedagogical

works of La Comtesse de Genlis. Its main characters are Mme. Vesta, a marchande de modes,

the young women who work in her shop, and the lanciers (lancers) in the French military who

are stationed near them in a village on the Spanish border. The background indicates that Spain

and France are at war. In the first scene, Madame Vesta warns the girls about the lancers,

because she has seen the girls admiring them. She reminds the girls that although they are free

and living in a foreign country, they should not abandon their morals and virtue: « Vous êtes

majeures ou émancipées, vous êtes donc vos maîtresses, et je sais fort bien qu’on n’est pas venu

jusqu’à notre âge sans savoir qu’on a des yeux pour voir et un cœur pour sentir » (Antier 5).

Madame Vesta is sympathetic but stern, and reminds the girls that she has a certain amount of

authority over them, and furthermore, a responsibility to oversee their reputation as well as hers :

« Mais, j’ai le droit d’exiger…d’après ma qualité de seule marchande de modes française du

lieu…qu’on se respecte pour le monde, et qu’on ait toujours l’air modeste » (Antier 5). Of

course, Madame Vesta is implying that any inappropriate behavior on their behalf will reflect

poorly on her and will be bad for business. This seems particularly relevant because the women

are far from home and their country is involved in a war, so their situation is precarious. The

young girls complain that Madame Vesta is getting old and doesn’t really understand them.

In the next scene, it is revealed that Thérésa, who is Spanish, is in love with one of the lancers,

Loignon. Loignon visits her while the others are out, and Thérésa gives Loignon food and drink.

Loignon recounts the stories of the women he has met on his various travels around the world as

a soldier, and when Thérésa admonishes him, he explains that it is not his fault that women find

him irresistible (Antier 11). Thérésa reminds him of his promise to marry her. The other shop

girls and lancers arrive, and they complain that they must remain at their posts while such

beautiful girls are waiting for them nearby. The lancers invite the shop girls to join them for a

revue organized by the French army. While the girls are explaining that Madame Vesta will

never allow it, Madame Vesta herself arrives, and the shop girls find various hiding places for

the lancers.

Madame Vesta has errands for each of the girls, and when they complain, she scolds them,

saying « Lorsqu’il faut sortir pour les affaires, on n’a jamais le temps…Mais si c’était pour votre

plaisir… » (Antier 18).

The girls leave for their errands, and Mme Vesta remains alone with the Captain, whom

she has summoned. The audience knows that they are not really alone, as the lancers are all

hidden in the shop. Mme. Vesta tells the Captain she worries what being alone with a man will

do to her reputation, but the Captain reassures her « Madame, votre vertu est au-dessus de tout

soupçon » (Antier 19). Although this could be interpreted as saying that Madame Vesta is so

virtuous and respectable that no one would ever doubt her, the implication appears to be that

because Mme

Vesta is “old,” no one would suspect anything inappropriate to occur between her and the

Captain. Mme. Vesta is revealed to be a widow, and although her age is never given, the

comments about her reflect the idea that women of a certain age at the time were considered

“spinsters,” and therefore they would be undesirable. Mme Vesta is most likely not particularly

old; the lancers are all revealed to be around twenty, and more than likely Mme Vesta is in her

thirties or forties. However, in this case her age does protect her from the kind of suspicion that

would arise if the young shop girls and the lancers were revealed to be alone together. Mme

Vesta explains her reasoning for having summoned the Captain: she is unhappy in Spain, and

exclaims « Ah! capitaine, qu’une veuve, privée de tout, est malheureuse, dans un pays

étranger!... » (Antier 19). She explains that she would like to return to France, and the Captain

asks her what prevents her from doing so. Mme Vesta claims that she needs a protector if she is

to return, because she fears being harmed during the journey. She begins hinting that the Captain

would make the perfect protector: « Ah! si j’avais un protecteur comme vous, capitaine…j’irais

au bout du monde… » (Antier 20). The captain, surprised by this proposition, accidentally hits

the box in which Jules, one of his lancers, is hiding, and Jules, startled, comes out of the box.

Jules becomes angry with Mme Vesta, whom he considers a hypocrite for trying to court the

captain when she won’t allow the lancers to court her shop girls: « Vous ne voulez pas qu’on

fasse la cour à ces demoiselles…vous voulez leur fermer les yeux sur notre mérite…et vous

n’êtes pas insensible à celui du capitaine » (Antier 21). However, Mme Vesta retorts that she has

much to offer the captain; not only her love, but her livelihood as well. The lancers attempt to

explain what they have to offer the shop girls: one of them plans on going to America, one of

them is going to receive an inheritance from his uncle, and so on. The lancers try to convince

Mme Vesta to allow the girls to attend the revue with them, and although she declines at first,

she changes her mind when the Captain agrees to accompany her. This exchange reflects a

similar action by Prudence in La lingère du Marais, who rebuffs Saint-Gervais’ request to

accompany her home until she realizes it will be in a tilbury. Again, the author appears to be

making a commentary about the perceived morals of marchandes de modes.

In the next scene. Thérésa arrives, panicking that all of the shops are closed and no one is

outside, but Mme Vesta assures her that it is only because everyone is attending the revue.

However, it is revealed that the guerrilla army is attacking. The girls wonder what they are to do,

and Loignon proposes a solution of having the soldiers dress as women in order to trick the

guerrillas and mount a surprise attack on them. The other lancers agree that this is a good plan,

and joke about how they are going to look dressed as women. The women are to be dressed as

soldiers, and Mme Vesta, very disturbed by all of this, exclaims « À quels dangers ne sont pas

exposées les marchandes de modes! » (Antier 31). Although this is clearly a more dangerous

situation than usual, Mme. Vesta does seem to imply that being a marchande de modes is not an

easy, calm life.

The next scene departs from the lighter, comical tone of the majority of the play. The play

is a comedy, but this scene includes an implied rape. Thérésa argues against dressing as a solider,

and does not want Loignon to take away her clothes, but Loignon tells her what could happen if

she doesn’t go along with the plan and the guerrillas win: « Les guérillas vous la gâteraient bien

davantage, Catalane…parce que les vainquers, voyez-vous…j’ai l’habitude d’être vainquer et je

sais ça » (Antier 33). Not only does Loignon warn Thérésa about the possibility of being raped

by the soldiers, he essentially admits that in the past, while being a soldier, he has raped women

as well, although it is possible that he is simply implying that he has seen other soldiers do this.

Thérésa does not seem to realize what Loignon is implying, but she does agree to go along with

the plan.

The guerrilla soldiers arrive, and seeing the lancers all dressed as women, remark that

they are lucky because there are only women and no soldiers. They enter the magasin de mode

and flirt with the “shop girls.” Loignon becomes angry that they don’t seem to be interested in

him: « Il paraît que je n’ai pas eu le bonheur de leur plaire »,and the others admonish him, saying

that he was too aggressive (Antier 37). Rape is again mentioned, as one of the soldiers tells

Loignon « Rends-toi de bonne grâce, ou je prends ton bouquet » (Antier 38). “Bouquet” here is

clearly a euphemism for virginity, thus the soldier is telling Loignon that if “she” does not

comply, he will take her virginity by force. Fortunately, at this point the captain ambushes them,

and the guerrillas are forced to leave.

This particular play does not end happily, nor is the ending tragic. It does not end with a

wedding or a death, but instead the lancers are called away from their posts. The women are all

surprised, thinking that the lancers all planned to marry one of them. Loignon reminds the

women, particularly Thérésa, of the nomadic nature of being a soldier: « Un soldat français n’a

que sa parole et vous êtes vivandière du troisième lancier » (Antier 43). The men and women

finish with a series of couplets, and Thérésa finishes the play by saying « Messieurs, n’oubliez

pas d’y revenir » (Antier 43).112 Essentially, the play ends with the lancers abandoning the

women. Nothing particularly harmful happens to them, but they are also not rewarded with a

wedding or any kind of status. If one attempts to extract a moral from this play, it again seems to

warn women of the nature of men. Although the male characters do not appear particularly

manipulative or harmful, it does seem as though they were merely interested in flirting with the

women and being taken care of. The manner in which Loignon reminds Thérésa of this seems to

indicate that he was aware of it all along, and was never sincere in talking to her about marriage.

Madame Vesta’s admonitions from the beginning of the play seem to have come true: that the

girls would be better off focusing on their work, and should guard their virtue and modesty

closely.

While it is not possible to contain the works examined within a clearly defined category

or to prove that they were all intended to reveal similar thoughts or ideas, there are themes and

ideas that link them together. Most of the works mentioned are either farcical or allegorical. A

couple of the works do not perfectly fit these molds- for example, Les Jolis Péchés more closely

resembles the “prostitute-heroine” novel; however, even this work shares some common themes

and ideas with the others. Each of these works features a woman involved in the fashion or

clothing industry. Either she is a marchande de modes, a revendeuse, a lingère, or a shop girl. In

several of the works, she is not the principal character, but a character used to drive the action

and intrigue; for example, in Les Bourgeoises à la Mode, where Madame Amelin helps Mme

Simon enact her “revenge” against her husband. Some of these characters appear at first glance

to more closely resemble the motherly, virtuous figures discussed in chapter two, but they are

often revealed later on to have ulterior motives. The most prominent example of this is Mme

Vesta, who originally warns the shop girls against male attention, but who is later revealed to be

seeking the same male attention from the Captain. Some of the figures, such as Manon in La

Lingère du Marais, serve as a possible warning against being deceived by male attention, as well

as by the glamorous lifestyle that a rich suitor might provide at the price of one’s innocence and

purity.

Several of these works are relatively radical, as they touch upon serious subjects that

might not appear to belong in a comical work. The most notable example of this is in Les

Lanciers et les Marchandes de Modes, in which Loignon clearly acknowledges to Thérésa that

one of the “spoils” of war are the women on the losing side, and he essentially admits to rape,

saying that he knows what victors of a war do. The purpose of this passage’s inclusion again

appears to be a warning for innocent girls like Thérésa against the lust of men. It serves as a

contrast for the earlier passages of the play in which Loignon and the other lancers defend

themselves against Mme Vesta’s accusations that they have nothing to offer the young

marchandes. An important theme in this work, among others, is the preservation of innocence.

This is significant in La Lingère du Marais as well, when Manon is warned that nothing is of

higher value than her innocence. Innocence and purity are extremely important themes in a time

when morals seem to be deteriorating; even Prudence, in La Lingère du Marais, remarks that

traditional values such as modesty and marriage have declined in Paris.

This highlights another major theme in the works discussed in this chapter. Not only is

the occurrence of marriage in general declining, but the quality and strength of marriage is

declining as well. Most of the farcical works analyzed here share common themes and concerns

that the state of marriage was deteriorating at the end of the eighteenth century. The marriages

portrayed in these works demonstrate a constant battle between husband and wife rather than

matrimonial harmony. A large contributing factor to these battles is the woman’s desire to

improve her social standing, aided by the acquisition of luxury goods, and her husband’s

stinginess. It is possible that these situations were used in these plays to criticize women and their

frivolity and greed, and to vilify the women who supported this: the marchandes de modes and

revendeuses. Not only do these women promote greed and frivolity, they also use their positions

to help wives deceive their husbands. The implication in some of the works, however, is that the

husbands deserve it. In Les Bourgeoises à la Mode, for example, the husbands are being

“unfaithful” to their wives, and rather than responding with unfaithfulness of their own, the

women simply use this to their advantage when demanding more money from their husbands.

These descriptions reflect a common perception at the time: that men are lustful, and women are

frivolous and greedy, which are essentially different kinds of lust. While neither party appears to

be the clearly guilty one (it is not obvious whether the authors side with the women or the men),

it is certain that a breakdown in traditional values has occurred. However, it seems that many of

the authors simply accept this breakdown as the new state of society; Nougaret, for example,

even subtitles his work Ainsi Va le Monde (Thus goes the world), indicating that this is the state

of the world now, and because this is unlikely to change anytime soon, it may as well be

accepted.

Although there is little information available about many of the authors of the works

included in this chapter, it is evident that many of them focused on common themes of the time

period. Two of the main themes were the preservation of innocence, and the breakdown of

marriage and traditional family values. Another significant theme is the increasing desire for

elevated social status, and the most notable example of this is Les Bourgeoises à la Mode by

Florent Dancourt, who in fact wrote more than one work focusing on “the bourgeoisie infatuated

with the desire to be an aristocrat” (Encyclopedia Larousse: Dancourt). Dancourt’s works

focused on the new lifestyle that prevailed at the time, wherein many people of the lower and

bourgeois classes strove to imitate the aristocracy and were willing to achieve this by any means

necessary. The character of Angélique in Les Bourgeoises à la Mode even comments that she

was clearly born to be at least a marquise, if not higher.

To this end, dissatisfaction also appears to be a major theme of eighteenth-century society

and of the works of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In these literary works, the

dissatisfaction mainly comes from the female characters. They are constantly striving for more

material goods, a better marriage, a higher social status, more freedom, etc., and perhaps one of

the points being made by the authors is that the more options women have, the more miserable

they are. Therefore, some of these authors appear to be warning women of the dangers of not

adhering to traditionally prescribed female roles. For example, in Les Lanciers et les Marchandes

de Modes, Mme Vesta warns her employees that just because they have their freedom, they

should not abuse this freedom by neglecting their work and submitting to the advances of men.

The theme of working women is also important here because the character of Mme Vesta, as well

as the author, seem to imply that it is permissible to be a single, free woman, as long as one uses

her freedom to be productive. In this way, traditional models of domesticity are upheld; although

the women are not married and are considered “free,” they are still reliant on traditional domestic

tasks to be considered respectable.

While Kimberly Chrisman-Campbell argued in Fashion Victims that marchande de

modes was essentially code for “prostitute” by the end of the eighteenth century, many of the

plots included in this chapter actually showcase a different kind of manipulation by the

marchandes de modes. This manipulation is not sexual, as in the case of marchandes de modes

involved in prostitution; rather, these women use their talents and their goods to help women

manipulate their husbands. However, not all of these marchandes can be categorized as “good”

or “bad.” Many of the seemingly manipulative marchandes actually hold traditional values, such

as Mme. Vesta, who values hard work, traditional marriage, and longs for a male protector. It is

only the way in which she attempts to reach these goals that she is manipulative; she tricks the

Captain into being alone with her so she can propose marriage. If there is one thing that can be

taken from all of these works, it is that eighteenth and early nineteenth-century society had

become more divided between men and women, and that although traditional marriage was still

seen viewed as the most proper situation for a woman, more and more options were opening for

woman, and it was becoming easier for women to lead productive, satisfying lives without

relying on men.

Chapter Four: Manon Lescaut and the Dangers of Luxury

The majority of works criticizing the fashion and luxury industries that have been examined thus

far depict fashion and luxury as mild annoyances, or perhaps as dangers, but there are no extreme

consequences to the characters’ indulgences. The marchandes de modes and other women

involved in the fashion industries, as well as the women who purchase from them, may be

viewed as exasperating and underhanded, but in all of the previous plays there is a resolution to

the conflict, or at least consequences for the women involved are minimal. The plays portraying

women engaging in prostitution in order to support themselves, such as Les Jolis Péchés d’une

Marchande de Modes, make it clear that the women are doing so because they have no other

options. However, in other novels, prostitution is not portrayed as a last resort, but as a means for

women to feed their desire for wealth and luxury. One of the most famous eighteenth-century

examples of this is Manon Lescaut by L’Abbé Prévost. This novel discusses luxury and blurring

class lines in a more direct way, and is more reflective of the increasing concerns about the

influences of luxury during the eighteenth century, particularly in regard to new opportunities for

people of the lower classes to corrupt themselves with luxury.

“Luxury” had many meanings during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and was a

problematic term. Today, it evokes mainly positive qualities, such as sensuality and elegance.

“Luxury” cars or cosmetics are promoted as ways to reward oneself and upheld as sought-after

items. During the eighteenth century, especially for writers like Rousseau, “luxury” essentially

meant anything that was not absolutely necessary to one’s survival and well-being. However,

“One of the traditional meanings of luxury was the usurpation of the low-born of clothing or

other commodities appropriate only to their betters” (Shovlin 132). This definition implies that,

as many critics and philosophers at the time believed, material goods and ostentatious wealth was

only harmful in the hands of the wrong people. The nobility and aristocracy could and should

demonstrate their wealth to cement their social status, their superiority, and reassure the country

of the state of its economy. Furthermore, luxury was often considered a positive influence if it

stimulated the economy and provided more products and jobs. It was only when luxury became

excessive and associated with idleness that it was dangerous: “Many writers…distinguished

between a benign luxury which they associated with convenience and comforts and a vicious

luxury that was the fruit of economic privilege and the system of public finance” (Shovlin 122).

Essentially, if luxury could advance society in some way by making products more readily

available and better-made, it was acceptable, but destructive if it served mainly to make people

vainer and more wasteful.

Conservative writers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, held a stricter view of luxury. For

Rousseau, “Everything beyond what was absolutely necessary was ‘a source of evil’” (Jennings

81). Rousseau believed in simplicity and the cultivation of taste, which did not require excess or

ruin. Prévost takes a similar stance in his novel Manon Lescaut, which follows a young, beautiful

girl who was destined for a convent falling into prostitution, which eventually leads to her death,

all due to her love of luxury: “For Prévost, pleasurable self-indulgence was the explanation of

prostitution. Thus he took his seat among the conservative moralists who warned the aristocracy

against giving their servants cast-off clothing and ornaments, because luxury instilled

dependency, particularly among the poor” (Ringdal NP). Although Prévost is characterized as a

“moralist” here, his objections to luxury were not as much rooted in its sinfulness as they were

critical of low-born people mimicking the aristocracy and nobility. In regards to prostitution,

although conservative writers and philosophers clearly decried its practice, it seemed somewhat

acceptable if the prostitution occurred out of absolute necessity, and many looked the other way

regarding illicit sexual exchanges. However, Manon Lescaut serves as a moral warning about the

dangers of luxury, particularly for members of social classes that were not accustomed to it.

Manon Lescaut tells a similar story to other eighteenth century moralist works. It begins with an

honest and admirable character from a respectable family, the Chevalier des Grieux. Although

the Chevalier des Grieux is the main character of the novel, it is M. de Renoncourt, “man of

quality and author of the seven volumes of Memoirs, of which this story occupies the last” who

frames des Grieux’s narrative (Prévost ix). The Chevalier des Grieux recounts the story of

himself and Manon, a girl of humble birth, and how she destroyed his life, although the narrative

itself focuses more on the Chevalier’s love for Manon. The Chevalier and Manon initially meet

in Amiens, where Manon, like many other young women, is being sent to the convent against her

will. The Chevalier manages to help Manon avoid being sent to the convent by absconding with

her in Amiens, where the Chevalier intends to live off the allowance given to him by his father

until he receives his inheritance. He soon realizes, however, that Manon is fond of luxury and is

spending outside of their means:

I had entrusted to her the management of our purse and the task of settling our day-

today expenses. I noticed, shortly afterwards, that our table was better supplied than

before, and that she had allowed herself several new and expensive sets of clothes.

Since I knew only too well that we could scarcely have more than twelve or fifteen

pistoles left, I indicated my astonishment at this apparent increase in our means. She

implored me, laughing, not to worry. Did I not promise you, she said, that I would find

resources? I loved her with too much simplicity of heart to doubt her reassurances.

(Prévost 19)

At this point, all that is known is that Manon has found some way to obtain new objects for the

home and new clothing. There is no concrete proof of any wrongdoing on her part, although she

is evasive when the Chevalier asks her about these new acquisitions. However, the Chevalier

loves Manon so much (or appears to do so), and is so convinced of her love that it does not seem

to cross his mind that she could be doing something inappropriate. If this does cross his mind, he

ignores

it.

The Chevalier soon discovers, however, that Manon has been keeping company with a man

named M. de B…, and begins questioning Manon’s responses about her new luxury iterms: I …

remembered Manon’s little acquisitions, which had seemed to be to go beyond what our wealth

would permit. They now seemed to hint at the liberality of some new lover. And then there was

the confidence she had shown about finding sources of income unknown to me! It was very hard

to give so many enigmas as favourable a meaning as my heart would have wished for. (Prévost

20)

The Chevalier does not want to admit that Manon has another lover, but he cannot seem to

reconcile the inconsistencies in Manon’s behavior and what she has told him. Before he can

confront Manon with his suspicions, the Chevalier is seized by men in his father’s service, who

have come to take him home after his father has learned of his spending money on an unknown

mistress. The Chevalier’s father then indicates that Monsieur de B…has indeed been pursuing

Manon, and that it appears she has been returning his advances. He attempts to remedy this

problem by finding a woman who would be more suitable for the Chevalier, but the Chevalier is

not interested in anyone but Manon. However, his friend Tiberge suggests the idea of entering a

seminary, and the Chevalier agrees, so convinced that he will never love anyone but Manon, and

he cannot be with her. Tiberge and the Chevalier depart for the seminary, where the Chevalier

excels in his studies and seems to succeed in giving up worldly pleasures since Manon is

unavailable to him.

However, Manon, hearing of the Chevalier’s success, comes to see him at one of his exams, and

they are reunited. Manon explains why she betrayed him: M. de B…had promised her money:

“He had made his declaration like a true tax-farmer, which is to say, by informing her in writing

that payment would be in proportion to the favours received; she had immediately capitulated but

without any intention beyond that of extracting from him a sum considerable enough to allow us

to live comfortably” (Prévost 33). Essentially, M. de B… promised to give Manon wealth and

luxury in proportion to what she was willing to give him. It is important to note that M. de B…,

being a “tax-farmer,” would be considered a member of the “nouveau riche,” not coming from

well-established family or background. Perhaps this also plays into why Manon abandoned him,

but Manon convinces the Chevalier that the only reason she betrayed him was so that she could

obtain more money for their life together, and reassures him that she never felt any real affection

or love for Monsieur de B…The Chevalier agrees to take Manon back, and they decide that they

can to live together as long as they are careful with their money. All goes well for awhile, but

Manon’s love of luxury and enjoyment soon threatens their happiness once again: “New

opportunities to purchase arose at every moment; and, far from lamenting the amount she spent,

sometimes in profusion, I was the first to procure her anything I believed likely to give her

pleasure” (Prévost 36).

Interestingly, although one of the driving forces of the plot and the cause of Manon and the

Chevalier’s ruin is Manon’s love of luxury and enjoyment, there are no details of Manon’s

purchases or the items that are leading them to ruin. The narrator does indicate that Manon and

the Chevalier enjoy going to the theater and occasionally play cards, but otherwise there is very

little description of Manon’s luxury. Does she mainly buy objects for her home, or clothing, or

accessories? This is never revealed, but it can nevertheless be concluded that the concept of

money and luxury, and its corrupting nature, is central to the novel.

Prévost also describes how love of luxury often replaces real love and genuine

connections between people. It is clear from the novel that the Chevalier truly loves Manon- or at

least, that is what he tells the “Homme de Qualité” as he recounts his tale. However, he is fully

aware that Manon will love him only as long as he can provide her with the kind of lifestyle she

expects. When his house catches fire, the Chevalier is less concerned by the loss of his

possessions than by the fact that these losses will cause him to lose Manon as well: “I knew

Manon; I had already learned too well, through bitter experience, that however faithful and

however fond of me she was in times of prosperity, there was no counting on her when times

were bad. She was too fond of pleasure and luxury to sacrifice them for me. I will lose her”

(Prévost 38). By detailing the Chevalier’s experience of love, and contrasting it with Manon’s

experience, Prévost is able to demonstrate how luxury and lust for material possessions have

broken moral codes and have made objects more valuable than people. As previously mentioned,

one of the issues critics held with the concept of luxury was that it focused not on the person in

possession of wealth, but on the wealth and materials that he or she possessed.

In the case of Manon and the Chevalier, it would appear that Manon is not in love with the

individual, but with the material opportunities he might allow her. Although these descriptions of

Manon do not paint a particularly flattering or sympathetic portrait of her, perhaps it is not so

simple to blame Manon for her disloyalty. Manon is very young when she is to be sent to a

convent, and because she is of humble birth, does not have particularly promising options for

marriage. Even regarding the Chevalier, if she were to be loyal to him and reasonable in her

expenses, their marriage would seem impossible because of the Chevalier’s father’s disapproval

of her. This disapproval would lead to a disinheritance, and so Manon and the Chevalier’s

relationship does not fail solely due to Manon’s unfaithfulness and love of luxury, but also due to

circumstances somewhat beyond their control. The best option for Manon would probably be for

her to marry a wealthy older man who would not need to justify his choice of a wife to relatives,

but in this case Manon, who is young and beautiful, would be forced to marry someone she does

not love and who may be repulsive to her. It is clear that what Manon really requires is not

necessarily luxury but protection and security, but she is not willing to forfeit her desire for a

relationship with someone she cares for in order to be guaranteed these things. Manon is, in

many ways, a victim of circumstance. She has few options for legitimate marriage, and no skills

which would enable her to support herself. Her situation highlights the few options women of

modest means had at the time. Either they could enter a convent, attempt to make a marriage

match with someone of better circumstances but whom they did not necessarily love, try to

support themselves through some kind of modest work, or resort to prostitution.

Manon eventually abandons the Chevalier again, seeing that he clearly will not be able to

provide for her correctly. In spite of her many faults, Manon is at least self-aware, and knows

that if she is hungry and poor, she will resort to desperate measures, and thus she warns the

Chevalier that she does not want to be reduced to such a state. Manon concocts a plan with her

brother to meet a M. de G…M…, who possesses a considerable fortune, and claims that

everyone will be able to benefit from this situation because Manon will pretend that the

Chevalier is her younger brother whom she is caring for after their parents’ death. This sad story

has motivated M. de G…M… to provide Manon’s “brother” with an apartment and a stipend.

Their plan is to obtain M. de G…M…’s money and to run away with it. M. de G…M…

discovers the plan rather quickly, however, and Manon, her brother, and the Chevalier are all

arrested. The Chevalier ends up in

Saint-Lazare, and pretends to have seen the error of his ways while still secretly pining for

Manon. When his friend Tiberge comes to visit, he is astounded by how little the Chevalier has

reformed, and he cannot understand why the Chevalier continues to love Manon when he knows

this will eventually lead to his ruin. Tiberge is particularly angry because the Chevalier is

willingly choosing vice over virtue:

He replied…that it was common enough to see sinners so intoxicated with the

illusory happiness that is born of vice as to openly prefer it to that of virtue;

but such people were at least attached to images of happiness, and were duped

by appearances; whereas to recognize, as I did, that the object of my

attachment could bring me only guilt and misery, and yet to continue

voluntarily to immerse myself in misfortune in crime, involved a

contradiction between ideas and conduct that did little honour to my reason.

(Prévost 63)

In contrast to Tiberge’s argument, the Chevalier rebuts that although it is true that up until now

his relationship with Manon has brought him mostly suffering, his ultimate goal is to lead a

peaceful, happy, and respectable life with Manon, and so he should not be criticized for

continuing to love her. The Chevalier has even mentioned earlier on in the novel that his greatest

regret is that he did not marry Manon in the beginning, because if he had just married her despite

his family’s protests, surely his family would have eventually come around and learned to accept

her. Although Tiberge and the Chevalier continue to disagree on this matter, the Chevalier

explains that Tiberge eventually softens to his friend’s pain: “He saw that there was more

weakness than wickedness in my dissolute ways” (Prévost 65). This could be considered one of

the main components of the Chevalier’s character. In reading the novel, one could hardly

characterize the Chevalier as evil or diabolical, and it would even be far-reaching to categorize

Manon as such. Both the Chevalier and Manon have been led into their situations by pursuing

their “illusory happiness,” but at least for the Chevalier, his ultimate goal is merely to be happy

with Manon. The reason this seems so unattainable is that Manon cannot be happy with the

Chevalier if he does not have the means to provide for her.

The novel does take a surprising turn in the portrayal of the Chevalier’s character when he

attempts to make his escape from prison with a pistol he was given by Manon’s brother, and

although he does not intend to use it to harm anyone, he does threaten the Father Superior with it

in order to escape. This scene contradicts the Chevalier’s claims that there is more weakness than

wickedness in him, but it seems clear that the Chevalier has no actual intentions of harming the

Father Superior. This moment does, however, demonstrate the lengths the Chevalier is willing to

go to in order to rejoin Manon. The Chevalier recruits M. de T…, the son of one of the jail’s

administrators, to help him free Manon from prison. M. de T…agrees, and Manon is freed from

prison, but as the result of a conflict between the Chevalier and one of M. de T…’s coachmen,

Manon’s brother is killed, causing the Chevalier and Manon to flee. The Chevalier borrows

money from Tiberge, and is then aided by M. de T… in helping to furnish Manon with the things

she needs. However, the Chevalier finds himself once again without the means to support

Manon. The

Chevalier also finds out that Manon has again been entertaining another man, an Italian prince,

but Manon reassures the Chevalier that she feels nothing for him.

The Chevalier finally feels comfortable and happy, as he has become good friends with

M. de T…, who is a generous benefactor, and Manon appears to have finally seen the error of her

ways. However, more misfortunes await the Chevalier. G…M…, the son of the Chevalier’s

nemesis, who helped to put Manon and the Chevalier in jail, pays the Chevalier a visit, but

reassures him that he is nothing like his father and merely wishes to get to know them. It is soon

clear that he is attracted to Manon, and M. de T… confides to the Chevalier that G…M…has told

him he intends to win Manon over, and that he has heard she enjoys luxury and pleasure, and is

willing to give her a handsome sum of money. M. de T… feels conflicted, being the friend of

both G…M… and the Chevalier. Although the Chevalier is worried that Manon might abandon

him in favor of more riches, Manon reassures him that she has no intention of doing so, and that

they should enact revenge on G…M…’s father by accepting G…M…’s generous offer and

escaping with the money. Of course, once Manon sees how much wealth and luxury G…M… is

actually willing to give her, she accepts his overtures and writes a letter to the Chevalier saying

that she will have to postpone their running away together.

It appears at this moment that the Chevalier is finally ready to give up on Manon: “There was

something so insulting and cruel about this letter that, after remaining for a while torn between

anger and grief, I resolved to try and forget my false and ungrateful mistress forever” (Prévost

97). But the Chevalier goes to see Manon to tell her that he has finished with her, and they

reconcile and begin to concoct a plan to benefit from all of the luxuries G…M. could offer them;

not only his money, but his assets as well. They agree to send G…M… from the house by

frightening his footman and obliging G…M… to follow him, and essentially kidnapping G…

M…, but G…M…’s father comes to the house and has Manon and the Chevalier arrested once

again.

While the Chevalier is in prison, his father comes to visit him and laments the current state of

the Chevalier’s life. The Chevalier asks him for compassion, reassuring him that all that he has

done has been out of love. The Chevalier’s father manages to have him released, but it is decided

that Manon must either remain in prison or be sent to America. Although the Chevalier makes

several attempts to have Manon released, the decision is made that she will be sent to America,

and the Chevalier, despondent at the thought of being separated from Manon, resolves to go with

her, in the hopes that they may start a new life together there.

At first, the Chevalier and Manon appear to have finally found happiness in America. They are

presented to the Governor, and they resolve to help their community: “We let no opportunity

pass of doing some good turn or service to our neighbors. Our willingness to oblige, and our

mild-mannered ways, won us the trust and affection of the entire colony. We were soon so well

regarded that we were considered the foremost people in the town, after the Governor himself”

(Prévost 135). Manon and the Chevalier seem to have finally learned their lessons, and focus

now on their love and on being part of a community, rather than on pleasure and luxury. Manon

and the Chevalier also turn back toward religion, and thus decide that it is now their duty to

demonstrate virtue by becoming husband and wife.However, a problem arises with the

Governor’s nephew. He is in love with Manon, but has believed the entire time that she and the

Chevalier are already married. The Chevalier asks the Governor to marry himself and Manon,

but the Governor refuses, deciding that she should instead be married to his nephew, whom he is

very fond of, but who is apparently violent. The nephew encounters the Chevalier on his way

back from the Governor’s, and they engage in a duel which ends in the nephew’s death. Manon

and the Chevalier flee, and Manon dies as a result of the harsh conditions in the wilderness.

Someone from the colony comes to look for the Chevalier after the nephew, who was not

actually killed in the duel, tells the rest of the colony what happened. They find the Chevalier

next to Manon’s grave, and seeing his state, think that he has been robbed. The men bring the

Chevalier back to the colony, where he is ill for a long time.

During the Chevalier’s illness, he has an epiphany and finally sees the error of his ways: The

Chevalier resolves to lead a life that is worthy of God and himself: “But Heaven, after chastizing

me so severely, intended that I should benefit from my punishments and misfortunes. It lightened

my darkness, and reawakened in me ideas worthy of my birth and education” (Prévost 145). In

the weeks that follow, Tiberge arrives to take the Chevalier back to France, and the novel ends

with the Chevalier making his way back home.

Although there is little specific mention of fashionable items throughout the novel, luxury and

lust are central themes. Manon’s love of luxury and men’s lust for her bring about Manon and

the Chevalier’s eventual ruin. While there are no passages that explicitly indicate a sexual

relationship between Manon and the Chevalier, the Chevalier makes it a point on several

occasions that they are living together as husband and wife without being married, and in many

ways, the fact that the two are not married is the source of most of their problems. The Chevalier

also mentions several times that the practice of keeping a mistress is common in France, and

even that having a mistress can be seen as a symbol of status: “Two-thirds of Frenchmen of rank

make it a point of honour to have one” (Prévost 118). Essentially, although the Chevalier claims

that he wants to marry Manon, and to live in peace with her, he excuses their situation by saying

that it is impossible for them to marry, and that it is commonplace in France, and therefore

acceptable. However, these excuses do not seem particularly legitimate. Although it would be

preferable to have his father’s blessing, the lack of his father’s blessing certainly does not make it

impossible for the Chevalier and Manon to marry. The Chevalier makes excuses for his and

Manon’s poor behavior and decisionmaking throughout the novel.

If it is indeed the case that lust and luxury are central themes to the novel, and that Manon and

the Chevalier are both victims of their love of lust and luxury, what redeeming qualities could the

novel include? In an article written for the Catholic Herald, Alexander Lucie-Smith calls

Manon Lescaut “a great Catholic novel.” Although many contemporary critics called Manon

Lescaut a pornographic novel, Lucie-Smith argues that it is the exact opposite. The purpose of

the novel is clearly to demonstrate the dangers of lust and luxury, and the merit of being honest

and virtuous. Manon is the source of temptation for Des Grieux, and because of his passion for

her, he is led to abandon his honor and principles and commit acts which he certainly would not

otherwise. In this sense, it is true that Manon embodies the stereotype of the woman who lures

man into sinning, mirroring the story of Adam and Eve and original sin. This being the case, Des

Grieux’ ultimate decision to embrace religion and marry Manon at the end of the novel, and his

return to France after Manon’s death, parallels the Biblical parable of the Prodigal Son.

However, although Des Grieux admits at the end of the novel that he and Manon have returned

to religion and have decided to make their relationship legitimate, his epiphany at the end of the

novel is likely less due to a true religious conversion than a desire to return to his status of origin.

In a footnote for the novel, it is noted that in an original version, it was much clearer that the

awakening Des Grieux has after his illness following Manon’s death is religious in nature.

Originally the text reads “Heaven shone the light of its grace upon me, and inspired in me the

intention of returning to it by the path of penitence. I gave myself over entirely to the practice of

piety” (Prévost 155). In the current version (Oxford University Press, 2004), however, the text

reads, “But Heaven, after chastizing me so severely, intended that I should benefit from my

punishments and misfortunes. It lightened my darkness, and reawakened in me ideas worthy of

my birth and education” (Prévost 144). Further along, Des Grieux also remarks that he was

“Resolved in future to follow the dictates of honour alone” (Prévost 144).

The difference between the two texts is clear: in the first version, Des Grieux emphasizes a

return to piety, and giving himself back to God. In the second version, he speaks not of piety, but

of honour, and although he mentions Heaven, his focus is on his birth and education. Class and

status, and his father not in Heaven but on Earth, are prioritized, indicating that, at the time,

social status was more important than having faith. A footnote by the editor indicates why this

was changed. Des Grieux is a contradictory character who defends his sinful actions and puts the

blame on Heaven for punishing him rather than accepting his wickedness, and because of Des

Grieux’ attitude, “Too sudden a conversion on the part of such a character would risk shocking

the reader’s aesthetic sense and in doing so alienate the sympathy Des Grieux is bent on gaining”

(Prévost 155). But if the point of a conversion is a return to religion and an atonement for one’s

sins, it seems odd that readers would be “shocked” by a sudden conversion. By nature, a

conversion is generally sudden; a “wake-up call” in which something is revealed to someone. It

seems more likely that, in keeping with contemporary values, Des Grieux would want to reclaim

his place in his family, and eventually inherit his father’s fortune. If Manon Lescaut can be

categorized as a “great Catholic novel,” religion should clearly play a significant role in Des

Grieux’ life. Instead, Des Grieux’ return to religion and his “conversion” is shunted aside in

favor of the importance of class and rank, and the religious aspect of the novel is mainly focused

on Manon.

Manon is depicted as a temptress, like Eve in the story of original sin, and although not entirely

innocent himself, Des Grieux portrays himself as the victim of his mistress’ seduction and

trickery. In this sense, Prévost is consistent with critics who believed that women who did not

obey men and remain in traditional female roles were sinful and deviant. Manon is the one with

the power in the relationship, and this imbalance of power is unnatural: “Either the man

dominates the woman, as is proper, or the woman dominates the man, which is monstruous”

(Gossman 36). If this is the case, then Manon is unnatural and monstrous, and as a result, she

must be punished and deported to America as a prostitute.

Oddly enough, Manon does not exactly fit into the traditional description of a prostitute,

someone who exchanges money for sex. Although it appears throughout the novel that she is

willing to exchange money for sex, this never actually occurs. Her admirers are willing to lavish

her with money and gifts with the mere promise of sex, and in many cases it seems as though her

suitors do not pursue her solely for the purpose of sex, but of making her their wife. This being

the case, it seems as though Prévost is relegating Manon to a larger category of sinful women

who would be considered undesirable members of society, which was another category of people

who were often sent to America during the early eighteenth century.In doing so, Prévost appears

to categorize all woman as sinful and lustful, because the only other female in the novel, who

appears only briefly, is also depicted as a kind of prostitute. She is a young lady sent by Manon

and G...M… to console Des Grieux after Manon has abandoned him again. There is no virtuous

counterpart for

Manon in the novel; no kind benefactress or caring mother; not even a religious figure such as a

Mother Superior; a figure who, by contrast, does exist for Des Grieux in the form of the Father

Superior. Prévost’s portrayal of Manon appears to agree with the idea that if a woman cannot be

suitably married, she should enter a convent, as it is too risky for a woman, especially one of low

birth, to attempt to make her own way in life. If she does not have a husband or a convent to

protect her, she will inevitably be tempted by the weaknesses of her sex, namely a love of luxury,

and will therefore fall into ruin.

The novel also appeats to criticize the excesses of the aristocracy and upper bourgeoisie in

general. One of the reasons that the novel was considered so shocking at the time was due to its

portrayal of Des Grieux, someone who comes from a respectable family and holds a noble title,

who abandons his honor and duty for the love of someone much lower in birth and rank than

him:

it portrayed ‘people of standing’ as acting unworthily; for Des Grieux is an

aristocrat, a young man of the highest rank, character, and prospects who ruins

himself for a courtesan and, worse still, justifies so blatant a betrayal of his class

by asserting not only the irresistible power of sexual passion but the claims of

sentiment over those of social convention. (Angela Scholar viii)

Although critics have considered that Prévost’s novel might be autobiographical, with Des

Grieux serving as a representation of Prévost himself, it seems more likely that Manon and Des

Grieux are Prévost’s indictments of the current social climate. Men of rank “behave” like

members of the lower classes, and members of the lower classes are able to pretend as though

they are members of the nobility (there are criticisms of the bourgeoisies throughout the novel as

well). Women, rather than fulfilling the duties of being a wife and mother, or joining a convent if

necessary, act as sexual sinners, and they encourage men to do so as well. Prévost also offers no

alternative to these scenarios. One of the ways in which Des Grieux “behaves badly” is that he

lives off of his father’s fortune, even at one point mentioning that his father will surely not live

much longer, and then he will be able to obtain his inheritance. There seems to be a simple

solution: Des Grieux or Manon could find some means of income. But this would defy the

expectations of the nobility, and so one “bad behavior” is permitted in place of another. It is

interesting that even in a society where it is becoming increasingly common for people to work,

it still appears preferable for members of the nobility to live beyond their means and to use

whatever means necessary to maintain appearances. Prévost’s intention was to criticize the

behaviors that he saw in contemporary society, but the novel was poorly received by members of

the artistocracy because people did not want to admit that their own behavior mirrored that of the

behavior depicted in the novel.

Manon Lescaut can therefore be considered a pedagogical novel, just as Mme de Genlis’ theater

served pedagogical purposes, but Prévost focuses on the dangers of women having access to

luxury, rather than on the potential benefits of allowing young women who do not have means of

support to learn a trade. Genlis warns her young charges about becoming frivolous, and tells

them not to act above their stations, but she also demonstrates the benefits of young women

being educated and self-sufficient. She uses characters like Aline to show how young, unmarried

women who are not of any particular status can be useful and productive as long as they are

instructed in a manner that will prevent them from being tempted by sin and luxury. Aline is

portrayed as modest, virtuous, and hardworking, so it would appear that writers like Genlis

believed that is was possible for women who were not attached to husbands or convents to be

respectable members of society. Genlis focuses on the positive contributions that women might

bring to society even if they are not wives or mothers. But Prévost, by creating a character like

Manon who has few redeeming qualities other than her beauty, and indeed, her beauty as a

redeeming quality is questionable because it creates so many negative consequences, Prévost

indicates that the only way in which a woman can be considered respectable is if she is either in a

convent or in a marriage and fulfilling her duties as wife and mother. This opinion reflects a

larger societal shift in which many people are realizing that the luxuries and excesses of the

seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries have led to a society in which people are frivolous,

superficial, and wasteful. Manners, etiquette, and good breeding have been replaced by

appearances and connections, and it is now possible for people to behave as though they belong

to higher echelons of society by purchasing noble titles or dressing in a way usually reserved for

the nobility. Since the majority of these changes were most notable in women, they became the

target of most of the criticism against luxury. One of the ways in which this luxury could be

combatted was through a renewed effort to emphasize the merits of being a good wife and

mother and the importance of creating a stable home and raising children properly. The next and

final chapter will further examine how the end of the eighteenth century espoused a return to

traditional, domestic female roles.

Chapter Five: Changing Concepts of Womanhood and Femininity, Visual Evidence of the

Influence of the Marchande de Modes, and the Return to a Classical Model

France underwent a variety of important changes during the eighteenth century. These

changes had been taking place throughout the seventeenth and early to mid-eighteenth centuries,

and they began shifting the way people thought and acted in all major aspects of life, including

how people dressed. One of the most significant changes in thought was the shift in perceptions

about gender, and this shift is particularly relevant when applied to the discussions of fashion and

luxury.

Significant attention was paid in the eighteenth century to the concept of the “ideal

woman.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in particular, discussed the subject at length, and he attempted

to craft an image of the ideal woman in many of his works, the most notable example being the

character of Sophie in his novel Émile. One of the most noteworthy changes in how women were

encouraged to act was a more pronounced separation of women from the public sphere. Whereas

during the ancien régime, women of the middle and upper classes were expected and often

required to appear in the public sphere at various important events, during and after the French

Revolution, there was a renewed pressure on women to embrace a domestic lifestyle. These

changes affected the luxury trades as well as France’s economy.

Concepts of womanhood, femininity, and beauty changed rapidly, and focus was largely

redirected from previous ideas that a woman must possess a certain status which would enable

her to obtain the latest fashions (the idea of being “trendy”) to the idea of taste (goût), which

posited that any woman could be beautiful if she possessed the natural instinct of being able to

dress and present herself correctly. It was also important to have a pleasing personality. Beauty

and fashion were now based on ideals in addition to materials and articles of clothing. Rousseau,

for example, criticized la mode, but strongly emphasized the importance of good taste:

“Although Rousseau believed women’s interest in clothing, adornment, and pleasing men was an

inevitable, even laudable, consequence of their femininity, he drew an important distinction

between cultivating one’s beauty and pursuing les modes: ‘One can shine by one’s clothing, but

one can only please with one’s person’” (Repackaging 944-5). Many critics of la mode, including

Rousseau, believed that no amount of beautiful clothing and dazzling accessories could render a

person likeable or even beautiful.

In tandem with the changing ideas of women becoming more removed from the public

sphere and redirecting their focus toward taste and what might be referred to today as “style”

came a renewed emphasis on the importance of women being good wives and mothers. These

changes were mainly significant for the middle and upper classes, as the lower classes had

always had to take care of their own children and support their families. In the lower classes it

was common for the husband to be the breadwinner and for the wife to focus on domestic tasks,

which included raising children, although these women might supplement their family’s income

with “businesses” that could be done at home; for example, basket weaving or making soap.

However, women of the nobility and upper bourgeoisie were expected to entertain and

participate in social events, and women of the higher aristocracy were expected to support their

husbands in social and political endeavors. Children were left to the care of wet nurses,

governesses, and tutors, and young girls were often sent away to convents and married young, in

many cases to a much older man who could help her family financially. Young girls spent little

to no time with their mother, and there was minimal room for the growth of a strong

motherdaughter bond. After the Revolution, however, many middle and upper class women were

forced to become more involved in their home and family due to political and economic reasons.

These changes forced many noble and bourgeoise women to abandon their interest in fashion:

“As funds dwindled and hopes of an early restoration waned, women gave up appearances and

worked to support themselves and their families” (Darrow 49). This does not mean that women

ceased to care about how they presented themselves, or that they no longer spent money on

clothing, merely that the attention paid to clothing, as well as ideas about what clothing was

appropriate, were changing.

Also changing were ideas about when it was appropriate for women to try and make their

appearance pleasing. Rousseau had strong influence in this area as well. In her article “Rousseau

and the New Domestic Art of Women's Taste,” Katharine Hamerton discusses Rousseau’s idea

of taste and how it should be interpreted. Rousseau’s concept of “taste” is a more moderate

version of fashion. The main difference between the eighteenth-century concept of “fashion” and

Rousseau’s idea of “taste” is that the taste Rousseau refers to is intended to be reserved for a

woman’s husband, to make his life more pleasant. “Taste” for Rousseau was not something

women should pursue in order to please themselves. He disliked the idea of fashion and women

ridiculously adorning themselves in order to attract men, or simply to impress others with their

status. However, he was not opposed to women dressing well and attempting to be pleasing if

these endeavors were directed toward husbands and not men in general. Rousseau realized that

women were naturally inclined to decorate themselves, and since it would not be possible to

completely eradicate this inclination, it could be put to use in a way that was appropriate to

Rousseau’s perception of an ideal woman. According to Rousseau, this change in focus of why

women should attempt to dress tastefully benefitted both men and women: “Only by channeling

women’s taste within the domestic setting would French writers, musicians, and artists be freed

from corrupting feminine influence and would women be able to remain the discerning creatures

they were naturally meant to be” (Hamerton n.p.) In short, for Rousseau, it was acceptable for

women to be charming and beautiful, but their charms and beauty needed to be reserved for their

husbands.

However, it should not be assumed that during the latter part of the eighteenth-century,

extravagant clothing was altogether abandoned. Rather, the late eighteenth century exhibits a

juxtaposition of both the extravagant, ornate clothing common during the ancien régime, with

simpler clothing that was more appropriate to a society where the monarchy and class system

were crumbling, and in which more and more women were being confined to the domestic

sphere and devoting themselves to the more traditional tasks of being wives and mothers. This

being the case, the number of choices available to women actually increased rather than

decreased, because women were now presented with the option of dressing in the more

traditional, elaborate styles, and the newer, simpler styles. This applied even to the highest ranks

of the nobility, and perhaps even especially to the highest ranks of nobility, because they had the

option of obtaining clothing made in the new, simpler styles, but which remained of the highest

quality. A notable example of the contrast between the elaborate clothing of the ancien régime

and the simpler styles seen preceding and during the Revolution can be seen in the official

portraits of Marie-Antoinette during the earlier years of her reign, her portrait in 1783 by

Elizabeth Vigée-Lebrun, and her last official portrait before her death in 1793, which also

included her children. In describing these portraits, Jennifer Jones writes:

In many portraits…she wears the elaborate, ceremonial habit du cour

bows, and costly jewels attest to her splendor and her position at the apex

of a hierarchy of aristocratic women…Elizabeth Vigée-Lebrun’s 1783

portrait of the queen…depicted her without powdered hair and in the

simplest of white cotton dresses, evoking not royal splendor and luxury

but the modest taste and grace of a beautiful young mother, content in her

domestic role. (Repackaging 946)

Figure 1: Vigée-Lebrun, Élisabeth Louise.Archduchess Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, 1778, oil

on canvas, 273 x 193.5 cm (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)

Figure 2 : Vigée-Lebrun, Élisabeth Louise. Marie-Antoinette. 1783. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, 2017. Web. 15 June 2017.

Figure 3 : Vigée-Lebrun, Élisabeth Louise. Marie Antoinette and Her Children. 1787, Musée National des Châteaux

de Versailles et de Trianon, Versailles, France. Accessed 1 Sept. 2017.

This shift can also be remarked in film portrayals of Marie-Antoinette, most notably as

seen in Sofia Coppola’s 2006 film. Throughout most of the film, which essentially ends with the

very beginning of the French Revolution, Marie-Antoinette is depicted wearing bright, joyful,

youthful colors such as bright pink and baby blue:

Figure 4 : Kirsten Dunst as Marie-Antoinette. Marie Antoinette. Dir. Sofia Coppola. Perf. Kirsten Dunst. Sony

pictures home entertainment, 2006. DVD.

However, as the film progresses, Marie-Antoinette’s wardrobe transforms from ostentatious and

bright, to pastoral and clean, to somber, as fashions, as well as political and social situations,

change. In the following photos, Marie-Antoinette is portrayed during the period in which a more

English, bucolic style was in vogue, and Marie-Antoinette enjoyed spending time in her hamlet

at Versailles, which she had modeled after an English village. In the last photo, she is portrayed

toward the end of her reign as queen. Not only is she somberly dressed in black, but her clothing

appears to be in disarray. Her hair is arranged rather haphazardly, and she wears little makeup.

Figure 5 : Kirsten Dunst as Marie-Antoinette. Marie Antoinette. Dir. Sofia Coppola. Perf. Kirsten Dunst. Sony

pictures home entertainment, 2006. DVD.

Figure 6 : Kirsten Dunst as Marie-Antoinette. Marie Antoinette. Dir. Sofia Coppola. Perf. Kirsten Dunst. Sony

pictures home entertainment, 2006. DVD.

This striking contrast in the depictions of Marie-Antoinette is important because it

reflects several significant changes that occurred throughout the eighteenth century: a change in

politics, a change in fashion, and a change in the perception of the ideal woman. During the

earlier reign of Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI, the nobility needed to maintain appearances of

wealth and strength by wearing the most luxurious, opulent clothing and accessories, which were

reserved only for the highest nobility. However, as times changed and the public criticized the

nobility’s excesses and the problems they caused France’s failing economy, the nobility’s wealth

and opulence changed from symbols of France’s good taste and strong luxury trades, to symbols

of the nobility’s excess and oppression. It therefore became prudent for the nobility to appear

more reasonable with its expenses.

Furthermore, in the case of Marie-Antoinette, she had long been criticized for being

foolish and frivolous, and she had failed in many ways to fulfill the “mother role” her position

required not only as the mother of her children, but symbolically as the “mother” of France. It

had taken her many years to produce any children due to her husband’s problems with engaging

in sexual intercourse, and, like many of her contemporaries, it appeared as though she was more

interested in her own pleasure than in raising the future rulers of the country. This image was

compounded by the influence of her noble friends, mainly the Duchesse de Polignac, who was

extremely disliked by the public. By being portrayed in more conservative, simpler clothing, and

by including her children in the portraits, Marie-Antoinette attempted to combat many of the

criticisms leveled against her, which had intensified in the years preceding the Revolution.

However, this painting likely failed in its attempt to portray Marie-Antoinette as a loving devoted

mother, as it clearly indicated that she was not used to spending a lot of time in the company of

her children: “Her children are orderly positioned for the painting which is symbolic of their

distant relationship. The staged setting and forced interactions within this painting make it clear

that Marie Antoinette spends very little time engaging with her own children” (History of

Women Artists Chapter 5). Marie-Antoinette wears a stoic expression, and none of her children

look directly at her in the painting. It is too austere and formal to be indicative of any true

maternal affection.

Marie-Antoinette surely loved her children, and after the royal family’s exile to the

Tuileries Palace, she perhaps grew closer to them as her usual amusements were stripped away,

but this short amount of time in which she showed a devotion to her children likely did little to

make up for the years in which she had appeared selfish and immature. Furthermore, the public

was likely not impressed with the fact that Marie-Antoinette attempted to use her children to gain

sympathy. It is said that when she appeared on the balcony of Versailles as angry crowds

stormed the palace, she brought her young child with her to gain sympathy. But by doing so,

perhaps she also gave the impression that she was willing to put her child in harm’s way in order

to save herself.

Another argument that affected the changes in perceptions of women’s roles preceding

the Revolution was that involvement in fashion or other means of display debased the virtuous

value of a woman. While Jean-Jacques Rousseau maintained that it was appropriate for women

to be charming and beautiful within the realm of their home, he also disliked the amount of

attention publicly paid to women in general. When discussing contemporary works of theater,

Rousseau criticized the portrayal of women on the stage. He praised societies in which women

remained mysterious and virtuous, and where they were not constantly being discussed and put

on display. In contrast to these societies, Rousseau remarks that in France, the most discussed

woman was the most highly regarded: “Among us…the most esteemed woman is the one who

causes the most commotion; who is most spoken about; who is most seen in high society…and

for whose favor the humble learned men beg most basely” (Kelly/Grace 218). Furthermore,

Rousseau explains, women in contemporary plays always seemed to be the ones instructing,

telling others what to do, etc.: “Leaf through the majority of modern plays, it is always a woman

who knows everything, who teaches everything to men” (Kelly/Grace 219). It would seem that,

according to Rousseau, these occurrences upended the natural order of the world.

Furthermore, this is also true of the relationship between the young and the elderly.

Rousseau was aghast by the fact that, in the plays of the time, the central figures were young

lovers, and there was no place for the elderly, except perhaps to serve as obstacles for the young

lovers. If any older people participated in the theater, they were resigned to being portrayed

either as ridiculous and foolish, or as meddling. The same can be said for many of the female

figures in the literary works examined in this dissertation. The women in many of these plays are

not virtuous or loving, but shrewish and diabolical, and if they are not disagreeable, they are

ridiculous in their pursuits of younger men or attempts to dupe their husbands.

If a conclusion it to be made about what people thought of women during the eighteenth

century, perhaps the only one that can be made is that there were no concrete ideas about what

women should be like and how they should act. In previous centuries, women’s’ roles appear to

be much clearer. In the lower and middle classes, women were primarily wives and mothers, and

in the upper classes, in addition, they sometimes aided husbands in their political and social

endeavors. Women of the upper classes also put themselves on display in order to demonstrate

their wealth and superiority. But during the eighteenth century, these clear-cut perceptions of

women became blurred, because women of the lower and middle classes became eligible to

make themselves beautiful and luxurious, whereas eventually women of the upper classes were

encouraged to tone down their opulence and focus more on their domestic duties. The idea of

what a woman’s “place” was became more and more problematic, and there were a variety of

conflicting ideas about what kind of influence a woman should have.

For the purposes of this dissertation, the clothing and luxury industries posed major

problems for men. Because women still did not contribute significantly in terms of literature and

politics (although there are of course many examples of women writers at the time, as well as

those who wrote under male pseudonyms), information about what women thought of these

changes is not as readily available. But men had plenty to say about it. If we refer to the works in

this dissertation, those that appear to be in favor of women participating in the labor force and

having more options are written by a woman, namely Mme de Genlis. And although Genlis is

clearly in favor of women being able to support themselves and contribute something to society,

she does so with the restraint that women should first and foremost be devoted to eventually

becoming exemplary wives and mothers. Even when there is encouragement for women to have

their own means of income, or at least their own means of support should something happen to

their husband, etc., this encouragement is limited in that it does not support women being

independent, it merely supports an alternative for women becoming destitute or resorting to

prostitution if she loses her husband or has no marriage prospects.

The works examined in this dissertation also testify to the power of literature to influence

society. In the first half of the eighteenth century, literary works appear to support women

participating in the fashion industries, because this offered an alternative to unmarried women

joining a convent or resorting to prostitution, and an increase in women’s participation in the

“workforce” allowed for more economic stimulation. But by the end of the eighteenth century,

public opinion of women such as the marchande de modes had completely reversed, and they

were now viewed as the embodiment of what they were originally thought to prevent a woman

from becoming: a prostitute. While this is largely due to the nature of the marchandes’ boutiques,

which allowed men and women to interact freely without much supervision, it would also appear

that public opinion supported these changes in perspective, and these changes were reflected in

the literature of the time. In addition, many of the works included in this dissertation were

intended to be pedagogical, attempting to either encourage young women to participate in the

creation of clothing/the labor force if it were the only legitimate solution to avoid falling into

prostitution, or, in the case of Manon Lescaut, to dissuade women from becoming involved with

luxury in any way. It is clear, for example, that the Abbé Prévost intended to show the readers of

Manon Lescaut that Manon should have entered the convent as was originally intended for her.

Changes in clothing and in the ways in which women participated in the creation and

dictation of fashion were only one of the ways in which French society shifted during the

eighteenth century. Huge changes were of course occurring in the political, economic, and social

systems of France. But fashion clearly played a part in these changes. The eighteenth century

was the first moment in France’s history where fashion was not completely dictated by a

person’s gender, social status, age, etc. Women’s clothing, which had always been relatively

simple in comparison to that of men’s, became one of the most prominent ways in which a

woman could amuse and even express herself. Clothing was given huge power in the sense that

someone like Rose Bertin, who came from nothing, was elevated to the ranks of the nobility

because she was able to produce items that were sought after by the most important woman in

France, the queen. It seemed to be the first moment in which women could achieve any kind of

independence, and for some, this independence was gained through the new developments in the

fashion and luxury industries. At the same time, this opened up new possibilities for criticism of

women, and many critics viewed the expansion of the textile and luxury industries as another

way in which sinful women could betray their true nature as a woman- that of being an

exemplary wife and mother. The eighteenth century was a polarizing period, and although the

concept of women’s role in fashion was not the central conflict of the time, it certainly

contributed to major arguments about women’s roles in society, as well as the place that luxury

occupied, and changes in fashions and trends held significant influence over the lives of French

people from all backgrounds and social classes for the first time in its history.

The Transformation of Women's Roles in Fashion in Eighteenth-Century France Femininity, Fashion, and Frivolity in Fiction

Students also viewed