Part 1 (2/2)

The vivid intelligence of Greuze seized the position, and sure of at least attracting attention if nothing else, he set to work to paint some scene which would fall in with the prevalent ”debauch of morals,”

as some one called it. Thus, ”Le Pere qui lit la Bible a ses Enfants”

appeared at that psychological moment which does so much to ensure success. Further, it came as a refres.h.i.+ng change to a public weary of the pleasant insipidities of Boucher, of a long-continued series of pale pastorals showing the doubtful pleasures of light love. It was, moreover, a novelty, for no one had painted such subjects before in France.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE III.--LA MALeDICTION PATERNELLE

”La Malediction paternelle,” or ”The Father's Curse,” is in the Louvre, and is one of the best known of Greuze's moral pictures.

It is one of his worst productions. Observe the theatrical att.i.tudes and gestures, the too carefully arranged draperies, etc., of the actors in this exaggerated scene, which in real life would pa.s.s in formless disorder and rough confusion.]

And so more than the expected happened. From the day of its exhibition till the Salon was closed, it was surrounded by admiring crowds, and every one said, ”Who is this wonderful Greuze?” Those there were who replied that Greuze had not painted the picture himself, was incapable of such work, for the overweening personal vanity that marred Greuze's character had already made for him many enemies; but the happy preacher-painter proved his position, and but gained additional interest from the discussions that raged round him.

From this moment Greuze's position was a.s.sured. He was made _agree_ of the Academy, which among other privileges gave him the right to exhibit what he liked there in future. He sold the celebrated picture for a comparatively large sum to a Monsieur de la Live de Jully. He made hosts of friends, many of them influential. One of his new acquaintances offered to provide him with a studio. Another, l'Abbe Gougenot, invited him to accompany him to Italy to study art, an offer which was accepted.

Greuze stayed two years in Italy, but except that some of his pictures have Italian names and show Italian costumes, this visit exercised no perceptible influence on his work, and in 1757 he returned to steady work in the Paris which was to be for him the scene of so many triumphs--and later, of so much despair.

CHAPTER III

GREUZE'S MORAL PICTURES

The well-known ”Village Bride,” or ”L'Accordee du Village,” exhibited in 1761, was his second great success.

”A Father handing over the Marriage-portion of his Daughter” was the first t.i.tle of this picture, and one which better, if less poetically, explains the scene. The homely ceremony takes place in the picturesque living room of a big cottage or small farm, and twelve people take part in it. Backed up by the village functionary, who has drawn up the contract, the old father is evidently giving some good advice as he places the bag of money in the hands of his future son-in-law. The young man listens respectfully, the shy but proud young bride hanging on to his arm. The mother has taken one of her daughter's hands, while a younger sister leans her head on the bride's shoulder.

Children play about in various att.i.tudes among a family of fowls who feed in the foreground. Though it has some of the faults of those which followed it, this is undoubtedly the best subject-picture painted by Greuze. The composition is good, it is well drawn, full of a charming tender sentiment, and the head of the fiancee, foreshadowing Greuze's future successes, is delicious, fully deserving Gautier's eulogy: ”It is impossible to find anything younger, fresher, more innocent, and more coquettishly virginal, if the two words may be connected, than this head.”

Preaching the beauty of family life, the sacredness of marriage, and the virtues and happiness of the humble, ”L'Accordee du Village”

raised a furore. Its material success was equally great. It was sold for 9000 livres, and later, in 1780, it was bought for the Cabinet du Roi for 16,650 livres.

Very much less successful from the artistic point of view were the two well-known pictures now in the Louvre, which appeared three or four years later, ”La Malediction paternelle” and--a sequel--”Le Fils puni.”

The first shows the vicious and debauched son trying to tear himself from the grasp of an agonised mother and little brother, to go away with the colour-sergeant who is waiting near the door. While the mother pleads, the father, unable to move from the chair in which illness holds him, storms, and with hands violently outstretched, p.r.o.nounces the curse that terrifies the other shuddering members of the family.

The punishment is shown in the second picture, when the repentant son, shabby and travel-stained, returns to find his father dead. His stick fallen from his trembling hands, his knees giving way beneath him, one hand on his heart, the other pressed convulsively to his forehead, he stands helpless at the foot of the bed on which the dead man lies.

Beside him stands his mother, pointing tragically to the corpse, with an air of saying, ”Behold your work!” The other members of the family are too occupied with their own sorrow to notice him, and give way to their despair in various att.i.tudes.

The artificiality of pose and gesture more than suggested in ”L'Accordee du Village” is here exaggerated into cheap theatricalness.

In ”Le Fils puni,” for example, the att.i.tude of the Prodigal, and the Lady Macbeth pose of the cla.s.sically-draped mother, are impossible, and the outstretched arms, the heaven-turned eyes, and open mouths of the others are almost offensive. This exaggeration defeats its own object. You feel that these dramatis personae are only posing, tableau-vivant fas.h.i.+on, to impress, and they do not do it well enough to excite anything but criticism in you. The colour is bad, heavy, and dull. The draperies hang in stiff folds, without suppleness.

These two canvases are arrangements, not pictures; and in spite of certain gracious qualities which always charm in Greuze, all the others of the long series that followed can be dismissed with the same criticism.

Such was not the opinion of Diderot, the painter's most admiring critic and friend. He could not find words in which to adequately praise productions that proved such ”great qualities of the heart, and such good morals.”

<script>