Rosenthal, Angela

Angelica Kauffman - Ma(s)king Claims

Rosenthal, Angela, (1992) "Angelica Kauffman - Ma(s)king Claims" from Art History 15 (1) pp.38-59,
Henley-on-Thames: Blackwell ©
Staff and students of the University of Manchester are reminded that copyright subsists in this extract and
the work from which it was taken. This Digital Copy has been made under the terms of a CLA licence
which allows you to:
* access and download a copy;
* print out a copy;

Please note that this material is for use ONLY by students registered on the course of study as
stated in the section below. All other staff and students are only entitled to browse the material and
should not download and/or print out a copy.

This Digital Copy and any digital or printed copy supplied to or made by you under the terms of this
Licence are for use in connection with this Course of Study. You may retain such copies after the end of
the course, but strictly for your own personal use.
All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and shall be destroyed and/or
deleted if and when required by the University of Manchester.
Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution (including by e-mail)
is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder.
The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral rights in the work and neither
staff nor students may cause, or permit, the distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work, or any
other derogatory treatment of it, which would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.
This is a digital version of copyright material made under licence from the rightsholder, and its accuracy
cannot be guaranteed. Please refer to the original published edition.
Licensed for use for the course: "From Rococo to Now".
Digitisation authorised by Martin Snelling
ISSN: 0141-6790

MANCHESTER
1S24
The University of Manchester
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING
CLAIMS
ANGELA ROSENTHAL

Angelica thou paintress of the m ind

C ornelia K night1
Scholarship has usually understood the oeuvre of Angelica K auffm an (1741 —1807)
as conform ing to, if not epitom izing, eighteenth-century notions of fem ininity. It
has not, thus, been examined whether she m ight have concealed or masked relevant
critiques — a strategy which at tim es was used by wom en writers, and even openly
recom m ended by the popular novelist Eliza H ayw ood in the Female Spectator.
. . . and I again repeat it as the m ost infallible m axim , that whenever we
would truly conquer, we must seem to yield.2
T his article sets out to disclose in the work of Angelica K auffm an com m entaries
upon the dom inant ideologies of sexual difference active in the eighteenth century.
Two paintings, both manifesting complex social significations of this wom an artist,
can now be considered as key works within her oeuvre in this respect. It is m y
contention that in Angelica Kauffman hesitating between the Arts of Music and Painting
(plate 11) and Zeuxis choosing his Models for the Painting of Helen of Troy (plate 14)
K auffm an specifically them atizes and criticizes prevailing societal constructions
of wom en and fem ininity. As a female artist, such critiques surfaced in forms
relevant to her professional situation; she thus makes claims to participate in a
space culturally reserved for men in the world of painting. Nevertheless, in a society
which subscribed to L avater’s assertion that ‘a wom an with a beard is not as
repulsive as a wom an who thinks in her own right’, 1 these claims could not avoid
m arginalization, unless couched in a m anner palatable to dom inant taste.
Consequently, statem ents such as K auffm an’s cannot be decoded unless tied to
the male centred eighteenth-century discourse which defined the role of w om en
in society.
This discourse was linked, in turn, to the rapidly evolving econom ies of trade
and class. Notable am ong evolutions in these sectors in eighteenth-century England
was the em ergence of a self-conscious m iddle class. It was w ithin, and for, this
society that the most powerful and influential m oulding of ‘w om an’ occurred.
Art History Vol. 15 No. 1 March 1992 ISSN 0141—6790
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

11 Angelica K auffm an, Angelica Kauffman hesitating between the Arts of Music and Painting, before 1796, oil on
canvas, 147 X 218 cm (T he R t. H on. T he L ord St O sw ald, Nostell Priory, Y orkshire)

W ith the rising w ealth of the m iddle-class family, w om en could increasingly

be excluded from the world of production and trade. M ore im portantly, rich
husbands, brothers and fathers could now afford to craft ideals of fem ininity, and
position women as decorative fixtures to their newly-won genteel status. Alice Clark
has spoken of a ‘new breed of idle middle-class wom en whose husbands and fathers
did not m ake them w ork’.4 M ore and m ore separated from the public world of
business and politics, w om en were, in opposition, defined by and confined to the
dom estic space of the hom e. These artificial divisions were cast in the form of
‘natural’ dom ains. Early and influential spokesmen of this expanding ideology were
the editors of The Taller and The Spectator, R ichard Steele and Joseph Addison
respectively. As the form er rem arked in 1710:
I am sure, I do not m ean it an injury to wom en, w hen I say there is a
sort of sex in souls. I am tender of offering them , and know it is hard not
to do it on this subject; but I m ust go on to say, that the soul of a m an
and that of a w om an are m ade very unlike, according to the em ploym ents
for which they are designed. . . . T he virtues have respectively a
m asculine and a fem inine cast.5
T he sexual psychology of difference, which com plem ented the physical separation
of female from male, was prim arily concerned with the definition of female ‘nature’.
One-sided ‘debates’ were often confirmed by pseudo-scientific and medical treatises
which — although contradictory — would generally agree that women were unsuited
39
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

to the ‘graver’ disciplines involving rationality and intellect. In Sam uel Jo h n so n ’s

Dictionary of the English Language women, ‘the female of the hum an race’, are described
as the more sprightly and cheerful beings, whose lightness of spirits were, however,
coupled with an instability of character:
Women in their nature are m uch m ore gay and joyous than m en; w hether
it be that their blood is more refined, their fibres m ore delicate, and their
anim al spirits m ore light; vivacity is the gift of women, gravity that of
m en.6
Indeed the opposition of vivacity and gravity became a key agent of gender
differentiation. Powerful tools of societal sculpting such as middle-class periodicals
and conduct books did not fail to praise the positive values of vivacity; nevertheless,
there was an assum ption that, in their ‘n atu ral’ form , they possessed destabilizing
potential. T hom as G isborne’s Enquiry into the Duties of the Female Sex is one of the
m any conduct books attributing these unsteady m ental qualities to wom en:
T he gay vivacity and quickness of im agination, so conspicuous am ong the
qualities in which the superiority of w om en is acknowledged, have a
tendency to lead to unsteadiness of m ind; to fondness of novelty; to habits
of frivolousness, and trifling em ploym ent; to dislike of sober application;
to dislike of graver studies, and too low estim ation of their w orth; to an
unreasonable regard for wit, and striving accom plishm ents; to a thirst for
adm iration and applause; to vanity and affectation.7
It was on account of this excitability, so such authors explained, that conduct books
and education m anuals were necessary: to stabilize the female condition with a
dose of male gravity.
Although m any wom en participated in creating this behavioural model, it was,
as Janet Todd has indicated, men who held the most extreme views in the eighteenth
century. For example, D r John Gregory advised women to hide anything that might
deviate from the passive ideal of fem ininity. W ith striking bluntness he dem ands
that particularly women o f ‘any learning’ should ‘keep it a profound secret, especially
from the m en’.8 W illiam K endrick, in his The Whole Duty of Women, defines
‘knowledge’ in clearly gendered terms for his female readership: ‘She is the daughter
of enquiry and the m other of m any children.’ In a telling passage of m etaphoric
couplings he posits the reciprocal relations between the public space of m en and
the w om an’s home: ‘T hy kindgom is thine own house, and thy governm ent the
care of thy family: let the laws of thy condition be thy study. . . . ’ The real kindgoms,
governm ents and studies are ‘not for thee, O w om an’, but should rather be left
for the ‘wise m en’.9
M any ambitious women suffered under the restrictions and limitations imposed
upon their sex, which excluded them from the power of higher education and from
public expression of ideas. In the narrow space perm itted for the expression of
discontent, some critiques did em erge, notably in the 1730s and ’40s. W om en
com plained of treatm ent as m erely ‘ornam ental’, and M ary M ontagu wrote
ironically of the ‘im aginary Em pire of Beauty’ which excluded wom en from ‘every
post of G overnm ent in the State’.10 E m ergent criticisms were stifled by the
complex encroachm ent of the sentimental m ovement at m id-century. This sweeping
40
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

m ode of thought apparently granted w om en a new status and an influential social

role. Already perceived as possessing a more sensitive and emotive ‘nature’, women
were thus refigured as instinctual arbiters of sensibility. W ithin this ideology m en
could place even greater em phasis upon the ‘otherness’ of w om en, consign them
to a special space (the home), and politically marginalize their utterances with praise.
Indeed, the celebration of the ‘soft virtues’ led to the moral elevation of womanhood,
and to the valorization of em otionally based decisions above the rational, and also,
im portantly, beyond the practical. Joh nso n’s dictionary, in fact, defined ‘sensitive’
in opposition to the rational as ‘H aving sense or perception, but no reason.’11
T hus according to the ideologies of the expanding middle classes in the eighteenth
century w om en w ere, firstly, fixed to the ‘realm ’ of the dom estic and m ore
program m atically barred from participation in the public space of m en; and
secondly, lauded as sensible beings, and labelled as irrational.
T ow ard the end of the century w om en intellectuals increasingly understood
the im plications of their placem ent. Elizabeth H am ilton, the liberal novelist,
recognized in her Letter on the Elementary Principles of Education that the celebration
of sentim ents in the female, through ‘the poisoned weapon of flattery’, was indeed
a powerful m eans of denying w om en a rational education:
By those [men] who consider such em otions as superior to every species
of intellectual enjoym ent, we m ay be assured the cultivation of intellect in
our sex will never be countenanced or encouraged.12
T he eighteenth century coded the higher genres of painting as both public and
rational, and consequently particularly m asculine. As a portraitist and history
painter, Angelica K auffm an was compelled to contend upon territory traditionally
staked out by and for m en. T he category of the sensible, for which she was to be
both representative and proponent, aided her in successfully effecting this ‘trespass’.
T he paintings studied in this paper pinpoint the artist’s awareness of the
restrictions she faced as a w om an professional. T he first to be considered, Angelica
Kauffman hesitating between the Arts of Music and Painting, has often been cited for its
biographical interest; this painting, I argue, also, contains critiques directed at
fundam ental assum ptions concerning fem ininity. T he second work, Zeuxis choosing
his Models for his Painting of Helen of Troy, ostensibly a history painting, is here
identified, furtherm ore, as a self-portrait. P ainted earlier, this work has a m ore
focused relevance to K auffm an’s professional situation, within the constraints of
the artistic econom y of her tim e.
Both paintings exhibit clear claims to intellectual and professional rights.
Nevertheless, the claims are not open, but rather hidden in the recesses of traditional
iconographies. M ary Schofield has recently disclosed this dynam ic in the works
of eighteenth-century female authors. T hus w riters such as Eliza Haywood, Sarah
Fielding, C harlotte Sm ith and Elizabeth Inchbald used the cover story of their
rom ance plots to ‘m ask their own fem inist, aggressive intentions and to unm ask
the facile and fatuous fictions they are supposed to be w riting as m em bers of the
weaker sex’.13
M asking was a strategy resorted to by w om en intellectuals so as to ensure
reception of their works. In this m anner they could avoid the penalty imposed upon
open critiques of the social order: m arginalization. This punishm ent, as L avater’s
41
 ANGKI.ICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

rem ark implies and the m any critiques of M ary W ollstonecraft attest, often took
the form of ‘unsexing’. D enied the foundations of sexual identity, transgressive
ideas were denied the space for practical reception.
It is understandable, therefore, that wom en — particularly those who profited
from the ideologies of the tim e such as K auffm an — reaching fame and success
within its constructs would engage only in a hidden critique. They thus concealed
their criticism and claims under acceptable masks, covers wrought from the m aterial
of their constructed fem ininity. T here can be no question that K auffm an was well
aware of the dem ands of her audience, and that her visual rhetoric was crafted
not only to be accepted, but also to be successful; yet her ability to perform w ithin
the m argins of contem porary taste was her strength, and should not, as so often
it has, obscure subversive claims expressed in her work.
*

T he first version of K auffm an’s m uch discussed self-portrait, Angelica Kauffman

hesitating between the Arts of Music and Painting (Pushkin M useum , Moscow), is recorded
by her husband, Antonio Zucchi, in the list of her works produced in Italy between
O ctober 1781 and 1795.14 T he work was painted in 1791—2 and acquired by the
Russian princess of H olstein-Beck.1’ K auffm an is known to have executed a
num ber of autograph replicas.1*’ T his earlier painting differs slightly from a
second surviving version painted between 1794 and 1796, reproduced and discussed
in this paper, which is now in the collection of Lord St Osw ald (Nostell Priory,
Y orkshire).17
The canvas displays three life-size, three-quarter length figures, the middle one
of which is recognizable as a self-portrait. It is generally accepted that this
m onum ental painting illustrates a crucial m om ent in Angelica K auffm an’s life:
her decision in the early 1760s to become a professional painter instead of following
her other talent, m usic.18 T he flanking figures represent K auffm an’s possible
choices. She is debating a traditional paragone between two arts and is consequently
caught in a m om ent of intellectual discrim ination.
T he seated figure to the left in the picture is identified by the sheet m usic on
her lap and the lyre on her girdle; the standing figure to the right, holding a palette
and brushes in her left hand, personifies Painting. K auffm an herself, pictured as
a beautiful young wom an in contem porary fashion, bears no attributes — her
com panions are her attributes.
The biographically based event is mediated through a classical topos, the familiar
pictorial type of ‘Hercules at the C rossroads’, or the ‘Choice of H ercules’. T he
legend of H ercules was well known and highly esteem ed in eighteenth-century art
theory and ethics. Know n for his physical labours, H ercules also sym bolized, in
his choice between V irtue and Vice, desirable intellectual and moral qualities. Thus
the m otif was plied by Shaftesbury to express his m oral expectations of a rt.19
Since the Renaissance, the subject had been adduced to justify claims for the
intellectual status and didactic purpose of the arts, and, m ore im portantly, the
artist.20 K auffm an’s self-fashioning as a female H ercules goes beyond private,
biographical m atters or witty role playing; she is in fact claim ing rights to the
qualities em bodied in the ancient m ale hero and consciously inserting herself into
42
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

a highly regarded tradition of history painting.*1 T hrough this pictorial strategy,

the work transcends the status as a record custom arily granted it, and enters into
the com plex discourse of artistic self-expression and self-prom otion.
K auffm an follows w hat Shaftesbury defined as the third stage of action and
w hat he felt best expressed the ‘grand E vent’.22 It is the m ost fully rhetorical and
psychological m om ent, allowing for a variety of reactions to one single event. T he
history painter Jam es B arry in fact singled out this aspect of K auffm an’s work
for praise:
Some m ay say, that this is great, since it was executed by a female; but I
say, that whoever produced such a picture, in w hatever age or w hatever
country, it is great, it is noble, it is sublim e!23
T he ‘grand E vent’ is the m om ent w hen ‘their D ispute is already far advanc’d,
and V IR T U E seems to gain her C au se’.24 According to Shaftesbury, H ercules
m ay be depicted in a variety of poses.25 Angelica K auffm an chose to depict herself
fully com posed. T hough not unaw are of her sentim ental attachm ents to M usic,
she cannot be read as ‘torn by contrary passions’, but rises confidently to follow
P ainting (the folds of her dress indicate that she has ju st risen from her seat).
K auffm an’s own gestures particularly signify her situation. W ith her right hand
she is ‘holding M usic’s hand as a final adieu’,26 while her left is decisively tilted
back and firm ly points, with palm open, tow ards Painting. K auffm an’s actively
pointing hand, which almost touches the palette and brushes, symbolizes her clearly
reflected choice. She can in no sense be read as guided by prevailing em otions.
N othing bears out this view so powerfully as a com parison with R eynolds’s
portrait of the actor David Garrick between Tragedy and Comedy of 1761.27 This
painting lays bare the erotic impulses that are em bedded in traditional representa­
tions of the subject. In such paintings, the very inclusion of a personification of
Vice accom m odates the visual desires of the m ale audience. Such enjoym ent is
hidden or effaced through the virtuous choice of Hercules, which provides a moral
screen for the lustful eye. By employing a mock-heroic mode, the Reynolds painting
inadvertently tears dow n this screen, and reveals the erotic sub-text or counter­
text: the m ale view er/H ercules illicitly draw n to Vice instead of Virtue. G arrick is
decidedly not choosing his path on intellectual grounds. Com edy cajoles the actor,
even tickling him under the arm . T hrough her exposed shoulders and an alluring
smile, the feline female28 embodies sensuousness and seduction. W ith his hunched
shoulders and wide open arm s, G arrick displays the palm s of his hands as if to
excuse him self to angry T ragedy for som ething over which he has no power. By
this outw ard twisting of his wrists, G arrick reveals his inability to resist the charm s
of the C om edy figure, and revels as willing prey to the unvirtuous.
In contrast to the erotic sub-text in male centred H ercules treatm ents,
K auffm an’s work dam pens any hidden or overt sexual titillation. W hereas Reynolds
chose to stress the underlying erotic contents of the them e, aim ing at hum our,
Kauffm an, by denying the expected voyeurism , focuses instead upon the intellectual
choice involved. T he choice of subject perm itted the artist to free herself from the
pervasive eighteenth-century opinion regarding the essential feature of the ‘sensible’
female: basing choice upon feelings of the heart alone. W ithin the confines of
conventional pictorial language, the artist com m ents upon the prevailing attitudes
43
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

that judged sex a determ ining factor governing intelligence. T he erotic and anti­
erotic elem ents of the traditional, heterosexual H erculean choice are throw n into
confusion with K auffm an’s adoption of the protagonist’s role. H er reversal diffuses
the erotic energy of the traditional representation; m oreover, her opening up of
a potentially ‘illicit’ relation and sim ultaneous dismissal of this notion closes the
aperture upon the w aiting male gaze. H er decision is not erotic, and consequently
tied to weakness and the reaction to ‘sin’, but is definitively rational. H ence,
K auffm an is able not only to disperse the notions of fem inine sensibility, but also
to reconstruct from the fragments of this doctrine a positive conception of the female
intellect.
T he fact that such a com m entary was couched in the form of an insertion into
a male role should not be read as a weakness, but rather a necessity. Such a
stratagem is a result of the lack of iconographical m eans through which w om en
could express themselves regarding m ental capacity in a favourable light. W hile
‘M an ’ cam e to signify intellect, ‘W om an’ was radically erased from this notion.
M oreover, this exam ple dem onstrates the socially constructed asym m etry of the
symbolic order of power relations between m en’s and w om en’s liberty, first pointed
out by Griselda Pollock. Not only is there no comparable tradition of erotic imagery
addressed to wom en but also, and above all, a particular signification of w om an
as body and as sexual had been established. A reciprocal objectification of the male
body for the female gaze was not culturally acceptable and is still difficult to
establish.29
T his impossibility of an equal inversion is m ade clear in a painting by M arie
Guilhelm ine, Comtesse Benoist (1768—1826), Innocence between Virtue and Vice (plate
12).30 In this work Vice is represented by a young m an; however, the sexual
power relation remains conventional and confirms male dominance. Separated from
the female group by encircling clouds, he is identified through the flowers in his
hair and the snake in the rose bush — traditional symbols for vice and seduction.
This (male) Vice runs after the beautiful (female) Innocence who seeks refuge in
the arm s of (female) V irtue. Together the two wom en will safely reach the tem ple
of Innocence. Vice does not address him self as a sensually passive and receptive
object to female fantasy. O n the contrary, he represents actual threat. Innocence
is perm itted no time or space to choose and act, but can only react. C onsequently,
she has not the sexual freedom to contem plate or fantasize over an unvirtuous
decision.
W ithin the dom inant structure of sexual roles Benoist has nevertheless established
a sign of female power; Innocence, having perform ed her fem inine virtues, acts
now in unity with her protectress. Looking back at Vice with stern — almost angry
— faces, the wom en not only confront but also weaken the aggressor. By doing
so, they now gain control over the situation.
Innocence’s virtuous behaviour is recom m ended as paradigm atic for w om en
in the face of aggressive male sexuality. T hrough such idealized responses, wom en
can reach the vestal tem ple — in the painting characterized by an altar with a
flame — tow ard which V irtue gestures.31 In contrast to K auffm an’s distinctly
public aspiration, condensed in the temple of fame, the virtuous w om an is provided
with a goal, celebrating private qualities.
By elim inating the male presence, K auffm an dispenses with overt eroticism
44
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

12 M arie G uilhelraine, C om tesse Benoist, Innocence between Virtue and Vice, 1790, oil on canvas,
87 X 115 cm (Private C ollection; photo G. K rey)

and creates a scenario for a choice m ade relatively free from external coercion.
In doing so she breaks w ith the traditional distinction between V irtue and Vice
and dispenses with the sexual connotations im plied by these categories.
K auffm an instead characterizes her figures as em bodying different socially
constructed roles and spheres. M usic wears an intensely red dress, set off by the
dark earthy colours of the colum n and drapery in the background, a device which,
placed behind a figure, has its origin in courtly painting and, far from suggesting
vice, bestows dignity on the sitter. In K auffm an’s painting it also expresses another
m eaning. M usic, seated, is at hom e in her dom ain. R ead in relation to the tem ple
on the hill in the background, the structure from which K auffm an takes her leave
is the tem ple of M usic. T he personification of this art is placed within an interior
defined by a low parapet, and in an atm osphere suggesting dom estic w arm th.
Brought forw ard, close to the picture plane, M usic’s dom ain is closely linked with
the space of the spectator and thus with the dom estic environm ent in which the
picture was to be placed.
T he figure of M usic bears all the traditional cultural signals of ‘fem inine’
sensitivity. H er general appearance is that of a feeling w om an who has to part
with a dear friend. She expresses calm and m odesty and her longing glance to
Kauffm an reveals her ability to suffer in silence. M usic’s left hand, which Kauffm an
tenderly squeezes ‘as a final adieu’,33 is turned in a symbolic gesture tow ards the
heart and expresses ‘A bschiedsschm erz’. It should not be m istaken for a gesture
with which M usic is attem pting to hold K auffm an back from her departure. A
draw ing m akes K auffm an’s intention plain (plate 13).34 Showing a seated wom an
45
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

13 Angelica K auffm an, P reparatory draw ing

for the Figure of M usic in Angelica Kauffman
hesitating between the Arts of Music and Painting,
c. 1790, black chalk, 40.6 X 30 cm
(w hereabouts unknow n)
with a sheet of paper on her lap, this is a preparatory draw ing for K auffm an’s
figure of M usic.35 As the central figure’s hand is not yet introduced into the
com position, the gesture of the hand turned towards the heart becomes strikingly
clear. T his draw ing is thus a key to understanding M usic’s character. H er pose
contains no effort to hold K auffm an back. In fact, M usic seems to lack all ability
to ‘hold’. H er right hand appears almost incapable of grasping the sheet m usic
on her lap, as if the effort necessary to support the paper could not be sum m oned.
T he shadow of her fingers on the sheet reveals the light touch of her open and
completely relaxed, passive hand. T his powerlessness and elegant ‘w eakness’ has
to be understood as a virtue coded as fem inine. T he lack of power and general
passivity reveal how little she dem ands for herself and therefore express fem inine
modesty and unselfishness in an ideal way. M usic’s art comes from her own body.
Referring with her gesture towards herself, she reveals an introverted character.
T u rn in g to K auffm an’s im age of Painting, the gestural language is of quite
a different ‘n atu re’, inform ed by the aesthetic of the sublime rather than that of
sensibility. T he figure wears a blue dress, and the cool blue green and grey colours
of the landscape background which frames her and Angelica Kauffm an characterize
their space of action. P ainting’s forceful stride and the dynam ic flutter of her scarf
are the outw ard m anifestations of her energetic character. She is self-confident and
firmly wields her palette and brush while pointing with her right arm am bitiously
to the aspired goal — the tem ple which signifies fame and success. H er raised arm
parallels the m ountain range and her fingertips almost touch the Apollonian heights
46
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KINC CLAIMS

beyond. T he temple, which also refers to neo-classical art theory and contem porary
taste, is the explicit goal of her work. Painting seems to be clearly characterized
by public virtues, in the eighteenth century associated with ‘m asculinity’. V irtues
such as energy, activity, am bition, extrovertness and dynam ism find their spacial
equivalent in the public presence which lies beyond the walls of private and domestic
comfort.
As Shaw e-Taylor has already pointed out, the figures of M usic and Painting
manifest a clear polarization of artistic models. M usic, both through pose and colour,
refers to V enetian m odels of the school of T itian , especially Palm a G iovane; on
the other hand, the energetic action and classicizing profile of P ainting rely on
Raphaelesque images. In fact, Painting’s model can be traced to the kneeling female
figure in the centre of R ap hael’s Transfiguration,36 W hile the eighteenth century
saw in T itian a representative of a sensual and pleasing artistic style,37 Raphael
was regarded as superior and adm ired for his noble and G rand Style, excellency
in outline and clarity. T his sublim e style was appropriate for G rand Style history
paintings and, in R eynolds’s words, represented ‘the m ore manly . . . m ann er’.38
T his typological gesture was hardly inert, but effected a division of the picture
into two contrasting spheres, o f ‘Fem ininity’ and ‘M asculinity’. By choosing the
path P ainting indicates, K auffm an opts to leave the private, dom estic sphere and
enters a predom inantly m ale — that is m asculine — dom ain. T o choose M usic
would im ply not to go anyw here at all, but rather to rem ain in that interior space
associated with the spectator’s (assumed) domestic space. Rising from the enclosing
wall upon which she was seated, the artist advertises her decision to enter the public
space of the painter.39 T he declam atory gesture of her left hand elucidates the
rationality of her decision. Equally, her decisive step tow ards Painting underlines
the independence and self-determ ination of her choice. Such ‘heroism ’ was itself
the conceit of a successful artist who had already reached the desired goals of fame
and fortune.40
Pollock and Parker have rightly draw n attention to the possible devaluation
of the female artist when flanked by two beautiful wom en. W hereas G arrick’s
individuality in R eynolds’s work is never in danger, K auffm an runs the risk of
being read, in relation to her two com panions, as purely symbolic. T his slipping
into sym bolism, and therefore out of individuality, precipitates an iconographical
shift. T hus K auffm an, as a beautiful young w om an, m ight transform into one of
the three classical G races.41 T his shift, however, is not, as Pollock and Parker
imply, a danger to the portrait but rather its strength. In attem pting to create an
alternative im agery of the ‘m asculine’ H ercules dilem m a, K auffm an sought to
counterbalance the potentially aggressive them e with the topos of the Three Graces.
T he eighteenth-century audience was accustom ed to ‘read ’ images on different
levels — and was aw are of this type of pictorial reference. R eynolds’s picture of
the three Montgomery Sisters, for exam ple, was recognized both as a portrait of the
sisters as well as a picturing of them as the T hree G races.42
K auffm an em ployed such an allegorical shift consciously. In doing so, she not
only gleaned the benefits of a pleasing classical reference, but also effaced, or masked
her potentially displeasing social criticism. T he balance between the pictorial themes
of H ercules and the T hree G races is effected so as to m ake palatable w hat on first
sight seems inappropriate for her as a female protagonist. H aving tracked the claims
47
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

implied by K auffm an’s self-insertion into the guise of Hercules, and the effacement
of the external obstacles to male consum ption via the T hree G races, it is now
necessary to note the intended am bivalence of the artist’s statem ent.
It is known that Angelica K auffm an used em blem s from R ip a’s Iconologia in
her works and quite obviously she also relied on it for this painting.4:i In com m on
with other traditional em blem books, the Iconologia describes the topos of the T hree
Graces as a symbol for amicitia, that is, perfect friendship. According to Aristotle
this ideal friendship, as symbolized by the T hree G races, is a m utally expressed
sym pathy between people, led by V irtue and R eason.44 T heir conform ity is
expressed by their physical sim ilarity. T heir dress is ‘w hite’ or ‘red ’, and their
figures are characterized by the ‘purest innocence of the souls’, far apart from any
kind of falseness and unnaturalness, which distinguishes true love. Beyond their
physical appearance Aristotle states that one of the T hree Graces shows her breast,
pointing with ‘her fingers to the h eart’. By doing so she assures her friends, with
the words: ‘Longe & P rope’ (far and near), that true amicitia rem ains alive in the
hearts of friends w hether they are close to each other or far apart; although tim e
and destiny m ight change, friends are always prepared to live or die for amicitia.
It becomes apparent that though K auffm an’s rational choice concerns her
profession, M usic rem ains her friend. Possibly the flower garland in M usic’s hair
refers to the persistency of friendship. In the traditional Hercules subject, the flowers
in the hair of Vice indicate the vanity and transience of beauty, as they will die
after Hercules has left her for V irtue. However, in K auffm an’s painting the flowers
are a type of bindweed (convolvulus); consequently they m ight indicate the strong
ties which exist between true friends.45
Effacing the aggression of her social m essage, K auffm an calls for an erasure
of the false opposition between w om an and intellect. She has m ade it her concern
to express that there should be no contradiction between being a sensitive w om an
and having and using ‘sense’. R ather she wishes to present sensibility colluding
with rationalist ‘fem inist’ intentions. Angelica K auffm an is not ruled by nature
or driven by emotions, she is neither seduced nor guided, but employs such feelings
in taking her own decision as an intellectual individual.
Painting and M usic are both virtues acting in different social spheres. By
following the public life inscribed culturally as m asculine, K auffm an challenges
the dom inant eighteenth-century ideology of fem ininity which located w om en in
the private sphere of domestic comfort. In uniting both Virtues, sense and sensibility,
K auffm an powerfully dem onstrates the advantage of a female artist in form ing
a congruence between these two values.4(1
Painted in the 1790s the social com m entary recognizable in K auffm an’s self­
portrait is analogous to criticisms m ade by female writers. It has been observed
by literary critics that ‘fem inist’ debates — however different each com m ent m ight
be ‘in term s of analysis and strategies’ — arise at times of political instability and
revolution. T hus critical w riting aim ing at sexual equality appeared both after the
Glorious Revolution (1688) and the French Revolution (1789). G enerally these
texts were inform ed by a rationalist tradition. V ivien Jones has pointed out that
in the 1790s women writers like C atherine M acaulay, M ary W ollstonecraft, M ary
Robinson and M ary H ays adopted the language of ‘political libertarianism ’. In
subscribing to the ideas of Locke, H obbes and later Enlightenm ent philosophy,
48
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

Hays, for example, argued that ‘successful political revolution is impossible without
equality for w om en’.47
T here is no doubt that K auffm an’s m asked critique, while bound up with her
self-assertion as a thinking w om an, also participated in a wider political discourse,
and it m ight even be possible that she has consciously m ade a socio-political
reference. It is apparent that colour plays a significant role throughout the work.
Not only are the individual colours themselves of symbolic im port but their interplay
and com bination cannot be ignored. T hus K auffm an has represented the costum e
of P ainting in the colours blue, yellow and red: the primary colours,48 As such they
represent the totality of colour — a very appropriate characterization for a
personficiation of Painting. A nother use of colour can tentatively be placed in a
political context, nam ely the colour triad which is represented by the dresses of
K auffm an’s three female figures. It seems striking that Kauffm an changed the colour
of M usic’s dress from yellow in the first version to red in the later painting,
com pleted betw een 1794 and 1796.49 By depicting her figures dressed in the
colours red, white and blue, Angelica K auffm an m ight be quoting the colours of
the French Tricolore,5() As the order of the vertical colour stripes was not
established until 1812 both com binations were possible: red-w hite-blue as well as
blue-w hite-red. T he conscious quotation of the French colour triad has been
recognized in other portrait paintings.51 Nevertheless, I am not trying to suggest
that K auffm an was a revolutionist. Like m any others she dissociated herself from
the violence following the French R evolution; m oreover, she was hardly anti­
m onarchist.52 W hether K auffm an used this colour device consciously, or whether
it was m erely coincidental, requires further exam ination. But, as my reading of
the painting suggests, she would have sym pathized with the politicized ideas of
E nlightenm ent rationalism at work in the 1790s in relation to her own position.
As active, self-determ ined w om an, K auffm an’s intervention becomes exem plary.

T he powerful gesture K auffm an m akes tow ard the brush and palette of Painting
surfaces, transform ed, elsewhere in her oeuvre; furtherm ore, it describes a similarly
disposed figure.
T he painting Zeuxis choosing his Models for the Painting of Helen of Troybl is at first
sight a straightforw ard historical painting (plate 14). Engraved by Bartolozzi and
published by W . Palm er in 1785 it can, on stylistic grounds, be dated to the late
1770s.54
T he anecdote depicted derives from ancient literature.55 T he G reek artist,
Zeuxis, am bitious to create an im age of ideal female beauty, undertook to paint
the portrait of the legendary H elen. H e assem bled the five m ost beautiful wom en
of C rotona, from whom he selected the perfect parts of each for his picture.56
Superficially, K auffm an’s figures apparently enact a straightforw ard narration
of the famous tale. Zeuxis, to the right of centre, is seated on a stool and has already
started with his ‘scientific’ exam ination. Before him , the beautiful wom en playfully
get undressed to present themselves sequentially. K auffm an has produced an image
with erotic overtones in which the delicate female figures address their beauty and
49
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

14 Angelica K auffm an, Zeuxis choosing his Models for the Painting oj Helm o j Troy, late 1770s, oil on canvas
81 X 112 cm (A nnm ary Brown M em orial Collection: Brow n U niversity, Providence, R hode Island, U SA )

nudity not only to Zeuxis but, in their relief-like exposure to the picture plane,
also to the male audience in general.
It is undeniable that K auffm an’s work participates in the dom inant conventions
of corporeal surveillance and seeks to be adm ired in a way described by C ount
Bernsdorff, the D anish Prim e M inister, in his appraisal of the appeal of her work
in general:
H er com position is full of grace, and the figures have the quiet dignity of
the G reek models. H er wom en are m ost w om anly, m odest and loving,
and she conveys with m uch art the proper relation betw een the sexes, the
dependence of the weaker on the stronger, which appeals much to her
m asculine critics. '7
K auffm an’s fam iliar language of fem inine presentation reinforces a conservative
reading of the work, disguising the painting’s subversive m eaning(s). A critical
reading of this second work will show that K auffm an does not simply adapt, repeat
and thus reinforce patriarchal structures but that she explicitly criticizes the strictures
of the artistic environm ent in which she was com pelled to operate. H er basic
stratagem was to underm ine the traditional creed of the intellectual artist as
exclusively male.
T he pervasive generalizing interpretations of K auffm an’s paintings, such as
that of Bernsdorff, have hindered (if not prohibited) a persuasive, differentiated
50
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

and critical reading of her works. M odern scholarship retains the distortions of
this powerful optic. W hile Saxl and W ittkow er call Angelica K auffm an’s treatm ent
‘sweet and rather insipid, lacking true understanding of the classical spirit’,58
W alch believes that ‘the flavor suggests that it was chosen m ore as a pretext for
showing a young gallant surrounded by partially disrobed beauties than for any
m ore high-m inded purpose.’59 Even an attem pted fem inist reading has failed to
break the established patterns. T hus B aum gartel feels that the painting ‘transfers
the usual creator-producer scheme’, and believes that Angelica Kauffm an ‘obviously
did not question the today-relevant criticism of role distribution’.60
C ontrary to these views, I wish to perm it K auffm an som ething we willingly
bestow upon her m ale contem poraries: intellect — at root, the act of choosing.
I intend to reveal how her artistic choices in this work reveal an active and critical
m ind (although one not rem oved, ahistorically, from the pressures of conventional
representation).
It is striking that only four w om en appear before Zeuxis who sits in profile
turning to the left. The fifth C rotonan stands behind him and in front of ‘his’ canvas.
She does not appear to be considering undressing herself for the gaze of Zeuxis.
O n the contrary, chastely dressed, she self-confidently picks up one of the brushes
which lies next to her on the table. Stepping behind Zeuxis she has consequently
freed herself from the depicted male gaze. T his em ancipatory expression is probably
the m ost powerful in K auffm an’s oeuvre.
As a painting by a w om an artist, there are firm grounds for reading a
correspondence between the painted figure and K auffm an herself.61 Fortunately,
this relationship is not simply ephem eral but is concretized in the signature, Angelica
Kauffman Pinx, at the bottom right of the Active canvas in the painting.62
Furtherm ore, physiognomic comparisons to other representations of the artist make
it obvious that the usurping C rotonan is a self-portrait. Inserting herself into the
narrative, the claims set out in the work take on m ore significant dim ensions. T he
male artist now alm ost appears as her assistant and she, through her act of seizure,
asserts her rights to artistic participation. By placing herself as an active artist in
front of her canvas, K auffm an not only deprives Zeuxis of one of his m odels but
also of his profession. She has achieved his status. As a female Zeuxis she expresses
her claim to intellect.
T he ‘Zeuxisian gaze’ is intellectual — literally. It entails the choosing of
particular com ponents, and thus dem ands election and not delight.63 The
instrum ents of Z euxis’ scientific approach — the calipers — lie next to him on
the floor and serve as his attribute. In appropriating Z euxis’ gaze, K auffm an is
claiming rights, specifically, to this ‘objective’ lens. Opposed to this Zeuxisian modus
operandi, one m ight fruitfully consider a ‘Parisian gaze’. It is, of course, no accident
that the academ ician K auffm an should provide her Zeuxis with a pose traditionally
associated w ith Paris, and his explicitly erotic ju dg em en t.64 T he seated figure,
already underm ined by the usurping of his canvas and brushes, is intellectually
weakened by the Parisian iconography th at K auffm an chooses for him . This
transform ation is powerfully realized in the calipers which lie unused at his feet.
T hey are at once both the key to his identification and the symbol of his
abandonm ent of the scientific m ode which characterized his intellectual, Zeuxisian
m ethod. By touching with his hands, instead of m easuring with the instrum ent,
51
 ANGKLICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

he surrenders to the possibility of seduction; the seated figure thus cedes his identity
and rational procedure to the claim ant behind.65 M oreover, as the fifth C rotonan
model and a wom an, K auffm an paints with a deep knowledge of the female form .
The artist does not require the fragmenting tools of her m ale counterpart, but instead
confronts her canvas with a unifying, synthetic notion of artistic representation
that surpasses the m ethod im plied by the abandoned calipers.
T he conceit of a canvas behind K auffm an is prepared with loosely applied
underpaint ready for work and for the preparatory draw ing. As such, it recalls
the large bare canvas to the right in K auffm an’s famous portrait of Joshua Reynolds,
painted 1767—8.66 T he left side of the portrait is crowded with references to
Reynolds’s theoretical concerns, including the M ichelangelo bust, a volume of the
Idler in which R eynolds’s first theoretical essay was published and a print of an
antique statue. T he right side contains an em pty canvas. It is upon this surface
that all theoretical knowledge will be applied. T he void, blank canvas signifies
through its in utero state the intellectual expenditure that precedes artistic
endeavour.67 T hus it is an em blem of the m ental processes — the genius — upon
which artists staked their claims to status. In her own historical self-portrait
Kauffm an reintroduces this device, claiming for herself what she gave to Reynolds.
Yet in this representation K auffm an provides an example of a finished product
of her cognition, fram ing herself against the ‘canvas’ as an idealized image created
according to Zeuxisian academic principles.68 T ransform ed from the fifth model
into the female Zeuxis, K auffm an is then realized as an intellectually determ ined
icon of w om anhood, as H elen. She thus states, and proves with the exam ple of
her own art, that when painting she proceeds in a Zeuxisian m anner. Angelica
K auffm an advertises through her own im age her ability as a portraitist and as a
creator of ideal female beauty.
K auffm an’s portrait, projected on the canvas and located in a ‘life-class’, recalls
a famous painting by Zoffany, The Academicians of the Royal Academy of 17 7 2.69 T he
assembly of Royal Academ icians taking place in the life-class em phasizes the
theoretical and practical im portance given during the eighteenth century to study
after the nude, regarded as essential for artists aspiring to the highest genre of history
painting. As women, the founding m em bers M ary M oser and Angelica K auffm an
were excluded from this practice and could not be represented as participants in
the assembly. T hey appear in the interests of historical accuracy, but are only
represented, as Parker and Pollock have pointed out, by ‘m urky, uninform ative
and almost unrecognizable portraits on the right-hand wall’. As objects on the wall
they are consequently deprived of their status as active painters.70 Joseph M oser
(cousin of M ary M oser) addressed the issue in relation to K auffm an:
It has been observed, and indeed with a considerable degree of truth,
that, in graphic pursuits, boys have a very considerable advantage over
girls, inasm uch as the form er can, in academies, study the hum an figure
from nature, while the latter are confined to those models cast, and
sometimes reduced in the most exquisite m anner, from antique statues,
which have long been considered as standards of proportion, taste and
genius. T his, although it seem[s] a disadvantage to female artists, is not
so in fact: we have never seen a living model equal in sym m etry and
52
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

elegance to an ancient statue, nor is it possible to be so; because, like the

H elen of Zeuxis, these are com posed of the beauties of several of the most
perfect figures that, in the attic age of m asculine or fem inine perfection,
could be found. Angelica, therefore, we believe, caught those irresistible
graces that played around her picturesque form s from the m odels that she
studied; . . .71
As his words reveal, M oser attem pts to locate the exclusion of Kauffm an and women
artists in general in a positive light; bu t the text also makes clear how w om en were
denied access to that process which defined painting as an intellectual endeavour:
the assim ilation of parts, inherent in the Zeuxisian m ethod.
In her own historical self-portrait as a female Zeuxis, K auffm an them atizes
w om an’s exclusion from the life-class and it appears that she literally com m ents
on Zoffany’s assem bly portrait. D epicting herself in pursuit of her profession,
actually participating in a life-class, K auffm an is aw are of her ‘trespass’. T his is
powerfully realized in the act of stepping beyond Zeuxis. It is only in this space
which lies beyond male — or public — control in general that she can study what
was intended to be available to the male gaze only.
K auffm an’s gesture of fram ing herself w ithin the canvas in her painting
com m ents directly on her ‘position’ in The Academicians of the Royal Academy. Yet
while in Zoffany’s painting her im age, and that of M ary M oser, can all too easily
be m istaken for ‘parts of the studio furniture’,72 K auffm an only tantalizes us with
an illusion. H overing betw een subject and object she leaves us in no doubt that
the em blem of her profession — the brush and palette — belong, together with
her seizing hand, to the realm of her ‘subjectivity’. T his hand, which dives out
of the shadow cast by her own body to grasp the brush, appears awkwardly cut
off by the right edge of the large ‘canvas’. It is thus projected as an active hand
in front of the picture plane, not w ithin it.
W hile K auffm an’s forehead is m eaningfully ‘enlightened’ — signifying the
artist’s mental energy — it is particularly the body of the model exam ined by Zeuxis
and her com panion to the left in the picture which are located in light. K auffm an
has offered here exam ples from her academ ic education. T he figure in the centre
of the canvas is m odelled, as Saxl and W ittkow er have pointed out, on the V enus
K allipygos.73 It seems difficult to decide w hether ‘Zeuxis’ is in the act of
positioning the m odel in this classical pose by lifting her arm , or w hether he studies
her arm and gets carried away with ‘all the m inute breaks and peculiarities’ and
is therefore unable to recognize the ‘general n atu re’ and classical beauty of the
figure.74 T he latter alm ost seems to be the case. H er com panions equally recall
classical poses or quotations in the m anner of the ‘O ld M asters’. T hus the seated
‘beauty’ undoing her sandal features prom inently in Lodovico D avid’s Apelles dipinge
le Grazie {La scuola del nudo), here clutching her foot,75 appears again slightly
transform ed in Pom peo B atoni’s Susannah and the Elders76 and, w hat seems to be
of particular interest, her pose also occurs in Zoffany’s painting discussed above.77
W hile in the form er exam ples this pose was tied with a particular ideal of
w om anhood, it is im portant that in Zoffany’s painting it is actually taken up by
the male model of the life-class — possibly indicating a lack of iconographical motifs
depicting m en in the rather unheroic (un-m asculine) circum stance of dressing or
53
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

undressing. Yet while in the first instances the beautiful w om an appeared unaw are
of the fact that she was — in this very m om ent — the object of the gaze, it is precisely
her unselfconsciousness that invites her audience to an erotic voyeurism . O n the
contrary, Zoffany’s m ale model, couched in the ‘feminine pose’, looks straight
into the view er’s eyes and actively engages the view er’s glance, thus avoiding any
possible objectification. Seated in the right foreground he appears to have just
finished his posing session, and gets dressed while the second model is being
positioned by the K eeper of the School.78 Equally the pose of the second model
is sophisticated.79 Both in K auffm an’s and in Zoffany’s pictures the poses of the
models are ennobled by assim ilation of classical prototypes to place them in the
context of ‘H igh A rt’.
W hile Zoffany’s supra-naturalistic depiction of the assembly group bestows on
his painting the illusion of a ‘scientific objectivity’ to the point that we believe in
the actuality of the ‘m om ent’ depicted, K auffm an’s mythological narrative effaces
its contem porary context. Painted in som bre colours which recall the works of past
masters, Kauffman chooses a relief-like composition for her ‘ancient’ subject m atter.
But by giving her m odels the poses of classical sculptures K auffm an also masks
the subversiveness of her artistic practice in the life-class. H er work hovers between
life-class and sculpture-class, teasing us with the possibility of transgression.
As opposed to the m ore general claims m ade in Angelica Kauffman hesistating
between the Arts of Music and Painting, this historical self-image can, ironically perhaps,
be tied closer to K auffm an’s life and working environm ent than the openly
biographical scene. W ithin the ostensibly neutral zone of historical narrative,
Kauffm an addresses w om en’s exclusion from the life-class, and argues for her place
in the form ation of high culture. T he critique im planted in the Zeuxis possessed
particular historical relevance within the institutionalized practices of artistic
production which barred wom en from the most prestigious study conventions. As
an academ ician in Bologna (1762), Florence (1762) and Rom e (1765), as well as
a founding m em ber of the Royal Academy in London (1768), K auffm an was well-
equipped to form ulate a critique of such systemic im balances. It is obvious that
such asym m etry would have been felt particularly acutely by K auffm an, who,
accepted as a history painter, was denied access to that practice which set the genre
apart as an intellectual pursuit.
Although this painting relates to her particular, almost incom parable, historical
situation, it nonetheless can stand in wider contexts as an em blem of the exclusion
of her sex.80
T he chronologically later painting addresses broader issues m ore directly.
D ism antling Jo h n so n ’s definition of sensitivity as based on a false opposition w ith
reason, Kauffm an joins other female intellectuals in criticizing the confining aspects
of sensibility. U ndoing the opposition she reconstructs a scene of female intellect,
while still retaining qualities of em otionality. In this respect she is thus less radical
in her thinking than W ollstonecraft, for exam ple, who actively sought to erase the
category of the sensible. T he com prom ise m ade by K auffm an fairly sums up her
pragmatic approach: combining an ideological fidelity to a differentiated and positive
notion of female sexual identity, and an unwillingness to sacrifice professional
success. T he disclosure of the m asking dynam ic in these two paintings helps to
define these im peratives. T hus etched as guides to her cognitive and political
54
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS

position, these lines of thought prom ote a rethinking of ou r im age of K auffm an

as an historical individual.
NOTES
T his article, which form s part o f m y P h.D . dissertation ‘A ngelika K auffm ann (1741 —1807) als
B ildnism alerin’, currently in preparation, has profited from conversations w ith D avid B indm an, N orm an
Bryson, A ndreas H aus, G riselda Pollock and A drian R andolph; I should like to thank them . I am ,
m oreover, grateful to Neil M cW illiam for his helpful suggestions.
1 Q uoted by J . M oser, ‘M em oir of the late
Angelica K auffm an, R .A .’, The European
Magazine and London Review, A pril 1809, pp.
2 5 1 -6 2 , p. 259.
2 E. H ayw ood, The Female Spectator, 1774—6, vols.
1—4, 7th ed., publ. for H . G ard n er, L ondon,
1771, vol. 2, p. 179; quoted in M .A . Schofield,
Masking and Unmasking the Female M ind —
Disguising Romances in Feminine Fiction,
,
1713—1799 L ondon and T o ronto, 1990, p. 23
(m y italics).
3 Ein Weib m it einem Bart ist nicht so widrig, als
ein Weib, das den Freygeist spielt’, Physiognomische
Fragmente, zur Befdrderung der Menschenkenntnif und
Menschenliebe, ed. C h. Siegrist, S tuttgart, 1984,
p. 266 (original edition Leipzig and W interthur,
1775).
4 A. C lark, The Working Life of Women in the
Seventeenth Century, L ondon, 1919, cited in P.
Earle, The Making o f the English Middle Class —
Business, Society and Family Life in London,
1660—1730, L ondon, 1989, p. 164.
5 The Taller, no. 172, 16 M ay 1710.
6 S. Jo h n so n , A Dictionary of the English Language,
vols. 1—3, 4th ed., L ondon, 1773, s.v., ‘woman*.
7 T . G isborne, Enquiry into the Duties of the Female
Sex, L ondon, 1789, p. 54; quoted by N.
A rm strong, Desire and Domestic Fiction, A Political
History o f the Novel, New Y ork and O xford
1987, p . 99.
8 D r J . G regory, A Father’s Legacy to his Daughters,
London, 1764, p. 31; quoted in J . T odd, The
Sign of Angellica: Women, Writing and Fiction,
1660—1800, L ondon, 1989, p. 118.
9 W . K endrick, The Whole Duty of Women, by a
Lady, Written at the desire of a Noble Lord,
London, 1753, pp. 16—18.
10 The Nonsense o f Common -Sense, 27 D ecem ber
1737; repr. in Lady Mary Wortley Montagu: Essays
and Poems, ed. R . H alsband and I. G rundy,
O xford, 1977, p. 109; quoted i n j . T odd, op.
cit. p. 121.
11 Johnson, op. cit., s.v ., ‘sensitive’.
12 E. H am ilton, Letter on the Elementary Principles of
Education, vols. 1 - 2 , L ondon, 1802, vol 2 d
376. ’ version is m entioned by G erard (op. cit.,
Angela Rosenthal
University of Trier
13 Schofield, op. cit., p. 24.
14 A. Zucchi, Memoria delle pitture fatte d ’Angelica
Kauffman dopo suo ritorno dTnghilterra eke fu nel
mese d ’octobre 1781 che vi trovo a Venezia, Royal
Academ y L ibrary, L ondon. T he list is
translated and published in V . M anners and G.
W illiam son, Angelica Kauffman, R .A . — her Life
and her Works, L ondon, 1924, pp. 141—74, p.
160. It was form erly believed to have been
w ritten by A ngelica K auffm an herself, b ut as
W . R ow orth indicated, it was actually w ritten
by Zucchi, see ‘A ngelica K auffm an’s
M em orandum of P aintings’, Burlington Magazine,
vol. 126, 1984, pp. 6 2 9 -3 0 .
15 T his painting is now in the Pushkin M useum ,
M oscow, oil on canvas, 151 X 212 cm , insc.
left side in centre of canvas: Angelica Kauffman
Pinx Roma 1792; reproduced in M . L iebm ann,
‘G em alde der A ngelika K auffm ann im
Staatlichen Puschkin-M useum d e r bildenden
K iinste in M oskau \ Jahrbuch des Vorarlberger
Landesmuseumsvereins 1963, B regenz, 1964, p. 56;
and I. Schm idt D orrenberg, ‘Angelica
K auffm ann G oethes F reundin in R o m ’,
O sterreichreihe, no. 356, V ienna, 1968, pi. 2.
16 A ccording to G . de Rossi, K auffm an ‘ . . .
R eplied due volte questo argum ento, ed u na di
queste due tele volea donarla ad u n ’illustre
A cadem ia, se le scissure insorte in quei giorni
tra i Professori di quella non le avessero fatto
cangiar pensiero. Passo dopo non m olto tem po
questo quadro di la dai m onti’ ( Vita di Angelica
Kauffmann Pittrice, L ondon, 1971, p. 17 n. 5
[original edition Florence, 1810]). A ccording to
F.A . G erard (Angelica Kauffmann — a Biography,
2nd ed., New Y ork, 1893, p. 381 n. 3), and
M anners and W illiam son (op. cit., p. 13), a
first replica was sent to the G erm an artist
Franziska Schopfer, w ho in 1802 supposedly
executed a lithograph of it. B. B aum gartel
(Angelika Kauffmann [1741—1807], Bedingungen
weiblicher Kreativitat in der Malerei des 18.
Jahrhunderts, W einheim and Basel, 1990, ch. IV ,
pp. 132—3) also attributes a sm all sketch after
K auffm an’s painting to Schopfer. A nother

55
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS
p. 364) as having been given by K aufim an to
her R om an friend Bernini. It has been argued
that ‘B ernini’ is a m isspelling ol ‘Bernis’, the
French A m bassador in R om e who was on
friendly term s with K aufim an. See Exhibition of
Paintings by Angelica Kauffmann at the Iveagh
Bequest, Kenwood, L ondon, 1955, cat. no. 14;
hereafter cited as Kenwood.
17 T he R t. H on. T he Lord St Oswald, Nostell
Priory, Y orkshire, oil on canvas, 147 X 218
cm, insc.: Angelica Kauffm Se Ip:s Pinx/ Roma
179..; the date is illegible today; M anners and
W illiam son (op. cit., p. 181) give the date as
1794; the picture was purchased from K auffm an
by M r Jam es Forbes. It has been suggested that
M r Forbes com m issioned it when in R om e in
1796 rather than purchasing a painting she had
in her studio. It is possible that the dale given
by M anners and W illiam son is a m isprint of
1796. For a discussion, see Kenwood, op. cit.,
cat. no. 14. I would like to express m y gratitude
to the ow ner for perm itting m e to exam ine the
painting in the original.
18 ‘M em ore Angelica di questo bivo, in cui
trovossi una volta, lo espresse in una tel con
mezze Figure al naturale, effigiando se’stessa nel
m om ento, che chiam ata dalla M usiea e dalla
Pittura, cede alia sconda, e la prim a
ab b andona.’ Rossi, op. cit., p. 17, n. 5.
19 A nthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of
Shaftesbury, ‘An Essay on P ainting Being a
Notion of the H istorical D raught or T ablature
of the Judgm ent of H ercules’, Characteristicks,
London, 1714, 3 vols.; see also J. Barrel], The
Political Theory of Painting from Reynolds to Hazhtl,
New H aven and L ondon, 1986, pp. 27—33.
20 For the pictorial history of the subject see,
am ong others, E. Panofsky, Herkules am
Scheideweg und andere antike Bildstoffe in der neueren
Kunst, Leipzig and Berlin, 1930; E. Tietze-
C onrat, ‘Notes on “ H ercules at the
C rossroads” ’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes, vol. 14, 1951, pp. 305—9; and T .E .
M om m sen, ‘Petrarch and the Story of the
C hoice of H ercules’, ibid., vol. 16, 1952 —3, pp.
178-92.
21 She m ight very well have known Poussin’s
treatm ent of the them e at Stourhead (Nicolas
Poussin, The Choice of Hercules, c. 1637, T he
N ational T rust, Stourhead) which, from the
hand of the pictor philosophus, encapsulates the
essence of the artistic problem s at stake in the
subject. Angelica K auffm an was on term s of
close friendship with the H oares of Stourhead.
She painted two portraits of Frances H oare, as
well as a genre painting. See P. W alch, Angelica
Kauffman, unpubl. P h.D . T hesis, Princeton
U niversity, 1968, pp. 365—7, and ch. 9, ‘T he
C hoice’, especially p. 177.
K auffm an would have found further
treatm ents of the H ercules subject, both ancient
(e.g. R om an relief at the V illa Albani) and
56
m odern (e.g. by Pom peo Batoni; Jo sh u a
R eynolds’s m ock-heroic interpretation; and by
Benjam in W est, as well as reinterpretations on
the stage). For W est’s painting ('The Choice of
Hercules, 1764, T he V ictoria and Albert
M useum , London), see A .U . A bram s, The
Valiant Hero — Grand-Style History Painting,
W ashington D .C ., 1985, pp, 80—7, 95—111,
fig. 54. For K auffm an’s acquaintance with W est
see ibid., pp. 80—7; and B aum gartel, op. cit.,
pp. 1 4 3 -7 . '
22 Baum gartel (op. cit., p. 171), on the other
hand, argues that the scene depicts the fourth
Event, a stage where the choice is fully acted
out. A ccording to Shaftesbury there would be
no room for ‘either the persuasive R hetorick of
V IR T U l^ (who m ust have already ended her
Discourse) or for the insinuating A ddress of
PLI^A SU RE . . . ’ Q uoted by B arrell, op. cit.,
p. 30. '
23 Q uoted by M oser, op. cit., p. 259.
24 Q uoted by D. M annings, ‘Reynolds, G arrick,
and the Choice of H ercules’, Eighteenth-Century
Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, Spring 1984, pp.
259—83, p. 263 and 264. Shaftesbury continues
that 'A t this crucial stage H ercules does not
speak, Pleasure has had her say, and V irtue is
in full rhetorical Bight’ (here quoted in
M annings’s w ords, ibid. p. 264).
25 Shaftesbury eventually decided on an attitude
where H ercules ‘looks on Virtue . . . earnestly,
and with extrem e attention, having some part of
the Action of his body inclining still tow ards
Pleasure, and discovering by certain Features of
C oncern and Pity, interm ix’d with the
com m anding or conquering Passion, that the
Decision he is about to m ake in favour of Virtue,
cost him not a little’, quoted by B arrell, op,
cit., p. 31.
26 Zucchi, op. cit., p. 160.
27 R eproduced in the exhibition catalogue Reynolds,
Royal A cadem y of A rt, ed. N. Penny, London
and New Y ork, 1986, cat. no. 42, p. 115. For
the picture see also E. W ind, ‘H um anitatsidee
und hcroisiertes P ortrat in der englischen
K ultur des 1 8 .Jh d t.’, Vorlrdge der Bibliothek
Warburg (1930—1931), ed. F. Saxl, Leipzig and
Berlin, 1932, pp. 156—229 (especially pp.
206—11); M annings, op. cit.; W . Busch,
‘H o garth’s und R eynolds’ P ortrats des
Schauspielers G arrick’, Zeitschrift fu r
Kunstgeschichte, vol. 47, 1984, pp. 8 2 -9 9 .
This painting, for quite different reasons,
has frequently been com pared w ith K auffm an’s
work: see W alch, op. cit., p. 366; D. Shawe-
T aylor, Genial Company — The Theme of Genius in
Eighteenth-Century British Portraiture, exh. cat.,
N ottingham U niversity A rt G allery and Scottish
N ational Portrait G allery, 1987, pp. 21—2, and
Baum gartel, op. cit., pp. 171—4.
28 A device R eynolds often used in portraits of
girls, see W ind, op. cit., p. 194. T his effect is
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS
even m ore apparent in R eynolds’s sketch for
C om edy know n as Ephrosyne, Private Collection.
29 G. Pollock, ‘W h at’s W rong with Im ages of
W om en?’, Screen Education, no. 24, 1977; R.
Parker and G . Pollock, Old Mistresses, L ondon,
1981, p. 126; see also N. Z em on Davis,
‘W om en on T o p ’, Society and Culture in Early
Modern France, Stanford, C A ., 1975, pp.
124-51.
For the defensive reaction of eighteenth-
century wom en w riters against an identification
of their w riting w ith sexuality, see Jones, op.
cit., ch. 5, p. 195.
30 M arie G uilhelm ine (also G uillem ine), Corntesse
Benoist, Innocence between Virtue and Vice, 1790,
exh. Salon 1791, no. 273, oil on canvas, 87 X
115 cm , Private C ollection. I would like to
express my gratitude to the ow ner for taking the
tim e to show me the painting. For a colour
reproduction see Sklavin oder Biirgerin? Franzbsische
Revolution und neue Weiblichkeit 1760—1830, exh.
cat., ed. V. Schm idt-Linsenhoff, Frankfurt
A .M ., 1989, cat. no. 11.15, S. 419.
31 T he altar with flam e is unfortunately invisible
in any photographic reproductions of the
painting.
32 Interestingly, Angelica K auffm an has depicted
herself in a white dress w hich, in the ancient
source know n through X en o p h o n ’s
M em orabilia, was w orn by V irtue: ‘Die eine,
von alien M enschen als i)perff anerkannt, ist
w ohlanstandig edel gestalted, weiss gew andet;
R einheit ist ihr einziger Schm uck, und sie naht
sich ziichtigen Blickes und sittsam er H a ltu n g .’
Q uoted by Panofsky, op. cit., pp. 4 2 -3 .
33 Zucchi, op. cit., p. 160.
34 T he draw ing was first published in M anners
and W illiam son, op. cit., pp. 208—9 with the
title: The Tragic Muse, black chalk, 40.6 X 30
cm ; it was until recently at B urgh H ouse,
L ondon. B aum gartel (op. cit., p. 134) has also
noted its relevance to this painting.
35 It has not been noticed that this draw ing relates
to the second surviving version, and not the
earlier work in M oscow , in which the figure is
represented with a book w ith m usic notations
(see n. 49).
36 Shaw e-T aylor, op. cit., p. 22 (R aphael, The
Transfiguration, 1518—20, V atican M useum ,
R om e). It is even m ore likely that K auffm an
was dependent upon A nnibale C arracci’s use of
R aphael’s figure in his painting The Choice of
Hercules (c.1595, M useo N azionale, Naples).
C aracci, like K auffm an, shows his figure
standing to the right of H ercules (unlike
R aphael’s figure, which kneels). In C arracci’s
work she represents Vice.
37 Joshua Reynolds, for exam ple, w rites in his
fourth Discourse on Art, held at the Royal
Academ y in L ondon on 10 D ecem ber 1771:
‘H ow ever great the difference is betw een the
com position of the V enetian, and the rest of the
57
Italian schools, there is full as great a disparity
in the effect of their pictures as produced by
colours. A nd though in this respect the
V enetians m ust be allowed extraordinary skill,
— yet even that skill, as they have em ployed it,
will but ill correspond w ith the great style.
T heir colour is not only too brilliant, but, I will
venture to say, too harm onious, to produce that
solidity, steadiness, and sim plicity of effect,
which heroick subjects require, and which
sim ple or grave colours only can give to a
w ork.’ Q uoted from Sir Joshua Reynolds’s
Discourses on Art, ed. R .R . W ark, San M arino
C A ., 1959, pp. 65—6; hereafter cited as
Discourses.
38 Discourses, op. cit., vol. 8, p. 153 (m y italics).
39 T he figure of P ainting, depicted from behind,
functions, m oreover, for the view er as a m eans
of entry into the action.
40 It seems difficult to me not to find reference to
K auffm an’s self-portrait painted in 1787
(finished Ja n u a ry 1788) for the G alleria dei
R itratti in the Uffizi G allery of the G rand Duke
of T uscany. She depicted herself w earing the
sam e white dress, sitting on a wall, with her
palette and brushes at her side. T his wall is part
of a tem ple architecture (as the colum n
suggests), and by im plication of the blue sky in
the background one is tem pted to believe that
K auffm an portrays herself as having received
adm ission to the tem ple of fame. L iebm ann (op.
cit., pp. 59—62) actually m entioned in passing
and w ithout any further explanation that
K auffm an painted her H ercules dilem m a in
relation to the Uffizi self-portrait: ‘U ns bleibt
hinzuzufiigen, . . . daft das Bildnis der Angelica
a u f G rund des Selbstbildnisses von 1 788 in der
G alleria dei R itratti in den Uffizien gem acht ist.’
41 P arker and Pollock, op. cit., p. 91.
42 W ind, op. cit., p. 218. For the painting see,
am ong others, Reynolds, op. cit., cat. no. 90.
The Montgomery Sisters: ‘Three Ladies Adorning a
Term of Hymen’, T he T rustees of T he T ate
G allery, L ondon.
43 A nn H ope (‘C esara R ip a ’s Iconologia and the
Neoclassical M ovem ent’, Apollo, vol. 86,
supplem ent, O ctober 1967, pp. 1—4) suggested
that K auffm an was particularly influenced by
the English edition of 1778. It was subscribed to
by m any m em bers of the Royal A cadem y
including K auffm an’s future husband, A ntonio
Zucchi.
44 C. R ipa, Iconologia, with an introduction by E.
M andow sky, H ildesheim , Z urich and New
York, 1984, pp. 15—17; C . R ipa, Baroque and
Rococo Pictorial Imagery (the 1758—60 H ertel
edition of R ip a ’s Iconologia), ed. E .A . M aser,
New Y ork, 1971, p. 52.
45 For the significance of the w reath of m yrtle
often worn by the personification of amicitia, see
G erlind W erner, R ipa’s Iconologia, Quellen —
Methoden — Ziele, U trecht, 1977, pp. 19—20;
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS
‘D er K ranz aus M yrten und G ranatapfelbliiten
auf dem w irren H aar weist a u f das E insw erden
der Freunde hin sowie auf die guten T aten und
Beispiele, die aus dieser Einigung hervorgehen.’
See also Shaw e-T aylor, op. cit., p. 22.
46 For decidedly different conclusions see
Baum gartel (op. cit., S. 175), who sees this
painting ‘at the first and last view ’ as a ‘wishful
im age of harm o n y ’. (‘A uf den ersten und
letzten Blick ist dem nach das “ Selbstbildnis
zwischen M alerei und M usik” ein W unschbild
der H arm o n ie.’)
47 Jones, op. cit., p. 193.
48 Blue dress, yellow sleeves and red shawl. See
colour reproduction in Shaw e-T aylor, op. cit.,
p. 21.
49 For a description of the painting in the Pushkin
M useum , see L iebm ann, op. cit., p. 62: ‘Das
M oskauer Bild ist in reservierter Farbigkeit
gehalten. Angelica ist weift gekleidet, die M usik
(links) hat ein gelbes G ew and an, die M alerei
(rechts) ein blaues m it rotem Schal.’ M oreover,
K auffm an changed the book with music
notations on the figure’s lap into a single sheet
of music, and om itted the originally depicted
brooch in Angelica K auffm an’s decollete.
50 T he T ricolore with its three vertical stripes
‘Blue — W hite — R ed ’ was created on 17
February 1794 for the pavilion des navires
republicains, although an earlier version of the
drapeau tricolore already existed in 1789,
com posed of a white central cross which defined
four squares. T he first and the fourth of the
defined squares were blue, while the other two
were red. For the history of the flag see the
dictionary Larousse, s.v. ‘T ricolore’, Paris, 1966;
and R . Laffont, Quid, R T L , Paris, 1981, s.v.
‘D rapeau’.
51 T hus Beenken has pointed out that G ottlieb
Schick, in his portrait of H einrike D annecker of
1802 (Staatl. M useum Preussischer
K ulturbesitz, N ationalgalerie, Berlin), has
consciously chosen the colours of the Tricolore.
A lready the preparatory draw ing with the blue
(sky) background, white garm ent, and red
bodice (‘blauer H intergrund, weisses G ew and
und rotes M ieder’) has political im plications.
See Kunsl der Klassik, exh. cat., W eim ar, 1974,
pp. 71, 88, cat. no. 33, fig. 36; see also Ellen
Spickernagel for D annecker’s oil portrait and
E berhard W achter’s portrait by Ludovica
Sim anow itz of 1791 depicting the band of the
Tricolore in his hat: ‘Zwischen V enus und
Ju n o , Frauenideale in Beispielen klassizistischer
M alerei’, Stadel-Jahrbuch, new series, vol. 8,
1981, pp. 301 —12, p. 305, n. 13. For British
artists and the French R evolution see D.
B indm an, The Shadow of the Guillotine, L ondon,
1989, p. 66ff.
52 H ow ever, she declined an offer to becom e court
paintress to Ferdinand IV , K ing of N aples and
the two Sicilies, and his wife Q ueen Caroline.
58
In a letter to J.A . M etzler K auffm an expressed
her desire to m aintain her independence: ‘G ott
sei dankh m eine um stande erlauben m ir m eine
freyheyt zu e rh alte n .’ Q uoted in H elbok, M iss
Angel — Eine Biographie, V ienna, 1968, p. 157.
53 Zeuxis choosing his Models for the Painting of Helen
°I Tr°y> A nnm ary Brown M em orial C ollection,
Brown U niversity, Providence, R hode Island,
USA, oil on canvas, 81 X 112 cm , insc.:
Angelica Kauffman Pinx. In the eighteenth century
the painting was in the collection of K auffm an’s
great patron G eorge Bowles, see G erard, op.
cit., p. 367.
54 It is sim ilar in style to K auffm an’s painting. The
Return of Telemachus (exh. Royal A cadem y 1775,
66 X 162.5 cm , Earl of D erby, K now sley Park,
Lancashire). For the engraving of the Zeuxis
painting see Kenwood, op. cit., cat. no. 41.
55 T he literary sources are: Plinius, Natural History,
36 vols., trans. H . R ackham , C am bridge, 1952,
vol. 9, pp. 308—9; and C icero, De Inventione,
vol. 2, trans. H .M . H ubbell, C am bridge, 1968,
pp. 166—9 (original edition, L ondon, 1947, pp
1 -3 ).
56 ‘H e chose five because he did not think all the
qualities which he sought to com bine in one
person, because in no single case has N ature
m ade anything perfect and finished in all parts.
T herefore, as if she would have no beauty to
lavish on the other if she gave everything to
one, she bestows som e advantage on one and
some on another, but always joins with it som e
defect.’ C icero (trans. H .M . H ubbell), quoted
by W alch, op. cit., p. 354.
57 Q uoted by G erard, op. cit., pp. 123—4. C ount
Bernsdorff cam e to E ngland in 1768 in the
com pany of K ing C hristian V II of D enm ark
when he visited K auffm an in her studio.
58 Saxl and W ittkow er, British Art and the
Mediterranean, London, 1948, p. 82.
59 W alch, op. cit., p. 355.
60 ‘A ngelika K auffm anns G em alde . . . tradiert das
iibliche Schopfer-Erzeugerschem a . . . ’, and,
‘Angelika K auffm ann hat diese fur uns heute
kritikw iirdige R ollenverteilung offensichtlich
nicht in Frage gestellt.’ B aum gartel, op. cit., p.
108, 109.
For K auffm an’s painting, see m oreover:
M anners and W illiam son, op. cit., pp. 217,
232; D. Irw in, English Neoclassical Art, Studies in
Inspiration and Taste, L ondon, 1966, p. 52; R.
R osenblum , Transformations in Late Eighteenth
Century A rt, Princeton, 1967, p. 22—4; W .W .
R ow orth, ‘T he G entle A rt of Persuasion:
Angelica K auffm an’s “Praxiteles and P h ry n e ” ’,
The Art Bulletin, vol. 65, no. 3, S eptem ber 1983
pp. 2 8 8 -9 2 . ’
61 A. Boime (Art in the Age of Revolution
1750—1800, C hicago and L ondon, 1987, p. 114)
has already suggested that the painting m ight
contain a self-portrait by K auffm an, w ithout,
however, offering a different interpretation of
 ANGELICA KAUFFMAN MA(S)KING CLAIMS
the content of the painting.
62 T he signature is unfortunately alm ost entirely
invisible in any photographic reproduction of
the painting. M oreover, Bartolozzi did not
include the inscription in his engraving.
63 T he coupling of the artist with Zeuxis and his
m ethod, aim ing at proving the intellectual status
of painting, has a long history within the
literature on art. R aphael, epitom e of the
‘classical’ painter in the eighteenth century,
revealed his Z euxian m ethod in a letter to
Baldassare C astiglione: *. . . and I tell you that
to paint a beauty, I m ust see m ore beautiful
wom en . . . see V. Golzio, Rajfaello nei
documenti nelle testimonianze dei contemporanei e nella
letteratura del suo secolo, V atican C ity, 1971, pp.
30—1. In the eighteenth century artistic invention
was m oreover described not as a discovery but
as a Zeuxisian choice.
64 K auffm an treated the subject herself: The
Judgement of Paris, exh. Royal A cadem y 1781,
no. 153, oil on canvas, 65 X 65 cm, circular,
V orarlberger Illw erke A .G ., B regenz, A ustria,
reproduced in H elbok, op. cit., pp. 96—7.
K auffm an’s painting was engraved by W .
W ynne R yland, coloured stipple engraving,
M useum of Fine A rts, Boston. In order to
em phasize the erotic and personal choice of the
shepherd, K auffm an introduced a cupid arm ed
with bow and arrow s into her com position.
K neeling behind the figure of Paris, who sits in
profile in a strikingly sim ilar pose to
K auffm an’s Zeuxis, Paris is not aw are of the
potentially ‘dan g ero u s’ figure behind him .
Panofsky (op. cit., p. 105) discusses a
R enaissance cam eo depicting T he Judgem ent of
H ercules and points out that H ercules ‘ist ganz
ahnlich wie der Paris der antiken
Sarkophagreliefs als sitzende Profilfigur
gegeben, n u r daft er zugleich in gewisser
Beziehung den Joel-Sklaven der Sixtinadecke
angeglichen ist’. K auffm an follows closely this
type in her Zeuxis painting. For other exam ples
of Zeuxis choosing his m odels for the painting
of H elen of T roy in art see A. Pigler,
Barockthemen: eine Auswahl von Verzeichnissen zur
Ikonographie des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderis, 2 vols.,
Budapest, 1974, vol. 2, p. 442. Pigler also
includes paintings of Apelles choosing his Greek
models for his painting o f Diana of Ephesus for the
iconographic equality of the subject m atters.
65 In other representations of this iconographical
content, for exam ple in Lodovico D avid’s
Appeles dipinge le Grazie (La scuola del nudo)
(Palazzo A lbrizzi, V enice), or Francesco
Solim ena’s Zeuxis and the Maidens of Croton
(R om e, Private C ollection), the artists are
depicted in front of their canvases, actively
pursuing their profession as painters. T he figure
59
o f ‘K auffm an’ in her historical self-portrait
follows this iconographical type. Angelica
K auffm an’s contem porary, Friedrich H einrich
Fiiger, has m odelled the Zeuxis in his chalk
draw ing on the topos of Paris and the T hree
G races. H is gesture, how ever, w ith his chin
resting tensely on his right fist, characterizes
him clearly as a thinker. For F iiger’s
interpretation of Zeuxis bei der Wahl seiner Modelle
(chalk draw ing, A lbertina, V ienna) see K.
W ilczek, ‘Fiigers kunstlerischer Entw icklungs-
gan g ', Jahrbuch der Kiinsthislorischen Sammlungen in
Wien, N .S ., vol. 2, 1928, p. 350, fig. 363.
66 Sir Joshua Reynolds, signed and dated Angelica
Kauffman pinx. 1767, 127 X 101.6 cm , T he
N ational T ru st, Saltram (M orley C ollection).
67 Shaw e-T aylor (op. cit., p. 29) has already
draw n attention to the significance of the canvas
in K auffm an’s portrait of Reynolds.
68 It is w orth noting that the ‘blank’ canvas is
inscribed: A ngelica K auffm an Pinx. (m y italics).
69 Exh. Royal A cadem y 1772, no. 290, Collection
o f her M ajesty the Q ueen. See O . M illar, The
Later Georgian Pictures in the Collection of Her
Majesty the Queen, 2 vols,, L ondon, 1969, no.
1210. I owe this observation to A drian
R andolph.
70 P arker and Pollock, op. cit., pp. 87—90, fig.49.
71 M oser, op. cit., p. 252.
72 P arker and Pollock, op. cit., p. 90.
73 Saxl and W ittkow er, op. cit., p. 82, fig. 1, p.
83 (V enus K allipygos, fourth century (?) BC,
N aples M useum ).
74 T he quotations are from R eynolds’s Discourses,
op. cit., p. 72. R eynolds taught his students
that ‘if a portrait-painter is desirous to raise and
im prove his subject, he has no other m eans
than by approaching it to a general idea’ (ibid.,
p. 72).
75 Palazzo A lbrizzi, Venice.
76 Susannah and the Elders, 1751, two versions
known. See A .M . C lark, Pompeo Baloni: a
Complete Catalogue of his Works, ed. and prepared
by E. Peters Bowron, O xford, 1985, fig. 142,
nos. 152, 153.
77 U nfortunately I have not been able to trace the
original source for this pose. T he exam ples
found suggest it to be a sculpture of a barely
dressed w om an.
78 Reynolds, op. cit., no. 171.
79 T his pose with split legs and raised arm is
rem iniscent of Jo sh u a R eynolds’s picture of the
Child Baptist in the Wilderness, Illustrated in
Reynolds, op. cit., no. 101.
80 For a discussion of the discrim inatory policy
tow ards wom en artists in eighteenth-century art
academ ies see A. Sutherland H arris and L.
N ochlin, Women Artists: 1550—1950, Los
A ngeles, 1976, pp. 36—8.