Painting of Charlotte Corday by Johan Jakob Hauer..
It
is unique in the history of painted portraits. No other work of this
genre has ever been created in similar circumstances, or ever will be
again. The artist, Johan Jakob Hauer, is not well known but he was a
competent portraitist, and we may assume this is a good likeness. But
his most significant qualification was that he was available and
could work quickly, for he had not a minute to spare.
We
see a young woman, dignified and composed, certainly not timid, and
we can sense firmness of character. From her dress we guess the
period, and we are not surprised to learn the painting was done in
1793, and if we know anything of the fashions of that time, we might
even guess she is French. If we guessed anything more, we would be
wrong. For there is nothing in the young woman’s expression
that says, “Four days ago I killed a man, stabbed him to
death.” And there is certainly nothing about her face that
says, “In a few hours, I go to the guillotine because I did.”
Is
this the face of courage? Behind her serene composure is there any
sign of fierce determination or the embrace of certain death in
pursuit of some abstract ideal? The face in the portrait may not
display these qualities, but this is the face of a martyr, Charlotte
Corday, who died on the guillotine a few hours after the portrait was
done. As she posed for the artist in her cell at the Conciergerie,
she knew death was coming later that day because the Revolutionary
Tribunal, pronouncing sentence, had told her so. Indeed, she knew her
fate when she left her home in Normandy and made the journey to
Paris.
She
was the daughter of a good Norman family, descended from the minor
aristocracy, and her antecedents included the tragedian Corneille. In
her childhood, her mother and sister died, so her father entrusted
her upbringing to a convent in Caen, where she had an education
beyond what most young women in 18th century France could expect. She
read Voltaire and Rousseau and gained an interest in politics. After
the Revolution began, she and her social circle discussed the events
of the day. She formed opinions that grew fervid as the months passed
through all the Journées
— the
fall of
the Bastille, the march on Versailles, the storming of the Tuileries
and the end of the monarchy.
In
a country divided by political opinions across a spectrum from
reactionary monarchist to radical Republican, Charlotte Corday was a
moderate Republican, someone who saw the Revolution as a way to
change French society for the better, but not drastically. Her ideas
aligned with the moderate Girondin faction, but 1793 was not a good
year for moderates. The year had begun with the execution of the
King. Months before, he had tried to flee France with his family,
only to be captured at Varennes before he could reach the safety of
the Hapsburg army across the border. Clearly, a king who sought the
aid of France’s enemies could not be the king of France, and by
the time he went under the blade, he was simply Louis Capet. His
trial and execution exacerbated the division between the moderate
Girondin and the radical Jacobin factions, whose loudest voice was
Jean-Paul Marat.
Marat
was, as his newspaper title said,
L’Ami de Peuple.
He was also the most ferocious of the radical Jacobins, the voice of
the sans
culottes,
the tribune of the Paris poor, their avatar. He had forcefully
advocated the death of the King, and encouraged the September
Massacres, and for this Charlotte decided he must die. In Paris, she
went to the market and bought a knife, its blade long enough for the
fatal task. She had come a long way to meet her victim. Her original
intent was to seek him out at the Tuileries, where the Convention
met, and kill him there, but his illness kept him at home, so she
went there, determined to kill him wherever he might be. Marat
consented to meet the young woman because she promised information
about the moderate Girondin faction members from Normandy. He had no
modesty, false or otherwise, so Marat greeted the young woman while
sitting in his covered bath for treatment of a skin disease, and his
shoulders and chest were bare. We may even imagine that the insolence
of his dishabille confirmed her resolution. She plunged in the knife,
made no effort to escape, and waited calmly for arrest.
The
Revolutionary Tribunal’s judgement allowed no appeal, and
execution followed swiftly, because any reluctance would show
weakness, and the enemies of France both within and threatening its
borders must see no hesitation. But even Charlotte had to wait her
turn in the crowded line for death, and in the last remaining hours
she wrote a letter to her father and had her portrait done so that
her father might have this lasting memory of her. Perhaps this
explains the calm expression, as if to tell him, Don’t
be concerned, I was serene at the end, and had no regrets.
This also explains the fineness of her clothes, certainly not what
she was wearing at the end, for she would not want her father to see
the dress stained by Marat’s blood and soiled by these brief
days in prison, and he must not see her wearing the long red
overblouse, the customary garment which told the crowds watching the
tumbril pass through the streets and the huge mob surrounding the
guillotine that the condemned was guilty of treason against the
Revolution.
Paris
had grown accustomed to these displays of blood, but an even larger
multitude had gathered for this particular death. This woman had
brutally murdered the people’s voice, so her death must be
witnessed. But anyone anticipating an emotional display of contrition
or a plea for mercy from the scaffold, or perhaps the sight of a
woman trembling with fear before the great blade fell — any
such expectation was disappointed. Eyewitness accounts, including one
written by Charles-Henri Sanson, the Public Executioner, (familiarly
known as Monsieur de Paris and one of several in his family line who
held the dynastic post), describe Charlotte as fearless and composed
as she met the fate which she herself had created. Even Sanson, who
sent thousands to their deaths, was astonished by her calmness and
courage, and we can readily imagine that the face she showed the
crowd from the scaffold is the same face we see today in her prison
cell portrait.
In
those days, the thousands of public beheadings witnessed by many
thousands more spectators led to fanciful tales, and one of these was
that the faces of the severed heads, held up for the public’s
view, would show a spectrum of expressions from shock to anger to
indignation, and sometimes eyes kept blinking in disbelief after
death. It was said that one of Sanson’s men slapped Charlotte’s
face as he held it up and she blushed
in shame. This, of course, was all nonsense, but many were willing to
believe this — and even worse — about Marat’s
assassin.
The
people of France were so convinced of conventional stereotypes that
they wondered how a woman could have carried out such a brutal
murder. Was a woman truly capable of committing this crime alone? The
Court could not believe there was no one else involved, there must
have been conspirators and certainly a man directing her, despite her
insistence that she had acted alone and confided in no one. This
doubt persisted: who was her lover, the man behind her crime?
Convinced she was lying and that some man must have shared her bed in
the last days and encouraged her act and that he, too, must go under
the blade, the Court demanded an autopsy. Charlotte’s corpse
was subjected to the same examination given to Joan of Arc with the
same result — virgo
intacto.
Thus, we can
say with certainty that Charlotte knew anger and even hatred, but she
had never known physical love.
Charlotte
lived in the public imagination long after the event, and her act
affected the future role of women in French politics in the immediate
aftermath and beyond. The assassination of Marat, motivated by
Charlotte’s wish to end factional violence, had the contrary
result. Certainly, it removed any hesitation in executing the Widow
Capet a few months later. The death of Marat, which she thought would
end the persecution of Republican moderates, had the opposite effect
as the purge of the Girondins proceeded at an even more feverish
pace, claiming women as well as men until the tide of blood ebbed
with Thermidor.
Her
long-term influence on the development of women’s role in
French politics is still debated. The Revolution, which never
seriously considered the franchise for women, altered women’s
legal status in only one fundamental way, granting women the right to
initiate divorce. Other changes might have happened, and other women
like Olympe de Gouges and Manon Roland had roles in the Revolution
before they, too, followed Charlotte to the guillotine — but
all this was set aside when Napoléon, the paradigm male
chauvinist and misogynist, came to power. His Code Napoléon
set in place much of family and employment law for the next hundred
years and more, and French women did not get the vote until 1945.
Historical hindsight confirms no certainties, but we can be confident
that Charlotte did not imagine any of these outcomes.
Every
painting tells a story, and we assume the story in a portrait
connects to the face we see. But in this portrait, there is another
story, the story of the father whom this painting was intended to
console. Beyond the random facts of genealogy, we know nothing of
Charlotte’s father, Jacques
François
de
Corday, Seigneur d’Armont, who survived in the aftermath of her
act. We know he died five years later in Barcelona, and so we may
conjecture that the daughter’s murder of Marat also left the
father’s life in danger, and we may believe he fled France
before the Terror could also claim his life, and he passed his last
days in Catalonia, far from his home in Normandy. And we can only
wonder about this old man in his last years with no keepsake but her
last letter and this portrait, and we may ask ourselves, did he ever
understand why his daughter took another’s life at the certain
cost of her own?