The painting depicts the two nude sisters in a bath together, with one reaching over to her sister’s breast, holding the nipple between her finger and thumb, as if she were pinching it. It is very strange to say the least, especially considering they are sisters!
I became intrigued with it lately when I saw it in a book of Renaissance paintings. It is by an anonymous painter of the Fontainebleau School of France in approximately 1595, and currently hangs in the Louvre in Paris. It is thought to depict Gabrielle d’Estrées and one of her sisters. Gabrielle d’Estrées was King Henry IV of France’s mistress and bore three of his children.
So I set out to find out the meaning of this on the Internet and could not find much. It seems no one really knows the meaning of this. The only two tidbits I found were: it “has baffled all the experts,” “The subject of this painting is mysterious. It is assumed to be an allusion to the birth of César, son of Henry IV and his mistress, Gabrielle d’Estrées,” and “The precise meaning of the iconography is unknown.”
Can anyone add any more insight to this? Maybe Cecil could answer it!
Well, everything I have read about it says that it is generally accepted that it is the king’s mistress and her sister. The painting title is generally known as “Gabrielle D’Estrées and One of Her Sisters.”
I need to hook up an external monitor to get a better view. But, my initial impressions are
The curtain in the upper corners of the painting is the dress of the woman in the background. The skirts have been lifted, showing us her sexuality. (I may be reaching here.)
Note the painting above the mantle. It is of a nude figure whose head cannot be seen.
The two topless women are both looking at an individual in front of them. The woman on the right extends her left hand toward that unseen person. Look at that hand. She is beginning to form her hand into the same nipple pinching gesture. The two women are offering a threesome to the unseen person. Yes, I’m serious.
I can’t quite see enough detail to see what the clothed woman is doing. As far as I can tell, she is either sewing, or reading a message written on a strip of cloth or paper. In either case, why is she doing it in the dark? She’s sitting next to a firplace, but she has almost no light to work by. The darkness could suggest coldness, sadness, fear, isolation, or something else. I’m guessing it represents her desire for secrecy. She sits in the dark so that no one will see what she is doing.
The woman on the right is extending the ring directly below her nipple which is being touched by the other woman, which obviously invites a comparison of the two: nipple as precious gem.
There is more jewelry here: both women wear earrings. The woman in the background is examining a gem on her hand (I had to enlarge the image to make that out).
I’m not sure what to make of the semi-clothed figure in the painting over the fireplace. This is very curious.
I saw a short film once based around that portrait. I’m sure that doesn’t help you any, but Fairguy and I got a kick out of it.
The basic story (which probably is NOT the real story of it, and I would be amazed if it were) was a young painter engaged to do a portrait of two young girls for their overbearing, overly-strict and uptight father. Well he tries to paint them all dressed up in their finery, but I guess he just wasn’t feeling it. Later, he happened to spy them in the bath together, with one pinching the other ones nipple in a very innocently sensual way. That caused him to fall off the rooftop he was spying from, but fortunately he survived, and declared that he must paint the girls that way, as that was more of their true spirit that the stuffy formal pose. He does this secretly, and when the portrait is unveiled, its not the one the father anticipated, and he freaks out and has heart failure right on the spot. The story ended with the painter leaving the mansion and meeting up with a woman on the road- the girls mother, who had been driven away by her cruel husband, returning to her daughters. She was the one who had hired the painter in the first place.
Nice memory, we enjoyed that little 20 or so minute film. I hope you can find out more about the real one. I didn’t think it was real, it’s just so quirky, but I knew immediately what picture you meant. It’s not forgettable at all!
To extend DocCathode’s notion – I note that the dress on the woman on the background and the curtains in the foreground might be the same material – are we looking under her skirt? I’m 50+% scoffing at this, but it’s an interesting idea.
Fairblue: I saw that same film not long ago. It was part of a collection of short filmed erotic stories that aired on Bravo! one night. The movie claimed that it was a true story, but I really have no idea.
