Betrothal? Brothel? . .Betrothel?
by
Thrasymachus
05/27/2009, 3:07 PM #
This painting looks like it was carefully designed to be almost (but not quite) consistent with two equally plausible (but equally flawed) interpretations: the young man is either in a bordello and asking the young woman for sex, or he's in the young woman's parlor and asking for her hand in marriage. Neither explanation fits completely (I'll get to that in a moment). . . but they both come close, and they're the only ones that do. That's what I find amusing: the painting, by underscoring the similarities between marriage and prostitution, is also slyly hinting that they are equivalent.
The "bordello" interpretation is an imperfect fit (to me, at least) because of its borderline inconsistency with some of the painting's details. The standing woman's dress is, as you say, "a little too much of this and that" for a respectable maiden at home. . . but it's also a lot too much of everything (in terms of coverage) for a respectable whore at a brothel. The dress also looks expensive as hell, and hard to get into (or out of) without the help of a valet. . .which makes it all but inevitable that it will eventually be ripped off her body (and in half) by some impatient, drunken client, at considerable (and unecessary) cost to all concerned. And also... look at her hair. There's nothing remotely casual about her elaborate, intricate arrangement of ribbons and braids. . .and no mistaking the investment of time and effort that she put into it. If the standing woman is at home, and the seated man is her sweetheart, her behavior makes perfect sense; but if she's in a bordello, and the seated man is just some random client, her behavior makes no sense at all.
Likewise incongruous, in the context of a bordello: the madam is drinking but the client is not; the madam is ignoring the client; the hooker is ignoring the client; the hooker and the client are both ignoring the madam; and the one client of a whorehouse containing one room, one bed, one madam, one whore, and one wineglass. . .isn't getting laid, isn't getting drunk, and he can't get rid of his money. Come on, now. . . how plausible is that?
Which brings me to. . . the candle on the table, and the dog. If dogs were in common use as symbols for prostitution before the 19th Century (and Caillebotte), it's news to me. And as for candles, aside from a single obscure English custom (by which a prostitute -and only a prostitute- could save a man condemned to death by slowly approaching him, as he stands on the gallows, with a burning white candle held in each of her two outstretched hands and marrying him on the spot) I'm not aware of any symbolic connection between candles and prostitutes, ever. I think they're more interesting as household objects in this context than as symbols. A dog seems more likely to turn up in a household than a brothel. . .and the candle is interesting primarily because, if you'll notice, it isn't lit. And neither is anything else, although the scene is fairly bright. This suggests that the room is being lit by daylight, which in turn implies: 1) that the scene is taking place during the day; and 2) that the curtains in front of the windows are not closed, implying that there is nothing shameful (or, at least, no shame) about whatever is going on.
One final point: if there's one thing that the painting doesn't depict, it's a father sternly lecturing his daughter. The man and the standing woman are clearly about the same age. . . and he looks nothing like her. In fact, come to think of it, he doesn't look like a Dutchman. And even if he WAS the girl's father, why on Earth would he be wearing a sword and carrying a big, fancy hat around in his own house? How is it possible that nobody ever noticed, for hundreds of years, that the painting didn't show what they thought it showed?
