Books

How the smile came to Paris (briefly)

A review of The Smile Revolution in 18th-century Paris by Colin Jones shows how advances in French dentistry spawned a whole new genre in portrait painting

13 December 2014

9:00 AM

13 December 2014

9:00 AM

The Smile Revolution in 18th-century Paris Colin Jones

OUP, pp.256, £22.99

In 1787 critics of the Paris Salon were scandalised by a painting exhibited by Mme Vigée Le Brun. The subject was conventional enough: a self-portrait of the artist cradling her small daughter. The problem was that Vigée Le Brun was depicted smiling. You could even see her teeth. This was, as one critic put it, ‘an affectation which artists, connoisseurs and people of good taste are unanimous in condemning’.

These outraged art lovers must have been rather out of touch with current trends. For, as Colin Jones shows in The Smile Revolution — his revealing history of 18th-century French smiling — the full-on, lips-parted sourire had been increasingly visible in Paris since at least the 1740s.

It was a gesture partly intended as an attack on the stiff protocol of the royal court, where the convention was to keep the face as fixed as possible (the rigidity being helped by lashings of thick white make-up, sometimes even covering the lips). If the slightest curl of the mouth was detected, it was taken as a sign of disdain or disapproval, not of pleasure or amusement.

Away from Versailles, in the more relaxed world of the Parisian elite, that
formality was being challenged by a new sensibility. Smiles, teeth and all, were catching on as a sign of true human feeling — so much so, that in Rousseau’s La Nouvelle Héloïse of 1761, the dying heroine even breaks into a smile, amidst the tears of her deathbed. Vigée Le Brun did little more than claim a place for smiling in the most conservative realm of public art. But that was revolutionary enough to annoy the critics.

[Alt-Text]


Smiles are fleeting things. That is partly their point (hence, as Jones observes, their absence from early photographs — it was impossible to hold one for the 30 minutes or more required by the first cameras). But it also makes them very hard for historians to pin down. One problem is quite where the boundary lies between smiling and laughing. Jones is mainly concerned with France, and French (like Latin) calls a ‘smile’ just ‘a sub-laugh’ (sou-rire). But are these actually (as the English language encourages us to think) two very different phenomena? Certainly, babies smile months before they laugh, and they use smiles in very different contexts from laughs.

An even bigger problem is whether smiling is as universal a gesture as we tend to assume. Of course, it may well be that human beings have curled up their lips since time immemorial (it is the most economical facial movement in our repertoire, requiring the operation of only one set of muscles). But the question is whether that curling is culturally assumed to mean something. The flimsy evidence we have suggests that meaningful smiles were at best an intermittent presence in Europe before the Middle Ages (ancient Greece, probably yes; ancient Rome, no).

Jones has a few brisk and sensible words on these issues in his introduction, but for the rest he opts for a much more physical and practical way into the subject — via the history of teeth. Dentists of the 20th century were not the first to sell their skills with the promise of a perfect smile. The rigid closed mouth of the ancien régime was only partly the result of buttoned-up court culture. It was also the result of very bad teeth, which did not look at all attractive on public display. Louis XIV was entirely toothless by the time he was 40, and even his famous portrait by Hyacinthe Rigaud did not manage — or bother — to disguise his wrinkled, sunken mouth.

The new sensibility of smiling was underpinned by the new science of dentistry (the term dentiste and the toothbrush both being inventions of this period). There were small fortunes to be made patching up teeth and replacing those that had been lost. One of the most colourful charlatans in the book is Dubois de Chémant, who sold his vastly expensive, ill-designed, heavy, noisy, porcelain dentures to those with more money than sense. One pristine set was actually found in a grave in St Pancras churchyard a few years ago, in excavations in advance of the Eurostar line.

It turned up in London because that is where the denture trade had been forced to migrate. For, almost as soon as it had begun, the Parisian smile revolution was over-taken by the political revolution. At the start of the new regime, there was a chance that open smiles might have become one symbol of its transformed society. But soon Vigée Le Brun’s seductively open mouth came to hint at counter-revolutionary tendencies, and the Terror ‘wiped the smile of sensibility from French lips’. In fact, in Robespierre’s case, it knocked all his teeth out on the scaffold.

As Jones reflects at the end of his fascinating exploration, it would be another 150 years before smiles really revolutionised the West. This revolution had been a false dawn.

Available from the Spectator Bookshop, £21.50 Tel: 08430 600033

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Peter Dreyer

    “Louis XIV was entirely toothless by the time he was 40”: Matthew Prior, who saw him at an audience when he was 60, wrote in a letter to Charles Montague, 1697/8: “his upper teeth are out, so he . . . picks and shows his under teeth with a good deal of affectation”; and Robespierre’s teeth were not knocked out on the scaffold by “the Terror”: but he shot himself in the jaw in an attempted suicide just prior to his arrest and demolished some of them. Presumably Mary Beard got these errors from the book under review, which does not encourage me to read it.

    • Whitney

      Good comment. This is an incredibly sloppy age, huh?

    • mary beard

      I leave it to other eye witnesses to sort of Louis’ teeth, but on Robespierre, I am sorry if my metaphor (“The Terror knocked his teeth out”) misled. As I understand the events, he had shot a hole in his jaw and was bandaged. When he went to the scaffold one of the executioners took the bandage off and his teeth fell to the ground. Not culpably sloppy in the context I think (neither by me or Prof Jones)

      • Peter Dreyer

        What is known for sure is pretty much this: “Lorsqu’un des aides du bourreau arracha brusquement les linges qui lui
        soutenaient sa mâchoire, Robespierre poussa un cri de douleur. Il fut
        placé sur la bascule et le couperet tomba.” http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex%C3%A9cution_de_Maximilien_de_Robespierre
        There seems nothing to indicate that “his teeth fell to the ground.” For what seems like a fairly credible reconstruction of his execution, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myUyc2S_JBA

        • mary beard

          I havent checked wiki, but i think you will find that the full text (on the thud) is quoted by jones in the transactions of the royal historical society for 2012

  • j.p.ward

    On smiling: I have read that when “white” explorers (Australians, I think) penetrated by aeroplane into the interior of New Guinea about 1930 they were the first ever to do so. The voyargers observed
    1. that the New Guineans they met had never seen white men before;

    2. the men and women expressed emotions (fear, excitement, pleasure, surprise, etc.) by voice and by facial expressions in much the same way that the visitors did.

  • Peter Dreyer

    Driven by curiosity, I went down to my local library and checked out the volume of Royal Historical Society Transactions in question. There we find the source to be . . . Colin Jones himself quoting Michelet, presumably in his own translation, as speaking of “[Robespierre’s] teeth falling
    to the ground . . . there was a heavy thud.” But what Michelet in
    fact has here is: “ses dents briseés qui tombaient . . . Puis, il y
    eut un coup sourd . . . Ce grand homme n’était plus” (ellipses in the
    original). There’s nothing at all to suggest that Robespierre’s whole lower jaw falls “to the ground”; and as to the “coup sourd,” it’s surely the thud of the guillotine’s blade coming down. Laisse béton ! A merry festival of Sol Invictus to Profs Beard and Jones, and to all our readers.

Close