Michael Fried - Manet's Modernism or The Face of Painting in The 1860s-University of Chicago Press (1999)

11 faut donc que je vous parle encore de vous.
11 faut que je m'applique a

vous demontrer ce que vous valez. C'est vraiment bete ce que vous
exigez. On se moque de vous; les plaisanteries vous agacent; on ne sait
pas vous rendre justice, etc., etc. Croyez-vous que vous soyez Ie premier
homme place dans ce cas? Avez-vous plus de genie que Chateaubriand et
que Wagner? On s'est bien moque d'eux cependant? Ils n'en sont pas
morts. Et pour ne pas vous inspirer trop d'orgueil, je vous dirai que ces
hommes sont des modeles, chacun dans son genre, et dans un monde
tres riche et que vous, vous n'etes que Ie premier dans la decrepitude de
votre art.
Baudelaire, letter to Edouard Manet of May I I, 18651
Qu'un destin tragi que, omise la Mort filoutant, complice de tous, a

l'homme la gloire, dur, hostile marquat quelqu'unenjouement et grace,
me trouble-pas la huee contre qui a, dorenavant, rajeuni la grande
tradition picturale selon son instinct, ni la gratitude posthume: mais,
parmi Ie deboire, une ingenuite virile de chevre-pied au pardessus
mastic, barbe et blond cheveu rare, grisonnant avec esprit. Bref, railleur
a Tortoni, elegant; en l'atelier, la furie qui Ie ruait sur la toile vide,
confusement, comme si jamais il n'avait peint-un don precoce a jadis
inquieter ici resume avec la trouvaille et l'acquit subit: enseignement au
temoin quotidien inoublieux, moi, qu'on se joue tout entier, de
nouveau, chaque fois, n'etant autre que tous sans rester different, a
volonte. Souvenir, il disait, alors, si bien: "L'oeil, une main ... " que je
resonge.
Cet oeil-Manet-d'une enfance de lignee vieille citadine, neuf, sur
un objet, les personnes pose, vierge et abstrait, gardait nagueres
l'immediate fraicheur de la rencontre, aux griffes d'un rire du regard, a
narguer, dans la pose, ensuite, les fatigues de vingtieme seance. Sa
main-l a pression sentie claire et prete enon~ait dans quel mystere la
limpidite de la vue y descendait, pour ordonner, vivace, lave, profond,
aigu ou hante de certain noir, Ie chef-d'oeuvre nouveau et fran~ais.
Mallarme, "Edouard Manet"2
II etait plus grand que nous ne pensions.

Degas 3
,
Contents
List of Illustrations Xl
Preface XXV
Introduction: Manet before Impressionism I
I Manet's Sources, 1859-1869

2 "Manet's Sources" Reconsidered
3 The Generation of 1863
4 Manet in His Generation
5 Between Realisms
Coda: Manet's Modernism 399
Appendix I Antonin Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet"
(1901) 4 17
Appendix 2 Edmond Duranty, "Ceux qui seront
les peintres" (1867) 43 8
Appendix 3 Le Capitaine Pompilius [Carle Desnoyers],
remarks on Manet (1863) 445
Appendix 4 Zacharie Astruc, remarks on Manet (1863) 44 8
Notes 45 1
Credits 620
Index 62 3
IX
Illustrations
PLATES (Following page 364)
1. Henri Fantin-Latour, Homage to Delacroix, 1864. Paris,

Musee d'Orsay
2. Edouard Manet, The Old Musician, 1862. Washington, D.C.,
National Gallery of Art
3. Edouard Manet, Le Dejeuner sur l' herbe, 1862-63. Paris,
Musee d'Orsay
4. Edouard Manet, Olympia, 1863. Paris, Musee d'Orsay
5. Edouard Manet, Mlle V .. in the Costume of an Espada,
1862. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
6. Edouard Manet, The Angels at the Tomb of Christ, 1864.
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
7. Edouard Manet, The Street Singer, 1862. Boston, Museum of
Fine Arts
8. Edouard Manet, The Balcony, 1868-69. Paris, Musee
d'Orsay
9. Alphonse Legros, The Ex-Voto, 1860. Dijon, Musee des
Beaux-Arts
10. Henri Fantin-Latour, La Feerie, 1863. Montreal, Musee des
Beaux-Arts
11. James McNeill Whistler, The Woman in White, 1862.
Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art
12. James McNeill Whistler, Purple and Rose: The Lange Leizen
of the Six Marks, 1864. Philadelphia Museum of Art
13. Alphonse Legros, The Vocation of St. Francis, 1861. Alen~on,
Musee des Beaux-Arts
14· Gustave Moreau, Oedipus and the Sphinx, 1864. New York,
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Xl
xu Illustrations
15· Edouard Manet, Races at Longchamps, watercolor, 1864.

Cambridge, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University
16. Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, 1868-69.
Mannheim, Stadtische Kunsthalle
FIGURES
Frontispiece. Henri Fantin-Latour, Portrait of Edouard Manet,

1867. Chicago, The Art Institute. The Stickney Fund.
I. Philippe de Champaigne, The Provost of the Guilds and the
Municipal Magistrates of the City of Paris, 1647-48. Paris,
Louvre 9
2. Edouard Manet, La Feche, 1861-63. New York, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art 25
3· Edouard Manet, Music in the Tuileries, 1862. London,
National Gallery 26
4· Diego Velasquez, The Drinkers (or Bacchus), 1628. Madrid,
Museo del Prado 28
5· Louis(?) Le Nain, La Halte du cavalier, ca. 1640. London,
Victoria and Albert Museum 3I
6. Antoine Watteau, Gilles, 1717-19? Paris, Louvre 32
7· Louis(?) Le Nain, La Charrette (or Les Moissonneurs), 1641.
Paris, Louvre 33
8. Edouard Manet, The Absinthe Drinker, 1858-59.
Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 35
9· Antoine Watteau, L'Indifferent, 1716-18. Paris, Louvre 36
10. Edouard Manet, La Joueuse de guitare, 1866 or 1867.
Farmington, Conn., Hill-Stead Museum 38
II. Antoine Watteau, La Finette, 1716-18. Paris, Louvre 38
12. Schelte Adam Bolswert, engraving after Peter-Paul Rubens,
Landscape with Rainbow. Paris, Bibliotheque Na-
tionale 39
13· Schelte Adam Bolswert, engraving after Peter-Paul Rubens,
The Castle Garden. Baltimore Museum of Art 39
14· Antoine Watteau, L'Assemblee dans un pare, 1716-17. Paris,
Louvre 40
15· Antoine Watteau, Le Rendez-vous de chasse, 1718. London,
Wallace Collection 41
III ustrations Xlll
16. Comte de Caylus, engraving after Antoine Watteau, La Chasse

~ux oiseaux. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 41
17· Edouard Manet, Les Voyageurs, etching, 1860-61. New York
Public Library 42
18. Antoine Watteau and Simon Thomassin, engraving after
Watteau, Recrue allant joindre Ie regiment. Paris, Bibliotheque
Nationale 42
19· Edouard Manet, The Spanish Ballet, 1862. Washington, D.C.,
The Phillips Collection 43
20. Antoine Watteau and Simonneau l'aine, engraving after
Watteau, Une Mascarade. London, British Museum 44
21. Thomassin Ie fils, engraving after Antoine Watteau, So us un
habit de Mezetin. London, British Museum 44
22. Bertrand Baron, engraving after Antoine Watteau, Italian
C:0medians. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 45
23· Edouard Manet, Young Woman Reclining in Spanish
Costume, 1862. New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery 46
24· Laurent Cars, engraving after Antoine Watteau, Fetes
Wnitiennes. Cambridge, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard
University 47
25· Laurent Cars, engraving after Watteau, Fetes Venitiennes,
~etail of statue of reclining woman (reversed) 47
26. Edouard Manet, Ballet Slippers, watercolor, ca. 1862.
<;=ollection of Mrs. Alex Lewyt 48
27· Edouard Manet, Guerin's Deuxieme Essai de frontispice,
etching, 1862 (actually Premier Essai de frontispice). New
York Public Library 49
28. Edouard Manet, The Balloon, lithograph, 1862. Cambridge,
~ogg Art Museum, Harvard University 50
29· Edouard Manet, Guerin's Premier Essai de frontispice,
etching, 1862 (actually Deuxieme Essai de frontispice). New
York Public Library 51
30 . Alphonse Legros, Frontispiece etching to Fernand Desnoyers,
Le Theatre de Polichinelle, 186 I. Paris, Bibliotheque
Nationale 52
31. Nadar [Felix TournachonJ, rear cover illustration for Edmond
Duranty, Theatre des marionnettes du jardin des Tuileries,
published in 1862. London, British Museum 53
XIV Illustrations
32· Alphonse Legros, Le Theatre de Polichinelle des Tuileries,

lithograph, 1861. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 54
33· Marcantonio Raimondi, The judgment of Paris, engraving
after a lost drawing by Raphael, ca. 15 I 5-16? New York, The
34· Antoine Aveline, engraving after Antoine Watteau, La
Villageoise. Paris, Bibliotheque N ationale 57
35· Edouard Manet, Untitled drawing, 18 50S. Paris, Louvre 57
3 6 . Titian, Venus of Urbina, 1538. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi 60
37· Alfred Prunaire, wood engraving after an early wash drawing
for Olympia. From Marcel Guerin, L'Oeuvre grave de Manet
(1944). Baltimore Museum of Art 60
8
3 . Edouard Manet, early wash drawing for Olympia, 186 3.
From Julius Meier-Graefe, Manet (19 12 ) 61
39· Achille Deveria, sujet gracieux for a macedoine, lithograph,
1820S. From Maximilien Gauthier, Achille et Eugene Devtiria,
19 2 5 61
40 . Edouard Manet, Portrait of the Artist's Parents, 1860. Paris,
Musee d'Orsay 63
41. Louis(?) Le Nain, Le Repas de paysans, 1642. Paris, Louvre 64
4 2 . Louis (?) Le Nain, The Forge, 1640s. Paris, Louvre 65
43· Edouard Manet, The Gypsies, etching, 1862 67
44· Gustave Courbet, Young Women on the Banks of the Seine,
1856- 5 7· Paris, Musee du Petit Palais 69
45· Jac. Schmuzer, engraving after Peter-Paul Rubens, Bacchus.
Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 86
4 6 . Wood engraving after Peter-Paul Rubens, Venus or Fortune in
the Galerie Suermondt. From Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1860 89
47· Gaspard Duchange, engraving after Paolo Veronese, Descent
from the Cross. Cambridge, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard
University 91
8
4 . Theodore Gericault, The Raft of the Medusa, 1819. Paris,
Louvre 92
49· Theodore Gericault, The Raft of the Medusa, 18 19, detail of
dead young man and grieving older man. Paris, Louvre 93
50. Jacques-Louis David, Death of Marat, 1793. Brussels, Musees
Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 96
51· Edouard Manet, The Dead Torero, 1864. Washington, D.C.,
National Gallery of Art 97
Illustrations xv
52· Unknown seventeenth-century master, Dead Warrior (known

formerly as Orlando Muerto). London, National Gallery 97
53· Edouard Manet, Christ Mocked, 1865. Chicago, The Art
Institute 98
54· Schelte Adam Bolswert, engraving after Anthony Van Dyck,
Christ Crowned with Thorns. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 99
55· Leopold Flameng, engraving after Louis(?) Le Nain, The
Nativity of the Virgin. From Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1860 101
56. Edouard Manet, Woman with a Parrot, 1866. New York, The
57· Edouard Manet, The Fifer, 1866. Paris, Musee d'Orsay 10 4
58. Edouard Manet, The Luncheon (also called The Luncheon in
the Studio), 1868. Munich, Neue Pinakothek, Bayerische
Staatsgemaldesammlungen 10 5
59· J ules-Ferdinand Jacquemart, engraving after Jan Vermeer, Le
Soldat et la follette qui rit. From Gazette des Beaux-Arts,
1866 106
60. Noel-Eugene Sotain, engraving after Jan Vermeer, Geographe
tenant dans la main droite un compas. From Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, 1866 106
61. Henry-Augustin Valentin, engraving after Jan Vermeer, j eune
Femme au clavecin. From Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1866 106
62. Noel-Eugene Sotain, engraving after Jan Vermeer, jeune
Femme qui se pare. From Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1866 106
63· Jacques-Louis David, Andromache Mourning Hector, 1783.
Paris, Louvre 10 7
64· Pierre Guerin, The Return of Marcus Sextus, 1799. Paris,
Louvre 108
65· Edouard Manet, Portrait of Emile Zola, 1868. Paris, Musee
d'Orsay 110
66. Thomas Couture, Romans of the Decadence, 1847. Paris,
Musee d'Orsay II4
67· Jacques-Louis David, The Tennis Court Oath, drawing, 1791.
Versailles, Musee National du Chateau 115
68. Thomas Couture, The Voluntary Enlistments of I792, begun
1847. Springfield, Mass., Museum of Fine Arts II6
69. Jacques-Louis David, The Triumph of the French People,
drawing, 1793-94. Paris, Musee Carnavalet 117
70. Rembrandt van Rijn, A Bearded Man in a Furred Oriental
XVI Illustrations
Cap, etching, 1631. Cambridge, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard

University 145
71. After Titian, Girl with a Fruit Dish, from Charles Blanc et aI.,
Histoire des peintres de toutes les ecoles: Ecole venitienne
(1868) 14 6
7 2. Marcantonio Raimondi, engraving after Raphael,
Temperance. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 14 6
73· Edouard Manet, The Surprised Nymph, 1861. Buenos Aires,
Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes de la Escuela 14 8
74. Johannes Vosterman, engraving after Peter-Paul Rubens,
Susannah and the Elders. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 149
75· Rembrandt van Rijn, Susannah, ca. 1634. The Hague,
Mauritshuis 149
7 6. Jean-Honore Fragonard, Le Billet doux, ca. 1776. New York,
The Metropolitan Museum of Art 15 0
77· Antoine Watteau, L'Amour paisible, 1718. Berlin, Schloss
Charlottenburg 15 2
7 8. Antoine Watteau, Les Champs-Elysees, I7I7? London,
Wallace Collection 153
79· Botticelli workshop, Venus and Three Putti. Paris, Louvre 155
80. Thomas Couture, Stella Maris, 1850-56. Paris, Saint-
Eustache 15 8
81. Edouard Manet, Portrait of Zacharie Astruc, 1866. Bremen,
Kunsthalle 161
82. William Haussoullier, The Fountain of Youth, 1845.
Collection of Graham Reynolds 166
83. Jean Lagrene~ photograph, 1865. Paris, Bibliotheque du
Musee National d'Histoire Naturelle 177
84· Engraving after Louis(?) Le Nain, The Old Piper. From
Charles Blanc et aI., Histoire des peintres de toutes les ecoles:
Ecole franc;aise, vol. I (1862) 179
85· Hellenistic stawe formerly thought to be a portrait
of Chrysippos, as Manet would have seen it. Paris,
Louvre 180
86. Edouard Manet, drawing after Chrysippos, 185 os? Paris,
Louvre 181
87· Wood engraving after Henri-Guillaume Schlesinger, The
Kidnapped Child, 1861. From Le Magasin pittoresque, 1861.
Washington, D.C., Library of Congress 182
Illustrations XVll
88. Alphonse Legros, Portrait of the Artist's Father, 1856. Tours,

Musee des Beaux-Arts 18 7
89· Jean-Fran<;:ois Millet, The Gleaners, 1857. Paris, Louvre 188
9 0 . Jean-Fran<;:ois Millet, Woman Sewing by Her Sleeping Child,
1854-56. Norfolk, Va., Chrysler Museum 18 9
91. Jean-Fran<;:ois Millet, The Angelus, 1859. Paris, Musee
d'Orsay 19 0
2
9 . Jean-Fran<;:ois Millet, The Vineyard Worker, pastel and black
crayon, 1869-70. The Hague, Mauritshuis 19 1
93· Gustave Courbet, A Burial at Ornans, 1849-50. Paris,
Musee d'Orsay 193
94· Alphonse Legros, The Ex- Voto, 1860, detail ofthe ex-voto.
Dijon, Musee des Beaux-Arts 197
95· Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin, The Card Castle, ca. 1737.
Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art 19 8
6
9 . Henri Fantin-Latour, Woman Reading, 1861. Paris, Musee
d'Orsay 199
97· Henri Fantin-Latour, Reading, 1863. Tournai, Musee des
Beaux-Arts 201
8
9 . Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for Homage to Delacroix,
drawing, 1864. Paris, Louvre 20 3
99· Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for Homage to Delacroix,
100. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for Homage to Delacroix,
101. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for "Truth," drawing, 1864.
Paris, Louvre 20 5
102. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for "Truth," drawing, 1864.
Paris, Louvre 206
10 3. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for "Truth," drawing, 1864.
Paris, Louvre 206
10 4. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for "Truth," drawing, 1864.
Paris, Louvre 20 7
10 5. Henri Fantin-Latour, Double study for "Dinner" and
"Truth," 1864. Paris, Louvre 20 7
106. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for "The ,Toast!," drawing,
1864. Paris, Louvre 208
10 7. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for "The Toast!," drawing,
1864. Paris, Louvre 20 9
"<-,
,"
XVlll Illustrations
108. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for The Toast! Homage

to Truth, drawing, 1865. Paris, Louvre 20 9
10 9. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for The Toast! Homage
to Truth, drawing, 1865. Paris, Louvre 210
110. Henri Fantin-Latour, The Toast! Homage to Truth, oil
sketch, 1865. Whereabouts unknown 210
I I 1. Henri Fantin-Latour, Tannhauser: Venusberg, 1864. Los
Angeles County Museum of Art 21 3
112. Henri Fantin-Latour, Reading, 1877. Lyon, Musee des
Beaux-Arts 216
II3· Henri Fantin-Latour, The Dubourg Family, 1878. Paris,
Musee d'Orsay 21 7
II4· Henri Fantin-Latour, The Drawing Lesson (or Portraits),
1879. Brussels, Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 218
II5· Jean-Fran<;ois Millet, The Knitting Lesson, 1869, retouched
1872-73. St. Louis Art Museum 21 9
116. Henri Fantin-Latour, A Corner of the Table, 1872. Paris,
Musee d'Orsay 221
117· James McNeill Whistler, The Woman in White, 1862, detail
of bear's head. Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art 223
118. Gustave Courbet, The Painter's Studio, Real Allegory
Determining a Phase of Seven Years in My Artistic Life,
1854-55. Paris, Musee d'Orsay 225
119· Gustave Courbet, The Source, 1868. Paris, Musee d'Orsay 226
120. James McNeill Whistler, Purple and Gold: The Golden
Screen, 1864. Washington, D.C., The Freer Gallery,
Smithsonian Institution 227
121. James McNeill Whistler, Variation in Flesh Colour and
Green: The Balcony, I864-70? Washington, D.C.,
The Freer Gallery, Smithsonian Institution 228
122. James McNeill Whistler, Rose and Silver: La Princesse du
pays de la porcelaine, 1864. Washington, D.C., The Freer
Gallery, Smithsonian Institution 21 3 0
123. James McNeill Whistler, Harmony in Green and Rose: The
Music Room, 1860. Washington, D.C., The Freer Gallery,
Smithsonian Institution 231
124. James McNeill Whistler, Nocturne in Blue and Silver:
The Lagoon, Venice, 1879-80. Boston, Museum of Fine
Arts 23 2
III ustrations XIX
12 5. James McNeill Whistler, Vauxhall Bridge, etching, 1861.

Baltimore Museum of Art 23 2
126. Edouard Manet, Portrait of Victorine Meurent, 1862.
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 234
12 7. Henri Fantin-Latour, Chrysanthemums, 1862. Philadelphia
Museum of Art 23 6
128. Hippolyte-Jean Flandrin, Portrait of Napoleon III, ca.
1860-61. Versailles, Musee National du Chateau 237
12 9. Theodule Ribot, Saint Sebastian, Martyr, 1865. Paris,
Musee d'Orsay 23 8
13 0 . Emile-Auguste Carolus Duran, The Convalescent, 186 I?
~aris, Musee d'Orsay 24 0
131. Emile-Auguste Carolus Duran, The Murdered Man:
Memory of the Roman Campagna, 1866. Lille, Musee des
Beaux-Arts 242
13 2 . Emile-Auguste Carolus Duran, Portrait of Mme ,;.':. ';', 1868.
Paris, Musee d'Orsay 244
133· Ernest Meissonier, Man Reading, 1862. Dublin, National
Gallery of Ireland 24 6
134· Ernest Meissonier, I8I4, the Campaign of France, 1860- 6 4.
~aris, Musee d'Orsay 247
135· Edouard Moyse, Carthusian Playing a Cello, etching, 186 3.
Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 25 2
13 6 . Alphonse Legros, Procession dans une eglise espagnole,
etching, ca. 1860. 254
137· Alphonse Legros, Le Refectoire, etching, 1862. Baltimore
Museum of Art 255
13 8. Alphonse Legros, Le Manege, etching, 1863. Baltimore
Museum of Art 255
139· Guillaume Regamey, Cuirassiers au cabaret, 1875. Paris,
Musee d'Orsay 25 8
140. Gustave Courbet, The Stonebreakers, 1849. Formerly
Dresden, Staatliche Gemaldegalerie 26 3
141. Gustave Courbet, The Wheat Sifters, 1854. Nantes, Musee
des Beaux-Arts 26 4
2.
14 Alphonse Legros, The Angelus, 1859. Whereabouts
unknown 274
143· Henri Fantin-Latour, Un Morceau de Schumann, etching,
1864. Chicago, The Art Institute 277
xx Illustrations
144· Edouard Manet, Monk in Prayer, 1865. Boston, Museum of

Fine Arts 28 3
145· Edouard Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergere, 1881-82.
London, Courtauld Institute Galleries 286
14 6 . Raphael, Sistine Madonna, 15 I 3 ? Dresden, Gemaldegalerie 293
147· Edouard Manet, Le Chemin de fer, 1873. Washington, D.C.,
National Gallery of Art 3 00
148. Edouard Manet, The Angels at the Tomb of Christ, 1864,
detail of Christ's feet. New York, The Metropolitan Museum
of Art 313
149· Edouard Manet, In the Conservatory, 1879. Berlin,
Nationalgalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer
Kulturbesitz 315
15 0 . Edouard Manet, Le Bon Bock, 1873. Philadelphia Museum
of Art 3 16
151· Edouard Manet, Le Dijeuner sur l'herbe, 1862-63, detail of
bullfinch. Paris, Musee d'Orsay 3 20
2
15 . Edouard Manet, Le Dijeuner sur l'herbe, 1862-63, detail of
frog. Paris, Musee d'Orsay 3 21
153· Edouard Manet, Portrait of Emile Zola, 1868, early
photograph showing ostrich feathers clearly. Paris,
Bibliotheque Nationale 324
154· Edouard Manet, Races at Longchamps, 1867. Chicago,
The Art Institute 32 5
155· Edouard Manet, Young Man in the Costume of a Majo,
1863. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 33 0
15 6 . Edouard Manet, Philosopher (with Beret), 1865. Chicago,
The Art Institute 335
157· Henri Fantin-Latour, An Atelier in the Batignolles, 1870.
Paris, Musee d'Orsay 34 1
15 8 . Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, 1867.
159· Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, 1867-68.
London, National Gallery 34 8
160. Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, lithograph,
1868. Baltimore Museum of Art 349
161. Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, 1868-6 9.
Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 349
Illustrations XXI
162. Francisco Goya, The Third of May, 1814. Madrid, Museo

del Prado 35 1
16 3. Jacques-Louis David, The Oath of the Horatii, 1785. Paris,
Louvre 352
164. Jacques-Louis David, Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies
of His Sons, 1789. Paris, Louvre 353
16 5. Alphonse Legros, L'Amende honorable, 1868. Paris, Musee
d'Orsay 3 61
166. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, drawing, ca. 1860. Paris,
Louvre 3 66
16 7. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, drawing, ca. 1860. Paris,
Louvre 3 68
168. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, drawing, ca. 1860. Paris,
Louvre 36 9
16 9. Gustave Courbet, Self-Portrait with Black Dog, 1844. Paris,
Petit Palais 375
17 0 . Gustave Courbet, Man with the Leather Belt, 1845-46?
Paris, Musee d'Orsay 37 6
171. Gustave Courbet, The Cellist, 1847. Stockholm, National
Museum 377
172. Henri Fantin-Latour, Drawing, ca. 1860. Paris, Louvre 379
173· Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, Standing Holding a
Paintbrush, 1859. Grenoble, Musee de Peinture et de
Sculpture 3 81
174· Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, Standing Holding a
Paintbrush, 1859, detail of signature and date. Grenoble,
Musee de Peinture et de Sculpture 383
175· Henri Fantin-Latour, Homage to Delacroix, 1864, detail of
Fantin-Latour holding a palette. Paris, Musee d'Orsay 3 84
176. James McNeill Whistler, The Rag Gatherers, etching,
18 5 8 38 5
177· James McNeill Whistler, La Vieille aux loques, etching,
1858. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 3 86
17 8 . James McNeill Whistler, Eagle Wharf, etching, 1859.
Washington, D.C., The Freer Gallery, Smithsonian
Institution 3 88
179· James McNeill Whistler, Black Lion Wharf, etching, 1859.
Baltimore Museum of Art 389
XXll Illustrations
180. James McNeill Whistler, Becquet the Fiddler, drypoint,

1859. Paris, Bibliotheque Naitonale 39 0
18!. James McNeill Whistler, The Artist in His Studio, 1865-66.
Chicago, The Art Institute 39 1
182. Alphonse Legros, Le Souper, etching, 1858-60. Paris,
Bibliotheque Nationale 393
18 3. Camille Pissarro, Sente de Justice, Pontoise, 1872. Memphis,
Tenn., Memphis Brooks Museum of Art 394
18 4. Camille Pissarro, Rabbit Warren at Pontoise, Snow, 18 79.
Chicago, The Art Institute 395
18 5. Edouard Manet, Self-Portrait with a Palette, 18 7 8 -79.
Private collection 39 6
186. Diego Velasquez, Las Meninas, 1656, detail of painter.
Madrid, Museo del Prado 39 8
18 7. Edouard Manet, Le Dijeuner sur l'herbe, 1863, detail of
head of Victorine Meurent. Paris, Musee d'Orsay 4 02
188. Edouard Manet, Le Linge, 1876. Merion, Pa., Barnes
Collection 411
N.-H. Tardieu, engraving after Antoine Watteau,
Embarkation for Cythera, detail of woman holding flowers
in her apron. Cambridge, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard
University 475
Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin, La Raie dipouillie, 17 2 7.
Paris, Louvre
Honore Daumier, Rue Transnonain, lithograph, 18 34.
19 2 • Edouard Manet, Guerre civile, lithograph, 18 7!.
Cambridge, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University
193· Vermeer's monogram. From Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1866
194· Engraving after Frans Hals, Portrait of Will em van
Heythuijsen. From Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1868 499
195· Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, La Source, 1856. Paris,
Louvre 519
Claude Monet, Boar's Head, 1870. Cairo, Gezira Museum 54 1
Zacharie Astruc, lithograph after his sculpture, The Seller of
Masks, 1882. From Annuaire illustri des beaux-arts, I882.
Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 544
Illustrations XXlll
19 8. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, Seated at Easel, 18 5 8 .

Berlin, N ationalgalerie 60 5
199· Frederic Bazille, Self-Portrait with Palette, 1869-70?
Chicago, The Art Institute. 608
200. Edouard Manet, Self-Portrait with a Skull Cap, 1878. Tokyo,
Bridgestone Museum of Art 6I I
Preface
AFT ERe 0 M P LET I N G my previous book, Courbet's Realism, in

January 1989, I spent six months in Paris during which I began again to
pursue research in and around the art of Edouard Manet. I say "again"
because just over twenty years earlier I had researched and written my
first extended essay in art history, subsequently published as "Manet's
Sources: Aspects of His Art, 1859-1865" in the March 1969 issue of
Artforum. At that time, I had planned to work my way back in stages
toward the middle of the eighteenth century, where (I already realized) the
development that Manet's paintings of the 18 60S brought to a climax had
its origin. But it soon emerged that such a plan was impracticable and that
instead of proceeding from Manet to Courbet (thence to Gericault,
David, Greuze, Diderot) it was necessary to plunge directly into the eigh-
teenth century in order to study that development from the moment of its
inception. The outcome of that plunge backward was Absorption and
Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot (1980). I was
then able to carry my argument forward, which I did in Courbet's Real-
ism (1990) and other writings. The present book returns to Manet and
indeed tries to deliver on certain promises I made in "Manet's Sources."
More important, together with Absorption and Theatricality and Cour-
bet's Realism this book forms a trilogy dealing with a central problematic
in the evolution of painting in France between the start of the reaction
against the Rococo in the I750S and the advent of Impressionism in the
I870S. The I860s and I870S in France are also the time and place associ-
ated with the emergence of modernist painting (Manet's canvases of the
first half of the 18 60S are crucial here), and in fact what initially drew me
to the period between Greuze's Fere de famille and Manet's Dejeuner sur
l'herbe, apart from the sheer magnetism of the art, was the thought that
art history (from which I did not exempt myself) then possessed only the
most rudimentary understanding of what might be called the prehistory
xxv
XXVi Preface
of modernism. Whatever else it seeks to do, my trilogy attempts to give an

account of that prehistory by making visible a hitherto unsuspected dy-
namic at its core.
Toward the end of my stay in Paris in the late spring of 1989 I saw that
my new book would have to deal with not only Manet but also other art-
ists in his generation, above all Alphonse Legros, Henri Fantin-Latour,
and James McNeill Whistler, and I also began to form some preliminary
notions as to its possible structure. I was at a loss what to do about
"Manet's Sources," however. On the one hand, I was still convinced of
the truth of much of what I had argued there; on the other, numerous
points now seemed to me wrong, ill conceived, or badly put, and I longed
to fix them. But simply correcting the original essay seemed out of the
question, and yet I didn't see a way to write a new and independent ver-
sion that would preserve and, where necessary, reformulate what was
valuable and discard what was not. On a brief visit to Baltimore in April
19 8 9 I put my problem to two friends and colleagues, Frances Ferguson
and Walter Benn Michaels, who with one voice instantly suggested re-
publishing "Manet's Sources" in its original form and then going on both
to acknowledge its errors and weaknesses and to produce additional ar-
guments on its behalf. (I would then be free to say whatever else I wished
to say about Manet and his generation.) That is the strategy I have fol-
lowed in the present book, and I am deeply grateful to Ferguson and Mi-
chaels for their advice without which I might still be casting about for a
structure that would allow me to come to grips with my earlier self (and
with an earlier phase of art history). No doubt the solution is less than
perfect; I would have preferred a more nearly seamless way of proceeding.
But it is sincere in the sense of being the best that I can do under the cir-
cumstances.
In addition to Ferguson and Michaels many colleagues, friends, and
former students have assisted and/or encouraged my work on Manet
and his generation, and I want to thank them. They include, at Johns
Hopkins, Elizabeth Cropper, Charles Dempsey, Neil Hertz, Herbert L.
Kessler, Walter Melion, Ronald Paulson, and Daniel Weiss; at other uni-
versities in this country, Stanley Cavell, Kermit Swiler Champa, Arnold I.
Davidson, Marc Gotlieb, Josue Harari, John Harbison, Steven Z. Levine,
Stephen Melville (from whose commentaries on my work I have learned a
great deal), W. J. T. Mitchell, Dianne Pitman, Joel Snyder, Martha Ward,
and Richard Wollheim; at the Baltimore Museum of Art, Jay Fisher, and
at the Chicago Art Institute, Douglas Druick; and in Paris, Hubert Dam-
Preface XXVll
isch, Jacques Derrida, Claude Imbert, Rene Major, the late Louis Marin
(whose radiant intelligence and noble soul are missed every day by those
who knew him), Regis Michel, Pierre Rosenberg (whom I thank for,
among other things, enabling me to see the School of Botticelli Venus dis-
cussed in chapter 2 in the reserve of the Musee du Louvre), and Fran~ois
Roustang. Also in Paris, Philippe Brame of Brame and Lorenceau kindly
gave me access to letters by and to Fantin-Latour in his gallery's archives.
Past and present graduate students beside those already mentioned who
have in one way or another contributed to my work on Manet include
Anna Brailovsky, Harry Cooper, Nancy Forgione, Lauren Freeman,
Carla Koop, Annette Leduc, Margaret MacNamidhe, Anne Sum-
merscale, and Veerle Thielemans. Macie Hall, slide librarian of the De-
partment of the History of Art at Johns Hopkins, has helped in the
gathering of photographs and related materials. Finally, Bridget
McDonald provided a fine translation of Antonin Proust's 1901 essay,
"L'Art d'Edouard Manet," which is given whole along with the original
in appendix 1. Two other persons deserve separate thanks. T. J. Clark,
whose magnificent book The Painting of Modern Life transformed
Manet studies when it appeared in 1985, has been my chief interlocutor
with respect to Manet's art ever since we spent an exhilarating two days
together at the retrospective exhibition at the Grand Palais in 1983. His
friendship and support have been unstinting. And my wife, Ruth Leys,
has lived through every stage of both "Manet's Sources" and Manet's
Modernism with me and has contributed materially to whatever is good
in both. Most recently, she read the present work in manuscript and made
various useful suggestions.
In April 1991, at the invitation of the University of Chicago Press and
the Committee on Social Thought, I presented three Harry and Lynde
Bradley Foundation Lectures based on material in this book at the Uni-
versity of Chicago. My thanks to Paul Wheatley, Fran~ois Furet, and other
members of the Committee on Social Thought and to Morris Philipson of
the University of Chicago Press for giving me so productive a head start
on the writing of Manet's Modernism. At the University of Chicago Press
I again have had the privilege of working with that outstanding editor,
Karen Wilson. (A change in the rules of the press finally allows me to
thank her for all she has done not just for this book but for my previous
ones as well.) I also wish to thank Jane Marsh Dieckmann, who expertly
copyedited this book in manuscript and went on to make its index.
The original "Manet's Sources" was written between February 1968
xxv III Preface
and January I9 6 9; I wouldn't be surprised if the reader came to feel that

some of the emotional climate of that devastating year made its way into
the writing. Among the debts I acknowledged when "Manet's Sources"
first appeared were to Stanley Cavell (who read and discussed it with me
as it was drafted), Wassily Leontieff and the Harvard Society of Fellows (I
had been a junior fellow between I964 and I9 68 ), James S. Ackerman,
Frederick Deknatel, and Sydney J. Freedberg of the Harvard University
Department of Fine Arts, Philip Leider (then editor of Artforum), and
Marie-Helene Gold (who helped with translations from the French). I
also noted that lowed my first acquaintance with the art of Manet to my
parents, who frequently took me to the Metropolitan Museum of Art
when I was small. My memories of Mile V .. in the Costume of an Es-
pada in particular go far, far back.
"Manet's Sources" was originally dedicated to Stanley Cavell. How-
ever, in I9 8 7 I dedicated my book Realism, Writing, Disfiguration: On
Thomas Eakins and Stephen Crane to Cavell, which leaves me free to as-
sign this one to two particular friends: John Harbison and, in memoriam,
Louis Marin.
Buskirk, N.Y.
July 31, I994
Introduction: Manet before Impressionism
TH E F R ENe Hpainter Edouard Manet, by common agreement the piv-

otal figure in the modern history of painting, was born January 23, I 832,
in Paris to a distinguished high bourgeois family that hoped he would fol-
low the law. 1 But his vocation was undeniable, and in I 8 50, at the age of
eighteen, he entered the studio of Thomas Couture (b. I8 IS), one of the
leading painters of the day and a highly successful teacher. (Couture had
been a student of Antoine-Jean Gros, who had studied with Jacques-
Louis David; Manet's artistic lineage, the fact that he was only two gener-
ations removed from the founder of the modern French school, is not
without significance.) Manet's first biographer, his boyhood friend An-
tonin Proust, tells of numerous clashes with Couture,2 but Manet re-
mained with his teacher six years, after which he traveled extensively
visiting European museums in preparation for embarking on his own in-
dependent career. In I 859 The Absinthe Drinker, a painting Manet came
to regard as too indebted to Couture in its execution, was rejected by the
Salon jury. Two years later, however, Le Guitarrero was accepted for the
Salon of I 86I, where it was praised by Theophile Gautier and where it
made a powerful impression on a group of Manet's painter contempo-
raries. But it was between I862 and I865 that Manetfully broke through
to the first phase of his mature accomplishment (I think of those years as
his anni mirabiles). In close succession there followed paintings such as
The Old Musician (I862), The Street Singer (I862), The Gypsies (I862;
subsequently cut down and all but destroyed by Manet himself), Lola de
Valence (I862), The Spanish Ballet (I862). Music in the Tuileries (I862),
Mile V .. in the Costume of an Espada (I 862), Le Dijeuner sur I' herbe
(I862-63), Olympia (painted in I863 hut exhibited in the Salon of
I865), Young Man in the Costume of a Majo (I863), Episode in a Bull-
fight (I 8 64; afterward cut down to make The Dead Torero), The Angels at
the Tomb of Christ (I864), View of a Race in the Bois de Boulogne (I 864;
I
2 Introduction
another largely destroyed work), Battle of the Kearsarge and the Alabama
(I864), and Christ Mocked (I 86 5)-a remarkable series of highly origi-
nal works that quickly established Manet's reputation as the leader of a
new generation even as they drew down on him a sustained barrage of
critical and journalistic obloquy that continually caught him off guard.
The abuse came to a head with the exhibition of Olympia and Christ
Mocked in the Salon of I 865. In the late summer of that year Manet made
a brief visit to Madrid to look at the Spanish pictures at the Prado;3 and
during the next few years he produced a number of brilliant single-figure
paintings, including the Woman with a Parrot and The Fifer (both I 866),
manifestly under the inspiration of Velasquez. In I867, coinciding with
the Exposition Universelle, Manet held a one-man show of his work to
date, and once again the response was mainly negative. But the years
I 8 66-68 also saw the appearance in print of Manet's best-known critical
champion, the young Emile Zola, whose insistence on the artistic irrele-
vance of considerations of subject matter and whose praise of Manet's
technique of painting by "colored patches" sketched the terms in which
Manet would eventually be assimilated to the history of modern art. 4
Among Manet's major paintings of the later I860s are the Mannheim
Execution of Maximilian (I 868-69; the project for that painting dates to
the summer of I867), Portrait of Emile Zola (I868), Dejeuner (I868,
which I will call The Luncheon in the Studio to distinguish it from the
Dejeuner sur l'herbe), and The Balcony (I 868-69); I see the last two
works in particular as marking a return to the more-than-single-figure
compositional type of his pre-Madrid oeuvre, and I also see in them a
renewed engagement with a set of pictorial issues that the single-figure
canvases had placed somewhat in abeyance.
The I870S began with the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of Napo-
leon III, the siege of Paris during which Manet served in the forces of
defense, followed by the founding of the Third Republic and the bloody
suppression of the Commune-events that, taken together, made a vio-
lent caesura in French cultural life. Early in the decade Manet enjoyed one
of his rare public successes with the exhibition in the Salon of I 872 of Le
Bon Bock. (That year too the art dealer Paul Durand-Ruel bought more
than twenty works by Manet, to widespread astonishment.) But Manet's
more ambitious and challenging new pictures-for instance, Le Chemin
de fer (I873), Argenteuil (I874), Le Linge (I875), Nana (I877), At Fere
Lathuille's (I 879), In the Conservatory (I 879), and his culminating mas-
terpiece, A Bar at the Folies-Bergere (I88I-82)-continued to meet crit-
Manet before Impressionism 3
ical resistance, though he also gradually won over various critics who for
years had been hostile, and increasingly writers who were full of reserva-
tions about his art conceded that his sheerly painterly skills were not in
question and that his influence on contemporary painting was already
profound. Among the younger artists Manet was correctly believed to
have influenced were Claude Monet, Pierre Renoir, and Berthe Morisot,
all of whom belonged to the group known as the Impressionists. In fact
their formative exposure to his work took place in the mid- and later
I 8 60S, when they were still in their twenties; by the early I 870S the situa-
tion had grown more complex as Manet responded in turn to aspects of
their practice, above all to their emphasis on painting out of doors, en
plein air, in natural light. Despite his interest in and support for the work
of the younger painters, however, Manet declined to participate in any of
the group exhibitions that they held independently of the Salon at vari-
ous intervals starting in I 874;5 instead he chose to go on striving for rec-
ognition within the official Salon, with all the likelihood of disappoint-
ment that that entailed. By the late I870S Manet was suffering from the
effects of syphilis; in search of relief, he pursued a dangerous course of
treatment-doses of ergot de seigle-that led to circulation problems
and finally to gangrene in one leg. Toward the end of April I883 the leg
was amputated, and on April 30, at the age of fifty-one, Manet died in
convulsions.
The growth of Manet's posthumous reputation began with the memo-
rial exhibition of I 8 84 and continues to this day. Major milestones in-
clude the retrospective exhibitions of I932 and I983 (the centennials of
his birth and death), and of course he has been the subject of an enormous
~ass of art-historical scholarship, which has accreted dramatically dur-
Ing the pa~t thirty years. There is no need to summarize that scholarship,
or even to Invoke its principal themes; suffice it to say that we now possess
a vast fund of information about Manet's life and work. But I shall
argu.e--:-it is the point of this book to show-that we have yet to grasp the
spe~lfiClty and complexity of his aims during the I 860s and especially
dunng the first half of that decade, the short but absolutely critical span
of years which will be my particular focus.
I have reason to think that this view will not easily win general accep-
tance. In March I969, fresh out of graduate school, I published a mono-
?raph, "Manet's Sources: Aspects of His Art, I8 59-I86 5," as a special
Iss~e of a magazine of contemporary art, Artforum. 6 There I put forward
an Interpretation of the meaning of one of the most puzzling features of
4 Introduction
Manet's paintings of the I860s: the obviously intended allusions, in

many of his most important canvases, to works of earlier art, mainly
paintings and engravings after paintings by the Old Masters. Without
wishing to rehearse my conclusions here, I will say that I saw Manet's
enterprise as aiming to secure, by a strategy of more or less conspicuous
allusion to or citation of particular "sources," first, the essential "French-
ness" of his own work, and second, going beyond "Frenchness," what I
described as a kind of "universality" -a relation of something like con-
nectedness with the entire history of European painting before his time. I
also argued that Manet's conception of "Frenchness" was based on a par-
ticular canon of "authentic" French masters, one I associated chiefly with
the writings of the eminent art critic and pioneer art historian Theophile
Thore. And I went on to link Manet's concern with nationality with the
art and thought of his teacher Couture, and, at a further remove, with the
historical and political writings of Jules Michelet. Six months later, also
in Artforum, my study was subjected to a raking critique by one of the
leading Manet scholars of the generation senior to mine, Professor The-
odore Reff of Columbia University,? after which both "Manet's Sources"
and I were widely regarded as left for dead. In time I managed to resusci-
tate myself. But with rare exceptions (notably Kermit Champa and T. ].
Clark), scholars who have written on Manet and related topics during the
past two decades have refused even to consider the possibility that the
vision of his art put forward in "Manet's Sources" deserved to be taken
seriously-as if the very questions I addressed were so fanciful or miscon-
ceived as to lie outside the pale of legitimate art-historical inquiry. One
impulse at work in this book is therefore a desire to persuade the reader
otherwise, though I hasten to add that I am much less interested in justify-
ing my early monograph, which indeed is flawed, than in correcting, re-
fining, amplifying, and enriching it in ways that were altogether beyond
the scope of my understanding twenty-five years ago.
Several further points should be stressed. There are numerous reasons
why art historians in the late I960s found "Manet's Sources" scarcely
intelligible, but one nontrivial source of difficulty had to do with its par-
tial dependence upon an account of the evolution of painting in France
from Chardin and Greuze through Millet and Courbet (i.e. from the mid-
dle of the eighteenth century until the I 860s) that I had not yet written. I
already saw Manet's masterworks of the first half of the I860s as
the climactic stage of a long historical development the central issue of
which concerned the relation of a painting to its beholders. But I was able
only to allude to such a development-which at that time I only partly

understood-in several much too condensed and obscure footnotes. In
the years that followed I set out to make up for that lack. I began by going
back to the mid-eighteenth century and, in Absorption and Theatricality:
Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot (I980), interpreting the
painting of Chardin, Greuze, Carle Van Loo, Vien, Joseph Vernet, Fra-
gonard, Hubert Robert, early David, and others in the light of the art
criticism and theory of the period (and vice versa: the art criticism and
theory stood in need of interpretation fully as much as the painting).
More recently, in Courbet's Realism (I990), I surveyed the various strate-
gies with respect to the beholder adopted by David, Gros, Gericault,
Daumier, Delaroche, Millet, and the photographer Disderi, before going
on to explore the structure of beholding in the paintings of Manet's imme-
diate predecessor, the self-proclaimed Realist Gustave Courbet. 8 The last
chapter of Courbet's Realism characterizes Manet's art as standing in a
relation of dialectical reversal or opposition to Courbet's art as regards
the issue of beholding, and although I continue to believe that that view is
basically right, one of my aims in this book will be to redescribe that rela-
tion in less general, more thickly contextual terms.
Another sort of contrast between Courbet and Manet will help clarify
my present project: whereas in Courbet's Realism I emphasize Courbet's
singularity relative to his contemporaries (within painting, at any rate),9
in this book I insist on the importance of seeing Manet as belonging to
and, up to a point, as representative of a particular generation of painters.
There are two main reasons why this basic fact about his life and work
has tended to be overlooked. First, Manet's generation visibly cohered as
such only for a short span of time. And second, it was immediately fol-
lowed by the much longer lived and both stylistically and ideologically far
more cohesive generation of the Impressionists, whose breathtakingly
simplified vision of their art proved remarkably influential not just on
other painters but also on critics, amateurs, art historians-on the entire
world of painting, including portions of it that were hostile to the new
work. 10 Indeed the simplifying import of the Impressionist vision, in com-
bination with Manet's quick response to the younger painters' plein-airisme,
tended from the outset to cast Manet in the role of the first Impressionist-
some critics described him as the movement's chef de file 11 -which is to
say in the role of the first truly radical simplifier. (The designation stuck.
Thus we find Henri Matisse saying in I932: "Manet is the first painter
who immediately translated his sensations, thereby liberating his in-
6 Introduction
stinct. He was the first to act by reflexes and thus simplify the painter's
metier." 12 And in general what might be called the formalist-modernist
view of Manet follows these lines.) But this also meant that when, on
Manet's death in 1883 and on the occasion of the posthumous exhibition
of January 1884, a cluster of appreciative articles finally appeared, the
works that tended to be singled out for praise were the "impressionist"
canvases of the I870S and I880s, while the paintings of the I860s that
twentieth-century scholarship has chiefly equated with his modernism,
notably the Dejeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia, were often ignored or
criticized.1 3 (Matisse himself felt that the latter was not one of Manet's
best works.)14 In other words, the appreciation of Manet's revolutionary
achievement-the appreciation, and perhaps also the constitution, of it
as revolutionary-took place in reverse order, under the sign of Impres-
sionism and the transformation of painting and the seeing of painting
that it brought about. "If Manet has suffered for Impressionism," Albert
Pinard shrewdly wrote in 1884, "it is by Impressionism that he must tri-
umph." 15 Viewed in those terms, it's altogether fitting that the campaign
to buy Olympia and present it as a gift to the state so that it could be hung
in the Louvre was spearheaded by the foremost Impressionist painter,
Monet. 16 As the connoisseur and critic (also formerly a close friend of
Manet) Theodore Duretwrote to Monet in 1889 apropos that campaign,
"What a singular thing! It will be you who will make the gap through
which Manet will pass, although it was he who was the precursor. Your
work coming later finds the terrain better prepared; then too Manet was a
figure painter and there the terrible academic convention and Ie poncif
[the hackneyed treatment of gesture and expression] reign and will always
reign supreme." 17 In fact I would go further and suggest that the lasting
triumph of Impressionism (the most durably successful movement in the
history of modern painting) has meant that our usual understanding of
Manet's modernism, perhaps of modernist painting generally, is so thor-
oughly saturated by Impressionist values and assumptions as to con-
front the art historian who wishes to recover the pictorial meaning of
Manet's art before Impressionism- "before" both chronologically and
interpretatively-with an especially difficult task. I shall have more to say
about the Impressionist vision of Manet (and of painting) later. For the
moment let me state that I shall be operating throughout on the belief (I
already was operating on it in "Manet's Sources") that our best chance of
clarifying the pre-Impressionist meaning of Manet's art is by exploring
the larger issues at stake in "advanced" French painting in the I 860s, that
is, in the artistic and discursive community to which Manet belonged.

This will involve detailed consideration of the work of other members of
his generation, and it will also lead me to appeal extensively to the art
criticism of the period, which is rich in hints that can be used.1 8 (My ap-
proach will be closer to that of Absorption and Theatricality than to that
of Courbet's Realism, in which contemporary criticism plays a minor
role.)
HER E I need to give Manet's generation a name: I shall call it the gener-
ation of 1863, in honor of the occasion of its most visible manifesta-
tion, the notorious Salon des Refuses of that year. In addition to Manet
(b. 1832), the generation comprised Henri Fantin-Latour (b. 1836),
James McNeill Whistler (b. 1834), and Alphonse Legros (b. 1837). (Le-
gros, exceptionally talented and one of the most interesting painters and
etchers in France in the late 18 50S and early I860s, has almost disap-
peared from the history of art; in chapter 3 I shall make a case for his
importance.) All four men are represented in the most important sur-
viving pictorial document of their association, Fantin-Latour's group
portrait, Homage to Eugene Delacroix (1864; pI. 1).1 9 I shall want to
look at this work again, but a preliminary viewing will help get us un-
der way.
In the first place, three of the four artists just mentioned-Whistler
(standing to the left of the portrait of Delacroix), Fantin (seated to his left
and wearing a white shirt), and Legros (standing behind Fantin)-are
grouped together on one side of the canvas while Manet (to the right of
the portrait) stands apart from them on the other side. This reflects the
fact that Fantin, Whistler, and Legros had been close friends since the late
I850S (Fantin and Legros went back earlier than that), while Manet had
come to be seen by them as sharing their vision of painting only in 186 I,
the year his Guitarrero was exhibited in the Salon. (Fan tin and Legros
were the two leaders among the painters who were so impressed by the
Guitarrero that they went as a group to Manet's studio to make his ac-
quaintance.)20 In any case, the compositional distance between Manet
and the others is telling, as is Manet's prominence relative to all the other
painters except Whistler, whom Fantin admired and whose flamboyant,
temperamental personality would have made him a natural rival to
Manet had he remained in France. Whistler and Legros moved perma-
nently to London in 1863, however, and although both continued to sub-
8 Introduction
mit paintings to the Salon the seeds of disunion had been sown. A few
years later Whistler ended his friendship with Legros, and in 1867 in a
letter to Fantin he repudiated realism and expressed the wish that he had
been a student of Ingres rather than an admirer of Courbet. 21 For his
part, Fantin became increasingly reclusive, sending paintings to the Salon
but otherwise leaving Manet alone in the public arena. (Note, by the way,
that the figure of Fantin in the Homage holds a palette, not a paintbrush,
in his right hand. Fantin himself was right-handed, and eventually we
shall want to understand the meaning of this seeming lapse.)
Just to the left of Manet and below the portrait of Delacroix sits a
somewhat older figure, Champfleury (Jules Husson). Champfleury had
been Courbet's first critical champion in the late I 840S and 18 50S; he was
also a novelist, journalist, and art historian who had recently published a
monograph on the Le Nain brothers, seventeenth-century French realist
painters from his native town of Laon. 22 Equally to the point, he had rec-
ognized Legros's abilities as early as 1857, when the latter exhibited his
Portrait of the Artist's Father in the Salon of that year (Legros was then
just twenty).23 As regards the overall symbolism of Fantin's composition,
the presence of Champfleury signals an allegiance to realism, and in fact
Manet, Fantin, Whistler, and Legros all thought of themselves as realists
and regarded Courbet's Burial at Ornans (1849-50) and related works
as marking an epoch in the history of their art. But none of them was
merely a follower of Courbet and the Homage is something more than a
tribute to his example. 24 For we find seated at the lower right, just in front
and to the side of Manet, the poet and art critic Charles Baudelaire, who
by the mid-185 os had come to deplore what seemed to him the positivist
and materialist-in his lexicon the anti-imaginative-nature of Cour-
bet's Realism but who had never ceased to call for painting that would
represent modern life, and who in the early 1860s had supported Manet,
Whistler, and Legros both privately and in print. 25 (Baudelaire's friend-
ship with Manet is legendary. By April 1864 he was living in Brussels,
where he had moved in a quixotic attempt to escape his Parisian creditors
and perhaps recoup his fortunes by arranging for the publication of var-
ious works and by giving a series of lectures on contemporary French art
and literature. Not surprisingly, his various projects came to nothing. In
March 1866, ill with syphilis, he suffered a stroke and several months
later was brought back to Paris with diminished faculties. He died there
on August 31,1867.)26 Even more difficult to square with realism as it
was then understood, Fantin's canvas memorializes the Romantic painter
Figure I. Philippe de Champaigne, The Provost of the Guilds and the Municipal Magistrates of the
City of Paris, I647-48.
Eugene Delacroix, who had died the year before, and thus asserts a rela-
tionship of affiliation between the Romanticism of 1830 and the young
realists (for Baudelaire, of course, Delacroix was the great painter of the
nineteenth century). This was recognized at the time by a few critics, who
were puzzled by the connection. "I don't believe that Delacroix's poetic
was ever Courbet's," Jean Rousseau wrote in L'Univers illustre. "How
then has an alliance suddenly been established between these schools that
seemed to exclude one another, and which for such a long time have been
at war? It must be that realism has singularly modified its program, and
we would be curious to learn about the new formula."27
I shall have more to say about the terms of that new formula in chapters
3 and 4. I want to call attention to another aspect of Fantin's canvas,
however: its close relation to, indeed its seeming compositional depen-
dence upon, an earlier painting, also a group portrait, Philippe de Cham-
paigne's The Provost of the Guilds and the Municipal Magistrates of
the City of Paris (1647-48; fig. 1).28 Champaigne's picture, now in the
Louvre, was then in the La Caze Collection in Paris and had been shown
in a large and much-discussed exhibition of French paintings from private
10 Introduction
collections which was held in 1860 at Louis Martinet's gallery at 26 bou-

levard des Italiens. 29 (During the early 18 60S Manet, Fantin, Whistler,
and Legros all exhibited at Martinet's, where new and old works were
often shown together; in this and other respects Martinet's was a central
site of the advanced pictorial culture of that moment.) And what I want to
emphasize is that Fantin not only made no effort to disguise the relation-
ship between the Homage and Champaigne's canvas, he seems on the
contrary to have wished to declare that relationship in much the same
way as his painting declares an allegiance to Delacroix. Put more strongly,
the relationship of the later to the earlier work is one not of dependence
but rather of allusion or reference: as if one of Fantin's central aims in the
Homage was to assert a connection with the Champaigne and by so do-
ing to encourage educated viewers-painters, critics, and connoisseurs
who, like him, were familiar with famous works of previous art-to con-
sider the implications of his choice of source. 30
Now, what has never been recognized-what I myself was unaware of
when I wrote "Manet's Sources"-is that this sort of active, explicit en-
gagement with the art of the past was typical (and was seen as typical) of
the work of almost all the ambitious young French painters of the late
1850S and early and mid-1860s whose reputations have survived to the
present day. So for example Fantin himself, in addition to painting the
Homage to Delacroix, made a number of smaller works called feeries in
which a generalized allusiveness to Italian Renaissance painting coexists
with a deliberate vagueness of subject and action; Legros was widely seen
to have based his art on the work of the so-called primitives and other
fifteenth-century Italian and Northern masters; Theodule Ribot, in the
eyes of contemporaries another realist (Fantin considered including him
in the Homage), was viewed even by his admirers as repeatedly pastiching
Ribera (no discussion of his art in the 1860s fails to make this point);
James Tissot's costume pieces set in the sixteenth century were routinely
criticized for imitating the older contemporary Belgian painter Baron
Leys, who in turn was held to have imitated Durer and Cranach; Puvis de
Chavannes's decorative canvases were understood, from the moment of
the success of his Concordia and Bellum in the Salon of 1861, as at-
tempting to resuscitate the look of Italian Renaissance frescoes; no aspect
of Gustave Moreau's paintings starting with Oedipus and the Sphinx in
the Salon of 1864 (the same Salon as the Homage to Delacroix) was more
widely disputed than their stylistic adherence to the manner of Man-
tegna, Carpaccio, and other Northern Italians; Edgar Degas's engage-
Manet before Impressionism II
ment with the art of the museums, not only with Italian masters of the
Renaissance but also with later figures such as Van Dyck and Ingres, has
always been recognized; ,:- Whistler, while not seen as recy'cling earlier Eu-
ropean art, was sometimes described as "pastiching" Chinese painting;
and of course Manet himself repeatedly cited earlier painting, most fa-
mously in the Dejeuner sur l'herbe (largely based on a figure group in
Marcantonio Raimondi's engraving after Raphael's Judgment of Paris),
Olympia (based on Titian's Venus of Urbino), and the Episode in a Bull-
fight (based on a seventeenth-century painting in the Pourtales Collection
then attributed to VeLisquez).31 Such a pattern of active involvement with
the art of the past marks a fundamental difference between the practice of
the young realists among the group I have just named (with the exception
of Whistler, who seems not to have been involved with earlier European
painting as the others were) and that of Courbet, whose occasional ex-
ploitation of older prototypes had nothing systematic about it. In this re-
spect as in others Courbet remained somewhat traditional, whereas the
young painters in question, not just the realists but the others as well, evi-
dently were responding to a new situation, one that called for deliberate
allusion to or adaptation of earlier works and styles in order that all
meaningful connection with painting's past-with its canonical
achievements-not be 10st. 32 Fascinatingly, critics of every stamp were
uncomfortable with this aspect of these artists' work, though certain of
them, notably Legros and Puvis, tended to escape censure, for reasons
that are difficult to specify. Indeed those critics who in other respects were
':-The mention of Degas in this context leads me to acknowledge his absence from this book.
In an obvious sense, that absence is appropriate: especially during the first half of the I860s
Degas was not part of the group of advanced painters I shall be tracking (his formation was
different, he began by idolizing Ingres not Courbet or Delacroix, he spent the years 18 5 6- 59 in
Italy where he became close to Moreau, unlike the others he devoted much effort in the first half
of the I 860s to making history paintings such as the Daughter ofJephthah, Semiramis Building
Babylon, Young Spartans, and Scene of War in the Middle Ages). Moreover, throughout the
I870S and after, he exhibited with the Impressionists, with whom he is sometimes identified.
But his year of birth, 1834, places him squarely with Fantin, Legros, Whistler, and Manet; his
commitment to the figure was primary, as was theirs; he was from the first deeply involved with
earlier painting; the issue of beholding troubles his art from the early Daughter of Jephthah
(1859-6 I) to the great nudes of the 18 80S and after; and starting in the late 18 60S his relations
with Manet, though sometimes strained, were also particularly close-George Moore, who
knew them both, called Manet "the friend of [Degas's] life" ("Degas: The Painter of Modern
Life," Magazine of Art 13 [Sept. 1890]: 4 I 9). At least one recent study has emphasized his
singularity to the extent of casting him as an "odd man out" within the modern movement
(Carol Armstrong, Odd Man Out; Readings in the Work and Reputation of Edgar Degas [Chi-
cago and London, 1991]). Without developing the point, and without claiming to assimilate
him too neatly to the structures I shall be analyzing, I suggest on the contrary that his art makes
historical sense only when it is seen in relation to the concerns of the generation of 1863.
12 Introduction
most supportive of Manet and his cogenerationists-Baudelaire, Thon':,

Zola, and Zacharie Astruc-were downright hostile to the idea of recyc-
ling earlier art. "To make oneself a great man [i.e. a great painter], it's
not absolutely necessary to be inspired by Raphael, Titian, Rembrandt,
Rubens, or Velasquez," Astruc wrote in 1863, naming five artists of par-
ticular interest to his friend Manet. 33 But the painters remained imper-
vious to criticism on this score, which suggests just how much was at
stake for them-how deeply grounded was the imperative that drove
them-in their dealings with the past. That no such programmatic in-
volvement with earlier art was shared by the still younger group of
painters who became the Impressionists is a basic difference between
Manet's generation and theirs.
As I have said, "Manet's Sources" frontally attacked the question of
what Manet's allusions to the art of the museums meant. The question
itself had arisen within art history much earlier (in the 1930S and 1940S)
and my account of Manet's enterprise made extensive use of the work of
previous scholars who had identified numerous sources for his paintings
and prints. But my arguments persuaded almost no one, which may be
one reason why in recent scholarship the topic of Manet's relation to his
sources has tended to be brushed aside. A more important reason is that it
has seemed to have little place in the revisionist, largely social-historical
reading of Manet's art that, starting in the late 1960s, art historians such
as Anne Coffin Hanson, Theodore Reff, T. J. Clark, and Robert L. Herbert
have been elaborating. Hanson's Manet and the Modern Tradition, Reff's
Manet and Modern Paris, Clark's Painting of Modern Life, and Herbert's
Impressionism (works of unequal merit) typify this state of affairs: in
each, Manet's use of past art is discussed in connection with specific
works bearing an obvious relation to famous prototypes, but the larger
theme of his possibly strategic engagement with the past is ultimately
not addressed. 34 The same situation prevails in Fran~oise Cachin's and
Charles Moffett's counterrevisionist catalog for the retrospective exhibi-
tion of 1983, which partly in reaction against social-historical readings of
his art portrays a normalized "painterly" Manet who takes his place un-
problematically in the standard history of nineteenth-century painting,
as well as in monographs by Beatrice Farwell, George Mauner, and James
H. Rubin. 35 Finally, two recent technical studies by Juliet Wilson-Bareau,
The Hidden Face of Manet and Manet: The Execution of Maximilian, un-
derscore an indifference to the question of the overall meaning of Manet's
allusions to the Old Masters by declining even to mention "Manet's
Sources" in their notes or bibliographies. 36 However, once it is recog-

nized that virtually Manet's entire cohort of advanced painters engaged
in some version of citing or conspicuously adapting the art of the past, the
question gains immensely in historical resonance. By the same token, the
failure to address that question-the almost universal tendency to treat it
as of no particular consequence-becomes emblematic of a larger failure
to come to grips with a network of issues that I shall try to show were
central to French painting at a critical moment in its evolution.
ONE WAY of thinking of that network of issues is in relation to a concept

that has already been touched on and is invoked in the title of this book:
that of Manet's modernism. Within the past several decades it has become
customary for art critics and art historians of widely differing points of
view to characterize Manet as the first modernist painter. A classic state-
ment to that effect is by the American "formalist" critic, Clement Green-
berg, who in his essay "Modernist Painting" defines modernism (which
he spells with a capital M) as a process of immanent self-criticism the aim
of which has been to determine the irreducible working essence of the in-
dividual arts. Greenberg contends that at a certain point in the nineteenth
century, painting and the other arts were faced with the danger of a pro-
gressive loss of mission. "Having been denied by the Enlightenment all
tasks they could take seriously," he writes, "[the arts] looked as though
they were going to be assimilated to entertainment pure and simple, and
entertainment itself looked as though it were going to be assimilated, like
religion, to therapy. The arts could save themselves from this levelling
down only by demonstrating that the kind of experience they provided
was valuable in its own right and not to be obtained from any other kind
of activity."37 The key passage follows:
Each art, it turned out, had to effect this demonstration on its own account.
What had to be exhibited and made explicit was that which was unique and ir-
reducible not only in art in general but also in each particular art. Each art had
to determine~ though the operations peculiar to itself, the effects peculiar and
exclusive to itself. By doing this, each art would, to be sure, narrow its area of
competence, but at the same time it would make its possession of this area all
the more secure.
It quickly emerged that the unique and proper area of competence of each
art coincided with all that was unique to the nature of its medium. The task of
self-criticism became to eliminate from the effects of each art any and every ef-
fect that might conceivably be borrowed from or by the medium of any other
14 Introduction
art. Thereby each art would be rendered "pure," and in its "purity" find the
guarantee of its standards of quality as well as of its independence. "Purity"
meant self-definition, and the enterprise of self-criticism in the arts became one
of self-definition with a vengeance.
Realistic, illusionist art had dissembled the medium, using art to conceal art.
Modernism used art to call attention to art. The limitations that constitute the
medium of painting-the flat surface, the shape of the support, the properties
of pigment-were treated by the Old Masters as negative factors that could be
acknowledged only implicitly or indirectly. Modernist painting has come to re-
gard these same limitations as positive factors that are to be acknowledged
openly. Manet's paintings became the first Modernist ones by virtue of the
frankness with which they declared the surfaces on which they were painted.
The Impressionists, in Manet's wake, abjured underpainting and glazing, to
leave the eye under no doubt as to the fact that the colors used were made of
real paint that came from pots or tubes. Cezanne sacrificed verisimilitude, or
correctness, in order to fit drawing and design more explicitly to the rectangu-
lar shape of the canvas.
It was the stressing, however, of the ineluctable flatness of the support that
remained most fundamental in the processes by which pictorial art criticized
and defined itself under Modernism .... Flatness, two-dimensionality, was the
only condition painting shared with no other art, and so Modernist painting
oriented itself to flatness as it did to nothing else. 38
For all its clarity and power, Greenberg's account of modernism is open to
serious objection (I have taken issue with it more than once, most recently
in Courbefs Reaiism),39 but I want to stress, first, its emphasis on flatness
as the defining condition of the medium of painting, and second, the im-
plication, which Greenberg elsewhere makes explicit, that the process of
self-criticism he describes entails the progressive detachment of the indi-
vidual arts from all concerns other than strictly or narrowly artistic ones.
(Which is to say "esthetic" ones. "Modernism defines itself in the long
run not as a 'movement,' much less a program, but rather as a kind of bias
or tropism: towards esthetic value, esthetic value as such and as an ulti-
mate," he writes in a later essay. "The specificity of Modernism lies in its
being so heightened a tropism in this regard. ")40 Put slightly differently,
the "purity" to which Greenberg refers means not only a relative indif-
ference to considerations of subject matter, which have no place in the
later stages of the "reduction" he evokes; once under way the "reduc-
tion" itself, although triggered by social developments (specifically the
Enlightment critique of institutions), is conducted in a void.
In contrast, the social historians of art understand the emergence
of modernist painting in Paris in the 18 60S and 18 70S as responding
Manet before Impressionism
to a distinctive experience of modernity. Baudelaire's poems, prose

poems, and art criticism are read as testifying to the nature of that experi-
ence, which has been variously glossed by subsequent commentators:
sometimes the emphasis falls on the increasingly dehumanized and dehu-
manizing aspects of life under commodity capitalism, sometimes on the
rise of a "society of spectacle" with its newly developed modes of enter-
tainment, leisure activity, fashion, and display; in both cases, however, an
experiencing subject is imagined as standing at a certain virtual distance
from his surroundings, and in a sense from himself (hence the pertinence
of the Marxist notion of "alienation"). In T. J. Clark's working definition
of modernism in The Painting of Modern Life, that virtual distance is
equated with a loss of certainty about the very act of representation. In his
words:
"Modernism" ... is used [in this book] in the customary, somewhat

muddled way. Something decisive happened in the history of art around Manet
which set painting and the other arts upon a new course. Perhaps the change
can be described as a kind of scepticism, or at least unsureness, as to the nature
of representation in art. There had been degrees of doubt on this subject before,
but they had mostly appeared as asides to the central task of constructing a
likeness, and in a sense they had guaranteed that task, making it seem all the
more necessary and grand. Certain painters in the seventeenth century, for ex-
ample, had failed to hide the gaps and perplexities inherent in their own proce-
dures, but those traces of paradox in perception-those markers in the picture
of where the illusion almost ended-only served to make the likeness, where it
was achieved, the more compelling, because it was seen to exist in the face of its
opposite, chaos. There is no doubt that Manet and his friends looked back for
instruction to painters of just this kind-to Velasquez and Hals, for example-
but what seemed to impress them most was the evidence of palpable and frank
inconsistency, and not the fact that the image was somehow preserved in the
end from extinction. This shift of attention led, on the one hand, to their put-
ting a stress on the material means by which illusion and likeness were made
... ; on the other, to a new set of proposals as to the form representation should
take, insofar as it was still possible at all without bad faith. 41
Whereas Greenberg portrays the modernist artist as seeking a narrow cer-

tainty, Clark goes so far as to imagine a taste for uncertainty becoming
almost an esthetic in its own right. 42 But as Clark is aware, his conception
of modernism is not simply or wholly opposed to Greenberg'S. He too
sees in early modernism "a stress on the material means by which illu-
sions and likenesses were made," and for him as for Greenberg the norm
of flatness plays a crucial role not only in Manet's art but in subsequent
16 Introduction
modernist painting. The difference is that Clark refuses to hypostatize

flatness; rather, he insists that it cannot be understood apart from "the
particular projects-the specific attempts at meaning-" in which it
came to the fore:
Certainly it is true that the two dimensions of the picture surface were time and
again recovered as a striking fact by painters after Courbet. But I think the
question we should be asking in this case is why that literal presence of surface
went on being interesting for art. How could a matter of effect or procedure
seemingly stand in for value in this way? What was it that made it vivid?
The details of an answer will of course be open to argument as to emphasis,
evidence, and so forth; but surely the answer must take approximately this
form. If the fact of flatness was compelling and tractable for art-in the way it
was for Manet and Cezanne, for example-that must have been because it was
made to stand for something: some particular and substantial set of qualities
which took their place in a picture of the world. So that the richness of the
avant-garde, conceived as a set of contexts for art in the years between, say,
1860 and 19 I 8, might best be redescribed in terms of its ability to give flatness
such complex and compatible values-values which necessarily derived from
elsewhere than art. On various occasions, for instance, flatness was imagined to
be some kind of analogue of the "Popular" ... It was therefore made as plain,
workmanlike, and emphatic as the painter could manage; loaded brushes and
artisans' combs were held to be appropriate tools; painting was henceforth
honest manual labour.... Or flatness could signify modernity, with the sur-
face meant to conjure up the mere two dimensions of posters, labels, fashion
prints, and photographs. There were painters who took those same two dimen-
sions, in what might seem a more straightforwardly modernist way, to repre-
sent the simple fact of Art, from which other meanings were excluded. But
during this period that too was most often an argument about the world and
art's relation to it-a quite complex argument, and stated as such. Painting
would replace or displace the Real, accordingly, for reasons having to do with
the nature of subjectivity, or city life, or the truths revealed by higher mathe-
matics. And finally, unbrokenness of surface could be seen-by Cezanne par
excellence-as standing for the evenness of seeing itself, the actual form of our
knowledge of things ....
My point is simply that flatness in its heyday was these various meanings
and valuations; they were its substance, they were what it was seen as; their
particularity was what made flatness a matter to be painted. Flatness was there-
fore in play-as an irreducible, technical fact of painting-with all of these to-
talizations, all of these attempts to make it a metaphor. Of course, in a way it
resisted the metaphors, and the painters we most admire insisted also on its be-
ing an awkward, empirical quiddity; but "also" is the key word here: there was
no fact without the metaphor, no medium without its being made the vehicle of
some sense or other. 43
This is superb in its way and I have no argument with it. Or rather I have
no argument with it as it applies to modernist painters after Manet. For it
will be one of my procedures in the pages that follow (above all in chapter
4, "Manet in His Generation") to refrain from appealing to flatness as a
basic parameter of his art, on the grounds that the common modernist
interpretation of Manet's paintings of the 18 60S as pioneering above all in
their assertion of flatness is largely an artifact of Impressionism, or to put
this more broadly, that a concern with flatness and related notions such as
"decorative" unity, that is, the notion that pictorial unity was essentially
a surface affair, did not emerge or did not fully emerge as the defining
characteristic of modernist pictorial practice before the articulation of a
distinctively Impressionist point of view in the early and mid-I870S.44
Did not fully emerge is perhaps the point. Courbet, for example, is sup-
posed to have said of Manet's Olympia, "It's flat, it isn't modeled; it's like
the Queen of Hearts after a bath," to which Manet is supposed to have
replied, "Courbet bores us in the end with his modeling; his ideal is a
billiard ball!"45 (But isn't there something a little pat about this ex-
change, which was first reported almost twenty years after it supposedly
took place, by a critic inveterately unsympathetic to Manet?) Then, too,
cri tics of the 18 60S castigated Manet's pictures for their occasional fail-
ures of perspective, for the harshness with which figures and figure-
groups were felt to stamp themselves out against their backgrounds, and
perhaps most frequently, for their seeming incompleteness, their inexpli-
cable lack of finish-all features of his art that have been associated after
the fact with the foregrounding of the literal flatness of the support. 46
Zola, for his part, willingly conceded the resemblance between Manet's
paintings and the popular engravings known as gravures d'Epinal as well
as Japanese color woodblocks, both notoriously "flat" types of images,
but he also insisted that seen from the proper distance Manet's paintings
offered a coherent spatial illusion in which each object occupied its ap-
propriate plane. 47 In short, no critic of the 1860s actually spoke of
Manet's paintings as aggressively flat, and I shall offer a fundamentally
different interpretation of the tendencies in his work that lent themselves
retroactively to being perceived in those terms. Without wishing to get
ahead of myself, let me add that issues of facing-as indicated by the
second part of the title of this book-will play an equivalent role to that
played by the topos of flatness in previous accounts of Manet's art. (The
displacement of issues of flatness by ones of facing is suggested already in
"Manet's Sources" and is underscored in Courbet's Realism.)48
18 Introduction
Greenberg's" Modernist Painting" is pertinent to this discussion in an-

other respect as well: along with his stress on flatness and as it were deter-
mined by it is an emphasis on a purely visual or optical mode of
illusionism. "With Manet and the Impressionists," he writes, "the ques-
tion ceased to be defined as one of color versus drawing [a traditional op-
position in painting and art theory], and became instead a question of
purely optical experience as against optical experience modified or re-
vised by tactile associations. It was in the name of the purely and literally
optical, not in that of color, that the Impressionists set themselves to un-
dermining shading and modeling and everything else that seemed to con-
note the sculptural. "49 This historical claim soon gives way to a theo-
retical one, when Greenberg links Kantian self-criticism (the model for
modernist self-criticism) and science, and goes on to say: "That visual art
should confine itself exclusively to what is given in visual experience, and
make no reference to anything given in other orders of experience" -the
implicit imperative of all modernist painting, in his view-"is a notion
whose only justification lies, notionally, in scientific consistency. "50
Again, his argument is open to multiple objections, but I want to call at-
tention to his equating of Manet and the Impressionists with respect to
visuality and opticality (taking these to be the same): "With Manet and
the Impressionists, the question ... became [one] of purely optical expe-
rience, etc." 51
As a generalization about Impressionism or rather about the contem-
porary response to the work of the landscape Impressionists Claude
Monet, Camille Pissarro, and Alfred Sisley, this is incontestable. As early
as 1874 Armand Silvestre, an early advocate, wrote ofthe Impressionists
that the viewer needed "special eyes to be sensitive to that accuracy in the
relation of tones that is their honor and their merit,"52 and a less friendly
critic, Marc de Montifaud, characterized the new group as "the school of
the eyes." 53 And as I have already suggested, it was largely on the strength
of the triumph of Impressionism that Manet's work began to win accep-
tance in the 18 70S and 18 80S. The first stirrings of that process were con-
temporary with the advent of Impressionist painting in the early and
mid-I870S54 but the "impressionist" reading fully came into its own
toward the end of the decade and (especially) during the years just be-
fore and after Manet's death. So for example Pinard, in a companion arti-
cle to the one cited earlier, marveled at two "impressionist" works by
Manet: "One would hardly believe that the human hand must have been
employed to transport to the canvas the image gathered by the artist's eye,
Manet before Impressionism
one could suppose that his gaze has been the sole agent of both the recep-
tion and the reproduction of the image." 55 In a less exalted register we
find Jacques de Biez writing in 1883 that Manet's divinity was the truth
air and light, and asking rhetorically: "Should Manet be blamed for the
care he seems to have taken to repudiate in his oeuvre all psychological
intention or every philosophical subject? Manet was a painter before ev-
erything, and his highest ambition was to remain a painter in the full plas-
tic meaning of the term. Manet was an eye rather than a reasoning. "56 A
year later Edmond Bazire added: "[Manet's] career can be summed up as
a continuous ascension toward light and truth .... To paint on the basis
of the eyes, not the imagination, was his program."57 Theodore Duret,
looking back on Manet's career, maintained that the painter saw differ-
ently from other people (a point made earlier by Zola) and that that ac-
counted for both the unconventional appearance of his art and his
difficulties with the public. 58 And Proust in 1901 not only attributed to
Manet "the incessant pursuit of an ideal which he attained in his last pro-
ductions and which could be defined thus: the realization of optical ef-
fects resulting from the movement of the varied colorings that nature
offers us," but also quoted Manet himself as saying in conversation the
year before he died: "'They will be happy, my dear friend, the people
who will live a century from now; the organs of their vision will be more
developed than ours. They will see better.' "59
But the notion of opticality, of a mode of painting addressed exclu-
sively to the sense of sight, has only limited and specific application to
modernist painting after Impressionism (even as regards Impressionist
practice it stands in need of qualification), and whatever its relevance to
Manet's later work it is positively misleading as a guide to his canvases of
the 18 60S. 60 Indeed Greenberg's overvaluing of opticality, an attitude he
shares with his severest critic, Rosalind Krauss, bears witness to the
lasting influence of Impressionism and its criticism on subsequent theo-
rizing about modern art.61 As in the case of flatness, a concern with
issues of facing-more broadly, of the relationship between painting and
beholder-will open the way to a more historically accurate and theoreti-
cally nuanced reading of Manet's achievement. 62
I N ADD I T ION to this introduction, the present book comprises five

chapters and a coda. Chapter I consists of "Manet's Sources" almost ex-
actly as it first appeared in Artforum. Although the temptation to correct
20 Introduction
its most obvious defects has been strong, the arguments for leaving it in-
tact and then proceeding to both criticize it and supplement it in subse-
quent chapters have proven even stronger. For one thing, the original
essay has been largely unavailable for a long time; for another, had I be-
gun to alter it in significant details I would not have known where to stop;
most important, had I changed it substantially the result would have
been hybrid in the worst way, representing neither my original thoughts
about Manet's paintings of the first half of the 18 60S nor my present re-
thinking of the larger, generational context to which those paintings be-
long. Above all, there would have been no way to introduce into the
framework of the revised essay the results of my later investigations into
what I have described as a central anti theatrical tradition in eighteenth-
and nineteenth-century French painting; and in the absence of those re-
sults a crucial dimension not just of Manet's enterprise but also of those of
his fellow realists would have remained incomprehensible. ':-
In chapter 2, " 'Manet's Sources' Reconsidered," I criticize my original
essay-conceding various points to Reff, highlighting flaws, acknowledg-
ing omissions-before going on to amplify its claims and to argue anew,
on the grounds of fresh pictorial and textual evidence, for what I continue
to believe is the rightness of its core account of Manet's allusions to the art
of the past. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the question
of genre as it was posed in the 18 60S, a question I see as related to that
of nationality in that what was at stake in both cases was a tension be-
tween fragmentation and totality. Indeed I suggest that the Dtijeuner sur
l'herbe (a work I return to repeatedly throughout this book) may be seen
as an attempt to combine virtually all the separate pictorial genres in a
single composition that would in effect put an end to the fragmentation of
painting on a generic level.
In chapter 3, "The Generation of 1863," focusing primarily on Fantin,
Whistler, and Legros and making use of the writings of a broad spectrum
"I have, however, made.:1 number of minor changes in the text. For example, I have occasion-
ally changed "which" and "that" and made small improvements in punctuation or phrasing. I
have followed recent scholarship in renaming Manet's favorite model Victorine Meurent, not
Meurend. In some cases I have modified the titles and/or adjusted the dates of paintings. I have
added a few footnotes that were missing from the original essay, and on rare occasions I have
introduced corrective remarks between square brackets. In the original essay I gave French
quotations in the body of the text and English translations in a separate set of notes; here I have
given the translations in the text and the French in the endnotes. (In a few instances I have
moved the French originals to the notes of later chapters in which the quotations recur and are
analyzed at greater length.) Finally, I have simplified the title of the original essay, "Manet's
Sources: Aspects of His Art, 1859-1865," to "Manet's Sources, 1859-1869."
of critics, I trace the lineaments of a fundamental shift in advanced picto-

rial sensibility by virtue of which certain kinds of excess, which would
previously have been viewed as artistically deleterious-specifically, as
theatrical-were recuperated as an artistically valid mode of intensity or,
a key term, strikingness. More precisely, I discern in a broad range of
works by the young realists (other than Manet) a double or divided struc-
ture within which an excessive treatment of the very means that in pre-
vious French painting had secured compositional closure now facilitated,
became the vehicle for, a highly charged mode of address to the beholder
which critics who deplored theatricality found not just acceptable but ad-
mirable, even exhilarating. I go on to consider other manifestations of
such a structure in the painting and criticism of the time, and bring the
chapter to a close by examining a network of concepts whose meaning in
the art writing of the 18 60S and 1870S has never properly been under-
stood.
Chapter 4, "Manet in His Generation," approaches Manet's paintings
of the 18 60S in the light of these and other considerations; in particu-
lar I redescribe his handling of the relationship between painting and
beholder-a cardinal element in his art-partly on the strength of a com-
parison with the work of his cogenerationists. The chapter is long and
complex and resists summary. Among other points I pay particular atten-
tion to the question of the meaning of the widespread concern with the
tableau; to Manet's avoidance or negation of absorptive themes and ef-
fects; to what contemporary viewers saw and deplored as his consistent
refusal to finish his pictures (this largely via a comparison between the
respective critical responses to Manet's Angels at the Tomb of Christ and
Moreau's Oedipus and the Sphinx); to his pursuit of various modes of
instantaneousness, and its bearing on his involvement with photography
and Japanese woodblocks; and to the delicate question of the thematiza-
tion of the relationship between painter and model in his art. Throughout
this chapter issues of strikingness emerge as central to our understanding
of his work, which is to say that Manet is seen to have shared with his
cogenerationists not only a systematic concern with the art of the past but
also a drive to establish a new type of connection with the beholder. Once
again the writings of numerous art critics are deployed in the service of
my analyses, though contrary to the way in which the advent of Impres-
sionism made Manet's paintings accessible both to contemporary
viewers and to later commentators as a first stage in a process of progres-
sive simplification (toward the foregrounding of flatness, the develop-
22 Introduction
ment of a sheerly optical illusionism, the pursuit of the impression), I

emphasize what all the evidence suggests was a widespread initial convic-
tion of his paintings' essential unintelligibility. (This is an emphasis I
share with Clark, for all the divergence in our interests.) Put slightly dif-
ferently, my approach here as elsewhere in this book is strongly contex-
tual, but my aim in trying to contextualize both Manet's paintings of the
r 860s and their initial reception is not only to recover aspects of their
original meaning but also to recapture an original resistance to available
modes of pictorial understanding. The chapter ends with a discussion of
the Mannheim Execution of Maximilian, a work not treated in "Manet's
Sources" but that now may be seen virtually as allegorizing many of the
issues dealt with in the chapter as a whole.
A fifth chapter, "Between Realisms," begins by analyzing the logic of
mirror reversal of left and right in several self-portrait drawings by
Fantin-Latour of around r860 and goes on to apply the results of that
analysis to a range of other works by Fantin, Whistler, Legros, Pissarro,
Frederic Bazille, and Manet himself. As those names suggest, "Between
Realisms" takes us to the verge of Impressionism; specifically, it proposes
a new interpretation of the art of the generation of r863 as transitional
between Courbet's corporeal Realism and the optical or (as I prefer to
say) ocular realism of the Impressionists.
Finally, a coda, "Manet's Modernism," gathers together various
strands of my argument and considers some of their more important
historical and historiographical implications.
1 Manet's Sources, 1859-1869
IF A SIN G L E question is guiding for our understanding of Manet's art

during the first half of the r860s, it is this: What are we to make of the
numerous references in his paintings of those years to the work of the
great painters of the past? A few of Manet's historically aware contempo-
raries recognized explicit references to past art in some of his important
pictures of that period; 1 and by the time he died his admirers tended to
play down the paintings of the first half of the r 860s, if not of the entire
decade, largely because of what had come to seem their overall depen-
dence on the Old Masters. 2 By r 9 r 2 Jacques-Emile Blanche could claim,
in a kind of hyperbole, that it was impossible to find two paintings in
Manet's oeuvre that had not been inspired by other paintings, old or
modern. 3 But it has been chiefly since the retrospective exhibition of r 9 32
that historians have come to realize concretely the extent to which Manet
based his art upon specific paintings, engravings after paintings, and orig-
inal prints by artists who preceded him.41t is now clear, for example, that
most of the important pictures of the r860s depend either wholly or in
part on works by Velasquez, Goya, Rubens, Van Dyck, Raphael, Titian,
Giorgione, Veronese, Le Nain, Watteau, Chardin, Courbet .... This by
itself is an extraordinary fact, one that must be accounted for if Manet's
enterprise is to be made intelligible. It becomes even more extraordinary
in the light of his repeated assertions, the truth of which cannot be
doubted, that he had tried to be himself and no one else. His pictures, he
wrote in r 867, were above all sincere: "It's the effect of sincerity to give to
works a character that makes them appear an act of protest, when the
painter has thought only of rendering his impression." 5 This statement
and others like it rest on familiar assumptions of midcentury realism. But
they raise the further question of how those assumptions can be recon-
ciled with the scope and explicitness of his involvement with the art of the
past.
23
Chapter One
From 1932 until fairly recently [this piece was almost entirely written
in 1968] that involvement was seen almost exclusively in connection with
issues of subject matter and "composition." Some historians have argued
that for Manet subject matter was nothing more than a pretext for the
problems of form and color that alone interested him, and that he used
the art of the past as a source of themes which for one reason or another
he was unable to invent for himself. 6 This is clearly false. For one thing, it
has become plain that Manet's intentions were far more complex than so
simple a reading of his art implies. In 1947 Michel Florisoone wrote that
"Manet does not deliberately take a subject from a master of the past, but
asks of such a master the plastic rendering of his inspiration which itself
was stimulated by a natural fact (the bathers at Gennevilliers, a dancer
stretched out on the ground, a woman in bed ... )", 7 and while this does
not always seem to have been the case, the implicit emphasis on Manet's
response to reality was salutary. Moreover, it has gradually become clear
that, as Meyer Schapiro wrote in 1954, Manet chose the subjects of his
paintings "not simply because they were at hand or because they fur-
nished a particular coloring or light, but rather because they were his
world in an overt or symbolic sense and related intimately to his person or
outlook. "8 (What this means in individual cases remains to be made out.)
It has also been suggested that Manet either lacked the ability to "com-
pose" or was uninterested in that class of problems, and so turned to the
Old Masters for the ordonnance of his paintings. 9 But this too does not
hold up. In the first place, as Alain De Leiris has remarked, "It postulates
the existence of an autonomous stylistic element called 'composition,'
which is presumably absent from Manet's works, or inadequately devel-
oped therein." 10 Whereas the concept of composition has its own history
in nineteenth-century painting and criticism, a history in which Manet's
art plays an important role. 11 Furthermore, it simply is not the case that
most of Manet's borrowings from previous paintings are of entire "com-
positions." 12 Much of the time he takes over single figures, motifs, even
details; the question is why. Finally, this type of explanation wholly fails
to account for what is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Manet's
borrowings, the literalness and obviousness with which he often quoted
earlier paintings. If it is argued that Manet knowingly exploited the art of
the past to make up for deficiencies in his own gifts, it must be explained
why he would have chosen in effect to call attention to those deficiencies.
But nothing now seems less fruitful than attempts to explain disquieting
Manet's Sources
aspects of Manet's art in terms of supposed defects in his talent or temper-

ament.
In more recent studies the tendency has been to see in Manet's involve-
ment with past art the ambition both to identify and to compete with the
great painters whom he most admired. For example, Nils Gosta Sandblad
has shown that Manet's depiction of himself and his future wife, Suzanne
Leenhoff, in La Peche (186 I -6 3; fig. 2) was a deliberate allusion to
Rubens and Helene Fourment, and that his portrayal of himself at the ex-
treme left of Music in the Tuileries (1862; fig. 3), by analogy with the
Louvre's Petits Cavaliers (then attributed to Velasquez), amounts to an
implicit identification with the great Spanish master. 13 Theodore Reff has
interpreted Manet's use of Titian's Venus of Urbina in Olympia in similar
terms, adding: "In choosing to identify himself, even if somewhat play-
fully, with Rubens, Velasquez, and Titian, artists who mingled with the
highest society, Manet affirmed that love of worldliness and elegance
which governed his own life in the salons and cafes of Paris, and which
gave to Olympia its singular tone." 14 Manet's identification with the
great painters of the past has in turn been seen as evidence of his determi-
Figure 2. Edouard Manet, La Peche, I86I-63.

Chapter One
Figure 3. Edouard Manet, Music in the Tuileries, 1862.
nation to compete with them. Sandblad has argued that this determi-
nation became wholly serious with the Dejeuner sur l'herbe and
Olympia. Until those paintings Manet had been able playfully to evade
"the problem of the conflict between classical art and the portrayal of
contemporary life." 15 In the Dejeuner, however, Manet set out to show
"that he was capable of establishing a modern correspondence to the clas-
sical scene [i.e. those of Giorgione's-in fact Titian's-Concert cham-
petre and Marcantonio Raimondi's engraving after Raphael's Judgment
of Paris] as a whole." In other words, Manet "wished to compete with
[the Old Masters] on his own ground.1 6 In the same spirit De Leiris has
remarked, "Manet's art thrived on this constant and deliberately sought
challenge of the past." 17
There is truth in these views. It seems clear that Manet did in fact iden-
tify himself with Rubens and Velasquez in La Feche and Music in the Tuil-
eries; and inasmuch as those and other paintings explicitly invite com-
parison with specific works by great painters of the past, they may be said
to compete with them. Certainly Manet must have aspired to sustain
Manet's Sources
those comparisons. But this interpretation of Manet's involvement with

past art is deficient on several counts. To begin with, it fails to explain
why Manet found it necessary, or even desirable, to compete explicitly
with the Old Masters. A test of strength with the standards established by
the art of the museums was at least implicit in the ambitious painting of
the previous decades; and it was in terms of those standards that
nineteenth-century critics judged the paintings of their time, including
Manet's. Nor does the notion of competition account for the manifest but
puzzling, almost riddling, specificity of his references to previous art. For
example, it says nothing about why Manet based the Dejeuner sur l'herbe
on Raphael and not some other master. And without some rationale for
his choice one is left with the impression that any other great painter-
Rubens, Velasquez, Rembrandt-would have served Manet's purposes
just as well, as long as an equivalent motif could be found. Even when
historians have emphasized the peculiar aptness of one or another refer-
ence to past art, almost no effort has been made to relate those references
to one another or to Manet's development as a whole. Similarly, when it
has been recognized that his relations with the art of the past did not re-
main constant throughout his career, but rather underwent some sort of
development, the tendency has been to regard any shifts in those relations
as at least somewhat playful or arbitrary-moves in a game which Manet
could just as easily have chosen to forego. This is not obviously wrong.
Despite the ubiquitousness and specificity of references to previous art in
both the great and the relatively lesser paintings of the first half of the
I 860s, it is conceivable that Manet's intentions in that regard were finally
neither deep nor precise nor coherent enough to reward exhaustive inter-
rogation. But we are not entitled to assume that this is so.
In what follows I shall try to show that exactly the opposite is the case,
namely, that Manet's involvement during those years with the art of the
past constituted a profoundly serious, rational, and progressive under-
taking, virtually every step of which must be understood in relation to
every other. I shall also suggest that the undertaking in question was as
central to his total enterprise as any other aspect of his art-his realism,
for example, or his concern with painting as such-and that in fact it can-
not ultimately be understood in isolation from either of these. Finally, I
shall suggest that Manet's involvement with the art of the past must be
seen in relation to some of the most important intellectual and spiritual
currents in nineteenth-century France.
Chapter One
Figure 4. Diego Velasquez, The Drinkers (or Bacchus), 1628.
THE FIR S T problems that face the student who wants to make sense of
Manet's relations with the art of the past are how, and in particular
where, to begin. One painting of the first half of the I 860s presents itself
as a place to start, first, because it contains a larger number of specific ref-
erences to past art than any other picture in Manet's oeuvre, and second,
because those references are presented with unique emphasis on the iden-
tity of each and hence on the conjunction of all. By studying the relations
among the painters and paintings it quotes, we might be able to under-
stand why Manet conjoined them in a single painting; and that might
provide us with a kind of key to understanding his involvement with the
art of the past generally. The painting is the Old Musician (1862; pI. 2), a
work that has received comparatively little attention in the literature on
Manet. Except for De Leiris, those who have written about it have been
disturbed by the obviousness and apparent arbitrariness of its relations
with past art, as well as by the half-realistic, half-fantastic situation it
Manet's Sources
seems to depict, and have tended to characterize it as an immature work

in which Manet had not yet managed either to declare his independence
from the Old Masters or to turn his attention once and for all to the world
around him.
But Manet's involvement with the art of the past was, as I have said, a
general characteristic of his work during those years: what distinguishes
the Old Musician from subsequent pictures such as the Dejeuner sur
l'herbe, Olympia, Episode in a Bullfight, or Angels at the Tomb of Christ
is not the fact of its relation to past art but the number of references it
contains and the way in which their coexistence within a single canvas is
apparently insisted upon. Moreover, to view the Old Musician's ref-
erences to the art of the past simply as indications of influences not yet
overcome is to assume something one has no right to assume. There are,
after all, generally accepted paradigms of influence; and these bear little
resemblance to the obviously deliberate quotations of specific paintings
by previous masters that one finds in that picture. It might also be re-
marked that the Old Musician belongs to the type of painting which
seems to have been the vehicle for Manet's highest ambitions during this
period: the large arrangement of two or more clearly defined figures. 18 In
this important sense it is far more representative of Manet's enterprise
during those years than, for example, the somewhat anomalous (though
great) Music in the Tuileries which Sandblad, after downgrading the Old
Musician, describes as offering "perhaps the best general departure for an
illustration of Manet's artistic development during the first years of the
1860s."19
The most notorious though not ultimately the most significant of the
Old Musician's sources in past art is Velasquez's early masterpiece The
Drinkers (1628; fig. 4), which Manetwould have known through Goya's
engraving [or, more likely, Celestin Nanteuil's lithograph] and which, as
De Leiris remarks, "offers parallels in its bohemian theme, frieze compo-
sition and certain details such as the framing tree branch on the left and
the shadowy standing figure on the right." 20 There is also a close rela-
tionship between the head, in particular the profile and hair, of the kneel-
ing figure at the left of the Drinkers and the same features of the girl who
stands holding an infant at the left of the Old Musician; and there may be
a more distant one between between the two drinkers who look out at us
from Velasquez's picture and the two boys to the left of the seated violinist
in Manet's. In addition, John Richardson has suggested-convincingly, I
think-that the boy nearest the violinist is based on another early Velas-
Chapter One
quez,21 and Florisoone has claimed to see a connection between Manet's

painting and Velasquez's pictures of classical philosophers. 22
The Spanishness of the Old Musician is not just a matter of references
to specific paintings by Spanish masters. For example, the light, almost
blonde tonality, the frank but deliberate painterliness, and the particu-
lar size and internal scale of the Old Musician seem characteristically
though unspecifically Spanish in feeling. In fact it ought to surprise us
that this kind of general relation to Spanish painting, which Manet
achieved only after long study of pictures such as the Petits Cavaliers and
Murillo's Flea Picker, also in the Louvre, was not enough for him, and
that he chose to refer specifically to a famous masterpiece that he had
never seen. Here it is worth remarking on the apparent gratuitousness of
the almost literal quotations from the Drinkers. Manet does not seem to
have been led to appropriate either the tree branch or the hair and profile
of the standing girl from Velasquez's painting by urgent needs within his
own painting which otherwise would have gone unfulfilled. On the con-
trary, one feels that Manet did not need to borrow either motif at all, and
that he did so only in order to make the connection with the Drinkers as
explicit as possible.
The young Manet's enthusiasm for Spanish painting and in particular
Velasquez has been documented by generations of historians, and it is al-
most entirely in the context of that enthusiasm that the Old Musician
has been seen. There are, however, two further sources for Manet's paint-
ing which bear crucially upon its ultimate meaning and which are not
Spanish but French: Louis Le Nain's La Halte du cavalier (ca. 1640; fig.
5)23 and Watteau's Gilles (1717-19?; fig. 6).24 The first of these obvi-
ously determined, far more closely than did the Drinkers or any other
Spanish painting, both specific figures in the Old Musician and its ar-
rangement in general. The two boys in the Le Nain, one of whom has his
arm around the other, have been lifted reversed into the Old Musican; the
seated cavalier could hardly be more closely related to Manet's seated vi-
olinist; even the peasant girl at the left of Le Nain's painting has her equiv-
alent in the girl who stands in profile at the left of Manet's-though I
believe that two figures of girls in another famous painting by Le Nain, La
Charrette (or Les Moissonneurs) (1641; fig. 7), actually provided the
basis for Manet's figure. 25 It is equally clear that the arrangement of the
figures in the Halte du cavalier provided the basis for that in the Old Mu-
sician. In fact Manet seems to have brought over into his painting not
merely the physical but also something of the psychological, or spiritual,
Manet's Sources 31
disposition of the Le Nain. Both paintings are marked by an almost com-

plete absence of external action or overt drama; in each the figures stand
immobile and largely disjunct from one aLother; in each they are aligned
roughly parallel to the plane of the canvas: in each they convey the feeling
of having been posed or placed in the positions they occupy, of having
been grouped; and in each the gazes of the individual figures playa role of
considerable importance. The Drinkers in contrast is vivid with action
and observed behavior. Instead of disjunction between figures there is in-
terplay of a kind that is relatively lacking in the Le Nain and completely
absent from the Manet. The two drinkers who look directly at the be-
holder do so in a way and within a context that is basically j witing.
Whereas in both the Halte du cavalier and the Old Musician, especially
Figure 5. Louis(?) Le Nain, La Halte du cavalier, ca. 1640.

Chapter One
the latter, the beholder is distanced, and made uneasy, by the strange and
for the most part impassive figures who face him.26
Watteau's Gilles, the second important French source for the Old Mu-
sician, is essentially a full-length portrait of a standing figure. Although
Watteau's comedian is a grown man, it is clear that he was the model for
the small boy dressed in a white blouse, loose light gray trousers, and
wide-brimmed hat in Manet's painting. Here again it seems highly un-
Figure 6. Antoine Watteau, Gilles, 1717-19?

Manet's Sources 33
Figure 7. Louis(?) Le Nain, La Charrette (or Les Moissonneurs), 1641.
likely that Manet was compelled to paraphrase the Gilles by needs arising
within the Old Musician itself. He could, for example, have based the fig-
ure in question on that of the boy playing the flageolet in the Halte du
cavalier, whose dress is similar enough to that of Gilles for the final result
to have been much the same. Instead Manet chose the opposite course: he
used the similarity in dress to refer specifically to Watteau's painting
while at the same time retaining the prior connection with the Halte du
cavalier. The similarity in dress between the flageolet player and the co-
median is only a surface indication of a much more significant affinity be-
tween the Halte du cavalier and the Gilles. The same characteristics-
immobility, lack of action or drama, direct but uncommunicative con-
frontation of the beholder-are found in each, though in Watteau's paint-
ing of a costumed actor presenting himself to his audience these
characteristics are rationalized both by the conventions of the full-length
portrait and, more important, by the explicitly theatrical context.
At this point it becomes possible to formulate several basic questions.
Why, for example, if the Gilles-like figure in the Halte du cavalier could
very nearly have been the source for the equivalent figure in the Old Mu-
34 Chapter One
sician, did Manet insist on referring explicitly to the Gilles itself? To say
that Manet saw a deep connection between Le Nain's and Watteau's
paintings is not a full answer. Because the question then arises: Why was
it important to him, as it seems to have been, that the Old Musician
make that connection explicit? Furthermore, what led Manet to Le Nain
and Watteau in the first place? Was it simply the recognition that each had
something that he could use, or was it more? Finally, what is the relation,
if any, between Manet's involvement with Le Nain and Watteau and the
manifest Spanishness of the Old Musician, in particular its specific and
gratuitous references to Velasquez? 1 shall discuss these questions in
roughly that order.
THE REFERENCE to the Gilles in the Old Musician begins to seem if

not less unaccountable at any rate less special when it is recognized that a
second figure in Manet's painting, that of the man in top hat and brown
cloak to the right of the seated violinist, is also partly based on a painting
by Watteau. That figure is, of course, a direct quotation from Manet's
own Absinthe Drinker (I858-59; fig. 8); and the Watteau on which 1
believe it partly to have been based is the small panel apparently depicting
a man dancing called L'Indifferent (I7I6-I8; fig. 9), which at that time
was in the La Caze Collection in Paris and which Manet certainly knew.
Germain Bazin has connected L'Indifferent with Manet's Polichinelle oil
painting and sketch of I873,27 whose derivation from Watteau's panel is
unmixed with allusions to the work of other painters. The Absinthe
Drinker, on the other hand, appears to have been adapted rather freely
both from L'Indifferent-1 find the odd, almost dancelike formality and
elegance of the pose of Manet's figure inconceivable except on the basis of
that of Watteau's-and from Velasquez's paintings of the philosophers
Aesop and Menippus (and perhaps from the cloaked and hatted figure
who stands at the right of the Drinkers as well). The connection with Ve-
lasquez is documented in various ways. Manet himself described the Ab-
sinthe Drinker as one of "Four Philosophers" when in I872 he listed it
among the paintings he had just sold to Durand-Ruel.2 8 Also, Antonin
Proust reported in an important essay of I90I, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet,"
that Manet had actually said that the Absinthe Drinker was related to the
Drinkers of Madrid. He went on to quote Manet directly: "'I have made,'
35
Figure 8. Edouard Manet, The Absinthe Drinker, 1858-59.

Chapter One
Figure 9. Antoine Watteau,

L'Indifferent, 17T6-I8.
he says, 'a Parisian type, studied in Paris, while putting into its execution
the technical naivete that I recognized in Velasquez's painting. No one
understands. Perhaps they will understand better if I make a Spanish
type.''' (Proust added: "And, with that good humor undisturbed by any-
thing, he offers the Guitarrero, which earns him an honorable mention in
the Salon of 1861. ")29 There is some confusion here. Proust's account im-
plies that Manet had seen the Drinkers by 1859, whereas he did not make
his sole visit to Madrid until the summer of 1865. But Proust's claim that
the Absinthe Drinker must be seen in relation to Velasquez is not invali-
dated: Manet knew both the Drinkers and the Aesop and Menippus
through Goya's engravings, and had already formed his conception of Ve-
lasquez's metier through copying pictures like the Petits Cavaliers. More
generally, the explanatory power of Proust's vision of Manet as having
wanted above all to be clear, to make himself understood, must not be
underestimated. For example, it suggests at least part of an explanation
for the reappearance of the Absinthe Drinker in the Old Musician: by
Manet's Sources 37
quoting that figure in a picture whose relation to Velasquez was made ex-
plicit by unmistakable references to the Drinkers, Manet in effect made
the connection between the original Absinthe Drinker and Velasquez ex-
plicit as well. (At the same time, Manet gave himself an opportunity to
redo that figure, to paint it as he wished he had painted it three years be-
fore.) Similarly, the reference to the Gilles in the Old Musician made ex-
plicit the Absinthe Drinker's partial and far from obvious basis in a
painting by Watteau. This interpretation is, I think, strengthened by
Richardson's discovery of a specific Velasquez prototype for the small boy
with his arm around the shoulder of his Gilles-like companion,3o which
suggests that Manet deliberately exploited Le Nain's motif of the two
boys in order to present references to Velasquez and Watteau in friendly
proximity to one another. If all or even most of this is right, the obvious-
ness and apparent gratuitousness of the Old Musician's references to Ve-
lasquez and Watteau become more nearly intelligible: Manet deliberately
referred to specific paintings by those men because he wanted to acknowl-
edge publicly the connection he, and perhaps no one else, knew to obtain
between his work and theirs.
The larger question of Manet's relation to Watteau has been almost
completely ignored by historians, who have concentrated instead on his
manifest involvement with the great Spanish, Flemish, Dutch, and Ital-
ian masters of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 31 I am convinced,
however, that for most of the 1860s Watteau was at least as important a
source of Manet's art as any other painter, including Velasquez.
This is not easy to prove. For one thing, Manet's involvement with
Watteau rarely entailed direct quotation of specific works. The free adap-
tation of L'Indifferent that I have claimed to see in the Absinthe Drinker is
characteristic of the relationships that obtain between individual pic-
tures. For example, Manet's La Joueuse de guitare (1866 or 1867; fig. IO)
makes similar use of Watteau's La Finette (1716-18; fig. II), which
throughout the 18 60S was also in the La Caze Collection and which
Manet definitely knew. 32 (It is perhaps significant that La Finette is, and
was then recognized to be, the pendant to L'Indifferent.) Sometimes the
dependence of a particular Manet on one or more pictures by Watteau is
further obscured by the simultaneous presence of explicit references to
works by other artists. This seems to be the case in the important La
Peche (fig. 2), which Bazin has shown contains quotations from two
paintings by Rubens (figs. 12, 13),33 but which I believe ought also to be
seen in the context of Watteau's art, e.g. his pictures of couples strolling in
Figure ro. Edouard Manet, La
Joueuse de guitare, r866 or r867.
Figure 11. Antoine Watteau,

La Finette, r716-r8.
Manet's Sources 39
Figure r 2. Schelte Adam Bolswert, engraving after Peter-Paul Rubens, Landscape with Rainbow.
Figure 13. Schelte Adam Bolswert, engraving after Peter-Paul Rubens, The Castle Garden.
"
, \
Chapter One
Figure 14. Antoine Watteau, L'Assemblee dans un pare, 1716-17.
country landscapes. Both the scale of Manet's picture and the actual char-
acter of the landscape are closer to Watteau than to Rubens-I am think-
ing of such works as L'Amour paisible (1718; fig. 77), L'Assemblee dans
un parc (1716-17; fig. 14), Vile enchantee (1716-18), Le Rendez-vous
de chasse (1718; fig. 15), La Chasse aux oiseaux (fig. 16)34-and I sug-
gest that La Feche ought to be seen as alluding to both those masters, and
perhaps to Carracci as well. Jean Collins Harris has observed that the dis-
tant church spire in La Feche is also found in the etching usually regarded
as Manet's first, Les Voyageurs (1860-61; fig. 17), and that the land-
scapes depicted in the two works are similar.35 Here again Manet ap-
pears to have taken over aspects of the general organization of a work like
L'Amour paisible; and he seems to have adapted the travelers themselves
either from one of several versions of Watteau's Recrue allant joindre le
regiment or from the engraving of this subject by Watteau and Thomassin
(fig. 18).36 Finally, the relation of a painting by Manet to its source or
sources in Watteau may be masked by the exotic, often the Spanish, char-
acter of the subject matter. Perhaps the most striking instance of this is
The Spanish Ballet in the Phillips Collection (1862; fig. 19), which is gen-
erally discussed as if it were simply a literal record of the Mariano Cam-
Manet's Sources 41
prubi troupe of Spanish dancers, but which I suggest subtly and freely
recombines motifs from various paintings by Watteau of the Italian and
French Comedy troupes of his time-e.g. Une Mascarade (fig. 20),37
So us un habit de Mezetin (fig. 21),38 L'Amour au theatre italien,39
among others. 40 No single picture by the earlier master comes close
to accounting for the Spanish Ballet as a whole. More serious, there is
Figure 15. Antoine Watteau, Le Rendez-vous de chasse, 1718.
Figure r6. Comte de Caylus, engraving after Antoine Watteau, La Chasse aux oiseaux.
Figure 17. Edouard Manet, Les Voyageurs, etching, 1860-61.
Figure 18. Antoine Watteau and Simon Thomassin, engraving after Watteau, Recrue allant joindre
Ie regiment.
Manet's Sources 43
no single Watteau which seems unmistakably to have left its mark in

Manet's painting. Nevertheless, I believe that both the basic conception
of the Spanish Ballet-a troupe of performers presenting themselves to
the beholder, who is also their audience-and individual figures in it de-
rive ultimately from Watteau. I want also to call attention to Watteau's
Italian Comedians (fig. 22),41 in which an entire cast of players strike
characteristic poses on what is recognizably some sort of stage or playing
area: the presence in that painting of a seated musician, a standing Gilles,
and a bearded man in a dark robe or cloak leaning on a cane suggests that
it may have had a role in the conception of the Old Musician itself.
Another instance of the masking of Watteau sources by an ostensible
Spanishness occurs in the Young Woman Reclining in Spanish Costume
(1862; fig. 23), which is inscribed "a mon ami Nadar" and presumably
represents the latter's mistress. Although the painting bears a general re-
lation to Goya's Maja Clothed, the figure of the young woman resembles
very closely that of the reclining female nude sculpture in Watteau's Fetes
Wnitiennes (1718-19; figs. 24, 25); while the pose of her upraised hand
Figure 19. Edouard Manet, The Spanish Ballet, 1862.

44 Chapter One
and arm almost exactly imitates that of one of the women in Une Mas-
carade. 42 The latter connection in particular seems unmistakably to have
been intentional, specific.
Other possible instances of Watteau's importance for Manet's art at
roughly this time might be cited. The Young Man in the Costume of a
Majo may have been adapted from various figures in Watteau's paintings
or "Figures de differents caracteres." The two small children who play
together in the foreground of Music in the Tuileries may derive from any
of a number of paintings by Watteau; I suggest in fact that the Music
looks to Watteau perhaps fully as much as to later artists like Debu-
court. 43 Even Manet's decision to append a four-line poem by Baudelaire
to his etching of Lola de Valence, a common practice in theater prints gen-
erally, may have been principally inspired by the use of similar poems in
eighteenth-century engravings after Watteau.
Over and above the connections that can be made between specific
works, and largely independent of the convincingness of those connec-
Figure 20. Antoine Watteau and Simonneau l'aine, Figure 2I. Thomassin Ie fils, engraving after Antoine
engraving after Watteau, Une Mascarade. Watteau, Sous un habit de Mezetin.
Manet's Sources 45
Figure 22. Bertrand Baron, engraving after Antoine Watteau, Italian Comedians.
tions, Manet's extensive reliance not just during the first half of the
1860s but throughout his career on subjects of guitarists, dancers, cos-
tumed performers of all kinds, and theatrical productions of diverse
sorts 44 must be seen as having received important and perhaps even deci-
sive sanction from the art of Watteau-in particular the sanction that this
apparently less than fully serious class of subjects was in fact consistent
with the highest artistic purposes and ambitions. (One might say that for
Manet the concept of sanction takes the place, or assumes the impor-
tance, which the concept of influence traditionally has. Moreover, the dif-
ferences between the two concepts are rooted in what I see as the histori-
cal uniqueness of Manet's situation. His problem was not how to over-
come the power of the past to determine the present, but what to make of
a past that had lost the power to do just that constructively.)45 Indeed, the
more attuned one becomes to the possible scope of Manet's relations with
Watteau, the less fundamental or essential the obvious Spanishness of
much of his subject matter begins to seem. The first stanza of the short
Chapter One
poem which accompanies the engraving of Une Mascarade is perhaps ap-

posite: "The costumes are Italian / The airs French, and I wager / That in
these true comedians / Lies a pleasing deception ... "46 This is not to sug-
gest that Manet's enthusiasm for the Camprubi dancers or for Spain gen-
erally was other than intense or genuine. Rather, it is to say that what
enabled him to exploit that enthusiasm in his painting was a prior, and
more profound, involvement with theatrical subject matter-an involve-
ment whose chief artistic precedent was Watteau. The arrival in Paris in
August I 862 of the Camprubi troupe gave Manet something which, con-
sciously or otherwise, he had been waiting for: a contemporary equiva-
lent for the Italian and French Comedy troupes of the early eighteenth
Figure 23. Edouard Manet, Young Woman Reclining in Spanish Costume, 1862.
Manet's Sources 47
Figure 24. Laurent Cars,

engraving after Antoine Watteau,
Fetes VCnitiennes.
Figure 25. Laurent Cars,

engraving after Watteau, Fetes
VCnitiennes, detail of statue of
reclining woman (reversed).
Chapter One
Figure 26. Edouard Manet,

Ballet Slippers, watercolor, ca.
1862.
century. Even a work as slight as the pencil and watercolor Ballet Slippers
(ca. 1862; fig. 26) must be seen, not merely as a record of the ballerina
Anita Montez, but as marking Manet's discovery of an equivalent in his
own experience for the position of the feet in a picture like L'!ndif(erent.
I TIS I N this context that we must see the two etchings which Manet
made as trial frontispieces for his Collection de huit eaux-fortes, pub-
lished by Cadart in October 1862. The first of them-the one which
Marcel Guerin calls Deuxieme Essai de frontispice (1862; fig. 27)47-
depicts the character of Pulcinella, ancestor to the French Polichinelle,
thrusting his head through an otherwise drawn curtain as in early engrav-
ings of scenes from the commedia dell'arte. To the left of the actor's head
the curtain seems to become a wall; at any rate, it supports both a sword
(in its scabbard and with belt attached) and a print or drawing of a bal-
loon flying above a landscape with buildings and windmills. A wicker
basket filled with clothes and containing a guitar and sombrero rests on
the ground. In an important article, "The Symbolism of Manet's Fron-
tispiece Etchings," Theodore Reff demonstrates that both the curtain and
head of Pulcinella were drawn at an advanced stage in the preparation of
the plate, thereby transforming what until then had been a symbolic im-
age of the artist's studio into an "ambiguous stage." Reff asks why this
occurred and proposes the following answer:
Manet's Sources 49
If not intended initially, the actor was probably suggested to Manet by the ob-
jects already in existence: the sword and guitar (both of which had appeared in
previous pictures by Manet) are familiar properties in many scenes of the Com-
media dell'Arte, just as the articles of exotic costume in the basket are familiar
features in his own carefully composed productions on Spanish themes. Thus
his studio suggested the stage, with himself the figure behind the scenes, even
before the latter was actually drawn. 48
He relates the basket and its contents to the painting called Guitar and
Hat which Manet painted earlier that year to hang over the door of his
studio, and discusses seventeenth- and eighteenth-century antecedents to
that canvas. 49 He connects the print or drawing of a balloon in flight with
The Balloon (1862; fig. 28), the large lithograph of a balloon ascension in
the Tuileries which Manet executed for Cadart at exactly the same time. 50
Finally, Reff suggests that the Pulcinella may stand for Manet himself,
"identified here not with the courtly art of Velasquez [as in Music in the
Tuileries],51 but with the popular art of the Italian comedy. In this studio

Guerin's Deuxieme Essai de
frontispice, etching, 1862
(actually Premier Essai de
frontispice).
Chapter One
strangely transformed into a stage, he is the figure behind the scenes and
the entertainer appearing before his audience." 52
The other etching, Guerin's Premier Essai de frontispice (I862; fig.
29),53 depicts a portfolio of prints resting in a wooden stand, at the base
of which a cat sits quietly on its haunches and gazes at the beholder. Reff
points out that the depicted label on the portfolio also functions as the
title on the actual page, and suggests that various apparent analogies
between the portfolio and the cat were intended by Manet to identify
the two:
Thus the cat becomes not simply the artist's studio pet, a genre detail, but a so-
phisticated allusion to the artist himself, an echo of the portfolio containing his
work and name, and in some indefinable sense an embodiment of his presence
here, staring intently at the spectator. Its direct descendant is the famous black
cat in Olympia, a creature of similar significance.
Figure 28. Edouard Manet, The Balloon, lithograph; r862.

Manet's Sources 51

Guerin's Premier Essai de
frontispice, etching, r 862
(actually Deuxieme Essai de
frontispice).
Both etchings, Reff maintains, are therefore "based on a similar aware-

ness of [Manet] himself as a performing artist."54 But he does not try ei-
ther to place that awareness in the broader context of Manet's art during
the early I 860s, or to account other than by association for Manet's
choice of a subject from the commedia dell'arte in works as special, as
likely to summarize essential themes, as prospective frontispieces.
A further connection between the two etchings may be noted at this
point: each relates to the marionette theater established in the Tuileries by
the young novelist and critic Edmond Duranty in the summer of I86I.
The chief marionette was Polichinelle-in fact the theater was known as
Ie theatre de Polichinelle-which suggests that the Pulcinella in Manet's
etching may have had its immediate inspiration in his experience of Du-
ranty's puppets. This suggestion finds strong support in the fact, hitherto
unremarked, that Manet actually depicted Duranty's marionette theater
in the right-hand portion of The Balloon: the roofed structure shown
Chapter One
there is clearly the same as that in the frontispiece by Alphonse Legros to

Fernand Desnoyers's Le Theatre de Polichinelle (186 I; fig. 30), a verse
prologue written expressly for the theater's opening. 55 Thus the connec-
tion, noted by Reff, between the print or drawing of a balloon in flight in
the Deuxieme Essai leads, in part at least, back to Polichinelle himself.
Furthermore, the fact that Polichinelle's traditional companion was noth-
ing other than a cat suggests that the Premier Essai as well ought to be
seen in relation to Duranty's marionettes. And this suggestion too finds
unexpected support in the virtual identity between Manet's cat and the
one depicted onstage with Polichinelle on the back cover of Duranty's
Theatre des marionnettes du jardin des Tuileries (fig. 3 I), a collection of
short plays illustrated in color by the author. 56 The vignette in question
was by Nadar-the dedicatee of the Young Woman Reclining in Spanish
Figure 30. Alphonse Legros,

frontispiece etching to Fernand
Desnoyers, Le Theatre de
Polichinelle, 1861.
Manet's Sources 53
Figure 31. Nadar [Felix

TournachonJ, rear cover
illustration for Edmond
Duranty, Theatre des
marionnettes du jardin des
Tuileries, published in 1862.
Costume-who was then preparing to build his famous balloon Le

Geant. 57 (So once again a connection emerges between balloon ascen-
sions and Polichinelle.) Curiously, Polichinelle's cat seems to have been
missing during at least the first months of the theater's operation. In a
short review in L'Artiste praising Duranty's venture, Victor Luciennes
complained:
But something is missing: a cat, I haven't seen a cat. Do you remember, when
we were children and our mothers led us by the hand, do you remember that
handsome cat, Polichinelle's inseparable companion? It reminded us of the
chorus in Sophocles and Euripides. The cat, man Dieu! it's tradition, it's the
poetry of our childhood! ... 58
Nevertheless, the cats that appear in Duranty's illustrations, as well as the
single cat portrayed onstage in another print by Legros, the lithograph
Le Theatre de Polichinelle des Tuileries (186 I; fig. 32),59 prove that the
traditional relationship had not been abandoned.
The question that now arises is why Manet referred, although indi-
rectly, to Duranty's marionettes in both frontispiece etchings. My answer
is that those references are only somewhat less than explicit acknowledg-
ments of his prior involvement with Watteau, the commedia dell'arte,
and theatrical subject matter generally. This is not to say that Manet
identified personally with the character of Polichinelle or Pulcinella, as
Reff suggests. The ultimate subject of Manet's etchings is not himself but
essential aspects of his art. Reff is right when he connects various objects
54 Chapter One
in the Deuxieme Essai, such as the sword and the guitar, with the com-
media dell'arte. But he is almost certainly wrong when he implies that
Manet became aware of those connections only as he worked on the
plate. It seems far more probable that he had been deliberately exploiting
them for years.
Figure 32. Alphonse Legros, Le Theatre de Poiichinelle des Tuiieries, lithograph, 1861.
Manet's Sources 55
A few additional remarks about the theatre de Polichinelle are per-

haps in order here. Duranty's project was the latest in a succession of
ventures whose aim was to revive the theatrical conventions of the eigh-
teenth century.60 Those ventures belonged in turn to a broader current of
interest in the commedia dell'arte, which received its initial impulse from
the estheticism and hedonism of the generation of Romantic writers and
artists who reached early manhood around 1830, but which went on to
coexist and even partly to coincide with the Realism of the circle of Cour-
bet and Champfleury. Duranty's marionette theater is an example of just
this coincidence of seemingly diverse points of view. Duranty was
Champfleury's protege and during the fifties had written avowedly Real-
ist criticism and fiction; Desnoyers had defended Realism in the pages of
L'Artiste in 1855; 61 Champfleury himself seems to have supported Du-
ranty's venture;62 even the drawing of Polichinelle by the young artist
Amand Gautier on the cover of Desnoyers's prologue had previously ap-
peared on the announcement of the Grande Fete du Realisme that had
taken place in Courbet's atelier on October I, 1859, almost two years
before the marionette theater opened. 63 At the same time, Duranty was
able to enlist the sympathies of men like Theodore de Banville and Bau-
delaire, whose interest in the commedia dell'arte and the Rococo was
rooted in Romanticism and who throughout the 18 50S had occupied po-
sitions that cannot simply or easily be assimilated to Realist theory or
practice.
By the summer or early autumn of 1862, when Manet etched the pro-
spective frontispieces, Duranty himself may well have been known to
him.64 Legros definitely was, and it is likely that Desnoyers and Amand
Gautier were as well. 65 More significantly, at least three men associ-
ated with Duranty's project-Baudelaire, Champ fleury, and Aurelien
Scholl-have been identified among the crowd of fashionable strollers in
Music in the Tuileries, which dates from roughly the same moment as the
frontispieces. And in general Manet's great painting celebrates the very
milieu that revived and supported the marionettes at this time. More-
over, Music in the Tuileries is related as regards both style and subject
matter to The Balloon, which, as has been shown, contains a representa-
tion of the theatre de Polichinelle. All this suggests that Music in the Tuil-
eries relates, if only indirectly, to Manet's involvement with Watteau and
the commedia dell'arte. And it further suggests that that involvement it-
self must eventually be seen in relation to the collective sensibility that
found itself reflected in the puppet theater at precisely this moment. 66
Chapter One
Figure 33. Marcantonio Raimondi, The Judgment of Paris, engraving after a lost drawing by
Raphael, ca. 15I5-16?
Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe (1862-63; pI. 3) is probably the most strik-

ing instance of the way in which references to specific works by other
painters may obscure a less specific but possibly fundamental reliance
upon Watteau. In the first place, the three foreground figures in Manet's
painting are a direct quotation from Marcantonio Raimondi's engraving
after Raphael's composition of The Judgment of Paris (fig. 33).67 It is also
known that Manet turned to Giorgione's Concert champetre [the schol-
arly consensus now gives the painting to the young Titian] for the most
immediately controversial aspect of his painting, the depiction of two
fully clothed men picnicking with two women one of whom wears noth-
ing more than a kind of shift and the other of whom is (almost) wholly
naked. 68 But despite the specificity of these connections, the basic con-
ception of the Dejeuner is far closer to Watteau than to either Raphael or
Giorgione. Florisoone has called the Dejeuner a "sort of scene galante,"
and has related it to Watteau's definitive achievements in that genre. 69 I
believe he was right to do so. Without the precedent of Watteau's fetes
Manet's Sources 57
champetres Manet might never have found his way to the conception of
perhaps his sheerest, most intractable masterpiece. (The full sense in
which this may be said to have been the case will, I hope, become clear as
we proceed.) Furthermore, the Dejeuner's relation to Watteau's art is not
simply generic. When Manet's painting was first exhibited at the Salon
des Refuses in 1863 it was called Le Bain, a title which inevitably directs
attention to the woman who has waded up to her knees in the stream or
pond in the middle distance and who now raises her shift and bends over
as if to fill some sort of cup or other receptacle with water. There is no
equivalent for this figure in Marcantonio's engraving. But there is a paint-
ing by Watteau, La Viliageoise, which also depicts a woman wading in
shallow water while raising her skirt and turning her head to the side; I
believe Manet adapted the pose of the bathing woman in the Dejeuner
from an engraving after it (fig. 34).7 0 A drawing by Manet in the Louvre
(fig. 35) 71 seems to represent an intermediate stage in the process of adap-
tation: the reliance on Watteau's figure is closer than in the final painting,
but the arms as well as the legs are mostly bare, the breasts are partly re-
vealed, and the costume seems generally simpler, more shiftlike. Manet's
Figure 34. Antoine Aveline, engraving after Figure 35. Edouared Manet, untitled
Antoine Watteau, La Villageoise. drawing, 18 50S.
Chapter One
use of La Villageoise, especially in conjunction with the original title of

the painting, is evidence for the suggestion that Watteau's art presides
over the conception of the Dijeuner as a whole, though it remains to be
seen what relation, if any, Manet's use of Raphael and Giorgione bears to
his involvement with Watteau.
Manet's other supreme painting of I863, Olympia (pI. 4), is also based
extremely closely on a sixteenth-century Italian source, Titian's Venus of
Urbino (I 5 3 8; fig. 36). Another article by Reff, "The Meaning of Manet's
Olympia," deals at length with this connection,72 while Sandblad has
emphasized the relation of Olympia and the Dijeuner sur l'herbe, among
other paintings, to the Japanese color woodcuts that had begun to come
into vogue in Paris during the I 8 50s.73 Unlike the Dijeuner, Olympia is
not generically or fundamentally grounded in Watteau.7 4 But its deriva-
tion is more complex, more implicated in modes of feeling whose ultimate
source is the Rococo, than its closeness to Titian suggests. Specifically, if
one compares the wood engraving by Prunaire after" a wash drawing in
Chinese ink by Manet that was the first idea for Olympia" according to
Guerin (fig. 37),75 or the almost identical watercolor reproduced by
Julius Meier-Graefe in his I9I2 book on Manet (fig. 38),76 with Achille
Deveria's lithograph of a sujet gracieux for a macidoine (I820S; fig.
39),77 there seems to be little doubt that it was to Deveria, and not to Ti-
tian or any classical master, that Manet turned for the initial conception
of his masterpiece. Deveria, born in I800, four years before his brother
Eugene, whose Birth of Henri IV was one of the sensations of the Salon of
I827, was primarily a graphic artist. Together with his brother he played
an important role in the revival of interest in the Rococo that took place
during the I 83 os, first in the petit cinacle dominated by Petrus Borel and
later, around I 8 35, in the apartment in the impasse du Doyenne in which
Gerard de Nerval, Arsene Houssaye, and Theophile Gautier all lived. The
lithograph in question, which Stanley Meltzoff dates around I 8 24, exem-
plifies the return to Rococo subject matter and shades of feeling that took
place in the work of several young Romantic artists, at least partly under
the influence of Jean-Frederic Schall, the last important practitioner of the
traditions inaugurated by Watteau.7 8 Significantly, the connection be-
tween Manet and Deveria is documented by Proust. In his invaluable
Souvenirs of the painter, Proust describes how, while he and Manet were
still painting under Thomas Couture, that is, before early I 8 5 6, they were
befriended by Auguste Raffet and taken by him to the Louvre:
Manet's Sources 59
He led us straight to Rembrandt's Supper at Emmaus and Velasquez's Cava-

liers, and then had us make a long station in front of the drawings of the mas-
ters, above all those of Watteau and Chardin.
There we found [Eugene J Deveria, author of the Birth of Henry IV, whom he
[Raftet] had arranged to meet. Deveria led us before the Veroneses and gave us
an enthusiastic speech in praise of the Italians.
"The young men," Raftet said laughing, "have listened politely to the advo-
cate. The painter can conduct them to his painting at the Luxembourg."
Our visit there was brief. Raftet addressed praises to Deveria, and we all
joined in, which made Deveria our protector and friend. Later he even gave
Manet a small Fete by Fragonard painted on slate, which my comrade later
passed on to me as a present. 79
Eugene Deveria's gift suggests that, like Raffet, he encouraged in the
young Manet an interest in eighteenth-century French art. And it seems
likely that this early friendship was a factor in Manet's later use of the
work of Achille Deveria for the first conception of Olympia.
For Baudelaire, who was not born until I82I, Achille Deveria was one
of the chief figures of the Romanticism of the Restoration, a period idol-
ized by the poet throughout his life. In fact, Baudelaire saw Deveria as
epitomizing that aspect of early Romanticism which was closest to the
Rococo in spirit and which largely amounted to a kind of revival of Ro-
coco artistic conventions and modes of feeling. As early as his "Salon of
I 845" Baudelaire protested against the current tendency to denigrate
Deveria's accomplishment, which he described in the following terms:
For long years, and all for our pleasure, this artist poured forth from the inex-
~aus~ible .well of his invention a stream of ravishing vignettes, of charming little
m~enor-pleces, of graceful scenes of fashionable life, such as no Keepsake-in
spite of the pretensions of the new names-has since published. He was skilled
at coloring the lithographic stone; all his drawings were distinguished, full of
feminine charms, and distilled a strangely pleasing kind of reverie. All those fas-
cinating and sweetly sensual women of his were idealizations of women that
one had seen and desired in the evening at the cafe-concerts, at the Bouftes, at
the Opera, or in the great Salons. Those lithographs, which the dealers buy for
three sous and sell for a franc, are the faithful representatives of that elegant
perfumed society of the Restoration, over which there hovers, like a guardian
angel, the blond, romantic ghost of the duchesse de Berry. 80
Almost fifteen years later, in "The Painter of Modern Life," Baudelaire

named Deveria among the "historians of the doubtful charms of the Res-
toration,"81 And in his "Salon of I8 59" he remarked of that period: "It
was a period of such beauty and fruitfulness, that not one spiritual need
60 Chapter One
Figure 36. Titian, Venus of Urbina, IS 38.
Figure 37. Alfred Prunaire, wood engraving after an early wash drawing for Olympia.
Manet's Sources 61
Figure 38. Edouard Manet, early wash drawing for Olympia, 1863.
Figure 39. Achille Deveria, sujet gracieux for a macidoine, lithograph, 18 20S. From Maximilien
Gauthier, Achille et Eugene Deveria, 1925.
Chapter One
was forgotten by its artists. While Eugene Delacroix and [Eugene] De-
veria were creating a great and picturesque art, others, witty and noble
within a little sphere-painters of the boudoir and of a lighter kind of
beauty-were adding incessantly to the present-day album of ideal ele-
gance."82
By 1860 if not earlier Baudelaire and Manet were close friends: 83 and
it is perhaps not accidental that Manet turned to Achille Deveria for the
initial conception of the painting which, more than any other, critics and
historians have tended to describe as Baudelairean.
In Music in the Tuileries Baudelaire is depicted in conversation with
Theophile Gautier and Baron Taylor, two of the most distinguished
representatives of the Romantic era then alive. 84 I have already suggested
that Music in the Tuileries relates indirectly to the theatre de Polichinelle,
and have observed that the sensibility that revived the marionette theater
in the early sixties had important roots in the Romantic taste for the Ro-
coco. Olympia, whose first conception was, it seems, based on just such a
Romantic source, ought also to be seen in relation to that sensibility. The
close resemblance-at least of pose-between the notorious cat in Olym-
pia and the cat in Legros's lithograph Le Theatre de Polichinelle des Tuil-
eries strongly supports, and perhaps decisively confirms, this sugges-
tion. 85
MAN E T' S involvement with the art of Louis Le Nain was neither as gen-
eral nor as profound as his involvement with that of Watteau. 86 The first
painting that seems clearly to depend upon Le Nain is the Portrait of the
Artist's Parents (1860; fig. 40). The figure of his father-note in particu-
lar the clenched fist-seems to me to have been inspired by figures such as
those in Le Repas de paysans (1642; fig. 41) in the La Caze Collection,
which Manet undoubtedly saw in the important exhibition of French
painting from private collections that was held at Martinet's on the bou-
levard des Italians the same year. 87 (Watteau's Gilles, L'Indifferent, La
Finette, and Le Rendez-vous de chasse, plus versions of Une Mascarade
and L'Amour paisible, were in that exhibition as well.) The figure of
Manet's mother, although perhaps related generally to the woman stand-
ing at the left of the Repas de paysans, seems to have been based on the
female figure in another major painting by Le Nain, The Forge (1640S;
Manet's Sources
Figure 40. Edouard Manet, Portrait of the Artist's Parents, 1860.

Chapter One
Figure 4I. Louis(?) Le Nain, Le Repas de paysans, r642.
fig. 42), then as now in the Louvre. 88 It mayor may not be significant that
the relative positions of Manet's father and mother are paralleled rather
closely by those of the central male figure and the standing violinist in the
Repas de paysans [see also the standing woman and seated peasant at the
left, especially the latter's right fist resting on his thigh, which closely
matches that of Manet pere in the Portrait of the Artist's Parents]. Almost
certainly, though, the arresting mood of Manet's painting-above all the
apparent abstraction or self-absorption of his parents-derives from Le
Nain. 89 Even the apparent harshness of Manet's depiction of his parents,
which disturbed the critic Leon Lagrange,90 may have been the result of a
conscious attempt to emulate Le Nain's powerful example.
The second painting that seems to have been based at least in part on
Le Nain is The Gypsies of I86I. Only a few fragments of the original
picture survive: Manet himself dismembered and mostly destroyed the
large canvas after it was shown in his retrospective exhibition of 1867.
But on the strength of the etching that he made of it in 1862 (fig. 43)91 it
seems likely that the female gypsy seated on the ground and holding an
Manet's Sources
infant in her lap was adapted from the similar figure in the foreground of
Le Nain's La Charrette (fig. 7), then in the collection of Philippe de Saint-
Albin but well known through reproduction,92 or from that of Saint Anne
in the Nativity of the Virgin (ca. 1640; fig. 55) in the church of Saint-
Etienne-du-Mont in Paris, or from both together. Furthermore, the
standing gypsy has, I feel, certain affinities-of sheer presence as much as
anything else-with the blacksmith in The Forge, and the possibility that
Manet partly based his figure on Le Nain's cannot be discounted.
Figure 42. Louis (?) Le Nain, The Forge, 1640S.

66 Chapter One
Manet's interest in Le Nain reached its high-water mark in the Old

Musician, probably the next painting he made, after which it seems more
or less to have disappeared from his work as an active, shaping factor. But
despite its relatively short tenure-from 1860 through 1862-it was far
from unimportant; indeed, his deeper and more lasting involvement with
Watteau cannot fully be understood apart from it.
Manet's uses of Le Nain were charged with an immediate, so to speak
prima facie significance which his references to Velasquez and Watteau
did not have, or not to the same degree. The three brothers Antoine,
Louis, and Mathieu Le Nain, of whom the most important by far was
Louis, had been largely unknown until the years just before the Revolu-
tion of 1848 when a group of young, democratically inclined writers
about art-including Theophile Thore, Paul Mantz, Philippe de Chenne-
vieres, Louis Clement de Ris, Eudore Soulie, Charles Blanc, and Jules
Husson who wrote under the name Champfleury-began to rediscover
them. 93 Their subsequent revival was almost wholly the work of Champ-
fleury, who throughout the 185 os was Courbet's foremost champion and
the principal ideologist of what both men called Realism in painting and
literature. Champ fleury's first slim book on the Le Nains was published
in 1850, at the outset of the struggle for Realism, but his definitive and
more substantial study of their art did not appear until ten years later. By
then, as Meltzoff has shown, he explicitly revered them as anti-academic,
democratic, above all realistic painters-in short as forerunners of the
contemporary art for which he himself had fought. What will always be
seen as true of the Le Nains, Champfleury wrote in 1850,
is that they were full of compassion for the poor, that they would rather have
painted them than the mighty, that like La Bruyere they yearned for the fields
and the country people, that they believed in their art and practiced it with con-
viction, that they were not afraid of lowness, that they considered men in tatters
more interesting than courtiers in embroidered garments, that they obeyed the
inner feeling that moved them, that they spurned academic instruction the bet-
ter to render their sensations on canvas; finally, because they were simple and
natural, they remain after two centuries and will always remain three great
painters, the brothers Le Nain. 94
Champ fleury's views, both historical and critical, received the widest
publicity, and by the early 1860s, if not before, the Le Nains were inex-
tricably associated both with Champfleury and with the modern art
which he was known to have supported. 95 Moreover, by 1862 Manet ac-
tually knew Champfleury, whose connection with the theatre de Poli-
Figure 43. Edouard Manet, The Gypsies, etching, r862.
68 Chapter One
chinelle has already been mentioned and who is portrayed seated and in
conversation with several women in the right-hand portion of Music in
the Tuileries [in fact the figure in question is the composer Jacques Offen-
bach; the personage between the heads of Manet and his friend Albert
de Balleroy at the extreme left of the canvas has been identified as Champ-
fleury]. All this suggests that Manet's references to Le N ain in the Portrait
of the Artist's Parents, the Gypsies, and the Old Musician ought to be
seen as a kind of declaration that he conceived of his art as essentially
realist in intent, and hence as an invitation to compare his work with that
of the great painter of the preceding generation, Gustave Courbet. Cour-
bet himself may have been influenced by Louis Le Nain's Repas de pay-
sans when he painted the first masterpiece of Realism, An After Dinner at
Ornans (1848-49), and it is possible that Manet was deliberately chal-
lenging that work in the Old Musician. At any rate, the decision to make
one of his figures a violinist seems to relate simultaneously to Courbet
and Le Nain. In fact, the seated figure at the right of the Repas de paysans
is almost identical with the main figure in the Halte du cavalier, and in
some respects-the bare head, the feet alongside one another-seems
even closer to Manet's seated musician. If it is also true, as I have sug-
gested, that the standing girl at the left of the Old Musician is largely
based on the two similar figures in La Charrette,96 Manet made use of
no less than three paintings by Le Nain, two of them well known, in his
picture of 1862. Except by directly paraphrasing Courbet himself, Manet
could hardly have done more to declare his basic allegiance to the Realist
conception of art.
(This is borne out by the fact, which I simply mention here, that
Manet's next large-scale figure painting, the Dijeuner sur l'herbe, repre-
sents just such a paraphrase of Courbet-specifically, of the Young
Women on the Banks of the Seine (1856-57; fig. 44), which had scan-
dalized the French public when it was shown in the Salon of 1857. The
ostensible subject matter of the two paintings is roughly the same: two
women, obviously of loose morals, picnicking on the banks of the Seine.
Only in Manet's painting they have been joined by their male compan-
ions and have undressed. Manet's gratuitous quotation of Courbet's row-
boat was intended to make the connection between the two paintings
even more explicit than it already was, and thereby to ensure that the Di-
jeuner as a whole would be seen in the context of Courbet's art and of
Realism generally.)
Almost certainly, Manet did not mean by these acts to identify his pur-
Manet's Sources
poses with Courbet's. Rather, the deliberate and explicit siting of his art
in the context of precedents and assumptions established by Courbet and
Champfleury during the preceding dozen years should, I feel, be seen as
an attempt to make the differences between his realism and theirs as sa-
lient and as intelligible as it was in his power to make them. I intend to
discuss those differences at length in a future study. 97 For the present I call
attention to just one of them, which hinges on the status and ultimately
the meaning of the art of Watteau. The subject comes up more than once
in Champfleury's later study of the Le Nains, the first time in the follow-
ing passage:
The dean of art critics, M. Delecluze, regards "the simple path opened up by Le
Nain as altogether higher than the imaginary and fantastic genre treated by
Watteau." I shall not discuss this opinion; oppositions between masters, com-
parisons between the ancients and the moderns, are the stuff of long but not
very useful theses. Watteau is Watteau, Le Nain is Le Nain. If my nature pushes
me toward Le Nain, I shall not prevent fanciful spirits from going into raptures
Figure 44. Gustave Courbet, Young Women on the Banks of the Seine, 1856-57.
Chapter One
over Italian masques, actresses, and amorous embarcations. But the eighteenth
century is slandered when it is decked out exclusively as an age of gallantry.98
(Because, he adds on the same page, the eighteenth century also includes
Chardin, and the reaction against the painters of fetes galantes in the
name of the antique, and finally the Revolution itself.) This initial com-
parison between Le Nain and Watteau is somewhat restrained, perhaps
because Theophile Thore, whom Champfleury admired and to whose
pseudonymous identity of William [or simply W.] Burger he dedicated
his study when it was published in book form in I862,99 had made it
clear in his own critical and historical writings that he considered Wat-
teau a great painter. The second time Champfleury treats the same com-
parison he again tries to be circumspect but in the end his true feelings
emerge more distinctly. The passage in question is long but worth quoting
extensively. Champfleury is discussing the La Caze Repas de paysans:
"One of the most singular pictures by Le Nain was exhibited in I 860, on
the boulevard des Italiens, among the maftres galants of the eighteenth
century, Watteau, Pater, Lancret, Boucher, Gillot, Lemoyne, etc. This
painting cut a sad figure, I must say, in the midst of all that elegant sensu-
ousness. Imagine among courtiers arrayed in silk a band of coalmen who
have fallen into flour, and you will barely get an idea of the sober and
stern Le Nain, whose description I will leave to W. Burger." 100 He goes
on to quote Thore's description of the Repas de paysans, which ends with
the remark that everything about that painting constitutes "a singular
anomaly in the midst of the pompous and theatrical art of the seventeenth
century."lOl Champfleury continues:
And W. Burger added rightly that "among the Parisian painters," Le Nain and
Philippe de Champaigne, because of their convictions, seemed two "eccen-
tries." This is the right word. Le Nain is an eccentric. Ordinarily quiet and
tranquil, he appeared severe in such company. Put a portrait by Holbein
alongside a woman's head by Fragonard, and you will realize the gap that sepa-
rates those two ways of seeing nature, an experience like reading a novel by
Crebillon fils after meditating upon one of Pascal's Pensees. Art is ruled by mys-
terious currents which guide the hand of a Watteau and a Boucher, but that
those pleasant masters are now the objects of a cult, that their admirers, imita-
tors, and all their contemporaries are also admired, that is a fad and an adora-
tion against which one cannot protest too much. Those periods of decadence
led to the Revolution, and in the presence of this prettiness in art, one is forced
to regret that the revolution initiated by David was not sharper and more abso-
lute, since one century later we are reverting to this third-rate art, which had its
Manet's Sources 7I
historical and social causes, but which should be considered solely as an

amusement.
. Would it not be good today to put aside Watteau, Boucher, and Fragonard,
10 order to concern ourselves with a more glorious French school: Clouet
Poussin, Champaigne, Le Nain?102 '
This comes close to misrepresenting Thore, who contrasts Le Nain with

the rhetorical, and in that sense theatrical, art of the seventeenth-century
French masters (e.g. Le Brun, Vouet),103 not with Watteau and the other
eighteenth-century French painters of whom Champfleury disapproved.
By I860 Champ fleury's contrast between Watteau, Boucher, and Fra-
~onard on t~e ~ne hand and a more serious and ultimately higher strain
m Fre?ch pamtmg on the other was itself traditional, having been formu-
lated m roughly those terms by writers such as Pierre Hedouin Clement
de Ris, and Champfleury himself in the years before the Rev~lution of
I848. But whereas Hedouin and Clement de Ris admired Watteau and
sought chiefly to counteract what seemed to them the excessive fashion
for his work ~nd. the uncritical overvaluing of his followers, Champfleury
throughout hIS hfe was driven to deny the Rococo all value as art.
I HAVE tried t~ show th.at between I8S9 and I863 Manet was deeply
and almost contmuously mvolved with Watteau, and that his reference to
the ~illes in the Old Musician should be seen as an acknowledgment of
that mvolvement. At the same time, Manet chose to make his acknowl-
edgment in a painting that was fundamentally dependent on Le Nain,
whose art Champfleury had just claimed was the antithesis of Watteau's.
Given Champfleury's importance, and his association with Courbet it is
not credible that Manet did this lightly, or that the significance of the 'con-
junction escaped him. On the contrary, he must have been sharply aware
that to yoke references to these painters was to go in the teeth, not just of
Champ fleury's distaste for Watteau, but of the traditional contrast be-
tween ~he realistic, democratic, serious, naive, and moral painting of the
Le Nams and the fantastic, aristocratic, frivolous, contrived, and disso-
lute art of W~tt~au which was basic to Champfleury's view of the history
of French pamtmg. Manet hardly meant by this-he literally could not
have meant-to call into question the realism of the Le Nains. His inten-
tion seems to have been the reverse: to claim Watteau for realism, in op-
Chapter One
position both to those who, like the Romantics of the r 8 30S, delighted in
his art because of what they saw as its fantasy, sensuality, and gratuitous-
ness and to those others who, like Champfleury, deplored it for the same
qualities.
Manet was not alone in seeing Watteau as essentially realistic. As early
at r 847 Paul Mantz had argued that Watteau, Chardin, and Boucher had
painted their contemporaries truly.104 But the man who more than any
other had advocated this view of Watteau's art was the great critic, con-
noisseur, and pioneer art historian-and dedicatee of Champfleury's
r862 volume on the Le Nains-Theophile Thore.1 05 In the same article
on the boulevard des Italiens exhibition of French paintings from private
collections from which Champfleury quoted his description of the La
Caze Repas de paysans, Thore wrote of Watteau:
To superficial observers, Watteau does not seem to adhere closely to nature.
This, however, is his supreme merit, along with his sense of elegance, and his
subtle and delicate mind.
Didn't this melancholy young man go observing and sketching in the out-
skirts of Paris whenever he had the leisure? When sickness attacked his vital
forces, where did he think of going to recuperate? To the country, by the water,
in the heart of nature. And how many studies he has left, all of them, even in
their most minute details, stamped with penetrating passion! One sees very
clearly that he loved nature, in his mysterious and poetic landscapes, in his daz-
zling, bright skies, in the incomparable ease of his figures, with the delicate and
deft extremities, in the exquisite coloring of his women's complexions, in the
impressive combinations of nuances in his fabrics, in the harmony of his total
effects. 106
Thore acknowledged that Watteau's art often did not look realistic. But
he did so in a way that at once deepened the concept of realism-freeing it
from mere verisimilitude-and left no doubt as to his belief in Watteau's
stature:
And, incomprehensibly, although he begins thus directly from the observation
and love of nature, he ends up with an extremely mannered kind of drawing,
with forms that are almost impossible, with mirages of color such as are rarely
seen. But this happened also to some other painters of genius, Rembrandt, for
instance, and Velasquez, who are at once very fantastic and very real. This is
one of the mysteries of painting among certain privileged colorists. 10 ?
Earlier in the same article Thore apostrophized the painter in terms
which implicitly opposed any account of Watteau's art, such as Champ-
fleury's, that viewed it as fundamentally aristocratic and therefore as cor-
rupt, decadent, antidemocratic: "Watteau! Before him, they painted
Manet's Sources 73
princesses, and he painted shepherdesses; they painted goddesses, and he

painted women; they painted heroes, and he painted mountebanks-and
even monkeys!"108 These remarks are to be understood in the context of
Thore's democratic and socialist political beliefs. In a series of ground-
breaking catalogues of various Dutch and Flemish museums and largely
theoretical articles on the relation of art to society written during the late
r 8 50S, Thore stated and restated his belief that the dominant, progres-
sive tendency of the modern age was toward universality, by which he
meant the transcendance of class and even of nationality in the recogni-
tion of all men's common humanity. (I shall return to this later on.)
Accordingly, he deplored the "art for art's sake" esthetic of Romanti-
cism and summed up his own counterdoctrine in the words "art for
mankind" - "l'art pour l'homme." He regarded the Dutch school of the
seventeenth century, which he saw as essentially naturalistic, as the great
precedent for the modern art in which he believed. Read in this light, his
apostrophe to Watteau salutes that painter for having taken a decisive,
even revolutionary step within French painting toward the still incom-
pletely realized achievement of a truly human art.
Thore's interpretation of Watteau's art parallels Manet's use of that art
in the Old Musician. It is also true that Manet's sense of the compatibility
of Watteau and realism is manifest in his first ambitious painting, the Ab-
sinthe Drinker of r 8 5 8- 59, and seems to have been one of the basic
givens of his vision. But in Thore's articles on the boulevard des Italiens
exhibition of r 860, as well as in his books and essays of the late r 8 50S and
early r860s, Manet found what he would have considered further sanc-
tion for his own intensely personal vision ofWatteau's art. It goes without
saying that Thore's writing could not have had that power had it not been
the product of one of the finest pictorial intelligences then at work.
(Which is only a way of saying that the sanction Manet created for him-
self in the art of the past, and the sanction he found created for him by
the most serious art writers of his time, were finally the same.) In fact, I
regard it as questionable whether without Thore's sanction Manet would
both have acknowledged publicly his involvement with Watteau and have
declared publicly his commitment to realism in the same painting, as I
have claimed he did in the Old Musician.
One further point might be mentioned here. In r862 Champfleury de-
scribed the foreground figures in paintings by the Le Nains as "actors
who come in front of the curtain to sing the final couplet to the pub-
lic."lo9 That, however, did not persuade him to connect their work with
74 Chapter One
the overtly theatrical art of the eighteenth century which was so repug-
nant to him. By 1863 Ernest Chesneau, a young critic influenced by
Thon~, was able to write in a long essay significantly entitled "Realism
and the French Spirit in Art":
It is therefore in French manuscripts, at the moment that art becomes secu-
larized and leaves the convents, starting in the eleventh century, that we should
look for the nascent realism which made up and still makes up our taste in
art .... How could one deny the kinship of certain groups of saints in the
miniatures with the groups that are found in the work of the brothers Le Nain,
Philippe de Champaigne, Watteau himself, and Chardin, and to a lesser extent
Pater and Lancret? Among the variety of those talents, whether humble and
modest, or brilliant, dazzling, superficial, and light, how often we encounter,
even in the most corrupt, this return to naivete which poses the characters in a
scene simply facing the spectator, unaware of outside sounds, their eyes vaguely
staring into space, looking without seeing:-a singular characteristic that turns
up repeatedly at the most widely separated datesPlO
Chesneau saw both the Le Nains and Watteau as realists. But what is
more significant, he did so partly because of just that immobile, frontal,
jarringly direct, but finally reserved and impassive relation to the be-
holder which characterizes the figures in both the Halte du cavalier and
the Gilles. If that aspect of their work is thought of as a particular kind of
theatricality-and Champfleury's simile together with the overtly theat-
rical context of many of Watteau's paintings encourage one to take this
step-Chesneau's remarks suggest that the recognition of Le Nain's and
Watteau's shared theatricality, experienced as central to their common re-
alism, may have been an important factor in Manet's decision to conjoin
references to those masters in a single, explicitly realist painting. 1 11
MANET'S decision to yoke Le Nain and Watteau in the Old Musician

rested, then, on a particular view of the history of French painting. But
because it did, it directly engaged with issues even more basic and far-
reaching in their implications than the meaning of Watteau's art or the
relation ofWatteau to the Le Nains. Between the mid-1840S and the early
1860s the history of French painting had become a subject of intense
study and, partly in response to developments in contemporary art,
heated controversy within France. During those years-years which in-
cluded Manet's apprenticeship under Couture, his first visits to foreign
Manet's Sources 75
museums, and his gradual emergence as an independent artist-Le Nain

and Chardin were revived, Watteau's reputation was finally stabilized
at a high level, the first archival sources of the French painting of the
past were published, the contents of provincial museums began to be ex-
plored, the Revue universelle des arts and the Gazette des Beaux-Arts
were founded, the first important monographs on French masters ap-
peared, and two great exhibitions-the Exposition Universelle of 1855
and the Manchester exhibition of 185 7-surveyed the art of Europe since
the thirteenth century and thereby made inescapable various questions
having to do with the nature of French painting and its relation to that of
other schools. The most important of those questions can be formulated
roughly as follows: Which painters, ancient and modern, are authen-
tically French and which are not? More generally, in what does the es-
sence or natural genius of French painting consist? Does a body of
painting in fact exist in which that essence or genius is completely real-
ized? Has painting in France ever been truly national, or has it always
fallen short of that ideal, however the ideal itself is understood?
These questions are not wholly separable from one another. The judg-
ment that certain painters but not others constitute the authentic French
school implies a particular view of the nature of French painting, and
probably of Frenchness as such, just as any characterization of the essence
of French art implies a particular canon of painters and paintings. As a
result, contemporary discussions of these issues may strike the modern
reader as at least somewhat circular or arbitrary. Moreover, the questions
themselves are far from rigorously historical by modern standards. The
fact remains, however, that almost every important French scholar of the
French painting of the past addressed himself to them, not only at the
time but for decades after: one might say that the discipline of art history
arose in France largely in response to them.
What makes the situation still more complex is that from the outset
those questions were of more than just historical significance. The Expo-
sition Universelle in particular had made it clear that starting with
Jacques-Louis David, and probably with Watteau, French painting had
been the best in the world. Writing in 1857, Thore described the contem-
porary French school as "the first in Europe and almost the only one." 112
But the more the task of modern art was felt to have devolved upon French
artists, the more all questions about the nature and destiny of French art
became inseparable from questions about the nature and destiny of mod-
ern art as such. Thus one finds different and sometimes violently opposed
Chapter One
critics claiming justification for their value judgments in different histo-

ries of French painting, different canons of authentically French masters,
different concepts of Frenchness. Here, for example, is another passage
from the article by Chesneau quoted above:
The realistic tendencies of the modern school are in fact nothing but the prelim-
inary signs of a legitimate return to the earlier tendencies of French art. Those
primitive aspirations, which were repressed and smothered from the very begin-
ning, without ever being able to develop or manifest themselves with conse-
quence, are in strict accord with the very genius of the French intellect .... A
chronological study of the French painters who remained truly French, who
shook off or simply refused the yoke of the Italian tradition, would abundantly
prove the accuracy of these assertions. l13
It may seem that Chesneau simply used historical arguments to defend his
preferences in contemporary art. But it would be at least as true to say
that his sense of the historical identity of French painting largely deter-
mined those preferences in the first place. And in general both the depth
and the prevalence of such concerns in the art writing of the 18508 and
1860s cannot be exaggerated.
One of Chesneau's assumptions in the above passage deserves closer
examination: that only those artists are authentically French who resisted
or escaped the influence of the great tradition of Italian painting. Like his
equation of Frenchness and realism, this assumption seems to have had its
immediate source in Thore,114 whose powerful influence on his contem-
poraries throughout the 1860s has never adequately been appreciated.
Thore's discussion of the French school at Manchester, for example, be-
gins with a brief historical survey in which it is claimed that throughout
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and with a few exceptions, e.g.
the Clouets, Jacques Callot) France in effect produced nothing but Italian
artists. The breakthrough to something like an authentically national art
was the accomplishment of Watteau and the distinction of the eighteenth
century generally:
But now at last in the eighteenth century a French school begins: Watteau is
a Frenchman by his turn of mind, by his style; still, he comes from the Flemish
border, and, as a technician and colorist, he is akin to Rubens. It is not far from
Valenciennes [Watteau's birthplace1to Antwerp.
Chardin is French, too, but his touch and color are also a little Flemish.
From that moment until the end of the century.... yes, there was a French
school, about which opinions may differ, but which in the absence of any
painting in other countries had the privilege of casting its influence across
Manet's Sources 77
Europe. Nattier, Fran\ois Boucher, Fragonard, and others are at least

Pompadour-Frenchmen. Creuze is a Louis XVI-Frenchman. 115
Three years later, in 1860, Thore opened his first article on the exhibition
of French paintings on the boulevard des Italiens with the following para-
graphs, which I want to quote at length in order to convey the quality of
his effort to put forward an account of the history of painting in France:
Yes, the French school is really there! Some critics like to maintain that the
French school hardly exists. They have only to enter this exhibition. Ah, how
French it is! Elegance, caprice, skill, taste; lots of charm and lots of wit: one
feels right away that one is in France.
One is forced to recognize that these artists are at home, that their inspira-
tion and manner, their feeling and style are proper to their country and their
time, and that they constitute an original school distinct from every foreign
school.
In point of fact, the pleiad now shining at the exhibition on the boulevard
belongs almost entirely to the eighteenth century. Could it be that the French
school dates only from the end of the reign of Louis XIV?-Perhaps.
During the sixteenth century in France one perceives in effect only the Italian
style imported by Andrea del Sarto, Leonardo, Sellaio, Rosso, Primaticcio, Nic-
colo dell'Abate, and others; and the Florentine or Bolognese style, from Jean
Cousin to Martin Freminet.-Those who did not become Italianized are the
Flemish: the Clouets.
In the seventeenth century the craze for Italian imitations is such that Mo-
liere, the most French of French writers, glorifies Mignard, "this great man be-
come all Roman." The Roman and Bolognese school of Vouet, Mignard, and
Lebrun dominates so exclusively, that the best native artists go so far as to leave
their own country and adopt another nationality: the Norman Poussin, the
Lorrainese Claude, the Burgundian Courtois, Valentin and others all live and
die in Rome-doing the opposite of those Florentine and Bolognese painters
who, one century earlier, had come to live and die in France .... The only ones
who do not become Italianized are always the Flemish: the painter of the great
cardinal and the painter of the great king, Philippe de Champaigne and Van der
Meulen, who die in Paris members of the French Academy.
Toward the end of the century, the Dutch influence begins slightly to offset
the Italian taste, with Jacob Van Loo, who establishes his dynasty in France;
with Largilliere, trained in the town of Rubens by the Flemish Coubau, then in
London by Lely, who continued the tradition of Van Dyck; by Rigaud, who
also perfected his art by copying Van Dyck, with the advice of his friend
Largilliere; and by many others, who serve as transitions between the entirely
Roman grand siecie and an altogether different period during which a freedom
in manners authorized freedom in art and the blossoming of French fantasy in
painting.
Is it certain that the French school of the eighteenth century is more original
than that of the seventeenth century? Is it certain that Watteau is more French
Chapter One
than Lebrun? But that couldn't be clearer! Just as Rubens and Jordaens are
more Flemish than their predecessors, the Van Coxcyes and the Van Orleys;
just as Velasquez and Murillo represent Spain better than their predecessors
who aspired to imitate Raphael and Titian. 116
The greater Frenchness of Watteau, like the greater Spanishness of VeLis-
quez, consisted largely in his realism, his fidelity to nature (including hu-
man nature), his insistence upon basing his art on the life around him
rather than on foreign notions of what art should be. It was, Thon~ wrote,
always through a return to nature, through naturalism, that schools of
painting, "even the most ideal or the most religious," renewed them-
selves; 117 and the French school of the eighteenth century was no excep-
tion. He might have added-he as much as said-that it was only thus
that they became truly national.
In Chesneau's writing Thon~'s ideas are qualified by a kind of innate
conservatism. The opposite occurs in the work of one of the most interest-
ing critics of Manet's generation, Jules-Antoine Castagnary:
Art is indigenous-or it is not art. It is the expression of a given society, of its
mind, customs, and history-or it is nothing. It belongs to the soil, the climate,
and the race-or it has no character.
Let us not be afraid to admit it, we have never had any French painting in
France.
The seeds of a national art-based on nature and on the expression of life
like all the national arts that developed in Europe-were beginning to grow in
the various intellectual centers of our old provinces (you can see in the Clouets
in the Louvre what heights this art might have reached), when, directly after the
Peninsula Wars, Italian art suddenly invaded France, brought by the gentlemen
of Francis I, by their horses' hooves. The blow was terrible. The arrival of
Leonardo da Vinci and Andrea del Sarto, the formation of the school of Fon-
tainebleau, the growing importance of Paris-nothing more was needed. Never
was an invasion more rapid or more decisive. French painting was killed on the
spot .... From then on, no more art, except a secondhand art, one inspired by
the art of other nations instead of issuing from the guts of the life around it.
What is the upshot of all this? Our chief glories, those we tend to be most
proud of, are only half ours. Are Nicolas Poussin or Claude Geh~e really
French? Not by their style or turn of mind, and not by their choice of adopted
country. Le Sueur himself, although he never left Paris, is Italian. From this
great flow of imitation that begins with Primaticcio and ends who knows where
toward the end of the last century, a few individuals emerge: Le Nain, Watteau,
Chardin. But how few of them there were, and how little influence they hadJ18
It is not part of my purpose here to document the continuing importance
of this version of the history of French painting. 119 But something of its
pervasiveness and durability may be gathered from the following passage,
Manet's Sources 79
written in 1888, from Chennevieres's informative Souvenirs d'un direc-

teur des Beaux-Arts:
And why should we not have the courage to cry out at once, loud and openly:
"Enough of the eighteenth century; enough of this corruption. The eighteenth
century has softened, spoiled, rotted, and in the end killed us. I mean that it
softened and spoiled people at the time and that it took only a few amateurs to
reintroduce that ferment of our taste in our national art to get us to decay in
turn. Ah, how right David and the strong legion of his students were to scorn it,
curse it, banish it, with hatred, mercilessly, from the height of their scorn; and it
is about time that we rid ourselves in turn of this flour, this poisoned face pow-
der! ... So this is the eighteenth century, which the Goncourts and the Mar-
cilles and the Walferdins and all of our amateurs for the past thirty years, those
in whom we had the most confidence, have presented to us as the only French
school, as the period when the true French genius was at its height!" 120
When Chennevieres wrote those words Manet had been dead almost five
years. But the issues raised in Thore's writings of the late 18 50S and early
1860s were still alive.
I N V lEW of Manet's involvement with the art of the past, it is inconceiv-

able that he was unaware of these issues. And in fact his paintings of the
early 18 60S suggest that he was more than just aware of them. Starting in
18 59 Manet repeatedly adapted paintings by Watteau or engravings after
those paintings in his own work. By 1860, the year the La Caze Repas de
paysans was exhibited on the boulevard des Italiens and Champ fleury's
study was published in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts, he began deliberately
to exploit the Le Nains as well. Both involvements are conjoined in the
Gypsies of 1861 and, more explicitly, in the Old Musician of 1862. The
first picture obviously inspired by Chardin, a still life, was painted in
1862. 121 Two years later Manet produced a number of paintings in this
genre, all of them in frank emulation of Chardin, the best of them as good
as Chardin. 122 These painters-the Le Nains, Watteau, Chardin-were
the heart of the pre-nineteenth-century French school as Thon~ and those
influenced by him saw it. And the inference is strong, first, that Manet
too, perhaps partly because of Thon~, saw those masters as authentically
French; and second, that his explicit references to them-in particular to
Le Nain and Watteau in the Old Musician-were intended to secure or
establish or guarantee the Frenchness of his own art.
80 Chapter One
These inferences find support in the testimony of his lifelong friend and
fellow student under Couture, Antonin Proust. In his Souvenirs of the
painter, Proust quotes the young Manet's account of an incident involv-
ing Courbet and the painter Narcisse Diaz de la Pena:
"The other day [Courbet] paid a visit to Deforge-Diaz was there. 'How much
will you sell your Turk for?' he asks Diaz, pointing to one of the pictures on
show. 'But that's not a Turk,' says Diaz, 'it's a Virgin.' 'Oh, in that case it
doesn't answer my purpose-what I wanted was a Turk!' And with that Cour-
bet and his friends return to the Cafe Madrid, laughing like mad. Diaz ran after
him, trying to impale him with his wooden leg. What a gagster, eh? But he can
fool all he likes, the fact remains that this master painter is very French at heart.
Because it goes without saying that we French have a depth of probity which al-
ways brings us back to the truth, despite the tours de force of the acrobats.
Look at works by Le Nain, Watteau, Chardin, David himself. What a sense of
truth !" 123
Le Nain, Watteau, Chardin-and, almost certainly, the David of the real-

istic Death of Marat. Proust went further in ''L'Art d'Edouard Manet" :
In our country we have such a false idea of the conditions of beautiful draw-
ing, beautiful color, and sound composition that Watteau and Chardin went al-
most unnoticed in the midst of a clamor of noisy brushes and metallic drawing,
and the banal arrangements prescribed by the formulas of titled professors. At
best, Watteau was praised for the elegance of the characters of his fetes gal antes
and Chardin was granted the badge of master of still life. But no more attention
was paid to Watteau's astonishing drawings in red chalk heightened with black
pencil, or to Chardin's portraits, than to the works of Clouet, Janet, and
Cousin. Manet led us back to a respect for this national tradition, to an admi-
ration for these unrecognized things. He made all this live again by his personal
observations, but the eyes of his contemporaries persisted in not seeing.124
The last sentence is tantalizing but ambiguous. Did Proust mean to hint
that Manet consciously and deliberately re-created the French art of the
past by his observations of reality, that is, in his paintings? Is that what his
contemporaries failed to see? (His next remarks, which concern Manet's
admiration for Ingres and the way in which Olympia reveals that admira-
tion, perhaps point to this reading.) Or did he simply mean that Manet
made the art of Watteau and Chardin live again in his conversation, but
that his contemporaries failed to see their merit? In any event, Proust's
witness-and I shall be quoting similar remarks further on-leaves no
doubt that Manet was consciously concerned with Frenchness and that
like Thon~ he associated it with probity, truthfulness, realism.
For Proust, appreciation of the characteristic virtues of French painting
Manet's Sources 81
entailed the sharp downgrading, not only of the Italianate school of the
court of Francis I, but of the art of the Italian Renaissance itself. In his
Souvenirs he remarks that what he admires above all about Puvis de
Chavannes is "his aversion to the Italian Renaissance, his fidelity to the
simplicity and measure of our French art." 125 And in the article of 1901
he writes: "One of the most curious symptoms of the force of super-
stition is that the error which, for centuries, since the fatal epoch of the
Renaissance, has led art away from its natural path, should be so strong
that every loyal expression of the truth could appear as a lie." 126 Proust
cannot here be assumed to represent Manet's views: the explicit depen-
dence of both the Dijeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia on works by su-
preme masters of the Italian Renaissance makes it clear that Manet's
relations with the art of foreign schools were far less circumscribed, far
less ideological, than Proust's.
But this reflection, like every other about Manet, raises a further
question: What is to be made of the fact, hitherto unremarked, that the
Dijeuner and Olympia were the first paintings in roughly four years-
since before the Absinthe Drinker-to refer unmistakably to Italian
sources?127 It is extremely unlikely that this was due simply to an aver-
sion on Manet's part that later disappeared: the various copies which he
made after Italian paintings in the mid- 185 os, as well as the numerous
drawings of that period after Andrea del Sarto and other Florentine mas-
ters, suggest that Manet was by nature strongly attracted to Italian Re-
naissance art.128 Nor can the absence of Italian sources be explained
away as merely accidental: his use of previous art was highly conscious,
even programmatic, though it has not yet fully emerged what that pro-
gram was. Almost certainly, the absence of Italian sources between late
1858 (if not before) and late 1862 was the result of deliberate abstention.
And that is exactly what one would expect if, as has been inferred, Manet
was intent on securing the Frenchness of his own art on the basis of a
canon of French masters that excluded the Italianate figures Thon:' depre-
cated. In other words, I am suggesting that Manet refrained from using
Italian art, not because he did not admire it, or because he overlooked it,
but because the use of it was ruled out from the start by his understanding
of Frenchness. His decision in late 1862 to base the Dijeuner sur I' herbe
on Raphael and Giorgione must therefore have been concomitant with
some analogous change in that understanding, or at any rate in his canon
of French masters.
By the same reasoning the extensive allusions to Flemish and Spanish
82 Chapter One
artists in Manet's painting during these years must mean that he did not
regard the art of those schools as irreconcilable or incompatible with
Frenchness. And this, too, seems to bear a direct relation to the art writing
of the time. "The only ones who aren't Italianized are always the
Flemish," Thon~ wrote in 1860, meaning the Clouets, Philippe de Cham-
paigne, and Van der Meulen; while in those articles and elsewhere he
claimed both that Watteau and Chardin were distinctively French and
that their art bore deep analogies to that of Flanders and Holland. 129 In
particular, the actual historical relation of Watteau to Rubens came to
be generally recognized during the second half of the 1850s.130 The
Le Nains, too, were seen in terms of Flemish art. But most commenta-
tors also detected a strong Spanish element in their paintings. For exam-
ple, Thon~ described them as "sorts of displaced Spaniards,"131 while
Champfleury wrote:
[N]o doubt the Le Nains were trained in the Flemish school, by a Flemish
master, by exposure to Flemish paintings which had a great influence on
their future. They are Flemish and Spanish at the same time; an annotator of
eighteenth-century catalogues never failed to describe their paintings as "in the
manner of Murillo," which showed some insight on his part. They are often
Flemish in their choice of costumes, but they are Spanish in the way they paint.
I must be careful here if I want to make myself understood, because they are the
same time very French. 132
And he quoted the description by a young writer, Zacharie Astruc-who

by the early 1860s was a close friend of Manet's-of a painting by the
Le Nains that had been exhibited in Manchester: "Six small children.
One plays the violin, a charmingly fanciful object, the other plays the
oboe. They are almost in the same plane and seem unaware of each other.
Background wall dark gray. The ground offers green nuances. The colors
are brilliant, although in a quiet range. Very close to Velasquez in its feel-
ing for crystalline tints. Its appeal lies in its simplicity and calm. Its na-
Ivete strikes you as a graceful oddity." 133 I believe that associations such
as these at least sanctioned, and perhaps suggested, the double references
to Watteau and Rubens in La Peche and to Le Nain and Velasquez in the
Old Musician; and in general that they provided Manet with what I think
of as access to Flemish and Spanish painting, which because of his canon
of French masters he did not then have to Italian painting. (Manet's rela-
tion to Dutch painting is discussed separately further on.) This is not to
say that such associations compelled or even inclined Manet to make use
of foreign sources in the first place. On the contrary, the impulse to com-
Manet's Sources
bine both French and foreign sources, already manifest in the Absinthe
Drinker, seems to have been one of the deepest traits in his artistic charac-
ter and must be understood as the expression of profound need. One
might say that these sorts of associations, which one encounters time and
again in the art writing of the 18 50S and I 860s, laid down the conditions
within which that trait could be expressed and that need fulfilled.
In an obvious sense Manet's access to the art of foreign schools was
determined, at any rate limited, by his canon of authentically French
painters. But in another, ultimately far more important sense his access to
foreign art may be said to have been enabled by that canon. That Manet
required such access-that the great painting of foreign schools was in
effect unavailable to him without it-is a crucial difference between his
enterprise and that of any painter before him.
In this connection it is informative to compare Manet's relations with
the art of the past with what was then meant by eclecticism. In an es-
say of 1862, for example, the critic and historian Henri de La Borde
characterized what seemed to him the French essence of Jean-Auguste-
Dominique Ingres's recent painting Jesus among the Doctors and then
asked:
In claiming to acknowledge the French inclinations or the French traditions
in Ingres's talent, must we forget his borrowings, which deserve notice, from
Greek and Italian art? No doubt these models have had a great influence on the
painters of the Virgil and the Apotheosis of Homer, of the Vow of Louis XIII
and Saint Symphorien. In this respect, the painting he is offering us now reveals
that he still stubbornly admires his models and still studies them with tireless
ardor; but by no means does it betray a mania for imitation or servile erudi-
tion. Looking at Jesus among the Doctors we may recall some composition by
Raphael or Fra Bartolommeo, which expresses a taste like Ingres's for perfect
balance and rigorous control of line; its fresh and limpid colors may remind us
of the frescoes of Andrea del Sarto, while the frankness and diversity of his
characters may bring to mind the works, so admirable in this respect, of Ma-
saccio and Filippino Lippi: does it necessarily follow from this that the merit of
the painting resides in its skillful mixture of borrowed elements? Has Ingres's
method no other principle than eclecticism, no other goal than to introduce
into painting a sort of composite order that exploits other people's discoveries,
and depends on a few clever combinations?134
The question is pertinent, the answer lame: "If this were so, one would
not be able to explain the singular ease with which the master varies and
renews his style in response to each subject treated, each example that
reality provides." 135 I do not mean to suggest that Ingres's art was eclec-
tic. But I want to point out, first that eclecticism was a pejorative notion
Chapter One
for La Borde, and second, that his defense of Ingres rested essentially on
the artist's responsiveness to subject matter and to external reality rather
than on any structure of relations with the art of the past in the work it-
self. Four years later Castagnary criticized both the classical and romantic
schools for their failure to achieve a truly national art, a failure he con-
nected with what he saw as their eclecticism:
It was one of the claims of romanticism to have founded a national school.
The great raising of shields against the presence of Greeks and Romans in liter-
ature and art took place in the name of ideas of nationality. This is an amusing
memory; for it was precisely that period that saw the rise of cosmopolitanism
in art and the outbreak of every kind of imitation. Only twenty years ago all the
schools of all possible times and places were to be found among us at once.
Alongside Ingres, who was drawing his imitation from Rome and Athens,
Eugene Delacroix was paying tribute to Antwerp and Venice, and Meissonier to
Flanders, while Ary Scheffer was looking to his compatriot Rembrandt for the
secret of color. Beneath these illustrious leaders, each imitated whom he could.
It was a tower of Babel, an anarchy, a wild pell-mell which had no equal and
which was to be matched only by the frightful whirlwind of paintings borrowed
from every age, every country, every style, with which the auction room has
been infecting Paris for more than thirty years.
This is the enviable state which the bastard eclecticism of our age wants to
prolong, and will prolong if a bolder young generation does not take the matter
in hand, and if both classicism and romanticism are not eradicated once and for
all. 136
This task was to be accomplished by the nascent movement Castagnary
called naturalism, whose Frenchness would reside in the truthfulness of
its depiction of contemporary French society and which, aspiring simply
to "express life and paint truly,"137 would have the courage to sever all
connection with the art of other times and nations. 138 Whereas Manet
seems to have felt that simply depicting contemporary France was not, or
was no longer, enough to secure the Frenchness he too wanted; and that
in general what was needed was not any further severing of relations with
the art of the past but on the contrary the reestablishing of something like
natural or necessary connection with it.139
10
LET ME sum up the argument to this point. By the early 1860s, if not
before, Manet was intensely concerned with questions having to do with
the natural genius of French painting which had recently become central
Manet's Sources 85
to the study of the history of painting in France. In order to secure the

Frenchness of his own work-one of the chief imperatives of his enter-
prise at that time-he found himself compelled to establish connections
of different degrees of explicitness between his paintings and the work of
those painters of the past who seemed to him authentically French. This
imperative did not conflict with the essential realism of his vision. In fact
his remark, quoted by Proust, to the effect that the distinctive character of
French art was its "sense of truth" implies that each reinforced the other.
At the same time, Manet seems to have been driven by an at least equally
profound need to make his art more than national, that is, to establish
some kind of direct, vital, not simply ad hoc (or eclectic?) relation be-
tween his enterprise as a whole and the great painting of the past of all the
schools. And this had to be achieved without compromising the French-
ness of his art in any way-but how? Manet's solution, almost certainly
intuitively arrived at, has the simplicity and elegance that characterize ev-
erything he did: he made explicit, or took as sanction, the "natural,"
widely recognized affinities between what he regarded as the authen-
tically French painting of the past and the painting of other national
schools. Manet's sense of nationality was such that he needed nothing
more to give him access to the art of the great French painters of the past.
And his genius, about which not enough has been said, enabled him to
make Frenchness itself the medium through which Frenchness was tran-
scended and access to the great painting of other nations secured.
It is not clear when Manet fully arrived at this answer-certainly by
the Old Musician, probably as early as the now dismembered Gypsies
which immediately preceded it, perhaps even earlier. In the Gypsies as in
the Old Musician Manet used Le Nain and to a lesser extent Watteau to
gain access to the painting of a great foreigner with whom they had been
compared-in this case not Velasquez but Rubens. The particular paint-
ing by Rubens that stands behind the Gypsies is the Hermitage Bacchus
(1635-40), which in the eighteenth century had been in the Crozat Col-
lection in Paris and which Manet must have known from engravings (fig.
45).1 40 For example, Manet clearly based the figure of a boy drinking
from an upraised jug in his painting on the similar though adult figure in
the Bacchus, while the standing gypsy bears an analogous if somewhat
looser relation to the seated Bacchus himself. I have already observed that
the female figure seated on the ground in the Gypsies seems to be based
on the seated woman in Le Nain's La Charrette or on Saint Anne in his
Nativity of the Virgin, and that the standing gypsy apparently relates to
86 Chapter One
Figure 45. Jac. Schmuzer,

engraving after Peter-Paul
Rubens, Bacchus.
the blacksmith in The Forge. Finally, the implicitly theatrical subject

matter, as well as aspects of the standing gypsy's pose and general
aplomb, seem to bear some sort of relation to Watteau (admittedly that
relation is far less specific than the connection with Le Nain just cited).141
Manet had previously conjoined Watteau and Rubens in the small but
important La Peche of I86I-63. Another important painting, the Sur-
prised Nymph (I86I; fig. 73), was based-as Charles Sterling long ago
showed-on a Vosterman engraving after a lost Rubens Susannah (fig.
74).1 42 In other pictures of I86I such as the Reader and the Boy with a
Sword Manet's intense interest in Spanish painting is manifest. The depth
and urgency of that interest are shown by the fact that although the basic
source of the Gypsies was Flemish, Manet seems to have tried to make the
figures as much like Spanish types, and the painting as a whole as Spanish
in feeling, as he possibly could. (In fact it is conceivable that the landscape
background relates to those in the various portraits by Velasquez that
Goya engraved.) But it was not until the Old Musician that Manet estab-
Manet's Sources
lished an explicit connection between a large, multifigure painting and a

specific Spanish source. And this, I suggest, strongly implies that it was
not until the Old Musician that Manetwas prepared to rely on the "Span-
ish" element in Le Nain's art, as remarked by Thon':, Champfleury, As-
truc, and others, to provide anything like full or natural access to Spanish
painting.
In other words, that Le Nain, Watteau, and Chardin were chiefly seen
in connection with Flemish art-indeed that Thon~ associated the au-
thentic French school with the art of Flanders-helps explain Manet's de-
cision to base perhaps the three most conceptually ambitious pictures
of the year that preceded the Old Musician-La Peche, the Surprised
Nymph, and the Gypsies-on paintings by Rubens,143 while at the same
time his interest in Spanish painting, and presumably his desire to make
use of it in his own work, seem only to have deepened. This is the sort of
thing it means to say that Manet stood in need of access to the art of the
past.
Earlier I claimed that the Absinthe Drinker of I 8 5 8- 5 9 combined
Watteau and Velasquez. In that picture, however, the question of access to
Spanish art does not seem to have arisen: rather Manet appears simply to
have assumed that Watteau and Velasquez, or French painting and Span-
ish painting, could be combined without any further sanction or prin-
ciple of joinage than his desire to combine them. (And of course I am not
claiming that he was wrong to assume this.) But as Manet became more
and more intent on establishing the Frenchness of his own art as incon-
trovertibly as he was able, the relation, or lack of it, between that French-
ness on the one hand and the painting of foreign schools on the other
inevitably became a problem that could not be ignored. And as this hap-
pened Manet seems to have come to feel that the sort of unmediated fu-
sion of sources and national influences that one finds in the Absinthe
Drinker was no longer tenable. Sanction of some explicit, objective sort
was required. And in the course of the year that led up to the Old Musi-
cian Manet arrived at the solution described in these pages. It is in the
context of these developments that the full meaning of Manet's decision
to paint the Absinthe Drinker over again can be made out: he did so not
just to acknowledge that the earlier picture combined Watteau and Velas-
quez, and more generally French and Spanish painting, but also to justify,
retroactively as it were, his original, unmediated act of fusion.
With the Old Musician, but not before, access to Spanish painting was
secured, and not for that picture alone. The connection once made, the
88 Chapter One
justification once achieved, Manet was able to use Spanish painting freely,
when and where he wanted to, without the mediation of the Le Nains.
More than anything else, it was this breakthrough in the medium of na-
tionality which made possible the remarkable fruitfulness of the year
1862 for Manet. Throughout 1861, despite his attraction to Spanish
painting, Manet was constrained to base his most ambitious paintings on
Flemish sources. Whereas his work after the Old Musician consistently
and successfully exploited the new accessibility of Spanish painting and
Spanishness in general-an accessibility that had almost nothing to do
with physical proximity and almost everything to do with the kinds of
relationship I have tried to describe. Meanwhile his involvement with
Watteau, which had remained intense, reached a new level of naturalness
and freedom. The arrival of the Camprubi dancers presented oppor-
tunities for synthesizing French and Spanish painting which he quickly
seized. It must have seemed to Manet, who in January 1862 had turned
thirty, that at last everything was falling into place. At any rate, it is tempt-
ing to see the superb Mile V . .. in the Costume of an Espada (1862;
pi. 5), which Manet probably painted in the autumn or winter of that
year, in some such terms. First, the explicit theatricality of the painting as
a whole, in which a young Parisienne dressed as a matador poses de-
tachedly as if in an arena with a bullfight taking place behind her, would
have been inconceivable without the prior example of Watteau. Manet
does not seem to have based his painting on a specific Watteau source. But
I am convinced that his involvement with his great predecessor in Mile
V ... was at least as deep as in the Absinthe Drinker or the Old Musi-
cian itself. Only Watteau could have made imaginable-could have sanc-
tioned-the choice of so manifestly artificial a subject by a realist painter
of major ambition. In any case, that artificiality, and with it the French-
ness of the young woman-Manet's favorite model, Victorine Meurent
-are made explicit by the very title of the painting. 144 Second, it has been
recognized that the bullfight subject itself was inspired by Goya; and
Harris has shown that two plates from Goya's Tauromaquia provide ex-
act sources for the bull and picador and for the group by the wall in
Manet's canvas. 145 Finally, I want to suggest that the lower portion of
Victorine's body, and the initial idea for the cape she holds in her left
hand, just may have been based on an oil sketch by Rubens for a Fortune
or Venus, then in the Galerie Suermondt in Aix-Ia-Chapelle. 146 Rubens's
painting was reproduced in a small engraving in the Gazette des Beaux-
Arts in 1860 (fig. 46), accompanying a short review article by Emile Gal-
Manet's Sources
Figure 46. Wood engraving

after Peter-Paul Rubens, Venus
or Fortune.
ichon of ThoH~'s catalogue of the Galerie Suermondt, which had been

published under Thon~'s pseudonym of W. Burger earlier that year.147 If
the last connection is right, Manet's painting is a characteristically subtle
and complex resume of his relations with the art of the past as they then
stood.
II
I TIS A L SO characteristic of Manet that things did not stand that way
for long. I have already suggested that the absence of any overt reference
to Italian painting from Manet's art through almost all of 1 862-until he
Chapter One
began work on the Dejeuner sur l'herbe-indicates that during the first
years of the r 8 60S his personal canon of authentically French painters ex-
cluded the Italianate masters considered by many the glory of the na-
tional school but whom Thof(~ and those influenced by him regarded
virtually as foreigners. Conversely, I take the fact that the Dejeuner and
Olympia are based respectively on Raphael (or Raphael and Giorgione)
and Titian to mean that by late r862, or at the latest early r863, he ex-
cluded them no longer. And I regard the sheer perspicuousness with
which both paintings refer to their Italian sources as signifying that
Manet wanted to make the clearest possible-the most explicit-public
acknowledgment of what was probably the most important alteration in
his vision of the art of the past that he had yet experienced. The modern
French painter who most embodied the Italianate tradition was Ingres,
and it is not surprising to find Proust testifying to Manet's admiration for
his art:
When he said that in our century Ingres had been the master of masters, people
regarded this manifestation by the painter of the Dijeuner sur l'herbe of his cult
for the painter of the Source as a blasphemy....
The famous painting Olympia, exhibited at the Salon of 1865 and currently
in the Musee du Luxembourg, proceeds, for anyone who examines matters ob-
jectively, from the constant preoccupation that Ingres had and that Manet
wished to have with seeking an irreproachable purity of line in the contours of
his figures. Is anything better set in place, to use Manet's favorite expression,
than the figure of Olympia? Certainly not.1 48
Proust's remarks suggest that Manet's reconciliation of French and Italian

painting may have been mediated by his appreciation of Ingres; in any
case, that reconciliation was by its nature a spanning of the entire French
school, past and present, from Le Nain to Poussin, Watteau to David,
Courbet to Ingres. 149 With the Dejeuner and Olympia, but not until
then, Manet at once bridged the divisions of the present and estab-
lished the connectedness of his art with the full range of the great French
painting of the past: "During his strolls in the Louvre, with the regulars
of the Cafe Guerbois, who made it a matter of principle to find noth-
ing praiseworthy, Manet would stop and force them to stop in front of
the Poussins. Everything that was French seduced him." 150 Manet fre-
quented the Cafe Guerbois in the second half of the r 8 60s-according to
this account, well after he broke through to a broader view of French
painting in the Dejeuner and Olympia. This is not to claim positively that
Manet did not admire the Italianate French masters from the outset of his
Manet's Sources 91
career. But if he did, his adherence to the conception of Frenchness that I

have associated chiefly with Thore prevented him from putting that admi-
ration to work in his art before the winter of r862-63.151
One important consequence of these events seems to have been that for
the first time since the r 8 50S, when he had painted several small pictures
of Christ, Manet chose to make use of explicitly religious subject matter:
as though during the early r860s-perhaps influenced by Thore l52 -
Manet associated Italian art with religious (or perhaps specifically with
Catholic) content, so that access to the first naturally entailed access to
the second. Whether or not this was the case, the first of the two large
religious pictures which Manet painted roughly at this time, The Angels
at the Tomb of Christ (r864; pI. 6), has been connected with Italian
precedents-most convincingly, I think, with Veronese's Descent from
the Cross (ca. r582-84; fig. 47) and Tintoretto's Dead Christ and Two
Angels. 153 In other respects-its near brutality, for example-the Angels
at the Tomb of Christ contrasts rather sharply with the Dejeuner sur
l'herbe and Olympia. But it extends and deepens the achieved involve-
ment with Italian painting that begins with them.
Figure 47. Gaspard Duchange,

engraving after Paolo Veronese,
Descent from the Cross.
Chapter One
Figure 48. Theodore Gerica ul t, The Raft of the Medusa, 18 19·
Here I find myself compelled to enforce a connection which I recognize

may be controversial and which I fully acknowledge is not perspicuous
the way, for example, the Dijeuner sur fherbe's dependence on Raphael,
Olympia's on Titian, or the Old Musician's on Le Nain, are perspicuous:
namely I believe that Manet partly based the Angels at the Tomb of Christ
on Theodore Gericault's The Raft of the Medusa (1819; fig. 48). Specifi-
cally, I believe that Manet took Gericault's foreground group of a
bearded, grieving man holding the dead body of a young man (often mis-
takenly called his son, fig. 49), and with the help of one or perhaps both of
the Italian prototypes mentioned above, transformed the grieving man
into the weeping angel and transfigured the corpse of the younger man
into the crucified and-as I shall try to show-now just quickening
Christ. The similarity between the poses of the grieving man and the
weeping angel and between the left arm and hand of the youthful corpse
and the arms and hands of Manet's Christ are, I think, striking. In addi-
tion, the powerful musculature and general physicality of the Christ, the
special starkness with which bodily death has been represented, and the
achievement of a mode of realism that without actually employing violent
chiaroscuro nevertheless implies it, all suggest a common source of inspi-
Manet's Sources 93
ration in the greatest painting of French Romanticism. I do not mean by

this to deny the importance of (for example) Veronese's painting to
Manet: it alone could have determined most of Angels at the Tomb of
Christ. Moreover, Veronese's Christ is certainly closer than Gericault's
corpse to the Christ in Manet's painting (though Gericault's grieving man
is far closer in gesture than either Veronese's or Tintoretto's angels to
Manet's weeping angel). But we have already seen that Manet often delib-
erately overdetermined individual motifs and even whole paintings by
not just conjoining but superimposing references to previous works; so
the closeness of Veronese's image to Angels at the Tomb of Christ does not
Figure 49. Theodore Ghicauit, The Raft of the Medusa, detail of dead young man and grieving
older man.
94 Chapter One
in itself rule out the possibility that the Raft too figures in its conception.
In fact it would not have been uncharacteristic for Manet to have turned
to Veronese, whose art was now available to him, precisely in order to
subsume Gericault, whose relation to Italian art had been the subject of
critical discussion for decades, in a broader synthesis. What makes this
reconstruction too simple is that Manet must have intended to paint a
religious picture from the outset: which for me suggests both that he had
Veronese's prototype, or at least the subject of Christ with angels, in mind
all along, and that he saw Gericault's corpse as itself a kind of dead
Christ. There is nothing beside the paintings themselves to which I can
point-no traditional sources of evidence to which I can appeal-that
would in effect prove that this was so. But on the basis of my experience of
these painters and these paintings, I am myself not in doubt. (At any rate,
I am not in doubt about the basic connection between the Angels at the
Tomb of Christ and the Raft of the Medusa.)
The powerful realism of the Raft of the Medusa, and of the young male
corpse in particular, was remarked in an essay of I 8 5 I by one of the most
important critics of Thore's generation, Gustave Planche:
Without attaching less importance [than Gras] to dramatic effects, Gericault
imitates reality with persevering care; he tries to reproduce all of its details
scrupulously, and his efforts are almost always successful. The torso of the .
young man lying at his father's feet, undoubtedly the most remarkable figure m
the painting I am now studying, leaves nothing to be desired from the point of
view of imitation; the false ribs are indicated with a precision that defies all
criticism. In the entire history of painting it would be hard to find a model more
exactly reproduced. All the parts of this corpse are rendered with an amazing
and frightening fidelity. Neither David nor Girodet nor Gros ever found, paint-
ing the human figure, the power and energy that we admire in Gericault. Giro-
det's Deluge, so rightly praised for the knowledge it reveals, remains far short
of the figure which immediately attracts our attention in the Raft of Medusa. 154
Gericault, Planche wrote, had "a passion for reality that could not accept
any constraint" ; in his Chasseur of I 8 I 2 he "represented naIvely, frankly,
what he had seen"; he gave himself "wholly to the desire to substitute
reality for convention"; 155 he "never aspired, at least in his more familiar
works, to anything but the expression of reality." 156 Moreover, he ap-
pears to have been seen in similar terms by the Realists themselves. Cour-
bet is generally said to have had a special admiration for Gericault. 157
And in Du principe de l'art et de sa destination sociale, published post-
humously in I 865, the socialist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
makes the following significant remark: "A single painting like Ger-
Manet's Sources 95
icault's Raft of the Medusa, coming a quarter century after David's Dying
Marat, redeems an entire gallery of madonnas, odalisques, apotheoses,
and Saint Symphoriens; it suffices to indicate the route for art across the
generations, and allows us to wait."158 This statement, which occurs
in the portion of Du principe de l'art that summarizes the history of paint-
ing before the advent of Courbet, and which was surely grounded in
Proudhon's intimate friendship with that master, implies that the Raft'S
indications for the future were picked up and developed by Courbet
roughly thirty years after Gericault's painting was exhibited in the Salon
of I8I9. Manet's use of the Raft of the Medusa-given that he did use
it-was therefore entirely consistent with his realist aspirations. But once
again those aspirations cannot be equated with Courbet's. As George
Heard Hamilton has observed, the Angels at the Tomb of Christ must be
seen as a deliberate challenge to Courbet's fundamental principle-that
the artist should paint only what he sees. 159 And to compound the chal-
lenge Manet went back to the masterpiece of the modern painter who
more than any other seems to have been important for Courbet, and
based his first major religious painting on the foreground group which
includes perhaps the most powerfully realistic representation of physical
death in all French art. In other words, Manet not only challenged but
circumvented Courbet's authority.160
A further possibility ought at least to be mentioned. Manet may have
meant the Angels at the Tomb of Christ to be seen in relation to David's
Death of Marat (I793; fig. 50) as well as to the Raft of the Medusa. It is
perhaps relevant that David's painting was often called Dying Marat and
that the original or working title of Manet's picture seems to have been
Christ Resuscitating Attended by Angels: at any rate, this is the title given
by Baudelaire in a letter to Chennevieres requesting that Manet's and
Henri Fantin-Latour's entries to the Salon of I 864 be hung as favorably as
possible. 161 The same letter gives the correct title of Manet's second en-
try, Episode in a Bullfight; and in general it seems likely that Baudelaire
would have taken pains to send Chennevieres the most accurate informa-
tion then available. This suggests that Manet may have conceived of his
picture as re-creating, and in a sense transcending, both David's and Ger-
icault's supreme images of physical death. The relation to David, if it ex-
ists, is implicit and essentially conceptual; though at one stage it may have
been acknowledged by Manet's title itself. 162
Finally, the possibility cannot be ignored that other paintings of the
same year might fruitfully be seen in connection with Gericault. For ex-
Chapter One
ample, Manet may have found in the naval battle between the Union war-
ship Kearsarge and the Confederate Alabama that took place off Cher-
bourg in June 1864 the opportunity to establish an approximate formal
equivalent for the Raft of the Medusa's basis in an actual disaster at
sea. This if true would help account for the rapidity of Manet's decision
to base a major painting on that battle. 163 In 1864, too, he painted a
large horse-race picture, View of a Race in the Bois de Boulogne, which
he later cut into segments [a watercolor of the composition is reproduced
in pI. 15]; and while this was not at all like Gericault's racing pictures in
conception or motif,164 it is still conceivable that Manet's awareness of
the latter may have been a factor in his decision to attempt such a painting
at this time. (It mayor may not be relevant that Manet's later racing pic-
Figure 50. Jacques-Louis

David, Death of Marat, 1793·
Figure 51. Edouard Manet, The Dead Torero, 1864,
Figure 52. Unknown seventeenth-century master, Dead Warrior (known formerly as Orlando
Muerto).
~ure, The Races in the Bois de Boulogne of 1872, clearly relates to Ger-
Icault's Epsom Derby of just over half a century before.) Even The Dead
To~ero (fig. 51 )-the bottom segment of the larger Episode in a Bullfight
whIch Mane: painted in 1864 and later dismembered-ought perhaps to
be seen not Just as an adaptation of the picture known as the Orlando
Muerto (fig. 52), which in Manet's time was thought to be by Velasquez,
Chapter One
Figure 53. Edouard Manet, Christ Mocked, r865.

Manet's Sources 99
Figure 54. Schelte Adam Bolswert,

engraving after Anthony Van Dyck,
Christ Crowned with Thorns.
but as a kind of reworking, with the help of that painting, of the same
figure in the Raft of the Medusa that I have suggested was a source for
Manet's Christ. 165
Manet's second large religious picture, the Christ Mocked (1865; fig.
53), while grounded generally in Titian's Christ Crowned with Thorns, is
chiefly based on Van Dyck's painting of the same subject in the Staatliche
Museum in Berlin, which Manet could have known through an engraving
by Bolswert (fig. 54 ).166 If it is true that when Manet painted the Angels
at the Tomb of Christ he associated Italian art with religious or Catholic
subject matter, the Christ Mocked breaks that association. And in the
light of the deliberateness of Manet's use of the art of the past generally, it
is at least possible that this too was intentional.
In an obvious sense the Dejeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia constitute a
decisive break with Thoft?'s view of the history of French painting. But in
another sense Manet did not break with that view so much as subsume it
in a broader and more fecund vision of Frenchness. He did not for exam-
ple, give up seeing French painting as essentially committed to the values,
including the ethical values, of realism. Nor did he repudiate his previous
100 Chapter One
canon of French painters: on the contrary, his decision to make the first
painting to embody his new vision of Frenchness a large fete galante, and
moreover to base the one figure not accounted for by Marcantonio's en-
graving on a painting by Watteau, specifically established the Dejeuner's
continuity with his previous work and with the view of the history of
French painting on which that work rested. Finally, however, these paint-
ings jointly represent a turning point in Manet's career. In them, by a su-
preme feat of imagination, Manet discovered the reconcilability, even the
deep affinity, between both the Florentine and the Venetian art of the High
Renaissance and a conception of the natural genius of French painting
that had been formulated largely in opposition to that art and which
Manet himself, it seems, had previously held; and by so doing he achieved
access, once and for all, to something like the entire range of the great
painting of the past. This, fully as much as anything else, underlies one's
conviction that the Dejeuner and Olympia are the climax and culmina-
tion of an undertaking, a phase of Manet's development, to which he
could never return.
Not that these paintings mark the end of his involvement with the art of
the past-far from it. But from this point on, with the qualified exception
of several paintings of the late I 860s which I shall discuss shortly, Manet's
relations with past art can no longer be described in terms of standing in
need of access to it. Even in the Angels at the Tomb of Christ, in which
French and Italian sources are superimposed, the meaning of that super-
imposition is not, I think, that Gericault provided access to Italian art so
much as that the access to the latter which Manet had previously achieved
in the Dejeuner and Olympia, and the concomitant shift in his concep-
tion of Frenchness that had taken place at that time, now made Gericault
a natural source of inspiration and direct reference.
The Christ Mocked also makes use of a French source: the soldier
holding what seems to be a spread cloak behind Christ, and in effect ex-
hibiting Christ to the beholder, is based On the angel warming a piece of
the infant Mary's linen in the Nativity of the Virgin by Le Nain (at any
rate, the motif of the holding of the cloak is based on that of the warming
of the linen). (In the early I860s the Nativity [ca. 1640], nOw in Notre-
Dame in Paris, hung in the church of Saint-Etienne-du-Mont; presum-
ably Manet would have known Leopold Flameng's engraving after it that
appeared in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts in 186o [fig. 55].) 167 But again the
meaning of Manet's adaptation of Le Nain's motif seems to have been
not to provide access to the Van Dyck on which the Christ Mocked as
Manet's Sources 101
a whole largely depends, so much as to help secure the Frenchness of

Manet's painting in a way that was consistent with its overall dependence
on a Flemish prototype. Moreover, Manet's obviously deliberate use of a
French angel as the basis for one of Christ's tormentors suggests that blas-
phemy of some explicit sort was on his mind: perhaps he was expressing
in advance his defiance of the French public that presently was to subject
the Christ Mocked and Olympia, his submissions to the Salon of 1865, to
a sustained blast of derision and outcry without precedent or sequel in the
history of painting.
Manet's trip to Spain in the summer of 1865, in the aftermath of the
Salon of that year, marks a further climax in his career. After his return
Manet seems to have felt free at last to seek out the artists and works of art
that most attracted him, without having to justify or secure those choices
in his paintings themselves, and without having to fear that his paintings
Figure 55. Leopold Flameng,

engraving after Louis(?) Le Nain,
The Nativity of the Virgin.
Figure 56. Edouard Manet, Woman with a Parrot, 1866.
Manet's Sources 103
would lack the comprehensiveness or inclusiveness that evidently ob-

sessed him prior to 1865. As for the Frenchness of the paintings that re-
sulted, that was now at most a matter of subtle, unprogrammatic
synthesis-of delicate, unmediated fusion-as in the Woman with a Par-
rot (1866; fig. 56) and The Fifer (1866; fig. 57), in which the manifest
ambition to emulate Velasquez goes hand in hand with quiet, rather gen-
eral allusions to Watteau (and in the Fifer to Le Nain as well). Manet was
able to do this only because in his pictures prior to 1865 he had estab-
lished the Frenchness of his art broadly and incontrovertibly, and had se-
cured access to something like the full range of the great painting of the
past. In themselves, however, such paintings as the Woman with a Parrot
and the Fifer bear essentially the same relation to their French and foreign
sources that the Absinthe Drinker of 1859 does. It is not clear whether
Manet was in fact disappointed that it was to this, rather than to some
entirely new development, that his unprecedented efforts of the first half
of the 1 860s had led. He had, of course, no call to be dissatisfied with the
sheer quality or level of the paintings in question. But one can hardly sum-
marize the undertaking I have been describing in terms of the pursuit of
quality alone; and it remains questionable what in 1866 or 1867 Manet's
view of his achievement up to that time actually was. Proust tells us that in
the years following his trip to Spain, Manet suffered from long spells of
lassitude and apparent indecision during which he painted little if at all,
and he suggests that this was the result of the relentless, unfeeling hostility
of the public. 168 There can be no doubt that Manet was depressed by that
hostility, and perhaps he really was sometimes incapacitated by it. It is
also conceivable that his relative inactivity for at least a few years after his
trip to Spain in 1865 expressed a lack of the inner certainty that comes
from being engaged in a single protracted undertaking whose aims and
conventions are essentially lucid, at least to oneself, and in whose imper-
ativeness one believes absolutely. It is even conceivable that Manet never
enjoyed that sort of inner certainty again.
12
FIN ALL Y, I must consider briefly three paintings of around 1868 whose
relation to the art of the past seems a kind of reversion to that of the pic-
tures of the first half of the 1860s, and which thereby bring into relief
aspects of Manet's enterprise during those years.
10 4
Figure 57. Edouard Manet, The Fifer, I866.

Manet's Sources 10 5
Figure 58. Edouard Manet, The Luncheon (also called The Luncheon in the Studio), I868.
First, The Luncheon in Munich (also called The Luncheon in the Stu-
dio, r868; fig. 58) ought, I believe, to be seen partly as an attempt to in-
corporate the art of the great Dutch painter Jan Vermeer, whose revival
had recently been initiated-again, by Thort~-in the pages of the Ga-
zette des Beaux-Arts (figs. 59, 60, 6r, 62).1 69 At the same time, the still-
life elements on the table allude unmistakably to Chardin (d. La Raie
depouillee, fig. r 90). Moreover, the Luncheon bears certain more or
less obvious affinities to two important French paintings of the late eigh-
teenth century, David's Andromache Mourning Hector (1783; fig. 63)
and Pierre Guerin's The Return of Marcus Sextus (r799; fig. 64), and
it is possible-I do not say probable-that Manet intended to allude to
them as well. 170 At the very least, Manet combined Vermeer and Chardin
in the Luncheon and may even have used Chardin to give him access to
the work of the foreign master, much as he had done throughout the early
r860s.
106 Chapter One
Figure 59. Jules-Ferdinand Jacquemart, engraving after Figure 60. Noel-Eugene Sotain, engraving after Jan
Jan Vermeer, Le Soldat et la fillette qui rit. Vermeer, Geographe tenant dans la main droite
un compas.
Figure 61. Henry-Augustin Valentin, engraving after Figure 62. Noel-Eugene Sotain, engraving after
Jan Vermeer, Jeune Femme au clavecin. Jan Vermeer, Jeune Femme qui se pare.
Manet's Sources 1°7
The whole question of Manet's relation to Dutch painting is a rather

difficult one. In his Souvenirs, Proust refers several times to Manet's admi-
ration for Rembrandt and Frans Hals, and actually quotes his friend as
saying, apparently at some point in the I870S: "'When we were in Am-
Figure 63. Jacques-Louis David, Andromache Mourning Hector, 1783.

108 Chapter One
Figure 6+ Pierre Guerin, The Return of Marcus Sextus, I799.
sterdam, [Rembrandt's] painting The Syndics gripped us. Why? Because

it is the true impression of something seen.' "171 While in his article of
I90I Proust credits Hals with having inspired Manet's determination to
paint the Paris of his own time: "[T]he boldness of Frans Hals's forceful
manner made such an impression on him in Holland that, back in Paris,
armed with all those memories, he decided to take on frankly the diverse
aspects of Parisian life." 172 And in general Manet seems to have been
acutely aware of Rembrandt and probably Hals as well during the first
half of the I860s.
In spite of this, it seems that Manet did not refer explicitly to Dutch
sources in his ambitious pictures of those years. If he was thinking of Hals
when he painted the double portrait of his parents, he nevertheless based
that picture not on the Dutch master but on the Frenchman Le Nain.1t is
true that Germain Bazin long ago connected the Surprised Nymph of
I86I (fig. 73) with Rembrandt's Susannah in The Hague (fig. 75).1 73 But
Manet's Sources
almost immediately after Bazin's article appeared, Sterling showed (as

was mentioned earlier) that Manet's painting was based very closely on a
Vosterman engraving after a lost Rubens of the same subject (fig. 74);174
and while it is possible that Manet also had Rembrandt's painting in
mind, the fact remains, and must be accounted for, that it was to Rubens
and not Rembrandt that Manet turned for the actual prototype of his fig-
ure. Similarly, I suspect that the basic conception of The Street Singer
(I 862; pI. 7)-a figure emerging onto the street-derives from the Night-
watch, and that the bearded man with a cane at the extreme right of the
Old Musician may have been intended to allude to analogous figures in
paintings and etchings by Rembrandt. But the girl in the Street Singer
clearly was not based on any single figure in Rembrandt's painting;175
and we are not shown enough of the man with a cane in the Old Musician
to connect him with a specific painting by Rembrandt, or even to be confi-
dent that a general allusion to the latter was intended.
Manet's apparent reluctance or inability to refer explicitly to Dutch
sources in his paintings of the first half of the I 860s is all the more sur-
prising considering that Thon~, whose importance to Manet has been
stressed in these pages, was an ardent champion of Dutch painting-he
argued for the superiority of Rembrandt to the great ltalians 176-as well
as its leading French connoisseur. Perhaps, however, ThonS's vision of
Dutch painting, as at once intensely national and essentially realistic,l77
in effect made it unnecessary for Manet to refer to specific Dutch painters
and paintings in his own art. That is, Manet may have felt that that con-
gruence of his own enterprise with that of Dutch painting made the lat-
ter fully available to him, with the result that he was not compelled to
secure access to it in his paintings themselves. ThonS also pointed to var-
ious affinities between the work of French artists such as Le Nain, Wat-
teau, and Chardin and that of seventeenth-century Dutch painters; and in
view of Chardin's manifest importance to the Luncheon it is likely that
Manet's Chardin-based Boy Blowing Bubbles (I867) was partly an at-
tempt to approach, or reapproach, Dutch painting by way of that mas-
ter. 178 At any rate, it belongs to a cluster of works-including the Portrait
of Theodore Duret, the Portrait of Emile Zola, Mme Manet at the Piano,
and the Luncheon itself (all I868)-which in different ways appear to
evince concern with Dutch painting. But only in the Luncheon does
Manet seem to have tried to secure access to the work of a specific Dutch
master by means that recall those he employed in the great paintings of
the first half of the I 860s.
110 Chapter One
Figure 65. Edouard Manet, Portrait of Emile Zola, 1868.

Manet's Sources III
In a second painting of roughly this time, The Balcony (1868-69;

pl. 8), Manet seems to have made a point of acknowledging his involve-
ment with Dutch painting. Specifically, the well-dressed man holding a
cigarette as he emerges from a dark interior onto the balcony-Manet's
friend Antoine Guillemet-seems to me to bear a general relation to
Dutch prototypes, the principal figure in the Nightwatch, for example. 179
His "Dutchness" would be less striking if it were not apparent that the
two female figures, Berthe Morisot and Fanny Claus, were meant to seem
"Spanish" and "Japanese" respectively. (The painting as a whole is based
on Goya's Majas on the Balcony in the Prado.) In short, Manet seems to
have meant the Balcony to be seen as an acknowledgment of his simul-
taneous involvement with Spanish, Dutch, and Japanese art. He does not
seem to have tried to find parallel French sources either for the individual
figures or for the painting as a whole; and instead of basing the figures
closely on specific works by foreign masters, as in his paintings before
1865, he seems for the most part to have tried to couple accurate por-
trayals of his sitters with rather general projections of different national
types.
The figure of Fanny Claus is not the only Japanese element that occurs
in Manet's work at this time. Shortly before, in his Portrait of Emile Zola
(fig. 65), Manet depicted on the wall above Zola's desk a print of Velas-
quez's Drinkers, a colored woodcut by Utamaro [actually by Kuniaki
II], and an etching or photograph of Olympia, thereby stating the impor-
tance of Spanish and Japanese art for his own work. Sandblad has dis-
cussed at length the question of Manet's use of Japanese prints in his
paintings of the first half of the r860s, and while I am not in agreement
with his formulations, I do not want to take issue with them here.1 80
Rather, I want simply to remark that while Manet undoubtedly was en-
couraged and even influenced in specific respects by Japanese prints dur-
ing those years, he did not make this fact explicit in the paintings
themselves. It would be surprising if this were not the case. In the first
place no connection was made in the art writing of the time between
French painting and Japanese art of the past, for the very good reason that
no such connection existed. Furthermore, in the early r860s knowledge
of the existence of Japanese prints was limited to a relatively small group
of artists, critics, and connoisseurs; and Manet always aimed to be com-
prehensible at least in principle, if not to the public at large, at any rate to
a wider circle. Neither of these considerations kept Manet from exploit-
ing Japanese prints stylistically in his pictures. But they absolutely pre-
112 Chapter One
vented him from establishing the sort of relation to those prints that I have
described as one of securing access to the art of a foreign school; and they
even seem to have ruled out the kind of acknowledgment of the impor-
tance of Japanese art to his work that he later made in the Portrait of Em-
ile Zola and the Balcony.
It is, I think, possible to explain Manet's new willingness to make that
acknowledgment. The chief artistic event of 1867 was the Exposition
Universelle, an international exhibition of works of art and industrial
products of all kinds that included a large Japanese section. Chesneau,
writing in 1878, claimed that it was that exhibition which made Japanese
art fashionable in Paris: "In 1867 the Exposition Universelle finally put
Japan in fashion."181 And in his article of 1868, "L'Art japonais," he
characterized the natural genius of the Japanese in terms whose relevance
to Manet, though partial, is nevertheless striking:
[Olne can say that Japanese artists combine a deep respect for reality with an
admirable esthetic intelligence. They have the gift of making reality comply
with the most amazing flights of the imagination. Yet they never betray or dena-
ture this reality, which remains their infallible principle and starting point for
all their combinations of forms. Nature always provides them with the basic
elements. Only they use it freely as regards character.1 82
As a result of the Exposition Universelle, Japanese art ceased being the
admiration of a small professional class and became known to the general
public. Moreover, it was seen and admired in terms that Manet may have
felt were not wholly inappropriate to his own work.
Concurrently, his retrospective exhibition of 1867, in which fifty paint-
ings were shown, must have given Manet a more comprehensive view of
his own development than ever before. And this too may have been a fac-
tor in his decision to call attention to the role that Dutch painting and
Japanese prints had played in his work, and in general to take up again the
explicit concern with nationality that I have tried to show was one of the
central themes of his art during the first half of the I860s.
ONE IMP 0 R TAN T ramification of this account of Manet's mind during

the first half of the 18 60S concerns his relationship to his teacher, Thomas
Couture. In the book Methode et entretiens d' atelier which he published
in 1867, Couture insisted on the need for French painting to be truly na-
Manet's Sources 113
tional and even suggested, like Castagnary, that this had never been fully
accomplished:
Shall I live long enough to see the rebirth of true French art? .. I see it come.
Ah, how lucky you are to be young!
Everything points to the advent of that art which I dreamed about so much:
the indifference of the public for the art that is already here is a good omen-
why should the public, which is so alive, concern itself with this painting that
issues from tombs?
Only a few painters remain, clients of a dying world, who still cater to the
weak appetites of the bourgeois. Our national art has yet to be born, or at any
rate it must be taken up again, for since Gros and Gericault it has lapsed. In-
deed, for all my admiration of the art of the Revolution, even those artists were
not completely French, they seem to have treated modern subjects only reluc-
tantly, their manner was not frank enough, they showed too much labor and
too many flowers of rhetoric, in short the new art was still at its beginning
stage.
Take up again this beautiful, interrupted painting, be even more native, more
frankly French in your form, and your art will match in grandeur and majesty
the most splendid works of the Venetians. You will become not the imitators
but the equals of the Greeks.
Look around you and produce. Is3
Unlike Castagnary, Couture did not believe that the national art he called
for could be achieved by the literal representation of reality alone: "In
France, simple imitative painting is far from satisfying us; it's necessary
for art to elevate itself; and this is done by augmenting itself with thought,
with poetry, with philosophy, or with Christian feeling; the more quali-
ties the artists adds to those of the painter, the greater he is." 184 One can-
not imagine Manet saying this. For him, Frenchness was not something
added to the pictorial qualities of his work but was part of its essence.
Nevertheless, for Manet as well as for Couture authentic Frenchness was
not achieved simply by depicting contemporary French society. Similarly,
there is a world of difference between Manet's evident ambition to com-
prehend the whole of French painting and Couture's claim that in order
for French painting to remain the best in the world, "it's necessary that
our most gifted painters, sculptors, and architects cease satisfying par-
ticular tastes [i.e. of those who collect or commission their work]; they
must address themselves to the nation." 185 But there is also an important
sense in which Couture's claim and Manet's ambition express the same
unwillingness to rest content with a partial or limited relation to France.
In the political context of the I860s Couture's nationalism, with its
simple faith in the infallibility of the masses who supported Napoleon III,
Chapter One
Figure 66. Thomas Couture, Romans of the Decadence, I847.
was conservative in its implications. But the rhetoric in which it was ex-
pressed was nominally democratic, even populist; and it is not surprising
to learn that Couture ardently supported the Revolution of I848-
Chennevieres describes the painter crying, "To the Hotel de Ville!" and
rushing to embrace Lamartine l86 -and that he played a role of some im-
portance in the attempts to reform the administration of the arts in France
that took place in its wake.1 87 He had previously painted the portrait of
the greatest Romantic historian and political theorist, Jules Michelet, and
in the Methode et entretiens he described at length the sessions during
which, around I 850, he portrayed the poet Charles Beranger whom he
held in awe and to whom he had been introduced by George Sand. 188
Those three-Michelet, Beranger, George Sand-were among the older
figures most admired by the young political left in the years before
I 848,189 and Couture's connection with them is evidence of his political
sympathies at the time. 190
His stunning success at the Salon of I 847, the large and very ambitious
Romans of the Decadence (I847; fig. 66), by contrasting the virtues of a
republican past with the vices of a degenerate and impious present, sym-
bolically arraigned the France of Louis-Philippe and all but called for the
revolution which, within a year, ended the July Monarchy.191 Couture,
however, did not rely simply on the symbolic overtones of his ostensibly
Manet's Sources 115
antique subject matter to carry the politically charged meaning which

he wanted at once to affirm and to disguise. Beyond that, he based his
picture on an earlier painting, or projected painting, whose national and
revolutionary content could not have been more explicit: David's never-
completed Tennis Court Oath (I79I; fig. 67). [I have reproduced the
highly finished drawing of David's composition that belongs to the
Louvre.] The statue, perhaps of Germanicus, 192 which stands facing us in
the center of Couture's painting is therefore a reference both to republican
Rome and to Revolutionary France, that is, to the figure of Jean-Sylvain
Bailly who stands in an analogous pose and position, administering the
oath, in David's magnificent studies for the enormous painting he was
never able to complete. Couture's lasciviously embracing couples at once
symbolize a falling off from the severe morality of earlier Romans and
parody the chaste, fraternal embraces of David's heroes. The entire paint-
ing must be understood almost feature by feature in this double light. It is
as though Couture's ambition in the Romans of the Decadence was to
complete David's unfinished masterpiece by taking for his subject matter
precisely the radical contrast, as he saw it, between the Revolutionary
Figure 67. Jacques-Louis David, The Tennis Court Oath, drawing, I79I.
rr6 Chapter One
Figure 68. Thomas Couture, The Voluntary Enlistments of I792, begun 1847.
France of I790 and Orleanist France of the years just prior to I848, and
cloaking that ambition itself in classical dress. Couture not only called for
a return to the political ideals of the French Revolution; he also explic-
itly attempted to resume the heroic pictorial tradition of David, Gros,
and Gericault which he believed the generations that followed them had
abandoned. (Couture's painting is usually seen by historians as a para-
digm, perhaps the paradigm, of mid-nineteenth-century eclecticism. But
to see it merely in those terms is to overlook the historical truth of Cou-
ture's intentions, which were above all to make a truly national work
of art.)
Couture's political sympathies and political aspirations made him a
natural choice for the Second Republic's commission of a large painting
on a national and revolutionary theme, The Voluntary Enlistments of
I792 (begun I847; fig. 68). And once again he seems to have turned to
David-above all to The Triumph of the French People (I793-94; fig.
69 )-for the basic conception of his picture.1 93 Couture's heart and soul
were in the project; and when in I 852 the government of Louis Napoleon
revoked the commission because of its libertarian content his disappoint-
ment was bitter. 194 According to Proust it even made his dealings with the
young Manet, who at eighteen had joined his atelier in I 8 50, more diffi-
cult than might otherwise have been the case. 195 In the course of the next
several years Couture appears to have made his peace with the Second
Empire, and in I 856 he accepted a government commission for a painting
Manet's Sources 117
of the Baptism of the Imperial Prince. In the Methode et entretiens both

commissions are discussed without reference to the political circum-
stances in which each was offered, simply as two examples of pictures on
national themes. In fact, having remarked of the men of the French Revo-
lution depicted in the Voluntary Enlistments that they aspired to abolish
privilege, replace abuse with right, and give the whole world the liberty
that had become their religion, Couture added: "We ourselves, painters,
must not enter into political considerations and discuss the feelings that
we want to represent; once we have chosen them, all our efforts must be
directed at exalting them in their beauty."l96Jt is impossible to know for
certain whether Couture believed these words or whether they were
mostly prudential-perhaps he was still hoping to be allowed to finish
the Voluntary Enlistments. 197 But there can be no doubt as to his frame of
mind around I 8 50, when Manet placed himself under his tutelage.
The differences between the two men must not be slighted. The natural
genius of French painting and its relations with the art of other schools
simply were not issues for Couture, who throughout his career more or
less equated French painting with the heroic national art of David, Gros,
and Gericault. At any rate, he clearly regarded those men as constituting
the tradition which he aspired to continue and extend, whenever political
circumstances made such aspirations tenable. That tradition was not, it
seems, simply or directly available to Manet, because of the political situ-
ation in the late I 8 50S and early I 860s and also of what one is inclined to
think of as more purely pictorial considerations. Instead Manet found
Figure 69. Jacques-Louis David, The Triumph of the French People, drawing, 1793-94.
lI8 Chapter One
himself compelled to take explicit account of contemporary discussions

of the historical identity of French painting, in an attempt to establish the
Frenchness of his own art as firmly and as objectively as he was able. Al-
most certainly, however, Manet's initial concern with the concept of
Frenchness, as well as aspects of his use of the French painting of the past
as a medium of that concern, had important roots in Couture's teaching
and artistic practice. It may even be significant that by I 864-assuming I
am right-Manet came to establish explicit connections between his own
work and that of Gericault, whom Couture especially admired, though
once again the differences between their respective relations to Gericault,
and between the ways in which those relations were expressed, must not
be minimized.
Couture's preoccupation with Frenchness was characteristic of the in-
tensely nationalistic ideology of the political left in the years just before
1848, in particular as that ideology was shaped by the teachings of the
great Michelet. Indeed, Michelet seems to have been the most important
influence, perhaps along with Gros, on Couture's thought throughout his
life. The close connection between the politics of the Romans of the Deca-
dence and Michelet's writings of the I 840S is a case in point. And when it
is recalled that Couture painted Michelet's portrait in 1843, the year the
latter delivered his controversial lectures against the Jesuits, and shortly
before Couture himself began work on the Romans of the Decadence, the
possibility all but suggests itself that Michelet may actually have helped
formulate that painting's program.1 98 Also, Couture may have regarded
the Voluntary Enlistments as a direct answer to the call, which Michelet
made in a series of ten lessons published between December 1847 and
February 1848, for an art that by taking for its subject matter the true
"legend" of the Revolution would help reunify the nation. 199 In any
event, Couture's description of that painting in the Methode et entretiens
of 18 67-the same description whose political implications he was care-
ful to disavow-amounts to a virtual paraphrase of passages in those les-
sons. And in general, Michelet's themes pervade Couture's writings of the
I860s and I870S. The call for the rebirth of a truly national art; the con-
ception of such an art as a means of public education; the identification of
French painting with the art of the French Revolution and after; the insis-
tence that French artists address the French people in its entirety; the glo-
rification of Gericault-all these are found in Michelet's revolutionary
polemics. They are also themes in Couture's writings of twenty and thirty
Manet's Sources 119
years later, where the shift in context voids or traduces their political con-
tent.
Clearly, Manet's concern with Frenchness did not bear this sort of rela-
tion to Michelet. He did not in any obvious sense take up the subject mat-
ter Michelet had advocated; he does not seem to have conceived of art as a
means of educating Frenchmen to their rights and duties as men and citi-
zens; his canon of French painters was not a function of the French Revo-
lution; and so on. But there is another, less precise but perhaps equally
important sense in which what Manet did in order to establish the
Frenchness of his own work strikingly paralleled what Michelet had ar-
gued needed to be done if the deep and otherwise surely fatal divisions in
contemporary French society were to be overcome and the unity of France
at last restored. In "Le Lendemain de la Revolution" of April I, 18 4 8 ,
Michelet wrote of his enterprise in Le Peuple of two years before:
The word "fraternity" only very feebly expresses the feeling that dominates this
book; union, unity, would be better, the unity of a world in a soul.
This unity in action is the divine quality of the great days of the Revolu-
tion, as I have described them, those of the taking of the Bastille and of our
Federations, and of the Departure of 1792, and of so many othe~ sublime mo-
ments. This is what had to be brought to light in order to show the true basis,
the substance of the revolution. 2oo
For Michelet it was only with the French Revolution that France achieved
not just the unity but also the identity it had been striving toward for cen-
turies. "One mustn't say the Revolution, one must say the Foundation,"
he wrote in his lecture of January 27, 1848;201 while in the same vein he
had written two years before, "Bear in mind that before Europe, France
will have only one name, inexpungeable, which is its true eternal name:
the Revolution!"202 By studying the Revolution, by writing its history
and thereby resurrecting it,203 Michelet hoped to "found the Republic in
people's minds."
, The political faith that ought to determine France's acts and words, its poli-
t~cs a?d teachings, must not remain in the state of a feeling or vague specula-
tIOn; It must be based on history and experience.
France is up again, wide awake; what is the country going to teach to its
children, to its heroic people, and to the world gathering around it? ... Rheto-
ric? Arithmetic? The workings of government, abstract politics of the Sieyes
sO,rt? ... No, it must first of all establish and promulgate the principles which
wIll constitute our civic morality, the dogma of the Republic, the Credo of the
homeland. It must teach two things which are in fact only one, and which are
120 Chapter One
the heart of France: the faith of the Revolution, and the same faith in practice,
the history of the Revolution. 204
The Revolution itself had not taught the one thing that could have saved
it: the Revolution.
In order to do this, France should not have disowned the past but instead
ought to have claimed it, to have taken hold of its past and made it its own, as it
was doing with the present; it should have shown that along with the authority
of reason it possessed the authority of history and of our entire historical na-
tionality, that the Revolution was the belated, but just and necessary, manifesta-
tion of the genius of the people, that the Revolution was nothing other than
France itself having at last discovered its rights.
It did nothing of the sort, and abstract reason alone did not support it in the
presence of the terrible realities that confronted it. It lost its self-confidence, ab-
dicated, and effaced itself. 20s
What was at stake, finally, essentially, was faith, La foi. "The first question
of education is this: 'Do you have faith? Do you give faith?' "206
Faith is the common basis of inspiration and action. No great work with-
out it ....
But a serious objection arises here. "How can I give faith when I have so
little myself? Faith in country, like religious faith, has weakened in me."
If faith and reason were opposed to each other, and there were no rational
way of gaining faith, one would have to remain there, sigh, and wait like the
mystics. But faith worthy of man is a loving belief in what reason proves. Its ob-
ject is not some sort of accidental wonder, but the permanent miracle of nature
and history.
In order to regain faith in France, to have hope in its future, one must probe
into its past, enter deeply into its natural genius. Do this seriously and with all
your heart, and you shall see certain consequences following infallibly from the
premises of that study. From the past you will be able to infer the future of
France and its mission; they will be perfectly clear to you, you will believe and
you will want to believe; faith is nothing but that. 207
I have tried to show that in his paintings of the first half of the 1860s
Manet deliberately set out, not to break with or to deny the French paint-
ing of the past, but to reclaim that painting for the present (and implicitly
for the future as well). At every stage in this development the authority to
which Manet appealed was that of reason, of history, of the Frenchness of
French painting as revealed in history. Moreover, I have suggested that his
campaign to take possession of the French painting of the past, to make it
wholly present in his own art, must be seen as the expression of deep and
Manet's Sources 121
more than merely personal need. It was, one might say, in order to secure
the Frenchness on which his own conviction as a (French) painter de-
pended that Manet found it necessary to concern himself both with what
seemed to him the authentically French painting of the past and with the
natural genius of that painting, which he appears to have identified with
realism or anyway with truthfulness.
.The relation of formulations like these to Michelet's writings of the
mId- and late 1840S may seem fortuitous: after all, Manet was con-
~erned with making paintings, while Michelet had been discussing noth-
mg less than the French Revolution and the destiny of France. But
Michelet himself wrote in Le PeupLe:
No art object, no luxury industry, no form of high culture remains without in-
fluence on the ~asses, d~wn to the lowest and the poorest. In the great national
body ~ho~ght Circulates Imperceptibly, rises to the highest, descends to the low-
est pOInt, Ideas en~er through the eyes (fashions, shops, museums, etc.), others
through conversatIOn, through language, which is the great storehouse of com-
mon progres~. Everyone receives everyone else's thought, without analyzing it
perhaps, but In the end everyone takes it in.208
And in his lesson of January 15, 1848, "Dangers de la dispersion d'es-

prit,"~09 Michelet discussed the life and work of a great painter, Geri-
cault, I~ terms tha.t prove beyond a doubt that he regarded painting as an
enterpnse of the hIghest importance, and moreover as one that could em-
bo.dy the relation to France that he passionately advocated. Roughly,
MIChelet saw Gericault not only as the first painter of his epoch but as
the one Frenchman who remained true to France during the years after
Waterloo:
One knows the strange reaction of 18 I 6, and how France seemed to become
untrue to itself then. But as it did so, Gericault adopted it. He protested for it
by thewholly Fre~ch o.riginality of his genius, and by choosing national type~
ex~l~slvely. POUSSIn paInted Italians, David painted Romans and Greeks, but
Gencault, amid the b~stard mixtu.res of the Restoration, kept national thought
stron.g and pure. He did not submit to the invasion and yielded nothing to the
reactlOn. 21O
Seen in this light, the Raft of the Medusa became a powerful realist sym-
bol of France itself:
In 1822 [actually 1818-19] Gericault paints his raft, the shipwreck of

France. Al~ne, he ~ails into the future ... without taking notice or making use
of the reactIOn. ThiS IS heroic.
I22 Chapter One
It is France itself, it is our whole society that he cast onto the raft of the Me-
dusa ... Image so cruelly true that the original refused to recognize itself.
People recoiled before this terrifying painting; they passed it by quickly; they
tried not to see or understand. 211
For Michelet, Gericault was "the national artist of an epoch, he who,

alone, was then the true tradition; I've said it and I repeat it: At that mo-
ment, Gericault was France. "212 Not only was the artist himself unaware
of this; according to Michelet, the corruption of French society in the
early r820S sickened and depressed Gericault; the apparent death of the
country he loved made him despair and finally invite his own death:
This is the one grave reproach that he deserves. He lacked faith in the eter-
nity of France. . .
How could he fail to believe in his homeland? He had Just created lts power-
ful and immortal symbols, its first popular art. France was in him.
He was unaware of this; he no longer wanted to live. 213
In this, too, Gericault's example was a lesson for young Frenchmen: "Let
the life and death of this great man be an example to us; let us not give
way, as he did, to discouragement."214
I am not here concerned with the historical accuracy of Michelet's view
of Gericault. Instead I call attention to the following points. First, Miche-
let held that painting could be a political act, even when the subject mat-
ter of the work in question was not overtly political. Second, the vital
political concepts for Michelet were Frenchness, the national genius of
France, and faith in France-to be acquired through the study of history.
And third , Michelet seems to have believed that through his art a painter
could place himself, either deliberately or unknowingly, in a relation to
France-and, by implication, to the French Revolution, to the entire his-
tory of France-that no one else in the France of his time exactly matched.
I am not, of course, suggesting that in r862 or r863 or r864 Manet was
France. But I am suggesting that the parallel that has emerged between
Michelet's political tracts of r 846-48 and Manet's enterprise during the
first half of the r 860s is not necessarily empty, or merely formal, or un-
faithful to the spirit of Michelet. Finally, Michelet's lecture on Gericault
was republished in r862 and again in r864 by Chesneau as an appendix
to his book Les Chefs d'ecole. 215 This raises the further possibility that
Manet's decision, as I see it, to engage with Gericault in the Angels at the
Tomb of Christ, and perhaps in other paintings of r864, may have been
partly motivated by the desire to associate or even to identify himself with
Manet's Sources I23
the French artist whom no less an authority on Frenchness than Michelet

had described in terms that Manet would have been gratified to find ad-
dressed to himself.
TH ESE CON D and last ramification of this account of Manet's paintings

of the first half of the r 860s concerns the relation of his enterprise during
those years to certain more general aspects of Thore's thought. In the
short preface which Thore wrote (as W. Burger) for the republication in
r868 of his Salons of r844-48, he contrasted his "ultrapatriotic" atti-
tudes of the r 8 30S and r 840S with the more just and cosmopolitan recog-
nitions that he had arrived at in exile. 216 For one thing, Thore had come
to feel that the great artists of other nations were the equals, and in some
instances the superiors, of their French counterparts. More important, he
seems to have become convinced that modern society as a whole was in
the process of becoming cosmopolitan, of transcending national preju-
dices in a new awareness of the common brotherhood of mankind. This
conviction, which made itself felt in everything Thore wrote between the
mid-r 850S and his death in r 869, received perhaps its most systematic
exposition in two important essays of r 855 and r 8 57 respectively, "Des
Tendances de l'art au XIXe siecle"217 and "Nouvelles Tendances de
l'art" :218
[TJhere is now in France and everywhere a strange uneasiness, an irresistible as-
piration toward a life altogether different from that of the past. All the condi-
tions of the former society have been overthrown: in science and in the religions
which are the resume of science; in politics and in political economy, which is
the application of politics; in agriculture, industry, and commerce, which are
the elements of political economy. Incomparable discoveries have given every
idea and fact an unforeseen and unlimited extension. It is as if an invisible tele-
graph puts into circulation almost instantly and everywhere the impressions of
entire peoples, the thoughts of men, and events and novelties of all kinds. The
slightest quiver, moral or physical, felt anywhere on the globe, propagates itself
from point to point and is transmitted around the world. Humanity is in the
process of constituting itself, and soon it shall attain self-awareness down to its
furthest extremities.
The chief characteristic of modern society-of the society of the future-
will be universality.
Whereas previously-yesterday-each people shut itself up in narrow terri-
torial boundaries, in its particular traditions, its superstitious cult, its selfish
I24 Chapter One
laws, its obscure prejudices, its customs and its language, today e~ch. tends ~o
expand beyond its narrow limits, to open up its frontiers: genera~lze Its tradI-
tions and mythology, humanize its laws, enlighten its opmions, hb~rahze Its
customs, mingle its interests with those of other nations, and permIt everyone
to share its energy, language, and genius. 219
Thon~ believed that that development was already at least imminent in

poetry, literature, painting. In particular he regarded international exhi-
bitions, such as the Exposition Universelle of I 8 5 5 and the Manchester
exhibition of I 8 57, at once as expressions of the general impulse toward
universality and as major factors in the promulgation of that impulse
within the arts:
When the arts of all countries, with all their indigenous qualities, shall be
brought into relation with each other often, when mutual exchange shall have
become habitual the character of art everywhere will gain an incalculable ex-
tension, without'the genius proper to every nation being altered by it. Fi~st, a .
sort of European school will take shape, instead of the national se~ts whIch sull
divide the great family of art according to the topography of fronu~rs; then, a
universal school, at home in the world, to which nothing human wlll be
alien. 220
The general implications of this development for criticism and esthetics
were plain:
In our opinion, nineteenth-century esthetics and criticism ~ust .be indepen-
dent of any school, any system, any nationality, any local or histoncal preJu-
dice. They must not belong to any single country or period, if they are to
promote the sympathetic and providential convergence of the creative powers
proper to the different peoples.
... It is said that art is the expression of society: this is undoubtedly
true since one means by society the binding together of human manifesta-
tion~ .... This is why the progress of contemporary art consists in rendering
in a harmonious form the irresistible impulse that draws the world toward
unity.221
Specifically, Thon~ believed that the art of the future would consist in a
new naturalism based on the recognition of the common humanity of all
men-it would be an art for man, like the Dutch painting of the seven-
teenth century, only extended now beyond the limits of any single nation
to embrace the whole world.
It is not entirely clear whether or not Thort~ believed that nationality as
such would eventually come to an end; perhaps he did. But he does not
seem to have felt that the respective demands of nationality and of univer-
sality were essentially or necessarily opposed to one another.222 The de-
Manet's Sources I25
velopment of modern society toward universality would, he believed,

naturally erode national prejudices, hostilities, caprices, arrogances,
blindnesses; at the same time, the fuller expression of the natural genius
of individual peoples was seen as promoting the recognition of the com-
mon brotherhood not just of nations but of mankind. His recurrent figure
of speech for the relation of individual nations to the universal society of
the future was that of natural accord, natural harmony, natural conver-
gence toward a common end. This is implicit in the passages quoted
above, as well as in the following remarks from his preface to Les Tnfsors
d'art en Angleterre, a book-length study by national schools of the paint-
ings in the Manchester exhibition of I8 57:
A general history of art seems to be one of the tendencies and necessities of
modern civilization. National monographs are no longer sufficient. Generaliza-
tion and universality characterize the present in art, literature, and science, as
well as in political economy and industry. The moral frontiers between peoples
have been removed. These peoples from now on will feel united not only by the
concord of their interests but also by the solidarity of their imagination and in-
telligence.
How is one to bring about this universal history of art, if not by collecting
dates, particulars of all sorts, which help us to understand the different epochs,
different countries, different national geniuses, and especially to grasp the anal-
ogies and harmonies that bind them in a great unity?223
It is not clear from this-it must have been unclear to Thon~-exactly
what a general or universal history of art would finally consist in, that is,
what the terms were in which such a history would finally be written. (It
seems unlikely, for example, that Thort~ would have regarded a stylistic or
formal account of the development of the visual arts as universal in his
sense.) But what is clear, I think, is that the category of nationality was
fundamental to Thort~'s conception of the historical enterprise which he
himself was actively pursuing.
And in fact it has already emerged that considerations of nationality
were basic to Thort~'s descriptions both of the French painting of the past
and of the relations which that painting bore to the work of foreign art-
ists. But only in the context of his belief in the tendency of modern society
toward universality-indeed, only in the context of his lifelong commit-
ment to democracy, socialism, and progressive politics generally, which
led him to welcome that tendency with all his heart-does the meaning of
Thon~'s concern with Frenchness become fully evident. Far from being
the expression of a narrow or restrictive nationalism, that concern was
inspired by the belief that the pursuit of universality was inherent in the
I26 Chapter One
national genius of French painting itself. Even Thore's insistence on dis-

tinguishing between the relatively few painters whom he considered au-
thentically French and the mass of painters whom he did not is to be seen
in this light: the authentic Frenchness of the former consisted chiefly in
their willingness to depict the men and customs of the France of their eras;
by so doing they contributed to the eventual, though in Thon':'s view still
incomplete, achievement of a universal art for man.
It has also emerged that Manet's involvement with the art of the past
must be understood in terms of a conscious program to establish a partic-
ular kind of relation, which I have described as one of access, to the paint-
ing of the major foreign schools; and that Thon?s writings played a far
more important role in that program than those of any other critic or his-
torian. I think of this aspect of Manet's art as a deliberate attempt to es-
tablish the universality of his own painting. This is not to imply that
Manet thought of his use of past art in connection with Thof(~'s concept
of universality, or that Thon~ himself, if he had grasped the meaning of
Manet's relations with the art of the Old Masters, would have regarded
Manet's paintings as universal in his sense of the term. It is, however, to
assert that Manet's evident determination to secure access to the major
schools of painting must be seen, not simply as motivated by his intense
interest in each school in its own right, but also-fundamentally-as di-
rected toward the accomplishment of access to the art of painting in its
entirety, so to speak. Both Thon': and Manet were simultaneously con-
cerned with the natural genius of individual nations on the one hand and,
on the other, with the transcendence of nationality in a comprehensive
and essentially natural unity. Moreover, just as Thon~'s concern with
Frenchness in his later writings was an expression of his belief in the pro-
gress of modern society toward universality-a belief grounded in the
politics of a lifetime-so Manet's explicit involvement with the French-
ness of French painting was an expression of his complete dedication to
the art of painting altogether. 224 It is as though Manet achieved in just a
few years and within his paintings alone what Thon~ expected would
come about only gradually and in painting at large: "First, a sort of Eu-
ropean school will take shape ... ; then, a universal school ... " (It may
be argued that the latter step did not occur definitively until the Exposi-
tion Universelle of r867 enabled Manet to acknowledge the importance
of Japanese art to his paintings of the first half of the r 860s.)
Thon~'s remarks about the need for a universal history of art also
seem specially relevant to Manet. We have seen that it was finally "to un-
derstand the different epochs, different countries, different national ge-

niuses, and especially to grasp the analogies and harmonies that bind
them in a great unity" that Thon': collected facts, dates, particulars of all
kinds, and made himself one of the leading connoisseurs of his time. And
as I have tried to show, Manet put Thon':'s findings to his own uses-uses
which, in important respects, were consistent in spirit with Thon~'s aspi-
rations. The solidarity of the pictorial thought and imagination of differ-
ent peoples, the analogies and harmonies that bind different national
schools into the single unity of painting-where are they to be found if
not in the Old Musician, Mile V. .. in the Costume of an Espada, De-
jeuner sur fherbe, Olympia, Dead Torero, Angels at the Tomb of Christ,
Christ Mocked, Portrait of Emile Zola, Luncheon, and Balcony, to name
only ten of Manet's paintings of the r860s? I am not suggesting that
Manet's paintings are the universal history of art that Thon~ called for
(though Thon':'s apparent uncertainty as to the nature, organizing princi-
ples, and basic categories of such a project perhaps suggests that the pos-
sibility ought not to be rejected out of hand). At the very least, however,
paintings such as those just named constitute a kind of fruition both of
Thore's historical labors and of the aspirations toward a universal history
of art in which those labors were grounded. .
Thon': says just a bit more about those aspirations in a remarkable pas-
sage in his first article of r 8 60 on the boulevard des Italiens exhibition of
French paintings from private collections:
In order to arrive at being able to write a history of European art since the Re-
naissance, a project that seems to torment our epoch, it is necessary to distrib-
ute justice among the various schools of painting, to establish their distinctive
and essential qualities, to reconsider each country's claims and give each its due
role in the general development of art. Instinctively, one feels today that each
nation is preparing itself for a kind of Last Judgment, after which, the past hav-
ing been liquidated, we will enter a new world. 225
Until now I have been emphasizing the sense in which Manet's enterprise
during the first half of the r 860s may be seen as an attempt to reclaim the
past, to repossess it, and thereby to establish its presence in his art in a
new way-explicitly, specifically, comprehensively. But there is also a
sense in which that enterprise may be seen as having the same purpose as
Thore's historical Last Judgment: to liquidate the past and so enter a new
world. It is as though by r 8 60 the past of painting was no longer present
as until then it had been, in continuity and return and revolution. Nor,
Chapter One
however, was it simply or wholly absent. Whatever conventions of paint-

ing had changed, however the essence of painting may have changed dur-
ing the centuries-since Giotto, or the High Renaissance, or the age of
Velasquez, Rubens, and the great Dutchmen-the success or failure as art
of a new work ultimately depended (as it ultimately depends) on the abil-
ity of that work to stand comparison with the art of the Old Masters.
And that meant that the very enterprise of painting-the very possibility
of that enterprise-was essentially a function of what they had done.
(Hence the futility-and, as it turned out, the sterility-of Castagnary's
repeated calls to break with the art of the past; hence also the simple false-
ness of his claim that paintings are not made with paintings.) One might
say that by 1860 the past was present chiefly in absentia, as commodity or
reproach or nightmare; and that Manet, partly by establishing its pres-
ence explicitly in his own work in ways which I have tried to describe,
resolved that situation once and for all. It is perhaps misleading to say
that Manet made the past directly available again to the painters who
came after him: for one thing, because that may seem to imply that in the
end nothing changed, that there is nothing new or different about the
modern painter's relation to the past of his art. At the very least, how-
ever, Manet made the past something that once again did not need to be
dealt with but could be ignored, taken for granted, even forgotten. It is
also true that probably the most single important characteristic of ambi-
tious painting since Manet has been the closeness and particular urgency
of its involvement with the ambitious art of the immediate past-its com-
mitment to what might be thought of as the historical present. But no
painter since Manet has been faced with the need to secure the connected-
ness of his art to that of the distant past, to the enterprise of the Old Mas-
ters. With Manet's paintings of the first half of the 1 860s, that simply and
without notice disappeared as a problem for painting.
In those paintings Frenchness was the medium through which French-
ness was transcended and access to painting in its entirety-to what I
have called the art of painting altogether-was finally achieved. That it
was Frenchness which Manet used to this end was, naturally, a function
of Manet's own Frenchness-of the historical accident of his birth. But
that accident concerned both his being French and what it meant to be
French, what Frenchness itself was. Above all I am referring to the concep-
tion of France and of the relations between France and the rest of the
world that one finds in the teachings of the man I have already discussed
in connection with Manet's involvement with Frenchness-and who was
also a decisive influence on the thought of the young Thore-Jules Mi-

chelet.
To begin with, the general relation of the individual nations to the uni-
versal whole they constitute-a question one finds active both in Thore's
later writings and, I have argued, in Manet's paintings of the first half of
the 1860s-has perhaps its deepest source in Michelet's writings of the
1830S and 1840S. For example, in the chapter of Le Peuple entitled "La
Patrie: Les Nationalites vont-elles disparaitre?" Michelet wrote:
God's most powerful means of creating and increasing originality is to keep
the world divided harmonically into the great and beautiful systems which we
call nations, each of which, opening to man a diverse field of action, is a living
education. The more man progresses, the more deeply he enters into the genius
of his homeland, the greater his contribution to the harmony of the world; he
comes to know his homeland, both in its distinctive and its relative value, as a
note in the great concert; through the one he participates in the other; in his
homeland, he loves the world. The homeland is the necessary initiation into the
universal homeland. 226
But while Michelet venerated nationality as such, and conceived of the

brotherhood of mankind in terms of a concert of highly individualized
nations, he reserved a position of unique importance for his nation, for
France:
As for us, whatever becomes of us, poor or rich, happy or unhappy, alive or
beyond death, we shall always thank God for giving us this great country,
France. Not only because of all the glorious things that she has done, but above
all because we find in her the representative of the liberties of the world and the
most sympathetic country of all, the initiation into universal love ....
Doubtless, every great country represents an idea important to humanity.
But good God, how much more true that is of France! Let us suppose for a mo-
ment that France should disappear, that she should no longer exist-the bond
of sympathy which unites the world would be loosened, and probably de-
stroyed. Love, which makes life possible in this world, would be attacked in
what makes it most alive. The earth would enter the ice age that has already
claimed other worlds not far from US. 227
The great idea which France represented was that of the Revolution of
17 89: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, above all the last of these. France
was "the universal homeland"; "much more than a nation, it [was]
fraternity incarnate." More than any other nation France had "con-
founded its interest and destiny with those of humanity. "228 Each French
child, Michelet wrote, should be taught "that God had graced him or her
with this country which promulgated, written in its blood, the law of di-
13 0 Chapter One
vine equality and fraternity that the God of nations had spoken through
France."229 In the Revolution and the wars that followed it, France, like a
Christ among nations, sacrificed itself in the attempt to redeem humanity
as a whole:
We are the sons of those who, by a heroic effort of nationalism, did the world's
work, and established throughout the nations the gospel of equality. Our fa-
thers did not understand by fraternity that vague sympathy which makes you
love and accept everything, which mixes, adulterates, confuses. They believed
that fraternity was not a blind mixing of existences and characters but rather a
union of hearts. They kept for themselves and for France the primacy of devo-
tion, of sacrifice, which no one disputed with them; alone, she watered with her
blood the tree that she had planted. 230
More than once "France gave its life for the world."231 And if because of
its selflessness, its sacrifices, France in I 846 was weak, divided, impov-
erished; nevertheless "it is not the industrial machinery of England, it
isn't the scholastic machinery of Germany, which make the life of the
world; it's the breath of France, whatever its state, it's the latent warmth
of its revolution that Europe bears within itself always."232 Only when
France recalled itself to itself, only when it regained faith in its divine but
profoundly human mission, would the nation be strong, unified, invinc-
ible; and only then would it be able to bring the principles of the Revolu-
tion to the entire world. Revolution alone "can reunite us, and, through
us, save the world. "233 There was no other way for humanity to be saved;
no rationalist humanitarianism based on the concept of the individual
could possibly do it: "The homeland, my homeland, alone can save the
world."234
For Michelet, then, diversity of nationality was a necessary condition
for meaningful concord, meaningful unity; and France alone could ac-
complish that unity by bringing the principles of the Revolution to all the
nations of the world and thereby liberating humanity as a whole. There is
no evidence that the young Manet read Le Peuple or other works by Mi-
chelet of roughly the same moment, though the strong republican sympa-
thies which he clearly felt before and after the Revolution of 1848 suggest
that he may have done SO.235 In any case, his concern with Frenchness in
his paintings of the first half of the 18 60S must be seen in relation to Cou-
ture and Thon~, both of whom were directly and powerfully influenced by
Michelet. So Manet would not have had to study Michelet's writings him-
self in order have had his mind shaped by them. The availability of a
vision of France as "the universal homeland" -as that nation which nat-
Manet's Sources
urally transcended itself, which naturally identified its interest with that
of humanity as a whole-was instrumental in enabling Manet to make
the Frenchness of French painting a medium of access to foreign schools
of painting and finally to the art of painting altogether. One might say
that Michelet in his writings of the 183 os and I 840S made Frenchness as
such a medium of transcendence, of universality; and that Manet made
Michelet's vision of Frenchness a medium of painting. It is even conceiv-
able that without Michelet's inspired reading, or resurrection, of the his-
tory of France and in particular of the French Revolution, Manet would
have been unable to attain the depth of conviction in his work as painting
which he seems to have attained. The least that must be said is that with-
out Michelet's vision of France, Manet's paintings of the first half of the
1860s would have been radically, unimaginably different. And it is not at
all certain that they would have been as great, or as revolutionary, as they
have proved to be.
15
MAN E T MUS T have hoped that at least a few critics would grasp the
intentions which he had worked to make perspicuous. But none did. For
a moment Chesneau almost came close, when he spotted the dependence
of the Dejeuner sur l'herbe on Raimondi's engraving after Raphael,236 as
well as something of its relation to Courbet. 237 But he regarded Manet's
use of Raphael as eccentric, incomprehensible; and he deplored what
seemed to him Courbet's ruinous influence on many of the most gifted
younger painters, Manet included.
It is not surprising that the only critic who consistently discussed
Manet's paintings in terms of their relation to previous art was Thon\
and even he missed seeing the Dejeuner-Raphael and Olympia-Titian
connections. "I can't imagine what can have made an intelligent and dis-
tinguished artist choose so absurd a composition," he wrote of the De-
jeuner in 1863.238 But the next year he noted the dependence of the dead
torero in Manet's Episode in a Bullfight on the Orlando Muerto:
Here is another victim of ferocious customs, a voluntary one, lying dead in

an arena at the far limit of which the bullfight continues. This toreador, disem-
boweled for the pleasure of a few thousand overexcited spectators, is a life-size
figure boldly copied from a masterpiece at the Pourtales Gallery ... painted by
none other than Velasquez. Manet does not scruple to "take what he needs
13 2 Chapter One
where he finds it," any more than to throw on his canvas his splendid bizarre
colors, which irritate the "bourgeois" to the point of insult. His painting is a
sort of provocation and he apparently wants to torment the public just as the
picadors in his Spanish arena place their barbs trimmed with garish ribbons
into the neck of their savage adversary.-He has not yet taken the bull by the
horns.
Manet has the gifts of a magician, effects of light and flamboyant tones that
pastiche Velasquez and Goya, his favorite masters. He was thinking of them
when he composed and painted his bullfight. 239
Thon': went on to say that in Manet's second painting in the Salon of

1864, the Angels at the Tomb of Christ, "It's another Spanish master, El
Greco, whom he has pastiched with equal fury, no doubt as a kind of
sarcasm directed against the timid lovers of discreet and proper paint-
ing. "240 The painting as a whole, in particular the angels with intense
blue wings, seemed to Thon~ a further act of defiance or deliberate mock-
ery of the public's expectations. But he observed that the modeling of the
arms and the foreshortening of the legs recalled Rubens and Annibale
Carracci, and closed his remarks on Manet with high praise: "Enough for
the moment on the eccentricities that hide a true painter, one whose
works, some day, will perhaps be applauded. Let's recall Eugene De-
lacroix's debuts and then his triumph at the Exposition Universelle of
1855, and his sale-after his death!" 241
Baudelaire, then in Brussels, wrote Thon~ at once objecting that the
word "pastiche" was unfair and denying that Manet had ever seen paint-
ings by Goya or El Greco or that he had visited the Pourtales Collec-
tion.242 Thon~ responded generously. He was willing to take Baudelaire's
word that Manet had never seen Goya's work and that he was "wholly
naturally a colorist in the manner of that exquisite and fantastic
painter. "243 But Thon~ rightly insisted that Manet must have seen the
Pourtales Orlando Muerto one way or another, and concluded: "We cer-
tify always in passing that Manet's painting is not a pastiche of Goya, and
we are pleased to repeat that this young man is a true painter, more of a
painter by himself alone than the entire band of winners of the Prix de
Rome."244
In his "Salon of 1865" Thon~ praised another young painter, Theodule
Ribot, almost exactly in these terms: "He's more of a painter than aa the
Prix de Rome winners taken together. "245 Ribot's Saint Sebastian was
one of the solid successes of that year; but while Thore granted that it was
well painted, he found Ribot's subject matter painfully anachronistic:
Manet's Sources 133
If, to express the idea or image of persecution and of the piety resulting from it,
you keep using the same stereotyped Catholic symbol, there is no reason why
you should not continue to express modern strength and beauty through pagan
symbols such as Hercules and Venus. Now the mission and instinct of art are
precisely to create plastic forms adequate to the ideas and customs of each pe-
riod, without forsaking the permanent, typical character of universal life.
It can happen also that in imitating an old idea you are involuntarily led to
imitate old forms and practices. If you paint Venus, Diana, Galatea, nymphs or
naiads, how can you manage not to think of Greek statuary and the Italian Re-
naissance, which resurrected the Greek style? If you paint Christian martyrs,
who has dramatized torture and pain more acutely than the Spanish mystics,
especially Ribera? And here is Ribot falling with his Saint Sebastian into the
blackness of Ribera!246
The relevance of these remarks to Manet is evident, and in fact Thore

went on at once to speak of him:
It's fatal, irresistible: Manet does not seem to want to be taken for a routine
practitioner of academic art; nevertheless, having had the unfortunate idea of
painting Christ in the tribunal, this original artist virtually copies the famous
composition by Van Dyck! Last year, painting a Spanish subject which he had
never seen, he copied the Velasquez in the Pourtales GalleryJ47
Thore barely mentioned Olympia and seems not to have noticed its rela-
tion to the Venus of Urbina. But there can be no doubt as to what his
response to that relation would have been. Having just warned against
the use of pagan symbols such as Venus, partly on the grounds that it
would lead to dependence on the defunct forms of the Italian Renais-
sance, it seems inevitable that he would have seen Olympia as confirming
the truth of his worst fears. Toward the end of the "Salon of 1865" Thore
summed up his attitude toward the use of Italian (and Spanish) art by
contemporary French painters:
Along with a few adventurous minds, we think that the art of the South is no
longer anything but a dead though quite glorious tradition. It was alive once-
and it does not seem that it will live again in the midst of the wholly modern
civilization now in preparation. Has anyone noticed Spanish or Italian painting
at the universal exhibitions of Paris, Manchester, and London? Oh, what great
and noble people they were-in history! When French painting turns toward
Italy, it turns toward the past. Archaeology is no doubt extremely interesting,
but it is not the business of artists, who ought to be inventors, not compilers.
The instinct for innovation dies out in those who shut themselves up among
ruins. Isn't life itself simply renewal?248
134 Chapter One
This could, one feels, have been addressed to Manet; and perhaps it
partly was.
Manet's two submissions to the Salon of 1866, the Tragic Actor (Rou-
viere as Hamlet) and the Fifer, were rejected by the jury. In his "Salon" of
that year Thon:~ praised Courbet at length, in terms that at least implicitly
contrasted him with Manet:
In the contemporary school Courbet represents a frank naturalism abso-
lutely opposed to the pretentious and false painter's manners recently taken up
by a frivolous public. His painting raises two problems for those who study the
tendencies of art and the means by which it should be renewed.
The question is whether art should still be dragged along in the traces of the
past: ideas, symbols, images of what no longer exists, backward-looking pas-
tiches forever alien to the consciousness, conventions, and deeds of the new so-
ciety.
Let the artist cease to draw his inspiration from pagan antiquity and the
Catholic Middle Ages, and both form and invention will become free.
For a subject determines the form. An absurd and unnatural subject like a
centaur or an angel will lead to a fanciful form, since the artist cannot base
himself on natural reality. Where is one to find the original of a cherub with
two wings attached to his temples or of a goat-footed faun?249
No older critic was as consistent or as warm in his praise of Manet's picto-
rial gifts as Thon:~. But the forces of mind that made Tho[(~'s writings en-
abling for Manet also compelled Tho[(~ to see Manet's involvement with
the art of the past and his use of religious subject matter as artistically and
socially retrograde. His respect emerges, however, in the account in his
"Salon of 1866" of a visit that he made to Manet's studio:
I prefer Manet's mad ebauches to academic figures of Hercules. So I revisited
his studio, where I saw a large portrait of a man in black in the manner of the
portraits of Velasquez, which the jury refused. There was also a "sea-
landscape," as Courbet puts it, and some exquisite flowers, and a study of a
young lady in a pink dress which perhaps will be refused at the next Salon.
Those pink tones on a gray background would be a challenge to the most deli-
cate colorists. An ebauche, it's true, like Watteau's Isle of Cythera [Embarka-
tion for Cythera 1in the Louvre. Watteau would have been able to push his
ebauche to the point of perfection. Manet is still struggling with that extreme
difficulty of painting, namely how to finish certain parts of the picture in order
to give the ensemble its effective value. But one can predict that he will have his
turn at success, like all the persecuted of the Salon. 250
Whatever Thon~'s reservations, Manet must have been pleased to have
elicited a comparison between his art and that of Watteau from the critic
who more than any other had formulated the issues and distinctions with
Manet's Sources 135
which his paintings of the first half of the 18 60S had explicitly engaged.
But Manet must have wished that he had been seen in relation to Watteau
years earlier, and that the meaning of that relationship for his enterprise
as a whole had been grasped as well.
No other critic in Manet's lifetime came close to understanding his in-
volvement with the art of the past, or even to taking that involvement fully
seriously. And with the rise of Impressionism and the general simplifica-
tion of painting that came about largely as a result of his own early work
(with which Matisse will credit him), Manet himself may have become
uncertain exactly what to make of that aspect of his art before 1865. In
any case, he seems to have been content to let his critics, and his histo-
rians, work it out for themselves.
2 "Manet's Sources" Reconsidered
LET ME BEG I N by acknowledging some of the gravest flaws in "Manet's

Sources" as I now see it. In the first place, it begins much too abruptly and
so fails to prepare the reader for the arguments that follow. By this I mean
not only that its discussion of earlier scholarship is somewhat cursory, but
also that no effort is made to distinguish Manet's practice of quotation
and allusion from those of certain earlier painters (in his critique of my
essay Reff cites Reynolds and Ingres) it may seem superficially to resemble
(Reff thinks all three are interchangeable).1 I believe Manet is a special
case, but even so he belongs to the much broader artistic phenomenon of
selective imitation, and it would have been helpful had I made that clear.
Moreover, a potentially important methodological insight-that what is
at issue in Manet's references to earlier painting cannot be understood in
terms of "generally accepted paradigms of influence" -is left unde-
veloped. Here too going farther might have enabled me to forestall var-
ious objections that Reff gave voice to and other readers undoubtedly felt.
Furthermore, I was led by too mechanical a notion of my project to
establish as many specific connections as I could between Manet's paint-
ings and prints on the one hand and works by the Old Masters on the
other. As a result, various connections seem forced and unconvincing (es-
pecially so in my remarks on Watteau), a fault that's the more debilitating
because of my failure to distinguish sufficiently between instances of al-
leged quotation that are vital to my larger argument and ones that are
not. In addition, Manet is sometimes portrayed as concerned with an
ideal of something like perfect intellectual clarity, as if he were seeking not
simply to satisfy the demands of ambitious painting as he understood
them but also to explain himself to later investigators (i.e. to me). So for
example I associate. Manet's Absinthe Drinker (fig. 8) with Watteau's
L'!ndif{erent (fig. 9) by saying that "I find the odd, almost dancelike for-
mality and elegance of the pose of Manet's figure inconceivable except on
13 6
"Manet's Sources" Reconsidered 137
the basis of that of Watteau's," and go on to suggest that the inclusion of

the figure of the Absinthe Drinker in the Old Musician (pI. 2), a painting
that contains an unmistakable allusion to Watteau's Gilles (fig. 6), "made
explicit the Absinthe Drinker's partial and far from obvious basis in a
painting by Watteau." But the connection with L'!ndif(erent is likely to
appear forced and unconvincing, and the flat statement that I find the
pose of Manet's figure otherwise "inconceivable" makes matters worse
(it hardly encourages the reader to have confidence in the author's in-
tuitions); moreover, the suggestion that Manet's principal motive for
including the figure of the Absinthe Drinker in the Old Musician was
to clarify an earlier moment in his own production seems and indeed
is inherently improbable. Typically, the core of my reading of the Old
Musician-the association ofWatteau and Le Nain with a particular con-
ception of Frenchness and of Velasquez with a move beyond Frenchness
toward universality-doesn't depend on what I say about the inclusion in
that painting of the figure of the Absinthe Drinker, but this becomes clear
only later on, after the reader has been distracted by the unpersuasiveness
of my claims about the Absinthe Drinker and Watteau. Of course, I also
argue that the Absinthe Drinker embodies a connection with Velasquez's
paintings of beggar-philosophers, the Aesop and Menippus, which no
one now doubts. And the fact remains that no aspect of the Absinthe
Drinker is more puzzling than the position of the figure's legs, which I still
feel may owe something to Watteau: but I should have gone more slowly,
stressing the connection with Velasquez (and perhaps with Rembrandt:
isn't there something Rembrandt-like in the repetition of the figure in the
Old Musician?), making the pose of the feet and legs seem to require ex-
planation, and finally suggesting that, especially in the light of Manet's
involvement with Watteau after I860, one or another figure by the latter
(perhaps even the protagonist of L'!ndif(erent) may well have been a fac-
tor in that early work. 2 Unfortunately, such subtlety was not in my rhetor-
ical armory in I968-69.
Another, related area of strain in my argument concerns my claim that
Manet found himself compelled to seek what I call "access" to the art of
non-French schools of painting by relying on publicly recognized links or
affinities between French painters he regarded as canonical and various
foreign artists and schools (e.g. between Watteau and Rubens, the Le
Nains and both Flemish painting and Velasquez, Ingres and Raphael, and
so on). Although I still believe Manet was not indifferent to such connec-
tions, I would now qualify my views by saying that he didn't absolutely
Chapter Two
require textual "sanction" (another key word in "Manet's Sources") in

order to deploy non-French sources. Rather, I see him as acutely aware
of the network of resemblances stretching across national boundaries
to which the older critic Theophile Thore bore witness when he spoke
of "the analogies and the harmonies that link [the different national
schools] in a great unity," and as requiring no further sanction than that
awareness to justify his allusions to a multiplicity of works belonging to
at least four major European schools: Spain, Flanders, Italy, and Hol-
land. Still another point I would now modify is the claim that Manet fol-
lowed Thore, to whom the Italian tradition was anathema, to the extent
of staying clear of Italian art until he came to paint the Dijeuner sur
therbe. One of Reff's most telling criticisms was that this view is unten-
able as it stands 3 (but see the discussions below of the Surprised Nymph
and Dijeuner sur therbe). In fact I wouldn't now wish to say that Manet
followed anyone at all-rather that when his relation to earlier art is con-
sidered against the background of contemporaneous writing about that
art, Thore and other writers must also be counted among the sources of
his thought. More broadly, I would now place less emphasis on matter of
timing, as for example when I say that "throughout I86I, despite his at-
traction to Spanish painting, Manet was constrained to base his most am-
bitious pictures on Flemish sources," because he had not yet "secured
access to Spanish painting as a whole."4 The rhetoric of constraint and
compulsion goes too far, as does the suggestion that Manet's desire to
relate his painting to the major national schools led him to conduct a pro-
longed campaign "virtually every step of which must be understood in
relation to every other." I now think Manet's procedures were less sys-
tematic than such a formulation implies.
I also agree with Reff that my exclusive focus upon the overall meaning
of Manet's practice of quotation led me to minimize other sorts of mean-
ing in his pictures (but I never claimed-nor do I claim now-to be offer-
ing a comprehensive reading of his art); that my accounts of various
paintings, most significantly Olympia, are therefore incomplete (this will
be true also of the present book); that in several instances other sources
than those I discuss demand to be taken into account (I examine some of
them below), and that in one crucial instance I fail to consider a possible
source that had been proposed several years before by another art histo-
rian, "perhaps because it would conflict with [Fried's] Le Nain-Watteau-
Velasquez thesis"5 (I take this up below as well); finally, that I sometimes
engage in unconvincing bits of special pleading in support of associations
that themselves appear far-fetched (Reff cites as an example my statement

that "Manet's obviously deliberate use of a French angel [from Le Nain's
Nativity of the Virgin] as the basis for one of Christ's tormentors [in the
Christ Mocked] suggests that blasphemy of some explicit sort was on his
mind; perhaps he was expressing in advance his defiance of the French
public, etc.," and I can only concur).6 Even more chagrining is that in
researching my essay I failed to appreciate the importance for my argu-
ment of a major textual and visual compendium, Charles Blanc's multi-
volume Histoire des peintres de toutes les ecoles, published chapter by
chapter and then collected into individual volumes between I849 and
I876. (The project was edited by Blanc, who also wrote several of the
volumes; other authors included Thore [as W. Burger], Paul Mantz,
Theophile Silvestre, and Marius Chaumelin.) In fact, it was Reff who in
I970 was the first to note the probable importance for Manet of the His-
toire des peintres, and there is to my ear more than a little irony in his
closing statement that as we come to discover in those volumes "further
examples of [Manet's] complex involvement with the art of the past ...
we shall probably also discover that the simultaneous appearance [in the
early I860s] of Blanc's ambitious history of painters and of Manet's am-
bitious 'historical' paintings is not so much a fortunate coincidence as a
product of specific cultural conditions, in which the foundations of mod-
ern art history and those of modern art were laid down together"? (this
from someone who shortly before had accused me of exaggerating the
singularity and importance of my subject). To do Reff justice, the footnote
to that statement refers the reader to "Manet's Sources."
Altogether, one may think, a damning list of failures, omissions, rhe-
torical missteps, and just plain errors (and a partial one at that). 8 And yet
perhaps not altogether damning. At any rate, I still stand behind the fol-
lowing basic claims in my essay of I969:
I.1t is necessary to see Manet's relation to his sources against the back-
ground of contemporaneous French writing and thinking about the art of
the past. This might seem obvious but it had never previously occurred to
anyone as a worthwhile endeavor. In this connection I was led to under-
score the importance of two major exhibitions of older art, the Manches-
ter exhibition of I8 57, which Thore reviewed in a book-length study, and
the great (though numerically more modest) show of French paintings
from private collections held in I 860 at a private gallery, Martinet's, on
the boulevard des Italiens. The latter made a wide range of seventeenth-
and eighteenth-century French pictures publicly accessible in a space that
14 0 Chapter Two
ordinarily was used for displaying and selling modern art (Manet himself
was soon to exhibit there);9 and it too was reviewed by Thon~ in a series of
articles in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts from which I quoted extensively
and that deserves to be recognized as one of the key proto-art-historical
texts of the period. 10
2. Perhaps the most pressing concern of those French critics and art
historians (often the same persons) who wrote about the art of the past
in the late 18 50S and I 860s was to determine the nature of the authen-
tic French national tradition in painting. Roughly speaking there were
two camps, a "conservative" one which stressed the Italian ate classiciz-
ing tradition going back to Poussin and Claude and a "republican" camp,
spearheaded by Thorc~, which championed the popular, realist, and
Northern-in short the anti-Italianate-tradition of the Le Nains, Wat-
teau, Chardin, and nineteenth-century realism. Needless to say, the em-
phasis given in "Manet's Sources" to the views of the second camp, which
with respect to contemporary painting was by far the more progressive,
should not be taken to mean that I endorsed its reading of the French past:
in this connection as in others the historian's job is not to endorse or re-
fute the views of an earlier epoch but rather to understand them. On the
other hand, my presentation of the "republican" position betrays the ex-
citement of discovery: the issue of Frenchness had long since disappeared
from scholarly view (a new generation of art historians has recently em-
phasized its role in French painting, decorative arts, and criticism in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries); 11 nor was it realized that
for an important body of nineteenth-century opinion Watteau was not so
much the creator of the aristocratic art of the Rococo-the Goncourts'
view-as a realist and man of the people; and Thon:~ himself was not yet
the focus of scholarly interest he has since become. 12
3. Another major concern of the writers in question-here too Thorc~ is
the key figure-was a certain idea of universality. Throughout the first
half of the nineteenth century in France the practice of what we would
now call art history had been governed by categories of nationality, in
particular of national schools. But some time after midcentury there
emerged a new desire to go beyond nationality in the direction of a univer-
sal history of art. Blanc's Histoire des peintres de toutes les ecoles ex-
presses such a desire by virtue of its encyclopedic character; but it's chiefly
in Thon~'s writings of the late 1850S and early 1860s that an increasing
awareness of the essential "unity" of painting led to the demand for a new
art history that would somehow take that "unity" directly into account.
"Manet's Sources" Reconsidered
In the absence of the stylistic or "formal" categories the invention of

which would be the work of Heinrich W6lfflin and other late nineteenth-
century and early twentieth-century German-language art historians, it
was anything but obvious how that demand could be met, and in the clos-
ing pages of my essay I suggest that Manet's paintings of the I 860s may be
seen as satisfying it in an unexpected way.
4. What strategically was at stake in Manet's use of past art in his paint-
ings of the 18 60S was a desire to establish both the Frenchness and, going
beyond that, the universality of his own painting (this was the main thrust
of my 1969 essay). Hence his profound involvement with the Le Nains,
Watteau, and Chardin, and hence also his repeated allusions to represen-
tative examples of the four major European schools: Italian, Spanish,
Flemish, and Dutch (the last of these especially after Vermeer became
available for citation in the later 1860s). Later in this chapter I shall re-
turn briefly to the question of the conditions of Manet's access to Italian
art, which his evident sympathy for the "republican" canon of French
painters might be thought to have suppressed, as well as to a further con-
sideration of the ways in which a particular ideal of Frenchness enabled
its own transcendence. I shall also touch on the question of the role of
Japanese woodblocks in all this, though for the moment I stand behind
my claim that an explicit acknowledgment of his involvement with Japa-
nese art took place only after the Exposition Universelle of 1867, in the
Portrait of Emile Zola and the Balcony. 13 In any case, the affinity between
Manet's relation to his sources and the developments in contemporary
art history I have just summarized was both close and profound. "Doesn't
it seem to you," Thon~ asked in 1858, "that Europe today is in quest of a
new art, more comprehensive than all the previous schools? And isn't it
the knowledge of the past that can assist in the preparation of the fu-
ture?"14
5. Manet's concern with Frenchness makes a link between his art and
that of his teacher Couture. In his massive study, Thomas Couture and the
Eclectic Vision, Albert Boime took issue with my reading of the Romans
of the Decadence and related works without actually refuting it. In place
of my emphasis on Couture's sense of himself in a modern French tradi-
tion (grounded textually in his Methode et entretiens d' atelier), Boime de-
scribed Couture as possessed by "a Faustian ambition to rival the great
masters and a need to identify sympathetically with the outstanding ge-
niuses of the history of art" and developed a portmanteau concept of
"eclecticism" that covers virtually everything in French art and culture
Chapter Two
for several generations, including Manet's references to earlier paint-

ing. 1S Recently, however, the French art historian Pierre Vaisse largely
supported my account of Couture, including the emphasis I placed on his
relations with Michelet. 16 I also suggest in "Manet's Sources" that Mi-
chelet's vision of France as, by virtue of the Revolution, la patrie univer-
selle "was instrumental in enabling Manet to make the Frenchness of
French painting a medium of access to foreign schools of painting and
finally to the art of painting altogether." For all the qualifications I built
into those pages the reader may feel this is too strong (and that too much
space is given over to Michelet relative to my argument as a whole), but in
view of Michelet's importance to Couture, the centrality of his thought to
the culture at large, and-a factor I didn't mention-the friendship that
developed between the Michelets and the Manets in the second half of the
I 860s, it is far from absurd. 17 (See my discussion of Manet's Angels at the
Tomb of Christ below.) Need I add that my emphasis on the importance
of Michelet and more broadly of the "republican" canon of French paint-
ing for Manet in the I 860s manifestly involves a political reading of his
enterprise? 18
6. Already in two long footnotes to chapter I I claim that various as-
pects of Manet's practice in the I860s must be understood in terms of a
pursuit of the tableau, a term that, owing to its connotations of achieved
unity, can't be translated by the English words "painting" or "picture"
without significant 10SS.19 I also remark that critics of the I 850S and
I860s routinely criticized Courbet for painting mere morceaux, frag-
ments or agglomerations of fragments, as opposed to true tableaux,
which I take to mean that Manet's pursuit of the latter marks a crucial
difference between his aspirations and Courbet's. Subsequently I traced
the emergence in the I750S and I760s of the concept of the tableau as a
central term of criticism (in Absorption and Theatricality) and said more
about the force of the tableau/morceau distinction as it was applied to
Courbet's art (in Courbet's Realism).2o The problem of the nature of the
tableau for Manet and other painters of his generation will be further de-
veloped in chapter 4, but the work of Steven Z. Levine on Monet and
Martha Ward on Pissarro and Seurat has shown that it remained an issue
for advanced painting for decades to come. 21
7. In the longer of the two footnotes just referred to I suggest that
Manet's differences from Courbet must themselves be understood in the
context of his relations with his contemporaries Fantin-Latour, Whistler,
and Legros-the three other principals of the group I call, in my introduc-
tion, the generation of I863. In that note I describe Zacharie Astruc's

criticism of the 18 60S as speaking for the group, a point I shall elaborate
in the pages that follow. And my discussion in "Manet's Sources" of the
esthetic of deliberate naivete at work in Duranty's theatre de Polichinelle
in the early I 860s bears on the collective sensibility of that generation
as well. Perhaps the most important shift of focus between "Manet's
Sources" and the present book involves an attempt to make good on the
notion that Manet the painter was not simply an isolated individual but
rather, in vital respects, a member of a distinct artistic generation. Here,
as a first step in that direction, is an excerpt from Astruc's late Les Dieux
en voyage (I889), a collection of playlike sketches one of which, "Dans
une foret," features the youthful Fantin, Legros, Whistler, and Guillaume
Regamey (the future painter of military subjects) painting together late
one afternoon in a forest setting. The date would have been circa I 860 or
earlier; at one point Astruc has Fantin say: "We still haven't escaped the
Renaissance; we haven't stopped walking in Italian boots. It's enough if
someone compares us to some 'chic' Italian to make our fortune and
everyone slaps together his nymph or his little Deposition from the Cross.
I greatly like Veronese-but it's by way of Chardin. "22 Given the time lag
of roughly thirty years, we can't take this as proof of Fantin's early atti-
tudes. But the words Astruc puts in his mouth make historical sense, and
of course I find the statement that he admires the Italian painter Veronese
"by the way of" (a travers) the French painter Chardin deeply resonant
with my reading of Manet.
8. As I mention in my introduction, the argument of "Manet's Sources"
rests in part on an almost wholly unarticulated sense of Manet's place in a
larger problematic, going back to the middle of the eighteenth century,
involving the relations between painting and beholder and the issue (as I
already called it) of theatricality. My incomplete grasp of that problem-
atic in I968-69 is reflected in my citing Denis Diderot, the central figure
in Absorption and Theatricality, only twice. 23 But I was aware that a cru-
cial aspect of the importance to Manet of the Le Nains and (especially)
Watteau had to do with the extent to which their work provided a French
precedent for Manet's leanings toward a kind of theatricality. In an im-
portant sense it is only now, having written Absorption and Theatricality
and Courbet's Realism, that I am in a position to return to Manet and
deal intensively with this aspect of his art. As will emerge, the issue of
beholding was crucial for his entire generation in ways I was far from
comprehending.
144 Chapter Two
9. Finally, my attempt to specify a relation to previous painting that on

the one hand acknowledged dependence on major predecessors and on
the other cannot be understood as a matter of "influence" looks forward
to (without in any sense anticipating) the work of the literary critic and
theorist Harold Bloom on the struggle of belated "strong" poets to over-
come their most important forebears-a kind of tragic version of classi-
cal emulatio. 24 Another body of recent scholarship I see as relevant to
my reading of Manet explores the tradition of selective imitation in both
literature and painting since the Renaissance. 25 And there are Michel
Foucault's brief but stimulating remarks comparing Manet's relation to
the museum to Flaubert's to the library in his essay "Fantasia of the Li-
brary."26 "Manet's Sources" thus can be seen as taking part in a larger
investigation that has been one of the main concerns of scholarship in the
humanities during the past two decades.
So much by way of summary of points I believe are true and important
even if the evidence and/or arguments by which I supported them are
sometimes flawed. I now begin the work of clarifying, amplifying, and
deepening my account of Manet's use of earlier art by looking again at
some pictures discussed in "Manet's Sources." This will enable me to re-
spond to various criticisms of my original essay, and it will also help ex-
plain how and why recent art historians have been led to ignore the larger
question of Manet's involvement with the art of the past.
TA KEF 0 R instance Manet's Portrait of the Artist's Parents (fig. 40),

which I suggested owes a great deal to one or more paintings by Louis Le
Nain. 27 In his critique of my essay Reff dismissed this in favor of the view
that the figure of Manet pere "clearly depends for its conception ... on
Rembrandt's etching A Bearded Man in a Furred Oriental Cap (fig. 70),
which was then considered, appropriately, a portrait of Rembrandt's fa-
ther. "28 (Champfleury thought that the standing woman and seated
older man in The Forge [fig. 42], one of the two Le Nains I associate with
Manet's picture, might be Le Nain's parents.)29 But not only do I see no
inescapable conflict between my views and Reff's, I now insist that just
this sort of conjoining or overlaying of sources is what most characterizes
Manet's practice during the first half of the 18 60S, which is to say that
neither my argument as a whole nor any particular suggestion can be in-
validated merely by the discovery of an alternative or indeed a superior
Figure 70. Rembrandt van

Rijn, A Bearded Man in a
Furred Oriental Cap, etching,
r631.
source for a painting or figure. (It's not irrelevant that Thon~ in 1860
actually compared the Le Nains with Rembrandt and his school.)30
Or consider an example that epitomizes this aspect of Manet's method
during the early 18 60S. In "Manet's Sources" I associated the superb
Mlle V .. in the Costume of an Espada (pI. 5) with Watteau's paint-
ings of figures from the commedia dell'arte as well as, reaching beyond
French painting, with an engraving after a picture by Rubens of a figure of
Venus or Fortune that appeared in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts in 1860
(fig. 46). In refutation of this Reff proposed an engraving from the His-
toire des peintres de toutes les ecoles after Titian's Girl with a Fruit Dish
(fig. 71) that would have been available to Manet as early as 1855.31 And
at about the same moment Beatrice Farwell advanced as a source for the
Mlle V . . Marcantonio Raimondi's engraving after Raphael's Tem-
perance (fig. 72), which, in addition to accounting for salient features of
Manet's composition, provides an immediate precedent for his use of
Marcantonio/Raphael in the Dijeuner. 32 Now, it may seem that Farwell's
discovery not only supersedes but invalidates both my Rubens and Reff's
Titian. But it would be consistent with Manet's project as I understand it
to imagine that he might well have been alert to the resemblance between
14 6 Chapter Two
the posture of the figure's head and upper body in the Temperance and
Girl with a Fruit Dish or, more loosely, between stance and gesture in the
Temperance and the Rubens, and that all three works were meant to reso-
nate together in the Mile V. ... Indeed those resemblances raise the fur-
ther possibility that Titian and Rubens may have had that or a related
Raphael image in mind when they composed their pictures. 33
The probable roles of the Raphael and Titian prototypes in the concep-
tion of the Mile V. .. suffice to call into question my claim that it was only
with the Dejeuner sur l'herbe that Manet found it possible to refer di-
Figure 7I. After Titian, Girl with a Fruit Dish.
Figure 72. Marcantonio Raimondi, engraving

after Raphael, Temperance.
recdy to Italian sources (as Reff pointed out). Moreover, the subsequent
researches of Juliet Wilson-Bareau based on X rays of Manet's early
nudes, as reported in "The Hidden Face of Manet," have underscored
both the continuity and the intensity of the painter's involvement with
Italian prototypes from the late I 8 5os on (the approximate date of the oil
sketch, probably of Moses Saved from the Waters, in Oslo). So for ex-
ample the important Surprised Nymph (fig. 73), signed and dated I86I,
is related by Wilson-Bareau to Veronese, Giulio Romano, and, on the
strength of the landscape background visible in an X ray of a previous
state of the painting, to Titian's Venus del Pardo in the Louvre. 34 But sev-
eral points are worth stressing.
First, Wilson-Bareau goes on to observe that the so-called Moses Saved
from the Waters, Surprised Nymph, and Dejeuner sur l'herbe all appear
to owe a great deal to engravings in the Recueil Crozat, a three-volume
compendium of engravings after works in French collections edited by
the eighteenth-century financier and collector Pierre Crozat. 35 In fact I
call attention to the importance for Manet of the Recueil Crozat in my
essay of I969, where I suggest that he might have been drawn to it be-
cause of Crozat's well-known association with Watteau (which Wilson-
Bareau mentions but makes nothing of). Indeed the engraved preface to
the Recueil, while saying nothing about Watteau, thematizes the already
charged topic of the relation of French art to the Italian and Flemish
schools. 36 Then, too, one result of Wilson-Bare au's emphasis on Manet's
interest in Italian prototypes is that the actual dependence of the Sur-
prised Nymph in its final form on Vosterman's engraving after Ruben's
lost Susannah and the Elders (fig. 74)37 is largely minimized. But as I say
in "Manet's Sources," the fact that despite his early and strong attraction
to Italian art Manet chose to base that picture most perspicuously on a
work by the Flemish master, and secondarily on Rembrandt's Susannah
in The Hague (ca. I634; fig. 75),38 raises the possibility that he may
have had strategic as well as local reasons for doing so (Wilson-Bareau
never considers that this might be the case). It's therefore not surprising
that she also fails to mention my suggestion that a French painting may
have mediated Manet's relations with the Rubens (and I would now say
with Rembrandt and the Italians as well): Fragonard's Le Billet doux
(ca. I776; fig. 76), another picture exhibited at Martinet's in I860. 39
Clearly Fragonard was inspired by the Rubens, and if I am right that
Manet was struck by the Billet doux (I feel surer of it now that I did in
I969), it seems likely that the relationship between the two predecessor
Chapter Two
Figure 73. Edouard Manet, The Surprised Nymph, 1861.

Figure 75. Rembrandt van Rijn, Susannah, ca. 1634.

Figure 74. Johannes Vosterman, engraving after
Peter-Paul Rubens, Susannah and the Elders.
works would not have escaped him. This would be further evidence that
Manet's access to the art of foreign schools was facilitated by French pro-
totypes, but what interests me even more is the possibility that Manet un-
derstood his own practice of multiple, superimposed quotation as in
some sense a response to the newly visible tendency of previous European
painting to recycle itself by selective imitation. In any case, it's worth
noting too that the Billet doux's general mise-en-scene, paper-wrapped
bouquet, and startled, outward-staring dog all anticipate aspects of
Olympia, which Wilson-Bareau characteristically associates only with
Italian sources.
Finally, Wilson-Bareau's analyses tend to portray the development of
individual paintings by Manet as moving from a dependence on earlier
prototypes in their first stages toward a liberation from those prototypes
in the interests of modernity as the initial images are effaced and/or cov-
ered over by successive layers of paint. 40 No doubt Manet sharpened the
effect of modernity, by which she means contemporaneity, as his pictures
progressed. But the import of her argument is that individual sources in
15° Chapter Two
Figure 76. Jean-Honore Fragonard, Le Billet doux, ca, 1776.
the art of the past served him mainly as springboards: useful, perhaps
even necessary to get his paintings under way, but ultimately to be left
behind as he brought them to completion; and this, as we have seen,
hardly does justice to the persistent visibility of references to the most
important of such sources in the finished works.
The stakes are even higher in the case of the Dejeuner sur l'herbe
(pI. 3), perhaps the most notorious instance of quotation from the Old
Masters in Manet's oeuvre. In I864 the critic Ernest Chesneau noted in
passing that Manet had based the three main figures on a similar group in
the lower right-hand portion of Marcantonio Raimondi's engraving after
a composition by Raphael of the Judgment of Paris (fig. 33).41 The same
observation was made afresh by the German curator Gustav Pauli in
I908, who thereby triggered the widespread inquiry into Manet's use of
previous art that was a major vein of Manet scholarship in the decades
that followed. 42 Writing after Manet's death, his close friend Antonin
Proust didn't mention the Raphael connection but stressed instead that
Manet's depiction of clothed men and unclothed women, far from being
intended as a provocation, had as precedent the famous Concert cham-
petre in the Louvre, then attributed to Giorgione and today to Titian. 43
Modern scholars, Reff and I among them, have also connected the De-
jeunerwith Courbet's Young Women on the Banks of the Seine (fig. 44),44
which itself provoked a scandal when it was exhibited in the Salon of
I 8 57. My further conviction, first stated in "Manet's Sources," is that the
Dejeuner must also be understood as reprising Watteau on a grand scale;
generically speaking it is, more than anything else, a fete champetre,45
and the earlier artist who chiefly stood for that genre was of course Wat-
teau. As I tried to show, Manet would have been familiar with numerous
Watteaus of that stamp both in the flesh and through engravings; insofar
as one work bears more closely than the others on the Dejeuner it is prob-
ably L'Amour paisible (1718; fig. 77)-not the glorious canvas in the
Schloss Charlottenburg in Berlin (reproduced here) but a smaller version
that belonged to the duc de Morny and, once again, was shown at Mar-
tinet's in 1860. 46 (Thanks to an engraving of the Morny copy published
in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts in I863, we know that it was faithful com-
positionally to the Berlin picture.)47 In particular the main figure-group
of two men and a woman in L'Amour paisible resembles the group of
the clothed men and naked woman in the Dejeuner, so much so that if
we didn't have Marcantonio's engraving we wouldn't hesitate to suggest
that Manet based his figure of the naked bather looking directly at the
viewer on the seated guitarist in Watteau's composition and that the male
figure who sits facing the bather and gestures as if conversationally with
his right hand amounts to a variation on Watteau's gesturing man half-
sprawled on the grass behind the guitarist. But we do have the Marcan-
tonio, and if we compare the crucial figure-group to the one in L'Amour
paisible it becomes clear that Watteau brilliantly and ingeniously adapted
Raphael's invention to his own purposes. Once again I see no reason to
doubt that Manet recognized Watteau's recycling of Raphael (especially
Chapter Two
Figure 77. Antoine Watteau, L'Amour paisible, 1718.
since the water nymph gazing out of the Judgment of Paris also seems to
undergird a similar figure in Watteau's Les Champs-Elysees [I7I7?; fig.
78], another work shown at Martinet's),48 and that his own nearly direct
quotation from Raphael/Marcantonio in the Watteauesque Dejeuner not
only was encouraged by that recognition but also in a certain sense was
meant to assert a link between the art of the most canonical of Italian
Renaissance masters and the seemingly altogether different art of Wat-
teau. Such a link would have surprised Thort~, for whom Watteau epito-
mized the non-Italianate current he advocated,49 but the attitude toward
the Old Masters that it represents-the sensitivity to harmonies and
analogies between artists of different schools-has an important prece-
dent in Thon?s historicism. Indeed the connection between Watteau
and Raphael that the Dejeuner brings into focus may have been a fac-
tor in enabling Manet's increasingly open acknowledgment of his long-
standing interest in Italian art. 50
That acknowledgment reaches its zenith in the infamous Olympia (pl. 4),
which was closely modeled after Titian's Venus of Urbino (fig. 36; we
now know that the Titian connection was caustically noted in two com-
mentaries when Olympia was shown in the Salon of I865).51 More

broadly, Olympia has also been associated with Ingres's Large Oda-
lisque, though Manet's precise attitude toward Ingres in 1863 remains an
open question,52 and to the central female figure in Couture's Romans of
the Decadence. 53 In addition I wonder whether Manet might not have
found in David's Death of Marat (fig. 50) at least some measure of inspi-
ration for the shocking confrontational quality of his revolutionary nude.
What makes this last possibility all the more intriguing is that the Marat
was on view at Martinet's in April I 8 63, on which occasion it was de-
scribed in Le Courrier artistique, the gallery'S journal, as "attain[ing] the
furthest limits of simplicity of effect. It is realistic in the full sense of the
word, but a realism doubled by a feeling of grandeur."54 But rather than
compare the Marat and Olympia in detail I want to present still another
source for the latter, one that introduces a range of issues I haven't yet
considered.
In I862 the French government opened the Musee Napoleon III, the
holdings of which were soon partly to be subsumed in the collections of
the Louvre and partly to be dispersed to provincial museums. 55 For con-
Figure 78. Antoine Watteau, Les Champs-Elysees, I717?

154 Chapter Two
temporary critics, the new museum was distinguished by its works by art-
ists then known as "primitives" (i.e. of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries); and among those works none was more admired than a cas-
sone panel of Venus and Three Putti then attributed to Botticelli and to-
day thought to be a workshop production (fig. 79 ).56 The panel, just over
seven feet long by slightly less than three feet high, depicts the golden-
haired figure of Venus, her lower body mostly draped in a reddish purple
garment and her torso covered with a transparent blouse, half-reclining
on a grassy lawn strewn with flowers; she is attended by three amoretti
two of whom gather fruit while the third, embraced by Venus's left arm,
gestures with his own left arm and hand; in the distance we see moun-
tains and a river landscape. In her discussion in "The Hidden Face of
Manet" of Olympia and its preliminary stages Wilson-Bareau remarks
the neither "the dreamy sensuality of Titian's Venus [in the Venus of Ur-
bino] nor the more ardent intensity of [Titian's] Danae" [the source of a
series of nude drawings she relates to Olympia] provides a precedent for
the "cool detachment" -for which read the alert posture and coolly con-
frontational gaze-of Manet's naked courtisan. 57 Obviously the "Bot-
ticelli" Venus provides such a precedent. But what reason do we have for
thinking that Manet would have been aware of that panel, much less that
it would have excited his interest?
Here a text by a critic we have already met, Manet's friend Zacharie
Astruc, is extremely suggestive. >, In the last of three articles on the works
* Astruc is best known as the author of the dreadful stanza of poetry that appeared in the livret
of the Salon of 1865 as a gloss on Manet's Olympia and the inappropriateness of which further
inflamed critics already hostile to the painting. He was also a musician, painter, sculptor, and
art critic, and from the early I 860s on was one of Manet's closest friends. Manet painted him
three times: first in the Music in the Tuileries of 1862 (fig. 3), where Astruc has been identified in
the seated bearded man in the left-hand portion of the composition; next in the fascinating
Portrait of Zacharie Astruc (fig. 8 I), which Sharon Flescher has shown was probably painted in
1866, not 1863 as previously thought; and finally in the Music Lesson of 1870. Although not
included in Fantin-Latour's Homage to Delacroix, Astruc was portrayed by Fantin (along with
Manet, Whistler, Legros,and others) in his allegorical group portrait of 1865, The Toast! Hom-
age to Truth, to be discussed in chapter 3; in addition Astruc appears seated and posing for
Manet in Fantin's An Atelier in the Batignolles (1870; fig. 157). As a critic his achievement is
less than major (he is not the peer of Baudelaire, Thon~, or Zola), but he was intelligent, in-
formed, and serious, and he plays a key role in this book not only because of his intimacy with
Manet and other artists of the I 860s (he was particularly close to the young Carolus Duran) but
also because, as I say in "Manet's Sources," his writing gives special access to the views and
assumptions of the generation of 1863. It's significant, for example, that Astruc in 1862 was
concerned to defend the historical achievement of the French school and that for him as for
Thon~ Watteau was one of its particular glories. (See his "La Galerie de M.le comte de Morny,"
first of seven articles, Le Pays [July 2, 1862], where he expressed his pleasure that justice was at
last being done to the French school, so long unappreciated in France, described the eighteenth
Figure 79. Botticelli workshop, Venus and Three Putti.
by "primitives" in the Musee Napoleon III Astruc singled out "Bot-

ticelli'''s Venus for special consideration. "The chief work is his Venus,"
Astruc wrote, "admirable masterpiece conceived in a disposition of an
almost disquieting bizarreness. "58 And what appears to have especially
struck him as bizarre was the character of Venus's gaze. "What lover has
betrayed you, Venus?" Astruc asked. "The lovestruck girl looks straight
ahead with the calm pupil of the sphinx; her mouth is unmoving, a bitter
sadness makes her cheeks pale; but her brow preserves the unmoving se-
renity of her vital forces; a cold and impassive statue. Nothing beats in
that young breast imprisoned by a gauzy robe covered with a purple ma-
century as "a world" [un monde], and declared that Watteau was the greatest figure of that age.
See also the later article, "Fragments de I'ecole fran~aise," L'Etendard, Oct. I, 1866, in which
after praising the integrity and continuity of the French tradition starting with the Clouets he
singled out "that marvelous hour when our genius was like a flowering of grace, intelligence,
and coquetry ... I mean the eighteenth century" [cette heure merveilleuse OU notre genie
fut comme une floraison de grace, d'esprit, de coqueterie ... rai nommee Ie dix-huitieme
siecle].) Even more to the point, apropos Watteau's Rendez-vous de chasse, another work
shown at Martinet's in 1860, he described the French master as "a Veronese doubled with
VeLisquez" -the point not being the specific connection, interesting as it is, so much as the
habit of mind it represents. (See Astruc, "La Galerie de M. Ie comte de Morny," 3d article, Le
Pays, July 17, 1862, un Veronese double de Velasquez). On Astruc see Sharon Flescher,
Zacharie Astruc: Critic, Artist and japoniste, I833-I907, Outstanding Dissertations in the
Fine Arts (New York and London, 1978); and idem, "Manet's 'Portrait of Zacharie Astruc': A
Study of a Friendship and New Light on a Problematic Painting," Arts Magazine 52 (June
1978): 98-103. The role of the first stanza from Astruc's poem "La Fille des iles" as quoted in
the livret for the Salon of 1865 in provoking the violently negative critical response to Olympia
is emphasized by Eric Darragon (Darragon 1989, pp. I I 6-1 8). Also worth mentioning is that
Astruc early on had studied Velasquez at the Prado, and that it was he who devised Manet's
itinerary when the painter visited Madrid in 1865. For the text of Astruc's letter to Manet sug-
gesting the itinerary see Edouard Manet: Voyage en Espagne, ed. Juliet Wilson-Bareau (Caen,
19 88 ), pp. 29-40.
Chapter Two
terial tight around her legs." 59 Astruc briefly describes the horizons that
open up beyond "that beautiful sphinx," noting among other things a
river of forgetfulness that "bathes the temples and palaces along its banks
and cradles the ships on which Watteau's traveling pleasures seem to
be embarked."60 He then returns to Venus and her gaze: "The young
woman freezes one's gaze; she terrifies, she tortures and charms; her pen-
etrating eyes, fixed upon you, lit by a glacial and magnificent ray, are
frighteningly cruel. There truly is Venus as the poets have dreamed her:
sometimes vampire, sometimes siren-beautiful, implacable, and re-
lentlessly impassive-that is to say always mistress and tyrant!"61
My point in quoting Astruc is not to suggest that Manet was influenced
by his remarks, and it is certainly not to imply that Astruc's high-flown
description of Venus's state of mind perfectly fits Olympia's (arguably the
least love-struck woman in all Western painting). But certain qualities
that Astruc ascribes to "Botticelli"'s picture, above all what he calls Ve-
nus's glacialness and impassiveness, have always been seen as present in
Olympia. More broadly, the passages I have cited indicate a responsive-
ness to Venus's direct and disconcertingly inexpressive visual address to
the beholder that invites comparison with Manet's predilection for a sim-
ilar mode of address throughout his career (partly on those grounds,
Manet's paintings ofthe 1860s were often characterized as "bizarre," As-
true's cover term for the Venus).62 Finally, Manet's closeness to Astruc at
this time supports the notion that the two shared an enthusiasm for the
"Botticelli," whose iconic stiffness and hard clarity of outline have their
equivalents in Manet's controversial masterpiece of roughly four centu-
ries later. (Until now those qualities along with the character of Olym-
pia's gaze have been associated with an interest on Manet's part in
photography, including pornographic photography, and indeed the one
"source" by no means precludes the other.)
Moreover, the likely importance of the Venus in the conception of
Olympia, and perhaps also (to a lesser degree) in that of the Dijeuner,
supports Proust's claim that Manet admired "the conscientious sincerity
of the Italian primitives"63 as well as Astruc's testimony in 1866 that
"Botticelli is one of the passions of the large modern realist group. "64 A
complementary perspective is implied by Astruc's assertion in the second
of the three articles on the Musee Napoleon III: "All the modern schools
can be found in germ-what I am saying!-[can be found] affirmed in
[the primitives]. "65 By this I mean that Astruc's self-correction, from "in
germ" to "affirmed," suggests a near reversal of the ordinary temporal
point of view: as if from his standpoint in the early 1 860s the apparent
fecundity of the "primitives" -the sense their works conveyed of being
ripe with all the painting that came afterward-assumed something of
the character of the willed relation to earlier art that marked not just his
friend Manet's practice but also that of an entire generation of ambitious
painters. Put more strongly, Astruc's remarks evoke a moment in the evo-
lution of European painting when the "beginning" and the "end" of that
evolution-the most remote reaches of the continuous pictorial past and
the most advanced expression of the present day-appeared virtually in-
terchangeable across the newly visible expanse of all the painting that
crowded between (one obvious figure for that expanse was the nineteenth-
century museum).66 Writing in 1884, one year after Manet's death,
Jacques de Biez called Manet "a French primitive" and referred to the
works of the primitives as "radiant with memories, full of promises."67
Whatever de Biez may have meant by his remark, read in this context it
suggests that the respective contents of those memories and promises
were the same.
One of my proposals in "Manet's Sources" that has met with the most
resistance was that Manet based the figure of the dead Christ in his Angels
at the Tomb of Christ (pI. 6) on the almost wholly naked corpse of a
young man in the left foreground of Gericault's Raft of the Medusa (fig.
49). I also suggested that the weeping angel at the left in Manet's canvas
owes something to the pose and action of the older man who supports the
body of the dead youth. And I glossed those connections by noting that
Gericault in the 1 860s had come to be seen not just as one of the foremost
French masters of the century but specifically as a realist, which meant
that Manet, in a canvas that flouted Courbet's dictum that a painter
should only paint what can be seen, "not only challenged but circum-
vented Courbet's authority. "68 At the time, it seemed impossible to prove
that Gericault's dead youth lay behind Manet's Christ: the resemblance
was less than perspicuous, and I saw no additional evidence to which I
could appeal. Soon after the publication of "Manet's Sources," however,
I became aware of a middle term between the Raft and the Angels at the
Tomb of Christ that strongly supports my intuition.
In March 1 8 5 1, six months after the young Manet had entered his stu-
dio, Thomas Couture received a commission for three large mural paint-
ings in the Chapel of the Holy Virgin in the Church of Saint-Eustache,
Paris.69 One of the major public commissions of the period, the chapel
15 8 Chapter Two
with its new paintings was officially opened in October 1856, by which
time Manet had left Couture to strike out on his own; but the murals were
the latter's chief project during the years Manet spent in his studio and all
Couture's students would have been aware of what their teacher was up
toJo Two of the panels, the central one (Mater Salvatoris Ora Pro Nobis),
depicting Mary and the Christ child flanked by thirteen angels, and the
right-hand panel (Consolatrix Af{lictorum), depicting an angel interced-
ing for a group of supplicants while three women kneel before a statue of
the Virgin, have no bearing on our topic, but the left-hand panel (Stella
Maris) is another matter (fig. 80). In it Couture has represented two long-
haired angels with outspread wings coming to the rescue of a group
of shipwrecked men and women on a rocky island surrounded by a
stormy sea.
Figure 80. Thomas Couture, Stella Maris, 1850-56.

Nothing could be plainer than that Couture in that panel intended a

deliberate allusion to the Raft of the Medusa, which had already played a
role in the conception of his Romans of the Decadence and the unfinished
project for the Enrollment of the Volunteers of 1792.71 There is also a
close similarity between Couture's and Manet's angels in the Stella Maris
and the Angels at the Tomb of Christ as regards facial type, treatment of
the hair, and the emphasis both artists give to their respective angels'
wings. And since Manet would surely have been aware of the importance
of the Raft to the Stella Maris, Couture's panel thus emerges as a strong
pictorial link between Gericault and Manet-precisely the sort of evi-
dence I lacked when I first suggested that the figure of the dead Christ
paraphrased that of the dead youth supported by the grieving older man.
This is not to say that Manet needed the Stella Maris to make use of-
provide access to-the Raft; it would be truer to say that I required it to
make the Manet-Gericault connection stick. But it may be that its explic-
itly religious subject matter helped suggest to Manet the transformation
of the dead youth into a dead Christ. And to the extent that Manet in the
Angels at the Tomb of Christ was concerned with circumventing Cour-
bet, his immediate realist predecessor, by appealing to the great realist
painter of the early nineteenth century, that act of circumvention itself
may be understood as having taken place under the sign of Couture: as if
Manet made the less daunting authority of his former teacher serve what
Bloom would call his "transumptive" desire at once to displace Courbet
and to identify with Gericault.72 In any case, Manet's familiarity with the
Stella Maris allowed an unexpected response to Courbet's insistence that
painters paint only what can be seen: Manet had seen his angels-in the
Stella Maris, not to mention the paintings or engravings after paintings
by Veronese, Tintoretto, Mantegna, and Ribalta that have also been pro-
posed as possible sourcesJ3
But even as the Angels at the Tomb of Christ honors Couture, it implic-
itly mounts a telling critique of his art: there is no precedent in the Stella
Maris or indeed the Romans of the Decadence for the powerful mus-
cularity of Manet's protagonist, whose solid physique, starkly sculptural
rendering-despite the absence of traditional modeling-and bold fron-
tal orientation show up Couture's avoidance of such qualities. (Couture's
characteristic reliance on schematic underdrawing to hold together a
largely transparent, ebauche-like pictorial fabric made effects of solidity
impossible. 74 Often, too, as in the Stella Maris, faces in his work are
turned away from the viewer or otherwise minimized.)7s Furthermore, in
160 Chapter Two
"Manet's Sources" I suggest that the Angels at the Tomb of Christ may be
seen as a sort of pendant to the Marat by virtue of the contrast between
David's dead or dying hero-Marat at His Last Breath, David called his
picture when he announced its completion to the Convention-and
Manet's representation of a resuscitating Christ. 76 (The connection be-
tween the two works is underscored by the rock bearing an inscribed ref-
erence to the Gospel of Saint John in the right foreground of Manet's
canvas, an equivalent to the inscribed wooden block in the right fore-
ground of the Marat.) In other words, Manet relegates Couture to the
figures of the angels, thus "feminizing" and as it were rarefying him,
while associating himself through the figure of Christ with the "mas-
culine" art of Gericault and David and thereby usurping his teacher's am-
bition to inherit their mantle as leader and regenerator of the French
school. Understood in these terms, the Angels at the Tomb of Christ
emerges as the painting in Manet's oeuvre in which his attempt to gain a
position of mastery with respect to the modern French tradition of David,
Gericault, Couture, and Courbet comes most aggressively to the fore.?7
Another proposal in "Manet's Sources" that has met with skepticism is

that the three principal figures in The Balcony (pI. 8) were intended by
Manet to acknowledge a relation to three distinct national schools: Spain
(via the seated Berthe Morisot), Japan (via the standing Fanny Claus), and
Holland (via the standing Antoine Guillemet). "[A]part from Morisot's
Andalusian look," Fran<;oise Cachin has objected, "there is no serious
support for this interpretation, which schematizes in three individuals in-
fluences diffused throughout the art of the period and which might be
said to err from excessive art historicism."78 But the figure of Claus seems
at least as Japanese in feeling as Morisot seems Andalusian, and the sche-
matization of what Cachin calls "influences" is anything but foreign to
Manet's art, not only throughout the first half of the 1 860s but also, tell-
ingly, in the nearly contemporaneous Portrait of Emile Zola (fig. 65) with
its print after Velasquez's Drinkers (a source for the Old Musician), Japa-
nese woodblock, and etching or photograph of Olympia all slipped into
the edge of a frame in the upper right-hand corner of the painting.79 An-
other work less close in time to the Balcony but no less pertinent on that
account is the Portrait of Zacharie Astruc (1866; fig. 81), the still life in
the left foreground of which, as has been observed, "contains references
to the three artistic traditions that inspired [Astruc] as well as Manet in
the 186os-the Japanese, Spanish, and Dutch."80 Besides, as Cachin
notes, the Balcony as a whole was based on Goya's Majas on the Bal-
cony, 81 which further suggests that the" art historicism" she regrets may
be not mine but Manet's. (Remember, too, that just before he painted the
Balcony Manet made the Luncheon in the Studio, which no one now
doubts alludes to Vermeer. So his interest in Dutch painting at this time is
beyond question.)82 I have no additional evidence to support my reading,
unless it counts as such that the barely legible picture hanging on the rear
wall of the dark apartment toward the right might be a Dutch still life,
and that the tricolor ball in the left foreground perhaps symbolizes
France. 83 But rather than insist on these points, I want to place the ac-
knowledgment of Japan in the Portrait of Zola and Balcony in the con-
text of an important and largely neglected text, Astruc's article "L'Empire
du Soleil Levant" (1867), in which he reviewed the significance for con-
temporary painters and painting of the new awareness of Japanese art. 84
Figure 81. Edouard Manet, Portrait of Zacharie Astruc, 1866.

162 Chapter Two
Throughout his article Astruc emphasizes the commitment of Japa-

nese artists to a direct engagement with nature, which he sees as forming
a link between them and the younger generation of French painters. But
what I find both unexpected and suggestive is Astruc's claim that the ar-
rival in France of Japanese prints threw into relief the hackneyed quality,
the sheer repetitiveness, of European painting. "One can maintain this in
all confidence: originality is lacking in our European art," Astruc writes.
"We flow gently in a few accepted molds and that is all. Nothing proceeds
from absolutely independent personal impressions. The artist begins by
wanting the approval of the public; and, always anticipating its manner of
seeing, its initiative, one condemns it to eternal repetitions which produce
neither absolute disgust nor true pleasure-which leads it to say, with-
out other emotion: 'I know that; it's good.' Rarely is it shaken from its
monotonous sleep of the spirit by some blow of genius-even if mal-
adroit. "85 This doesn't exhaust the interest of Astruc's text. He remarks
for example that the Japanese artists' love of country makes their work
truly national, thereby assimilating it to the dominant conceptual para-
digm of national schools that governed French art-historical thinking in
the 1860s; he then adds that "in more than one respect, one would say
that it continues the Venetians: Carpaccio, Bellini, Lorenzo Costa"86-
which on the one hand seems at odds with his insistence on the unique-
ness of Japanese art and on the other again shows how deeply ingrained
the habit of making comparisons across schools had become. In any case,
Astruc's climactic evocation of the impact Japanese art had on the artists,
critics, and connoisseurs of his generation returns to the notion that what
mattered most was the contrast between its spontaneous engagement
with nature and the stereotypical character of European painting. In his
words: "Japanese art, which wrestles bodily with nature, which isn't at
an, like European art, prepared laboriously, a matter of absolute trans-
mission [i.e. repetition], limited by genres, restricted to two or three com-
binations, simply astonished us." 87
Here too Astruc's remarks open an unfamiliar perspective on the art
of the past. For Thon:~, as we have seen, what became visible toward the
later 18 50S were "the analogies and harmonies that link [the different na-
tional schools] in a great unity," a universalizing vision he found inspir-
ing. (Hence the call for a new art history that would do it justice.) For
Astruc, however, it was rather the depressing tendency of European paint-
ing to produce itself by continual recycling-by what he called redites-
that most struck him, in a certain mood, when he surveyed the art of the
past and of his own time. Evidently the two men, whose views otherwise
tended to be in accord, were looking at the same aspects of European art
with different eyes-Thon:?s analogies and harmonies were Astruc's
repetitions-which perhaps is only to be expected in that they belonged
to different generations and had been shaped by widely disparate experi-
ences. 88
And what of Manet? Was his vision of the art of the past closer to
Thon§'s or Astruc's? Insofar as I have described him as at once thinking in
terms of nationality and positively seeking universality, closer to Thon§'s.
But my account in this chapter of the respective roles of Raphael and Wat-
teau in the Dejeuner sur l'herbe (to mention only that extraordinary,
altogether central work) suggests that his use of sources was meant to call
attention not merely in a general way to analogies and harmonies be-
tween different works and schools but, more precisely, to repetitions and
variations, that is, to what might be called the repetition-structure of
European painting from the early Renaissance on, which strictly histo-
riographically (as distinct from valuationally) puts him closer to his exact
contemporary Astruc. Even Astruc's complaint that European painting
has traditionally restricted itself to "two or three combinations" -surely
that's a bit severe-finds a parallel in Manet's tendency to employ a lim-
ited set of compositional structures few of which involve more than two
or three figures (the Balcony is a case in point). In addition, as we shall
soon see, Astruc's further charge that European painting, unlike Japa-
nese art, has confined itself to discrete genres is relevant to Manet's en-
deavor, above all in the Dejeuner. Having said this, it should also be
stressed that neither Thon§ nor Astruc sympathized with the tendency of
Manet and other contemporary painters to turn conspicuously for sup-
port to earlier painting. (Thon:~ in 1861 called museums cemeteries of art
and said that there were no museums in truly creative ages.)89 By the same
token, that so many painters in Manet's generation turned to earlier art in
one way or another and were widely criticized for doing so makes it less
surprising than it has hitherto seemed (certainly than it seemed to me
when I wrote "Manet's Sources") that Manet's allusions to previous
paintings, as distinct from the apparent affinity between his manner of
painting and those of Velasquez and Goya, failed to elicit detailed com-
mentary from the critics of his time (Thon:~, as noted, was the exception).
To the extent that critics were aware of such allusions, they would have
seen in them still another manifestation, by no means the most glaring, of
a widespread tendency of which they largely disapproved.
Chapter Two
Let me be more precise. What the critics of the I860s found partic-
ularly incomprehensible was when an artist of evident ability seemed to
follow slavishly the manner of an earlier age. The most egregious ex-
amples of this in their eyes were Ribot, whose deliberate adoption of
Ribera-like chiaroscuro was invariably cited in reviews of his work, and
Moreau, whose Oedipus and the Sphinx (pI. 14) and other paintings of
the mid- and late I 860s were associated with the hard, detailed, linear
style of Mantegna and other fifteenth-century Northern Italian masters
(I discuss Ribot in chapter 3 and Moreau in chapter 4). In compari-
son, Manet's apparent stylistic allegiance to Velasquez and Goya was
a far looser affair; moreover, the discrepancy between his citations of a
broad range of earlier works and what was all but unanimously viewed
as his willfully eccentric mode of execution-this despite its general
"Spanishness"-further separated his art from what most critics of the
time understood by the terms" archaism" or even "pastiche." It was left
to later generations of writers to see a problem in Manet's use of sources,
and then, after I969, to suppress that problem almost entirely.
None of this should be taken to imply that the question of the relation of
contemporary painting to the art of the past was first posed in the late
I 8 50S and I 860s. On the contrary, in the form of the problem of eclecti-
cism it had been an issue for French painting and art criticism for more
than a generation, and it will help situate Manet's practice to glance
briefly at an earlier moment in their evolution.
In the last pages of "Manet's Sources" I review the exchange that took
place when Thort~ in I864 described Manet in his Episode in a Bullfight
and Angels at the Tomb of Christ as "pastiching" Velasquez, Goya, and EI
Greco (Thon~'s use of "pastiche" in this context was unusual, for the
reasons just given) and Baudelaire defended Manet by denying that he
had ever seen paintings by Goya or EI Greco or set foot in the Pourtales
Collection, home of the so-called Orlando Muerto then attributed to Ve-
Lisquez and an obvious source for Manet's dead torero. What I didn't
realize at the time was how much was at stake for Baudelaire in that
exchange-more precisely, how central the question of the right relation
of present endeavor to past achievement had been to his writings on
painting from the start. By this I mean not only that the most ambitious of
his early art-critical texts, the" Salon of I 846," relentlessly attacks eclec-
ticism and thus is consonant with his desire almost twenty years later to
portray Manet as uninvolved with earlier art. I also mean that throughout
"Manet's Sources" Reconsidered r65
that "Salon" Baudelaire seeks to apply a "criterion" of "memory" (by

which he means memorability) according to which those paintings are
best that leave the strongest and most lasting-also an immediate-
impression on the memory, and that the operations of that" criterion" are
ultimately to be understood as calling for the establishment of a particu-
lar relationship between a new work and its pictorial antecedents. 9o (The
obscurity of the relationship was such that Baudelaire could not articu-
late it in so many words; it belongs to stratum of his thought he was never
able to master. The account of it I am about to offer is the summary of a
reading of the "Salon" whose conclusions alone can be presented here.)91
Simply put, the implication of the thematics of memory in the "Salon of
I846" is that a serious new work should or (perhaps more accurately)
will inevitably contain within it traces of prior works (there may even be
the suggestion that the best new works will be especially rich in these),
but-and this is the decisive point-the traces of those predecessors must
not announce themselves as such. Or to rephrase this double demand in
terms approaching those of a passage from E. T. A. Hoffmann that Bau-
delaire cites in a footnote ('''True memory ... consists ... in nothing else
but a very lively and easily roused imagination, which is consequently
given to reinforcing each sensation by evoking scenes from the past,
etc.' "),92 the perception of a new work must trigger or activate an end-
lessly regressive sequence of memories of earlier works (in that sense Bau-
delaire anticipates Astruc's apprehension of European painting as a
system of perpetual redites), but not only must those memories not be al-
lowed to overwhelm or otherwise displace the initial perception (as hap-
pens in the work of the eclectics), they must remain below the threshold of
conscious awareness, investing the present with the aura of memory with-
out for a moment appearing on its stage (the mere hint of a "source" suf-
fices to compromise a painting's originality). It should also be stressed, on
logical grounds, that neither must they be forgotten, for in that event they
would no longer be available to come to the support of new perceptions,
with disastrous consequences for the future of painting. It's in this light
that I understand one of the strangest passages in Baudelaire's early cri-
ticism: the long and for the most part enthusiastic discussion in his "Sa-
lon of I 845" of William Haussoullier's The Fountain of Youth (I 845;
fig. 82).93 Commentators have always found it puzzling that Baudelaire
so admired that picture, but from my point of view the revealing moment
comes toward the end when he somewhat tempers his enthusiasm to con-
sider a possible flaw in Haussoullier's performance. "Shall we dare, after
r66 Chapter Two
having so frankly displayed our sympathies," Baudelaire asks not quite

rhetorically, "shall we dare to say that following our pleasant contempla-
tion of this work the names of Giovanni Bellini and some early Venetian
painters crossed our memory? Would Haussoullier be one of those men
who know a little too much about their art? That is a truly dangerous
scourge, and one that compromises the naivete of many excellent im-
pulses. "94 As I interpret these remarks, they not only register Baudelaire's
final, almost belated reservations about Haussoullier's picture. They also
raise the possibility that until that moment memories of Bellini and other
early Venetian painters had been simultaneously activated and sup-
pressed, which on this interpretation would account for the pictur~'s ap-
peal to him in the first place. (It perhaps has not escaped notice that in
certain obvious respects the Fountain of Youth has marked affinities with
the Dejeuner sur l'herbe. There is no reason to think that Manet knew
Haussoullier's picture, but the rapport between the two is underscored
not simply by Baudelaire's enthusiasm for the Fountain of Youth but also
Figure 82. William Haussoullier, The Fountain of Youth, 1845.

by his praise of it as "extremely visible.-There is no way not to see

it"95- a quality that critics will later attribute, ambivalently, to Manet's
paintings.)
Starting in the early 18 50S Baudelaire moved away from the "system"
of his early writings toward a less analytic, more frankly intuitive-in his
lexicon, more naive-mode of criticism. 96 But he never altered his con-
viction that the truly original artist must eschew all reference to the art of
the past, which is what led him to engage in his unwinnable but doubtless
sincere exchange with Thore in 1864. It follows that Baudelaire, in other
respects Manet's chief intellectual companion in the early 1860s, would
have been not just out of sympathy with but fundamentally hostile to the
painter's borrowings from the Old Masters-if, as is far from certain, he
allowed himself to perceive those borrowings in the first place. (His "Sa-
lon of 1846" is full of praise for Delacroix, whose adaptations of earlier
paintings are perfectly evident but go unacknowledged by Baudelaire. 97
On the other hand, a subliminal awareness of Manet's involvement with
past art may have been at work in his famous remark in a letter to Manet
of May 1865, "[Yjou are only the first in the decline of your art. ")98 But
exactly here care must be taken not to simplify the contrast between critic
and painter. For there is an important sense in which Baudelaire's insis-
tence in his early "Salons" that the art of the present appear uncontami-
nated by that of the past has for its deepest rationale the production of a
memory effect by virtue of which the art of the past, far from being quar-
antined, is on the contrary brought into intimate commerce with the art
of the present, supporting the latter by not quite giving itself away. Con-
versely, it's possible to see in Manet's attempts to universalize across dif-
ferent national schools evidence of an aspiration, if not exactly to break
free of or be quits with the art of the Old Masters (the art of the museums),
at any rate to subsume that art in its totality and by so doing to transform
fundamentally the terms of its relation to both present and future paint-
ing (see my comparison toward the end of "Manet's Sources" of Thore's·
"Last Judgment" metaphor with the implications of Manet's citational
practice).99 Indeed it may be that aspiration more than any other which
distinguishes Manet from those painter-contemporaries who, like him,
insisted on harking back, in one way or another, to the art of their prede-
cessors. ';
,. A suggestive parallel to Baudelaire's implicit injunction in the "Salon of 1846" that memories
of previous works remain below the threshold of conscious awareness occurs III Freud, Beyond
the Pleasure Principle, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund
r68 Chapter Two
One further range of issues is perhaps best examined in this context, for
reasons that will become clear as we proceed. A recurrent topic in French
art criticism in the I 860s was the uneasy status of traditional distinctions
among genres in contemporary painting. This is to say more than that the
traditional doctrine of the hierarchy of genres was in disrepair, though
that was certainly true. Starting in the late I 840S if not earlier, the most
gifted and interesting young French painters abandoned history painting
as traditionally understood in favor of other, "lesser" genres, which in
many cases individual artists cultivated as specialties. In particular critics
were struck by the vast increase in the number of painters practicing what
had always (somewhat confusingly) been called "genre painting," that is,
producing pictures, usually though not always modest in scale, whose
subject matter was taken from ordinary life, or at least was not derived
from Greek or Roman myth or history, the Old or New Testament, or
indeed French history.lOo (Couture's Romans of the Decadence was per-
haps the last traditional history painting to be widely seen in its own time
as counting in the central development of nineteenth-century French
painting, and it was soon pushed aside by subsequent events.)
The loss of conviction in history painting had many causes, including
two largely opposite ones, the advent of Courbet's Realism, which at the
outset claimed both the monumentality and the seriousness of tradi-
tional history painting while sharing none of its heroic subject matter,
gestural rhetoric, or dramatic mise-en-scene, and the rise of a market for
Freud, ed. and trans. James Strachey, 24 vols. (London, 1953-74), 18:1-64. There Freud ob-
serves that memory-traces "are often most powerful and most enduring when the process
which left them behind was one which never entered consciousness" and goes on to consider
the possibility that "becoming conscious and leaving behind a memory-trace are processes in-
compatible with each other within one and the same system" (p. 25). From this it would follow
that memories of previous works of art simultaneously activated and suppressed in the percep-
tIOn of a successful new work of art would be all the more deeply embedded in the memory on
that account, which, on the Hoffmannesque premises alluded to above, also means that they
would be made all the more efficacious agents of memorableness with regard to the triggering
perception.
Another line of inquiry, not unrelated to the first, would compare the treatment of mem-
ory in the "Salon of 1846" with Walter Benjamin's speculations on the intimate connection
between what he calls the "aura" of a work of art (or of any perceived scene or object) and
what, following Marcel Proust, he terms the memoire involuntaire ("On Some Motifs in Bau-
delaire," Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn [New York, 1969], pp. 155-
200). (Benjamin also cites and discusses Beyond the Pleasure Principle.) Briefly, my reading of
the "Salon of 1846" suggests that, at least as regards that central text, the "auratic" experience
arises when an involuntary memory or chain of memories is simultaneously mobilized by an
actual perception and yet not quite allowed to become part of the contents of consciousness.
The "inapproachability" that Benjamin associates with the notion of "aura" would thus be a
small-scale, carefully finished pictures suitable for contemporary domes-

tic spaces. (Full-blown, large-scale history painting had always implicitly
depended on governmental support.) But I am less concerned with the
causes of that development, or for that matter with the development it-
self, than I am in a related phenomenon, which critics tended to describe
either as a new and vertiginous proliferation of genres or, alternatively, as
a progressive erosion of all meaningful distinctions between genres, hence
a vertiginous confusion of genres. 101 In both cases what was registered
was a disconcerting fluidity of the discursive space in which paintings
were identified, described, compared, judged. And in both cases critics
were led to deplore what seemed to them the excessive specialization of
contemporary painters, which more than one writer discussed in terms of
the division of labor. "With the miraculous perfection of techniques," Ed-
mond About wrote in r868, "the division of labor, that law of modern
industry, has gradually taken over painting. The time may not be far away
when some genre painter will spend his entire life painting over and over a
woman seated by a fire, and always the same woman." 102 In contrast, the
great painters of the past were often "universal" artists who practiced all
the genres and who took as their subject matter the whole of creation.
Such a painter was Gericault as seen by Chesneau, who wrote: "The great
artists have no speciality; all of nature and man belong to them."103
Another, the latest and perhaps the last, universal painter was Dela-
croix,104 whose exemplariness in that regard surely contributed to Fan-
function of something more than simply the fact that the data of the memoire involontaire can-
not be recalled by an act of will, and the inexhaustibleness that he cites Paul Valery as ascribing
to the genuine work of art would be accounted for in terms of the endlessness of the memory
chain that is brought into play in the experience of a successful new painting (pp. 186-88). This
in turn yields a more precise basis for the claim that modern techniques of mechanical repro-
duction, photography in particular, are "decisively implicated in the phenomenon of the 'de-
cline of the aura'" (p. 187): not, as Benjamin first suggests, because the fact of reproduction
somehow divests the original work of art of its authenticity (see "The Work of Art in the Age of
Mechanical Reproduction," Illuminations, pp. 220-22), or because mechanical reproduction
is inherently on the side of voluntary as opposed to involuntary memory ("On Some Motifs in
Baudelaire," p. 186), but because the proliferation of reproductions of works of art, as well as
the advances in art historical knowledge subtended by that proliferation, make it ever more
unlikely that an educated beholder can remain unaware of at least some of the antecedent
works that lie behind the work at hand. Perhaps this is the "crisis in perception" to which Ben-
jamin refers in a dense passage in the same essay (p. 187). Understood in these terms, "aura"
would be the name of a highly specific historical phenomenon, one that emerged contem-
poraneously with its supposed decay.
The literature on Benjamin is vast and needs no reference here. For a stimulating study of
Freud on memory (and Derrida on both) see David Farrell Krell, Of Memory, Reminiscence,
and Writing: On the Verge (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1990), esp. chaps. 3,4, and 7.
17 0 Chapter Two
tin's making him the posthumous hero of his group portrait of 186 4.
Viewed in that context, Manet's evident determination in the 1860s to
produce works belonging to nearly the full range of genres, including the
major traditional genres of the nude, religious painting, and, in several
versions of the Execution of Maximilian, modern history painting,
strongly suggests that he aspired to be-and to be recognized as being-a
universal artist in his own right. (This is not the only respect in which
Manet can be understood as seeking to undo what were widely taken to
be destructive effects of modernity rather than to embrace modernity as
such.)
But there is more to Manet's pursuit of universality with respect to
genre, and once again the writings of Astruc have a special bearing not
only on his art but also on that of his generation. In Astruc's criticism the
issue of genre is from the outset sharply inflected by an antagonism to
landscape. 1 05 Here is a passage from his Le Salon intime (1860), a review
of an exhibition at Martinet's of works by modern artists:
Landscape is a spoiled child of criticism which never ceases to cry out that it
is a marvel. No matter what has been said about it, one needs the courage to in-
sist that this special production of our time establishes only a meager formula
for art. Within the capabilities of any semi-organized intelligence, it merits
nothing more than a distracted look. It serves as an excuse to laziness. We know
very well both its scope and its complications. To rise to its heights, an accurate
eye and working at it for one or two years are sufficient. I consider, first of all,
that one cannot claim to be a painter even with a solid talent as a landscapist
any more than one is a musician on the strength of a few tunes on the piano.
Landscape (if you will allow me this figure) is one instrument in the great
orchestra of scales that must embrace everything equally. Painting is not
fragmented-it is one. It sees everything, it analyzes everything: it is the expres-
sion of the colorful whole that sums up the world: from man, his dwelling
place, the objects that surround him, to the passions that make him act. Spe-
cialties only end up trivializing art. I am irritated by this new tendency that
leads so many artists to stick to a path that has become facile and even lucra-
tive, neglecting the solid basis of learning that would have assured them
undeniable authority. As a result, narrowness of view, inferiority of arrange-
ment, and without doubt, in the long run, negation of force. It is not with such
principles that a great school is formed, or a great example given, not only to
the future but to contemporaries .... The categories must disappear to make
way for the resume. It is necessary that the landscapist efface himself in favor of
the painter. Only then will nature progress. 106
From the perspective of Impressionism-more accurately, from the

perspective of art history'S customary understanding of Impressionism-
"Manet's Sources" Reconsidered 17 1
Astruc's remarks are bound to seem surprising if not actually retrograde.

Nothing has appeared more obvious than that it was one of the tasks of
painting in the nineteenth century to throw off the yoke of the traditional
doctrine of the hierarchy of genres and thereby establish the truth of the
modern notion of the artistic neutrality of subject matter. l07 Accordingly,
nineteenth-century landscape painting before Impressionism-the work
of Theodore Rousseau, Corot, Daubigny, the Barbizon school generally
-has been viewed as historically progressive by virtue of its subject
matter. By the same token, the rise of Impressionism in the 1870S has
been portrayed at once as continuous with the landscape painting that
preceded it and as marking a crucial stage in the evolution of modern
painting, from its origins in an overvaluing of considerations of subject
matter (as in Greuze's sentimental genre paintings or David's history
paintings), through the progressive leveling of traditional subject hier-
archies under the pressure of pictorial realism (as in Gericault, Courbet,
and Manet), to the total elimination of subject matter with the emergence
of abstract art in the early twentieth century. lOS
Such a narrative is just plausible enough to be hard to demolish perma-
nently, all the more so because the fact that its first major formulations
date from the period in question-Zola and even Thon~ asserted that
subject matter in painting was artistically irrelevant l09 -lends it the au-
thority of a founding modernist insight. But it grossly falsifies the actual
dynamics of the evolution of painting in France between the 1750S and
the advent of Impressionism (it's not so much a founding insight as a
founding myth). One glaring weakness is its assumption that from the
beginning nothing more was at stake in the doctrine of the hierarchy of
genres than considerations of subject matter narrowly understood. I have
treated this topic in Absorption and Theatricality and won't repeat my
arguments here except to say that for what I have called the Diderotian
tradition the core issue was never simply the belief that some classes of
subject matter were inherently more elevated than others; rather, it was
the need to construct a particular relationship between painting and be-
holder that for a time made history painting the "highest" of genres
but also the one that was best suited to effects of drama, its preferred
vehicle. 1 10
The point I want to insist on, though, is that for Manet and his cogen-
erationists Fantin-Latour, Legros, and Whistler landscape did not lend
itself to the fulfillment of the highest pictorial ambitions. Rather they
were all, crucially, figure painters (this was also true of their contempor-
Chapter Two
aries Ribot, Carolus Duran, Puvis de Chavannes, Tissot, Moreau, and

Degas), and the problem they faced, broadly put, was how to distinguish
themselves as such relative to the major figure painters who had preceded
them. In the first place this meant finding a way to go on from Courbet's
Realist canvases of the late 1840S and 18 50S; as was noted in the intro-
duction, the portrayal of Champfleury in Fantin's Homage to Delacroix
signals that desire, while one of Astruc's first pieces of criticism, the elo-
quent "Recit douleureux" of 1859, honors Courbet as the master of the
young generation. I I I It also meant, especially for Legros, coming to
terms with Millet's peasant pictures of the 18 50S and after. And of course
Delacroix, who died in 1863 and was memorialized by Fantin a year later,
was in his most characteristic works a painter of human beings in ex-
tremes of action and emotion, as Duranty (a future participant in the
Homage) stressed in 1859.112 Nor was Impressionism as a movement of
one mind with respect to subject matter. Some of the leading painters
who took part in the Impressionist exhibitions-Degas, Pierre-Auguste
Renoir, Berthe Morisot, Gustave Caillebotte, and Mary Cassatt to name
just five-were primarily figure painters, as was Frederic Bazille, an inti-
mate of the future Impressionists during the 1860s who was killed in the
Franco-Prussian War at the age of twenty-nine. Even as regards the
painters I have called the landscape Impressionists-Claude Monet,
Camille Pissarro, and Alfred Sisley-it can't be emphasized too strongly
that Monet, to speak only of him, expended a vast amount of effort be-
tween 1865 and 1868 on several large-scale figure paintings-his own
Dijeuner sur l'herbe (1865-66), which he never completed to his satis-
faction and only fragments of which remain, the Women in the Garden
(186 7), and the Frankfurt Dijeuner (1868)-before turning, or turning
back, to landscape more or less definitively. (A single-figure painting,
Camille, was a considerable success in the Salon of 1866.)113 Exactly
why Monet gave up figure painting for landscape remains a matter of
conjecture. But his struggles of 1865-68 suggest that the sheer difficulty
of resolving a set of problems concerning the relation of painting to be-
holder (and painter) may have been a major factor.l 14 Moreover, it's im-
portant to remember that the movement that immediately followed
Impressionism, the Neo-Impressionism of Georges Seurat and his circle,
returned to figure painting with a vengeance in such works as Seurat's A
Sunday Afternoon on the Isle of Grande-Jatte (1886) and Paul Signac's
Two Milliners (1885-86). (By then Pissarro too was concerned with the
figure.) 115 The primacy of landscape in the mature art of the core Impres-
"Manet's Sources" Reconsidered I73
sionists cannot therefore be explained in terms of a simple teleology based

on the progressive liberation of painting from the idea of a hierarchy of
subject matter. Indeed looked at historically, the valorization of land-
scape that was inseparable from the Impressionist project emerges as a
highly distinctive episode in the evolution of modern painting, one whose
specific motivation remains to be understood. 116
In any event, Astruc continued to campaign against landscape in his
writings of the 1860s,117 and in his "Salon of 1868" went so far as to
announce landscape's imminent death, by which he meant its abandon-
ment in favor of the figure by younger painters, among whom he included
Monet and Renoir (Renoir's Lise and Monet's Camille are said to form a
"bizarre trinity" with Manet's Olympia).118 He wrote:
Here is happy news that is little recognized: landscape is dying, landscape is

dead. The end pursued [by Astruc himself] for ten years will soon be attained.
Certainly we don't pretend to believe that such a brilliant defeat is due solely to
our blows; many others have understood that this lazy study brought only a
factitious vitality to our school and were doubtless unsparing in their criticism;
but finally we were alone at first in signaling the evil, in reacting against a sup-
posed discovery that deprived our painters of the greatest result of the art in or-
der to attach them only to its secondary products. The young painters, it is
visible, are rallying to the figure. They understand that its domain embraces
everything: man, objects, plants, flowers, trees-nature in its harmonious en-
semble, that is the vast subject proposed to the painter. 119
Astruc acknowledged that he was seeing what he had always hoped to

see. But no contemporary critic was closer to all the most progressive
younger artists-both to Manet and his contemporaries and to the future
Impressionists-and it isn't hard to understand how at that moment
their work appeared to justify his conclusions. 120
But more is at stake in the passage from Astruc's Le Salon intime I be-
gan by quoting than an antagonism to landscape in the interests of the
figure. Rather, Astruc was opposed to all specialization, and beyond that,
still more interestingly, to the very principle of dividing painting into dif-
ferent categories based on subject matter. To cite again two remarks from
that passage: "Painting isn't fragmented-it is one." And: "The catego-
ries [i.e. separate genres] must disappear to make way for the resume."
We might say that for Astruc a belief in the essential unity of painting
was correlated with a desire to escape the restrictions of genre entirely.
(An exemplary virtue of Japanese art in his eyes was its freedom from
such restrictions.) "The landscape school will dissolve in the universal
I74 Chapter Two
school," he predicted in the article of I 868 quoted above 121 -a formula-

tion that recalls various statements by Thore first cited in "Manet's
Sources" to the effect that in the modern world the different national
schools were in the process of becoming subsumed in a single universal
school of painting.
In view of my claim that Manet's use of sources in older art had as its
deepest purpose the achievement of universality with respect to national
schools, the question arises whether his treatment of genre evinces a com-
parable aim. I believe it does, and not only because, unlike his contempor-
aries, he seems programmatically to have worked in almost the full range
of pictorial genres. (The one "pure" genre Manet avoided was Astruc's
bete noire, landscape.) Even closer to Astruc's thought is the treatment of
genre in the most extravagantly ambitious of all Manet's paintings of the
first half of the 1860s, the Dejeuner sur l'herbe (pI. 3). Whatever else it
may be, the Dejeuner, as has been stressed, is a large fete champetre; it is
also, self-evidently, a study of the female nude; by virtue of its quotation
of the figure group from Marcantonio's engraving after Raphael's Judg-
ment of Paris, it belongs as well if not to history painting or allegory as
such, at any rate to la grande peinture, the art of the Raphaelesque ideal;
that the three principal figures manifestly depict actual persons whose
identities are known to us means that the Dejeuner is also an example of
portraiture (the "portrait effect" is most intense in the case of the seated
Victorine Meurent, no doubt because her gaze directly out of the painting
invokes a basic convention of the genre); the wonderful sprawling still life
in the left foreground speaks for itself; the wholly untypical extent of the
forest setting-ordinarily Manet would have cropped his composition
much more closely around the main figure-groupl22-asserts a relation-
ship to landscape; finally, I see the bullfinch frozen in flight at the upper
center of the canvas (fig. 151) as a parodic but not therefore unserious
allusion to the dove of the Holy Ghost that appears in that position in
scenes of the baptism of Christ (Manet originally called his picture Le
Bain), which is to say that religious painting too has its place in the De-
jeuner.123 In sum I see Manet's project in the Dejeuner as involving a
deliberate attempt to bring together and in effect to fuse in a single
large-scale work as many of the major genres of painting as he could
encompass-to paint a picture in which the separate categories indeed
make way for the resume, a word that means not just "summing up" but
"epitome" and thus seems particularly appropriate to Manet's venture as
I have described it.124
"Manet's Sources" Reconsidered I75
Not that Astruc in 1860 had such a strategy in mind, any more than
Thore, prophesying an evolution toward a universal school of paint-
ing, envisioned Manet's practice of multiple, overdetermined quotation.
Rather, both Thore and Astruc imagined that a new, essentially real-
ist art could somehow make a clean break with the past and so free itself
from a host of constraining conventions (Thore's model for this was
Dutch seventeenth-century painting, Rembrandt especially). In contrast,
Manet, in a way that was characteristic of his generation of painters, in-
stinctively rejected the idea of such a break. Where Manet was unique is
that he seems also to have believed that no solution to the problems con-
fronting his generation could be valid-could compel full conviction-
that did not attempt to summon all the resources of painting, or least as
many of them as could be made viable at that juncture. Perhaps more than
anything else-certainly far more than any desire for purity of medium
based on exclusion or simplification-a desire for comprehensiveness, a
pursuit of what in "Manet's Sources" I call "painting altogether," was the
hallmark of Manet's modernism.
One other critic may be cited here. Toward the end of a highly intel-
ligent and largely positive discussion of Manet's paintings in the Salon
des Refuses, a writer not yet mentioned, the pseudonymous Le Capitaine
Pompilius, expressed the hope that Manet would one day become a mas-
ter: "He possesses," Pompilius wrote, "the frankness, the conviction, the
power, the universality, that is to say, the stuff of great art." 125 This might
be just a lucky hit, without real significance. But the article as a whole is
impressive enough to suggest that its author may have had something
specific in mind. Moreover, at the moment of its writing-June 1863-
Manet had not yet painted the first of his mature religious canvases, the
Angels at the Tomb of Christ, and he may well not have begun work on
Olympia. Nor for that matter had he begun painting stilllifes in earnest.
And the brilliant naval battle picture of the Kearsarge and the Alabama
was roughly a year away. So what could have motivated the claim about
Manet's "universality" if it wasn't some understanding of the genre struc-
ture of the Dejeuner sur /'herbe, or conceivably even of Manet's exploita-
tion of earlier art? Obviously a lot depends on the identity of the
pseudonymous critic: if he could be shown to have known Manet person-
ally, hence to have been in a position to have some notion of Manet's
thought, we might be more inclined to attach significance to his choice of
words. Now, it turns out that Le Capitaine Pompilius was a journalist and
playwright who usually published under the nom de plume Edmond de
Chapter Two
Bieville and whose real name was Carle Desnoyers. 126 And what makes
that discovery intriguing is that Carle was the older brother of Fernand
Desnoyers, a poet and art critic closely linked with the generation of 1863
and the author of a well-known account of the Salon des Refuses. 127 Later
on in this book I shall suggest that Carle Desnoyers, under another pseud-
onym, also wrote three short articles on the Salon of 1865, the last of
which contains an exceptional response to Olympia. To the best of my
knowledge these together with his account of the Salon of 1863 are all the
art criticism he ever published; intellectually, however, they put Fernand's
contributions in the shade, and before I am done I shall be making exten-
sive use of them. In the meantime my point is simply that in Carle Des-
noyers's praise of Manet in 1863 we may have at least the hint of a con-
temporary appreciation of his art along the lines of my argument.
Starting in the late 1960s Manet's Old Musician (pI. 2), the keystone of
my argument in "Manet's Sources," moved from the margins toward the
center of discussions of his art. One consequence is that we now know
more about its sources than we did before, but the renewed attention has
also led, in a manner I take to be exemplary of Manet studies generally,
to the eclipse of the larger question of his relations with the art of the past.
In bringing this chapter to a close it will be useful to consider how that has
occurred.
By far the most important of the new discoveries is a photograph of a
specific person, the gypsy Jean Lagrene (fig. 83). Although its date, 1865,
means that the photograph itself can't have played a role in the genesis of
Manet's picture of three years earlier, Marilyn Brown has argued per-
suasively that Lagrene, leader of a band of gypsies in Manet's neighbor-
hood and a professional artist's model, was the original of the seated
violinist. 128 (We might say the photograph has certified Lagrene himself
as a "source. ") Indeed for Reff the discovery that Manet's protagonist
was based on an actual person has served to promote a strongly thematic
as well as normalizingly realistic reading of the Old Musician, according
to which the latter, "a picture of haunting, melancholy power," repre-
sents
the displaced inhabitants of Petite Pologne, [a] once notorious area of decrepit
slums .... In it [Manet] describes sympathetically not only those undesirable
types Haussmann [the Prefect of the Seine whose grandiose urban projects
transformed Paris during the Second EmpireJ129 wished would go away-an
itinerant musician, a quack peddler, a chronic alcoholic, an orphan girl-but
also a street urchin whose incongruous, Pierrot-like costume alludes to the Par-
isian home of the commedia dell'arte, the Theatre des Funambules, itself a vic-
tim of urban renewal; along with other popular theaters on the boulevard du
Temple, it was about to be destroyed. Thus the Old Musician, far from being
"Manet's last portrayal of peasant life in a more romantic manner" before he
turned to modern urban subjects later in 1862, is actually his first portrayal of
lower-class street life in a manner half romantic and half realist. 130
Elsewhere in the same text Reff writes, "the iconographic thread that
binds [Manet's figures] together is their estrangement from a society that
not only rejects them as alien and dangerous, but has literally displaced
Figure 83. Jean Lagrene,

photograph, 186 5·
Chapter Two
them from the slums they once occupied. Each of them was a familiar type
in the city whose streets Manet, a 'perfect flaneur' in Baudelaire's sense,
loved to explore, and some of them can even be named." Reff goes on to
cite not only Lagrene but also other actual persons whose connection
with the figures in the Old Musician can only be conjectural. 131 Nor is it
evident that Manet's painting depicts either a quack peddler or an orphan
girl as Reff confidently claims it does-on what authority?
All this typifies the low-wattage social history of art that was popular
during much of the 1970S and 1980s. And what is also typical of Reff's
approach is the absorption of Manet's allusions to earlier art in and by
his thematic reading. So for example Manet's reference to Velasquez's
Drinkers is glossed by the remark that "that picture too shows a group of
bohemian characters disposed in a shallow, friezelike space"; Watteau's
Gilles is described as "the very image of the alienated individual" 132 and
is associated both with the destruction of the Theatre des Funambules
and with Duranty's newly opened marionette theater in the Tuileries Gar-
dens (is there a hint of contradiction here?);133 and both Le Nain's old
piper, from an engraving after the painting in Detroit Reff prefers as a
source to the Halte du cavalier (fig. 84),134 and the philosopher Chrys-
ippos, a Hellenistic statue in the Louvre Manet copied in a drawing (figs.
85, 86) and that Alain De Leiris long ago proposed as a source for
Manet's seated violinist,135 are held to be appropriate to Manet's theme
in that the type of the itinerant musician was characterized by a contem-
porary writer, Victor Fournel, author of Les Spectacles populaires et les
artistes des rues, as "a philosopher: he knows the vanity of worldly glo-
ries. "136 Even the loosely brushed, virtually featureless, in any case abso-
lutely unspecific setting of Manet's canvas gets recuperated thematically.
"If it is not Petite Pologne," Reff says, "it may well be the 'remote street'
beyond the Parc Monceau, surrounded by 'huge vacant lots,' where
[Manet] had his studio, an area still so undeveloped that it could be de-
scribed at the time as 'returning to virgin forest.' "137
Considered in its own terms, Reff's account of the Old Musician is un-
persuasive for several reasons. First, it asserts connections that seem
forced and arbitrary. This is obviously true of his speculations about the
picture's locale, but it holds as well for most of the other real-world asso-
ciations on which his interpretation depends. Second, Reff is sometimes
blatantly anachronistic, as when he speaks of Velasquez's "bohemian
characters" or Watteau's "alienated individual." Third, he takes a paint-
ing that has always been considered problematic, imputes to it expressive
qualities- "haunting, melancholy power" -no one ever detected in it

before,138 but makes no effort to explain either how and why those qua-
lities previously went unrecognized or how and why they suddenly be-
came discernible. This is partly what I meant when I called his reading of
the Old Musician normalizingly realistic: his aim is not to account for the
painting's strangeness (my object in "Manet's Sources") but rather to dis-
solve that strangeness through a combination of iconographic linkages
(itinerant musicians were characterized as philosophers), blobs of social
history (a slum not far from Manet's studio was razed in the early 1860s),
and implicit appeals to unequivocal visual experience (Manet's picture
just looks a certain way). My disagreement is as much with Reff's proce-
dures as with his claims. Finally, as already remarked, Reff subordinates
the question of the meaning of Manet's use of sources in the art of the past
to a pursuit of thematic coherence keyed to the painting's allegedly realis-
tic and socially progressive content. But such an argument collapses of its
own weight: after all, Manet didn't need to refer to works by Velasquez,
Figure 84. Engraving after Louis(?) Le Nain, The Old Piper.

180 Chapter Two
Figure 85. Hellenistic statue

formerly thought to be a portrait
of Chrysippos, as Manet would
have seen it.
Watteau, and Le Nain in order to realize the project Reff imputes to him,
and when one thinks of what he had to do to declare the connection with
the Drinkers or to make the boy in white recall the Gilles the notion that
all this had a merely thematic end in view seems absurd. The absurdity
becomes more patent when we bring to mind other works of these years
and are thus forced to conclude that Manet's concern with Watteau and
Le Nain (to mention only French painters) extends well beyond the Old
Musician, a fact that Reff's approach, like that of recent scholarship gen-
erally, is unable to accommodate.
A related point is that the increasing recognition, starting in the late
1960s, of both the multiplicity and the diversity of the images that can be
shown to have played a role in Manet's art has directed attention away
from the question of the meaning of his strictly pictorial or say Old Mas-
ter sources. As regards the Old Musician the photograph of Jean Lagrene

drawing after Chrysippos, 18 50S?
is emblematic of that enlarged frame of reference, while the statue of

Chrysippos and, still another source, a magazine illustration after a re-
cent painting, Henri-Guillaume Schlesinger's The Kidnapped Child
(186 I; fig. 87),139 which provides the closest precedent we have for
the figure of the girl holding a baby at the left of Manet's canvas, have
seemed difficult to connect other than thematically with the allusions to
Velasquez, Watteau, and Le Nain. Indeed the more scholars have become
aware of the extent of Manet's interest in various kinds of popular imag-
ery, including photographs, the more they have treated all Manet's
sources as functionally equivalent-the more they have assumed that all
the images that went into the making of his paintings mattered to him in
exactly the same way: as mere images, so to speak.140 This seems to be the
view of one of the most intelligent of Manet's recent commentators, Jean
Clay, whose influential essay, "Ointments, Makeup, Pollen," begins:
182 Chapter Two
Figure 87. Wood engraving after Henri-Guillaume Schlesinger, The Kidnapped Child, r861.
Manet does not have a style, he has all of them. "Imitator," pasticheur-the
reproach echoes throughout the 18 60S in Thort~, Mantz, or Gautier. Manet
treats the artistic heritage the way Walter Benjamin's flfmeur handles merchan-
dise. The Louvre is a passage, a market stand, where the painter strikes his bar-
gain. The history of art is on sale, the past is flattened, desacralized,
manipulated, instrumentalized-the end of aura. We are no longer in a vein of
reverent quotation, but of tapping and recycling. Manet skims from
anywhere-he reverses, assembles, tinkers. In this wholly prosaic rapport with
tradition, the history of art-its institutions and rules-is denied the silent au-
thority it had exercised on every young painter since his first stroke of the
brush.
This flattening entails the end of hierarchies and schools, the end of the great
canonical antitheses (Poussin versus Rubens, Ingres versus Delacroix). By draw-
ing simultaneously on Titian, Raphael, Hals, Velasquez, Ribera, Zurbaran,
Murillo, Le Nain, Watteau, Goya, Gericault (and countless others, the list of
whom grows longer every day thanks to the ferocious effort of the iconogra-
phers); by borrowing from Japanese art; and by seeking inspiration in photo-
graphy, Manet subverts the notions of linear continuity, progress, and
source .... It is precisely because he quotes-and by his mode of quotation-
that Manet breaks with the fiction of an art history always already grounded in
precedent. In squandering the past, he only adds to the uncertainty of its future:
all teleology collapses in a chaos of references, into which meaning, plan, and
program sink as well (the Enlightenment is still present in Goya, as is the demo-
cratic ideal in Courbet).141
In obvious respects I find this more congenial than Reff on the Old Musi-
cian. But Clay is much too quick to find in Manet's borrowings and
allusions a work of "flattening" and "subversion," a "chaos of refer-
ences" inimical to any "meaning, plan, [or] program." By so doing he
anachronistically casts Manet as a postmodernist, and one way of charac-
terizing my disagreement with him is to say that I understand Manet's use
of sources as defining a particular moment in the emergence of modernist
painting (also a particular moment in the history of quotation in art) and
that far from seeing him as our contemporary (ca. 1983) I have tried and
shall continue to try to install him in the 18 60S more firmly than ever be-
fore.
On a more modest note, my claim is that it's necessary to discriminate
among Manet's many sources (using the word in its widest sense) in an
effort to determine which were intended by him to play an active role in
an ideal viewer's consciousness and which in contrast may have been use-
ful to him in the painting's construction but in effect got used up, rendered
null and void, in the process (this is more or less the way Wilson-Bareau
tends to view all his sources). In the Old Musician this would distinguish
sharply between his allusions to Velasquez, Watteau, and Le Nain on the
one hand and on the other, his adaptation of the figure of the girl holding
a baby in Schlesinger's Kidnapped Child, which I see as having struck him
as suitable for his purposes largely because of its compatibility with var-
ious female figures in works by Le Nain.142 Similarly, I consider it un-
likely that the statue of Chrysippos was meant to play an equivalent role
to the paintings by Velasquez, Watteau, and Le Nain, though I see no
reason to doubt that in the course of working on the Old Musician
Manet became aware of an affinity between the statue and the "old
philosopher" -type figures in the Le Nains and the Drinkers. (That the
philosopher's right hand in the drawing is in pencil whereas the rest of the
image is in red chalk 143 suggests that the drawing might have been made
at an earlier date and that Manet focused on the hand only after turning
to the Old Musician.) This is not to make an absolute distinction between
Manet's relation to Velasquez, Watteau, and Le Nain on the one hand and
to the Kidnapped Child and the Chrysippos statue on the other. The
sharpest difference, to my mind, is between his use of the three Old Mas-
184 Chapter Two
ters and his exploitation of the Schlesinger, which I take to have been
purely instrumental (he could have had no stake whatever in the Kid-
napped Child in its own right). His interest in the statue falls closer to his
interest in the earlier painters, though I would insist that the Old Musi-
cian can't quite be said to allude to the statue both because our awareness
of a possible relation to the latter is entirely owing to the drawing and
because the statue stands significantly outside the network of pictorial ci-
tations that the painting manifestly sets in place. The crucial artistic refer-
ences therefore remain Velasquez, Watteau, and Le Nain-the focuses of
my reading of the Old Musician in "Manet's Sources." 144
My aim in these remarks has not been primarily to show the weakness
of Reff's account of the Old Musician. Almost every other commentator
on Manet during the past twenty years has ignored, denied, or simplified
the problem of his use of sources in an analogous way, Wilson-Bareau's
intensive but curiously limited analyses of X rays of selected pictures and
Jean Clay's sophisticated but ultimately ahistorical Benjaminian reflec-
tions being two impressive examples. Nor do I imagine that I have entirely
persuaded readers of "Manet's Sources" of the rightness of my updated
arguments. But I would be disappointed not to have made inroads into
their disbelief.
3 The Generation of 1863
IN MY IN T ROD U C T ION I advanced the claim that Manet belonged

to a specific artistic generation, which I called the generation of 1863.
Other members of that generation were Henri Fantin-Latour, Alphonse
Legros, and James McNeill Whistler, all of whom are portrayed along
with Manet in Fantin's Homage to Delacroix, a picture that in vital
respects is emblematic of their commitments. I now want to consider
some representative works by Fantin, Legros, and Whistler in an attempt
to establish a denser yet more fine-grained artistic context than any we
have had for Manet's paintings of the 18 60S. More precisely, I propose to
investigate a network of issues that were crucial to ambitious painting in
France during those years; to that end I shall be making use of the writ-
ings of a number of critics, both friendly and unfriendly to the art in ques-
tion, and in the case of Fantin I shall be quoting from his letters as well.
The issues themselves are complex and do not lend themselves to easy
summary. But they all ultimately concern a single fundamental issue, the
relationship between painting and beholder-the focus of my previous
work on French eighteenth- and nineteenth-century painting and art
criticism. Indeed one principal aim of this chapter will be to ascertain
Fantin's, Legros's, and Whistler's respective places in what I have de-
scribed as a central antitheatrical tradition within French painting from
the mid-eighteenth century on. For as will become plain, a need to come
to grips with the issue of theatricality was basic to the art of all the mem-
bers of the generation of 1863, and in chapter 4, "Manet in His Genera-
tion," I shall go on to argue that it is only in the context of that shared
engagement that the historical singularity-also the ontological complexity
-of Manet's art in that regard can finally be understood.
18 5
r86 Chapter Three
Legros's Ex- Voto
NOT HI N G more reveals the extent to which art history has still not
come to terms with the situation of advanced French painting in the early
r860s than the obscurity surrounding the name of Alphonse Legros.!
Legros, a prodigiously gifted artist, came from a poor family in Dijon. He
arrived in Paris in the early r 8 5os and enrolled as a student at the so-
called Petite Ecole, where he came under the tutelage of Lecoq de Bois-
baudran, a teacher who emphasized the training of the memory, and be-
came friends with the young Fantin-Latour with whom he often copied in
the Louvre. (Part of Lecoq's training involved drawing from memory af-
ter the Old Masters, a discipline in which Legros was adept.)2 In r 8 57 his
Portrait of the Artist's Father (r 8 5 6; fig. 88), a work based on Holbein's
Erasmus, was accepted by the Salon; it was then that the older critic
Champfleury is said to have visited him to express his admiration. Two
years later a more ambitious painting, The Angelus (fig. 142), appeared in
the Salon of r 859, where it attracted favorable notice from Baudelaire,
who also praised Legros's etchings. 3 But more than any other picture of
those years, it was Legros's The Ex-Voto (r860; pI. 9), exhibited in the
Salon of r86r and hanging today in the Musee des Beaux-Arts in Dijon,
that established his early reputation as the most promising artist of his
generation. 4
From among various descriptions of that painting by contemporary
critics, I want to cite one by Edmond Duranty, who knew Legros person-
ally and who also appears in Fantin's Homage to Delacroix (he is the
bearded figure in profile at the lower left). 5 His description of the Ex- Voto
comes from an important but neglected short essay, "Those Who Will
Be the Painters (Apropos the Recent Salons)," published in Fernand
Desnoyers's Almanach Parisien for r867. The future painters to whom
Duranty's title refers are the young realists I have been calling the genera-
tion of r863. His account of that generation begins:
In r86r a remarkable painting appeared at the Salon, entitled The Ex- Voto;
it represented some old women, kneeling in the countryside at the foot of a col-
umn bearing a votive image. It was signed Legros.
One recognized in it first the temperament of a painter, a painter who knew
how to exploit simple and broad resources without falling into the particular
techniques of some specific atelier. At the same time, and more important, the
feeling of modern life shone forth strongly in this work.
These were common old women, dressed in common clothing, whom the
artist took for his personages, but the rigid and machinelike stupidity that the
The Generation of r863
painful and difficult existence of the poor gave to their crevassed faces appeared
with a profound intensity. The accent of a particular world was completely ex-
pressed. Everything that can strike, arrest, and hold one before human beings;
everything that is meaningful, concentrated, violent in them radiated from this
group of old women, from their faces, their clothing, the countryside, and the
votive column.
And by a forced accord, the very means of painting was identified so well
with the nature of the personages thus rendered, that one was gripped by one
single impression, vivid and clear; one cried out, it's well painted, here is a true
Figure 88. Alphonse Legros, Portrait of the Artist's Father, 1856.

188 Chapter Three
Figure 89. Jean-Fran<;ois Millet, The Gleaners, 1857.
work, a strong work rune oeuvre vraie, une oeuvre forte; the word oeuvre here
carries something of the connotations of a key eighteenth- and nineteenth-
century art-critical term, tableau, which in certain contexts-as we shall see-
designated a fully unified painting]. 6
Almost every sentence rewards close attention. Consider, to begin with,
the statement that "the rigid and machinelike stupidity that the painful
and difficult existence of the poor gave to their crevassed faces appeared
with a profound intensity." What Duranty is responding to is the evoca-
tion of a certain automatism in the women's expressions and demeanor
and the further suggestion that that automatism is visibly a function of
their humble and constrained mode of existence. The foremost recent
precedent for effects of that sort was the peasant paintings and drawings
of Jean-Fran<;ois Millet, whose art was controversial throughout the
18 60S precisely because of the single-mindedness with which it sought to
evoke the total absorption of peasant men and women in their repetitive,
automatistic, in that sense machinelike labors (as in The Gleaners [1857;
fig. 89]); or in simple domestic tasks which were no less mechanical for
being physically undemanding (as in Woman Sewing by Her Sleeping
The Generation of 1863
Child [1854- 56; fig. 90]); or in prayer at the end of the day( as in The
Angelus [1859; fig. 91]); or, a limit case, in brute physical exhaustion (as
in The Vineyard Worker [1869-70; fig. 92]).7 In French painting from the
mid-eighteenth century on, the representation of absorption carried with
it the implication that the figure or figures in question were unaware of the
presence before the canvas of the beholder; in this sense it was an antithe-
Figure 90. Jean-Fran<;ois Millet, Woman Sewing by Her Sleeping Child, 1854- 5 6.
Chapter Three
Figure 91. Jean-Fran<;ois Millet, The Angelus, 1859.
atrical device, one that was instrumental to attempts by successive gener-

ations of French painters to make pictures that would somehow negate or
neutralize the primordial convention that paintings are made to be be-
held;8 and in fact the critics who continued to admire Millet during the
I860s and I87os-an impressive list that includes Edmond About, As-
truc, Maxime Du Camp, Castagnary, Chesneau, Duret, Theodore Pello-
quet, Jean Rousseau, Alfred Sensier, and Thore-praised his art largely
on those grounds. 9 (The presence on this list of Astruc and Duret, two of
Manet's most fervent champions, ought to give us pause. In what sense
was an admiration for Millet's hyperabsorptive works compatible with a
taste for Manet's facing compositions? More on this as we proceed.)
Other writers, however, notably Baudelaire, Duranty himself, Theophile
Gautier (an early enthusiast but, starting in I 86 I, a consistent critic), and
Paul de Saint-Victor, were repelled by the obviousness of Millet's osten-
sibly antitheatrical aims, which for them had the contrary effect of too
blatantly seeking to persuade the beholder that the figures in the painting
were oblivious to his presence.l o So that Millet's figures seemed to them,

not in fact absorbed in their labors and hence unaware of being beheld,
but merely pretending to be both-which is to say they found his paint-
ings egregiously, unbearably, theatrica1. 11 Everything turned, in other
words, on a subjective judgment that by the nature of the case ran to one
or the other extreme. This is why for viewers in the I860s and I870S, as
Astruc put it, "One doesn't like [Millet] halfway: one is either fanatical
about him or repelled by him. "12
In Courbet's Realism I argued that Courbet pursued a fundamentally
different strategy but one that was equally anti theatrical in intent. And I
presented that strategy as a response to what I saw as the growing inabil-
ity of the depiction of absorptive states and activities-most crucially, in
Millet's paintings-to read unequivocally as antitheatrical. 13 I still think
that is largely correct, but what I hadn't fully appreciated when I wrote
those pages was the persistence throughout the I860s (and after)
of the view that Millet's peasants did appear oblivious of the beholder,
Figure 92. Jean-Fran<;ois Millet, The Vineyard Worker, pastel and black crayon, 1869-70.
Chapter Three
and I certainly hadn't recognized that for some critics in the r 860s the
sheer excessiveness of his art-the single-mindedness or all-too-obviousness
of his pursuit of absorption-was perceived as a positive virtue. Through-
out those years, too, Millet and Courbet were contrasted with one an-
other on the grounds that whereas Millet's art masterfully evoked the
total determination of the peasant's actions, gestures, and inner life (how-
ever minimal or restricted) by his or her immersion in a brutalizing rou-
tine, Courbet's art was exclusively concerned with the quasi-photographic
depiction of material surfaces and hence lacked all suggestion of psycho-
logical and/or spiritual" depth." 14 Such a view was unfair to Courbet,
whose art was far more complex than it acknowledges and who indeed
was strongly attracted to absorptive themes and motifs. But for con-
temporary critics the issue of Courbet's Realism, like that of realism gen-
erally, was ideologically overdetermined in ways that foreclosed the
possibility that his paintings might be seen in other than the most literal,
positivist, and materialist terms. (Baudelaire's failure to recognize the
deeply "imaginative" nature of Courbet's Realist pictures shows the pro-
cess at work.) It didn't help that Courbet in the r 860s exhibited various
works that either damaged his reputation-the Return from the Confer-
ence (r863) and the Peasant Child Giving Alms to a Beggar (r868)-or
raised doubts about his commitment to Realism-the Woman with a Par-
rot (r866) and to some extent the landscapes-and that that too was in
contrast with the consistency of Millet's art during those years. Not that
Courbet was artistically a spent force; far from it. But starting in the early
r 860s his painting ceased to be the focus of artistic controversy it had
been throughout the r 8 5os. Instead, among artists older than Manet and
his friends, it was Millet whose work increasingly emerged as that in re-
sponse to which almost every critic of note defined his or her deepest be-
liefs about the aims and limits of painting.
These developments were still mainly in the future when Legros exhib-
ited the Ex- Voto, however, and critics in r 86 r did not hesitate to associate
it with Courbet's monumental signature painting, A Burial at Ornans
(r 849-50; fig. 93) and to see in that connection an affirmation of Legros's
allegiance to realism. IS No doubt largely for that reason, they failed to
connect Legros's picture with Millet, whose paintings of peasant subjects
were much smaller in scale and altogether different in style. But with Du-
ranty's commentary as our guide, it becomes plausible to view the Ex-
Voto as combining Courbet and Millet: the women in black could have
stepped out of the Burial (as was said at the time), and the picture's rela-
The Generation of 1863 193
tively large scale, realist descriptive mode, and frank, painterly execution
are closer to Courbet than to any other artist; at the same time, its power-
ful, explicit thematization of absorption in prayer links the Ex- Voto with
Millet, whom Legros also admired. (As does its evocation of what Du-
ranty calls" a particular world," by which he means a world apart, in that
sense a hermetic world, enclosing its inhabitants; more on that further
on, and on the related claim, surprising on the face of it, that the Ex- Voto
expresses "the feeling of modern life.") Not, however, that one would
quite wish to endorse Duranty's insistence on the "rigid and machinelike
stupidity" of the women: for all the single-mindedness of Legros's evoca-
tion of religious devotion, Duranty's language itself seems excessive, as if
his own commitment to an ideal of "profound intensity" led him to go
beyond what was there to be seen-to treat Legros's picture as even more
Millet-like than it is. A similar tendency is at work in his claim that "ev-
erything that is meaningful, concentrated, violent in them radiated from
this group of old women" - the word "violent" in particular feels over-
done. But that is to say that both Legros's picture and Duranty's essay
testify to a shift of taste within the pictorial avant-garde by virtue of
which the excessiveness in the depiction of absorption that in the view of
certain critics amounted to a fall into theatricality could be recuperated
as an artistically legitimate mode of intensity.
But Duranty's description of the Ex-Voto is concerned with more than
just the appearance of the women or the absorptive tenor of the scene as a
Figure 93. Gustave Courbet, A Burial at Ornans, r849-50.

194 Chapter Three
whole. To recall his words: "And by a forced accord, the very means of
painting was identified so well with the nature of the personages thus ren-
dered, that one was gripped by one single impression, vivid and clear; one
cried out, it's well painted, here is a true work, a strong work." I take the
phrase "the very means of painting" (Ie moyen meme de peinture) to refer
primarily to matters of pictorial structure or composition, which is to say
I understand Duranty to be directing our attention to what he saw as a
perfect match between the Ex- Voto's stressed thematics of absorption
and its overlapping of "flat," silhouetted forms in an extremely shallow
space as well as its conspicuous truncation of those forms by the framing
edge.1 6 Just as in Duranty's view there was something concentrated and
violent, rigid and machinelike, in the painting's treatment of absorption,
so there was for him something concentrated and violent and perhaps
also rigid and machinelike in the way in which no less than eight kneeling
women in black have been compressed as if on top of one another into the
right-hand third of the canvas (only three or at most four of their faces
seem available for our inspection) as well as into just a few feet of depth.
Even the kneeling woman in white, set apart from the others, has the
lower portion of her body abruptly and severely-in that sense violently
-sheared off by the bottom of the picture.
In sum Duranty seems to have been struck by a certain forcing both of
the painting's thematics of absorption and of the arrangement of the fig-
ures of the women spatially and with respect to the framing edge; and
what I find significant in turn is that he registers that perception in a
phrase that itself makes use of the notion of forcing: "By a forced accord,
the very means of painting was identified so well with the nature of the
personages thus rendered, that one was gripped by one single impression,
vivid and clear" (emphasis added). Here too we observe the recuperation
of an excessiveness that at earlier moments in the French tradition was
likely to have been perceived as inescapably theatrical. According to Di-
derot's conception of painting, a dramatic ideal of pictorial unity was
equated with an effect of dynamic necessity, but such an effect was sup-
posed never to appear forced or willed, in which case the (antitheatrical)
illusion of internal necessity would give way to a (theatrical) impression
of external constraint. Thus for example Du Camp, a strongly Diderotian
critic, in 186 I praised David's Death of Marat for having "the lugubrious
simplicity of death; nothing of the theatrical, nothing of the forced," and
criticized the apparent naIvete of Tissot's drawing as in fact "willed." 17
Starting around 1860, however, a new desire for pictorial intensity-
more exactly, a desire for a new sort of pictorial intensity-changed the

basic terms of the problem by positively valorizing effects of forcing and
willing within an absorptive framework. As I have already suggested, the
change is most evident in writing about Millet, who was praised for the
strength and, implicitly, the perspicuousness of his artistic will, his in-
domitable volonte: the adjective voulu, willed, surfaces around this time
as intrinsically good, not bad. Millet's own statement of his artistic pro-
ject in a much-cited letter to Pelloquet- "That the things [in a picture]
don't at all have the air of having been brought together by chance and for
the occasion, but that they have between them an indispensable and
forced connection" 18-exemplifies the new view of necessity. But no art-
critical text of the period is more revealing of the transvaluation of pre-
vious values and assumptions than Duranty's discussion of Legros's Ex-
Voto in "Those Who Will Be the Painters." 19
In fact there is more to that transvaluation than has been remarked so
far. The excessiveness and intensity that characterize the Ex- Voto's treat-
ment of absorption find further expression not just in the compositional
forcing we have noted but also, crucially, in a double or divided relation-
ship to the beholder. Under the Diderotian regime, the representation of
figures wholly absorbed in what they are doing, feeling, and thinking car-
ried with it the implication that they were unaware of being beheld-
more strongly, that for all intents and purposes the beholder did not exist.
Accordingly, in Joris-Karl Huysmans's novel, L'Oblat (1903), in a scene
which takes place in the Musee des Beaux-Arts in Dijon, the praying
women in the Ex- Voto are described as "meditating, absorbed, far from
visitors," a phrase that makes sense only if it refers to visitors to the mu-
seum, where the painting already hung. 20 But there is also a sense in
which the excessiveness and intensity I have been emphasizing entail a
fundamentally different relationship to the beholder. This second rela-
tionship is implicit in the silhouettelike drawing, shallow space, and crop-
ping of the figures by the framing edge; it is also expressed in the brilliant
white form of the kneeling woman in the near foreground; and it is made
virtually explicit by the red-framed, gold-ground ex-voto itself, above all
by the way in which the latter is displayed more or less directly facing the
beholder. Now, it is at once apparent that the relation of the ex-voto to
the viewer cannot be said to have been determined by the requirements of
the action. On the contrary, there is a palpable tension between the place-
ment and orientation of the group of kneeling women in profile toward
the right and the placement and orientation of the ex-voto at the left,
Chapter Three
which stands further back in space and faces out of the painting. (Note
too the slippage between the orientation of the four-sided post supporting
the ex-voto and that of the ex-voto itself.) Moreover, the bright, eye-
catching colors of the primary image and perhaps also its subject, a cruci-
fixion, bear witness to a desire not simply to face the beholder but as if
violently to strike and hold his gaze. In short I find in Legros's Ex-Voto a
double or divided structure of denial of and direct address to the be-
holder, a structure that, by virtue of that seeming contradiction, is consis-
tent with the logic of the excessive thematization of absorption to which
Duranty's text first alerted us. Put slightly differently, the excessiveness
that I have said turned out to be recuperable as intensity (in the eyes of
many critics) also turned out to seek expression in a kind of theatricality:
not, however, the theatricality traditionally associated with excess-
rhetorical or gestural overkill of the sort often called melodramatic-but
the more "abstract" or presentational theatricality of facingness as such.
My larger claim is that the double or divided structure present in Legros's
Ex- Voto is, in one way or another, deeply characteristic of the painting of
the generation of 1863.
Two further points before leaving the Ex- Voto. First, the ex-voto itself
is divided between a pictorial upper component, the red-and-gold cruci-
fixion scene, and a nonpictoriallower one, a black rectangle containing in
its corners four stylized white tears (fig. 94). This is significant not only
because the ex-voto thus embodies the notion of division but also because
the second of the two elements, in its blackness and perhaps also on the
basis of its imagery of weeping, may be read as emblematizing the blind-
ness to being beheld that I have argued was always implicit in the repre-
sentation of absorption. 21 In Absorption and Theatricality I discuss an
analogous conjunction of elements-two playing cards in a partly-open
drawer, one facing the beholder, the other blankly turned away-in Char-
din's The Card Castle (ca. 1737; fig. 95);22 the parallel in this regard
between paintings near the beginning and the end of the absorptive tradi-
tion I have been charting is further evidence for the coherence of the tradi-
tion as a whole. And second, something akin to Duranty's (and for that
matter Huysmans's) response to Legros's canvas is already implicit in
Thore's account of that painting in 186 1. Thon~ describes the women in
the Ex- Voto as being "so absorbed in their pious imploring, that they will
surely have their wishes granted," and observes that "one is in white, and
seen from the rear"23- an overstatement that reinforces the notion that
The Generation of I863 I97
she is wholly caught up in prayer, hence unaware of being beheld, and

incidentally provides another parallel to the playing card turned away
from the viewer in Chardin's Card Castle. Finally, Thon~ speculates that
"Legros must work all alone, retired from the world, because he seems
not to be concerned with other painters or the public,"24 which is to say
that Thon~ imagines the conditions under which Legros painted as them-
selves antitheatrical, as if a picture like the Ex- Voto could only have been
produced under circumstances analogous to those it represents.
Figure 94. Alphonse Legros, The Ex- Voto, 186o, detail of the ex-voto.
Chapter Three
Figure 95. Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin, The Card Castle, ca. I73 7.
Fantin-Latour's Homage to Delacroix, The Toast!

Homage to Truth, and Other Works
IN THE W 0 R K of Henri Fantin-Latour the double or divided structure I

have just evoked tended to be expressed in and through different kinds of
pictures; to begin with I will consider twO. 25 First, Fantin throughout his
career was a master of the absorptive portrait, typically involving a

woman reading. Pictures of that type-for example, his Woman Reading
(1861; fig. 96) and Reading (1863; fig. 97), the model for both of which
was his sister Marie 26 -were invariably, infallibly, successful. In that
format (both works are just over three feet high), treated with a refined
realism appropriate to the genre, absorption never failed to work its
Figure 96. Henri Fantin-Latour, Woman Reading, I86I.

200 Chapter Three
magic, which included two distinct but intimately related effets du reel:
first, persuading the viewer that this is how the world really looked, in-
deed how it really was; and second, suspending or eliding the distinction
between representation and sitter, or at any rate inciting commentators to
lose their rhetorical grip on the distinction in their enthusiastic accounts
of the picture before them. Here for instance is Than? on Reading:
The most charming, the most intimate, the most naturally distinguished of all
the portraits of women [in the Salon] is that of a woman reading by Fantin-
Latour. A young, fair-haired woman, wearing a modest, loose brown jacket and
gray skirt, seated, seen from the knees up, and set against an even, neutral back-
ground. No accessories distract the reader, or those looking at her. She holds in
her hands her book, foreshortened, the open pages bathed in light. Her small
right hand, lying in this light on the pages of the book, is delicious. What atten-
tion! How well she reads and how she reflects upon what she is reading! And
what breeding, despite her plain clothing! And how just, harmonious, and
tranquil are the colors! What a happy woman, with her gray wool skirt and her
little white collar!2 7
In Thore's description, reminiscent of passages in Diderot's Salons of a
century earlier, we can sense the material painting almost dissolving, al-
most being replaced by the young woman herself. (As we shall soon have
occasion to confirm, a third reality effect that was a precondition of the
first two was that no one seems to have been aware that an absorptive
subject such as we find in Woman Reading or Reading was at all conven-
tional. It appeared ever fresh, purely spontaneous, a found object not a
deliberate arrangement, as if nothing like it had ever been painted before.
That was absorption's strongest magic.)
But pictures like these, just because of their generic character, could
not fully satisfy either Fantin's pictorial ambitions or the demands of the
critics who expected more of his talent. In his Homage to Delacroix of
1864 (pl. I) he therefore developed a new sort of allegorical group por-
trait that was conspicuously not absorptive in its composition.28 Rather,
seven of the ten personages look directly out of the picture; Manet too
stands facing outward but his gaze drifts abstractedly toward the left; at
the left-hand edge of the picture two figures, Duranty (seated) and the
painter Louis Cordier (standing), look toward the right; and the mono-
chrome portrait of Delacroix gazes proudly off toward the right as well.
Nevertheless the overall impression is of a strongly frontal or say facing
work, and what is fascinating is that contemporary critics seem to have
been troubled by that facingness to the extent of denying that Fantin's
painting was composed at all. Gautier wrote:
In the foreground are grouped, half-length, turning their backs on the object of
their veneration in order to look at the public, friends of the painter, artists and
writers, linked by a common admiration for the illustrious master so much re-
gretted by all. Fantin-Latour's work is rather a collection of portraits than a
reasoned composition organized according to its motif; but the portraits them-
selves are very well painted and very accurate .... In spite of the bizarreness of
Figure 97. Henri Fantin-Latour, Reading, 1863.

202 Chapter Three
the arrangement or rather in spite of the absence of all arrangement, there is

true merit in this canvas which has strongly captured the public's interest. 29
In Gautier's view, Fantin's canvas, for all the strength of its individual
parts, was not a reasoned composition-not a true tableau-because it
lacked a principle of internal coherence; and it seemed to him to lack such
a principle not only because its personages faced out of the painting but
also because in doing so they turned their backs on the portrait of De-
lacroix. (The same complaint was voiced by numerous other critics.)
Chesneau too was troubled, writing: "But the tableau itself hardly exists
as a tableau, it's only a pretext for portraits; there is neither composition,
nor a clearly marked intention, it's not at all an oeuvre in a word."30 He
added, "Doesn't [Fantin] think that it's time to try to present to the public
something other than morceaux of interest only to a few amateurs?"31
(The tableau-morceau distinction will be of concern to us later on.) The
resulting structure might be said to be willfully nonabsorptive, which I
take to be the implication of Gautier's statement that Fantin's picture is
not "organized according to its motif." The motif Gautier has in mind is
the portrait of Delacroix at which no one looks, and what would have
given the canvas the unity it seemed to Gautier and Chesneau to lack
would have been if Fantin had found a way to focus the attention of at
least some members of the group on that motif while at the same time
preserving the portrait character of the individual figures. In the words of
another critic, Louis Leroy: "In what way can a portrait of a great artist
... on which the personages turn their backs constitute a sufficient hom-
age to his memory? I don't get it. Ah! if you would have shown me a statue
or bust of the marvelous colorist and around the pedestal I would have
seen the master's disciples in admiring or simply meditative poses, I
would have understood." 32
In a sense Fantin had anticipated these objections. He had originally
planned a composition depicting the crowning of a bust of Delacroix,
featuring a dark-suited man-the one performing the crowning-seen
largely from the rear (fig. 98; the drawing is dated January 6, I864).33 In
another drawing that belongs to this phase of his planning the man seen
from the rear occupies the center of the image; to his left and beyond him
is a cluster of floating, masklike faces; the bust has been shifted to the
right; while in the lower right-hand corner of the composition a figure in
white, no doubt Fantin, gestures with his right arm toward the rest of the
scene while looking out at the viewer (fig. 99).34 Three weeks later, he
abandoned the idea of a crowning in favor of a composition based on a
The Generation of r863 20 3
figure 98. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for Homage to Delacroix, drawing, r864.
framed portrait of Delacroix hanging on a wall above a table bearing a

bouquet of flowers with twelve figures to the right and four to the left (fig.
IOO).35 Here too, however, a conspicuous dark-suited figure who appears
to be honoring the portrait in some way has been depicted from the rear;
to his right another figure, seen partly from the rear, sits in a chair so as to
look directly at the portrait on the wall; while the rest of the figures seem,
if not to be gazing out of the composition, at any rate to be more or less
frontally oriented. The exact meaning of the overall arrangement, espe-
cially its right-hand half, is far from certain. But these and other prepara-
tory drawings for the Homage to Delacroix leave no doubt that Fantin
grappled hard with just those issues his treatment of which in the final
painting brought him criticism.
He did not cease grappling with them after exhibiting the Homage to
Delacroix. Almost immediately he began to plan his next painting, an-
other realist allegory to be entitled "Truth," in which a naked female fig-
20 4
Figure 99. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for Homage to Delacroix, drawing, 1864.
Figure 100. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for Homage to Delacroix, drawing, r864.
The Generation of 1863 20 5
ure of Truth holding a mirror was to be surrounded by a symbolic group

of painters, sculptors, architects, musicians, and writers paying her hom-
age (fig. 101).36 Significantly, almost all the preparatory drawings for
"Truth" depict Truth more or less directly from the rear, and in several of
them a clothed male figure in the near foreground also seen from the rear
holds up a standard that we know from still other drawings was embla-
zoned with the word verite in capital letters (figs. 102, 103, 104).37 Dur-
ing this same period Fantin also explored a composition based on the idea
of a dinner of artists and writers, and on one sheet, dated December 3,
1864 (fig. 105), he made small sketches of both the "Dinner" (with facing
figures) and "Truth" (a more absorptive composition; the sheet as a
whole exemplifies the double structure noted in the Legros).38 Eventually
the project for the "Dinner" gave way to "The Toast!," a more complex
composition in which figures posed around a table (i.e. not simply fron-
tally) were combined with at least one figure seen mostly from the rear
Figure lOr. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for "Ttuth," drawing, r864.

206 Figure 102. Henri Fantin-
Latour, Study for "Truth,"
drawing, 1864.
Figure 103. Henri Fantin-

drawing, 1864.
20 7

--
drawing, 1864.

Latour, Double study for
"Dinner" and ~'Truth,"
drawing, 1864.
208 Chapter Three
and in which a toast is being proposed in honor of either one or two Old
Masters-Velasquez alone or Velasquez and Rembrandt (we know this
from marginal notations to the drawings)-depicted in framed portraits
on the rear wall (figs. 106, 107; in the second of these the portrait is
draped and the bareheaded figure to its right resembles Manet).39 Finally,
Fantin brought together the Toast and Truth ideas in a composition he
went on to develop into a large-scale painting that was exhibited in the
Salon of 1865 with the title The Toast! Homage to Truth.
Because Fantin destroyed that painting soon after the Salon closed
(only a few fragments survive), we can never know exactly what it looked
like; our conception of it is mainly based on two drawings and an oil
sketch (figs. 108, 109, IIO), all of which have the figure of Truth turned
toward the beholder and on the whole are strongly frontal in organiza-
tion.40 But one previously neglected fact is worth emphasizing: according
to two critics, Louis Auvray and Louis de Laincel, the final painting in-
cluded two men wearing stovepipe hats and portrayed from the rear, and
Auvray remarked in addition that they were shown looking directly at the
figure of Truth. 41 Men in hats appear in the back rank of several of the
drawings we have glanced at, and in the second of the two preparatory
Figure 106. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for "The Toast!," drawing, IS64.
Figure 107. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for "The Toast!," drawing, IS64.
Figure lOS. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for The Toast! Homage to Truth, drawing, 1865.
210 Chapter Three
Figure 109. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for The Toast! Homage to Truth, drawing, 1865.
Figure 110. Henri Fantin-Latour, The Toast! Homage to Truth, oil sketch, 1865.
drawings for The Toast! Homage to Truth the hatted figure toward the
right is depicted from the rear, perhaps in conversation with another,
hatless figure farther to the right. What's new and surprising is the idea
that in the final canvas Fantin placed two such personages in positions
that both Auvray and Laincel describe as en face relative to Truth. This
suggests that The Toast! Homage to Truth was an attempt to embody in a
single ambitious composition the double relation to the viewer that, with
Duranty's help, we found in Legros's Ex- Voto. But whereas Legros's pic-
ture established that relation within an absorptive framework and so was
a critical success, Fantin's picture gave pride of place to the naked figure of
Truth holding a mirror and facing out of the painting, and so must have
struck its viewers as hopelessly confused, even contradictory, in orienta-
tion. Indeed the force of the contrast between the top-hatted men de-
picted from the rear and the otherwise mainly frontal structure of the
work as a whole would in effect have cast the men as emissaries from the
space in front of the picture, which could only have made The Toast!
Homage to Truth all the more incomprehensible to its public. 42 Even be-
fore the Salon opened Fantin seems to have had his doubts, and when the
picture was criticized harshly his doubts deepened. Soon after the close of
the Salon he destroyed it. What I want to underscore, however, is not so
much the unanimous view that the work was an artistic failure as Fantin's
constant engagement throughout 1864 and 1865 with two (or, if we take
into account the inclusion-of-the-viewer-in-the-picture implications of
the final version of The Toast! Homage to Truth and certain of the draw-
ings with figures depicted from the rear, three) distinct and competing
principles of pictorial organization that he repeatedly sought to fuse to-
gether in a single composition.
Some additional observations will help bring out the complexity-
also the strongly fantasmatic character-of Fantin's aspirations in The
Toast! Homage to Truth. First, Laincel comments that the men in the
painting seemed neither to see Truth nor to wish to see her,43 and in fact
this corresponds with one strand of Fantin's intentions as revealed in his
correspondence with the English painter and amateur Edwin Edwards. In
a letter of February 3, 1865, Fantin explained to Edwards that the men in
his picture "drink to their ideal, Truth, and by one of those licenses that
painting is allowed and that is one of its charms, their Ideal, the subject of
their toast, appears for him who looks at the painting. "44 Edwards re-
plied: "I find it very ingenious that the participants seem not to perceive
Truth-she must appear only for the [painting's] beholders and my dear
2I2 Chapter Three
[Fantin]. "45 In the same letter he compared the desired effect to the ban-
quet scene in Macbeth, to which Fantin responded: "You're right, it's
only I who see her. Yes, Shakespeare, but I! Banquo didn't strike greater
fear in Macbeth than Truth in me. "46 But of course the seeming obliv-
iousness to Truth of most of the personages in the painting can only have
further confused ordinary viewers.
A second point concerns Fantin's depiction of himself seated with his
back to the public but with his head turned toward the viewer and point-
ing with his finger at the figure of Truth (somewhat as in fig. 99), which is
to say interceding between the painting and its audience. 47 It's in that ca-
pacity that he alone or, more likely, in company with the two top-hatted
figures with their backs to the viewer, could be said to see the figure of
Truth (the depicted Fantin didn't actually look at Truth but he did point
to her). But Fantin's imaginary relation both to his canvas and to the pub-
lic was even more fraught than this suggests. At work on the painting and
already anxious about its basic conception, Fantin in correspondence
with Edwards evoked the critical beating he expected to take when the
painting was shown in terms of blows that would fall on his own back.
"But am I going to get beaten up," he wrote, "oh my back, it aches al-
ready, I'm beginning to feel all that on my back. "48 It's as if the painted
Fantin's position in the immediate foreground, or rather the intercessor
role the real Fantin devised for himself, allowed him to sacrifice himself
(or his back) for his picture. Further on in the same letter, he explained to
Edwards that he planned to insert in the Salon catalogue only the words
The Toast-as in fact he did- "and I, when I point to Truth, that makes
Toast to Truth. "49 (In the finished painting the figure of Truth had the
word "VERITE" above its head.)50 Here also Fantin seems to have imag-
ined himself both inside and outside his painting (the partial quasi-
corporeal identification of the painter with his painting amounts to a
fourth principle of pictorial organization, one that relates closely to my
account of Courbet's Realism), or at any rate he conceived of the full title
of the painting as a kind of rebus that called for the viewer to bring to-
gether a partial title (in the catalogue) with the figure of Fantin pointing at
Truth (within the picture). This also was to ask too much of his audience,
but the important point is that Fantin in 1864 and early 1865 was driven
to such expedients not by the desire for novelty but rather by the need to
reconcile different "solutions" to the problem of the relation of his paint-
ing to both artist and beholder.
The Generation of I863 2I3
Figure III. Henri Fantin-Latour, Tannhiiuser: Venusberg, r864.
The stakes are equally high in another group of paintings that Fantin
made at this time-those known as fantasies or (eeries (the sheer diversity
of Fantin's production makes him a uniquely revealing figure). Two in
particular deserve notice: La Peerie (1863; pI. !O), exhibited in the Salon
des Refuses, and Tannhauser: Venusberg (1864; fig. I I I), the painted ver-
sion of a subject he had first broached in a lithograph of 1862. 51 Both are
modest in scale and deal with imaginary subject matter: in Peerie the ac-
tion, costumes, and architecture are all invented (more precisely, they are
freely derived from Renaissance paintings and, in the case of the architec-
ture, partly from Japanese color woodblocks); while Tannhauser: Ve-
nusberg is Fantin's version of a moment in Wagner's opera as it was staged
in Paris in the spring of 1861. (Baudelaire and Champfleury championed
Wagner when his music was first performed in Paris the year before.)52 As
Douglas Druick has noted, the sharp difference between the early por-
traits and the feeries is emblematic of an emerging conflict in Fantin's as-
pirations between an art based strictly on the realistic depiction of
persons and things and an art based largely on the imagination-in other
214 Chapter Three
words, between the respective traditions of Courbet and Delacroix, the

presiding spirits of the Homage. 53 The conflict is further expressed on
the plane of execution: instead of the sober colors and dry, impersonal
facture of the portraits, the {eeries are painted in a bright, Delacroix-like
palette; Fantin's personal touch is everywhere evident; and a mixture
of techniques-slurring wet into wet, glazing, scumbling, scraping-
dissolves contours and gives the picture surface a heavily worked, in
places wax-crayonish texture. Not that Fantin in those pictures positively
wished to call attention to their material surfaces. On the contrary, I be-
lieve he wanted above all to evoke, to find a pictorial equivalent for, the
experience of a dream or imaginative vision (in this sense the (eeries are a
ne plus ultra of absorptive painting), which is to say that he wished the
material work of art to become as if dematerialized in the viewer's percep-
tion of it. Not surprisingly, however, that didn't happen, and contempo-
rary critics were put off by what seemed to them the far too sketchlike,
unresolved, and materially obtrusive character of their execution. "It's a
marquetry of violent tones," Chesneau wrote at the time, "and, in spite of
the abundance of lively colors, it's hardly more than the sketch [ebauchel
of a colorist's work [oeuvre]. Colors aren't color, and the portrait of the
young woman holding a book, a painting so sober in effect, proves that
Fantin-Latour knows that better than anyone. [The portrait is the one
Thort~ raved about in his "Salon of 1863" (fig. 97).] It's impossible to
guess under what impulsion he has so strangely misconceived the laws [of
painting] that he imposes on himself and that he respects so well when he
wishes to .... Fantin-Latour was wrong to send his Feerie in the state of a
sketch [esquisse]." 54 Chesneau's characterization of Fantin's canvas as
both an ebauche and an esquisse-technical terms for which in English
we have only the single word "sketch" -testifies to his sense of confusion
about what precisely he was looking at. 55 As for Tannhauser: Venusberg,
it too was criticized in this vein when it was shown in the Salon of 1864.56
And in fact Fantin later came to rely mainly on lithography, a medium
that lent itself far more readily than painting to effects of dematerializa-
tion, to convey his exalted feelings about music.
Two other points are worth stressing. First, although the subject of La
Feerie was described by Mme Fantin-Latour as "A young, fairy-tale
princess descends the steps of a fantasy palace, and sees before her a
young Prince Charming, with a retinue, offering her precious gifts,"57 it
isn't obvious to the uninformed viewer that this is what is going on, and
even if we accept that scenario the meaning of individual actions and ges-
tures remains unclear. In other words, Fantin has knowingly depicted un-
intelligible actions and gestures, an esthetic choice that provides an
unexpected parallel to Manet's art during these years (more on Manet
and unintelligibility in chapter 4). And second, both La Feerie and Tann-
hauser: Venusberg allude more or less freely to other works of art-La
Feerie to Venetian paintings of the Renaissance, Delacroix, and Japanese
prints, and Tannhauser: Venusberg to Watteau's Embarkation for Cy-
thera and various paintings by Titian. 58 Indeed our sense of the unintel-
ligibility of the gestures in La Feerie is accompanied by the knowledge
that that we have seen those sorts of gestures before, in Renaissance paint-
ings and engravings. This too has its parallel in Manet's practice, though
in his art the sense of familiarity is counteracted by the shock of modal
and thematic displacement (Raphael's classical river gods and water
nymph become the contemporary Parisian personages of the Dejeuner
sur l'herbe, Titian's Venus becomes the modern courtesan/model Olym-
pia/Victorine Meurent) as well as by the encounter with a painterly tech-
nique that puzzled and offended his contemporaries and that even today
can seem disconcerting.
Fantin's production during the early 1860s was even more diverse than
this suggests. For example, I have said nothing about his still lifes and
flower pieces, which in fact I shall barely touch on in this book, or about
his early, marvelous, deeply absorptive studies of women embroidering.
Nor have I mentioned his magnificent Portrait of Edouard Manet (1867;
frontispiece), inscribed "A mon ami Manet," an act of loyalty and sup-
port at a critical moment in his friend's career. But rather than try to be
comprehensive I want to consider some aspects of the critical response to
his absorptive portraits in the mid- and later I 870S, when he at last won
recognition as one of the foremost painters of his generation. Nothing,
not even the persistent admiration for Millet on the part of many writers,
more plainly illustrates both the continuing power of absorptive themes
and effects and, a basic condition of that power, the unavailability to in-
tellectual analysis of the implicit logic of absorption's relation to the
viewer, than certain commentaries on Fantin's portraits. Here for ex-
ample is Castagnary on Fantin's Reading (1877; fig. 112):
The color is charming and the drawing sure; but what is incomparable and
produces so great an impression on the public is the intimacy, the calm, the
peaceful honesty of this interior. I know of nothing more powerfully expressive
in this genre. There is a contagion of goodness that overcomes you. After hav-
216 Chapter Three
Figure II2. Henri Fantin-Latour, Reading, 1877.
ing contemplated, one feels oneself penetrated by the most virtuous feelings.
What is the reason for this? Why does the spectacle of these two humble and
discreet girls produce this effect on me, while all the Christs, all the Virgins, all
the Saint Stephens, and all the Saint Sebastians leave me indifferent or make me
shrug my shoulders? I point out the problem to those who seek to know how
art can exercise a direct moral action. 59
Obviously I think what produced the effect Castagnary described was the
representation of absorption, and sure enough a year later he responded
altogether differently to a portrait by Fantin in which absorption was ab-
sent. Of The Dubourg Family (I878; fig. II3) Castagnary wrote, "We
know the two young women; this year Fantin-Latour has judged it polite
to present to us the father and the mother. The family is complete, but the
painting has not gained from this. That Reading [of a year ago] was, how-
ever, a very pretty interior, its charm was so deep, its intimacy so penetrat-
ing. With the newcomers, the perfume has evaporated, and there remain
only four personages rather awkwardly grouped and painted without fi-
nesse or sparkle. "60 Possibly Castagnary would have found fault with the
execution of the Dubourg Family even had the members of the family
been engaged in some absorptive pursuit. But one suspects that the ab-
sence of absorption made it hard for him to approve of the picture even as
regards painterly technique.
A year later, however, The Drawing Lesson or Portraits (I879; fig.
I14) called forth the following from him: "Alone among the men of his
time, this original artist possesses the gift of moralizing without preach-
ing. His painting is virtuous and, moreover, excellent .... You know the
subject? It represents two young girls, two artists, who are at work. The
standing one draws after a model that we don't see; the other, seated, her
head a bit bent, copies a plaster cast placed on the table .... I don't much
like the standing brunette's type, but the seated figure, isn't she a delicious
morceau, a masterpiece in a masterpiece?"61 It's no accident that the
seated figure seems the more deeply absorbed of the two, but what I want
to stress is the consistency of Castagnary's critical rhetoric, which is not
original with him: throughout the I 860s and I870S (and after) the term
Figure I I3. Henri Fantin-Latour, The Dubourg Family, I878.

218 Chapter Three
Figure 114. Henri Fantin-Latour, The Drawing Lesson (or Portraits), 1879.
"intimacy," intimite, was used only in connection with scenes of absorp-

tion (it is one of the markers of absorption in the criticism of the period),
and much the same is true of the term "penetrating," penetrante, with its
suggestion that the effect in question takes place over time. (We shall soon
be able to verify both claims, but here I simply note that Baudelaire in
I 859, after remarking on the way in which in Legros's absorptive Angelus
[fig. 142] the figures seemed to have been laid down over the background,
associated that effect with the naivete of old paintings and remarked, "In
a less intimate and penetrating work, it wouldn't have been tolerable. ")62
Also, we earlier saw Thore in I863 describe the young woman in Fantin's
Reading as "delicious," delicieuse, and although the link with absorption
may seem tenuous, for both Thore and Castagnary it was the sitter's ap-
parent obliviousness to being beheld that allowed that term to be de-
ployed and, more important, that gave rise to the pleasurable experience
it records.
(The affinity between Fantin and Millet because of their shared exploi-
tation of absorption and despite massive differences in subject matter and
style may be glimpsed in a long passage on Millet's The Knitting Lesson
[fig. I I 5] in Castagnary's "Salon of I 869." After praising the picture for
its masterly expression, perfect intelligibility, and depth of feeling, Cas-
tagnary wrote:
Figure II5. Jean-Fran<;ois Millet, The Knitting Lesson, 1869, retouched 1872-73.
220 Chapter Three
Is she sufficiently a mother, this peasant woman which the sun has browned
and whose hands have been calloused by hard work? She is, by virtue of the en-
tire movement of her body and all the attention of her eyes; she is, from the
look that guides to the hand that would like to execute. And that child, true off-
spring of the fields, with her air of a bashful little goat, is she sufficiently virgin
and gauche? You can remain there [in front of the picture] as long as you wish,
few paintings impose themselves so much or have a more penetrating force. I
have returned there, and each time I have been more profoundly moved.
Whence does that come? From the beauty of the lines, certainly, from the
strength of the modeling, the charm of the color, but most of all, believe me,
from the truth of nature. Nothing is factitious here; these aren't models who
have left their ordinary habits to come before us and hold an arbitrary pose,
these are living beings, envisaged in their natural frame and manifesting them-
selves to us with their clothing, their habits, their feelings, their ideas, in the
normal and ordinary conditions of their country existence. 63
Castagnary glosses "the truth of nature" with the absence of posing but
doesn't realize, no one then was able to, that in Millet as in Fantin the link
between the two was the persuasive depiction of absorption. At the same
time, the phrase "their natural frame" comes close to describing nature
itself as a work of art, or at least to recognizing that the "truth of nature"
was inseparable from an effect of framing, which is to say of closure.)64
In another text of the mid-I870s, Chesneau's "Salon of 1875," the so-
briety and austerity of Fantin's absorptive portraits-qualities essential
to the "moral" effects Castagnary was soon to attribute to them-are
seen not as flowing naturally from the painter's temperament but rather
as the result of a self-imposed discipline:
A tenacious and obstinate will, persisting [in its course] despite all irregu-
larities, is what Taine would call this painter's master faculty.
Those who aren't driven away by a certain puritan austerity, and who have
known how to break the first glass that the artist establishes between the public
and his works, as if by parti pris, haven't waited until today to proclaim the
rare and serious merits of the portraits sent each year to the Salon by Fantin-
Latour. They regret only that coldness of their first aspect that the artist im-
poses on his pictures.
But how many among them are unaware that what in their reflections they
must attribute to the painter's temperament, is on the contrary only the effect of
the excessive discipline that he has made into a severe, indeed too severe, law.
No one more than this man, who affects a sobriety of colors that comes close
to indigence, is at bottom more in love with, more passionate about, all festi-
vals, fanfares, prestiges, and fireworks of coloration.
In the past he sent to Salons, which sometimes accepted them and sometimes
rejected them, sketches which he called Feeries, where he gave way to all the
transport, all the impetuousness, all the ardent follies of his true temperament.
Figure I I 6. Henri Fantin-Latour, A Corner of the Table, 1872.
Did he take a vow? I don't know. But the present restraint of his procedures
testifies to the most extraordinary domination of instinct by the will. 65
The passage is fascinating on several counts. First, it recognizes the con-
flict within Fantin's art and locates the source of that conflict within Fan-
tin himself.66 Second, it sees the austerity of his portraits as the result of a
sustained exercise of will, or as Chesneau also put it, of an excessive disci-
pline. By so doing it ties Fantin's treatment of absorption to two of the
notions I have claimed played a crucial role in the critical rhetoric of the
period, will and excessiveness. (My earlier discussion of them concerned
the 18 60S, but in vital respects Chesneau, like Castagnary, Astruc, and
Duranty, remained a critic of the I860s throughout his career.) Finally,
the passage sums up the effect of Fantin's austerity as "a first glass" (une
premiere glace) that comes between his paintings and the public, as if to
shield the former from view and indeed to turn the viewer away in disap-
pointment (the effect, one might say, is chilling). This would amount to
nothing less than a fifth strategy with respect to the beholder, in addition
to absorptive closure, facing, drawing the viewer into the painting, and
moving the painter :partly into the painting. Just a few years earlier, The-
odore de Banville, after describing still another large group portrait by
Fantin, A Corner of the Table (1872; fig. I I 6), added that "it seems that
222 Chapter Three
some sort of light mist, almost invisible, blurs and envelops [the figures]:
did Fantin wish to express that veil of public indifference that every poet
must shake off and tear apart before entering into the full possession of
his powers and the definitive enjoyment of glory?"67 Nothing could be
less likely than that Fantin intended there to be such a mist or veil, or that
he thought of the austere surfaces of his portraits as sealing off the latter
from the eyes to which, inescapably, they were addressed. But the fact
remains that Chesneau and Banville were struck by the same "almost in-
visible" tension in his work, a tension that, given the problematic of be-
holding we have been tracking, we have no choice but to take seriously.68
Whistler's Woman in White and Related Works
THE THIRD member of the generation of 1863, James McNeill Whistler,

presents a related problem. 69 Contemporary commentators on the best
known of Whistler's paintings of the early 18 60S, The Woman in White
(1862; pI. I 1),70 repeatedly note a version of the double or divided struc-
ture we have just seen in works by Legros and Fantin; and the question
that then must be asked is to what extent that structure inheres in Whis-
tler's painting and to what extent it is a projection of critical fantasy.
What I mean is this: one of the staples of the critical response to the
Woman in White in 1863 was the notion that the woman herself was dis-
tracted, in a trance, sleepwalking, mad. So for example Fernand Des-
noyers described her as a spirit or medium; 71 his brother Carle (writing as
Le Capitaine Pompilius) called her Ophelia;72 the Count Horace de Viel-
Castel compared her to Lady Macbeth in the sleepwalking scene; 73 Paul
Mantz wondered where this "white apparition" came from and asked,
"What does she want from us with her unbound hair, her large eyes
drowned in ecstasy, her languorous attitude, and that flower without pe-
tals in the fingers of her hanging hand?"; 74 while Jules Claretie, less sym-
pathetic than the others, wondered whether she was a madwoman, "this
stiff, unmoving figure that one would take for Lady Macbeth or for
Ophelia. "75 What all these characterizations have in common is the idea
that the woman's state of mind renders her unaware of being beheld; we
cannot doubt that that impression, whether intended by the painter or
not, was part of the painting's extraordinary charm. 76 At the same time,
the Woman in White was criticized for some of the features we remarked
in Legros's Ex-Voto and associated with a different, indeed opposite, rela-
The Generation of r863 223
tion to the viewer. Those features include its shallow, "flattened" space-
specificially, the carpet on which the woman stands was described as
more vertical than horizontaF7 -and its unusually close cropping of the
image by the framing edge (one writer thought that the addition of a few
inches of canvas above the figure's head would have given the figure
greater brilliance). 78
But the most telling commentary for my purposes is by Viel-Castel
who after comparing Whistler's figure to the sleepwalking Lady Macbeth
went on to discuss what he took to be the wolf's pelt on which she stands
(it's now thought to be a bearskin), focusing in the end on the animal's
head, "stuffed and furnished with enamel eyes, [which] thrusts men-
acingly toward the beholder" (fig. 117).79 In other words, Viel-Castel
found in Whistler's canvas both an absorptive, beholder-denying struc-
ture (keyed to the woman's state of mind) and a facing, beholder-aggressing
one (based on the orientation of the animal pelt), a combination or divi-
sion that recalls Legros's Ex- Voto and Duranty's commentary on it. I
don't quite wish to say that Viel-Castel's description captures Whistler's
intentions in the Woman in White or even, putting the question of inten-
tions aside, that it accurately records the painting's appearance tout
court. I myself would never have thought to see the bear's head in that
Figure 117. James McNeill

Whistler, The Woman in White,
1862, detail of bear's head.
224 Chapter Three
light, and I wouldn't even have felt authorized to describe the young
woman as absorbed or distracted on the basis of the picture alone; she
doesn't seem sufficiently either of those to have justified the use of the
terms in the absence of the criticism I have cited. But that doesn't mean
that the critics were mistaken or that the qualities they found in Whistler's
canvas were simply projected there by them in the first place. Rather, the
response to the Woman in White makes it plain that there existed in
the first half of the 1860s a highly structured discursive field oriented to
the issues of absorption and beholding and within which the Woman in
White, like the other works we have considered and shall go on to con-
sider, was bound to be seen, described, and judged-and, before all these,
within which it was painted. As in the case of Duranty's account of
Legros's Ex-Voto, what may seem a lack of perfect accord between the
critical commentary on the Woman in White and the painting itself is in
fact the sign of a meaningful relation between the two. 80
Significantly, an analogous double structure is indisputably present in
other Whistler paintings of the mid-1860s, such as Purple and Rose: The
Lange Leizen of the Six Marks (1864), Purple and Gold: The Golden -
Screen (1864), and Variations in Flesh Colour and-Green: The Balcony
(begun in 1864, perhaps finished as late as 1870).81 In the first of these
(pi. 12), a smallish canvas about three feet high by two feet wide, a young
woman in Oriental costume sits painting a Chinese porcelain jar; the type
of jar she holds was called a "long Lizzie" by Dutch dealers (hence
"Lange Leizen"), the "six marks" being the seals ofthe potter. In contrast
to the Woman in White, the young woman's absorption has been stressed:
her lids droop, as if she were gazing with concentration at her work,
though in a way that is reminiscent of Courbet her expression also sug-
gests reverie, even somnolence. Equally, however, the bright colors of her
costume (mainly white and red), the carpet (red and white), the jars them-
selves (blue and white), and the background wall (yellow gold) seem to
leap out at the viewer; the floor plane tilts sharply toward the vertical; the
woman's form is cropped toward the lower left and the framing edge ev-
erywhere presses tightly around her; perhaps most important, the com-
position as a whole is strongly decorative, by which I mean not only that
it juxtaposes broad areas of color but also that virtually everything in it
except the woman herself faces the viewer directly. That we are made to
feel that this is true even of the round jar at the lower right is a brilliant
stroke of compositional forcing.
The divided nature of the Lange Leizen is all the more significant in
that it depicts a scene of painting and so can be taken as emblematic of

Whistler's activity at that moment. This allows us to compare it with
Fantin's Homage to Delacroix of the same year, and indeed Delacroix's
status both as the greatest colorist in modern art and as a consummate
artist (whereas Courbet at his best was considered a master painter) is
paralleled by Whistler's colorism and self-conscious estheticism. But the
Lange Leizen bears a positive relation to Courbet as well: it amounts, I
suggest, to a revisionist interpretation of the central group in his monu-
mental canvas of less than a decade before, The Painter's Studio, Real
Allegory Determining a Phase of Seven Years in My Artistic Life (1854-
55; fig. 118), and what is especially fascinating is that the most obvious
differences between the two works only bring them closer in the end.
Thus the seated male artist in the Studio becomes a woman in the Lange
Leizen, a transformation that both expresses something about Whistler's
sensibility (or at least asserts the equation decoration = "femininity")
and harmonizes with a distinctive feature of Courbet's own artistic per-
sona (in Courbet's Realism I draw attention to his frequent use of figures
of women as surrogates for the painter-beholder). 82 At the same time, the
protagonist of Whistler's canvas seems meant to be seen as an artist's
Figure I 18. Gustave Courbet, The Painter's Studio, Real Allegory Determining a Phase of Seven
Years in My Artistic Life, 1854-55.
226 Chapter Three
model in that she is clearly not Chinese (her reddish hair and bold fea-
tures suggest that she was posed for by Whistler's mistress Jo Hiffernan,
the original of the Woman in White), which relates her thematically to the
figure of the female model in Courbet's central group. In both respects the
Lange Leizen anticipates by four years Courbet's conflation of the figures
of painter and model from the central group in the Studio in his own
single-figure picture of a seated woman engaged in actions that I have as-
sociated with those of painting, The Source (1868; fig. II9)·83
The other two works mentioned above, The Golden Screen (fig. 120)
and The Balcony (fig. 121), are less resonant in associations than the
Lange Leizen, but the first takes the basic "formal" idea of the Lange
Figure rr9. Gustave Courbet,

The Source, r868.
Figure 120. James McNeill Whistler, Purple and Gold: The Golden Screen, r864.
Leizen to a further extreme. In it, a woman with reddish hair (doubtless

Jo Hiffernan) in a dark plum kimono, white silk shawl, and vermilion
scarf-all enlivened with floral patterns-and seated on an Oriental rug
or perhaps a low stool that we cannot see examines a Japanese color
woodblock that we can see (d. the ex-voto in Legros's canvas of 1860),
while the composition as a whole is dominated by large flat planes of
color, notably by the reddish hue of the rug, the pea green of the floor,
and, most striking of all because most foreign to the traditional color
schemes of Western painting, the dazzling yellow gold of the background
screen that gives the painting its name. (These in turn are punctuated by
the dark plum and white silhouette of the woman's costume, the ver-
milion of her scarf, and the blue rectangles in the Japanese prints in the
right foreground.) The result is not just a more emphatically decorative
painting than any Whistler had yet made, but also one whose ultimate
effect depends on the contrast between the woman's inward state, itself
delicately poised between genuine interest in the print she holds in her
hand and an awareness of sitting for the painter, and the strong outward
address of its decorative elements. (Nowhere in Whistler's oeuvre, per-
228 Chapter Three
haps, is his mastery of facial expression-also his use of painterly brush-

work to evoke subtleties of expression-more in evidence than in the
Golden Screen. The exploitation of an absorptive matrix to give affective
"depth" to a highly decorative gestalt was later to be fundamental to the
work of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century artists such as Pis-
Figure 121. James McNeill Whistler, Variation in Flesh Colour and Green: The Balcony, 1864-70?
sarro, Gauguin, Toulouse-Lautrec, Vuillard, and Matisse.) The Balcony

too makes a point of internal division, in this case between the seated and
reclining women in Oriental gowns who face the viewer and the standing
woman who turns her back and gazes out across the urban river land-
scape that the balcony overlooks. The division is underscored by the con-
trast between the evocation of distance in the atmospheric treatment of
the landscape elements and the assertion of proximity in the rendering of
the flowers at the bottom of the canvas, while certain decorative elements,
notably the rectangular awnings at the upper right, the rectilinear railing,
and the ungraded blue flooring, notionally locate the picture surface itself
"between" those extremes.
Several other pictures by Whistler are worth mentioning in this con-
nection. As is clear at a glance, Rose and Silver: La Princesse du pays de la
porcelaine (r 8 64; fig. r 22), was an attempt to follow up the success of the
Woman in White with a life-size composition of the same general type. 84
The main difference is that Whistler costumed his model in a kimono and
loose Oriental robe, gave her a fan, and placed her on a Chinese carpet
and in front of a decorative screen. He went on to exhibit the Princesse in
the Salon of r865 where it was badly received, largely because the
woman's expression failed to lend itself to an absorptive reading, which is
to say that instead of striking viewers as in a state of reverie (much less as
sleepwalking, distracted, languorous, mad) she appeared merely blank,
vacant, without expression of any kind. 85 Worse, the combination of ex-
pressive vacancy and decorative panache led to the charge that the figure
itself was bodiless, without solidity, as if under her fabulous silks there
were nothing at all. 86 The criticism is less unjust than it may appear: there
is a sense in which Whistler throughout his career was drawn by an ideal
of painting as absence or, to take up Mantz's inspired noun, as pure
apparition 87 -an ideal that also led him in several canvases of the r 860s,
Harmony in Green and Rose: The Music Room (r860), Symphony in
White NO.2: The Little White Girl (r864), and The Artist in His Studio,
(r865-66), to evoke virtuality or apparitionality through the motif of an
image in a mirror. (The last of these works will be the focus of a brief
analysis in chapter 5.) The French word for mirror is of course glace, and
we may perhaps think of this aspect of Whistler's pictorial strategy as the
opposite in an antitheatrical vein to Fantin's glacial austerity (cf. the re-
marks by Chesneau on Fantin discussed above).88 If nothing were really
there to begin with, if a painting depicted not material beings and objects
but mere apparitions (i.e. reflections), and if moreover the painting itself
Chapter Three

Whistler, Rose and Silver: La
Princesse du pays de la
porcelaine, 186 4·
could be made to seem almost immaterial (Charles Bataille described the

Princesse as "made out of nothing"), 89 the relationship between painting
and beholder might be placed on a new, more rarefied footing: this or
something like it often seems to have been Whistler's aim. Alternatively, a
painting might seek to represent the voiding of its own imaginative space,
as in the early Harmony in Green and Rose: The Music Room (fig. 123),
with its seated girl in white absorbed in a book (in that sense "absent"),
its standing woman in riding costume who looks out of the picture to-
ward the right and seems about to leave the scene, and its reflection in the
obliquely set mirror over the mantle of a third figure whose relation to the
others and the room as a whole is unfathomable but who in any case is
not present in the flesh. 90 Starting around 1870 these aspirations inspired
the conspicuously exquisite blue-toned atmospherics of his famous "noc-
turnes," in which, as Duret later put it, he explored "that extreme region
Figure 123. James McNeill Whistler, Harmony in Green and Rose: The Music Room, 1860.
23 2 Chapter Three
where painting become vague, taking one further step would fall into an
absolute indeterminism and would no longer say anything to the eyes. "91
(I have chosen to reproduce Whistler's Nocturne in Blue and Silver: The
Lagoon, Venice [1879-80; fig. 124].)92 But perhaps the most succinct
assertion of ambivalence with respect to visibility in all Whistler's oeuvre
is the small etching Vauxhall Bridge (186 I; fig. 125), in which two taut,
crossing ropes make a giant X that effectively cancels the image whose
principal motif they compose.

Whistler, Nocturne in Blue and
Silver: The Lagoon, Venice,
18 79- 80 .

Whistler, Vauxhall Bridge,
etching, 1861.
Astruc on the Portrait
A B R I E F consideration of a puzzling crux in Astruc's writings of the

1860s will return us to the main argument of this chapter. No feature of
Astruc's criticism is more self-evident than his taste for absorptive paint-
ing, grounded, as was true of many critics during these years, in an almost
unqualified admiration for Millet. Moreover, the terms of that admira-
tion are in the double register of excess and antitheatricality that we first
remarked in Duranty's commentary on Legros. As early as 186o, for ex-
ample, Astruc praised the depiction of movement in Millet's Gleaners as
the product of an "excessive observation," added that that picture had
"an intimate force of the most surprising effect," and went on to say of
the Return of the Shepherd, a powerfully absorptive work, "We are no
longer before a painting, but before nature" (d. Thon~ on Fantin).93 And
in I 868-to show the constancy of his views-he characterized Millet's
genius as "astonishingly willed," meaning that not as criticism but as
praise, and went on to write, "Nothing for the spectator,-here, no
theater-everything for the fact in itself [the represented scene]. "94 (By
then these were topoi of favorable Millet criticism.) As in Duranty's ar-
ticle of the year before, the excessiveness and willfulness (for want of a
better term) that one might have thought would be perceived as forms of
theatricality-that for decades had been so perceived-were recuperated
as intensity of absorptive effect.
What, however, are we to make of another feature of Astruc's criticism:
his advocacy, most forceful in his "Salon of 1868," of the portrait as "the
touchstone of perfect and, above all, reasoned creations" ?95 (Two years
earlier he had written that of all genres the portrait "best seizes the
gaze.")96 In an obvious sense, nothing could be less absorptive than por-
traits in which the sitter gazes out at the viewer, though as Fantin's por-
traits of women reading or Legros's Portrait of the Artist's Father suffice to
prove, absorptive portraits were certainly possible; but it seems clear that
the latter were not what Astruc had in mind. Indeed Astruc in 1868 drew
a sharp contrast between the portrait and the tableau, which emerges in
his text as strongly if implicitly absorptive. "The portrait," he wrote,
"must exhibit itself by the expressive language of the features, and so to
speak communicate to us its meaning as soon as we behold it; conse-
quently it must strike us,-and that's the opposite of the tableau which
allows its most beautiful parts to penetrate [us] little by little. "97 And:
"The portrait has none of those resources of tone, felicities of handling, or
234 Chapter Three
surprises of conception, it is powerful, it impresses us like an object that

has taken from a living being the intensity of its personallife."98 In other
words, whereas for Astruc the tableau is "slow," internally complex, and,
if not quite passive, at any rate considerably gentler with respect to its
beholder (being in principle unaware of the beholder it works on him as if
surreptitiously over time), the portrait, being essentially confrontational,
is instantaneous and aggressive, almost threatening, almost alive, in its
Figure 126. Edouard Manet, Portrait of Victorine Meurent, 1862.

mode of address. (The contrast is embodied in the two verbs Astruc uses
here, "penetrating" versuS "striking," the use and connotations of which
are consistent in the criticism of the period.) But as I have suggested, there
is an important sense in which Astruc's vision of Millet, to mention only
that, implies a conception of the willfully and excessively absorptive tab-
leau as itself in crucial respects portraitlike, not because one Or more fig-
ures in the painting face the beholder (they conspicuously don't), but
because such a tableau, like Astruc's ideal portrait, is particularly intense
and striking-as if penetratingness could become strikingness under the
right conditions. Understood in that light, what at first seems merely con-
tradictory in Astruc's thought-his passion for absorption and his advo-
cacy of the portrait, his idolatry of Millet and his partisanship of Manet-
emerges as a further, paradigmatic expression of the new double or
divided sensibility I have been evoking. 99
Astruc's remarks remind us that the portrait as a genre played a far
more prominent role in the respective oeuvres of all four members of the
generation of 1863 than in those of their major predecessors, Delacroix
and Courbet (for whom the self-portrait but not the portrait as such was a
primary vehicle),100 or their successors, the Impressionists. But his theo-
rization of the portrait also imagines the liberation of certain portrait ef-
fects from the restraints of genre-it imagines, we might say, a new sort of
portrait-tableau-a possibility that, as will become clear, has special rele-
vance to Manet. 101 In fact we can see such a liberation taking place
"within" the limits of the genre in one of Manet's most vivid and charac-
teristic early works, the Portrait of Victorine Meurent (I862; fig. I26). In
the meantime it's tempting to compare Astruc's reflections on the portrait
with certain flower pieces by Fantin-for example, the ravishing Chry-
santhemums (I862; fig. I27)-in which the flowers in their vases, instead
of having been depicted from a somewhat elevated point of view as one
would expect, are seen close up and as it were face to face (the pictures
also feel tightly cropped). ~.
* Another point of reference for a thematic of the portrait in the I860s is provided by Claude
Vignon's discussion of a work that enjoyed great success in the Salon of I863, Hippolyte-Jean
Flandrin's Portrait of Napoleon III (ca. I 86o-6I; fig. I28). Briefly, Vignon wrote that the por-
trait was widely admired but that she herself believed the artist made a mistake in seeking to
portray the real man beneath his famously inexpressive mask or persona:
You have wanted to translate the untranslatable, to penetrate the impenetrable, to put a
concrete expression on this face whose proper nature is not to have any....
You have not painted Napoleon III. You have painted the actor who, sixty years from now,
will enact on the stage the man of destiny, the second of his name! ...
The basic character of the face and the whole exterior of Napoleon III is a phlegmatic im-
Chapter Three
Figure 127. Henri Fantin-Latour, Chrysanthemums, 1862.
passiveness, an absolute absence of accent, which seems to enclose the soul within the body as
if within a granite casing.
Everyone who approaches the emperor in his official role testifies to that character. Now it
is hardly the private man whom Flandrin has wanted to paint [i.e. he has depicted the em-
peror in uniform, presenting himself for an official portrait]; he doesn't give us the emperor in
an intimate moment, but the emperor before history. It's necessary therefore to seize the his-
torical type and to paint, of the emperor, just that which he wishes to be seen of himself.
([Noemie Cadiot], Le Salon de 1863 [n.p., n.d.], pp. 371-73).
Vous avez voulu traduire I'intraduisable, penetrer I'impenetrable, mettre une expression
concrete sur ce visage dont Ie propre est de n'en point avoir. ...
Vous n'avez pas peint Napoleon III. Vous avez peint I'acteur qui, dans soixante ans d'ici,
mettra sur la scene l'homme du destin, deuxieme de son nom! ...
Le premier caractere du visage et de tout I'ensemble exterieur de Napoleon III, c'est une
impassibilite f1egmatique, une absence absolue d'accent, qui semble enfermer I'ame dans Ie
corps comme dans un gaine de granit.
Toutes les personnes qui approchent l'Empereur dans son role officiel ont pu constater ce
caractere. Or ce n'est point I'homme prive qu'a voulu peindre M. F1andrin; il ne nous donne
pas l'Empereur dans son intimite, mais l'Empereur devant I'histoire. II fallait donc prendre Ie
type historique, et peindre, de l'Empereur, ce qu'il veut laisser voir de lui.
As will become clear in chapter 4, Manet's paintings of the 1 860s were routinely criticized for
their inexpressiveness, characterlessness, and lack of accent, in short precisely those qualities
that Vignon associated in a positive way with the official persona of Napoleon III, who thereby
Figure I28. Hippolyte-Jean

Flandrin, Portrait of Napoleon
III, ca. 1860-61.
emerges as Manet's mirror image. By this I mean both that Napoleon III was described by
Vignon almost as an artist in his own right, rigorously controlling his outward appearance, and
that the version of himself that he allowed to be seen corresponded to features of Manet's art
that the critics and public of the 1860s would mostly find incomprehensible. Another intrigu-
ing motif in the passage just cited concerns the topos of theatricality. Vignon's remarks would
seem to imply that the emperor's public persona represented the triumph of a certain (impas-
sive) theatricality, but in fact she criticized Flandrin for having produced a portrait not of the
emperor in his public mode but rather of some future actor who would seek to play him on the
stage. This in effect distinguished between two theatricalities, one good and one bad, a distinc-
tion that has its rough equivalent in my claim that Manet inhis paintings of the I860s embraced
a "presentational," not an "actional," mode of theatricality by way of acknowledging the ines-
capableness of beholding. I don't wish to belabor the parallel, which is meant to be no more
than suggestive. But Vignon's commentary is worth keeping in mind, both because of its bear-
ing on issues of portraiture in the larger sense of the term and because Manet will all but directly
confront Napoleon III in his most ambitious canvas of the later I 860s, the Execution of Maxi-
milian. On Flandrin's portrait see The Second Empire 1852-187°: Art in France under
Napoleon III, exhib. cat. (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, Oct. I-Nov. 26, 1978;
Detroit: The Detroit Institute of Arts, Jan. Is-Mar. 18, 1979; Paris: Grand Palais, Apr. 24-
July 2,1979), pp. 302-3, cat. no. VI-55.
Chapter Three
Figure 129. Theodule Ribot, Saint Sebastian, Martyr, 1865.
Ribot, Carolus Duran, Meissonier-Zola's L'Oeuvre-

A Deathbed "Portrait" by Fantin-Latour
SEVERAL more instances of the new double or divided sensibility will

help bring out further ramifications of my argument. The first concerns
the work of the painter Theodule Ribot, who throughout the 18 60S was
often considered one of the young realists along with Manet and the
others (Fantin thought of including him in the Homage to Deiacroix).102
In fact Ribot was about ten years older than the painters of the generation
of 1863 (he was born in 1823); his early reputation was based on modest-
sized, impasto-laden genre paintings of cooks and kitchen workers in
which the figures, frequently dressed in white, were all but swallowed up
by the surrounding blackness. But he soon expanded his range, and in
I865 his Saint Sebastian, Martyr (I865; fig. 129) was the one "realist"
painting to be enthusiastically received by the critics. As was mentioned
earlier, Ribot was criticized during the I860s and I870S for pastiching
Ribera, and indeed his persistence in imitating not just the physical types
but also the facture and light-dark contrasts of Ribera's canvases pro-
vides one of the most blatant examples of the compulsive involvement of
Manet's painter contemporaries with the art of the past. At the same
time, Ribot's vigorous paint handling made a powerful impression, as did
his exploitation of an extreme chiaroscuro to suggest depths of feeling
even as it rendered large areas of his pictures unreadable. "He has the
most violent temperament in the French school," one critic wrote in
I 865, "and he seems to have painted this year with a chisel." 103 Another
held that the Saint Sebastian was "the most prodigious piece of execution
in the entire Salon," and went on to say that the "cadaver stiffened by
death in the last convulsion of its pain is worthy of the greatest mas-
ters"104 (of course Sebastian is not dead, merely wounded, but as Alfred
Sensier remarked at the time, it was hard to tell what the figures in the
picture were doing).105 Ribot interests me both because his subject mat-
ter, as in the Saint Sebastian, tended to be strongly absorptive and be-
cause temperamentally and stylistically his art provides another instance
of excessiveness and willfulness recuperated, in the eyes of his commenta-
tors, as artistically legitimate intensity.
A more complex case is that of a painter who was for a time a fringe mem-
ber of the generation of I863, Emile-Auguste Carolus Duran. He was
born in Lille in I 838 and first came to Paris in I 8 5 5; while still in Lille he
became friends with the young Astruc, who was often to write warmly
about his art. 106 In Paris, Carolus Duran met and became friends with
Fantin-Latour, Legros, Whistler, and others in their circle, and according
to Desnoyers was among the deputation of artists and critics that called
on Manet to pay their respects following the exhibition of his Guitarrero
in the Salon of I 86I. An early painting, Visit to the Convalescent (I 86I ?),
was destroyed by the artist after being exhibited at Martinet's; 107 the fine
fragment that survives, The Convalescent (I 86I?; fig. I30), a portrait
of the artist in a red shirt asleep before his easel, reveals a close allegiance
to the art of Courbet. Had Carolus Duran remained in Paris throughout
the first half of the I 860s he would certainly have taken an active part in
the struggles of his realist contemporaries. But in I862 he went to Italy
on a prize fellowship from Lille and did not return until I866. Neverthe-
less, two paintings from his Italian years made a stir in Paris.
The first, present whereabouts unknown, was The Evening Prayer;
Italy (I863), a work of large dimensions that Astruc described in detail
Chapter Three
Figure 130. Emile-Auguste Carolus Duran, The Convalescent, r86r?
when it was shown in the Salon of I863. Here is almost the whole of his
account:
Several monks of the order of Saint Francis are kneeling at the foot of a cross
in an austere landscape. Some stones, some large gray rocks, a bit of grass
bathed by thin streams of water that trickle drop by drop, some flowers cheer-
ing the turf-then a plain enveloped by the shadow of the evening, a mountain
drawing its vigorous line across the horizon, a barely illuminated sky, black-
and, in places, torn with blue-there is the site. Daylight fades away; the sun
has already disappeared; the monks, silent, rest their gazes on nature, before
tasting even sweeter sleep.
One of them holds his head in his hand; another looks backward, traversing
the sky with his ardent eyes that would like to contemplate God; this one bends
his brow toward the earth, in an attitude of profound humility; the superior,
standing, dressed in black, extends his arms toward the wooden cross with a
gripping fervor. We see him pray; we hear his voice pronouncing the rituals of
the prayer with a violent tenderness and the melancholy that accompanies ce-
lestial dialogues in this continual elevation of the creature toward his Redeemer.
This Christian contemplation moves and troubles. One is penetrated with
admiration before these innocent and gentle beings, these sublime and sinister
The Generation of r863
children-gods by virtue of their duty, men by virtue of their monotonous

action-these privileged ones of feeling who wish for no other happiness here
below than the intimacy of nothingness, than the grace of their fierce virtue or
their isolation beneath heaven-and who begin to sigh-lovable maniacs-
seeing floating in space the cloud borne by the wind. It's that they believe it is
closer to God than they, and they confer on it their thoughts whose only jour-
ney is toward heaven.
The painter is inspired by this piety. With what simplicity he has translated
its accent, its mystery! How close he is to their soul! How he has heard it
tremble! What a beautiful religious style he lends to their prayer! Happy fervent
ones, the world scarcely concerns them ... a single aspiration grips their mar-
veling eyes-the image of angels, the blessed, the martyrs. It isn't the painter
who will trouble their beautiful prayer.1° 8
Astruc's enthusiastic description emphasizes the absorptive character of

the monks' states of mind, and in so doing spells out the anti theatrical
connotations of the scene as a whole (the monks are isolated beneath the
sky, indifferent to the world, unaware of the painter). The key terms "pen-
etrated" and "intimacy" are also in play, and altogether we are reminded
of Legros's Ex- Voto, a work Carolus Duran would have seen and that
surely influenced him. One would like to know to what extent the cross
in Evening Prayer faced out of the painting; thanks to another critic,
£douard Lockroy, we know that it occupied the center of the canvas,
which suggests that it was at least as conspicuous as the ex-voto in
Legros's canvas. 109 A third critic, the pseudonymous Bourgeois de Paris,
saw the Evening Prayer as exemplifying an acceptable, not a brutal, real-
ism, and likened its apparent tabula rasa of all refinements and conven-
tions to Descartes's methodical doubt, which is to say that once again the
persuasive representation of absorption gave rise to an illusion of the
absence of art.110 The tabula rasa metaphor was also used by Claude
Vignon, who went on to speculate that walking one evening in the cam-
pagna the young painter "encountered his painting completely made"
(i.e. he came upon the scene exactly as he painted it).ll1 Still another
critic, Olivier Merson, noted the painting's air of "deep meditation," and
observed that it wasn't a composition in the true sense of the word be-
cause the figures were "disseminated,"112 by which I take him to mean
that each appeared lost in his own thoughts and feelings; one suspects
that in the absence of absorption, "dissemination" rather than composi-
tion would have been registered as a fault. (Merson's remarks also suggest
that compositionally the Evening Prayer differed from the Ex- Voto's forc-
ing of its figures into a shallow, narrow space.) Finally, Chesneau, another
Chapter Three
admirer, remarked on the isolation of the monks as well on their indif-

ference to the passing breeze, so moved were they by their devotions,l13
and concluded by describing the conception of the painting as "frankly
original, modern, and very elevated." 114
Even in the absence of the actual picture, we can sense the basis of a
double structure in the juxtaposition of a deeply absorptive thematics
(connoting closure) and a central cross (addressed to the beholder). For-
tunately, Carolus Duran's next major Salon painting, The Murdered
Man: Memory of the Roman Campagna (1866; fig. 13 I) has come down
to us and confirms the notion that he was grappling with analogous issues
to those we have been following in the work of his contemporaries. The
painting depicts a sizable group of highly individualized figures-from
the title, peasants in the campagna-gathered around the foreshortened
body of a man who has just been killed. Most seem intent on gazing down
at the dead man, the absorptive focus of the composition, but a few are in
states of grief, notably the woman depicted largely from the rear who has
thrown herself on the corpse, the swooning woman to the right, and per-
Figure 13 1. Emile-Auguste Carolus Duran, The Murdered Man: Memory of the Roman
Campagna, 1866.
haps the standing man who agitatedly wrings his hands. Gautier's discus-
sion of the Murdered Man is particularly apposite. "The scene is well
disposed," he wrote, "in a manner that's perhaps a bit theatrical for us,
among whom grief expresses itself by grave attitudes, but admissible
among the Italians, great gesticulators. The murdered man has just been
carried home all bloody, and the family around the corpse gives way to
excessive manifestations of despair and anger. "115 This is a different ver-
sion of the transvaluation of excessiveness and theatricality from any we
have met until now, but its bearing on the others is clear enough.
Finally, though, the Evening Prayer and the Murdered Man are less sig-
nificant in themselves than by virtue of the contrast they make with the
works that were soon to establish Carolus Duran's reputation: large-size
full-figure portraits of elegant women of which the prototype, one of the
great Salon successes of the decade, was his Portrait of Mme 'fo 'fo 'fo (1868;
fig. 132). (For Viel-Castel, this was a painting that bore the stamp of its
time and would "remain in the future like Zurbaran's St. Francis,
Ribera's Christ, Titian's Man with a Glove.")116 In that canvas, a depic-
tion of the artist's wife, the painter Pauline Croizette, not only is absorp-
tion out of the question, the woman herself is plainly aware of being seen
and what is more appears to enjoy the experience. And indeed Chesneau
in 1873 linked another of Carolus Duran's portraits of society women
with the portrait d' apparat of earlier centuries, a type of painting he char-
acterized as seeking "sumptuous exteriority" at the expense of "charm-
ing and touching nuances of intimacy." 117 This was said approvingly: in
Chesneau's eyes the artist had brought new life to a tradition that until his
intervention had been defunct. (For Castagnary, on the other hand, that
the Portrait of Mme 'fo 'fo 'fo was" a completely external portrait, a surface
portrait so to speak, the study of a costume, or rather of an elegant pose,"
was damning. lls His was a minority view.) It's hard today to share the
contemporary enthusiasm for Carolus Duran's high-glamor society por-
traits, competent though they are, but my point is that the contrast be-
tween his ambitious absorptive canvases of 1863 and 1866 and the later
portraits d' apparat is simply a more extreme version of the contrast be-
tween, say, Fantin's absorptive portraits (or for that matter his feeries)
and the outward-facing Homage to Delacroix, and more broadly that we
fail to grasp the inner logic of Carolus Duran's career unless we take into
account its relation to the issues that have engaged us. Put another way,
both absorption and its opposite were implicit in the double or divided
structure we have seen at work in advanced painting and criticism in the
244 Chapter Three
Figure 132. Emile-Auguste Carolus Duran, Portrait of Mme ,:- ~- ':., 1868.
I860s, and although the split within Carolus Duran's oeuvre is unusually
wide, his art tells the same story.119
A third painter whose work is worth glancing at in this connection is an

older man, Manet's particular bete noire, Ernest Meissonier. 120 On the
face of it, Meissonier's small-scale pictures, often based on eighteenth-
century motifs and executed in a meticulous, minutely detailed, quasi-
photographic manner, could not have been more alien to the ideals that
inspired the generation of 1863. And yet they owed much oftheir remark-
able success with critics and collectors to the persuasiveness with which
they were seen as representing figures deeply absorbed in a variety of tra-
ditional occupations-reading, writing, playing cards or chess, playing
music, drawing, examining works of art, smoking, and the like. To cite
just one of many examples, Gautier in 186 I noted of a painting of a Man
Reading (in eighteenth-century costume) that the book "absorbs all [the
man's] attention, it isn't a complicated theme but it holds one like
life."121 (I've chosen to illustrate a representative work, the Man Reading
of 1862 in the National Gallery of Ireland [fig. 133]. A picture well
known in its time but lost today is the Reading Party at Diderot's.) Signifi-
cantly for the present argument, Meissonier's grip on his public seems to
have loosened in the late 18 50S and early 18 60S; Saint-Victor, writing in
1857, complained that the artist's "little personages ... only know to
read, write, smoke their pipe, play the counterbass, and talk between the
pear and cheese, their elbows on the table. This is a limited repertoire." 122
Mantz asked the same year: "Would one seem too demanding if one asked
of this gifted artist to slightly renew his choice of subjects?" 123 And in
1861 Saint-Victor reported that Salon goers no longer crowded around
Meissonier's works, not because his talent had eroded but because the
repetitiousness of his art had begun to tire. 124 It is in this context that I
interpret the picture with which in 1864 Meissonier won back his audi-
ence. A painting on wood in his usual small dimensions, I8I4, the Cam-
paign of France (1860-64; fig. 134), depicts Napoleon and his marshals
on horseback at the head of the grande armee as it wearily marched
through a desolate snowy landscape somewhere in France. 125 In part its
success was due, as has always been recognized, to Meissonier's demon-
stration that his miniaturist vision could be adapted to a major genre, his-
tory painting. But a reading of contemporary responses to I8I4 suggests
that another, equally decisive factor was Meissonier's portraitlike evoca-
tion of his protagonist's indomitable will. "Napoleon reflects," Charles
Chapter Three
Beaurin wrote, "full of care, his head inclined, his gaze open before him,
before the future, before the fog. Vast thought, profound calculation,
powerful will which is unable to prevent his star from dimming on the
horizon." 126 And Saint-Victor: "His face is sublime with resigned de-
spair; he feels that his genius isn't dead, but that it is beaten; he sees his
star fade in the dark sky. But he still defies fate, and the resolution of su-
preme struggles imprints a tragic fixity on his features." 127 In the terse
formula of Gautier fils, Meissonier "shows will struggling with fate." 128
In other words, Meissonier at that difficult juncture in his career found it
necessary to go beyond the more or less neutrally absorptive subject mat-
ter that had been the basis of his previous triumphs (by the standards of
Figure 1 33. Ernest Meissonier,

Man Reading, 1862.
Figure 134. Ernest Meissonier, I8I4, the Campaign of France, 1860-64.
his earlier work, the subject of I8I4 is nothing if not "excessive"), and the
means by which he did this involved virtually personifying will itself."
"This isn't the place for a detailed discussion of Meissonier's art, but two points related to pho-
tography and a third one concerning his attitude toward previous art should at least be noted.
First, Meissonier's quasi-photographic paintings were often praised for the largeness of their
touch on a minute scale (see Fried 1990, p. 357, n. 79), which suggests that their closeness to
photography as images directed attention all the more strongly to their identity as paintings,
that is, as artistic products every bit of which is the product of an act of will (also of execution).
And second, as I wrote in Courbet's Realism, "any attempt [by photography) to compete with
painting by constructing multifigure compositions even of comparatively simple genre subjects
[was) doomed from the start because the absolute verism of the photographic image [was)
bound to detect the least failure of [the) sitters to become completely absorbed in their roles"
(p. 45, glossing A.-A.-E. Disderi, L'Art de/a photographie [Paris, 1862), pp. 299-300). In that
regard too the quasi-photographic character of Meissonier's absorptive pictures would have
thrown into relief their ability to accomplish what photography could not. (Disderi, a leading
practitioner, was also the foremost French theorist of photography of the early 18 60S.)
As for Meissonier's attitude toward earlier art, Marc Gotlieb quotes him as having said that
"'a master is an artist whose works never make one think of those of some other artist,''' and
stresses that Meissonier believed there was no greater danger to a painter than his own memory,
which inevitably was stocked with images of previous works (Meissonier at the Pantheon
[Princeton, forthcoming)). As Gotlieb remarks, Meissonier's attempts to defeat or overcome all
memory of previous art-for example, by the practice of genre painting and by strict reliance
Chapter Three
My penultimate example of double or divided structure comes from the

fiction, not the art criticism, of Emile Zola. From the perspective of this
chapter, the most salient fact about Zola's criticism of r866-68, when he
dramatically emerged as Manet's impassioned champion, is the absence
from it of any engagement with the issues I have been examining. Not
only is Zola unsympathetic to painting that relates to earlier painting; 129
not only do the topics of Frenchness and schools of painting leave him
cold; 130 not only is his use of the term tableau here and elsewhere without
the least connotation of achieved unity; 131 there is also in his writing not
a jot of interest in absorption or the larger problematic of which it was a
part; 132 in short his art criticism stands amazingly detached from the dis-
cursive field of contemporary commentary on painting. Indeed Zola's un-
shakable conviction that considerations of subject matter, composition,
and expression have no bearing on questions of art was the basis of his
originality as a critic 133 -it was, to put it baldly, what enabled him not to
be put off by Manet. But it is also his peculiar limitation as a guide to the
pictorial culture of the r 860s, which as we have seen took all those con-
siderations extremely seriously.
In r 8 86 Zola published L'Oeuvre, a novel about painting set, in its
early chapters, in the r860s. The second chapter opens with the protago-
nist, the painter Claude Lantier, working on a large canvas called Plein
Air that he intends to submit to the Salon of 1863; predictably, the paint-
ing will be rejected and instead will be shown at the Salon des Refuses,
where it will be universally derided. But while still unfinished it is described
as follows (Claude and his friend Pierre Sandoz, a writer transparently
based on Zola himself, are looking at it in Claude's studio):
There was a long silence, during which they both stood looking, immobile.
It was a canvas of five meters by three, entirely covered with paint, though some
morceaux barely emerged from the ebauche. The ebauche, flung there at one
go, had a superb violence, an ardent coloristic life. In a forest clearing, with
thick walls of greenery, the sun poured down; to the left there was a shadowy
path with a patch of light in the far distance. There, on the grass, in the midst of
the June vegetation, a naked woman was lying, one arm under her head, thrust-
ing her breasts upward; and she smiled, without seeing, her eyes closed, in the
golden sunlight raining down on her. In the background, smaller, two other
on the model-contrasts fundamentally with Manet's deliberate exploitation of what I have

described as the repetition-structure of European painting from the early Renaissance on (in
chapter 2), though I have suggested that for Manet too the ultimate aim may have been a libera-
tion of sorts from the authority of the past (and in chapter 4 I will consider his use of the model,
so different from Meissonier's but equally central to his enterprise).
women, one dark and one fair, were laughing and tussling, making two lovely
patches of flesh color against the green. In the foreground, the painter had need
of a black contrast, which led him to insert a seated figure of a man dressed in a
plain velvet jacket. This figure had his back turned, one saw only his left hand,
on which he leaned, in the grass. 134
The size and layout of the painting, together with the subsequent account
of the mockery with which it was greeted, strongly suggest that its proto-
type was Manet's Dejeuner sur l'herbe.135 But Zola has altered Manet's
canvas in crucial respects: first, by replacing the figure of the seated bather
staring directly out of the painting with that of a naked woman who lies
back with her eyes closed; and second, by replacing the two "conversing"
men in the Dejeuner with the figure of just one man seen from behind.
(The wrestling women are also new, deriving perhaps from Frederic Ba-
zille's wrestling men in his Summer Scene [r869].) The model for the
seated man with his back to the viewer has been Sandoz, who in the suc-
ceeding pages resumes posing for his friend.
One way of characterizing the changes would be to say that they make
Claude's painting rather more Courbetlike than Manetlike in feeling (al-
ternatively we might say that they suggest a combination of Courbet and
Manet).136 But what I want to stress is that Zola's revision of the De-
jeuner, which pointedly eliminates all direct confrontation between
painting and viewer, is counterbalanced by a scene in which Claude's
Plein Air is in effect recomposed in terms of pure facingness. The scene
takes place at a later Salon where Claude comes across a picture by the
painter Fagerolles, a shallow man and artist whose unique skill is to be
able to domesticate the violent innovations of an original painter like
Claude and make them attractive to a wide public. 137 The title (in French)
of Fagerolles's canvas is Un Dejeuner; some time before he had described
it to Claude as depicting" 'two men and three women under some trees,
guests at a chateau who have brought along a collation and who eat it in a
clearing.'" (" 'You'll see,''' he had added, "'it's pretty original.' ")138 As
the reader expects, it turns out to derive from Claude's earlier failure; in-
deed Claude "rediscovered his Plein Air in this Dejeuner-the same
blonde note, the same artistic formula, but toned down, faked, spoiled, to
produce a skin-deep elegance, arranged with infinite cleverness to satisfy
the low satisfactions of the public." 139 And in fact a large admiring crowd
has gathered in front of Fagerolles's picture; after listening to various
fatuous comments, all claiming to distinguish one or another of the paint-
ing's merits, Claude yields to a strange impulse:
Chapter Three
The thought of all that admiration rising from the sea of rounded shoulders
and craning necks so exasperated Claude that he felt he must see what sort of
faces go to make a triumph. So he worked his way round the fringes of the mass
until he was able to stand with his back to the picture. There he had the public
in front of him, in the greyish light that filtered through the sun-blind, leaving
the center of the room dim, while the bright daylight that escaped round the
edges of the blind illuminated the pictures on the walls, where the gold of the
frames took on the warm tones of the sunshine. All of a sudden he recognized
the men who had jeered him before: if not they, then their brothers; but now se-
rious, ecstatic, embellished by their respectful attention. The malignant looks,
that weariness with the struggle, that bilious envy drawing and yellowing the
skin he had noted earlier were all softened here in the communal enjoyment of
an amiable deception. Two very stout ladies he saw simply gaping in beatitude,
and several round-eyed old gentlemen trying to look wise. There was a husband
quietly explaining the subject in a low voice to his young wife, who kept tilting
her chin with a very graceful movement of the neck. There was admiration on
every face, though the expression varied; some looked blissful, others surprised
or thoughtful or gay or even austere; many faces wore an unconscious smile,
many heads seemed faint with pleasure. The shiny black toppers were all tipped
backwards, and the flowers on the women's hats all drooped well down toward
their shoulders, while all the faces, after a momentary halt, were continually
pushed along and replaced by others that resembled them. 140
1 read the conjunction of the two scenes in L'Oeuvre as a belated and
inadvertent acknowledgment of the pertinence to French painting in the
I 860s of the internal divisions we have been analyzing, divisions that left
no mark in Zola's art criticism itself. Specifically, 1 read those scenes as

imagining a single large canvas, based on Manet's Dijeuner sur l'herbe,
that manages at once to turn away from and to face the beholder (think of
Fantin's drawings leading up to The Toast! Homage to Truth)-though a
feature of Zola's criticism of the I 860s that is reflected in the second of the
two scenes is that the concept of a single beholder gave way to that of a
multiplicity of viewers, the public or the crowd. 141
Here, finally, is a remarkable passage from a letter of Fantin's to his old

friend Otto Scholderer. On April 20, I 875, Fantin's father died at the age
of sixty-nine; Fantin and his father had been close, and the son was pre-
sent at the latter's death. On April 25 he wrote to Scholderer describing
his father's last hours:
My God, let him die, I said at each instant; it wasn't until 3 A.M. that he be-
came calm, little by little his breathing became calm, then he signed gently as if
saying, "Ah! I'm at last resting." You see, my dear 5cholderer, at that moment I
was in an extraordinary state; I was so happy, I kissed him, I spoke to him, I
saw him delivered from horrible suffering, he appeared so happy, but I didn't
see any trace of consciousness, everything was internal but reflected on his face,
then came a state which I can't describe, lightning-flashes that passed across his
face, a succession of different expressions; intelligence took the place of imbe-
cility, he became grave. Oh! it was admirable, I watched for several minutes the
greatest spectacle one can see; I never stopped saying, "Oh! how beautiful it is,
how beautiful it is." 142
What impressed and moved Fantin, it appears, was the combination of
absolute absorptive closure ("I didn't see any trace of consciousness")
and the height of expressiveness, instantaneousness, and strikingness
("then came a state which 1 can't describe, lightning-flashes that passed
across his face, a succession of different expressions ... "). As if Fantin's
father in his last moments literally embodied the double structure we first
noted in connection with Legros's Ex- Voto, and as if Fantin's ecstatic re-
sponse to his dying father's face ("I never stopped saying, 'Oh! how beau-
tiful it is, how beautiful it is''') bespeaks the depth of his commitment to
the "excessive," portrait esthetic that was a hallmark of his genera-
tion. ~-143
A Discursive Chain: Cloisters, Character, Strikingness, Types,

Modernity-Duranty's La Nouvelle Peinture
By WAY 0 F bringing this chapter to a close, consider the following brief

quotations:
All etchers should frequent cloisters; there they would find what their capri-
cious and freedom-loving needle seeks: picturesque tatters, characteristic
heads, interiors shot through with light and shadow, mystery and strange-
ness .... The Carthusian Playing a Cello by Morse [sic: Edouard Moyse
(1863; fig. 135) 1is modeled with fullness and accuracy. The old man bends
"Here if anywhere there may be a partial convergence between the concerns of this book and
the fundamentally different yet not wholly unrelated problematic of facingness and disfig-
uration as indexes of the materiality, hence visibility, of writing that I have identified in Real-
ism, Writing, Disfiguration: On Thomas Eakins and Stephen Crane (Chicago and London,
1987), chap. 2, "Stephen Crane's Upturned Faces"; "Almayer's Face: On 'Impressionism' in
Conrad, Crane, and Norris," Critical Inquiry 17 (autumn 1990): 193-236; "Response to Bill
Brown," Critical Inquiry 18 (winter 1992): 403-10; and "Impressionist Monsters: H. G.
Wells's 'The Island of Doctor Moreau,'" in Stephen Bann, ed., Frankenstein, Creation and
Monstrosity (London, 1994): pp. 95- II2. (My use ofthe term "impressionism" in this context
has nothing to do with the pictorial movement.) I am working on a book-length study of ten or
so English-language writers of the period 1890-1914, provisionally entitled Almayer's Face:
Rewriting Literary Impressionism.
Chapter Three
over his instrument with his head bare. Vowed to the silence by his Rule, he
seems to converse with it; deprived of the society of men, he takes refuge in the
world of sounds; the voice of the strings takes the place for him of the human
voice. (Paul de Saint-Victor, 1863)144
I understand by realist religious painting a certain genre of painting that
depicts current and modern subjects of religion and of sanctity, to use the
technical word. Processions, ex-votos, consecrations of churches, ceremonies of
every kind, the religious events and personages passing regularly under our
eyes, constitute a new vein that many artists exploit these days, and they do
well. Fully as modern, fully as alive as genre painting as such, this new genre,
inaugurated just a short time ago among us, is more elevated and more
interesting and acts more efficaciously on the public. [After citing, among
Figure 135. Edouard Moyse,

Carthusian Playing a Cello,
etching, 1863.
others, Jules Breton, Fran<;ois Bonvin, Ribot, and Legros:] the monks, priests,
nuns, and choirboys that these artists put before us have a marvelous reality
and life. (Dubose de Pesquidoux, 1863) 145
Character! supreme note, that one must demand less from modes of
expression than from the imposing grandeur of a reality pursued in its most
fugitive perceptions, and presenting itself to our eyes with that inexplicable
personality that strikes, holds, moves. (Zacharie Astruc, 1863)146
To characterize! That's the goal. (Jean-Fran<;ois Millet, 1863)147
Taking the four quotations together, a certain discursive chain or net-
work begins to emerge. First, there is the link between an absorptive
thematics and Saint-Victor's suggestion that etchers should frequent
cloisters: in those closed spaces, shot through with abrupt contrasts of
light and dark and cut off from the world, etchers would take as their sub-
ject matter monks absorbed in meditation or solemn rituals or, as in
Moyse's etching, playing the cello. (The specific topic of Saint-Victor's ar-
ticle was the newly formed Societe des Aquafortistes, to which Legros,
Fantin, Whistler, and Manet all belonged. 148 But it also adumbrates an
informal theory of the cloister in modern art generally. "In etching as in
painting," Saint-Victor wrote in the same article, "Ribot is dedicated to
the white apron [a reference to his then-typical subject matter of cooks,
bakers, scullions, etc.]. He is cloistered in the kitchen to devote himself to
the unique, exclusive, absorbing study of the baker and the scullion.") 149
Much the same idea is implied by Duranty's remark about Legros's Ex-
voto: "The accent of a particular world was completely expressed." Such
a world, as I noted earlier, was essentially a world apart, and what gave it
its apartness, and in a sense its worldlikeness, was the absorption of the
kneeling women and in particular their seeming obliviousness to every-
thing but their devotions. The association of cloisters with isolation and
closure resonates as well in Chesneau's praise of Legros in 1868: "He
opened a very special domain of observation which he explores from day
to day with a more magisterial liberty; he always had a particular passion
for scenes of clerical and monastic life. In etchings and paintings, he has
reproduced in turn the great architecture of our churches, the intimate
and exterior physiognomy of the men and things that live habitually en-
closed in the shadows of cloisters and the half-light of cathedrals." 150
And in a variation on those ideas, Astruc wrote the same year of another
lost religious painting by Carolus Duran, St. Francis Receiving the Stig-
mata: "Such works call for a select milieu; it seems to me that they are
fatally lost in the midst of those great battles between luxuriously toned
254 Chapter Three
Figure r36. Alphonse Legros, Procession dans une eglise espagnole, etching, ca. r860.
frames [in the Salon] that solicit much more the sense of curiosity than
that of meditation; but take them, place them in the right light, in the nec-
essary frame, and you yourself will approach them with the feeling that
animates them; soon you will feel yourself penetrated by their effect.
More than ever, the author of the Murdered Man circumscribes his drama
and gives an intimate vitality, a special tenor to his production." 151 In
other words, paintings like Carolus Duran's not only depicted a world
apart but also required to be set apart if they were to have their fullest
effect.
The surprising prominence of a certain sort of religious painting in the
young realist circle in the 186os-of what Georges Lafenestre described
in 1869 as "not the religious genre but the genre of religious persons" 152
-is thus explained by the extent to which various religious themes and
motifs (see Dubosc's list) lent themselves to effects of absorptive closure
or say of cloistering. This was clearly the case with Legros's Ex- Voto and
Carolus Duran's Evening Prayer and St. Francis, though by far the broad-
est range of such themes and motifs is found in Legros's etchings of the
late 185 os and early 18 60S, a rich and varied body of work that has not
yet been appreciated for either its artistic worth or its historical impor-
tance (figs. 136, 137, 138).153 Indeed the connection with realism is
made explicit in Dubosc's final observation that the monks, priests, nuns,
and choirboys in works by Legros, Ribot, Bonvin, and others "have a
marvelous reality and life": this is one more instance of the sort of mysti-
fied reality-effect I have associated with absorption, here made all the
more intense (it "acts more efficaciously on the public") by the absorptive
closure of the cloistral milieu. Note, by the way, the linkage in Chesneau's
remarks cited above between the confinement within cloisters of Legros's

Le Refectoire, etching, r862.

Le Manege, etching, r863.
Chapter Three
personages and Legros's "more magisterial liberty" as an artist, which

exactly parallels Saint-Victor's association of cloistering with the etcher's
"capricious and freedom-loving needle." It is as though the apartness of
the milieu and the absorptive, antitheatrical states of its inhabitants are
imagined as promoting a heightened freedom of action on the part of the
artist.
Another aspect of that mystified reality-effect concerns the revelation
of what was then called caractere. Saint-Victor alluded to the" charac-
teristic heads" of the personages to be found in cloisters, and of course it
is this that Duranty meant when he claimed of the Ex- Voto that the "ac-
cent" of a particular world was completely expressed and went on to
write, "Everything that can strike, arrest, and hold one before these
beings; everything that is meaningful, concentrated, violent in them radi-
ated from this group of old women." In fact the notions of character and
strikingness are also conjoined in Mantz's recollection, in his "Salon of
r868," of Legros's Angelus of r859 and Ex-Voto of r860: "Legros was
then a somewhat barbarous painter, ugliness didn't alarm him; his brush,
lacking finesse, yoked together white and black tones; but he went far in
the direction of character, he struck hard and he struck true."IS4 (Mantz
went on to discuss a new religious painting by Legros, L'Amende honor-
able, which he saw as more refined than the earlier work and partly for
that reason as standing in need of greater accentuation in the treatment of
faces. We shall look briefly at the Amende honorable toward the end of
chapter 4.) Or as Astruc observed in r863, although compositionally
Legros's Le Lutrin gave the impression of fragments added together,
"The beautiful things strike-they are absolute." ISS And he went on to
note that the beadle in that picture was "full of character," while the
priest "imprints on the soul an extreme meditation," imprinting, of
course, being a kind of striking.1 s6 Similarly, Saint-Victor admired the
"singular force and gravity" of Fran<;ois Bonvin's Interior of a Hospital in
the Salon of r 869, noting that "all the rigidity of monastic life is im-
printed on the austere bearing and on the mortified physiognomy of that
old sister of charity who, seated at a table, knits stockings [d. Duranty on
the old women in the Ex- Voto] . ... One can say that [Bonvin] is the
Chardin of cloistering and poverty."IS7 In the same "Salon" Saint-Victor
made clear once again his loathing of Millet's art because of what he saw
as its affectation, its "ostentation of a system," in short its theat-
ricality.Is8 Because Saint-Victor was ceaselessly critical not just of Millet
but also of Manet and other modern painters posterity has esteemed
highly, he has been viewed as a conservative figure of no particular dis-

tinction. However, his highly intelligent criticism is always interesting, in
part because he held arguably the most rigorously "Diderotian" view of
absorption of all the art critics of that moment (his "conservatism" con-
sisted largely in that); no one was less inclined than he to subscribe to
double or divided structures or to take part in the transvaluation of excess
and willing that marks the writings of Duranty, Astruc, and other "pro-
gressive" commentators. On the other hand, he admired the peasant
paintings of Jules Breton, whom writers who extolled Millet often depre-
cated as theatrical-so perhaps the very notion of a rigorously "Didero-
tian" view of absorption in the circumstances of the r 860s is finally
untenable. 1s9
As the brief quotation from Millet ("To characterize! That's the goal")
announces, characterization was at the heart of his project; and the initial
quotation from Astruc ("Character! supreme note ... ") indicates that it
was basic also for his realist rewriting of Millet's absorptive esthetic. Not
surprisingly, such a notion of character was more or less interchangeable
with the concept of the type. So for example Thon~ in r 86 r remarked that
"in all his paintings, Millet always has an indefinable character which ele-
vates his creation to the heights of a type," before going on to praise the
strongly absorptive Sheep Shearer, Woman Feeding Her Child, and L'At-
tente. 160 Even more interestingly, Mantz in r863 spoke of Millet's "ar-
dent attempt to bring together intimate expression and the simplified
type," 161 while Chesneau, writing in r879 about the military paintings
of Guillaume Regamey, who had been a fellow student with Fantin and
Legros under Lecoq de Boisbaudran, remarked that Regamey "shows us
at last the true and simple soldier, devoid of posing, naIvely wholly en-
gaged in what he is doing.... What dominates everywhere and always,
is the essential character of the truth brought back to the type solely by
virtue of the extraordinary accuracy of the movements and action."162
(The military world was as self-contained as the religious world and com-
prised an even wider range of ranks, divisions, and distinctions, each of
which had its own identifying set of professional and personal charac-
teristics. 163 By virtue of his gifts and training, Regamey was a likely can-
didate to become an outstanding military painter in a realist vein. In fact
his few surviving paintings are impressive; but partly owing to illness he
produced little and died at the age of thirty-eight in r 875. His last paint-
ing, the not-quite-finished Cuirassiers au cabaret [Salon of r875; fig.
r39], could not be more absorptive.) And here is Castagnary in r875
Chapter Three
Figure 139. Guillaume Regamey, Cuirassiers au cabaret, 1875.
saying of Legros's Young Women of the Month of Marie: "On their knees,
wrapped in their brown capes, their heads covered in their white hoods,
they pray with such fervor that they hear neither the footsteps of those
who arrive nor the nasal voice of the chorister.... Alphonse Legros has
studied these singular states of soul with a scrupulous attention and has
rendered them with a rare aptitude. By all the qualities that it possesses,
modernity of subject, truthfulness of types, accuracy of expressions, char-
acter of the draperies, transparence of the shadows, unity of the impres-
sion, his painting is a work of high style and one of those that honor the
Salon of this year."164 Almost all the concepts we have been tracking are
in play here, along with one other, modernity, that we first met in Du-
ranty's commentary on the Ex-Voto ("the feeling of modern life shone
forth strongly in this work") and Chesneau's praise for Carolus Duran's
Evening Prayer (the conception of which he said was "original, modern,
and very elevated"). Dubosc too asserted that what he called realist reli-
gious painting was fully as modern and alive as genre painting as such-
in fact the adjective "modern" occurs twice in his short paragraph. I find
all this significant and make the following suggestion: for Duranty and
other art critics of the I860s and I870S the effect of modernity was
closely linked with the representation of types, and that in turn was facili-
tated, if indeed it was not made possible, by the evocation of the particu-
lar closed milieux-the absorptive worlds or cloisters-in which those
types had their habitual, in that sense automatistic place. Or perhaps all
that was required was the intimation that the types in question had such a
place, as in Louis Etienne's comments on Whistler's Woman in White.
"An entire character, an entire secluded life [toute une vie apart] are im-
printed there," he wrote, "and force you to remain and to continue to
look. She is an apparition, an unknown heroine; and from a pictorial
point of view, there emanates from the painting a powerful and knowing
artistic savor that announces a strong researcher." 165 Etienne's undeni-
able mediocrity as a critic only throws into relief the intellectual con-
sistency of the terms dictating his response to Whistler's canvas.
It scarcely needs pointing out that this construal of modernity is at
odds with the conventional view that holds to what T. J. Clark has aptly
summed up as "the essential myth of modern life: that the city has be-
come a free field of signs and exhibits, a marketable mass of images, an
area in which the old separations have broken down for good." 166 I do
not say that nothing of the sort took place in the Paris of the I 8 60S or
I870S or that such a view of the city is not implicit in the work of some
artists and writers of the period. But it is an error to flatly assert, as many
have done, that that was the entire or even the principal meaning of mod-
ernity for the painters and critics we have been considering. (As Clark
goes on to say, "Observers agreed that in some important sense the city
was more inflexibly classed and divided than ever before; that one was
entering the age of the 'residential district' and the 'industrial suburb,'
and that those brisk euphemisms disguised an unmistakeable sealing and
quarantine of the classes.") 167
Here, to clinch the point, is Duranty in his pamphlet of 1876, La Nou-
velle Peinture:
And what drawing, in its modern ambition, seeks to accomplish is to recog-

nize nature so strictly, to embrace it so strongly that it [drawing] would be irre-
proachable as regards the relations between forms, and would know the
inexhaustible diversity of characters. Good-bye to the human body treated as if
it were a vase, from the point of view of the decorative outline; good-bye to the
uniform monotony of the skeleton, to the anatomy figure visible beneath the
nude; what we require is the special note of the modern individual, in his
260 Chapter Three
clothing, in the midst of his social habits, at home or in the street. What is done
becomes singularly incisive, it's the lighting of a torch with the pencil, it's the
study of moral reflections on faces and dress, the observation of the intimacy of
man with his apartment, of the special feature that his profession imprints on
him, of the gestures that it compels him to make, the various aspects under
which he is best developed and put in relief. 168
The consistency of these remarks with the various citations we have just
discussed and more broadly with the entire absorptive problematic of
the I860s should be apparent: in fact La Nouvelle Peinture singles out
Diderot as the theoretical precursor of "all that the art of the nineteenth
century will have wanted to realize" 169 (the passage just quoted imme-
diately follows a page from Diderot's Essai sur Ie dessin), and it also in-
cludes a revised version of Duranty's original description of Legros's Ex-
Voto, which confirms my earlier statement that he, like Astruc,
Chesneau, and Castagnary, remained a critic of the I 8 60S throughout his
career. 170 What is chiefly new in La Nouvelle Peinture is the elaboration
of what I have called a theory of the cloister into a theory of the apart-
ment, or rather of the relation between the modern urban individual and
the particular social spaces-interiors and streets-in which he or she
was not just to be found but to be found imprinted, habituated, dis-
tracted, absorbed. 17l In any case, for Duranty and the other critics whose
writings we have studied, the realistic representation of modernity called
for absorptive effects of hyperlegibility, not the exploitation of ambiguity
or illegibility as is commonly assumed. ':.
':-One last set of remarks. Duranty's pamphlet begins with a reference to an article by the
painter and writer Eugene Fromentin in the Revue des Deux Mondes that eventually became
part of his book Les Maitres d'autrefois (r876; Brussels, 199r). There Fromentin criticized re-
cent realist painting for limiting its aim to that of "striking the eyes with salient, textual [i.e.
readable] images, easily recognizable in their truthfulness, denuded of artifice, and giving us
exactly the sensations we can see in the street" (Les Maitres d'autrefois, p. 238). ([L]a peinture
la plus recente a pour but de frapper les yeux par des images saillantes, textuelles, aisement
reconnaissables en leur verite, denuees d'artifices, et de nous donner exactement les sensations
de ce que nous pouvons voir dans la rue.) La Nouvelle Peinture amounts to an extended defense
of that esthetic, or rather of that esthetic as redescribed in the terms developed above. Les Mai-
tres d' autrefois, in contrast, is a luminously intelligent and relentlessly judgmental examination
of major paintings in Belgium and Holland by Rubens, Rembrandt, and other Northern mas-
ters, focusing on questions of execution in the largest sense of the term. It's all the more note-
worthy, then, that Fromentin's wonderful book comes to a close on an artfully devised effect of
cloistering: a characterization of the fifteenth-century Flemish painter Hans Memling's "spiri-
tual" art as standing apart from its century. Fromentin writes (p. 368):
He abstracts himself in his intimate world, encloses himself in it, develops in it, and pours
forth [his art] in it. Nothing of the outside world penetrates this sanctuary of souls in full re-
pose, nor what is done there, nor what is thought there, nor what is said there, and least of all
One somewhat ironic consequence of this view is that almost without

exception the critics in question were unable to admire (or at least to de-
fend) Manet's paintings of the I860s in any but a qualified way. To those
paintings we must now return.
what is seen there. Imagine, in the midst of the horrors of that century, a privileged place, a
sort of angelic retreat ideally silent and closed where passions are quiet, where troubles cease,
where one praises, where one worships, where everything is transfigured, physical ugliness,
moral ugliness, where new feelings are born, where simplicity, sweetness, and meekness grow
like lilies, and you will have an idea of the unique soul of Memling and the miracle he oper-
ates in his paintings.
II s'abstrait dans son monde intime, s'y enferme, s'y eleve et s'y epanche. Rien du monde exte-
rieur ne penetre dans ce sanctuaire des ames en plein repos, ni ce qu'on y fait, ni ce qu'on y
pense, ni ce qu'on y dit, ni aucunement ce qu'on y voit. Imaginez, au milieu des horreurs du
siecle, un lieu privilegie, une sorte de retraite angelique idealement silencieuse et fermee ou les
passions se taisent, au les troubles cessent, au l'on prie, ou l'on adore, au tout se transfigure,
laideurs physiques, laideurs morales, ou naissent des sentiments nouveaux, au poussent
comme des lis des ingenuites, des douceurs, une mansuetude surnaturelle, et vous aurez une
idee de l'ame unique de Memling et du miracle qu'il opere en ses tableaux.
Nothing could be more alien to Duranty's insistence that the artist get out of his studio and into
the world than the escape from the world Fromentin fantasized. But Duranty's vision too was of
a network of spaces which, for all their seeming openness and accessibility, were fundamentally
closed.
4 Manet In His Generation
IN Courbet's Realism I presented Manet's paintings of the I 860s as re-

sponding dialectically to Courbet's Realist canvases of the late I 840S and
185 os. The crucial issue concerned the respective relations in the two
bodies of work between painting and beholder, that is, it concerned the
fundamentally different strategies by which Courbet and Manet came to
grips with the problem of theatricality that had been central to the evolu-
tion of painting in France since the middle of the eighteenth century.
Briefly, I described Courbet's Realist pictures as the products of an un-
precedented attempt on the part of the artist to transport himself as if
bodily into the painting on which he was working and by so doing to re-
move himself as a potentially theatricalizing factor from the scene of rep-
resentation. Put slightly differently, the strategy with respect to beholding
that informs Courbet's Realist paintings is not the classic Diderotian one
of absorptive closure, the walling out or curtaining off of the beholder
standing before the picture, but something altogether different (and in a
sense more radical): the quasi-corporeal merger in the act of painting by
the painter, conceived now as the painting's first beholder or painter-
beholder, with the painting itself. At least with respect to that beholder
the painting would ideally escape beholding entirely: there would be no
one before it looking on because the beholder who had been there was
now incorporated or disseminated within it.
During the first phase of Courbet's career the drive toward merger-
toward physical continuity with the picture on which he was working, or
at least toward what Stephen Melville suggests may be called the "pro-
longation" of the extended act of painting within the work itself1-was
chiefly expressed in and through the genre of the self-portrait, which had
the advantage of conventionally placing the artist in the picture from the
start. But Courbet's breakthrough to full artistic maturity coincided with
his discovery of less-obvious means of representing or "prolonging" him-
Manet in His Generation 263
Figure 140. Gustave Courbet, The Stonebreakers, 1849.
selfin his paintings. So for example in The Stonebreakers (1849; fig. 14 0 )

I see the young man depicted largely from the rear and bearing a basket of
stones not simply as a figure for or as personifying the painter-beholder's
left hand holding a palette but virtually as continuous with that hand and
the effort it put forth, just as I see the older man raising a hammer as vir-
tually continuous with the painter-beholder's right hand wielding the
brush with which the picture was painted. Note in this connection how
left and right inside the painting are congruent with left and right "this"
side of its surface (i.e. with the left/right orientation of the painter-
beholder at work on the canvas); the difference between such congruence
and the opposite relation of mirror reversal will be vital to the analysis in
chapter 5 of various self-portrait drawings and paintings by members of
the generation of 1863. Indeed that we see neither stonebreaker's face
suggests a desire on the part of the painter-beholder to do everything pos-
sible to align the representation as a whole with his own bodily orienta-
tion as he faced into the canvas.
Similarly, in The Wheat Sifters (1854; fig. 141) the central kneeling fig-
ure depicted from the rear as she sifts wheat onto a canvas ground cloth
may be seen as embodying the actions and orientation of the painter-
beholder as he deposited bits of pigment onto the stretched canvas before
him (in other words, not just the woman but the sifted wheat and the
Chapter Four
Figure I41. Gustave Combet, The Wheat Sifters, I854.
canvas ground cloth take part in a metaphorics or rather, through "pro-

longation," a metonymies of painting);2 the seated woman to the left
dreamily separating wheat from chaff by hand may be read as a version of
painter-beholder's left hand holding his palette; while the boy peering at
close range into the black interior of the tarare, an early machine for sift-
ing wheat, suggests the negation of beholding that would follow from the
(physically impossible) incorporation of the painter-beholder within his
painting.
In another major work of the mid-1 8 50S, the monumental Painter's
Studio (fig. I I 8), the painter seated at his easel at the center of the compo-
sition seems all but corporeally absorbed into the landscape he is in the
act of painting (his lower body has nowhere to go except into the canvas);
the body of the naked model standing behind him watching him paint has
been made to rhyme more or less closely both with portions of the
painter's body (her haunches with his shoulder, her breast with his head,
her upraised arms with his arms) and with features of the painting on the
easel (most obviously, her neck and hair and the tilt of her head with the
trees growing out from the hillside at the upper right of the canvas). This
Manet in His Generation
in itself suggests an impulse toward merger, as if the three main compo-

nents of the central group-painting, painter, and model (the boy was
more an afterthought)-were at bottom one. But the dynamics of merger
are carried still further by the depicted flow of water within the river land-
scape out toward the seated painter, as well as by the way in which both
the white sheet that the model presses to her breast and the discarded
dress at her feet extend the flow and fall of waterlike representations be-
yond both him and her. In this sense the figure of Courbet in the central
group is wholly immersed in the painting on which he is working-a
painting, moreover, whose material limits appear indefinite-just as the
central figure in the Wheat Sifters is encompassed by the canvas ground
cloth on which she kneels and onto which she lets fall the bits of grain that
I have read as equivalents for the bits of pigment that in fact represent
them. All this scarcely suggests either the richness of the Stonebreakers,
Wheat Sifters, and Painter's Studio as "real allegories" of the act of their
production or the ramifications of this view of Courbet's project for our
understanding of nineteenth-century realism generally. But it explains
what I meant when in chapter 3 I cited Courbet as a precedent for Fantin's
attempt to transport both painter and beholder into The Toast! Homage
to Truth.
In Manet's paintings of the early 1860s something fundamentally dif-
ferent takes place. As I wrote in Courbet's Realism:
... Manet's masterpieces of the first half of the I 860s would have been incon-
ceivable without Courbet's pathbreaking example; but the two men could
hardly have been more different in origins and manner, and there is an acute
sense in which Manet's version of the pictorial enterprise was antithetical to
Courbet's as concerns the crucial issue of beholding. It is as though Manet intu-
itively recognized the ever greater difficulty, verging by the 18 50S on impos-
sibility, of effectively negating or neutralizing the primordial convention that
paintings are made to be beheld; and as though he recognized too that it was
therefore necessary to establish the beholder's presence abstractly-to build
into the painting the separateness, distancedness, and mutual facing that had
always characterized the painting-beholder relationship in its traditional, un-
reconstructed form-in order that the worst consequences of the theatricaliz-
ing of that relationship be averted. Such a reading identifies Manet's enterprise
as simultaneously antitheatrical and theatrical (and vice versa), which also
means as not exactly one or the other as we have been using the terms until
now. Thus Manet's paintings of the first half of the I 860s repudiate the anec-
dotally theatrical pictures, often costume pieces set in earlier centuries, that en-
joyed great popularity at the Salons of the 18 50S and I860s. But they do so by
exploiting a strictly presentational-as opposed to "actional" -mode of the at-
Chapter Four
ricality, the chief historical source and sanction for which was Watteau, and the
principal function of which in Manet's art was to make newly perspicuous, in
effect to force on the beholder's attention, certain truths about the painting-
beholder relationship it was no longer feasible to deny. It's also at least arguable
that one effect of Manet's strategy, and doubtless also a principal cause of the
extreme provocation that his paintings typically offered to contemporary audi-
ences, is that the beholder sensed that he had been made supererogatory to a
situation that ostensibly demanded his presence, as if his place before the paint-
ing were already occupied by virtue of the extreme measures that had been
taken to stake it out. 3
As I also put it, Manet sought to acknowledge, not negate or neutralize,

the presence of the beholder. And I went on to suggest that that act of
acknowledgment holds the key to Manet's pictures' notorious "flatness":
as though what has always been taken as a declaration of flatness is more
importantly the product of an attempt to make the painting in its entirety
-the painting as a painting, that is, as a tableau-face the beholder as
never before. 4
One implication of the previous chapter is that simply contrasting
Manet and Courbet in this way (not that the contrast is all that simple)
will not do. In the first place, in view of the continued viability of ab-
sorptive painting in the work of Millet, Legros, Fantin, Bonvin, Ribot,
Carolus Duran, and others, it hardly seems accurate to speak of the diffi-
culty verging on impossibility of effectively negating or neutralizing the
primordial convention that paintings are made to be beheld. To be sure,
"excessively" absorptive painting such as Millet's was harshly criticized
by writers to whom it seemed theatrical. But Millet's art continued to be
widely admired as anti theatrical, and among those who praised it in
those terms were critics whose overall allegiances were distinctly avant-
garde. Equally important, to focus exclusively on the Courbet-Manet re-
lationship elides the question of Manet's relation to other painters of his
generation whose respective responses to the problem of the theatrical
differed from his but whose art, like his, signals the emergence of a new
pictorial sensibility keyed to the values of excessiveness, willfulness, in-
stantaneousness, intensity, strikingness. In this connection it will be nec-
essary to address an array of questions only some of which are touched on
in the passage from Courbet's Realism just quoted. For example, what are
the chief similarities and differences between Manet's paintings and those
of Legros, Fantin-Latour, and Whistler? More precisely, what was Manet's
attitude toward absorption, and to what extent does his art exemplify the
double or divided structure we have seen in that of his cogenerationists?

For that matter, what relation if any was there between Manet's construc-
tion of a new mode of encounter between painting and beholder and what
I have tried to show was his programmatic exploitation of sources in older
art? What ultimately was at stake for both Manet and his cogeneration-
ists in the notion of a tableau to which I allude toward the end of the above
remarks and which has already come up more than once in the previous
chapters? Finally, to what extent does it make sense today to continue
to think of Manet as a modernist painter, indeed as the first modernist
painter?-Not all these questions will receive a definitive answer. But I
want to enlarge my attempt to see Manet's achievement in historical con-
text, by which I mean in the necessarily partial context of various expres-
sive, compositional, and presentational issues, at once rooted in the mid-
and later eighteenth century and specific to the 1860s and 1870S, which
despite all the work that has been done on the painting and criticism of
the latter period have never been given their due. Accordingly, my focus in
what follows will mainly be on Manet himself; but I shall not hesitate to
compare his art with that of other painters, and in any case the issues I
shall be exploring are often surprisingly wide in their ultimate scope.
The Problem of the Tableau
LET ME begin with a topic that obsessed and baffled Manet's genera-
tion: that of the tableau. In French art theory and criticism of the eigh-
teenth and nineteenth centuries the concept of the tableau was often
though by no means always a semantically charged term, one whose sig-
nificance is lost, made invisible, when it is translated into English as either
"painting" or "picture." (In the early eighteenth century this led the third
earl of Shaftesbury, the foremost English art theorist of his time, to pro-
pose the coinage "tablature," which of course never caught on. 5 The
alternative, followed here, is to keep tableau in the original French.) Spe-
cifically, for French critics of the anti- Rococo reaction, Grimm and Diderot
foremost among them, the term tableau denoted the achievement of a suf-
ficiently high degree of compositional and coloristic unity (the latter
mainly the work of chiaroscuro) to produce a powerful and instantane-
ous effect of formal and expressive closure. 6 Indeed the term was first mo-
bilized in this way to mark a distinction between the incorporation of
painting within a larger decorative scheme, which writers like Shaftes-
268 Chapter Four
bury, Grimm, and Diderot regarded as degrading to the art, and the por-
table, self-sufficient, esthetically autonomous easel picture, which they
strongly advocated. Not that simply being an easel picture sufficed to win
the highest approval: only such a work could in principle satisfy the re-
quirements of the tableau; but whether in fact a particular easel picture
succeeded in doing so-whether it achieved the perspicuous effect of
unity, autonomy, and closure that the term implied-was and remained a
question of critical discrimination. As has already emerged in chapter 3,
considerations of unity and related matters were deeply implicated in the
ongoing problematic of the struggle against theatricality. And with the
advent of Courbet and the profound transformation of the terms of that
struggle on which his art was based, exactly what was at stake in the criti-
cal valorization of the tableau became more difficult to pin down even as
the notion itself continued to dominate a certain reflection on painting
among critics and painters of widely disparate points of view.
So during the 185 os, for example, the concept of the tableau was most
often used by critics as a term of contrast with what they saw as the pal-
pable failure of Courbet's Realist paintings, though often superbly painted,
to conform to traditional notions of compositional unity; his canvases, it
was typically said, were mere morceaux, pieces or fragments, regardless
of their actual size. 7 Now, precisely that opposition, tableau versus mor-
ceau, was deployed by Astruc in Le Salon intime to distinguish the art of
Delacroix from that of Courbet:
Courbet does not bring to the ordonnance of his works as much care as one
would like. He doesn't burn with that flame of art that bears down desperately
and ceaselessly on each detail. There is a negligence and carelessness, a letting-
go, in his conception of the ensemble .... In contrast to Delacroix, who only
sees an ensemble resonating with the idea, he prefers the particular morceau
that keeps it at a distance. From the morceau we move toward the ensemble, the
tableau: hence the errors and contradictions of harmony. He doesn't concern
himself enough in advance with the disposition of the tableau. 8
What's noteworthy is that this was said by a critic who greatly admired
Courbet; his paintings, Astruc wrote in the same pamphlet, were perhaps
"the healthiest" in the whole exhibition. 9
Here it's useful to associate Astruc's remarks with a painting that by
now is familiar, Fantin's Homage to Delacroix of 1864 (pI. I), and to re-
call another critic, Jean Rousseau's, comments on that work: "I don't be-
lieve that Delacroix's poetic was ever Courbet's. How then has an alliance
suddenly been established between these schools that seemed to exclude
one another, and which for such a long time have been at war? It must be
that realism has singularly modified its program, and we would be cu-
rious to learn about the new formula." 10 Rousseau was right: as Astruc's
remarks suggest (taking him as a spokesman for the young generation),
realism in the hands of the artists of the generation of 1863 had singularly
modified its program, and no aspect of that revision, that new formula,
was more fundamental than the aspiration to go beyond Courbet in the
direction of pictorial unity, which is to say in pursuit of the tableau. I un-
derstand Delacroix's exemplary stature for Fantin and the other young
realists largely in those terms, even though their most characteristic pro-
ductions have nothing in common with his from a compositional point of
view. (The notion that Delacroix was primarily concerned with the tab-
leau was by then a commonplace. In fact Delacroix himself had written,
in an essay published posthumously in 1868, that even the most obstinate
realist "is not able to make an isolated marceau or even a collection of
morceaux the basis for a tableau. It's necessary to circumscribe the idea
[of the picture J so that the beholder's mind doesn't simply founder before
a necessarily cut-off whole; without that there wouldn't be any art." 11
The last phrase is significant: as was mentioned earlier, Delacroix the art-
ist was often contrasted with Courbet the painter.) At the same time, as
we have seen, the Homage to Delacroix was widely viewed by its critics as
utterly failing to be a tableau in its own right, mainly because the figures
in it not only faced out of the painting but in doing so turned their backs
on the portrait of Delacroix. To that extent, the concept of the tableau
continued to be associated with closure-that is, with absorption-as is
also implied by Astruc's theoretical distinction, analyzed in chapter 3, be-
tween the instantaneousness and strikingness of the portrait and the rela-
tive "slowness" and penetratingness of the tableau. (For Grimm and
Diderot, as for David in the 1780s, absorption and instantaneousness
were reconciled by drama: theirs was an intensely dramatic conception of
painting, whereas by the 185 as and 18 60S pictorial drama as such stood
indicted as theatrical.)
I have suggested, however, that the valorization of excess in the inter-
ests of intensity and strikingness that took place in the 18 60S went a long
way toward blurring the distinction between portrait and tableau, or
rather toward establishing a new sense of the tableau as being in crucial
respects portraitlike. Conversely, there is every likelihood that Fantin in
the Homage to Delacroix imagined himself to be working toward a new
conception of the tableau in which facing rather than closure would be
27 0 Chapter Four
the operative principle, or at least in which facing would not be at odds

with closure of a certain sort. I take this to be the meaning of the prelimi-
nary drawings for the Homage to Delacroix with their principal figure in
black depicted largely from the rear (it's as if in the final version that fig-
ure is replaced by the actual beholder standing before the painting), and
of course the subsequent campaign that culminated in The Toast! Hom-
age to Truth further exemplifies Fantin's efforts to combine closure and
facingness in a single ambitious composition.
Several passages from "Salons" by other critics plus quotations from
letters by Legros, Whistler, and Fantin-Latour will help flesh out the issue
of the tableau in the I860s. Here, for example, are some remarks from
Thort~'s highly sympathetic account of the Salon des Refuses:
French art as one sees it in the banned works seems to be beginning, or be-
ginning anew. It is baroque and wild, sometimes very accurate and even pro-
found. The subjects are no longer the same as in the official galleries: little
mythology or history; contemporary life, especially that of popular types; little
refinement and no taste: things as they ordinarily appear, beautiful or ugly, dis-
tinguished or vulgar. And a practice altogether different from the practices hal-
lowed by the long domination of Italian art. Instead of laboring over contours,
which is what the Academy means by drawing, instead of slaving over each
detail, which is what the amateurs of classicism call finish, the new artists try to
render the effect in its striking unity without worrying about the correctness of
the lines or the minutia of the accessories. 12
Several points deserve emphasis. First, although Thore doesn't actually
use the concept of the tableau, something like it is at stake in his claim
that the rejected artists seek "to render the effect in its striking unity."
Second, Thore's phrasing expressly does not allow us to reduce the issue
of the tableau to that of finish, Ie fini. On the contrary, considerations of
finish, which will playa major role in Manet criticism throughout his ca-
reer, are here understood in the larger context of the pursuit of a truly
striking mode of pictorial unity. And third, the Dejeuner sur I' herbe would
have been vividly present to Thore when he wrote the sentences quoted
above. In particular the epithets "baroque and wild" - "baroque" mean-
ing extravagant or bizarre-seem to have been chosen with the Dejeuner
in mind.
In a similar spirit, another critic, Gonzague Privat, wrote of Manet's
Olympia and Christ Mocked in the Salon of I865, "Manet has sought
the tableau without concerning himself enough with form or details." 13
Privat italicized the word tableau, making it a technical term and not a
simple noun, and although his remarks come across as somewhat critical
Manet in His Generation 27 1
where Thore seems wholly approving, both men concur in seeing Manet's
art as intent upon a single overall effect in which details and finish are
secondary considerations. Privat's statement is all the more significant in
that it is part of a strongly positive assessment of Manet's achievement.
For Privat, Manet was clearly the most impressive younger painter on
view. Whereas most other critics reviled Olympia, he insisted it was full of
life. "In Manet's Olympia," he wrote, "there is more than just compe-
tence, there reign solid and rare qualities of painting. The young woman
is of a matte tone, her flesh is of an exquisite delicacy, of a finesse, in per-
fect relation to the white sheets. The background is charming, the green
curtains that close the bed are of a light and airy color. [Have they dark-
ened over time?] But the public, the gross public, who finds it easier to
laugh than to look, understands nothing of this art that is too abstract for
its intelligence." 14 The issue, in Privat's mind, was essentially one of intel-
ligibility: "The day when Manet will arrive with a work more compre-
hensible for everyone, that will be the day when he will be celebrated" 15
(that day finally came in I872 when he exhibited the most conventional
of his pictures, Le Bon Bock, but it quickly passed). Privat speculated that
if only the public who mocked Manet "could know how little it would
require to make his too artistic painting readable by them," they would
not subject him to their vulgar railery.16 And he imagined that if Manet
had lived in the time of Velasquez, the great Spaniard would have encour-
aged him to persevere in the following words: "'Continue, monsieur, let
them talk while you act! Be persuaded that certain men will understand
you; don't exaggerate your qualities, they would become defects; strive to
render nature in all its truth; often paint the morceau, but be sure to pre-
serve your artistic temperament; walk with conviction on your path.' "17
By artistic temperament Privat meant the determination not to rest con-
tent with the morceau, the fragmentary realist life study of which Manet
was a recognized master. 18 Something more was needed, and what made
Manet so unusual in Privat's eyes was that he pursued that something
more almost too energetically-as if within a single work like Olympia
there existed too glaring a disjunction between the realist morceau and
the artistic tableau. Or at any rate, as if the disjunction between them
were too glaring for his paintings to be appreciated by all but a handful of
painters and connoisseurs.19
Just how volatile the issue was may be gauged from the following ex-
cerpt from a review of the Salon des Refuses by another critic, Theodore
Pelloquet:
27 2 Chapter Four
In reality, I don't know where Manet is going and if I'm not mistaken I don't
think he does either. His canvases prove that he has the makeup of a painter. He
possesses a bright and harmonious palette, but it doesn't suffice to possess a
good palette, what matters more is to know to what use it should be put. If he
thinks otherwise, my advice to him is to become a tinter [i.e. to give up paint-
ing].
Manet doesn't know how to compose a tableau, or rather, he's not aware of
what one understands by a tableau. I don't say that one learns that like a recipe,
but finally it's necessary to come to know it. If one knows it in a different fash-
ion from others, all the better; that's the privilege of great painters. But when he
places two or three nude figures on a large canvas alongside two or three others
dressed in overcoats, in the middle of a landscape, brushed in indifferently, I
would like him to enable me to understand his intention. [The reference is
plainly to the Dejeuner, whose population has grown in his memory.] I'm not
asking for a philosophical lesson but the visible translation of some sort of im-
pression. I seek his and don't find it; the picture is a rebus of exaggerated di-
mensions that defies understanding. 20
Pelloquet's remarks (which begin by granting Manet certain virtues) il-
lustrate Privat's claim that Manet's paintings were incomprehensible to
almost all who viewed them. But I want to emphasize not so much Pello-
quet's sense of the unreadability of Manet's intentions but rather the way
in which for him that unreadability, which Privat associated with a too-
exclusive pursuit of the tableau, meant rather that the paintings failed di-
sastrously to establish themselves as tableaux. (The criticism that Manet,
for all his evident gifts, was unable to produce tableaux was a staple of
commentaries on his art throughout his career. Castagnary in 1870 lost
all patience with him on that account: "I have nothing to say about this
painter who for ten years seems to have made it his task in each Salon to
show us that he possesses part of the qualities necessary to make tab-
leaux. I don't deny those qualities; but I'm waiting for the tableaux. ")21
As for the other members of Manet's generation, there can be no doubt
that the notion of the tableau played a role in their reflections on painting.
We have only a few scraps of early correspondence from Legros's hand,
but in the first of these, dated February 17, 1858, he wrote to Fantin: "I
would call tableaux all successful morceaux, and I would call good ta-
bleaux a collection of successful morceaux that naturally without seeking
composition make one."22 The thought is somewhat obscure-Legros
came from a poor background and was almost illiterate-but we can
conclude: (I) that the tableau-morceau distinction was basic to his early
thinking; (2) that although he seems to have wished to collapse the dis-
tinction by saying that all successful morceaux were already tableaux
(this would be a radicalization of realist practice), he found himself com-

pelled to reassert it when he wrote that in order to make a good tableau
the painter had to to arrive at a "composition"; and (3) that the qualifica-
tion that this had to be accomplished without seeking to do so implies a
masking of intention, as if too visible an effort in this regard could com-
promise a certain realist (and antitheatrical?) ideal. In an important
sense, this last point is at odds with what I described as compositional
forcing in his paintings of the early I860s, but my point here is not that
Legros in 1858 accurately theorized his subsequent practice-obviously
he didn't-but rather that the problem of the tableau, which is to say
both the necessity of arriving at the tableau and the question of how to do
so in a way that was consistent with the realist premises of the group, con-
cerned him from the outset. ':-
Legros's painting The Angelus (fig. 142), exhibited in the Salon of 1859,
makes interesting viewing in this context. In the black-and-white photo-
graph that is all we have, it is clear that the painter has sought to absorb the
principal personages in religious devotion while pointedly locating the fo-
cus of the proceedings, presumably a mass, off-canvas to the left. The re-
sult is a work that seems curiously poised between radical incompleteness
and absorptive closure, as if it invited one to view it merely as a collection
of morceaux in order to secure all the more ... what shall we say?-
realistically and antitheatrically, or willfully and forcibly, or somehow
both?-its intended identity as a tableau. (In terms of the remarks by
Delacroix cited above, the Angelus gives a different meaning to the phrase
"a necessarily cut-off whole.") Note too the way in which the memorial
plaques on the far wall face directly out of the painting-more directly
,. Another letter of 1858, this one written in Florence by the young Degas (as different in back-
ground from Legros as can be imagined) to a somewhat older painter with whom he had be-
come friends, Gustave Moreau, also strategically deploys the notion of the tableau. The letter
partly concerns the genesis of Degas's early masterpiece, The Bellelli Family; the crucial para-
graph reads (in idiomatic French): "Je suis en famille beaucoup trop bien traite pour travailler
comme je Ie voudrais. Je suis occupe d'un portrait de rna tante et de mes deux petites cousines.
Je vous montrerai cela it votre retour. Je Ie fais comme si je faisais un tableau; ille faut bien, je
veux laisser ce souvenir et j'ai une envie desordonnee de couvrir des toiles, de sorte que je ra-
mene tout au tableau, qui est un reve bien pardonnable it un enfant, comme vous m' appelez. rai
dil laisser les etudes que je faisais au Musee, et je ne bouge plus de la maison. Seulement une fois
it Paris je me promets de ne plus sacrifier comme ici it la famille. Cependant, comme il faut voir
en tout Ie beau cote, j'espere que cet amour que je depense ici me sera rendu plus tard en idees
attach antes dans ce que je ferai. Je pense que vous demelez ce que je veux dire" (quoted by
Theodore Reff, "More Unpublished Letters of Degas," Art Bulletin 51 [Sept. 1969]: 283).
As Reff explains, the version of the Bellelli Family mentioned in the above passage appears
to have been lost; in the larger final version Degas's aunt and two cousins are joined by his uncle
(depicted largely from the rear), who seems to have been a late addition (p. 282).
.~~- ;
/ ~-- ....... ~'''.-.:--

, '..-~ !'
~-
274 Chapter Four
indeed than does the ex-voto in the painting of that name which Legros
was soon to make, but of course the ex-voto is much more vivid and con-
spicuous, in a word more striking, than the plaques could have been, in
part because no one within the Angelus is shown looking at them. 23
For all his diffidence, Fantin seems to have provided a fixed center for
the Society of Three-the name he, Legros, and Whistler gave to their
little band-during those years, and in a highly interesting letter to Fan-
tin written from London while the Salon des Refuses was on in Paris,
Whistler said of the contemporary English painter John-Everett Millais:
"This year Millais has truly produced a true tableau. Finally, something
completely artistic, you would like it a lot. "24 Here too we see that an
honorific notion of the tableau served as common currency among (at
least) Fantin, Whistler, and Legros. In addition Whistler's remarks re-
mind us that the concept of the tableau was associated by them with
Figure 142. Alphonse Legros, The Angelus, r859.

an ideal of artistic painting, which itself was linked with their cult of
Delacroix. That is, although all three painters began by thinking of them-
selves as realists and were deeply influenced by Courbet's example as re-
gards vision and technique, at least two of them, Fantin and Whistler,
came to feel that his work fell short of the fully artistic ideal they now
aspired to (the "new formula" of the Homage to Delacroix implied pre-
cisely that). Indeed Legros's letter of I8S8 was addressed to "Monsieur
Henri Fantin Latour Artist Painter," a designation that already points to
Fantin's ambition to combine the respective excellences of Courbet and
Delacroix. 25 As later as I864 Fantin declared to Jean Rousseau that
the young realists of the moment (himself, Legros, Whistler, Manet,
Bracquemond, and Ribot) "proceeded from the movement imprinted by
Courbet,"26 but as time went on the hold of Courbet's art on the group as
a whole seems to have grown weaker. In I86S Fantin evidently depre-
cated Courbet, perhaps on the basis of his recent work, in letters to
Scholderer in Frankfurt. 27 And a few years after that, in I867 or I868,
Whistler wrote to Fantin denouncing realism and expressing the wish
that he had studied with Ingres rather than having been influenced by
Courbet. 28 (By then Whistler and Legros had broken and the Society of
Three was no more.)
But it was Fantin who suffered most from the tension between his two
early exemplars and the competing ideals they represented. "More than
others," he wrote to Whistler in I 862, "I debate [within myself] between
human life and the life of Art. This simple question, the study after Na-
ture [or] the tableau, has held me in suspense for more than a year, I've
been unable to resolve it, and that eats me alive. As soon as I'm not ac-
tually painting it torments me." He continued: "What I seek is to do well,
as some great Artists have done. So that one always returns to certain
works, to certain Artists who knew what Art really was. To that beauty
that is of all times in all countries, that mysterious harmony, those rela-
tions, two tones placed alongside one another that produce a true beauti-
ful complete whole. "29 Further on in the same letter Fantin explained
that his dream of happiness would be to have a studio with a model avail-
able to pose for him whenever he wished and then in the evening to retire
to a small room and pore through portfolios of engravings after the Old
Masters. 3o As we have seen, the divided mind these statements reflect
shows up in his art, not just programmatically as in the Homage to
Delacroix, but in the multiple forms of his production throughout the
I860s and after.
Chapter Four
Another letter, from Fantin to Legros, is pertinent here. Legros had

been living in England since the summer of 1863 (he remained there for
the rest of his life); the letter is undated but seems to have been written in
1865, perhaps in June. Fantin's reference to his own painting is evidently
to The Toast! Homage to Truth. The letter includes the following:
No news [of you], no painting [by you] in the Salon; I think you're doing wrong
to yourself and to us to abandon us like this, especially at a moment so interest-
ing for everyone. You are, you know very well, one of the rare painters. We say
this to each other quite often, Whistler, Manet, Scholderer in his letters, what a
shame that Legros, who doesn't do anything any more for us, who isn't any
longer the painter he was! In the last Salon [1865], my painting was better, but
like your Lutrin [a picture Legros had shown in the Salon of 1863], by mor-
ceau, but not in the ensemble. Whistler somewhat the same [in his Princesse du
pays de la porcelaine] but it's chiefly because his ideas aren't in the mainstream
that that picture didn't have the effect of the Woman in White. It's he who is
making progress. It's astonishing, the way your paintings used to, his paintings
now make a great impression on me. His large colored areas have given me a lot
to think about, also Manet's paintings [Olympia and the Christ Mocked]. You
can't imagine the great effect that he had at the exhibition, it was really useful
for me to see his pictures, as for the effect on the public it was immense, that
gave me pleasure and proved I was right. [It proved Fantin right in that from the
moment he saw Manet's Guitarrero in the Salon of 1861 he was passionate
about Manet's art.pI
There's much of interest in Fantin's account of his enthusiasm for Whis-

tler and Manet, but what I want to stress is his acknowledgment that The
Toast! Homage to Truth, like Legros's Le Lutrin, was successful only on
the level of the morceau, not as a whole. The statement is further proof
that Fantin and the other painters of the generation of 1863 accepted the
tableau versus morceau distinction, and it also suggests that, as regards
the actual making of paintings, Fantin in 1865 was not at all certain what
a realist tableau was or should be. (Cf. Fantin's etching of 1864, Un Mor-
ceau de Schumann [fig. 143], which depicts his English friends Ruth and
Edwin Edwards playing a piece by Schumann originally written for piano
and violin. 32 The image itself is absorptive, hence tableau-like in that re-
gard at least, but the title associates it with the concept of the morceau,
perhaps punningly but nevertheless with an explicitness that must be
taken seriously. Even more interesting, the writing toward the bottom
right of the sheet-"Sunbury Oct 1864 / chez Edwards / Un morceau de
Schumann"-is nearly aligned with the plane of the table in the right
near foreground and is oriented so as to be legible to the viewer but not
Figure 143. Henri Fantin-Latour, Un Marceau de Schumann, etching, 186 4.
to the figures in the etching. On the one hand, this suggests a kind of con-
tinuity between the "world" of the etching and that of the artist and
viewer, or say a Courbet-like "prolongation" of the act of inscription
within the etching itself; on the other hand, that the writing in question is
not accessible to the figures of the Edwardses effectively seals them all the
more hermetically in a "world" of their own. We are dealing here with an
unresolvably double or ambiguous structure, not unlike that of the artist,
model, top-hatted figures, and indeed the divided title in the final version
of The Toast! Homage to Truth.)33
A comparable uncertainty about the nature of the realist tableau may
be implied by Manet's having destroyed or radically cut down at least
three works during these years-the Gypsies (1862), the Episode in a
Bullfight (1864), and View of a Race in the Bois de Boulogne (186 4)-
presumably out of dissatisfaction with their respective compositions
(Castagnary praised the dead matador in the second of these as an "excel-
lent morceau, " but faulted the picture's perspective and asked "what be-
comes of the ensemble of the tableau ?").34 For his part, Legros made
fundamental changes in Le Lutrin before exhibiting it again in the Salon
of 1868, but they seem not to have helped: in r868 Chesneau, who ad-
mired Legros, characterized the revised version as "a morceau of a ta-
Chapter Four
bleau rather than a tableau" (though he said of another painting by

Legros in that Salon, L'Amende honorable [fig. 16 sJ, that it was "truly a
superior oeuvre," a term that, used in this way, as by Duranty apropos
Legros's Ex- Voto, had the same connotations as tableau).35 Indeed a year
earlier Chesneau had criticized the young realists for "their exclusive at-
tachment to painting the morceau, their distance-less voluntary than
they think-from idea and expression," and after praising Fantin's Por-
trait of Manet in the Salon of 1867 had expressed the desire "that he ar-
rive at the tableau. That he finally reveal to us the artist, after having once
again revealed the painter inthat excellent portrait of Manet." 36 In sum
the concept of the tableau played a significant role in the thinking both
of the painters of the generation of 1863 and of such critics as Thon~,
Castagnary, Astruc, Pelloquet, and Chesneau, none of whom, painter or
critic (except, fleetingly, the young Legros in his letter to Fantin), ever de-
fined that concept in so many words. Indeed I take the centrality and also
the ultimate elusiveness or indeterminancy of the concept of the tableau
in the writings we have surveyed to be a primary feature of French paint-
ing and criticism of the I860s. 37
A letter from Manet to Fantin, written from Madrid in early Septem-
ber 186 s, further illustrates the difficulty of the topic. In it Manet de-
scribes various paintings by Velasquez that he had just seen at the Prado.
"The most astonishing morceau in all that splendid oeuvre and perhaps
the most astonishing morceau of painting ever made," he wrote, "is the
tableau listed in the catalogue as the portrait of an celebrated actor from
the period of Philip IV [Portrait of Pablo de ValiadolidJ; the background
disappears, it's air that surrounds that figure clothed in black and vividly
alive; and the Hilanderas, the beautiful portrait of Alonzo Cano, Las
Meninas (the dwarfs [sicJ), an extraordinary tableau also, his philoso-
phers, astonishing morceaux-all the dwarfs, especially one seated fac-
ing the viewer with his fists on his hips, a choice painting for a true
connoisseur, his magnificent portraits, it would be necessary to cite them
all, they are all masterpieces." 38 It's not clear what weight the terms tab-
leau and morceau are meant to bear in this passage; the portraits of single
figures are referred to as morceaux while the large multi figure Las Men-
inas is called a tableau-but so is the portrait of the celebrated actor of
the time of Philip IV (it is called both morceau and tableau). Especially in
the latter context the meaning of the word tableau may simply be that of
"picture," as is always true in Zola's criticism and as is sometimes the
case in the writings of others. (For example, Chesneau's dismissive com-
ment in I864-"This year Manet's tableaux figure among the oeuvres

admitted to the Salon. The Jury has been indulgent."39-obviously was
not intended to ascribe to his canvases the positive qualities Privat saw in
them the following year.)
In any case, Manet on his return from Spain temporarily gave up the
two-or-more-figure compositional formats of his more ambitious paint-
ings of the first half of the I860s (the Old Musician with six figures was
exceptional among his pictures of relatively large scale) in favor of single-
figure paintings unmistakably derived from Velasquez. And in Astruc's
"Salon of 1867," which purports to be the account of a dream in which
he and Diderot journeyed together through a painters' Hell and Purga-
tory, Astruc had Diderot say to a young artist: "'Ah! young men, practice
the beautiful while seeking the true, without mannerism, taking inspira-
tion from the simplicities of nature which are so harmonious in their pro-
digious fecundity. Abandon the detail; enlarge the morceau to become
the oeuvre.' "40 I read the last clause as a justification of Manet's practice
in his single-figure canvases of I86S-67 (the Monk in Prayer, Tragic Ac-
tor, Woman with a Parrot, Fifer, Matador Saluting, and the three Philoso-
phers), which in turn-bearing in mind the close friendship between
Manet and Astruc (one of the shades in Purgatory says of Astruc" 'Manet
seduced him early on' ")41-perhaps suggests that Manet himself con-
ceived of his post-Madrid pictures in those terms. By the time Astruc's
words appeared in print, however, Manet had already embarked on an
ambitious project to paint a monumental, multifigure painting of the Ex-
ecution of Maximilian (figs. IS8, IS9, 160, 161, pI. 16); and when that
was done he returned, in canvases such as the Luncheon (fig. S 8) and the
Balcony (pI. 8), to a compositional mode not unlike that of his pre-
Madrid work. But whether or not he understood that return as grappling
again with a problematic of the tableau must remain speculative.
It should be stressed that the state of affairs I have evoked differed sig-
nificantly from what was soon to become the discursive field of emerging
Impressionism. There the insistence by even sympathetic writers on the
supreme value of the tableau or oeuvre faite, as distinct from the esquisse,
ebauche, etude, and the like, implied a critique of the very basis of the
Impressionist picture. 42 By the same token, the Impressionists' bracket-
ing of the issue of the tableau-at least up to a point-was a crucial factor
in the radical simplification of the enterprise of painting that they brought
about. 43 Something more tortuous and ambiguous took place in the
I860s, and in light of my argument in chapter 3 it seems likely that that
Chapter Four
something was intimately connected with the emergence of a double or

divided sensibility with respect to issues of absorption and closure. ':.
Manet and Absorption-Instantaneousness as Strikingness
WE ARE NOW in a position to focus more closely on Manet and to be-

gin to assess the relation of his art to that of his cogenerationists. One
decisive difference between Manet and the others, it seems clear, is that
from the outset he tended overwhelmingly, as if instinctively, to reject the
representation of absorption (and a fortiori the intensification of absorp-
tion) as a vehicle for his painting, though it's important to note-it's one
more link between them all-that that rejection wasn't absolute. At least
three pictures of the 18 60s- The Reader (186 I), Monk in Prayer (1865;
fig. 144), and Boy Blowing Bubbles (1867)-make use of traditionally
absorptive subject matter, though especially in the two later works as-
pects of both mise-en-scene and paint handling are at odds with the os-
tensibly beholder-denying implications of the theme. For example, in the
"In the first of his two essays on Manet, "LeJury de peinture pour I874 et M. Manet" (Oeuvres
completes, ed. Henri Mondor and G. Jean-Aubry [Paris, Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, I945],
p. 699), Stephane Mallarme wrote:
In the double judgment rendered by the jury and the public on the painting of the year, what
is the task incumbent upon the jury and what is the task of the crowd?
The very bringing together of the recognized talents of an age, each necessarily possessing
a very different originality, results in the simple fact that any possible agreement among the
jurors concerns not the originality but the talent, even abstract and exact, contained in the
work to be judged.... The spirit in which a work of art was conceived, traditional or mod-
ern, and its resulting character, sensuous or rarefied-everything, in a word, that touches
upon the instincts of the crowd or the person: it is up to the members of the public, who pay
in prestige and banknotes, to decide whether it is worth paying for and talking about. To this
extent the public rules and can demand to see everything there is. Charged by the implicit
vote of the painters with choosing among the framed canvases submitted those that are ac-
tually tableaux, in order to bring them before us, the jurors have nothing to say beyond: this
is a tableau, that is not a tableau. They must not hide a single one: as soon as certain of the
public's tendencies, latent theretofore, find in a painter their artistic expression or their
beauty, the public must be allowed to know that painter; and not to introduce them to one
another is not only to blunder but to be both dishonest and unfair.
[Q]uel est, dans Ie double jugement rendu et par Ie jury et par Ie public sur la peinture de
l'annee, la tache qui incombe au jury et celle qui releve de la foule?
Il resulte du seul fait de la mise en commun des talents notoires d'une epoque, dont
chacun possede necessairement une originalite tres differente, que l'accord susceptible entre
eux porte non sur l'originalite, mais sur Ie talent me me abstrait et exact, contenu dans
l'oeuvre a juger. ... L'esprit dans lequel a ete con.;u un morceau d'art, retrospectif ou mod-
erne, et sa nature, succulente ou rarefiee, en un mot, tout ce qui touche aux instincts de la
foule ou de la personne: c'est au public, qui paye en gloire et en billets, a decider si cela vaut
Manet in His Generation 28r
Monk in Prayer the bravura brushwork and seamless, aspatial back-

ground seem somehow inconsistent with the devotional motif, while the
skull on the ground appears too near to both the kneeling figure and the
picture plane to be comfortably the object of the figure's meditation.
Other paintings, notably the early Portrait of the Artist's Parents (fig. 40)
and the Christ Mocked (fig. 53), bear a more ambiguous relation to an
absorptive thematics. But in no Manet canvas of the 1860s is absorption
positively stressed as in the works by Legros and Fantin, or indeed Ribot
and Carolus Duran, that we have examined. Instead it seems fair to say
that Manet in his most characteristic paintings of the 1860s pursued a
strategy of denying or voiding absorptive effects while not quite purging
his compositions of absorptive motifs; put the other way round, he made
use of various motifs that, treated differently, could have yielded absorp-
tive effects-for example, the "conversing" figures in the Dijeuner sur
l'herbe, the grieving angels in the Angels at the Tomb of Christ, the maid
presenting the bouquet of flowers to her mistress in Olympia, the seated
figure of Zola holding an open book in the Portrait of Emile Zola, perhaps
most tellingly the firing squad in the Mannheim Execution of Maximilian
son papier et ses paroles. Ii est Ie maitre a ce point, et peut exiger de voir tout ce qu'it y a.
Charge par Ie vote indistinct des peintres de choisir, entre les peintures presentees dans un
cadre, ce qu'il existe veritablement, de tableaux, pour nous les mettre sous les yeux, Ie jury
n'a d'autre chose a dire que: ceci est un tableau, ou encore: voila qui n'est point un tableau.
Defense d'en cacher un: des que certaines tendances, latentes jusqu'alors dans Ie public ont
trouve, chez un peintre, leur expression artistique, ou leur beaute, il faut que celui-Ia fasse
connaissance de celui-ci; et ne pas presenter l'un a l'autre est faire d'une maladresse un men-
songe et une injustice.
Vincent Descombes has rightly emphasized the importance of Mallarme's distinction between
"framed canvases" and "paintings" (i.e. tableaux) and has noted that Mallarme himself does
not offer a means of distinguishing between them (Proust: Philosophy of the Novel, trans. Cath-
erine Chance Macksey [Stanford, I992], p. 97). (I have followed Catherine Macksey's transla-
tion from Mallarme in all but a few details.) Descombes takes this to mean that for Mallarme
"there is no non-trivial definition of the painting, that the selection of the paintings from among
the painted canvases is made without benefit of a definition. Painters can distinguish the paint-
ing from the non-painting, and disagreements among them are possible but bound to be rare.
The ontological judgment is made without its being necessary to specify cri teria. In order to say
'This is a painting,' the jury does not have to compare the painted canvas submitted to its judg-
ment with a description of the archetypal painting or with a formula for the conditions in
which a painting is possible. The jury exists precisely because there are no general criteria avail-
able" (ibid.). As a reading of Mallarme this is acute, and as we have seen the critics and painters
we have surveyed seem indeed to have been without such criteria, but the problem Manet en-
countered was that Salon juries and all but a few critics behaved as if there were criteria for
tableaux which his submissions shockingly failed to satisfy. (Or consider the critical response
to Fantin's Homage to Delacroix.) Put slightly differently, Mallarme underestimated the genu-
ine difficulty in the I860s and I870S of determining, not just theoretically but also practically,
what a tableau was.
Chapter Four
-but that, as they have been rendered, conspicuously do not. In fact

Manet's predilection from the first was for compositions, typically in-
volving from one to at most three or four figures, that were to a greater or
lesser degree frontal-facing-in orientation. A list of paintings of that
type from the 1850S until his visit to Madrid in September 1865 would
include his copy after Delacroix's Barque of Dante (ca. 1854), Absinthe
Drinker, Boy with Cherries (1859), Students of Salamanca (1860), Gui-
tarrero (1860), Boy with a Sword (1861), Surprised Nymph (in which,
anticipating the Dejeuner sur l'herbe, the figure sits sideways but turns
her gaze on the beholder), Portrait ofJeanne Duval (1862), Gypsies, Old
Musician, Street Singer, Spanish Ballet, Lola de Valence (1862), Mlle
V. .. in the costume of an Espada, Young Woman Reclining in Spanish
Costume, Woman with a Glove (1862), Portrait of Victorine Meurent,
Portrait of Mme Manet (The Artist's Mother) (1862), Dejeuner sur
l'herbe, Olympia, Young Man in the Costume of a Majo (1863), Angels at
the Tomb of Christ, View of a Race in the Bois de Boulogne, and Christ
Mocked-in short nearly every significant picture he produced during
those years.
I have already suggested, in discussing the critical response to Fantin's
Homage to Delacroix and The Toast! Homage to Truth, that facing com-
positions involving more than a single figure were disturbing to contem-
porary audiences because they could not easily be reconciled with the
prevailing demand for absorptive closure. But Manet's paintings pre-
sented a far more difficult problem than Fantin's, which were praised for
containing fine individual portraits even as they were criticized for being
mere ass sembI ages of these. From an early date-starting with the re-
sponse to the Dejeuner sur l'herbe in the Salon des Refuses-the person-
ages in Manet's paintings were found to be inexplicably blank, opaque,
noncommunicating, without psychological interiority of any kind. Pello-
quet, after remarking on Manet's seeming unconcern in the Dejeuner
with the very idea of the tableau, and after criticizing its execution in lan-
guage we will soon examine, complained that the composition as a whole
lacked all life. "One would seek in it in vain for the indication of a move-
ment. In whatever way [ManetJ wished to indicate an attitude or a gesture,
the limb and the body that he tried to paint remain inert, as if stuffed. "44
Chesneau was sympathetic to certain "gaucheries" in Manet's pictures
that could be seen as naive, on condition that the naivete be outgrown and
also that Manet learn to depict something other than costumes empty of
the bodies that ostensibly supported them. "Manet's figures make one
Figure 144. Edouard Manet, Monk in Prayer, 1865.

Chapter Four
think involuntarily of the marionettes on the Champs-Elysees: a solid

head and slack clothing," he wrote. 45 Another critic, Adrien Paul, noted
in I 863 that Manet treated living beings and inanimate things exactly the
same. 46 (Interestingly, Paul found much to like in the Dijeuner but
added, "Ah, if only that shameless naiad weren't there!" The French for
"shameless," effrontie, suggests a play on the notion of facing.)47 And
Thore, in many respects sympathetic to Manet's endeavor, remarked of
Manet's other paintings in the Salon des Refuses, Mile V. .. in the Cos-
tume of an Espada and Young Man in the Costume of a Majo, "[U]nder-
neath those brilliant costumes the person itself is somewhat lacking; the
heads ought to have been paInted differently from the clothing, with more
accent and depth."48 In I867 E. Spuller observed of Manet's one-man
exhibition near the Pont d'Alma that although a first impression was fa-
vorable, after a while it became clear that the figures in his canvases were
lifeless and without interest. "You will find yourself," he wrote, "sur-
rounded by personages endowed with all the appearance of reality, [but]
at bottom devoid of precisely what constitutes it, I mean expression. Ev-
erything there is cold, without accent; nothing is stirred in you, and even
your eyes which earlier, patient and docile, accommodated themselves
to the artist's fantasy, soon perceive only sad and graceless figures, of a
strange appearance and a black and heavy coloring. "49 (Spuller's account
is particularly revealing in that it doesn't begin by rejecting Manet out of
hand; instead it provides a brief narrative of trying to come to terms with
his art and of being forced to a negative conclusion.) Finally, a year later
Thore observed less censoriously: "His present vice is a sort of pantheism
that doesn't value a head more than a slipper; that sometimes accords
even more importance to a bouquet of flowers than to the physiognomy
of a woman, as for example in his famous painting of the Black Cat [Olym-
pia]; that paints nearly uniformly furniture, carpets, books, clothing,
flesh, and accents of the face, as for example in his portrait of Emile Zola,
exhibited in the present Salon." 50
This makes it sound as if Manet held an extreme version of the modern
doctrine of the esthetic neutrality of subject matter, according to which a
human face is of no greater inherent interest or value than a piece of furni-
ture or clothing, and in fact we find Zola himself writing in I 867 apropos
the Dijeuner: "Painters, especially Edouard Manet who is an analytic
painter, don't share that preoccupation with subject matter that torments
the crowd more than anything; for them, the subject is a pretext to paint,
whereas for the crowd only the subject exists."51 For Zola, as we have
noted, considerations of absorption and, more broadly, of psychology be-

longed to the category of subject matter and hence were unworthy of se-
rious discussion; in his words, "I don't discuss a piece of drapery, the
position of a limb, the expression of a physiognomy" 52-implicitly plac-
ing them all on the same level of nonimportance. And by the time of
Manet's death in I 883 a Zolaesque but also Impressionism-influenced
point of view had evolved that allowed the artist's seeming indifference to
psychology and expression to be viewed as the necessary consequence of
a preoccupation with other, essentially pictorial concerns. I have already
quoted de Biez's defense that year of Manet's deliberate repudiation of
"all psychological intention or philosophical subject matter" on the
grounds that "Manet was first and foremost a painter, and his highest
ambition was to remain a painter in the fullest plastic meaning of the
term. Manet was an eye rather than a reasoning."53 Other critics-Paul
Mantz, for example-were more negative about what they too saw as
Manet's sacrifice of human content in the interests of an engagement with
technical problems of various sorts 54 (because the critics emphasized the
works of the I 870S and early I 8 80S, the problems in question were taken
to concern the faithful representation of effects of light and air).55 But
what I want to stress is not the existence of conflicting evaluations of
Manet's supposed elevation of certain painterly or technical concerns
over all else but rather that starting early in his career the peculiar psycho-
logical blankness of his personages, as well as the resistance his groupings
of personages offered to being read in comprehensible narrative or dra-
matic terms, tended to be rationalized, hence normalized, in that way.
During the past two decades the basic terms of that rationalization
have been called into question by social historians of art, who not only
have challenged the notion that Manet was indifferent to considerations
of subject matter but also have worked to contextualize his painting so as
to reveal its connectedness to social, political, and economic aspects of
the reality of its time. So for example Reffin I982 advanced the reading of
the Old Musician that was summarized and discussed toward the end
of chapter 2. 56 More recently, Herbert in Impressionism has interpreted
Manet's citation of Raphael in the Dijeuner sur l'herbe as a deliberate
"send-up of history," the further aim of which was to mock the guardians
of history, the academy; "in so doing he insulted both traditional sources
and the manner of presenting them." 57 (Herbert compares this aspect of
Manet's art to the composer Offenbach's "spoofs of the gods, saucily con-
verted to contemporary purposes," in the operettas Orphie aux Enfers
Chapter Four
and La Belle Hilene.)58 Or to take another example from Herbert, he

describes the barmaid in Manet's last ambitious canvas, A Bar at the
Folies-Bergere (r88r-82; fig. 145), as possessing "an immense dignity
and self-containment" and also as "disconcerting . . . because her
matter-of-fact, cool glance seems to lack expression." Manet's image, he
writes, is one of "remoteness. In his austere figure we find the anonymity
and loneliness inherent in the arbitrary encounters of modern life."59
And he suggests that by virtue of the complicated play of reflections in the
mirror behind the barmaid, "Manet makes us consider this woman's ac-
tual role as professional barmaid, and her potential role as envisioned by
[the customer standing before her in the reflection in the mirror]. Her
frontal image is correct, even distant from us; nothing hints at her avail-
ability after hours. [Herbert earlier disputed the notion that she was a
prostitute.] In the mirror, her more yielding nature is revealed, detached
as it were from her body by the man's powers of wish-fulfillment."6o In
Figure 145. Edouard Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergere, 1881-82.

The Painting of Modern Life Clark offers a different, much less readily
excerptable interpretation of the Bar, one that, usefully for us, focuses at
length on the barmaid's face:
The face that the barmaid presents to [the spectacle around her] is, we might
think, the only one possible. It is the face of fashion, first of all, made up to
agree with others quite like it, the hair just hiding the eyebrows and leaving the
ears free, the cheeks pale with powder, the lips not overdone this season, the
pearls the right size. Fashion is a good and necessary disguise: it is hard to be
sure of anything else about the barmaid, in particular what class she might be-
long to. She does not seem, as the critics hinted in their choice of language in
r882, to be firmly part of the bourgeoisie; and that fact is the key to her mo-
dernity, in [Paul] Alexis's smug sense; it is part of her appeal. The face she wears
is the face of the popular, as previously defined, but also of a fierce, imperfect
resistance to any such ascription. It is a face whose character derives from its
not being bourgeois, and having that fact almost be hidden. For if one could
not be bourgeois-if that status was always pushed just a little further out
of reach-then at least one could prevent oneself from being anything else:
fashion and reserve would keep one's face from any identity, from identity in
general. The look which results is a special one: public, outward, 'blase' in
[Georg] Simmel's sense, impassive, not bored, not tired, not disdainful, not
quite focused on anything. Expression is its enemy, the mistake it concentrates
on avoiding at all costs; for to express oneself would be to have one's class be
legible. 61
I am not impressed by Herbert's comments on the Dijeuner: does it
really suffice at this stage of Manet studies to compare fleetingly the allu-
sion to the Judgment of Paris with operettas by Offenbach and to ignore
the larger question of the meaning of Manet's references to past art? Nor
am I persuaded by his ingenious but overly subjective response to the Bar;
the anonymity and loneliness of modern life are cliches, while his evoca-
tion of the customer's sexual fantasy seems arbitrary, unsupported by an-
cillary material and inconsistent with Manet's practice generally. (It's
symptomatic that Herbert in his book makes almost no use of contempo-
rary art reviews, which, he remarks at the outset, "functioned within very
limited circles, and more surely reveal the author's attitudes than the in-
ner workings of paintings." )62 Clark's description of the face of the bar-
maid is a different story, minute and probing and at the same time seeking
to orient itself to contemporary accounts of the picture. And yet its basic
point-that her face's apparent inexpressiveness and illegibility are func-
tions of her specific social identity-seems to me inconclusive, above all
because it fails to relate those qualities to the larger topic of Manet's fig-
ures' inexpressiveness and illegibility that was one of the major themes of
288 Chapter Four
his critics from I863 until well after his death. (This is also true of the
discussion of Olympia earlier in his book.) Not that I would prefer to
Clark's account one by the imaginary commentator he characterizes as
"the inveterate modernist ... who no doubt sees at once that the face is
nothing but that of painting itself, the presence of the signifier, the ab-
sence of the signified, etc. "63 Nor perhaps would I even wish to dispute
Clark's "plausible hypothesis," on which as he says his book is based,
"that inconsistencies so carefully contrived [as those in the Bar] must
have been felt to be somehow appropriate to the social forms the painter
[chose] to show."64 But I nevertheless miss in even the most scrupulous
and powerful social-historical accounts of Manet's achievement, which is
to say in The Painting of Modern Life, a sense of his engagement with a
constantly evolving network of artistic issues in relation to which or in
interaction with which the social and/or political meaning of particular
paintings is ultimately to be understood. Of course, my more or less ex-
clusive concentration on various aspects of that engagement is unlikely to
satisfy Clark or other social historians of art, who might be said to be
interested in questions that go beyond those I am trying to answer. By the
same token, however, the questions that concern me might be said to have
a certain historical priority in that unless they are recognized and ad-
dressed, however incompletely, our sense of Manet's specifically painterly
enterprise is bound to remain somewhat thin.
Here it will be helpful to juxtapose one of Manet's major works of the

early I86os-1 again choose The Old Musician (pI. 2)-with Legros's
finest extant painting, The Vocation of St. Francis (I 86I; pI. I3). 65 The
contrast between them could hardly be more patent: whereas the Voca-
tion was clearly intended to be seen as powerfully absorptive-it depicts
a decisive event in the youthful Francis's spiritual life-the Old Musician
seems on the contrary to be the product of a determination to repudiate
absorption and its characteristic effects. Indeed so emphatic is the impres-
sion that the figures of the seated violinist and his entourage have been
lined up before us so we might look at them-so they might be beheld-
that it comes as a surprise to realize that only one figure, the violinist him-
self, gazes directly out of the picture to meet our gaze head on. (This re-
mains a stable feature of Manet's multi figure paintings: no more than a
single personage ever looks back at us. The nearest thing to an exception
is Olympia, with its gazing courtesan and startled cat.)66 The other male
personages look distractedly elsewhere, as if at nothing in particular, an
impression underscored by the divergent gazes of the two boys as well as

by the way in which the top-hatted figure to the right, based on Manet's
earlier Absinthe Drinker, has been given only the vaguest indication of
eyes. As for the young girl holding an infant at the left, her profil perdu
amounts to the subversion of a traditionally absorptive motif. For exam-
ple, in the art of Watteau, Manet's chief historical source for his presenta-
tional compositions, profils perdus function as indexes of interiority; in
contrast, the profile of the young woman in the Old Musician seems
merely a silhouette, a surface configuration that, far from evoking fea-
tures lost to our view-and by implication the state of mind of someone
lost in thought or feeling-confirms the facingness and nonabsorptive-
ness of the painting as a whole. The composition of Manet's painting thus
differs fundamentally not only from the absorptive mise-en-scene of
Legros's Vocation of Saint Francis and his immediately previous Ex-Voto
but also, equally importantly, from the nonabsorptive but everywhere
engaging group-portrait structure of Fantin's Homage to Delacroix, in
which most of the personages look directly out of the canvas and all are
meant to be perceived as distinct psychological presences (which is also to
say that they seem capable of absorption). One way of describing the over-
all effect might be to say that the Old Musician, while voiding or suspend-
ing the psychological as such, possesses to a remarkable degree certain
qualities Astruc was soon to associate with the portrait: it aims to in-
stantly seize the beholder's gaze, and it seeks by its conspicuous lack of
narrative or dramatic coherence as well as by various "formal" devices,
such as every figure touching those next to it and the abrupt partial elision
of the bearded man at the right by the framing edge, to compel the be-
holder to take it in as a whole, a single intense facing object of vision-a
single striking object of vision. In my earlier recapitulation of the contrast
between Courbet and Manet drawn in Courbet's Realism I said that I re-
gard that too as a recurrent feature of Manet's art. In fact I regard the
feature mentioned above-that no more than one figure gazes directly
out of any painting of his-to be an expression of that pursuit of whole-
ness or singleness, so different in kind from the pursuit of unity of effect
implicit in the absorptive ideal. It's as if the Old Musician itself-the
painting, not just the figure-gazes at the beholder through a single pair
of eyes, a formulation that makes the parallel with Astruc's theorization
of the portrait even more to the point.
In an important sense, however, the differences between the Vocation
of St. Francis and the Old Musician reveal a common aim or function.
./
--.- /'
,::" .. 0..
-'
-:.,~
Chapter Four
Specifically, Legros's placing of four kneeling silhouettelike figures in an

extremely shallow space, the cropping of those figures by the framing
edge (Manet crops only the bearded man at the extreme right, who was
added late in the making of the picture), and the deliberateness with
which they have been forced into little more than half the surface area of
the canvas, all imply the sort of abstract facing relation to the beholder I
attributed to similar features of his Ex-Voto. Furthermore, the illumi-
nated missal before which Francis kneels, like the painted image of the
crucifixion in the Ex- Voto, is partly open to our gaze; not only that, the
left-hand page contains a colored illustration of the Mother and Child
(like the crucifixion, a picture within the picture); finally, Francis's bright
red staff, which he seems to have just let slip from his grasp, all but leaps
from the canvas to strike and seize our gaze. So despite Legros's commit-
ment to an absorptive thematics, or rather in keeping with his predilec-
tion for an excessive version of such a thematics, the Vocation of St.
Francis appears no less beholder oriented in certain vital respects than the
Old Musician. In fact the Old Musician may well show the influence of
the Vocation, which Manet would have seen when it was exhibited at
Martinet's, his dealer too, in late 186 1. 67
Now, to compare the Old Musician with Astruc's theorization of the
portrait, or to say that it aims to instantly seize the beholder's gaze, is also
to insist that it exemplifies what I have referred to, in my discussion of
Astruc's remarks, as the quality of instantaneousness. Here too there is a
parallel of sorts with Legros's Vocation of St. Francis, which presumably
depicts the occasion when, kneeling with two companions before the al-
tar in the church of St. Nicholas in Assisi, Francis opened the Gospels
three times to learn from them the principles of the society he went on to
found. 68 Actually, the scene depicted by Legros departs from the histori-
cal narrative by giving Francis three companions instead of two and by
substituting an image for the text, or at least by suggesting that Francis
has been transfixed by the image of the Mother and Child at which he
seems to be looking. This contributes to a sense of instantaneousness that
is lacking in the Ex-Voto: the burden of expression falls largely on Francis's
hands, though what most vividly declares his inner excitement is the la-
serlike brilliance of his toppling staff and perhaps also the extreme forc-
ing and cropping of the scene as a whole.
Manet's paintings aim at a different sort-indeed different sorts-of
instantaneousness, but in order to make clear what this means a brief di-
gression on temporality in painting is required. Simply put, there are two
fundamentally different, we might even say limit modes of the representa-

tion of temporality, each of which is based on a distinct property of easel
painting. The first mode is that of sheer duration, keyed to the per-
sistence, essentially unchanged over time, of easel paintings as material
objects. To the extent that a painter chooses, consciously or otherwise, to
align his representation with that particular fact about or property of the
medium, he will depict subjects that are themselves essentially unchang-
ing: still life, landscape, or, in the realm of figure painting, personages
either absorbed, asleep (an extreme of absorption), or otherwise unmov-
ing. In the chapter on Thomas Eakins in my book Realism, Writing, Dis-
figuration and elsewhere I have suggested that in Western painting at least
since the seventeenth century an absorptive thematics has often provided
a representational matrix for pictorial realism. 69 There are various rea-
sons for this, not least important being the underlying accord between the
implied temporality of the representation and the actual (or "material")
temporality of the painting itself-which is to say that pictorial realism in
the West has often involved a tacit or implicit illusion of the passage of
time, of sheer duration, fully as much as a more obvious illusion of the
solidity of objects. A large measure of the success of Fantin's absorptive
portraits or for that matter his stilllifes and flower pieces, which make no
great show of the illusion of solidity, is based on the former.
At the opposite pole is the temporal mode of instantaneousness, which
is keyed to a different "material" property or rather set of properties: that
for all intents and purposes an easel painting is all surface, that every bit
of that surface faces the beholder, and that, being physically limited in
extent, an easel painting can be taken in all at once, "as a whole," in a
single immeasurably brief coup d' oei!. 70 (Whether the human eye can ac-
tually do this is irrelevant; what matters is the viewer's conviction that it
can and does.) The achieved unity of the absorptive tableau was meant to
facilitate that process or conviction even as absorptive effects conduced to
the temporal effect of duration, which is to say that the absorptive tableau
was designed to offer the viewer immediate imaginative access to the de-
picted scene and then to hold the viewer indefinitely before a composition
that with some exceptions-for example, the Vocation of St. Francis-
was conspicuously non-instantaneous in nature. In the most characteris-
tic of Manet's paintings of the 1860s, on the other hand, the emphasis
falls squarely on instantaneousness as such, though exactly how varies
from one painting to another (and as we shall see, in a number of his
works instantaneousness coexists with something else, a stillness or held-
Chapter Four
ness which nevertheless is not absorptive). My comments on the Old

Musician suggest that instantaneousness there is a function of what, adapt-
ing Clement Greenberg, might be called "at-onceness,"71 but the early
painting by Manet that most emphatically thematizes instantaneousness
understood in this way is the Street Singer (pI. 7), which depicts a young
woman (the model for whom was Victorine Meurent) leaving a cafe grip-
ping a guitar with her left hand and balancing a bunch of cherries wrapped
in yellow paper in the crook of her left arm while with her right hand she
raises a few cherries to her (seemingly unopened) mouth. The green cafe
doors, which a moment earlier presumably swung outward as she stepped
across the threshold, are shown swinging back far enough to reveal a
standing waiter in a white apron, one or two customers, and some hats on
the far wall. The woman wears a gray dress and jacket with black trim,
and from the lift of the folds and the glimpse of a white petticoat toward
the front we recognize that she is in midstride. Her front-lit face is expres-
sionless; she looks forward, though not directly at the viewer, as if emerg-
ing suddenly into the street she has yet to focus on her surroundings.
Typically, the angle of the doors doesn't quite work: she seems too near
the doorway for the doors to have had time to rebound back into the
space of the cafe. But the effect of their "wrongness" in combination with
the chalky pallor of her face, the nonseeingness of her gaze, and the mo-
mentariness yet containedness of her actions is of a telescoping of time, an
exploding into view, that perhaps was meant to capture something of the
clamorous dark-into-light excitement of Rembrandt's Nightwatch (a
suggestion made in "Manet's Sources")J2 Alternatively, the presenta-
tional mode of the Street Singer might be characterized as revelation-
not just of the woman but also of the painting-and indeed I am tempted
to compare Manet's canvas with Raphael's Sistine Madonna (15 I 3?; fig.
146), in which the Virgin and Child in glory between Saints Sixtus and
Barbara appear to have just been revealed to the viewer (they also appear
to be moving toward him) by the immediately previous drawing of a cur-
tain, and the iconographic meaning of which is precisely revelation, reve-
latio.73 I mean this as an analogy, not as a historical connection, though I
also mean the comparison with Raphael to resonate with Manet's use of
his art as a source in the Dejeuner sur l'herbe and elsewhere.
The Street Singer is anomalous in Manet's oeuvre, perhaps because he
realized that so direct and "actional" a thematization of instantaneous-
ness would too greatly restrict his choice of subject, perhaps because he
soon came to feel the need for a more complex treatment of instanta-
293
Figure 146. Raphael, Sistine Madonna, 1513?
neousness. In any case, his next major painting, the Dejeuner sur l'herbe
(pI. 3), took a different approach to the problem. In the first place, Manet
derived from Marcantonio's engraving the strong figural gestalt of the
three seated figures in the foreground of his canvas, a gestalt which was
widely perceived as stamping or cutting itself out against the landscape
294 Chapter Four
surround with unexampled force. In the words of one critic, the pseud-
onymous Bourgeois de Paris: "Manet has the qualities necessary to be
unanimously refused by all the juries in the word. His sharp and irritating
color pierces the eyes like a steel saw; his figures circumscribe themselves
as if by a jigsaw, with a roughness unsoftened by any compromise. He has
all the harshness of green fruit that will never ripen. The critic-habitues
of the cafes are transported by these beautiful canvases whose realism
makes Courbet himself appear academic. "74 As these remarks suggest,
the effect of stamping-out or cutting-out (not to be confused with the
modern notion of collage)75 was also a function of Manet's treatment of
color, in particular the starkness with which he juxtaposed the light, al-
most shadowless flesh of the naked woman, the black jackets and gray
trousers of the men beside her, and the intense acid green of the grass on
which all three figures sit or half-recline. (More on the contrastive nature
of Manet's color further on.) Indeed Manet's autograph tactic of sup-
pressing half-tones was already evident in the face of the Street Singer, as
Sandblad has remarkedJ6 But it was first deployed extensively in the
seated nude in the Dijeuner, and by 1867 if not before it was recognized
as a basic feature of Manet's style. It has usually been viewed as an asser-
tion of flatness, which in a sense it was (or which in early retrospect it
became); what has not sufficiently been remarked is that it was also a
means of enforcing a certain rapidity of perception with respect to both
the depicted figures and, beyond them, the painting as a whole: as if the
traditional exploitation of half-tones to evoke solid forms in space had
always tacitly invoked an awareness of the time that would be needed to
explore so densely and minutely tactile a world (d. my remarks on the
relation between absorption and duration). Also pertinent (and rarely
mentioned in this connection), Manet's eschewal of dark-ground paint-
ing with its carefully prepared effects of transparency and opacity in favor
of working directly on a white or lightly colored canvas not only facili-
tated his unorthodox rendering of form but also contributed to a dra-
matic shift toward temporal immediacy in his paintings, especially when
contrasted with Courbet's. "At first one is disquieted and surprised by its
darkness," Marc de Montifaud observed of one of Courbet's dark-ground
forest landscapes in the Salon of 1867, "but little by little one perceives
that those masses of shadows detach themselves in an illumination that
comes from the depths of the wood and which, gradually advancing past
the background planes, reaches the principal planes by so measured, pen-
etrating, and broadly distributed a transition that there isn't a moss or a
lichen or a shrub that doesn't spread out comfortably under the verdant
caverns."77 The gradual, almost magical unfolding and resolving of a
richly nuanced natural scene that such a passage evokes could not be far-
ther from the abruptness with which Manet's paintings announce them-
selves to the viewer.
Still another feature of the Dijeuner that conduces to an overall effect
of instantaneousness is the notorious spatial ambiguity of the relations
between the principal figure group and the bather in the middle distance.
Without analyzing that ambiguity in detail, we can say that the bather
seems larger than she should be given her apparent distance from the
main group; put another way, her size together with her proximity to the
gesturing hand of the half-reclining man at the right projects her discon-
certingly toward the surface (or what Jean Clay has called the superficies)
of the picture (see n. 135 below). This too discourages the notion of a
slow-paced exploration of the picture space, which instead assumes a
"revelatory" character perhaps most vividly expressed in the bullfinch
frozen in flight at the upper center of the canvas-a detail I earlier con-
nected with scenes of baptism and with religious painting generally but
which I also see as emblematizing the notion of a representational act so
lightning fast in its attack (so magical, in an opposite sense to Courbet's)
as to perfectly capture a bird in midflight (more on this shortly). Other
paintings of the first half of the I 860s, notably Mile V. .. in the Costume
of an Espada and the Episode in a Bullfight before Manet sliced it up,
contain or contained similar ambiguities, which seem to have been both
willed-Manet could not have been unaware of the sharply canted back-
ground in the first-and not entirely under control-hence his decision
to destroy the original composition of the second.
So far I have said nothing about the outward gaze of the seated bather,
or more broadly about the subversion of narrative and dramatic intel-
ligibility in the figure group as a whole. Here too a certain context, at once
historical and theoretical, is pertinent. Briefly, Diderot in the 1760s held
that a history painting ought to represent a single narratively critical mo-
ment in the unfolding of a significant human action; and as he also made
clear, this was possible-a given painting would be felt to dramatize such
a moment, which is to say that the figures it comprised would be seen as
wholly engaged in the precise phase of the action the painting represented
-only if the action itself, and by implication the larger narrative-dramatic
framework in which it was embedded, were made intelligible to the viewer
more or less at first gianceJ8 David's major canvases of the 1780s, the
I
Chapter Four
Belisarius Receiving Alms (1781), Oath of the Horatii (1785), Death of

Socrates (1787), and Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons
(1789), embody this conception and testify, by their commanding posi-
f
l
tion within the Diderotian tradition, to its considerable power. By the

mid- 1 790s, however, David himself had come to feel that the depiction of
a single, indefinitely brief, psychologically charged, and morally exem-
plary moment was no longer artistically feasible, largely because the
qualities of visual drama which that implied were now perceived by him
as theatrical in the pejorative sense of exaggerated and overdone. Accord-
ingly, he moved in the Intervention of the Sabine Women (1799) to a far
less actively temporal mode of representation, one that would soon come
to be seen as theatrical on quite other grounds: that the figures of Romulus,
Tatius, and Hersilia appeared merely to be posing for the viewer rather
than caught up in their actions and states of mind.7 9 (The role of a dy-
namic of posing in Manet's art will concern us before we are done.)
This is not the place for even a summary history of the evocation of
different modes of temporality in relation to various stages of the anti-
theatrical project in late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century French paint-
ing, but it can at least be said that major painters as different as David (in
the Sabines and Leonidas at Thermopylae), Gericault (in the Raft of the
Medusa), Millet (in his peasant pictures), and Courbet (in works as di-
verse as the After Dinner at Ornans, Wheat Sifters, and Sleep) all found
themselves compelled to pursue versions of an absorptive thematics that
emphasized protracted temporal effects. In contrast, Manet's involve-
ment with effects of instantaneousness marked a return to one of the basic
aims of David's dramatic compositions of the 1780s. But except for a
handful of works like the Street Singer, his concern with instantaneous-
ness led him not to depict a moment in an action but rather to seek to
evoke what came to be understood as the instantaneousness of seeing, of
visual perception, itself (by "came to be understood" I mean to leave
open the possibility that that characterization too need not be regarded as
definitive). And one crucial strategy by which in the Dejeuner Manet
sought to bring that about was by blatantly violating the demand for nar-
rative and dramatic intelligibility. That is, Manet chose a compositional
motif-based on Marcantonio's engraving-which, isolated on his can-
vas and treated more or less realistically, suggested that a conversation
was taking place among the seated bather and her male companions. But
he also deliberately and provocatively subverted that suggestion in sev-
eral ways: by the scandalous conjunction of carefully dressed men and

unclothed women, which shifted the emphasis away from any possible
exchange of thoughts to the outlandishness of the group as a whole; by
the minutely calibrated nonreciprocity of gazes and gestures, a device that
harks back to the Old Musician but is even more effective in the Dejeuner
because the two men seem as if they should be looking at one another and
yet are not and because the right-hand figure's "pointing" gesture is at
once so attention-getting and so unreadable; by a mode of execution that
contemporary viewers found incomprehensible (much more on this too
below); above all-because most pointedly nonabsorptive-by the seated
bather's deadpan though also slightly amused gaze directly out of the
painting, which definitively forestalls all possibility of compositional clo-
sure. 80 And in fact contemporary critics both noted the conversational
implications of the figure-group (one referred jokingly to the two men
as "philosophers" while another described them as rapins talking es-
thetics)81 and expressed deep puzzlement over the painting's meaning;
Pelloquet, as noted, called the Dejeuner a "rebus" and Louis Etienne con-
sidered it a "riddle."82 Even Thore, positively inclined toward Manet as
he was, complained that the nude was less than beautiful and that it
would be impossible to imagine anything uglier than the man stretched
out on the grass to the right "and who didn't even have the idea of remov-
ing, while out of doors, his horrible padded hat." He went on: "It's the
contrast between an animal so antipathetic to the character of a country
scene, with that bather without veils, which is shocking. I can't imagine
what can have made an intelligent and distinguished artist choose so ab-
surd a composition, which the elegance and charm of the personages
might perhaps have justified. "83
Not that any critic in 1863 explicitly linked the unintelligibility of the
Dejeuner with an overall impression of instantaneousness of perception.
That would have to wait for the end of the decade, when Manet exhibited
the Luncheon in the Studio (fig. 58) and the Balcony (pI. 8) in the Salon of
1869. Both paintings were widely criticized for the unreadability-also,
by no means coincidentally, the facingness-of their subjects. "It's hard
to know what these honest people are doing on their balcony," Paul
Mantz wrote. "The accentuation of a type, the characterization of a feel-
ing or an idea, would be sought in vain in this mindless painting. "84
(Accentuation, type, and characterization were notions linked with ab-
sorption, as we have seen. It may be, too, that the contrast with Carolus
Chapter Four
Duran's immensely successful Portrait of Mme ,:- ':-':- [fig. 13 2] in the same
Salon contributed to Mantz's and other critics' frustration with the Bal-
cony.)85 Castagnary, a more searching critic, was equally puzzled:
What's the source of [Manet's 1sterility? It's that while basing his art on nature,
he neglects to make its aim the interpretation of life. He borrows his subjects
from poets or takes them from his imagination; he isn't concerned to discover
them in living usages. Whence, in his compositions, much of their arbitrariness.
In the Luncheon, for example, I see on a table where coffee is served a half-
peeled lemon and fresh oysters, but these objects don't go together. Why have
they been put together then? I know very well why. Because Manet has to the
highest extent a feeling for colored patches, because he excels in representing
that which is inanimate, and, feeling himself superior in his stilllifes, he is natu-
rally inclined to paint them whenever possible .... And just as Manet brings
together, sol~ly for the pleasure of striking the eyes, still-life elements that be-
long apart, he also distributes his personages haphazardly, without anything
necessary and forced in their composition. Whence the uncertainty and often
the obscurity of his thought. What is the young man doing in the Luncheon,
seated in the foreground and seeming to look out at the public? True, he is well
painted, brushed by a vigorous hand; but where is he? In the dining room? In
that case, having his back to the table, he has the wall between him and us, and
his position no longer makes any sense. In the Balcony, I perceive two women,
one very young. Are they two sisters? A mother and her daughter? I don't
know. And then, one is seated and seems to have been placed solely to enjoy the
spectacle of the street; the other puts her gloves on as if she is about to leave.
These contradictory attitudes confuse me. Certainly, I like the color, and I will-
ingly grant that Manet's sense of tone is accurate, often even pleasant.... But a
feeling for functions, for appropriateness, is indispensable .... Like the per-
sonages in a play, it's necessary that every figure in a painting is in its proper
plane, fulfills its role, and thereby contributes to the expression of the general
idea. Nothing arbitrary and nothing superfluous, that is the law of all artistic
composition. 86
(Actually, the gaze of the young man in the Luncheon, like that of the
Street Singer or the two boys in the Old Musician, is not strictly frontal.
And note how Castagnary is troubled by the young man's relation to an
implied "fourth" wall, a staple of Western representation, only because
he is facing out of the picture; if on the contrary he were shown leafing
through a journal or peeling a fruit Castagnary would be content.) A few
pages before, Castagnary had lauded Millet's Knitting Lesson (fig. I I 5)
by saying, "It would be difficult to write a thought with greater precision,
vigor, and harmony. Nothing is forgotten, and there isn't a single feature
that doesn't contribute to the expression. As soon as you look, the au-
thor's intention is entirely revealed to you. "87 Such an intelligibility effect
was correlated with an impression of total absorptive coherence, and it

contrasted fundamentally with Manet's refusal of such coherence-his
refusal, on the" dramaturgical" level, of the necessary and the forced.
Or consider Marius Chaumelin's comments on the Luncheon and the
Balcony, both of which exemplified for him Manet's desire to attract at-
tention at any price (by 1869 this too was a cliche of Manet criticism,
which endlessly repeated the weary tropes of Alcibiades cutting off his
dog's tail so as to be noticed and of Manet firing a metaphorical pistol in
the Salon for the same purpose). 88 "The first aspect of these two canvases
is not agreeable, it must be recognized," Chaumelin wrote. "The per-
sonages, with the exception of the seated woman [Berthe Morisot in the
Balcony], are not at all handsome, their faces have something morose and
disagreeable about them, like the faces of persons who pose, and in fact
all these figures have the air of saying to us: Look at me! They think of
nothing else; we exclude from this criticism the man waiting for his coffee
who tranquilly digests his luncheon without concerning himself with us
[the smoker at the right of the Luncheon, who might be described as ab-
sorbed in reverie]. Thus, no expression, no feeling, no composition."89
He went on to criticize Manet for insisting, despite his painter's tempera-
ment, "on reproducing subjects of repulsive vulgarity, types without
character, scenes devoid of all interest. "90 And in a second "Salon" of
that year he summed this up-more interestingly than he knew-by say-
ing, "Manet has made the portrait of a Balcony and a Luncheon."91
A suggestively different note is struck, however, in Duranty's com-
ments on the Balcony. "If one saw people on a balcony quickly in pass-
ing," he wrote, "one would have roughly the same impression as in
Manet's painting, but if one prolonged the look, the impression would
change; the whites and greens, for example, would lose their value, and
the other colors would take on new values of their own. This is part of the
secret of Manet's painting and of the opposition it arouses. He has always
seized an impression of nature more quickly than, and therefore other-
wise than, his critics. "92 For Duranty the unintelligibility of the ensemble
was the hallmark of a new, artistically legitimate, rapidity of seeing; put
another way, what in this account of Manet's art took the place of the
larger narrative of the histoire in David's history paintings of the 1780s
was an implied narrative of perception in which the painter sought to rep-
resent a scene as it appeared to him at a glance. (Duranty's defense of the
Balcony is all the more impressive in that he continued to prefer absorp-
tive painting. The following year, after saying of Manet that "he throws
3 00 Chapter Four
down [the heads in his paintings] promptly, summarily, brutally, and

boldly, in a matte brightness, slightly chalky, suppressing the details" and
"the violent effect of nature, the intense cruelty of its aspects, of its op-
posed notes, grips and dominates him,"93 he all but pleaded with the
painter to seek at last to evoke "the expressive feeling of modern life" by
means of an imagery "admirably finished, admirably drawn, and com-
plete in its power." Otherwise, he wrote, "we won't know any longer how
to defend ourselves, how to justify ourselves in the face of the accusation
'of liking the incomprehensible superiorities' of a man for whom we have
wished and predicted the triumphs owed to one of the foremost painters
of our time. ")94
In the same spirit as Duranty in 1869, Armand Silvestre wrote in 1874
of Le Chemin de fer (1873; fig. 147): "If you happened to perceive a
Figure 147. Edouard Manet, Le Chemin de fer, 1873.

woman seated on the stone base of an iron railing and a child by her side,
would it occur to you to analyze in depth this casual spectacle? Neverthe-
less it could happen that the scene would remain several moments before
your eyes. It's that instantaneous impression that Manet has wanted to
render, and there isn't any reason to defend him for not having pushed
further the execution of such a motif." And a few lines further on: "One
can regret that Manet didn't seek something else; but it's clear that he has
rendered what he sought, that is, an immediate and very distinct impres-
sion. "95 (As it happens, another critic, Ernest Duvergier de Hauranne,
puzzled by and hostile to the Chemin de fer, raised the question of its sta-
tus as a portrait, inadvertently echoing Chaumelin on Manet in 1869. "Is
it a portrait of two persons or a tableau in a particular style?" he asked.
"We don't have the information to resolve that problem; we hesitate even
more in that as far as the young girl is concerned hers would be a portrait
seen from the back. Manet has made so many innovations that nothing he
might do could astonish US."96 Duvergier de Hauranne was being ironic,
but in the context of the argument I have been developing the notion that
the young girl's back faces the beholder is far from absurd.)97
As Silvestre's use of the term "instantaneous impression" might lead
one to expect, the rise of Impressionism in the I870S made the rapidity of
perception an issue as it had never been before,98 and by the 18 80S it was
widely accepted among Manet's admirers that the speed of his vision-
even greater, it was sometimes said, than the speed of his hand-was a
key, perhaps the key, to the look of his art.99 My point, of course, is not
that Manet actually saw nature faster than other artists but rather that,
starting in the late I860s, this was one of the effects his paintings pro-
duced.
Finally, though, it was Astruc who in 1863 had the most arresting
things to say about Manet and what I have been calling instantaneous-
ness:
Something worth noting is that, contrary to those great natural talents who
prompt us at first to study their art in its material practice, he imposes and
shows only its vital accent so to speak. It is the soul that strikes, it is the move-
ment, the play of faces breathing life and action; the feeling that their looks
convey, the expressive singularity of their roles. He pleases or displeases imme-
diately, he charms, attracts, or repels quickly. The individuality is so strong that
it escapes the mechanism of construction. The role of painting effaces itself to
grant the creation all its metaphysical and corporeal value. Only much later
does the gaze discover the forms of the execution, the elements which give
meaning to the color, value to the relief, truth to the modeling. lOo
3 02 Chapter Four
In an obvious sense, as I suggest in "Manet's Sources," Astruc's remarks

contrast Manet with Courbet, the exemplary instance of those "great
natural talents" whose work emphasizes "its material practice." But
what I want to stress is Astruc's insistence on the "vital" immediacy of
Manet's art as well as his suggestion that that immediacy was intimately
linked with the play of physiognomy, gesture, and gaze in the Dejeuner
sur fherbe and other works on view. Astruc doesn't offer a narrative or
dramatic reading of the Dejeuner however. Rather, his insistence on the
"expressive singularity" of Manet's figures comes close to attributing to
them (and to the painting as a whole, or at least its "individuality") a
vitality that precedes, in the viewer's experience, the "mechanism of con-
struction" as regards not only the technical means of painting but also the
relations among those figures and indeed the composition itself. Such a
view was at odds with the prevailing opinion that Manet's figures lacked
vitality because their gestures and expressions were unreadable and be-
cause his execution systematically failed to discriminate between the
faces of living persons and mere inanimate objects or accessories. But
rather than discount Astruc's observations as special pleading on behalf
of his friend, we would do better to see in them a uniquely revealing re-
sponse to the Dejeuner and its companion works and, what is more, an
anticipation of his own distinction of five years later between the instan-
taneousness and strikingness of the portrait and the relative "slowness"
and penetratingness of the tableau. (The verbs "impose" and "show" in
the first sentence of the quoted passage point toward the facingness of the
portrait, as does, in another register, the verb "effaces" a few sentences
further on.) And this in turn suggests that Astruc's theory of the portrait,
which I have analogized to the abstractly facing aspects of the canvases
of the generation of I 863 as well as to the radically facing character of
Manet's pictures of the I860s, was largely based on his experience of
Manet's work.
The Question of Execution-Manet's Angels at the

Tomb of Christ and Moreau's Oedipus and the Sphinx
at the Salon of 1864
As TR U c' s response to Manet's paintings of I 863 was unusual in that it

bracketed, made secondary, matters of execution and technique. Even As-
truc, however, remarked in passing on certain "too-relaxed habits" in the
Dejeuner and added that he would have like to see "fewer of those quali-
ties that belong to the spirit of art" -a reference, I assume, to Manet's
allusions to earlier painting-" and sometimes more consistency." 101 For
Etienne the landscape in the Dejeuner was well treated but the figures
were too slack, and in a rhetorical turn that would be repeated endlessly
by Manet's critics he offered as a corrective example Manet's own early
and relatively tame Boy with a Sword of I 861. 102 Other writers too were
uneasy with Manet's execution, not only because of the absence of half-
tones, the jarring colors, and the violent contrasts of light and dark, but
also, crucially, because he appeared to stop too soon, leaving his canvases
in an unfinished state-mere esquisses or ebauches, it was usually said.
So for example Castagnary conceded that Manet's paintings in the Re-
fuses were good ebauches but felt that that was not enough. "Is that draw-
ing?" he asked. "Is that painting? Manet thinks himself resolute and
powerful, he is only hard; and the amazing thing is that he is as soft as he
is hard. That is because he is uncertain about some things and leaves them
to chance. Not one detail is given its precise and rigorous form. " 103 He
added other criticisms and concluded by accusing Manet of lacking con-
viction and sincerity.1 04 Ernest Fillonneau in I 863 associated Manet and
Whistler with a way of painting "by approximations [a peu pres], in
which parti pris and will evidently playa larger role than knowledge and
study." One must not confuse, he added, "bizarreness with originality,
rigidity with style, brutality with frankness, exaggeration with charac-
ter."105 Gautier in I864 said that Manet boldly attacked the morceau
and that his coloristically unified figures resembled "the preparations of a
master" (i.e. ebauches). "Unfortunately," he added, "Manet systemat-
ically abandons them in that state and doesn't push his work any fur-
ther. "106 (One year later his judgment was much harsher: Manet had lost
the battle under the most favorable circumstances, his originality had be-
come deformed and monstrous, the qualities that connoisseurs had dis-
cerned amid the chaos of his earlier work had been displaced by faults
both natural and deliberate, etc.) 107 Also in I 864 Thore alluded, not un-
sympathetically, to Manet's debauches, an obvious play on words,108
and in I 8 66 he wrote of Manet's Woman with a Parrot (fig. 56), which he
had seen in the painter's studio, that it was an "ebauche, it's true, like
Watteau's Isle of Cythera [Embarkation for Cythera J in the Louvre. Wat-
teau would have been able to push his ebauche to the point of perfection.
Manet is still struggling with that extreme difficulty of painting, namely
how to finish certain parts of the picture in order to give the ensemble its
Chapter Four
effective value."109 As I remark near the end of "Manet's Sources,"

Manet would have appreciated the comparison with Watteau, which per-
haps reflects a conversation in the studio. But nothing more strongly un-
derscores the difficulty of Manet's project with respect to facture than
that Thon~, wishing to support him and perfectly understanding the gen-
eral terms of the problem, nevertheless felt that the Woman with a Parrot
left something to be desired.
Another critic, Amedee Cantaloube, wrote in 1864 of Manet's "im-
pulsive, barbarously drawn ebauches and improvisations, where one
discovers, it is true, some confused traces of the temperament of a color-
ist."110 The next year, 1865, Cantaloube referred to "certain formless
and grotesque ebauches that are causing a true scandal." 111 In 1867
Theodore Duret wrote: "The worst reproach that can be made to Manet
is perhaps that he works too fast and treats his tableaux too much as es-
quisses. His execution isn't pushed to a sufficiently resolved point, his
modeling lacks firmness, and these defects are particularly visible in his
treatment of figures. For an artist to give his best, he must push qualities of
form as far as possible, and Manet is self-condemned to remain well be-
low what he could be because of painting too quickly and hastily."112
Duret was to become a passionate advocate of Manet's painting and in
fact was already a supporter in 1867 (the two had met in Madrid in
186 5). But his natural taste was for absorptive painting (his admiration
for Millet had no limit), and what we see in his comments on Manet is a
not always successful attempt to come to terms with work he found dif-
ficult to understand. Castagnary, too, eventually came to appreciate
Manet's achievement across a temperamental divide that made aspects of
the painter's execution forever incomprehensible to him. In 1874 he
praised Manet's Chemin de fer for its treatment of light and tone, adding
that" a lost profile gracefully indicated, a blue linen dress amply modeled,
makes me overlook the unfinishedness of the faces and the hands." 113
And a year later he argued that Manet deserved a medal not only because
of his influence on contemporary art but also because he was an abso-
lutely conscientious artist who spared neither time nor effort to make his
paintings as good as possible-but even then Castagnary could not resist
adding that he wished Manet would "set the day further off when he
judges he has attained the goal he set for himself." 114 In other words, he
wished Manet would take still longer and finish his paintings.
The problem of Manet's paintings's execution-of their facture-
continued to' engage critics throughout his career and indeed after his
death. Two especially revealing responses appeared in 1863, that epochal

moment not just for Manet but for his entire generation. The first comes
from Pelloquet's account of the Salon des Refuses, and it follows the pas-
sage cited earlier in which he took the Dejeuner to task for its failure even
to seek to establish itself as a tableau. In that connection he complained
that he couldn't figure out Manet's intention, with the result that the pic-
ture seemed to him nothing more than a large rebus whose meaning could
never be guessed. He went on:
The execution [of the Dejeuner] is far from offering me sufficient com-
pensation; it's a rebus too. Here and there I see morceaux that come close to
nature, particularly in one of the naked women and one of the heads in the
foreground, but that's not enough, the rest of the picture is of a wholly in-
explicable incoherence. One can't really designate this product of Manet's
labors as an esquisse or an ebauche. In an esquisse properly understood and
properly executed, all the parts are rendered to the same degree.
Nothing explains or justifies Manet's incoherence, his inequality of execu-
tion. IIS
This shows that for at least one critic in 1863, Manet's violation of cur-
rent norms of finish consisted, not in leaving his pictures in the condition
of mere esquisses or ebauches, the usual complaint, but rather in eliciting
an "inequality of execution" that made those paintings radically unintel-
ligible on the plane of technique-a useful if largely negative insight.
The second, more complex response is by Carle Desnoyers (writing as
Le Capitaine Pompilius), who, it will be recalled, compared Manet to De-
lacroix and said he possessed "the conviction, the power, the universality,
that is to say, the stuff of great art." Nevertheless, Desnoyers expressed
certain reservations about Manet's work:
If Manet's tableaux were enveloped in their definitive form; if, down to that
supreme touch that closes a work by energetically signing it with a magisterial
stroke [griffe, literally "claw" or "talon," figuratively "signature"], they af-
firmed the young master's new principle, one might believe that the look of this
healthy and vigorous art confounded or horrified the representatives of the
moth-eaten school. Unfortunately, that's not the case: the connoisseurs com-
prehend the exceptional qualities of this admirable ebaucheur with their first
coup d'oeil; but for the public, for whom it's necessary to dot the i's, for the In-
stitute, which esteems only painting that smacks of study and research, Manet's
compositions are barely able to pass, with respect to how they rendered, for ap-
proximations [des apeu Pfl?sJ.116
And a paragraph further on:

3 06 Chapter Four
He sees nature clearly and translates it simply, luminously. His large tableau
of Bathers [the Dejeuner] , placed on the wall at the rear of a room, creates, in
the eyes of the beholder, the effect of an opening onto the countryside. All
around it, the coarsest landscapes seem like faces that its male and vigorous
colors have made go pale; but again, monsieur [Desnoyer's articles are ostensi-
bly addressed to the editor of Le Petit Journal], you would see in it, like me,
only a surprising, an admirable, ebauche; but no one could recognize in it the
triumphant affirmation of a new art, because if everything that art requires of a
master is indicated, nothing in it has the seal of work that has arrived at its
completion.
In a word, such a work truly finished would be a solemn event. In the state
that Manet has left it to us, it is only interesting; it is conditional, it is not effec-
tive.!1?
Like most other critics, Desnoyers called Manet an ebaucheur and the
Dejeuner an ebauche. But he nevertheless saw in that canvas something
like a new paradigm for ambitious painting-"the triumphant affirma-
tion of a new art" -except for the matter of its execution, and even with
respect to that he states that for a certain class of viewers, "connoisseurs,"
Manet's distinction was not in question. (These and similar remarks in
numerous articles of the 18 60S show that from the start Manet was sup-
ported by a not inconsequential group of viewers called "connoisseurs"
or "amateurs," who, not being critics in the ordinary sense of the term,
have left little written evidence of their activity. Among the critics, Duret
and Philippe Burty were perhaps the closest to that group. Eventually, the
point of view of the "connoisseurs" would be thematized by Duret in his
preface to the catalogue for Manet's posthumous exhibition and sale of
1884.) This comes astonishingly close to ascribing to the Dejeuner the
historical significance it acquired only decades later, if indeed the greater
celebrity of Olympia hasn't led scholars permanently to underrate its
predecessor-but the interest of Desnoyers's commentary doesn't stop
there. His observation that the Dejeuner for all its virtues lacked or es-
chewed "that supreme touch that closes a work by energetically signing it
with a magisterial stroke" (emphasis added) suggests that what contem-
porary viewers saw as the bizarreness of Manet's paintings' facture-the
problem his execution offered even to those critics who, like Desnoyers,
most believed in his abilities-may be understood as a further manifesta-
tion of his radical rejection of the ideal of closure that was both ground
and aim of absorptive painting. ("Among all of them," Astruc wrote of
Legros in 1863, "I recognize in him a strongly marked character:-the
accent;-it [or he] is distinguished by a tighter facture, by a profoundly
studied construction." 118 A tighter facture is exactly what Desnoyers

missed in the Dejeuner.) And this suggests in turn that Manet, in his
struggle against absorption, found himself compelled to seek not just an
alternative compositional route to intensity and strikingness, but also an
alternative mode of execution, one that would be consistent with, that
would somehow "project," the facingness and instantaneousness that
were his main resort. And it also suggests that the means by which he
tried to bring this about not only were powerless to enforce such a read-
ing, they threatened, by their glaring departure from traditional norms of
finish, to doom his already difficult art to total incomprehensibility. Carle
Desnoyers was one of several critics in 1863 who weren't personally re-
pelled by Manet's technique (the truly violent reaction against it was still
to come). But he recognized that the denial of closure on the plane of
facture-a denial Pelloquet's remarks help us to understand-meant that
Manet's paintings would appear to the public as settling for the a peu
pres, the merely approximate, which is exactly what happened. They
would seem, they did seem, in Desnoyers' uncanny formulation, at best
conditional, not effective: it would require the Impressionists and subse-
quent developments to make them effective, as if by deferred action- in
French, apres-coup-and at the cost of a massive simplification of Manet's
achievement.
Two further points before leaving Desnoyers. First, the statement that
the Dejeuner had the effect of making the coarsest landscapes in its vi-
cinity seem like faces that had turned pale invokes the motif of faciality in
an indirect but significant way. And second, I detect Desnoyers's authorial
presence behind a highly intelligent paragraph on Manet's pictures in the
Salon of 1865-01ympia and the Christ Mocked-by another pseud-
onymous critic, Rapinus Beaubleu. The paragraph reads:
My dear director [of the journal in which the review appeared], Manet
surely doesn't pretend to have made two masterpieces, and I even think he
could have gone much further with his paintings which, in certain parts, re-
main almost in the state of esquisses. A painter of such value ought to distrust
his extre~e facility which comes close in a way to improvisation. But that fault
evinces an ardor, a vigor, and a temperament not at all common in our time.
Manet is making great progress in his art: in the canvas Christ Mocked, there
are morceaux, mainly the head of the soldier at the right, that are treated in an
extremely remarkable manner. Also in Olympia, where the chest, the hands, in
a word all the completed morceaux, could serve as a lesson to those malicious
critics who, grimacing, work up the stupid crowd against an extremely live and
original personality.119
Chapter Four
Rapinus Beaubleu's remarks express the same support for Manet and the
same mixture of sympathy and reservations regarding his execution as
did Le Capitaine Pompilius's article of two years earlier. This in itself was
unusual in 1865, but even more unusual was the view that Manet had
been making great progress that could be seen in his treatment of various
morceaux in both the Christ Mocked and Olympia. (Among those mor-
ceaux were Olympia's chest and hands, two areas that other critics
singled out for abuse.) Indeed only one other writer, Alfred Sensier, had a
good word to say about the Christ Mocked. 120 To the best of my knowl-
edge, Carle Desnoyers's" Salons" of 1863 and 1865 are the only pieces of
art criticism he ever wrote. But they establish him as potentially one of the
most insightful and independent critics of his time.
As Alan Krell has remarked and as my citations of Thore, Astruc, and

Carle Desnoyers have shown, the critical response to Manet's works in
the Refuses was far from uniformly negative. 121 True, the Dijeuner in
particular was treated roughly by the critics and provoked derisive laugh-
ter from the public. But Manet had his defenders, and the comments of
various writers both for and against his art make clear that he was already
viewed as the leader of the new generation of realists. The response to
Olympia and the Christ Mocked in 1865 was much more negative, even
violent, to the extent that the government was forced to post a gendarme
to protect Olympia from angry viewers. But rather than add my own
analysis of the criticism of that year to those of other historians, 122 I shall
look instead at the critical reaction to Manet's paintings in the previous
Salon, that of I 864-the Episode in a Bullfight and Angels at the Tomb of
Christ (pI. 6). The first of these was widely faulted for its treatment of
spatial recession, and Manet subsequently cut it up, isolating and partly
repainting the figure of the dead matador, which became the masterly
Dead Torero in the National Gallery (fig. 5 I ).123 The Angels at the Tomb
of Christ also took a critical beating, but what is fascinating and so far
unnoted is that the terms in which it was attacked involved a highly
charged comparison with another work, the sensation of the Salon of
1864 and quite possibly the painting that enjoyed the greatest success at
any Salon of the 1860s: Gustave Moreau's Oedipus and the Sphinx
(186 4; pI. 14).
This may seem surprising. We tend to think of Moreau, the presiding
genius of Huysmans's A rebours (1884), as the Symbolist painter par ex-
cellence. But in fact a major segment of his career belongs to the 1860s,
where it intersects dramatically with Manet's. Born in 1826 (six years

before Manet), the young Moreau studied at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts
before becoming close to the painter Theodore Chasseriau, under whose
influence he painted several large canvases shown in the Salons of 1852
and 1853.124 The death of Chasseriau in 1856 and also, apparently, some
mysterious disappointment the following year brought about a personal
and artistic crisis; and in October 1857 Moreau left Paris for Italy, where
he spent almost two years, visiting major centers and studying Renais-
sance and earlier art. On his return he worked laboriously, methodically,
on various ambitious canvases until at last, with the Oedipus, he emerged
from his self-imposed isolation.
In the most general terms, the Oedipus was hailed as an idealist work
in opposition to the art of the young realists.1 25 But the one large fault
some critics found with it and the overriding virtues for which it was
enthusiastically praised (and nothing is more impressive than the unifor-
mity of the language of praise) both have close equivalents in contempo-
rary discussions of their paintings. The fault concerned the Oedipus's
apparent stylistic dependence on Mantegna, still another example of the
obsessive interest of painters of the 1860s in the art of the past. A few
commentators were put off by this, and even Moreau's most fervent ad-
mirers found it necessary to defend the Oedipus against the dread charge
of pastiche. 126 How persuasive their arguments seem today doesn't
matter; what matters is that, as in the case of Ribot (and, in different ways,
Legros, early Tissot, and Puvis de Chavannes), Moreau's involvement
with earlier art colored the look of his painting and so attracted wide-
spread notice-much more notice than was drawn by Manet's use of
sources in his pictures in the same Salon.
Most critics, however, were swept off their feet by Moreau's canvas.
Here for instance is Maxime Du Camp, whose admiration for the artist
then and later was nearly boundless: "Moreau has left nothing to chance;
everything he has done, he has willed to do like this. Each part of his
painting is reasoned and pondered with serious concern. "127 The same
thought was voiced by Saint-Victor: "The first impression is grand and
profound: the painting springs out from among the canvases that sur-
round it with a gripping strangeness. It gives off that idea of force that the
will imprints on his works. Everything is concerted and premeditated in
the work of Moreau; not a useless feature, not a detail that doesn't bear
the imprint of reflection." 128 And here is Chesneau, a friend of the painter
and a passionate admirer: "All the details, their form and disposition as
31 0 Chapter Four
well as the general arrangement of the painting, have been meditated

upon, reflected upon, and set down with intention. Every bit of the work
from the smallest to the largest has been seriously willed. "129 We might
say that for most critics in I864 Moreau's canvas epitomized, gave ideal
form to, the transvaluation of willing that I have argued was one of the
key developments of the decade. And in fact much of the praise for the
Oedipus involved a response to its powerfully absorptive interpretation
of its subject. Even Thore, who felt that as an specimen of the art of paint-
ing the Oedipus virtually didn't exist (he contrasted it with Rembrandt's
Syndics), nevertheless acknowledged the power of its mise-en-scene:
"[The Sphinx and Oedipus] are head to head, profile to profile, nose to
nose, eye to eye. She magnetizes him with her feminine gaze, the irresist-
ible one!"130 Jean Rousseau too extolled the drama of their eye-to-eye
encounter, adding that "Oedipus, who seems to look at [the Sphinx]
without seeing her, appears wholly lost in the profound contemplation of
a problem of life and death." 131 And de Sault described the picture's over-
all effect in terms that we recognize as those of absorption: "One feels in it
something at once profound, solemn, and intimate that conduces to re-
flection and imposes itself on the beholder's meditations." 132 There is an
element of fortuitousness in all this: the paintings Moreau went on to ex-
hibit in subsequent Salons mainly departed from absorptive frameworks
(the Orpheus of I 865 is an exception), and so increasingly were criticized
as difficult and obscure, rebuses in their own right, although they also
continued to have passionate supporters. The Oedipus, being strongly
absorptive, was perfectly intelligible. Thus Cantaloube: "The subject
treated by the painter is conveyed in the first impression and strongly
strikes the mind, because the idea of it is plastic and not literary." 133 But
fortuitous or not, the runaway success of Moreau's canvas had immediate
consequences for Manet.
Partly because Manet's Angels at the Tomb of Christ hung in the same
room as the Oedipus (the Salon was organized alphabetically), the two
works were widely viewed as contending with one another-which
turned out to mean that the Oedipus was seen as showing up the many
weaknesses of Manet's art. The Angels at the Tomb of Christ, it was felt,
carried realism to an offensive extreme in its deliberately brutal treatment
of the figure of Christ. 134 Nor could it in any sense by construed as ab-
sorptive: whereas the Oedipus staged a point-blank locking of gazes be-
tween two antagonists depicted in absolute profile, the composition of
the Angels at the Tomb of Christ stressed the principal figure's facingness,
a quality further emphasized by the absence of shadows, by the sur-

prisingly broad expanse of dazzling white drapery against which the dead
Christ is displayed, and by what Jean Clay has described as the implied
but also constrained movement of the figure of Christ and the drapery
toward the painting's superficies. 13s Moreover, the exact subject of
Manet's picture was felt to be obscure, not without good reason. On the
basis of a letter from Baudelaire to the Marquis de Chennevieres, I argued
in "Manet's Sources" that the Angels at the Tomb of Christ depicts
Chrises resuscitation (a reading now generally accepted), but it can't be
said to do so perspicuously, and in any case the viewer remains unsure
how to understand the actions of the angels and their relation to Christ
(the angel with blue wings is clearly in motion, but how can that be recon-
ciled with Christ's mainly static pose?), the setting (inside a cave?-the
lighting seems far too brilliant, and besides, there is the suggestion of a
dark cave-mouth behind the figures), the significance of the inscription on
the rock, and even the snake and snail shells in the extreme foreground. 136
(Not to mention the placing of Christ's wound on the left-hand side of his
body, which might or might not have been deliberate.)137 No wonder
critics were at a loss how to describe such a picture. Chesneau's dismissive
remarks about both Manet's entries have already been quoted. For
Castagnary the Dead Christ was simply" a nightmare upon which it isn't
good to rest your sight." 138 And Saint-Victor, having criticized Ribot's
Song of Songs for burying itself in blackness and having said that the
"faith of the coal man reigns in this school that would need to be chimney
swept," went on to exclaim, "But after Manet's Christ in the Cave, sup-
ported by two winged chimney sweeps, holaf"139-in effect throwing up
his hands before a picture that was out of bounds.
Two further points of contrast were equally important. As we have
seen, admirers of the Oedipus insisted, first, that its composition gave ev-
ery indication of having been deeply pondered over a period of time, as if
the picture's interpretation of its subject were itself the outcome of a
drawn-out absorptive process; and second, a related claim, that its char-
acter of having been manifestly willed in its entirety extended even or es-
pecially down to the most minute accessories, details, and incidents of
facture, which are described in commentary after commentary as the ulti-
mate bearers of the artist's will, the sites where that will becomes most
nearly palpable. The second point in particular caught the imagination of
the critics. "The rendering is as finished as possible," Du Camp said,
"nothing has been neglected; the accessories as well as the personages
3 12 Chapter Four
have been pushed to the extreme limit." 140 Rousseau wrote that the
Oedipus "shocks almost as much as it strikes the gaze by the inexorable
authority of its drawing and the imperious precision of its facture ...
[Moreau's painting] doesn't try to succeed by strangeness [bizarreries] of
effect or of accessories, which is always easy, but by the pure perfection of
the rendering, which is of the most obstinate degree of finish."141 The
word bizarreries suggests that Rousseau had Manet in mind as Moreau's
antithesis, and in a second account of the same Salon Rousseau not only
criticized Manet's pictures for their looseness and for the lack of study
that went into them but went on to say of Moreau: "One would have to be
blind not to see in this work, so profoundly felt and so strongly, surely
executed, the evidence of patient observation and long contemplation. Its
unexpectedness has nothing eccentric about it; it's that novelty which is
encountered in truth itself, when one investigates in depth, and which in
the sciences takes the name of discovery."142 To quote Du Camp once
more, this time from his "Salon of 1866": "[Moreau] is in flagrant oppo-
sition to all his colleagues; he lets them pursue easy success, spend them-
selves on the sensual aspects of painting, and content themselves with
equivocal approximations [a peu pres] that attract some notice to their
name .... He wills, that is visible, and I believe that he stops working on
a painting only after having expended on perfecting it the entire sum of
efforts of which he is capable." 143
Elsewhere the contrast with Manet was more explicit. Lagrange con-
trasted "the ibauches by Manet, who will pardon us for leading him into
such good company, [with] the serious attempt by Gustave Moreau." 144
And de Sault, after noting that Manet's picture hung near Moreau's, ad-
dressed the reader directly:
Please, therefore, dear reader, pass from one to the other without transition.
You recoil, the contrast shocks you? Ignore your disgust. You are the public,
you have the mission of judging. Courage, then! Direct your gaze to the
Oedipus that we leave to the right of this supposed Christ: compare feet with
feet, hands with hands, drapery with drapery, the head of the sphinx with the
heads of the angels.
-Ah, you will say, Manet or someone else could make lots of paintings like
that in a year. -No doubt, and so much the worse. -But a painting like the
Oedipus can't be made so frequently. -Still worse; but at least the artist who
would consecrate ten years to such a work would not have lost his time. 145
De Sault's reference to hands and feet was not at all irrelevant. The ren-
dering of extremities had been one of the keys to David's pictorial reforms
in the 178os-Paillot de Montabert, a former student of David's, wrote

in his Traiti de Peinture that the right foot of the eldest of the three Horatii
"contained an entire course of painting"146-and eighty years later it
was still widely considered that the treatment of hands and feet was an
index of draughtsmanly and painterly skill. (The hands in Legros's Voca-
tion of St. Francis are superb, as are those in virtually any painting by
Courbet.) What, then, are we to make-more important, what did Manet
mean his viewers to make-of his depiction of Christ's feet, one of the
main focuses of the composition? (The right foot in particular seems
about to move if it isn't already taking a first, tentative, seated step.) We
might think to say that the obvious distortions in their contours are an
attempt to depict the swelling associated with the wounds from the nails;
but that scarcely accounts for all that is odd about them, and it specifi-
cally doesn't explain the strangely blurred "ball" that appears to float
like a displaced extra toe toward the front of Christ's right foot (fig. 148).
(Or is it meant to be his big toe, seen as if partly from underneath?)
Christ's hands too present problems, with unreadable areas of fleshy
paint compassed by too-thick lines, though their being shown palm up

The Angels at the Tomb of
Christ, 1864, detail of Christ's
feet.
Chapter Four
meant that Manet was compelled to forego one of the most egregious fea-
tures of hands in his pictures-the absence of fingernails. 147 The latter is
perhaps the most distinctive marker in his work of a certain refusal to
finish, to demonstrate the skill of his own "hand" in a manner that con-
temporary critics and the more sophisticated fraction of the public could
have recognized as authoritative. But even without that negative detail the
execution of the Angels at the Tomb of Christ was if anything more con-
spicuously problematic-more resistant to closure-than that of the De-
jeuner sur l'herbe, while the contrast with Moreau's Oedipus not only
drew attention to its "unfinished" or, following Pelloquet, its "unequal"
character (the modeling of much of the body having been done with great
care and skill, albeit within Manet's controlled tonal range) but also
made that inequality seem even more arbitrary and indefensible than
would otherwise have been the case.
(Manet's unconventional attitude toward the depiction of hands may
be sampled in four major pictures: Olympia [pI. 4], in which the aggres-
sively foreshortened and vigorously brushed but nevertheless summary
left hand jumped out at critics as a definite, toadlike presence against a
body felt as pale, smudged, and unformed; 148 the closely related Portrait
of Zacharie Astruc [fig. 8 I], in which on the contrary the sitter's left hand
has been abandoned in the condition of the barest sketch; the Chemin de
fer [fig. I4 7], in which the treatment of the young girl's left hand and in
particular of her thumb is sufficiently clawlike to keep open the question
of sheer draughts manly competence; and In the Conservatory [I879; fig.
I49], an almost excessively "finished" work but one in which the deliber-
ate omission of Jules Guillemet's fingernails is made all the more conspic-
uous by that fact, as well as by the prominence given to his and his wife's
hands at the center of the canvas. 149 By the same token, when Manet
seemingly did "finish" a hand-significantly, one made loosely into a fist,
with no fingernails showing-in the Portrait of Emile Zola (fig. 65; d.
Manet's father's hand in the Portrait of the Artist's Parents [fig. 40])-it
was noted with approval by several critics, including Zola himself who
called it "a marvel of execution" and went on to say, "If the entire portrait
had been able to be pushed to the point [of finish] of that hand, the crowd
itself would have cried out that it was a masterpiece." 150 Did Zola mean
to imply that the entire portrait ought to have been "pushed" that far, or
that there was something in its internal logic that properly kept that from
happening? Another critic who admired the depiction of Zola's hand but
in general was frustrated by Manet's systematic neglect of extremities was
Castagnary.151 In his view Manet had never painted better than in Le Bon
Bock [I 873; fig. I 50] but a question remained: "Why was it necessary for
him to so neglect the extremities? The hands, being nearer than the rest of
the figure, should logically be more tightly drawn than the latter. Why are
they so deplorably slack? Given the progress that contemporary taste has
made, I see only this cause of a quarrel between Manet and the serious
portion of the public. Even if it were to cost him dearly, he should force
himself very quickly to eliminate it."152 Manet of course did nothing of
the kind.)
Let me be clear about what I am saying. I am not claiming that Manet's
Episode in a Bullfight and Angels at the Tomb of Christ would not have
come in for abuse if Moreau's canvas had not been in the same Salon. I
am suggesting that the comparison with the Oedipus crystallized an in-
cipient frustration with Manet's art-above all with its execution-and,
Figure 149. Edouard Manet, In the Conservatory, 1879.

Chapter Four
one year before the scandal of Olympia, gave it much of its definitive rhe-
torical form (for the 1860s, at any rate). Moreau's was an intensely ab-
sorptive picture, wholly-in effect instantaneously-intelligible as
regards subject, action, and mise-en-scene, and executed with a dry scru-
Figure ISO. Edouard Manet, Le Bon Bock, 1873.

pulousness that seemed to the many critics whom it swept away to en-
force, by a sovereign artistic will that determined even the smallest jewel-
like details and incidents of handling, precisely the effects of closure that
Carle Desnoyers had missed in the Dejeuner and that Manet in my ac-
count found it necessary to forgo. (Such a totalization of the dynamics of
closure may perhaps be thought of as standing apart from the tendency
toward internal division that I have associated with works by Legros,
Fantin, Whistler, Ribot, and Carolus Duran and that the Oedipus's own
hypostatization of willing would seem to have made inevitable.) Manet's
Angels at the Tomb of Christ in contrast seemed incomprehensible, pro-
vocative, crudely drawn, hastily painted, in short conceived and executed
with blatant disregard for accepted norms of intellectual decorum, picto-
rial coherence, and technical competence. It may even be that comparison
with Moreau's art then and later promoted a further distinction, between
will, understood as the strong form of an artistically legitimate intention,
and mere parti pris, understood as a perverse taste for extremity for its
own sake or say a desire to attract attention at any price. "Manet's talent
has a decisive aspect that strikes," Astruc had written in 1863.153 The
contrast with Moreau helped ensure that that aspect would for a time
mainly be seen in negative terms. ':.
"The critical "competition" between Manet and Moreau that began in r864 had other conse-
quences as well. For example, Gautier in I 86 S described Moreau's particular audience as fol-
lows: "[His art is 1a dish for the delicate, for dreamers, for the blase, for those for whom nature
isn't sufficient any more and who seek beyond it a sharper, more bizarre sensation. To these
minds the true appears common; they have need of the strange, the supernatural, the fantastic;
hashish suits them better than wine. Their favorite author is Edgar Poe; their painter might well
be Gustave Moreau. Don't his figures have, like those of the American poet, the character of an
apparition, a sort of death in life, disquieting, a mysterious pallor and a taste for precious and
baroque apparel?" ("Salon de 186S," Le Moniteur universe!, July 9, 186S). (C'est un mets
pour les delicats, pour les reveurs, pour les biases, pour ceux a qui la nature ne suffit plus, et qui
cherchent au del a une sensation plus apre, plus bizarre. A ces esprits Ie vrai parait commun; ils
ant besoin d'etrange, de surnaturel, de fantasmatique; Ie haschisch leur va mieux que Ie vin.
Leur auteur favori est Edgar Poe; leur peintre pourrait bien etre M. Gustave Moreau. Ses figures
n'ont-elles pas, comme celles du poete americain, Ie caractere de l'apparition, une sorte de vie
marte, inquietante, une paleur mysterieuse et un gout d'ajustement a la fois precieux et ba-
roque?) Gautier's description of Moreau's Poe-like figures seems alien to Manet's art, though
his remarks about their "apparitional" character recall others' accounts of Whistler's Woman
in White in the Refuses. But what leaps to view is that the ideal audience Gautier assigned to
Moreau was markedly Baudelairean, which is to say that it was one that, characterized slightly
differently, might have been expected to support Manet's art. (A further sign of this is that the
epithets apre and bizarre had previously been applied to Manet's painting by various critics.)
With Baudelaire hors de combat in Brussels, there was no one to protest this deed of gift by the
dedicatee of Les Fleurs du mal.
Chapter Four
Stillness versus Speed-Internal Disparity and the Idea

of a "Remainder"-Photography and Japanese Prints-
The Question of the Model
IN DIS C U S SIN G the Angels at the Tomb of Christ (pI. 6) I mentioned

the difficulty presented by the juxtaposition of the brightly lit angel with
blue wings, whose flowing hair and golden yellow garment imply that it
has just entered the scene from somewhere off to the right (and perhaps
also from above), and the figure of Christ, who may be in the first stages of
resurrection but whose seated pose impresses the viewer as mainly static.
Moreover, one's sense of difficulty is heightened by the mystery of the an-
gel's left arm as it disappears behind some folds of white drapery: are we
meant to think that it supports Christ's left arm from behind? But how
exactly would that work? And in any case the irreal treatment of the white
drapery and characteristically oversoft-too gently curving-drawing of
the angel's arm discourage us from taking this portion of the scene liter-
ally, so to speak. It's as though the angel and Christ are simply sutured
together, without regard to any credible dramatic or "actional" relation
between them.
Now, the juxtaposition in question-roughly speaking, of movement
and stillness-is emblematic of a fundamental tension in Manet's art,
where it takes a variety of forms. In Olympia (pI. 4) for example, there is a
similar failure of fit between the static, facing figure of the naked courte-
san and the much less stable figure of the black maid, who presents or
rather displays a bouquet wrapped in paper to her mistress, who in turn
pays her not the slightest attention, as a journalist remarked in 1882. 154
(Even if we imagine that a spectator or customer has just appeared on the
threshold of Olympia's bedroom, attracting her attention and that of her
cat, Olympia's pose and gaze resist being read in terms of a momentary
response.) Moreover, the bouquet itself is extremely thinly painted, as if
to reinforce the sense of lack of coordination, of unspecifiable disparity,
between the two figures. (The bouquet is a more conspicuous emblem of
inequality of execution than anything in the principal figure group in the
Dejeuner.)155 The original version of the Episode in a Bullfight with its
dead matador, striding bull, and attendant toreros may have offered a
comparable effect of internal disparity, all the more so in that its highly
problematic treatment of space seems to have had the effect of pitting
foreground and background (in Hector de Calli as's account, foreground,
middle distance, and background) against one another. 156 Finally, the
Balcony (pI. 8) from the end of the 1860s juxtaposes the darkly hand-
some, strongly gazing, and, partly for that reason, vividly "present" seated
figure of Berthe Morisot with the much less assertively rendered (Georges
Bataille's term is "atonic") standing figures of Antoine Guillemet and
Fanny Claus,157 both of whom seem in actual or imminent motion , but of
what sort and to what end? (The deliberate minimizing of Guillemet's
and Klaus's gazes-also the mutual divergence of all three gazes-recall
similar tactics in the Old Musician.) The tiny dog at Morisot's feet pre-
sents a further challenge to accepted norms of artistic competence; even
today it may be felt to ask too much of the most sympathetic viewer. And
the small tricolor ball at the bottom of the canvas is, as Fran<;oise Cachin
says, "at the same time a patch of color, an ironic period to Morisot's
grave presence, and a tribute to the passing moment" 158-which is to say
that it too takes part in the tension between movement and stillness that
threatens to divide the painting from within. (How, we may ask, does
all this bear on the impression of instantaneousness of perception that
Duranty attributed to the Balcony? It might be argued that a rapid glance
at an actual scene could focus at most on a single figure, in this case Berthe
Morisot, leaving the rest comparatively unresolved. That would be a "re-
alist" or proto- "impressionist" reading of the aspects of the Balcony I
have been describing. But by now it should be clear that they are far too
extreme and unsystematic to be rationalized in that way.)
A related form of internal disparity is the contrast in Manet's art be-
tween a static figure or figure-group, typically representing figures the
"originals" of whom one feels to have posed for the painter, and the
seemingly rapid, quasi-improvisational paint handling with which that
figure or figure-group has been depicted. More broadly, the contrast is
between the implied stillness of a given motif and the apparent speed of
the brushwork. The awareness, conscious or subliminal, of such a con-
trast produces a "moment" (of indefinite duration) of cognitive disso-
nance that Manet's critics found disorienting and that is by no means
simple to conceptualize. May we say provisionally that the effect is of a
kind of freezing, both on the level of execution, the rapidity of which is at
odds with the static forms it describes, and that of the motif, the stillness
of which is made to seem conspicuous, even in a sense obtrusive, by the
speed of the paint handling? Sometimes the situation is even more com-
plex than such a formulation suggests. Consider two small but significant
motifs in the Dejeuner that by virtue of subject matter and placement in-
vite being seen in relation to one another: the meticulously rendered bull-
32 0 Chapter Four
Figure lSI. Edouard Manet, Le Dijeuner sur l'herbe, 1862-63, detail of bullfinch.
finch in flight at the upper center (fig. 151) and the loosely brushed frog
at the lower left (fig. 152).159 In obvious respects, both emblematize
"speed" -in the first case, speed of seeing, capable of freezing the bird
visually in flight, and, in the second, speed of rendering, expressed in the
dashing, calligraphic brushwork. But the distinction isn't absolute: to
capture the bird in its fullness of detail in the moment of vision would
require an even greater speed of execution than would calligraphically de-
picting the squatting frog, while seeing the frog in a way that would
match or motivate the rapidity of the brushwork with which it has been
painted would require a preternaturally fast or rather fleeting act of vision
as well. In the end one can only say that the bullfinch and the frog may be
understood as two mutually complementary emblems of speed or instan-
taneousness or freezingness in painting, but that the terms of that comple-
mentarity cannot be reduced to or stabilized as an opposition between
eye and hand; rather, each motif implies a different and equally hyper-
bolic concatenation of the two. Put slightly differently, the juxtaposition
of the two motifs in the Dijeuner insists on the mutual entanglement of
eye and hand, seeing and rendering, as against any clear-cut distinction
between them. This will be pertinent to the brief discussion of Manet's
Self-Portrait with a Palette in chapter 5, and it also should be borne in
Figure 152. Edouard Manet, Le Dijeuner sur l'herbe, 1862-63, detail offrog.
mind when reading the sentence in Mallarme's "Edouard Manet" (one of

the epigraphs to this book) in which he recalls Manet saying" 'The eye, a
hand .. .''' 16°-the ellipsis perhaps implying that the connection be-
tween the two remained mysterious even to the painter.
Contrast or opposition between stillness and speed is also brilliantly
thematized in one of Manet's most original works of the first half of the
1860s, View of a Race in the Bois de Boulogne (1864).161 The canvas it-
self no longer exists; after exhibiting it at Martinet's in 1865 (if in fact it
was not among several works Manet withdrew at the last moment), he
soon cut it into pieces of which only two survive. Fortunately we have a
highly finished watercolor of the entire composition, usually called Races
at Longchamps (pI. 15), which may be taken as indicating the principal
features of the oil painting. Those features include unusual proportions-
Reff has estimated that the original painting measured about two and
one-half feet high by six and one-half feet wide-and a daring division of
the composition into two roughly equal halves, that on the left compris-
ing a view of the grandstand full of spectators and that on the right offer-
ing a vista down the racetrack where, in the middle distance, six horses
gallop directly toward the viewer. What is more, Manet exploited the di-
vision to juxtapose two fundamentally different modes of execution, the
- ..,~.
:: ! . ~
.. \
3 22 Chapter Four
first, descriptive of the spectators, relatively careful and deliberate, the

second, rendering the horses and their riders, extremely rapid and sketchy.
(The two halves of Races at Longchamps thus thematize the difference in
execution we have been discussing more systematically or mimetically
than the bird and frog in the Dijeuner: deliberateness is aligned with still-
ness, sketchiness with speed, whereas in the Dijeuner it was the other way
round. At the same time, the starkness of the opposition between the two
halves of the painting gives that difference in execution a perspicuousness
that goes far beyond anything in Manet's previous work.)
The overall impression is that most of the spectators are looking away
from the viewer up the track (several carriages in the left foreground and
middle distance have been depicted largely from behind). Typically, how-
ever, Manet has minimized one's sense of the spectators as engrossed in
the spectacle by focusing primarily on a small group of fashionable fig-
ures in the middle foreground-two women with umbrellas and a man in
a top hat-who bear a different, not quite specifiable, relation to the
scene as a whole. In particular the woman nearest us seems detached from
the race itself (her face, turned toward us, is featureless, though of course
it would not have been in the finished oil), as does the mounted horseman
in profile over toward the left, who, we feel, could not see the race from
where he sits even if he wished to do so. One might think that the central
figures would moderate the abruptness of the disjunction between the
two halves of the pictorial field, but that isn't the case; rather, they exacer-
bate it by focusing attention on the zone of suture as well as by declining
to take part in an absorptive dynamics that could at least have unified the
audience of spectators in something like psychological terms. This sug-
gests that what would perhaps have been most difficult about the View of
a Race for contemporary audiences would not have been the impression
that the horses were thundering directly toward the beholder, or the bold-
ness with which the composition was divided, or even the starkness of the
distinction between different modes of execution, so much as the painter's
refusal to allow the two halves of the composition to simply contrast with
one another, that is, to fit together without a certain obdurate, unsub-
sum able, in that respect unintelligible remainder.162 A further operator
of that refusal in the watercolor is the upright distance marker topped
with an open circle just to the right of the center of the composition. Not
only does the circle (which rises just above the curving hillside in the dis-
tance and so is silhouetted against the sky) magnetically attract the
viewer's gaze, drawing it away from both the onrushing horses and the
mass of spectators; it also might be said, without stretching the facts, to

gaze back at the viewer, which is to say that it plays an equivalent role to
that of the deadpan facing gaze of Victorine Meurent in the Dijeuner and
Olympia. Indeed in its emptiness and abstractness it may be the purest
emblem in Manet's art of a face or an eye that, for all its liveness of ad-
dress, lacks the merest hint of a psychology, of subjective "depth" (d. the
featureless face of the nearest woman). ':. Nothing in the finished painting
would have been more striking than that circle, the eccentric force of
which possibly exceeded Manet's calculations. At any rate, in the narrow-
focus version in oils of the Races at Longchamps that Manet painted
around I 8 67 (fig. I 54), he not only broughtthe horses and jockeys much
nearer the viewer, he also lowered the marker and circle, thereby dimin-
ishing their allure. 163
A more general expression of the contrast or opposition between stillness

and speed in Manet's art concerns the relation of his painting to photo-
graphy on the one hand and to Japanese ukiyo-e woodblock prints on the
other. As regards the first of these, Manet undoubtedly made use of pho-
tographs to supplement or take the place of working from the live model
in at least a few paintings of the I86os. So for example Sandblad, Aaron
Scharf, Boime, Wilson-Bareau, and others have stressed his reliance, in
the course of working on the Execution of Maximilian, on photographs
of Maximilian, his generals Mejia and Miramon, and members of the fir-
ing squad that performed the execution. 164 More recently, Elizabeth
Anne McCauley in her study of A.-A.-E. Disderi has shown the likelihood
that Manet's paintings of Mariano Camprubi and his troupe of Spanish
dancers who performed at the Hippodrome in August I 862 were based in
part on carte de vi site portrait photographs of the dancers, and has ar-
gued that other cartes of women in the dress of Spanish bulfighters were
"Two other such emblems in Manet's art come to mind. First, the hovering "eye" in the lower of
the two peacock feathers that, wedged behind the frame containing several prints at the upper
right of Manet's Portrait of Emile Zola, arch directly over Zola's head. As Reff has remarked,
the feathers can more readily be seen in old photographs of the picture (fig. 153) than in the
latter in its present state ("Manet's Portrait of Zola," Burlington Magazine 117 [Jan. I975l:
43). Reffhas also suggested that the feathers represent "a modern version of the crowning of the
triumphant poet" (pp. 43-44). Whether or not this was Manet's intention, the "eye" in the
feather may be seen as looking at the viewer, unlike the figure of Zola, whose abstracted, off·
canvas gaze was felt to be unreadable.
A second, more complex instance is that of the sunflower at the upper right of Le Linge
(1876; fig. 188), a motif that connotes gazing at, hence stands for, the sun, source of daylight
and therefore, indirectly, of both vision and painting (see coda, fn.).
Chapter Four
among Manet's sources for Mile V. .. in the Costume of an Espada. 165

(Actually she goes further, claiming that in view of such sources "there is
no need to posit the influence of Raimondi prints or popular images on
this figure, as Beatrice Farwell and others have done." 166 There is every
Figure 1 5 3. Edouard Manet, Portrait of Emile Zola, 1868, early photograph showing ostrich
feathers clearly.
Figure 154. Edouard Manet, Races at Longchamps, 1867.
need to do so, for reasons that don't call for reiteration.) In addition, Far-
well, Gerald Needham, and McCauley have drawn attention to certain
obvious affinities between the depiction of Victorine Meurent in the De-
jeuner sur therbe and Olympia and the pose and lighting in various pho-
tographic studies of nudes of the I8 5os and I 8 60S. 167 In fact Farwell has
published a group of photographs taken in I 8 5 2- 53 of a young woman
in various stages of undress whom she identifies as the youthful Meurent,
which would make Manet's favorite model of the early I860s a photo-
graphic model as well, and has suggested that Olympia in particular may
partly have been based on a photograph that no longer survives. 168 (Cf.
Jean Clay on Olympia: "In some way, what [Manet] painted was not Vic-
torine Meurent but her photograph, not her image but a reproduction of
it-in accordance with the code for pornographic albums of the pe-
riod.") 169 But more important than Manet's use of specific photographic
images or, in Olympia, his adaptation of various conventions of porno-
graphic or near-pornographic photography is what Farwell and others
have seen as his deliberate exploitation in a number of paintings of the
I 860s of certain broadly photographic effects, above all, first, the con-
temporary photograph's emphasis on abrupt contrasts between areas of
light and shadow with a consequent suppression of half-tones and inte-
rior modeling, 170 and second, the impression the carte de visite inescapa-
bly conveyed that the sitter knowingly posed for the photographer. (By
the early I 860s exposure times for the portrait photograph were down to
a few seconds, but that was long enough to rule out all spontaneous facial
Chapter Four
expression and to require the sitter to make an effort not to move; Disderi
and other operators employed chairs equipped with headrests to help
their clients hold still.)171 As Disderi recognized, a highly problematic
consciousness of being beheld was thus inescapably inscribed within the
contemporary photograph,l72 which is to say that Manet's engagement
with the photograph was, also inescapably, an engagement with its par-
ticular mode of theatricality.
As for Manet's involvement with Japanese woodblocks, exact informa-
tion has proven hard to come by. Owing largely to Sandblad, it is now
recognized that Japanese woodblocks and other art objects began to en-
ter Paris in the mid-I 8 50S, ~nd that Manet, Fantin, Whistler, Tissot, Degas,
Astruc, Burty, and Chesneau were among the earliest enthusiasts for
them. 173 Sandblad also argued that Manet's interest in the woodblocks'
"simplified form, concentration on surfaces, completely undifferentiated
areas of color, and circumscribing contours" made its first appearance in
some of the faces in the Music in the Tuileries and quickly became a major
factor in works such as the Street Singer, Dijeuner sur l'herbe, Mlle V. ..
in the Costume of an Espada, Olympia, and Episode in a Bullfight. 174
(Recall my claim in chapters I and 2 that Manet began to acknowledge
Japanese art, as distinct from simply make use of it, only after the Exposi-
tion Universelle of I867, in which Japan was strongly represented. The
Portrait of Emile Zola-with its conjunction of a Japanese woodblock,
an etching or lithograph of Velasquez's Drinkers, and an etching or pho-
tograph of Olympia within a frame in the upper right-hand portion of the
picture-set a seal on that development.) Except for the image in the Zola,
which has been identified as a portrait of a sumo wrestler by Kuniaki
11,175 we don't know which particular woodblocks Manet most admired,
but it seems likely that he was impressed by the many prints that portray
the actors, famous beauties, courtesans, wrestlers, and other types who
peopled the pleasure quarter (or "floating world," ukiyo-e) of eighteenth-
and nineteenth-century Edo (modern Tokyo), a realm, as Stephen Melville
has noted, that itself was quintessentially theatrical. Indeed in wood-
blocks by Sharaku and others of actors in their roles the already height-
ened theatricality of Kabuki is further intensified to a degree that in the
West could only be described as caricatural. 176 Inasmuch as theatricality
implies awareness of being beheld, we might say that the exaggerated, gri-
macing facial expressions and elaborate surface patterning and detailing
of the ukiyo-e woodblock and the sense of a pose being held in the con-
spicuously inexpressive and generally "inartistic" carte de vi site photo-
graph have something basic in common across the obvious differences

between the two classes of artifacts. 177 But there is more than that to the
relation between contemporary photography and Japanese woodblocks
in Manet's art.
I suggest that in Manet's paintings of the first half of the I 860s photo-
graphy and Japanese woodblocks interpret one another. More precisely, I
suggest that they may be seen as analogous to one another not just as
kinds of images but as technologies, and that on the strength of that anal-
ogy each became the vehicle of the other's pertinence to and utilization
within his art. What does this mean? It means that for all intents and pur-
poses Manet imagined photographs-which in the early I860s visibly
bore the marks of a certain constitutive duration (i.e. stillness, heldness)
-to have been produced as if instantaneously, in a flash or rather by a
blow, a single powerful woodblock-like impression. (In fact a multicolor
woodblock required separate impressions for different color areas. But
the conviction the finished work gives rise to is of a single act of stamping
out.)178 Conversely, it means that for all intents and purposes Manet
imagined the woodblock's continuous contours and clearly demarcated
zones of strong, mostly ungraded color to be not just equivalent to but so
to speak a version of the simplified" drawing" and abrupt light-dark zon-
ing of the contemporary photograph. This is why those features of his
works of the first half of the I860s that seem most woodblock-like-
in Olympia, for example, the sharply contoured areas of unmodulated
color-also seem most photographic: for all their coloristic intensity, the
areas in question are first and foremost contrasted as regards light and
dark, so much so that the dark brown face of the maid all but disappears
into the dark green curtains behind her at the same time as her bright pink
gown and the white paper around the bouquet threaten to come detached
from her face and hand and to meld spatially with the figure of Olympia
and the shawl on which she lies. This is also why the shock of red brown
hair to the right of Olympia's head that T. J. Clark was the first to draw
attention to is so difficult to see and, once seen, to keep in focus. 179 (Note
by the way that fully as much as the absence of half-tones it's the extreme
value contrast between adjacent areas in the Olympia that provokes the
view that the two figures are flat: the silhouette of the maid's hand and
fingers seems paper-thin. Here as elsewhere in this book I have resisted
construing "flatness" as a primary aim of Manet's procedures.) More im-
portant, imagining Japanese woodblocks as virtual photographs carried
with it the extraordinary suggestion that the act of imprinting by which
32 8 Chapter Four
they were produced was in crucial respects the work of reality itself: as
though only reality could have been fully adequate to the strikingness
Manet sought, that is, could have stamped itself out (and in, compelling
conviction) with sufficient force to make up for the sacrifice of the "exces-
sive" effects of absorption that were the pictural matrix-the source of
the strikingness-of the art of other members of the generation of I 863. ':.
(Cf. Stanley Cavell: "Painting, in Manet, was forced to forgo likeness ex-
actly because of its own obsession with reality, because the illusions it had
learned to create did not provide the conviction in reality, the connection
with reality, that it craved." 180 The temporary recovery of both in a new
form stares boldly from the Portrait of Victorine Meurent [fig. 126], a
work that encapsulates Manet's involvement with photography and Jap-
anese art.) In sum, it was by reconceiving the contemporary portrait pho-
tograph as a special sort of color woodblock that Manet was able to
reconcile the former with his pursuit of the instantaneous and the strik-
ing, just as it was by reconceiving the Japanese color woodblock as a spe-
cial sort of photograph that he was able to make it serve his fundamental,
generational, commitment to pictorial realism. (Mary Cassatt's "Japa-
nese" color prints of I890-9I show that neither connection was inevi-
table.1 81 The same might be said about various Bracquemond etchings
of the I860s.) Nothing better illustrates the particular historicity of
*The phrase between parentheses is taken from the first paragraph of my essay "Shape as Form:
Frank Stella's New Paintings" (originally published in Artforum in 1966), in Henry Geldzahler,
ed., New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970 (New York, 1969), p. 403. The essay opens
as follows:
Frank Stella's new paintings investigate the viability of shape as such. By shape as such I
mean not merely the silhouette of the support (which I shall call literal shape), not merely that
of the outlines of elements in a given picture (which I shall call depicted shape), but shape as a
medium within which choices about both literal and depicted shapes are made, and made
mutually responsive. And by the viability of shape, I mean its power to hold, to stamp itself
out, and in-as verisimilitude and narrative and symbolism used to impress themselves-
compelling conviction. Stella's undertaking in these paintings is therapeutic: to restore shape
to health, at least temporarily, though of course its implied "sickness" is simply the other face
Of the unprecedented importance shape has assumed in the finest Modernist painting of the
past several years-most notably, in the work of Kenneth Noland and Jules Olitski.
I recycle my earlier language in the present context not just to dramatize what I take to be a
shared concern with stamping (out and in) on the part of "advanced" painters of the I 8 60S and
the 1960s but also by way of suggesting that the topos of "conviction" as I have repeatedly
invoked it in my writings on abstract painting and sculpture bears an affiliation with the same
network of concepts (e.g. strikingness, facingness, character, etc.) I have been exploring in this
book. lowe to Stephen Melville the recognition that that network in turn belongs to what Phi-
lippe Lacoue-Labarthe has characterized as an "onto-typological" perspective (see Lacoue-
Labarthe, "Typography," in Typography: Mimesis, Philosophy, Politics, trans. Christopher
Manet's endeavor in the first half of the I 860s than its dependence on
the altogether contingent availability-as well as the equally contingent
combinability-of those two "foreign" representational technologies. 182
Some additional aspects of the complementary relation of his paintings
to photography and Japanese woodblocks should be noted. First, the
resulting emphasis not just on light-dark contrast but on the seeming in-
stantaneousness of the production of that contrast gave Manet's paint-
ings an assaultive force far beyond anything else in the art of his time.
Thus Castagnary could write of Manet's Young Man in the Costume of a
Majo (I 863; fig. I 5 5) in the Refuses (not a painting we would consider
among his most aggressive) that "the system of coloring by black and
white wounds my eyes," 183 while Gautier fils, who was not unapprecia-
tive of Manet's gifts, observed that the same picture was "treated by a
vigorous hand guiding a brush enraged with contrasts, but which tends
to forget that there is in nature something other than black and white." 184
Similarly, Adrien Paul wrote apropos the Episode in a Bullfight of I864,
"It's solid painting, if you like, but with lights and darks that clash bru-
tally," and went on to say, "Manet's Spanish paintings don't just attract
attention, they seize it by force; one feels oneself stopped as at some corner
of a wood [i.e. by a highwayman], and one comes back stripped bare."185
The conjunction of the two statements is not fortuitous: more than any
Fynsk, with an introduction by Jacques Derrida [Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1989],
pp. 47f£.). See too Lacoue-Labarthe's Musica ficta (Figures de Wagner) (Paris, 1991), esp. chaps.
I and 2, on Baudelaire and Mallarme respectively, in which the issue of theatricality (and ap-
ropos Mallarme, of a nontheatrical theater [po 141]) also comes to the fore. "I forged [the term
onto-typology] in 'Typography,' on the model of the Heideggerian philosopheme 'onto-
theology,' to designate the ontology that subtends both the most ancient reflection on mimesis
and the modern reflection on shape (Gestalt [figure in French, which also means "face"]) that
stems from it," Lacoue-Labarthe writes in that book (p. 122, n. 42, trans!' mine). Against that
"onto-typological" concept of "mimesis" Lacoue-Labarthe evokes a different, "pre-originary"
"mimesis" whose effects are abyssal and radically destabilizing (Derrida speaks of the subject's
"desistance" under its impact ["Introduction: Desistance," in Lacoue-Labarthe, Typography,
pp. 1-42]) but which need not concern us here, though there is a sense in which the explicitly
antispecular reading of Courbet's Realism developed in my book on Courbet is on the side of
"mimesis" in the second sense of the term. (In Courbet's Realism I characterize that reading as
"nonmimetic" [po 277, emphasis added] on the basis of a specular understanding of "mimesis"
as "mere" imitation; these are difficult matters but see Melville's review of Courbet's Realism,
"Compelling Acts, Haunting Convictions," I I6-22). It was Melville too who drew my atten-
tion to the rapport between my account of Manet's and his cogenerationists' preoccupation
with strikingness and facingness and the language of my opening paragraph on Stella's eccen-
tric polygons, in an unpublished paper, "Postface: The Interests of Modernist Painting," a com-
mentary on my "Manet in His Generation: The Face of Painting in the 1860s," written for a
symposium on modernism at UCLA organized by the late Joseph Riddel in April 1992 and
subsequently published in Critical Inquiry 19 (autumn 1992): 22-69.
Figure 155. Edouard Manet, Young Man in the Costume of a Majo, 1863.
other formal or stylistic feature of Manet's paintings of the 1 860s it was

the unprecedented "instantaneization" of contrasting values, colors,
lines, and contours that compelled the attention of contemporary viewers
even as they experienced it as an act of sheerest aggression. I have already
quoted the Bourgeois de Paris in 1863 on the way Manet's color pierced
the eye like a steel saw and his figures circumscribed themselves as if cut
out by a jigsaw. In 1865 Geronte, in the course of heaping derision on
Olympia and Christ Mocked, wrote: "His color of sour grapes, harsh and
acid, penetrates the eye like the saw of a surgeon penetrating flesh." 186
In the words of another critic, Felix Deriege, on Olympia, which he de-
tested: "The white, black, red, and green create a frightful racket in this
canvas; the woman, the negress, the bouquet, the cat, all the confusion
of disparate colors, of impossible forms, seizes the gaze and stupefies
you." 1871t was of course Olympia that provoked the harshest reaction on
the part of the public, leading Alfred Sensier (writing under the nom de
plume Jean Ravenel) to call it "the scapegoat of the Salon, the victim of
Parisian lynch law. Each passerby takes his stone and throws it in her
face."188 Two years later the image was adapted by Zola, who imagined
seeing a troop of urchins throwing stones at Manet while the police (the
critics) not only didn't try to stop them but themselves joined in. 189 But
Sensier, more than Zola, recognized that the violence directed at the
painting from without was the reflection of an act of violence it was the
first to commit. Almost in the same breath he continued, "Armed insur-
rection in the camp of the bourgeois: it's a glass of ice water that each
visitor gets in the face when he sees blooming before him the BEAUTIFUL
courtisan." 190 Sensier's metaphor of an exchange of insults to the face
confirms the importance of the dual problematics of faciality and strik-
ingness we have been tracking, just as the responses of the other critics I
have cited suggests that what may have been most offensive about Olym-
pia was the way in which its self-possessed protagonist could be seen as
personifying effects that were not essentially a function of its subject. (For
Paul Mantz writing in 1884 the "cruelty" and "brutality" of Manet's
paintings of the 1 860s was still a live issue.)191
A second point worth stressing is that contrast and opposition were
the traditional resources of pictorial drama, and that their mobilization
in the Dejeuner, Young Man in the Costume ofa Majo, Olympia, Episode
in a Bullfight, and Angels at the Tomb of Christ, to mention only those
works, marks a return, on the plane of "form" rather than that of subject
matter and mise-en-scene, to the valorization of drama that took place in
33 2 Chapter Four
David's history paintings of the I780s.192 Earlier in this section I said

something similar apropos Manet's pursuit of instantaneousness via un-
intelligibility (which however did involve considerations of subject matter
and mise-en-scene), and what I now want to suggest is that the "instan-
taneization" of contrast in his most characteristic pictures of the first half
of the I 8 60S was perceived by certain critics as going too far in the direc-
tion of dramatic intensity. So for example Mantz, reviewing Manet's one-
man show at Martinet's in April I863, complained that after having
made a promising start with his Guitarrero in the Salon of I 86I, "Manet
with his instinctive bravery has entered the domain of the impossible."
He went on:
We absolutely refuse to follow him there. All form is lost in his large portraits of
women, especially in that of the Street Singer [pI. 7 J, where, by a singularity
that profoundly troubles us, the eyebrows renounce their horizontal position to
place themselves vertically on both sides of the nose, like two shadowy
commas; there is in that picture only the the discordant struggle of chalky tones
with black tones. The effect is livid, hard, sinister. At other times, when Manet
is in a happy humor, he paints the Music in the Tuileries, Spanish Ballet, or
Lola de Valence, that is to say paintings that reveal that he has abundant
strength but which, in their motley of red, blue, yellow, and black, are the cari-
cature of color and not color itself193
Later the same month Saint-Victor wrote of Manet's exhibition:
Imagine Goya transferred to Mexico, gone wild in the middle of the pampas,
and smearing canvases with crushed cochineal and you will have Manet, the
latest realist. His paintings in the exhibition on the boulevard des Italiens are
charivaris of the palette; no one has ever more horribly made lines grimace or
tones howl. His Toreros would frighten Spanish cows; his Smugglers [the Gyp-
sies J would only have to show itself to make the most intrepid customs officers
flee before it; his Music in the Tuileries flays the eyes as fairground music makes
the ear bleed. And yet there is a certain talent in these incoherent pochades, but
we doubt whether Manet will ever apply himself to refining it. 194
In the Diderotian and Davidian lexicon both "caricature" and "grimace"

were explicitly theatrical pejoratives, and the use of them by critics with
grave objections to Manet's art invokes a set of values that, translated into
the context of the I860s, could not have been more apt.195
Third, not all of Manet's paintings of the I 860s or even of the first half
of the I860s bear the complementary relation to photography and Japa-
nese prints that I have just described. In particular the Christ Mocked (fig.
53), exhibited along with Olympia in I 865, is in various respects the

most straightforwardly photographic of all his works, but there is not a
trace in it of interest in Japanese woodblocks. Consequently the photo-
graphic elements in the painting-the enlarged scale of the kneeling sol-
dier in the left foreground, the uncharacteristically unified mise-en-scene
of the composition as a whole, the sense that the originals of all the figures
were actual persons dressed in makeshift costumes and holding poses in
the artist's or photographer's studio (the model for Christ was recognized
to be one Janvier, a 10cksmith),196 and a particularly revealing detail, the
embarrassingly contemporary character of Christ's overlarge feet, which
the critic Leroy correctly recognized show unmistakable signs of having
worn modern shoes 197-are all the more obtrusive and disturbing for not
being subsumed in the sort of highly contrastive and instantaneously
striking (also internally disparate) pictorial gestalt that I have associated
with Manet's great paintings of the period. Indeed it is in the Christ
Mocked that Manet goes farthest toward seeking to create (or re-create: I
am thinking of its relation to its sources in earlier painting) an essentially
absorptive multifigure composition; Christ's pathetic, upward-turned
gaze is like nothing else in Manet's oeuvre, and even the soldier at the
right who gazes directly out of the picture seems on the brink of making
the kind of psychological connection with the viewer that the artist is usu-
ally at pains to avoid. This suggests that the amalgam of photography and
Japanese woodblocks which we have seen at work in Olympia and other
paintings of the first half of the I860s had become unstable-more
broadly, that Manet's art was in disequilibrium even before his visit to
Madrid in the aftermath of the Salon of I 865.
Not that encountering Velasquez's masterpieces in Madrid resolved his
problems. On the contrary, I see Manet's single-figure paintings of the
next two years-his attempts to "enlarge the morceau to become the
oeuvre/' as Astruc had Diderot put it in I867-as marking a falling off
from the two-or-more-figure compositions of the first half of the I860s,
largely because the unitary nature of the later works, with their neutral,
aspatial backgrounds (adapted from Velasquez's Pablo de Vallodolid),
gave him only limited opportunity to develop formal equivalents for the
internal tension between stillness and rapidity (to mention only that) that
had structured his most ambitious works of the previous five years. The
problem is particularly evident in the three Philosophers of I865-67, in
which a double involvement with Velasquez and photography (but not
Japanese woodblocks) locates the work of the brush on the side of stillness
334 Chapter Four
-even, in a sense, of darkness, contrast itself being kept to a minimum.

Indeed the protagonist of the Philosopher (with Beret) (1865; fig. 156)
not the only peers narrowly at the viewer but also holds out his open
right hand as if asking for alms, producing an overly literal effect of con-
frontation that I see as analogous to the conventionally photographic,
hence "wrongly" theatrical, character of the Christ Mocked. (Judging
from the heavily reworked paint, Manet had trouble with the hand, per-
haps because the uniformly "slow" or still character of the picture as a
whole didn't quite allow it to become the token of instantaneousness of
execution and refusal of closure that hands in Manet mainly are. In fact
the hands in the Philosopher (with Beret) bear unmistakable traces of
fingernails!) In the Fifer (fig. 57) Manet took an exactly opposite ap-
proach, bringing together Velasquez with Japanese prints in a work that is
nothing if not instantaneous in its mode of self-presentation. The result is
dazzling, virtuosic, one of Manet's most brilliant performances, but for
me at least the brilliance verges on excess (to use a loaded word) and the
painting as a whole perhaps assumes too much the character of a trium-
phant demonstration (need I add that this is an intensely subjective judg-
ment and that it recklessly ignores the fact that only Zola and a handful of
other viewers saw the Fifer's merit at the time?). In my eyes, the most suc-
cessful painting of those years is the Woman with a Parrot (fig. 56), in
which the interplay between the figure of the woman raising a small
bunch of violets to her face with her right hand and the parrot stand and
parrot to her side allows a certain contrast between the methodicalness of
the rendering of the latter-despite some awkwardness in the spatial rela-
tions among the horizontal perches-and the more fluid, ebauche-like
handling of the woman's pink peignoir. (As if that contrast or disparity
makes up for what Thon~ saw as Manet's failure to sufficiently finish parts
of his painting "in order to give the ensemble its effective value.") Note,
by the way, how the woman's gesture directs the viewer's attention to her
face and so can be seen as insisting on the portrait character of the picture
as a whole. As such, it harks back to similar hand-to-face gestures in ear-
lier paintings, notably those of Victorine Meurent in the Street Singer and
Dejeuner sur l'herbe, and underscores my claim that Astruc's theoriza-
tion of the portrait in 1868 had special pertinence to Manet's art. The
raised hands in Mlle V. .. in the Costume of an Espada are also to the
point, as are those in a later canvas that is almost a reprise of the Mlle
V. .. , the marvelous Nana (1877). (The Fifer too is a hands-to-face af-
335
Figure r 56. Edouard Manet, Philosopher (with Beret), r865.

Chapter Four
fair.) In any case, the period between Manet's visit to Madrid-or shortly
before-and the later spring and early summer of 1867, when he opened
his one-man exhibition on the avenue d'Alma and began work on the Ex-
ecution of Maximilian, forms a distinct unit within his career.
Finally, the opposition between stillness and speed decisively inflects one
of the most vital but also hardest to conceptualize aspects of Manet's art:
his use of the model. The question of the status of the model had been
raised by Diderot as early as the 1750S and 1760s and was in a sense unre-
solvable within the framework of his thought. 198 On the one hand, the
commitment of the Diderotian tradition to values associated with veri-
similitude placed the model on the side of nature as a seemingly indis-
pensable support; on the other, that the role of the model was chiefly to
hold a stationary pose under the eye of the artist for long periods of time
aligned the model with theatricality, that is, with the very qualities that
the tradition was committed to abolishing. (Diderot himself was impla-
cable on this.) With the emergence of various realisms around the middle
of the nineteenth century, not to mention the development of photogra-
phy, the problem of the model became more pressing, until by the I 860s it
loomed as critical. 199 The discussion in the previous chapter of the work
of Manet's cogenerationists bears closely on the topic. In particular the
growing importance attached to the portrait as a sort of master genre jus-
tified installing a certain relation to the model or sitter at the heart of the
pictorial enterprise even as it offered the painter two main options: to ab-
sorb his sitters in reading, listening, writing, drawing, knitting, weaving,
and so forth, which is to say to attempt to maintain the ontological fiction
that they were unaware of being beheld (Fantin's strategy in his most ad-
mired portraits); or to have them face directly out of the painting, taking
advantage of another of the portrait's traditional formats to avert the
charge of theatricality (but recall the uncomprehending response to the
Homage to Delacroix).2oo Legros's Ex-Voto, an exemplary work, opted
squarely for the first choice: no one in 1861 would have doubted that the
figures of the women had been based on actual persons, but the persuasive
evocation of the women's absorption in prayer before a roadside image of
the crucifixion divested them of any taint of having posed for the artist.
May not the need to come to grips with the question of the model, which
threatened to destabilize realist painting from within, partly account for
the continued viability of an absorptive thematics for realist painters and

critics ofthe 1860s?';'
In any case, Manet in his most characteristic works pursued an alto-
gether different strategy with respect to absorption, and therefore with
respect to the model. Indeed I can think of no previous canvases in the
Western tradition, with the exception of various works by Caravaggio,
that direct attention quite so forcefully to a (real or imagined) relation-
ship between the painter, the painting, and the model or models that
served the painter in its making. 201 Nor is this merely a retrospective
view. Contemporary critics frequently commented on Manet's models,
usually with distaste. Moreover, as Manet's most recent biographer has
stressed, his choice of models, especially in the 18 60S, was highly per-
sonal: 202 to begin with he favored Suzanne Leenhoff, his secret fiancee
*Two novels about painters by authors closely linked with the painting of the 1860s make en-
grossing reading in this connection. In a frequently cited chapter in the Goncourts' Manette
Salomon, the authors imagine the title character, a strangely compelling artist's model, assum-
ing various poses before a mirror in the absence of any other beholder (Edmond and Jules de
Goncourt, Manette Salomon [1867; Paris, 1979], pp. 213-15). Although brief, the chapter is
too long to quote in its entirety and too much of a piece to be represented by excerpts; suffice it
to say that the terms in which Manette's activity is described leave no doubt that we are meant
to regard her as an artist, specifically a sort of painter, in her own right. Manette's personal
stake in the solitariness of her image making is spelled out in the chapter's closing sentences
(p. 21 5):
Sometimes, Corio lis [her painter-lover], returning brusquely with his key, surprised her.
He said nothing. But Manette hastily said to him:
"Beast! since there is only the mirror that sees me!"
Quelquefois, Coriolis rentrant brusquement avec sa clef, la surprenait. line disait rien.
Mais Manette se depechait de lui dire:
- Bete! puisqu'il n'y a que la glace qui me voit!
The chapter suggests that one solution to the problem of the model would be to do away with
both painter and painting, or rather to merge painter and model in the single figure of a model
who paints with her own body and to replace the canvas with a psyche, a mirror, in which she
alone could see and admire her work. We might think of this as an alternative to the merging of
painter-beholder, model, and painting in the central group of Courbet's Painter's Studio or in-
deed in his Source, a work exactly contemporary with Manette Salomon (Courbet's Realism,
pp. 155-71). Cf. also my reading of Whistler's Lange Leizen, chap. 3.
A second, rarely cited novel, Philippe Burty's Grave Imprudence (Paris, 1880), also engages
explicitly with the problem of the model. Its protagonist, an "impressionist" painter named
Brissot, comes to feel that landscape isn't enough and that ambitious painting demands the
figure, but soon discovers the difficulty in finding a model "who knew how to provide a true,
healthy, original movement" (pp. 62-63). (Pas un, pas une qui silt donner un mouvement vrai,
sain, original.) This leads him to study the actions of ordinary workers. "But his quality as
'artist' followed him. Whatever they did, in front of him the they weren't nature. He sensed that
he would always be limited to the outer shell, that he would wound his models even as he would
be misunderstood·by the public in representing them as they were" (pp. 65-66). (Mais sa qual-
Chapter Four
(the Surprised Nymph), and Leon Koella, the young boy who is thought
to have been her son either by Manet or by Manet's father (the Boy with
a Sword and the Luncheon in the Studio), then Victorine Meurent, a pro-
fessional model but one who was particularly suited to Manet's unortho-
dox vision (the Portrait of Victorine Meurent, Street Singer, Mile V. .. in
the Costume of an Espada, Dijeuner sur l'herbe, and Olympia),203 his
brothers Eugene and Gustave (the Dijeuner and the Young Man in the
Costume of a Majo), and somewhat later on Berthe Morisot (the Balcony,
Le Repos, several portraits)-the list could be extended. This suggests
that despite the cool, impersonal emotional tenor of Manet's art, his early
works in particular are not devoid of autobiographical resonances
(Darragon is good on these). But it also suggests that the demands Manet
placed on his models were, especially at the outset, best satisfied by per-
ite 'd'artiste' Ie suivait. Quoi qu'on fit, devant lui on n'etait pas nature. II sentit qu'illui faudrait
toujours s'en tenir a I'ecorce, qu'il blesserait ses modeJes autant qu'il sera it peu compris du
public en les representant tels quels.) He concludes "that a sincerely popular art could not be
made except by the people themselves, perhaps in the near future" (p. 66). ([II] conclut ... que
l'art sincerement populaire ne pourra etre ecrit que, dans un jour peut-etre prochain, par Ie
peuple lui-meme.)
But the crucial pair of scenes occurs further on. Brissot becomes infatuated with a countess,
and on one occasion, having arrived too early for a soiree, is seated in one part of a double salon
where he dozes off. When he opens his eyes he sees someone (the countess, but at first she isn't
identified; the entire description is given in "impressionistic" terms) adjusting her toilette be-
fore a mirror in the next room (pp. I 10-I I). Some time later he shows the countess an ebauche
of a woman seen from the rear, her head in profil perdu, which she admires; he explains that the
original of the woman was the countess herself and requests that she take up the same pose so
that he can make the ebauche into a finished painting for the Salon (pp. 239-41). Eventually
she agrees (whereupon the novel abruptly ends), but her ultimate consent to posing matters far
less than the triple remove from all consciousness of being beheld that Burty found it necessary
to build into the initial donnee. As Brissot explains to the countess: "'I painted this ebauche
from memory, one day when I tried to recall the beautiful movements that you made while
arranging your hair, that evening, in your second salon. You didn't know that I was there' "
(pp. 240-41). ("J'ai fait cette ebauche de souvenir, un jour OU je cherchais a me rappeler les
beaux mouvements que vous donniez en arrangeant vos cheveux, Ie soir, dans votre second
salon. Vous ne saviez pas que j'etais la.") In other words, the countess had been unaware of
being beheld (she had been absorbed in her own image in a mirror); Brissot had seen her from
the rear (and at a distance, literally from another room); and he had painted the ebauche from
memory (i.e. in the absence of the countess herself). It is as if nothing less than that concatena-
tion of anti theatrical conditions could suffice to produce an anti theatrical result. And still the
problem of the model remained if the ebauche were to be transformed into a tableau.
A third novel about painting, Zola's L'Oeuvre (1886), also engages with issues of modeling,
as my earlier discussion of Sandoz posing for the seated man in Claude's Plein Air plainly
suggests. Those issues come to a head in the protracted struggle between Claude and Christine,
Claude's model, mistress, and eventually wife, over the female figure in his projected master-
piece, but they are everywhere inflected by concerns peculiar to Zola's personal obsessions and
the thematic demands of the Rougon-Macquart series, and so are too complex to be summariz-
able here.
sons who were already sympathetic with his project. An exhaustive study
of Manet's treatment of the model would make a book in its own right,
but several points are worth stressing:
1. The forcefulness with which Manet's works of the first half of the
1860s asserted the reality of their models may be thought of as a "photo-

graphic" effect, apparently confirming the existence of the paintings' ulti-
mate referent. But it is also clearly a function of the frequency with which
a key figure in those paintings gazes directly out toward the viewer, a fea-
ture I have previously associated with the portrait: as Meyer Schapiro has
noted in his pioneering essay on the semiotics of the image, a basic char-
acteristic of the frontal view is that it is felt to address the viewer, to "in-
terpellate" the latter in an I-you relationship with the facing element
itself. 204 At the same time, as I have remarked more than once, the terms
of that relationship in Manet's art have been left undefined. More pre-
cisely, the notorious blankness or inexpressiveness of the outward gaze in
such paintings as the Old Musician, Dijeuner sur l'herbe, and Olympia
distanced and alienated the beholder even as it was felt to solicit his pres-
ence. Much the same can be said of the figures' gestures, which, divorced
from any intelligible narrative or dramatic context, attracted the be-
holder's attention to themselves with a force that contemporary audi-
ences found disturbing. (The "pointing" gesture of the half-reclining
man in the Dijeuner exemplifies that effect.) Here one might wish to say
that what distinguished Manet's use of models is that he portrayed them
as self-evidently posing before the painter-that his figures' gazes are
blank, their expressions are impassive, and their gestures are unreadable
because those were the gazes, expressions, and gestures of models cos-
tumed or disrobed for the occasion and holding static poses for long ses-
sions in the artist's studio. 205 But this won't do-the obdurate expressive
opacity of his paintings can't be rationalized in these terms. (The atypi-
cality and, to my mind, the relative weakness of the Christ Mocked is not
unrelated to the fact that it can be understood in these terms, or rather as
an attempt to render "photographically" a group of models acting out a
largely absorptive scene.) As Gautier astutely said of Olympia, "it is inex-
plicable from every point of view, even taking it for what it is, a wretched
model stretched out on a sheet.''206 What's astute about his remark is that
it recognizes that, although in a literal sense Olympia was and is a realis-
tic portrayal of a model on a sheet ("wretched" seems a bit harsh), to
settle for that description-to take that as capturing its essence-fails to
acknowledge the painting's perverse allure, its uncanny and disturbing
Chapter Four
power, above all its complex relation to the viewer. (Perhaps Bataille
meant this when in a superb phrase he referred to Manet as "the painter
who introduced disorder into the pose. ")207
2. Much of the strangeness and uncanniness derives from the sense that
in the pictures in question Manet's models have been represented not sim-
ply as posing before the painter but as somehow frozen or immobilized-
we might say petrified, if it were not that the suggestion of stoniness seems
out of place. It's as if the viewer is made conscious of a fundamental ten-
sion or contradiction between the inherent temporality of posing, the held-
ness and stillness it implies, and the rapidity or instantaneousness of visu-
alization and execution that Manet's contemporaries came increasingly
-not without reason-to regard as his ideal. (Again, the Christ Mocked
is the exception that helps disclose the rule.) Fascinatingly, a version of
that tension or contradiction was registered as a problem by Philippe
Burty in 1870:
There is one reproach that is leveled at this very militant and very convinced
artist every year: it's that he works too fast. Nothing could be more false.
His painting isn't made for the crowd. Manet proceeds by partis pris that are
too willed for his system to be, I don't say admissible, but easily comprehen-
sible.
Doing everything possible to translate the external sensation received by the
eyes when his gaze is thrown on an individual, a flower, a drapery, a piece of
furniture, he seems to stop at the stage of the esquisse. I know however that he
poses his models for several sessions, several weeks, even several months. But
the result sometimes appears too hastyJo8
Burty wasn't exaggerating. We know, for example, that both Antoine

Guillemet and Fanny Claus became exhausted from posing repeatedly for
their portraits in the Balcony,209 even though the portraits themselves
give no hint of the effort that went into their making. (Mallarme attri-
buted to Manet's eye the ability to preserve "the immediate freshness of
the encounter, in the claws of a laughing look, to treat as nothing, in the
pose, the fatigue of the twentieth session. ")210 In the same "Salon," how-
ever, Burty detected in Fantin's An Atelier in the Batignolles (1870; fig.
157), a group portrait centered on Manet and including the future Im-
pressionists, "a certain hollowness in the ensemble. Those friends have a
somewhat embarrassed air. Each one is preoccupied by his own thoughts,
and no general conversation justifies this almost fortuitous reunion. One
is too aware that Fantin summoned them, one after the other, to come and
take their place in the painting. "211 For Burty, in other words, not only
Manet in His Generation 34 I
did Fantin's picture fail to compose an absorptive unity (no general con-
versation); the characteristic meticulousness of its execution was also at
the farthest pole from Manet's rapid technique, with the result that the
Atelier distractingly recalled the actual, sequential use of individual models
that lay at its core. In contrast, Manet's paintings effectively masked the
truth of their laboriousness, but they did so at the price of producing both
a sense of freezing or immobilization and an impression of haste and
sketchiness that were themselves deeply problematic. The implication of
Burty's remarks would seem to be that the strikingness and instanta-
neousness Manet sought could manifest themselves no other way.
(Fantin's canvas depicts Manet painting a portrait of Astruc, further
testimony to the friendship between painter and critic and perhaps also
to the centrality of the genre of the portrait in their respective projects.
The other personages in the room are Monet, Renoir, Bazille, Zola, and
Figure 157. Henri Fantin-Latour, An Atelier in the Batignolles, 1870.

34 2 Chapter Four
the musician Edmond Maitre, all younger men, and Otto Scholderer, a
former student with Fantin under Lecoq. The Atelier thus may be seen as
an ideal image of a desired continuity between artistic generations, with
Manet, Fantin's contemporary, as chef de file.)212
3. The viewer's uneasy awareness of the frozenness of Manet's models'
poses was at least in principle made even more acute by the dynamics of
the derivation of those poses from one or more Old Master paintings. For
one thing, Manet's citations from past art typically involved a radical
shift of thematic context that was tantamount to a freezing or fixing, fol-
lowed by a cutting-out, of a figural or other motif that therefore became
even more definite, more perspicuous as a motif, in Manet's picture than
in the original source. (The Dejeuner, again, is a case in point.) For an-
other, as I have said, apart from his allusions to Velasquez and Goya,
Manet's recyclings of motifs bore no relation to the way his pictures were
actually painted: in that sense too the motifs in question were cut out
from the larger systems of representation to which originally they be-
longed and for which contemporary painters such as Legros, Fantin,
Ribot, Tissot, Puvis de Chavannes, and Moreau actively sought modern
equivalents. (As I've also remarked, the lack of stylistic resonance be-
tween most of Manet's allusions to past art and the art itself helps explain
why those allusions went largely unnoticed. Hence my use of the qualify-
ing phrase "in principle" earlier in this paragraph.) Finally, although the
aim of Manet's tactic of juxtaposing or overlaying multiple citations in a
single work was to totalize across the different national schools, such a
tactic inevitably further emphasized discontinuity, in this case among the
sources themselves rather than between the recycled motifs and their
original thematic or stylistic contexts. Put another way, Manet's unique
sensitivity to what Thon~ called "the analogies and harmonies that bind
together [the different epochs and national schools] in a great unity" pre-
supposed the availability of all previous painting in an imaginary mu-
seum space, one in which the internal temporal sequencing of the various
schools was much less important than the sheerly motivic connections
that could be drawn-that leaped to view, laterally and as it were
instantaneously-between individual works regardless of school or pe-
riod. (These were also Astruc's redites.) The result of Manet's practice of
undisguised quotation was therefore sharply different from Baudelaire's
ideal memory-effect without conscious memory, keeping the past alive in
the present by ruthlessly suppressing all awareness of the past as such. By
Manet's day it was too late for such a project to have the remotest chance
of succeeding: Thon~'s metaphor (for a future art history, but extended by

me to the enterprise of painting) of a Last Judgment implies that the past
was no longer alive, no longer capable by mere connectedness, mere con-
tact, of giving life to the present (hence the obsession of Manet and his
contemporaries with explicitly recycling it in their work). But it also sug-
gests that the task of making such a Judgment, of definitively coming to
terms not just with this or that previous painter or school of painting but
with the history of painting in its entirety, was still to be realized. It was a
task that Manet alone, in my account, took on in his ambitious canvases
of the 18 60S, and the status of the models in those canvases as intermedi-
aries between the Old Master sources from which their poses were largely
taken and the final work is perhaps emblematic of the changed relation to
the past that his art embodies.
4. In the works by Manet we have been discussing as well as in numer-
ous other works throughout his career the ternary relationship painter/
painting/model takes ontological precedence over the binary relationship
painting/beholder. This may seem at odds with my claim at the outset of
this chapter, in the long quotation from Courbet's Realism, that Manet
"found it necessary to establish the beholder's presence abstractly-to
build into the painting the separateness, distancedness, and mutual fac-
ing that had always characterized the painting-beholder relationship in
its traditional, unreconstructed form-in order that the worst conse-
quences of the theatricalizing of that relationship be averted." But in fact
it isn't: my claim at this juncture is simply that one important means by
which that was done involved the assertion of an onto logically prior
three-part relationship that excluded the beholder, or say that forever
separated him from the ostensible scene of representation. Or perhaps,
following on from my argument that in Courbet's work the painter him-
self was defined as the painting's first beholder or painter-beholder, we
may think of the painter of Manet's pictures too as a painter-beholder,
with the stipulation that his aim was not, as it was for Courbet, quasi-
corporeal merger with the painting on which he was working but rather a
more complex relationship involving the painting and the model, both of
which were before his gaze. In contrast, Courbet in the Painter's Studio
(fig. I I 8), his most explicit allegory of his own activity, placed the naked
female model behind the seated painter-beholder and (as we have seen)
rhymed the model visually with both the painter-beholder and the paint-
ing on the easel, making the central group as a whole into a single
"blind," indefinitely expansive unit. Manet's response to Courbet's art,
344 Chapter Four
his reaction against it, can thus be described not only as reversing or liqui-
dating the entire antitheatrical project-addressing or "interpellating"
the beholder rather than seeking to neutralize or negate him-but also as
introducing the model as an active, constructive, though also in a sense
obstructive element in the operation by which this was accomplished. (In
Fantin's Atelier in the Batignolles Manet is shown seated on a chair be-
fore a canvas on an easel with Astruc, posing for him, almost directly to
his left. There is no knowing whether that arrangement accurately repre-
sents Manet's preferred relation to a model or sitter, but it has the effect of
establishing a situation of maximum tension among painter, model or sit-
ter, and canvas.)
Toward the end of the quotation from Courbet's Realism I also sug-
gested that Manet's viewers have always sensed that they have been made
"supererogatory to a situation that ostensibly demanded [their] presence,
as if [their] place before the painting were already occupied by virtue of
the extreme measures that had been taken to stake it out." I think this too
is right, and would now add that among the factors producing that im-
pression is the treatment of the model, who the viewer is made to feel was
present before the painter-the painter-beholder-and by virtue of that
fact is not present to him (another "photographic" effect).213 (In the
Atelier the standing figures of Scholderer and Renoir who look on as
Manet paints and who in that sense may be taken as representing the be-
holder aren't even in a position to see Astruc, or at least not as Manet sees
him.) To the extent that the viewer nevertheless feels summoned by Manet's
figures in the name of the painting, and everything I have said until now
argues for that conclusion, he is faced with an ontological double bind
that cannot easily be resolved. Put slightly differently, Manet's most char-
acteristic paintings insist both on the model's nonpresence and on the
painting's presence to the beholder,214 and what makes the cumulative
effect of that double insistence truly uncanny is that the first insistence is
crucial to the second. ':.
'fIn Painting as an Art, Richard Wollheim claims that Manet's paintings often "present us with
figures characterizable in the same mental terms. They are figures who, at the moment at which
we see them, are turned in upon themselves by some powerful troubling thought: they are fig-
ures who are temporarily preoccupied, figures who have retained and cherish, who cosset, a
secret, to which their thoughts have now reverted. A moment later and the mood may dissipate,
but, until it does, they are absent from the world" (The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts,
1984 [Princeton, 1987], p. 14 I). Wollheim them considers the question of the means by which
Manet achieved this alleged effect and proposes the following answer: "Get the spectator to
imagine someone in the represented space, someone who tries, tries hard, tries importunately,
and fails, to gain the attention of the figure who is represented as there in the space; get the
In the implied mise-en-scene of Manet's valedictory masterpiece, A Bar

at the Folies- Bergere (fig. 145), the top-hatted customer in the mirror
both "is" and "is not" standing before the barmaid: he "is" if we regard
the reflection as veridical, which is to say if we imagine placing ourselves
sufficiently off to the right for the reflection to make geometrical sense; he
"is not" if we stand in the beholder's traditional position directly in front
of the painting, in which case it is we who either" are" the customer in the
mirror or have somehow usurped his place, even if the reflection fails to
record the fact. But then our very access to the reflection of the customer
in the mirror will have become problematic to say the least. A further
complication is that as viewers of the painting we would naturally stand
further back than he appears to do. Not only that, the barmaid in the
mirror appears to be leaning slightly toward the customer, whereas the
"real" barmaid stands more or less erect. All this is well known (it was in
part the basis for Herbert's reading cited earlier in this chapter), and I
raise it here not only because the Bar may thus be seen as making explicit
the double relation to the beholder I have ascribed to Manet's paintings
generally but also because the identification of the customer-the barmaid-
model's "first" beholder-as someone other than the painter suggests
spectator moreover to imagine this spectator from the inside so that, this imaginative entry into
the picture over, it will then be for him as if he had himself experienced some of the tedium,
some of the frustration, some of the sense of rejection, that must attend any attempt to establish
contact with the represented figure-and then the content of the picture will be brought home
to him with clarity and cogency. In other words, Manet's ruse is to introduce a spectator into
the picture, whose bafflement will trickle back into the spectator of the picture as he identifies
with him" (p. 160). (The chapter in which this appears is entitled "The Spectator in the Pic-
ture.")
Wollheim goes on to discuss various aspects of the paintings that lead him to this conclu-
sion, but rather than consider his observations in detail I want to make a few points. First, his
notion that Manet's figures are lost in thought is at odds with the terms in which those figures
were seen by Manet's contemporaries, and of course it is also incompatible with what I have
tried to show was the artist's systematic rejection of absorption. Second, Wollheim's claim that
Manet's paintings spur the viewer to imagine a spectator in the picture with whom the viewer
proceeds to identify is similarly at odds with the critical literature, which repeatedly expresses
frustration in the face of the paintings themselves; their resistance to familiar modes of pictorial
intelligibility, involving far more than simply the psychological opacity or "absence" of the
figures, has been discussed here at length. Nor does Wollheim give weight to the historical prob-
lematic of beholding developed in Absorption and Theatricality and various of my essays on
Courbet (Courbet's Realism had not yet been published), a problematic that presents signifi-
cant difficulties for his views. (In particular it calls into question the very grounds of his distinc-
tion between external and internal spectators.) Finally, I want simply to suggest that the brief
scenario Wollheim provides whereby the imagined spectator tries in vain to establish psycho-
logical contact with Manet's figures may be read as responding to the double logic of (absent)
model and (present) painting I have just adumbrated. See in this connection the brief commen-
tary on Wollheim's views on Manet by Norton Batkin, " ... a presence of absence," Journal of
Aesthetic Education 24 (summer 1990): 14-24.
Chapter Four
that in this final major work Manet in effect painted his own absence
from the ternary relationship on which, I have suggested, his art crucially
depended. To what extent this may be read as acknowledging the gravity
of the illness-syphilis and its complications-that was soon to lead to
his death at fifty-one is of course unfathomable. 215
The Execution of Maximilian
To B R IN G this chapter to a close, I will consider the most ambitious

project of Manet's career. During the summer of r867 he embarked on a
large contemporary history painting, The Execution of Macimilian. 216
The political circumstances surrounding the project have been the focus
of intensive study, and I won't rehearse them in detail here. Suffice it to say
that following the decisive victory of the Republican army over the forces
supporting the Emperor Maximilian, formerly archduke of Austria,
who been placed on the Mexican throne by the imperialistic designs of
Napoleon III, Maximilian along with two of his generals, Tomas Mejia
and Miguel Miram6n, was put to death by a firing squad on June r9,
r867. The first news ofthe event reached Paris onJuly r, just as Napoleon
III was presiding over the prize-giving ceremony of the Exposition Univer-
selle. Because of his involvement in the Mexican situation-not only had
he made Maximilian emperor, he had also subsequently withdrawn the
French military force needed to maintain Maximilian's rule-the event
was deeply embarrassing, and was soon perceived as exposing the adven-
turism and irresponsibility of his foreign policy. Over the next weeks and
months increasingly exact (though also sometimes contradictory) in-
formation about the execution became available, along with a variety
of images, including carte de vi site photographs of the firing squad,
Maximilian, his bullet-pierced coat and vest, the two generals, and even
plausible-seeming but factually inaccurate reconstructions of the execu-
tion itself. Manet apparently began work on the first (Boston) version of
the Execution (r 867; fig. r 5 8) sometime in July; at the start he pictured
the firing squad in guerilla costume, with short jackets, flared trousers,
and sombreros; when it became known that the members of the squad
wore uniforms that closely resembled those of the French army, he at first
tried to make the change in his canvas (for example, by converting the
sombreros into peaked caps), but before long abandoned that version (in
the state in which it has been left it is a true ibauche) and began work on a
second that incorporated the new information from the outset. The
second version-which survives incompletely in four fragments in Lon-
don (r 8 67-6 8; fig. r 59 )-also saw the invention of a new, essentially
lateral composition, with Maximilian standing between Mejia and
Miram6n at the left, then the firing squad of six plus a seventh figure, the
directing officer in a red kepi and with raised sword, almost wholly
hidden from view behind the squad, then finally the NCO who would
shortly administer the coup de grace also in a red kepi and cocking the
hammer of his musket. This version Manet completed and abandoned,
perhaps because he came to feel that the group of victims needed to be
moved farther back in space (the figure of Miram6n in one of the London
fragments seems too large relative to the soldiers) or because the arrival of
more accurate information about the execution site made his choice of
setting inappropriate. In any case, in the course of working on the second
Figure 158. Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, 186 7.

34 8 Chapter Four
version Manet is supposed to have arranged with Commandant Lejosne,

a friend of the family, for a squad of soldiers to come to his studio to
model for the firing squad. We also know that Manet hoped to exhibit
that version in the Salon of I868, but in the end he submitted two other
works, one the Portrait of Zola.
The third and last of the large-scale versions of the Execution (I868-
69; pI. I6), in Mannheim, retains the lateral format of the second while
situating the victims farther from the viewer than the firing squad and
altering the setting to a walled space with a hillside rising beyond it. A
group of peasants is shown looking over the top of the wall as the execu-
tion takes place; farther up on the hillside two other groups seem to be
seated on the ground; while to the left stone cemetery monuments stand
among dark green cypresses against the background of a cobalt sky. Two
other images in the Execution series should be mentioned: a lithograph
(I 868; fig. I 60), not printed until after Manet's death, and a small, rather
sketchy oil painting in Copenhagen (I868-69; fig. I6I), whose precise
Figure 159· Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, 186 7-68.

349
Figure 160. Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, lithograph, 1868.
Figure 161. Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, 1868- 6 9.

35 0 Chapter Four
relation both to the Mannheim canvas and to the lithograph has been a
matter of conjecture. 217 The most important difference between the
Copenhagen picture and the Mannheim Execution is that, like the litho-
graph, it depicts the so-called sword officer raising his sword just to the
right of the firing squad, a figure originally present in the same position in
the Mannheim canvas but subsequently painted out, exactly when we do
not know. 218 Presumably on that occasion Manet reverted to the formula
of the London version, minus the raised sword-that is, he inserted just
enough of the image of a red kepi between the caps of the second and third
soldiers from the right of the firing squad to indicate the presence of the
sword officer on the far side of the squad (or at least to do so if we know to
look for him), and added a streak of red paint (the officer in the Copen-
hagen sketch wears red trousers) between the legs of the second soldier
from the right. Manet seems to have worked on the third version through-
out 1868 and to have hoped to exhibit it in the Salon of 1869. By early
1869, however, the government made it clear that if submitted to the jury
it would be rejected, and also forbade the printing of the lithograph, with
the result that the Mannheim canvas was not shown in France until the
Salon d'Automne of 1905. From the point of view of the present study,
this is regrettable: I can think of nothing potentially more instructive than
the critical response to the Execution on the part of both admirers and
detractors. Even in the absence of that response, though, I shall end this
chapter with some remarks relating the Execution project as a whole and
the Mannheim canvas in particular to the account of Manet in his genera-
tion I have been developing.
First, the Execution project marks a break with Manet's post-Madrid
practice of making single-figure paintings, the ultimate models for which
were Velasquez's Pablo de Vallodolid, Aesop, and Menippus in the Prado.
In an obvious sense, the break was necessitated by the subject he now
wanted to tackle. But I think Manet was already on the lookout for a sub-
ject that would do this, and that a factor predisposing him in that direc-
tion was the overview of his oeuvre to date provided by his one-man
exhibition of 1867. By this I mean that seeing so many of his paintings of
the 1860s under a single roof led him to feel that his pre-Madrid work
with its more complex compositions and multivalent relation to its
sources was pictorially richer than his more recent canvases, or at least
that it represented an approach he wished to resume. (I make a similar
point in "Manet's Sources" apropos the Balcony and Luncheon in the
Studio; a less ambitious but significant work of the moment immediately

following the exhibition is his Boy Blowing Bubbles [1867], which re-
prises his earlier involvement with the French tradition through an un-
mistakable reference to Chardin.)219
And in fact the Execution project mobilized several sources in some-
thing like the spirit of the pre-Madrid paintings. The most obvious one,
the picture that has always been recognized as largely determining the
composition of the London and Mannheim versions, is Goya's The Third
of May (1814; fig. 162), which Manet could have seen in the Prado in
1865 but which had also recently been illustrated in a book on Goya by
Charles Yriarte, whose name appears in Manet's address book. 220 But as
Kathryn L. Brush, writing in the Brown University catalog Edouard
Manet and the <Execution of Maximilian' acutely observes, the Third of
May itself reveals the influence of David's Oath of the Horatii (1785; fig.
163), which is to say that "Manet was a third generation Davidian in
more ways than one" (i.e. not just by virtue of having studied with Cou-
ture).221 The implication is that Manet would have been aware of that
Figure 162. Francisco Goya, The Third of May, I814.

352 Chapter Four
Figure 163. Jacques-Louis David, The Oath of the Horatii, 1785.
connection, but even if that were not the case he would surely have wished
the London and Mannheim canvases to be seen in relation to David's his-
tory paintings of the I780s-not just the Horatii but also, I think, the
Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons (I789; fig. I64),
whose three-part composition might be compared with that of the Lon-
don and Mannheim canvases. In particular the detachment of the figure
of Brutus from the lethal exchange of gazes between the lictors and the
swooning women provides a rough parallel to that of the NCO cocking
his musket from the rest of the scene of which nevertheless he is a part. In
short, we find in the London and Mannheim versions a doubling of allu-
sions to French and Spanish painting which recalls the strategic use of
sources in Manet's paintings of the first half of the I 860s. In addition, as
Pamela M. Jones notes, the group of victims in the Mannheim canvas harks
back to Manet's Old Musician of I862 (pI. 2),222 the fair-haired, light-
skinned Maximilian in an upturned sombrero being a close equivalent to
the Gilles-like boy in the earlier picture. Not only that, Maximilian's po-
sition between his two darker generals recalls the juxtaposition of the
Gilles-like boy and his "Spanish" companion in the Old Musician, just as
the handclasp linking Maximilian and Miramon may be seen as a dis-
placement of the earlier gesture by which the second of the two boys put
his arm around the back of the first. The Old Musician, of course, played
a decisive role in "Manet's Sources" because of the clarity with which it
brought together French and Spanish sources within the framework of a
republican account of the French pictorial tradition. Its recycling in the
Execution might be said to make that latent political content explicit even
as the overtly political nature of the Execution project may well have facil-
itated Manet's return-with a difference, to be sure-to the multisource
strategy of his pictures of the first half of the I 860s. (Significantly, the Old
Musician imposed itself on Manet's imagination of the Execution fairly
early on. In the Boston canvas, the officer in profile cut in half by the right-
hand framing edge is based on the bearded figure at the extreme right of
the Old Musician, and it may be that the NCO to his left who faces out of
the painting was inspired by, though not derived from, one or another
figure in that work as well. 223 Both the officer and the NCO were added
after the soldiers firing their muskets were already painted in, perhaps in
Figure 164. Jacques-Louis David, Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons, 1789.
354 Chapter Four
response to new information about the exact composition of the firing

squad. It may be that the initial conception of the trio of victims facing
their executioners, which remained more or less consistent throughout
the different versions, brought the Old Musician to mind-and as though
the unfolding of the project made that association ever more emphatic.)
Now, it has always been recognized that the Mannheim Execution-
the definitive version-is altogether different in expressive tonality from
the passionate and tragic Third of May, and it hardly needs saying that it
also lacks the electrifying dramatic qualities of David's history paintings
of the 1780s. For Bataille, who regards the Execution as one of Manet's
signature works, the key term-we have met it before-is "indifference."
He writes: "Manet deliberately rendered the condemned man's death
with the same indifference as if he had chosen a fish or a flower for the
object of his work. "224 And: "A priori, death, coldly, methodically dealt
out by a firing squad, is unfavorable to indifference: it's a subject charged
with meaning, giving rise to violent feelings, but Manet appears to have
painted it as if insensible; the spectator follows it [i.e. takes it in] in that
profound apathy. This painting strangely recalls the anesthetizing of a
tooth: we get the impression of an all-engulfing numbness, as if a skillful
practitioner had applied, habitually and conscientiously, the basic pre-
cept: 'Take eloquence and twist its neck.' "225 Elsewhere in his short book
on the painter Bataille distinguishes his view of Manet's attitude toward
subject matter from that of Andre Malraux, who, he argues, didn't quite
appreciate the importance that subject matter (in Bataille's terminology,
"the subject") retained for Manet. In Manet's painting, according to
Bataille, the traditional subject is still present but it has been stripped of
its traditional meaning; what distinguishes Manet's relation to the sub-
ject is precisely the "operation" of stripping, or say the intensity gener-
ated by a willed and systematic negation of expected significance. 226 As
he also remarks: in the Execution as in Olympia, "the text is effaced by
the painting. And the meaning of the painting is not the text, but the
effacement. "227 Failing to grasp this, Malraux mistakenly associated
Manet's art with what he took to be the Impressionist attitude of simple
indifference to subject matter in the interests of an exclusive concern with
form and color.
It scarcely needs to be said-it didn't require the work of social histo-
rians of art to show-that Bataille's notion of Manet's active destruction
of meaning is itself somewhat simplistic (it doesn't differ enough from
Malraux's less-nuanced account), but what Bataille has right is the insis-
tence that Manet's paintings perform a certain "operation" and that the
nature of that "operation" is in important respects negative, repudiatory,
destructive. (Also that there are vital differences between Manet's art and
that of the Impressionists.) My way of putting this has been to say that
Manet's paintings seek to void or otherwise neutralize the absorptive po-
tential of their subjects and more broadly to find an alternative to the ex-
cessively absorptive effects by means of which his closest contemporaries,
Legros in particular, sought at once to adhere to the basic premises of the
antitheatrical tradition and yet generate the added intensity that was now
required to strike and hold-to hold by striking-the beholder. (It was
largely by means of an absorptive dynamics that traditional painting had
achieved its effects of "significance" or "meaning.") As Bataille's remarks
suggest, the subject of the Execution put Manet's anti-absorptive strategy
under extreme pressure. For one thing, the event itself-the execution by
firing squad of a man of high though deluded ideals along with his heroic
generals-could not have been more dramatic, tragic, absorbing. For an-
other, the collective action of the members of the firing squad-aiming
and firing-was itself absorptive. And the victims could not plausibly be
shown as unconcerned with the proceedings. Manet's solution to the
problem was ingenious, starting with his decision to depict the members
of the firing squad not exactly from behind, which is what we are largely
made to feel is the case in the Boston ebauche, but as it were from the side,
with their backs facing the viewer and their heads turned toward the vic-
tims just far enough to allow a glimpse of something less than their profils
perdus; the emphasis falls on their identical uniforms, on the similar tilts
of their heads, on the Watteau-dancer-like splaying of their feet (the white
spats were added by Manet to complement the belts), in short on a series
of repetitions that range from the impassive to the slightly comic and that
effectively divest a motif that could have yielded a strongly absorptive ef-
fect of any but the most vestigial relation to inwardness. (The soldiers'
profiles, if they may be called that, are another link with the Old Musician
by way of the girl holding a baby at its left. And might there not be, in the
very motif of repetition, in a painting about death, with a cemetery in
the background, the trace of a memory of the Burial at Ornans?) As for
the victims, Manet deliberately blurred their features, especially Maxi-
milian's, while at the same time superbly evoking the involuntary spas-
modic reaction of Mejia, on Maximilian's right (our left), as the fusillade
Chapter Four
strikes home (the three men were executed in turn, Maximilian last).228
The result is virtually a group portrait of one man dying and two others
about to die, but the subtle distancing of all three figures as well as the
minimizing of their gazes goes a long way toward neutralizing their status
as the painting's expressive focus. (The London fragment bearing a por-
trait of Miram6n suggests that the muted treatment of the victims was an
innovation of the Mannheim version.) Finally, the prominent figure of the
NCO cocking his musket for the coup de grace he will soon be called
upon to give (in fact the real NCO had to fire more than one shot into the
fallen Maximilian before the latter died) does indeed seem absorbed, but
only in that mechanical task and at the cost of seeming oblivious to the
violence and horror of the execution itself. 229 Traditionally, as we have
seen, obliviousness to one's surroundings was a hallmark of deep absorp-
tion, but in the context of the Execution it serves rather to equate absorp-
tion itself with indifference (to use Bataille's word). Put more strongly, it's
as if in the Mannheim Execution Manet definitively emptied absorption
itself of all connotation of psychological depth, as if he rendered it per-
fectly "flat," which is to say made it equivalent to the conspicuously inex-
pressive, barely inflected, almost mechanically repetitive paint handling
(or execution: might he been aware of the pun?) by which the soldiers if
not the victims were depicted. (We might think of this emptying or "flat-
tening" of absorption as the diametrical opposite of the operation by
which, at the beginning of the antitheatrical tradition, Chardin's genre
paintings invested the most ordinary, everyday modes of absorption with
unprecedented "depth. ")230
But it was not enough for Manet to come to terms with absorption in
this way. His larger aim, the aim of his generation, was strikingness, and
as soon as this is said it becomes clear that of all Manet's paintings of the
1860s it may be the Mannheim Execution that comes closest to being a
"real allegory" of his enterprise. The painting depicts the instant when
Mejia was struck by the bullets of the firing squad: it thus not only the-
matizes strikingness (as Legros's Vocation of St. Francis may be said to
do), it also literalizes it (d. the pun on "execution"), and what is more, it
does so within the framework of a thematics of instantaneousness, keyed
to the flame and smoke issuing from the muskets (the most declarative
markers of instantaneousness in all his art)231 and of a structure marked
by an internal division between stillness and its opposite. (One is tempted
to associate stillness chiefly with the victims waiting to be shot, but Me-
jia's sudden movement as well as the somewhat blurred treatment of the
victims as a group, in contrast to the methodicalness and precision with

which the firing squad has been depicted, complicate the issue in a way
that recalls the chiasmatic exchange of properties between the flying, fro-
zen bullfinch and squatting, calligraphic frog in the Dejeuner sur therbe.
Then too there is what one feels to be the separate or disparate tempo-
rality of the NCO cocking his weapon. And there is also a sense in which
the cloud of smoke that drifts upward to the left of the middle of the pic-
ture appears to belong to a slightly later, more protracted moment than
the flame and smoke issuing directly from the muzzles. It's hard to think
of another picture in all Western art that so determinedly draws attention
to the inevitably aporetic nature of the fiction of instantaneousness even
as it appeals to that fiction for its basic structure.)
Another "allegorical" feature of the Execution is the point-blank
range at which the firing squad performs its task. I take that range to be
something like picture-viewing distance. Seen in that light, and if we take
the figure-group of Maximilian and his generals as emblematic of Manet's
art generally (as the association with the Old Musician authorizes us to
do), the nearness of the firing squad to the victims belongs to a meta-
phorics of spectatorly aggression against Manet's paintings: think of the
frequent rejection of his works by Salon juries, of the hostility of critics
and public to the Angels at the Tomb of Christ, Olympia, and other
works of the 18 60S, of Sensier's assertion that each viewer of the Olympia
cast a stone in its face and Zola's more elaborate stone-throwing meta-
phor of two years later. 232 But it's also possible, by virtue of the kind of
reversal of perspective that in Zola's novel L'Oeuvre would later allow the
flawed innovator Claude Lantier to gaze back at the crowd that had gath-
ered to admire the opportunistic Fagerolles's Picnic (a version of his own
earlier Plein Air), to regard the three victims as emblematic of the public
and the firing squad as in some sense Manet's emissaries on the grounds
that the widespread revulsion toward his works had been largely pro-
voked by the works themselves: think of Manet's deliberate courting of
unintelligibility, of what was seen as the extreme violence of his paintings'
contrasts and oppositions, of the use of the word "cruelty" in connection
with his art, of Thon~'s claim in 1864 that Manet's painting was a deliber-
ate provocation and that he wanted to torment the public as a picador
torments a bull, of Sensier's claim that Olympia was like a glass of ice
water dashed in the viewer's face, indeed of the full thematic implications
of the Execution's literalizing of strikingness. Seen in that light, the vio-
lence that since David or even Greuze had been part of the central French
Chapter Four
tradition and that surfaced one last time in the Execution as that tradition
reached its point of absolute crisis becomes readable as the violence of a
conflict between painting and beholder-very much as if the Diderotian
imperative to negate or neutralize the beholder, to establish the fiction of
his nonexistence, had all along entailed relations of deadly mutual hostil-
ity between the twO. 233 (In a less lethal register, Astruc in 1870 remark-
ably evoked the sufferings of Manet's paintings at the hands of the
unflagging hostility and incomprehension of the public. "With all the
qualities and bizarrenesses of a lightning bolt, he fills the shivering room
with cold," Astruc wrote. "What can I say of a man attacked in this
way-beaten on by every pen, except three or four, atoning for his talent
for many years, severed from the smallest artistic joy, except for that of
doing right, of being a man. By an inconceivable fatality, one would say
that his gifts cannot communicate themselves to the crowd. It observes,
gazes, smiles, doubts-and gives, you will admit, some discomfort to
the artist. Someone becomes awkward when he doesn't feel sympathy
around him. One would say that Manet's paintings have a soul and that
they experience in themselves the effects of that hostility. "234 What
Astruc doesn't say but is perhaps implicit in his remarks is that experienc-
ing the effects of that hostility meant that the paintings reflected it back at
the public.)
All this is to interpret the Execution as a field of multiple, labile, and
conflictual identifications and counteridentifications, with Manet himself
-Manet as painter-beholder-at once everywhere and nowhere. As a
victim of the jury system and a target of public outrage and on the basis of
the link with the Old Musician, he belongs with Maximilian and the two
generals. At the same time, as an aggressor against the public, which after
all is how most critics and virtually the entire exhibition-going public in-
sisted on viewing him, he is aligned with the firing squad, which would
give ironic force to the often-repeated charge that his attempts to draw
attention to himself at any cost were tantamount to discharging a pistol
at the Salon. ("A pistol?," I imagine him thinking. "Why not a whole fir-
ing squad?") In another, subtler sense, Manet may be associated with the
figure of the NCO cocking his musket, who at first appears simply to epit-
omize detachment and indifference (itself a "progressive" esthetic atti-
tude: think of Flaubert and Baudelaire), but who by virtue of his stance
and action might almost be an image of a painter standing back and
partly turned away from his painting while he mixes colors on his palette;
indeed insofar as the NCO will soon be required to ensure that Maxi-
milian is dead, he also represents the job of finishing, precisely what

Manet himself was regularly accused of not being willing or able to do
(another pun to go with those on "execution" and "strikingness").235
But perhaps the most compelling figure for Manet is the nearly invis-
ible sword officer, who as I have said is present in the Mannheim version
only in two vanishingly slight traces: the hint of a red kepi toward the rear
of the firing squad, and the streak of red paint between the legs of the
second soldier from the right. Among the reasons that have been pro-
posed for the officer's having been painted out of his initial position at the
rear of the squad are, first, that Manet came to feel that the still-elevated
sword was at odds with the muskets having already been fired, and
second, that a figure in red trousers would have been too clearly identifia-
ble as a French officer. 236 Another possibility is that in his initial incarna-
tion the sword officer was too vivid and particular an image of executive
agency, and that by all but eliminating him Manet greatly reinforced the
mood of implacable mechanism presiding over the painting as a whole.
But if that is right, it matters all the more that the sword officer has not
been entirely done away with-the mood of implacable mechanism
should not be equated with the painting's "truth" -just as it matters that
the NCO may be seen, as it were against the grain, as a figure for the
painter at work on his picture. And it also matters that we cannot tell
what the streak of red paint between the soldier's legs represents. Jones
has suggested that it depicts the officer's sword, 237 but this seems improb-
able. On close inspection the streak of paint is merely that and nothing
more: it absolutely resists being assimilated to the work of representation,
by which I also mean that it escapes the categories of finish and nonfinish
that indefatigably structured contemporary responses to Manet's work;
it's impossible to imagine what would have had to be done to "push" the
red streak further, to make it more "complete." Perhaps it too is best
thought of as a remainder (d. my remarks on the distance marker with
circle in the Fogg watercolor of the Races at Longchamp as well as on the
figure-group in the middle distance), something left over after the task of
representation was done and which stands for everything in Manet's art
which adamantly resisted closure, which was irremediably disparate,
which pursued a strikingness that could not be kept within the bounds
even of the excessive, which repeatedly interpellated the beholder in ways
the latter could only find offensive and incomprehensible, and which in
fact continues to defeat our best efforts to make reassuring sense of his
paintings by inserting them in a historical context, no matter how that
Chapter Four
context is defined. (Cf. Bataille: "Manet unsettles and has no wish to sat-
isfy; he even seeks to disappoint. ")238 The streak of red paint also brings
to mind a recently discovered fact about Olympia: the original of the
bracelet worn by Olympia on her right wrist contained a lock of Manet's
baby hair.239 This could not have been known apart from the discovery of
the bracelet itself-it amounts to a personal secret at the heart of Manet's
most provocative painting24°-and my thought is that the red streak in
the Execution can perhaps be considered an open secret of this type: as if
as a mark or trace of Manet "himself" the streak were equivalent to the
lock of hair but, being unreadable, could be displayed frankly instead of
being sealed away in a bracelet. A thematics of secrecy is however hinted
at by the nearly complete concealment of the sword officer behind the fir-
ing squad-and, in his original position to the right, beneath at least one
layer of paint (in an oblique light raised traces of the original figure of the
sword officer can be made out).
I have not yet mentioned one conspicuous feature of the Execution: the
peasants looking on over the top of the wall. To be blunt, I regret them,
partly because the indication of emotional response on the part of the
man with a head bandage and the gesturing figure to his left feels out of
place,241 partly because the looseness and rapidity with which all the
onlookers have been brushed in seems superfluous to the contrast in tech-
nique between the firing squad and the victims, perhaps most of all be-
cause as representatives of spectatordom they themselves are superfluous
to the "allegorical" drama of identifications and counteridentifications
that I have suggested structures the final composition. (Significantly,
"our" position before the canvas is nowhere addressed within that com-
position, a conspicuous and for Manet highly unusual absence that fur-
ther points up the polyvalent "allegorical" nature of the Execution as a
whole and therefore militates against the limiting thematization of spec-
tatordom that the peasants represent.) Not that I think it's obvious how
the upper zone of the canvas ought to have been handled; but I wish
Manet had found a more indifferent solution to the problem.
A final comparison with Legros will prove useful. I mentioned in pass-
ing that there exist certain obvious analogies between the composition of
the Execution and those of Legros's Ex- Voto and Vocation of St. Francis,
both of which depict figures in profile in the right-hand half of the paint-
ing gazing absorbedly at or, in the Vocation, being palpably struck by a
paintinglike object facing them at the left. Equally to the point, a work by
Legros almost exactly contemporaneous with the Mannheim Execution,
L'Amende honorable (1868; fig. 165), depicts in the left foreground a

mostly naked bearded man who kneels with his hands tied behind his
back and who, having confessed his sins, waits to hear his punishment
pronounced by the bishop seated at the extreme right. The monk seated
next to the bishop holds a pen and book in his hands and turns toward his
superior so as not to miss a word of the judgment; a second monk raises
his hand to his chin as if reflecting on the question of the proper punish-
Figure r6 5. Alphonse Legros, L'Amende honorable, r 868.

,- :"
Chapter Four
ment while two other monks sit in shadow against the rear wall. Stylisti-
cally, the Amende honorable is unusually restrained: it is painted in
broad, matte, uninflected expanses of wine red, pink and gold, dark
green, white, and black; its format is almost square, and the kneeling
man's clarity of silhouette together with the muted treatment of color and
an almost total absence of detail (at least in the picture's present condi-
tion) evoke the feeling of painting on a wall rather than on canvas, though
in fact the presiding Old Master is clearly Zurbaran. The overall effect is
and was surely meant to be absorptive, but the critical response to
Legros's canvas is nevertheless pertinent to the argument we have been
pursuing. Paul Mantz, for example, after praising Legros's early paintings
for their character and strikingness, noted that more recently he had re-
fined his manner-excessively, it's implied-but that his submissions to
the Salon of 1868, L'Amende honorable and Le Lutrin, were remarkable.
"The figure of the bishop, in the Amende honorable, has a lot of finesse
and distinction," Mantz wrote. "Legros ought to take one further step
and accentuate more deeply the physiognomies of his models."242 In
L'Artiste Montifaud briefly described the picture and concluded: "There
is a sobriety of tint, a severity, a conciseness of touch, all of which makes
one believe that Legros wanted to reawaken the idea of a monastic cre-
ation. It truly captures the stiff and solemn stamp of episcopal arrogance
in its epochs of high inquisition. The costumes are treated with scru-
pulous care; although a little cold, this conception is alive and strongly
characterized; we find in it a reflection of that age in all its imperative
rigor."243 Finally, in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts J. Grangedor wrote:
"Legros, following Zurbaran and Le Sueur, seeks to rediscover the faces,
impassive and hard as monastic discipline itself, of priests-turned-judges
in an ecclesiastical tribunal. The very care with which the least features of
these men who represent an uncontrolled authority are accentuated de-
tracts from the ensemble of the scene the unity, the depth, and the mystery
that would complete the expression seriously pursued by the painter." 244
The three commentaries are revealing in that they show a range of plau-
sible responses to a painting as restrainedly absorptive as, it seems clear,
Legros's Amende honorable was meant to be. For Mantz, it wasn't quite
expressive enough, he wished that (like Legros's paintings of the early
1 860s) it had gone farther in the direction of accentuating effects of char-
acter; for Montifaud, it was both a little cold and strongly characterized,
a combination that reflected the severe moeurs of an earlier age; and for
Grangedor, who also took seriously the painting's attempt to recapture
the affective tonality of monastic life and who associated its asceticism
with the art of two seventeenth-century masters of absorption, it was pre-
cisely the accentuation of extremely slight facial and other features that
interfered with the expressive unity he took the painter to have been after.
Had Manet completed the Execution in time for the Salon of 1868, as
he at first apparently hoped to do, and had he been allowed to show it, it
seems likely that the dominant view of that work would have been in line
with Mantz's dismissive comments on Manet's art in his "Salon" of that
year. "Nature scarcely interests him," Mantz wrote, "the spectacles of life
don't move him. That indifference will be his punishment. Manet appears
to us to be less an enthusiast than a dilettante. If he had even the smallest
bit of passion, he would make someone else passionate, because there are
still some twenty of us in France who have a taste for novelty and audacity.
But Manet can't even exploit the modest resources of his palette. With the
little he possesses he could say something-and he says nothing."245 It's
a devastating judgment, one whose tone of exasperation suggests that
Mantz might have been allowed to glimpse and have been puzzled by the
seeming impassiveness of the London version of the Execution before its
rejection by the painter, but my point in quoting Mantz is not to dwell on
his views but rather to suggest that it would have been impossible for all
but a few critics-Astruc (if only out of loyalty), Zola (but could he have
continued to maintain that subject matter for Manet was merely a pretext
to paint?), perhaps Castagnary (on political grounds), and Thon~ (whose
last "Salon" was that of 1 868)-to have viewed the Execution other than
in those terms. Indeed my further point is that Legros's project in the
Amende honorable of simultaneously restricting the range of expressive
effects to an extremely narrow band and of painting his picture in a con-
spicuously broad and uninflected manner provides an analogy in an
absorptive register to Manet's attempt in the Execution to "flatten"
absorption almost beyond recognition. In the words of another critic,
Chesneau, who admired the Amende honorable without reservation:
"The intention of this beautiful page is very curious to study; the artist
has manifested in this work no preference, no partiality, whether for the
condemned man or for the tribunal; as a conception it's grand, simple,
and dramatic, precisely by virtue of the absence of all dramatic inten-
tion. "246 The drama, to paraphrase Chesneau, consisted in a certain
deliberate indifference, but the positive relation between that effect of in-
difference and the absorptive framework within which it was produced
meant that the Amende honorable elicited an altogether different set of
Chapter Four
responses from its viewers than the Execution would have done had it
been shown in I868 or I869.247 But the Execution wasn't shown, and
modern commentators, myself not excepted, have been slow to realize
the extent to which it may be seen as reflecting almost point by point-
almost methodically-on Manet's pictorial aspirations in the I860s.
Plate 1. Henri Fantin-Latour, Homage to Delacroix, 1864.
Plate 16. Edouard Manet, The Execution of Maximilian, 1868- 6 9.
5 Between Realisms
HAL F WAY through Memoirs of the Blind: The Self-Portrait and Other
Ruins, Jacques Derrida briefly considers several remarkable self-portrait
drawings by Fantin-Latour. ~. He does this in the context of a discussion of
what he calls the "retrait transcendantal du trait" -the "transcendental
retrait or withdrawal of the trait" (a basic term in Derrida's lexicon that
carries a range of meanings from a trait or feature to a line, stroke, or
mark). Roughly, the necessity of such a retrait follows from the inherently
differential structure of the trait in Derrida's account. Because the trait,
once drawn, ideally has no thickness but instead only marks the sep-
aration between the inside and outside of a figure ("the single edge of a
contour"), it cannot strictly speaking manifest itself. 1 In Derrida's words:
"Nothing belongs to the trait, and thus, to drawing and to the thought of
drawing, not even its own 'trace.''' And: "The outline or tracing separates
and separates itself; it retraces only borderlines, intervals, a spacing grid
with no possible appropriation. The experience or experimenting of
drawing (and experimenting, as its name indicates, always consists in
journeying beyond limits) at once crosses and institutes these borders, it
invents the Shibboleth of these passages."2 And that "transcendental re-
trait or withdrawal" in turn
*Jacques Derrida, Memoirs of the Blind: The Self· Portrait and Other Ruins, trans. Pascale
Anne Brault and Michael Naas (Chicago and London, 1993), pp. 57ff. (Memoires d'aveugle:
L'Autoportrait et autres ruines [Paris, 1990]). The present chapter, in a somewhat different
form and minus some of the material in the last section, was originally written for a conference
on Derrida's work since 1980, held at the Centre Culturel International de Cerisy-la-Salle, July
I 1-21, 1992. The overarching theme of that conference was a notion taken from Derrida's
writings, "the crossing of borders," Ie passage des frontieres, which accordingly recurs as a
motif in these pages. A French translation of the original essay appears in the collective volume,
Le Passage des frontieres, ed. Marie-Louise Mallet (Paris, 1994); also, a version of this chapter,
"Between Realisms: From Derrida to Manet," was published in Critical Inquiry 21 (autumn
1994): 1-36. Derrida's text opens with an epigraph from Diderot and refers in several notes to
Absorption and Theatricality and Courbet's Realism.
Chapter Five
Figure r66. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, drawing, ca. r860.

Between Realisms
calls for and forbids the self-portrait. Not that of the author and presumed sig-
natory, but that of the "source-point" of drawing, the eye and the finger, if you
will. This point is represented and eclipsed at the same time. It lends itself to
the autograph of this wink or clin d'oeil that plunges it into the night, or rather,
into the time of this waning or declining day wherein the face is submerged: it
gets carried away, it decomposes itself or lets itself be devoured by a mouth of
darkness. Certain self-portraits of Fantin-Latour show this [figs. r66, r67,
r68J. Or rather, they would be the figures or the de-monstration of this.
Sometimes invisibility is shared out . .. , if one can say this, right between the
two eyes. There is on the one hand . .. the monocular stare of a narcissistic
cyclops: a single eye open, the right one [this will be importantJ, fixed firmly on
its own image. It will not let it go, but that's because the prey necessarily eludes
it, making off with the lure. The traits of a self-portrait are also those of a
fascinated hunter. The staring eye always resembles an eye of the blind,
sometimes the eye of the dead, at that precise moment when mourning begins:
it is still open, a pious hand should come to close it; it would recall a portrait of
the dying. Looking at itself seeing, it also sees itself disappear right at the
moment when the drawing tries desperately to recapture it. For this cyclops eye
sees nothing, nothing but an eye that it thus prevents from seeing anything at
all. Seeing the seeing and not the visible, it sees nothing. This seeing eye sees
itself blind. On the other hand . .. , and this would be, as it were, the eye's
nocturnal truth, the other eye is already plunged into the night, sometimes just
barely hidden, veiled, withdrawn ... , sometimes totally indiscernible and
dissolved into a blotch, and sometimes absorbed by the shadow cast upon it by
a top hat shaped like an eyeshade. From one blindness, the other. 3
Derrida goes on to say that Fantin's drawings epitomize what he ten-

tatively names the" hypothesis of sight-or the intuitive hypothesis, the
hypothesis of intuition."4 Derrida's point concerns the inescapableness
of hypothesizing (of conjecturing, presupposing) at the heart of the act of
intuiting (that is, of seeing, as it were immediately and without reflection)
the subject of Fantin's self-portrait drawings. For as Derrida remarks, we
can only conjecture that the protagonist of those drawings is actually de-
lineating his own image as he perceives it in a mirror, thereby portraying
himself in the act of making his self-portrait-the one before us. In fact,
we are shown neither the surface of the sheet of paper on which he is
drawing nor the mirror itself, whose presumed place we occupy and
which indeed we effectively replace and obscure, or as Derrida also says,
which we make one blind to "by producing, by putting to work, the
sought after specularity." He continues:
The spectator's performance, as it is essentially prescribed by the work, consists

in striking the signatory blind, and thus in gouging out-at the same stroke-
Chapter Five
the eyes of the model, or else in making him, the subject (at once model, signa-
tory, and object of the work), gouge out his own eyes in order both to see and to
represent himself at work. If there were such a thing, the self-portrait would
first consist in assigning, thus in describing, a place to the spectator, to the visi-
tor, to the one whose seeing blinds; it would assign or describe this place fol-
lowing the gaze of a draughtsman who, on the one hand, no longer sees
himself, the mirror being necessarily replaced by the destinatory who faces him,
Figure 167. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, drawing, ca. 1860.

Between Realisms
that is, by us, but us who, on the other hand, at the very moment when we are
instituted as spectators in (the) place of the mirror, no longer see the author as
such, can no longer in any case identify the object, the subject, and the signa-
tory of the self-portrait of the artist as a self-portraitist. In this self-portrait of a
self-portrait, the figure or face of Fantin-Latour should be looking at us looking
at him according to the law of an impossible and blinding reflexivity. In order
to see himself or show himself, he should see only his two eyes, his own eyes-
Figure 168. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, drawing, ca. 1860.

37 0 Chapter Five
two eyes that he must, however, get over mourning just as soon, and precisely in
order to see himself, eyes that he must just as soon replace, to this end, with this
representation in sight, and in (the) place of the mirror, by other eyes, by eyes
that see him, by our eyes. 5
Derrida concludes further on: "Even if one were sure that Fantin-Latour
were drawing himself drawing, one would never know, observing the
work alone, whether he were showing himself drawing himself or some-
thing else-or even himself as something else, as other. And he can al-
ways, in addition, draw this situation: the stealing away of what regards
you, of what looks at you, of what fixedly observes you not seeing that
with which or with whom you are dealing. Does the signatory himself see
that which he makes you observe? Will he have seen it in some present?"6
I was struck by Derrida's remarks when I first read them, both because
of their characteristic brilliance and subtlety and because the works they
treat as exemplary-Fantin's self-portrait drawings-were already of ur-
gent interest to me. Need I say that the problematic I shall be exploring in
this chapter is not the same as Derrida's? I am not concerned with a "tran-
scendentallogic of drawing" and hence shall not engage with his fram-
ing notion of the "transcendental withdrawal of the trait. " Rather, my
concerns here as throughout this book are essentially historical, which
however does not mean that they are devoid of quasi-transcendental im-
plications. 7 Specifically, I want to return to the question of the historical
identity of the generation of 1863, and I want to broach that question in
this final chapter by way of Derrida's comments on Fantin's self-portrait
drawings. Without getting ahead of myself, let me add that my reading of
Fantin's drawings complements Derrida's, which focuses on the sitter's
gaze as it hypothetically is given back to itself by the action of a mirror,
by calling attention to another, equally important operation of that pre-
sumed mirror as well as to certain no less hypothetical actions of the
sitter's hands. (A terminological note: instead of Derrida's three-part dis-
tinction among "object," "subject," and "signatory"-he also refers to
the "object," "model," and "signatory" -of the drawings, I shall call the
figure in the drawings the "sitter" and the drawings' maker the "artist-
model." This in effect presumes that the drawings are self-portraits, a pre-
sumption that Derrida's nomenclature holds in suspense. But not only do
I have no theoretical stake in maintaining that suspense, I am compelled
to dissolve it in order to conduct the argument that follows.)
The two drawings I want to begin by discussing were made around
1860, when Fantin was twenty-four (figs. 166,167). The first was done in
Between Realisms 37 1
charcoal (with stump) and pencil, the second in pen and black ink. Both
are instances of the young Fantin's drawing style at its most authoritative,
and both exemplify the hypothetical logic that Derrida analyzes in the
passages quoted above. That is, both drawings convey the impression that
the sitter is striving to portray his own image in a mirror, an assumption
which, as Derrida shows, the drawings by themselves are powerless to
confirm. He does not contest that this is how the drawings were made; his
point is that the dynamic of their making-assuming them to have been
made in that way-is not and could not be fully and indubitably manifest
in the drawings themselves. I take his arguments in this regard to be irre-
futable, and I want to open my own analysis by focusing on certain fea-
tures of both drawings which further exemplify the effects of a mirror
whose presence in the drawings must nevertheless remain a matter of
conjecture.
The effects I have in mind are of reversal of left and right, effects Derrida
brackets when, seemingly not wishing to imply the presence of the mirror
before developing its hypothetical status, he describes the right eye (in fig.
166) as "fixed firmly on its own image." Now, it has always been recog-
nized that Fantin was right-handed. 8 And yet the second of the two draw-
ings portrays the sitter drawing with his left hand, while in the first we are
shown his right hand grasping the tablet on which we presume he is draw-
ing, for in fact we aren't shown his left hand or the act of drawing at all.
This apparent reversal of left and right (from which we also deduce that it
is the artist-model's left eye, relayed by the sitter, that stares so intently
from the sheet) may be taken as further, perhaps stronger, evidence of the
presence of the mirror, reinforcing that of the sitter's gaze and apparent
action.
Today the mirror-reversed portrayal of the painter in the act of painting
has come to seem a characteristic feature of the self-portrait as a genre,
but the surprising historical truth is that it became fairly common starting
only around 186o, the moment we are considering; as Zirka Zaremba
Filipczak has observed, earlier self-portraits reveal "no such conflation of
the viewer with the artist."9 This is probably why a similar instance of
mirror reversal in one of Fantin's early painted self-portraits appeared
conspicuous enough to be remarked by a contemporary critic. 10 But
what I want to emphasize is that Fantin's embrace of mirror reversal intro-
duces an aspect of irreality into works of seemingly uncompromising real-
ism. I mean that what we take to have been his fidelity to visual
experience-to what he saw in a mirror before him-gave rise to works
37 2 Chapter Five
that not only elide the presence of the mirror and allow at most partial
access to the act of representation but also exactly reverse the facts of his
appearance, as seen by everyone but himself gazing into the mirror. Put
more strongly, the realist self-portrait-rather, what might be called the
visual realist or ocular realist self-portrait-emerges as a contradiction in
terms. For either it represents the image in the mirror, in which case it
reverses the ordinary appearance of the artist-model, or it reverses that
reversal in the interests of a broader, more impersonal or "universal"
kind of truth, in which case it is no longer faithful to what the artist-
model sees. Within the framework of the ocular realist project there is no
escaping that double bind. (As Merleau-Ponty observed, human beings
have no direct, unmediated perception of their own faces;l1 the ocular
realist self-portrait makes that natural condition a problem for art.)
But at the same time as the effects of reversal confirm the (still entirely
hypothetical) presence of the mirror, another feature of Fantin's self-
portrait drawings counters those effects by getting right and left back
where they belong. I refer to the emphatically slanting hatching-a mode
of shading, of signifying degrees of darkness-that intervenes dramat-
ically in both drawings, as well as in a third drawing in pen and ink from
roughly the same moment (fig. I68). For reasons that are probably both
natural and conventional, right-handed artists in the Western tradition
have tended to hatch from upper right to lower left while left-handed art-
ists (notably Leonardo) have tended to hatch from upper left to lower
right. 12 The vigorous upper-right-to-Iower-Ieft hatching that threatens
almost to collapse the different planes of Fantin's drawings into a single
screen or grid of oblique marks may thus be read as evidence of the artist-
model's actual bodily orientation relative to the sheet of paper, in contrast
to the reversal of that orientation implied by the representational mirror
image. Possibly other artists have made self-portrait drawings in which
both components, mirror reversal and hatching that expresses their own
bodily orientation, can be found. But I see these particular works as the-
matizing the tension between the two with exceptional force-as yoking
together a singularly persuasive representational image with excep-
tionally assertive hatching-to the extent of virtually dividing the draw-
ings from within. And the question that then must be asked is, what does
that internal division mean? What are the larger implications of the ex-
treme contrast between mirror reversal and its opposite that our analysis
has brought to light?
Before answering that question, two points should be stressed. First,
Between Realisms 373
my discussion so far, like Derrida's in Memoirs of the Blind but on differ-

ent grounds, seriously complicates the conventional view of what may be
said to lie "this" side of the drawings' respective surfaces. Following one
line of argument (taking the drawings as ocular realist images), what lies
there-more precisely, what hangs or stands there, facing the sitter-is a
mirror; following another line of argument (taking the drawings as in-
dexes of their making), what is to be found there is the artist-model's right
hand drawing with a pencil, pen, or charcoal, and by extension (i.e. by
continuity or metonymy) his entire body, and "beyond" his body a chair,
a table, a room (in which of course there is also a mirror) ... In short,
even leaving aside the role of the viewer-a crucial and disruptive one, as
Derrida has shown-there is no "this" side of Fantin's drawings in a
simple, unproblematical sense. Rather, the drawings posit a network of
hypothetical real-world relationships among at least three elements: the
embodied artist-model in the act of making the drawing; the drawing it-
self on its block or support, held by the artist-model neither vertically nor
horizontally but somewhere in between; and the mirror into which the
artist-model gazes. Certainly nothing less than those elements can begin
to account for the dynamic of the drawings' production insofar as the cir-
cumstances of their production are taken to be represented in and by the
drawings themselves.
A second point to be stressed (it's already implicit in my description of
the second of the three elements just mentioned) is that the enterprise of
drawing portrayed in these works is a two-handed operation. The draw-
ings present themselves as the product not only of the actions of the artist-
model's right hand drawing with a pencil or pen but also, equally, of the
actions of his left hand gripping the block. This feature of Fantin's self-
portrait drawings is by no means typical of the genre and reveals an affin-
ity with oil painting, which in Fantin's time, as it had for centuries, in-
volved the right (or dominant) hand wielding a brush and the left (or
subordinate) hand holding a palette. In fact, I want to go further and sug-
gest that what is at stake in the two-handedness of the act of drawing as
pictured in Fantin's self-portraits is a relation not so much to painting
generally as specifically to Courbet.
In my earlier summary of Courbet's Realism I neglected to mention the
extraordinary role played in his art by self-portraits. 13 This is true both
literally-self-portraits dominate his oeuvre throughout the I840s-and
figuratively-my reading of his art construes some of his most ambitious
canvases, including the Stonebreakers (fig. qo) and Wheat Sifters (fig.
374 Chapter Five
I4I), as "real allegories" of the activity that produced them (my account
of Manet's Execution of Maximilian partly derived from those read-
ings).14 A cardinal feature of the Stonebreakers and Wheat Sifters, it will
be recalled, is that the thematization of left and right in each of them is
congruent with what we imagine to have been the left/right orientation of
the painter-beholder at work on the painting: thus in the Stonebreakers
the painter-beholder's left hand holding a palette found expression in the
figure of the young man carrying a basket of stones in the left-hand half of
the canvas, while his right hand wielding a brush was represented by the
old man raising a hammer in the right-hand half. The Wheat Sifters is
more complex, both because the small boy peering into the tarare is in-
cluded and because the kneeling sifter uses both hands to work her sieve,
but the depiction of her from the rear together with the placement to her
left of the seated, drowsy sifter-a figure for the painter-beholder's left or
palette hand-keys the painting's structure to the bodily orientation of its
maker. In Courbet's self-portraits proper, however, he was faced with an-
other version of the double bind I touched on earlier: either be faithful to
what he saw in the mirror, in which case the reversal of left and right
would make him a stranger to his own image; or reverse that mirror rever-
sal, in which case he could identify bodily with the painted image as re-
gards the depiction of right and left but at the cost of locating the depicted
figure's right hand opposite his own left hand and vice versa, thereby
disrupting the congruence of left and right on which the possibility of
quasi-corporeal merger equally depended. The solutions to this problem
Courbet was led to devise were sometimes brilliant. In the early Self-
Portrait with Black Dog (I844; fig. I69), for example, the sitter's bodily
orientation allows his right hand holding a pipe to be portrayed in a way
that suggests an analogy not only with the orientation but also with the
activity of the painter-beholder's right hand holding a brush. (The land-
scape vista can almost be seen as a painting on an easel in its own right.)
Or again, in perhaps the most important self-portrait of the I840S, the
Man with the Leather Belt (I845-46?; fig. I70), the sitter's dramatically
lit and sculpturally powerful right hand and wrist have been turned back
into the picture space, with the result that they are now wholly congruent
with what we take to have been the orientation and in a sense the action of
the painter-beholder'S right hand and arm as they reached toward the
canvas bearing a brush loaded with paint. In that painting, too, the other-
wise inexplicable action of the sitter's left hand gripping his belt may be
read as a figure for the action of the painter-beholder's left hand holding
Figure 169. Gustave Courbet, Self-Portrait with Black Dog, 1844.
his palette, even though in this instance the two left hands are spatially
misaligned. Finally, a third self-portrait, The Cellist (I847; fig. I7I),
shows how the struggle with mirror reversal could produce effects that
are not just odd but disorienting: the obviously "incorrect" actions of the
cellist's right and left hands-the first too forcefully depressing the
strings, the second un convincingly bowing-seem to obey an implicit
imperative-to "represent" the actions of the painter-beholder's hands in
the act of painting the picture-that could not quite be reconciled with
the latter's ostensible subject. ls
Viewed in this context, the upper-right-to-Iower-Ieft hatching in Fantin's
self-portrait drawings of around I 86o expresses a similar impulse toward
quasi-corporeal merger with the work in progress, or at least toward a
relation of continuity or "prolongation" between artist-model and draw-
ing. A previously unmentioned feature of the second drawing (fig. I67)
also bears on this issue: the depiction in its lower left-hand corner of a
partial object, most likely the dishlike base of a small candlestick (the
Figure I70. Gustave Courbet, Man with the Leather Belt, I845-46?
candle being just beyond the edge of the representational field). I suggest
that that partial object may also be seen as an image or imprint of the
artist-model's left thumb, which, if we trust the drawing as a faithful re-
cord of mirror reversal, would have gripped the sheet of paper precisely
there. By the same token, though requiring a greater leap of the imagina-
tion, the largish indeterminate object that partly supports the drawing
pad or block toward the lower right may be seen as a figure for the artist-
model's right thumb, or indeed his entire right hand wielding the pen, or
perhaps for the weight or pressure of that hand against the sheet. (The
relatively large size of that object as compared to the rest of the image
would then be an expression of the particularly intense effort put forth by
the artist-model's right hand.) In a third self-portrait drawing (fig. 168),
also of these years, the sitter has turned toward his right (the artist-model
having turned toward his left), and there is nothing that can plausibly be
taken as a figure for the artist-model's hand or thumb (unless it is the
Figure I7L Gustave Courbet, The Cellist, I847.

Chapter Five
formless darkness beneath the paper on it block); but the ink bottle near
the bottom of the sheet has been depicted largely from above as if to make
it available for use both by the sitter in the drawing and by the artist-
model outside it. Note too the combination of upper-right-to-Iower-Ieft
hatching with horizontal hatching across the table- or desktop on which
the bottle rests; I take the horizontal hatching to define the bottom of the
drawing as a transitional zone between the "world" of the image and that
of the image's maker. The use of the ink bottle as a switch point between
opposed but intimately related "worlds" can plausibly be seen either as
qualifying or as exacerbating our sense of the conflict between them.
One other pencil-and-irik drawing of roughly this time, although not
strictly a self-portrait, belongs with the three we have just examined. In it
Fantin has depicted what seems to be a smallish room at the top of a house
(fig. 172). The scene takes place at night; the room is dark except for a
single source of light, a candle in a candleholder, which stands near the
right-hand edge of a table or desk. The ceiling toward the left slopes in-
ward, and on the far wall two darkish rectangles are juxtaposed with a
lighter one that appears to lean against the wall rather than to be hanging
on it. We cannot say with certainty what any of those rectangles repre-
sents (the larger rectangle toward the right bears an especially confusing
relation to the shadows around it), but it seems possible that one of them,
maybe the rectangle at the lower left, is a mirror (looked at closely it gives
the impression of being framed, as does the larger rectangle on the wall).
In addition something large, flat, and rectilinear, perhaps a blotter or a
sheet of paper, can be made out lying on the table's surface. And there are
a couple of chairs, one to the left of the table and the other in front of it.
Although it can't be proved that this is the room in which Fantin made the
self-portrait drawings we have been examining, the inference that it is
seems nearly irresistible; in any case, we feel that it must have been a room
just like this one. 16 We might think of this drawing as a "supplement" to
the others, which is to say both as a further expression of Fantin's sense of
embodiedness and as an acknowledgment that the self-portrait drawings
alone are powerless to convey the full bodily circumstances in which they
were made. 17 Seen in these terms, the darkness of the room-in both the
drawing of the room and the self-portraits-belongs on the side of the
body: as if the hyperbolic desire to evoke corporeal presence called for
darkness as a means of minimizing eyesight in favor of an emphasis on
bodily experience.
Here it should be recalled that the presumed date of all the drawings,
Figure 172. Henri Fantin-Latour, Drawing of a room, ca. 1860.
circa 186o, places them if not literally on the border of Impressionism at

any rate within just a few years of the public debuts of the painters who
will soon thereafter become the Impressionists-Monet, Pissarro, Sisley,
et al.-and that Impressionism as an artistic movement was from the first
understood as valorizing, even heroizing eyesight, visual perception, as
such. In my introduction I quoted Montifaud who in 1874 called the new
movement "the school of the eyes," and she was by no means exceptional.
Both supporters and detractors held that Impressionism put a new pre-
mium on a sheerly visual order of experience, which also meant on an
unexampled rapidity of seeing and execution (the "impression" was con-
ceived of as essentially instantaneous). And yet Fantin's drawings, for all
their commitment to what I have called perceptual or ocular realism,
seem also to be in the grasp of an altogether different representational re-
gime. How are we to understand this?
That question brings me to the central claim of this chapter. Simply
put, Fantin's self-portrait drawings conjoin two fundamentally different
380 Chapter Five
modes of realism: first, a realism of the body, expressed by a variety of

means and derived ultimately from (or at least consistent with the practice
of) Fantin's chief immediate realist predecessor, Courbet; and second, a
realism of eyesight, of visual perception-an ocular realism-based on
an ideal of exact fidelity to appearances and issuing in masterly transcrip-
tions of the artist-madel's reversed image in a mirror. What must be
stressed-what makes these drawings remarkable-are not only the co-
existence in them of the two modes of realism but also the extent to which
those modes define themselves against one another and so remain dis-
tinct, separate, juxtaposed rather than intermixed. Or to interpret that
mutual opposition diachronically by placing it in a strongly vectored his-
torical narrative, Fantin's drawings demonstrate the emergence of an ocu-
lar, perceptual realism from a corporeal one. Framed in that way, the
intensity of the sitter's gaze-as of "a fascinated hunter," in Derrida's
phrase-suggests not only the artist-model's will to record as veristically
as possible the surface facts of his appearance but also, so to speak, the
gaze's own will to come clear of the body-of the depths of the body, of
the body's darkness and blindness 18 -by fastening onto the image in the
mirror. For precisely the logic of mirror reversal enables the act of seeing
(and of drawing exactly what one sees) to declare itself as such against the
background, the persistence, of a bodily mode of realism that, as in the
paintings by Courbet we have looked at, rejected left/right reversal in
the interests of left/right congruence and for which, as in Courber's art
generally, the faculty of vision was in the end secondary. In fact, I want to
claim that the negotiation of a "crossing of borders" between bodily and
ocular realism-ultimately, between Courber's Realism and the realism
of the Impressionists (or at least of early Impressionism)-was a crucial
aspect of the historical task of the generation of 1863. The unique signifi-
cance of Fantin's self-portrait drawings is that more perspicuously than
any other works of their moment, they allow us to intuit-to hypothesize-
if not the invisible border itself, at any rate the act of passage from one
side of that border to the other.1 9
THE RAMIFICATIONS of all these claims are far-reaching. For ex-

ample:
1. Mirror reversal of right and left also characterizes Fantin's early
painted self-portraits, one of which in particular invites our consider-
ation. In his Self-Portrait, Standing Holding a Paintbrush (1859; fig. 173)
Between Realisms 3 81
Figure 173. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, Standing Holding a Paintbrush, I 8 59·

Chapter Five
Fantin depicted himself just over half-length in the act of painting, a slen-
der paintbrush poised roughly at waist level in his left hand. The sitter's
expression-alert, concentrated, critical-suggests that he has just ap-
plied paint to the canvas and has stepped back, or at least paused, to
gauge its effect. At the same time, his upper body has been turned toward
the viewer just far enough to exclude almost wholly his right shoulder
and arm from view. But of course, assuming the presence of a mirror, the
brush would actually have been held in Fantin's right hand, just as it
would have been his left arm and shoulder-and his left hand, gripping a
palette-that he omitted from the picture. Why would Fantin have done
this? Perhaps because it was only by removing his left arm and hand from
the field of view that he was able to acknowledge the action of his right
arm and hand in the making of the painting: for just to the left of the sit-
ter's missing arm and hand, as if compensating for their absence, the
painting is signed, in an upward direction, with the name and date "Fan-
tin 1859" (fig. 174). I take that highly unorthodox position and orienta-
tion to be a means of calling attention to the act of inscribing (i.e. paint-
ing) the signature and date, an act, moreover, that presumably proceeded
from left to right (even if "left" and "right" are here transposed to a verti-
cal axis) and so is imagined as exempt from the logic of mirror reversal
determining the representational image. The signature and date thus ful-
fill an analogous function to that of the upper-right-to-Iower-Ieft hatch-
ing in the self-portrait drawings, but it is hard to decide whether their
taking the place of the sitter's right arm and hand is itself to be under-
stood as ascribing right-handedness to the act of painting. Such a reading
may be unavoidable, but it necessarily ignores the work of reversal at least
for a moment (it's not in conflict with but parasitic on the mirror-reversed
image), which suggests that Fantin the self-portraitist in oils was unable to
find a painterly device signifying corporeality that functioned as economi-
cally-as indexically-as slanted hatching in the drawings. 20
Moreover, we are now able to make sense of a feature of Fantin's Hom-
age to Delacroix that was mentioned but left unexplained in the introduc-
tion to this book: the figure of Fantin in that picture-wearing a white
shirt and seated in the foreground to the left of the portrait of Delacroix-
holds a palette, not a brush, in his right hand (pI. I, fig. 175)' In the light
of his self-portrait drawings and the Self-Portrait, Standing Holding a
Paintbrush, this seeming error may be taken as declaring his commitment
to painting only what he himself could see even at the price of falsifying
the impersonal or "universal" truth of appearances-a falsification un-
Between Realisms
derscored by the implied contrast between the figure of Fantin and those
of his companions. The other sitters he had observed directly; hence none
is mirror reversed, as is shown by the left-over-right (or "masculine") but-
toning of their jackets. But his own image he had been able to see only
with the aid of a mirror, and by insisting on that dependence in a group
Figure 174. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, Standing Holding a Paintbrush, 1859, detail of
signature and date.
Chapter Five
portrait obviously not presenting itself as the record of a mirror image of

the group as a whole, he evidently wanted to give the fact of reversal a
programmatic significance it couldn't quite assume in self-portraits of
himself alone. A further implication is that Fantin by r864 had come to
recognize the significance of mirror reversal for his art, perhaps because
in preparation for the Homage he had studied his previous self-portraits
and been struck by their unanimity in that regard.
2. The findings of this chapter bear closely on the work of another
member of the generation of r863, Whistler. In chapter 3 I discussed
Whistler's Woman in White and other figure paintings of the early and
mid-r86os. But Whistler "at the outset of his career was also active as an
etcher, and I want to propose that various basic differences between the
first two published sets of his etchings-the French Set of r 857-58 and
the Thames Set of r859-6r-exemplify the distinction between a real-
ism of the body and a realism of visual perception. 21 So for example The
Rag Gatherers (r 858; fig. r 76), from the French Set, is full of shapes and
contours that suggest organic form to the extent of verging on outright
anthropomorphism. This is evident in the treatment of the doorway hung

Latour, Homage to Delacroix,
1864, detail of Fantin-Latour
holding a palette.
Whistler, The Rag Gatherers,
etching, 1858.
with rags: the crumbling plaster hints at the yieldingness of flesh; particu-
lar configurations evoke human faces, organs, body parts; indeed so in-
tense are those effects that the image as a whole assumes the character of a
single internal corporeal space-a kind of bodily cavity-in relation to
which the act of seeing narrowly defined comes almost to seem beside the
point.22
Figure 177. James McNeill Whistler, La Vieille aux loques, etching, 18 5 8 .
Much the same observations might be made about a more important

etching, La Vieille aux toques (1858; fig. 177), which also includes con-
spicuous traces of Whistler's fingerprints and palm prints, the result of a
technical accident-"foul biting"-that occurs with suspicious frequency
in the French Set. 23 ("Foul biting" occurs when the coated metal plate has
Between Realisms
been manipulated too much by the artist; when it is then placed in the
acid bath, the acid eats through the coating where the latter has been
worn away by fingerprints, palm prints, and the like.) The usual explana-
tion is that because similar prints are sometimes found in etchings by
Rembrandt, whom Whistler greatly admired, he was willing to allow
them to remain in certain of his own early images. 24 But in the context of
the present argument (think of the "thumbprint" in the lower left-hand
corner of the second Fantin self-portrait drawing), those fingerprints and
palm prints seem further evidence of something like bodily continuity or
"prolongation" between etching and etcher, almost as if La Vieille aux
loques were a body part in its own right, un morceau de Whistler, so to
speak. 2S
Something altogether different is at stake in the etchings of the Thames
Set. Take for example two ofthe finest, Eagle Wharf(I859; fig. 178) and
Black Lion Wharf (18 59; fig. 179). Both insist on the clear separation of
spatial planes, on a sharpness and minuteness of detail in the middle and
far distance that suggests the view through a telescope or pair of binocu-
lars, above all on the unflagging precision of a line or trait whose firmly
volitional character is at the farthest pole from the automatistic, in that
sense somatic, line of the French Set. 26 Moreover, the diffuse, evenly dis-
tributed light draws attention to the blankness and integrity of the sheet
of paper, whereas the etchings of the French Set seem to allude back, al-
most to regress, to the working of the metal plate and its immersion in an
acid bath (i.e. to the etchings' "bodily" origins). All these points are
driven home by the legibility of the relatively minute signs and lettering
that decorate housefronts in the Thames Set, a feature as characteristic of
it as Whistler's fingerprints and palm prints are of the French Set. The
small scale of the lettering enforces a sense of what might be called ocular
distance; while the inherent directionality of the lettering suppresses the
thought of the reversed image that the artist actually incised on the plate
and so reinforces the emphasis on the sheet of paper. (This is to say that
because the medium of etching comprises a stage-the printing of the
image-that necessarily involves left-right reversal, ocular realism in
Whistler's Thames Set etchings is associated with an opposite relation to
reversal from ocular realism in Fantin's self-portrait drawings-or as we
shall see, in Whistler's own Artist in His Studio. By the same token, the
unidirectionality of writing in Fantin's Self-Portrait, Standing Holding a
Paintbrush is aligned with bodily not ocular realism. In other words, the
meaning of left-right reversal in the art of the generation of 1863 is a func-
Chapter Five
tion of medium as much as of anything else.) Finally, figures in the fore-

ground of the Thames Set etchings tend to appear aware of the artist-
viewer; this too is a distancing device, in contrast to the somnambulistic
absorption of the old woman in La Vieille aux loques. (Even when, as in
Black Lion Wharf, the foreground figure seems momentarily lost in
thought, there is something in his expression, a hint of nervous intensity
waiting to explode, that puts the viewer on guard.)27 Students of Whistler
have of course recognized the stylistic disparity between the French and
Thames sets. But they have missed its significance, which cannot be ac-
counted for in merely stylistic terms. 28
One more early graphic work by Whistler is relevant to these concerns.
In Becquet the Fiddler, a drypoint of 1859 (fig. 180), Whistler has
portrayed a French musician-friend playing a sort of cello-and has al-
most completely omitted the cellist's hands as well as the instrument
itself. Or rather the characteristic outline of the cello is barely discernible,
while the cellist's left hand (plying a phantom bow?) is a mere abbrevia-
tion and his right arm and hand (the latter pressing down on phantom
Figure 178. James McNeill Whistler, Eagle Wharf, etching, 1859.

Between Realisms
strings at the base of the cello's neck?) seem drastically misconceived. In

my brief remarks on Courbet's self-portrait as a Cellist of a dozen years
before, I noted the difficulty he had in correlating the player's right and
left hands with his own right and left hands wielding a brush and a pal-
ette. Something not dissimilar takes place here. It's as though Whistler
sought to identify his own action of marking the metal plate with the rep-
resented action of playing the cello, but found himself prevented from do-
ing so-blocked from taking up the corporeal realist mode such an
identification would have entailed-either because the image as a whole
belonged to an ocular, not corporeal, register, or because the sheer differ-
ence (for example, of scale) between playing a cello and incising a plate
was too stark for such an act of identification to succeed. At any rate, the
violent scoring of the plate to the left and right of the seated musician
suggests a displacement of representational energies and perhaps also
feelings of frustration at an experience of blockage the artist cannot have
understood. Significantly, however, Whistler not only didn't discard Bec-
quet the Fiddler, he included it in the Thames Set, perhaps recognizing
Figure 179. James McNeill Whistler, Black Lion Wharf, etching, 1859.
39 0 Chapter Five
that the breakdown of representation at its center was no ordinary failure.

(A further, more extreme possibility is that coexisting with the image of
Becquet and his instrument is a larger-scaled, somewhat spectral image of
a hand, the thumb of which seems almost to take the place of the cello.
Note too the vestigial presence of a prior image "beneath" the portrait of
Becquet, mainly visible toward the bottom of the sheet and above Bec-
quet's left shoulder. What exactly did Whistler think he had done in this
print?)
These remarks no more than tap the significance of Whistler's early
etchings and drypoints, but one last painting by him bears too closely on

Whistler, Becquet the Fiddler,
drypoint, 1859.
39 1
Figure 181. James McNeill Whistler, The Artist in His Studio, 1865-66.
the argument of this chapter to go unmentioned. Like the works by Fan-

tin we have looked at, The Artist in His Studio (1865-66; fig. 181) is a
self-portrait-the painter at the right who seems to be adding a brush-
stroke to a canvas on an easel just beyond the right-hand framing edge is
unmistakably Whistler-as well as a mirror-reversed image-although
39 2 Chapter Five
Whistler was right-handed, the painter holds the brush in his left hand. 29
Behind the painter and seemingly unaware of what he is doing, two
women are conversing: one, standing, in a light robe (she has perhaps just
been posing for the painter), the other, seated, in a white frock (it's pos-
sible she too is a model, but the impression we get is that she is a visitor).
The implicit narrative of the picture therefore reads as follows: Whistler
and his model or models have taken a break, and the two women have
become engrossed in conversation; he meanwhile has glimpsed the scene
as a whole in what would have had to have been a large mirror roughly in
the position of the viewer standing before the painting, and has seized the
opportunity to capture it in a few rapid, airy, lightly brushed strokes,
the result being the Artist in His Studio. (It's hard to tell exactly where the
painter's gaze is directed; close up it seems not quite to be directed toward
the viewer, but the looseness of the paint handling makes that slight devi-
ation less important than the overall impression of a dynamic of reflection
and reversal based on a mirror located "this" side of the picture surface.)
The Artist in His Studio thus possesses a triple significance for the present
study: it fills out the account given in chapter 3 of Whistler's predilection
for the "apparitional" character of mirror images; it goes farther than
any other work by him toward an explicitly antitheatrical mise-en-scene;
and together with the Fantin self-portraits we have examined it suggests
that mirror reversal was nothing less than a generational trope. 30
3. As for Legros, one work in particular is emblematic of the issues I
have been analyzing. In Le Souper (fig. r82), a small etching made be-
tween r 858 and r 86o, Legros has depicted four figures in a humble inte-
rior dining around a small round table illuminated by a candle. Two of
the seated figures are men; each is absorbed in eating, the one at the left
cutting something on his plate and the one at the right either lifting a bowl
to his lips or setting it down. The seated figure in the left foreground
seems to be a woman; we see her mainly from the rear and no more than
glimpse her profil perdu. Beyond the man at the right and looking directly
at the viewer (a snapshot effect avant la lettre), a standing woman seems
to pause in the act of placing a small dish on the table (though here too it's
possible that she is removing it). But a fifth personage is indicated as well:
whoever is meant to sit at the place that has been laid in the center fore-
ground, a place whose orientation-into the space of the image-
matches that of the artist. In fact, the implication is strong that the place
in the foreground has been set for the artist, for Legros, who thereby
posits himself in a Courbet-like relation to the etching as a whole, enter-
Figure 182. Alphonse Legros, Le Souper, etching, 1858-60.
ing and in effect completing it. (Somewhere in the prehistory of Le Souper

is Courbet's After Dinner at Ornans of r848-49; out there in the not-
too-distant future is Monet's enigmatic Dejeuner of r 868; and less than a
decade beyond that is Gustave Caillebotte's Dejeuner of r876, in which
the identification of the foremost place setting as the painter-beholder's is
all but physically explicit.) At the same time, the outward gaze of the
standing woman posits a more distanced-in the terminology of this
chapter, a more visual or ocular-relation to the artist and viewer, while
the quiet absorption of the other figures in their meal suggests the obliv-
iousness to being beheld that I have associated with the Diderotian tradi-
tion in its classic form. In other words, Legros's little etching provides a
kind of summa of relational structures with respect to the beholder, com-
bining in a single work the range of possibilities we saw expressed in dif-
ferent genres of Fantin's oeuvre.
Finally, Le Souper implicitly figures the enterprise of etching in terms
of the activity of eating: as if the modest scale of etching in general and
this etching in particular thematizes the virtual continuity between artist
and work that corporeal realism evokes as physically incorporating or
ingesting the work of art. (It may not be irrelevant that the production
394 Chapter Five
Figure 183. Camille Pissarro, Sente de justice, Pontoise, 1872.
of an etching also comprises a stage when the line is eaten- "bitten"-

by acid.) But this in turn implies a considerable restriction of ambi-
tion in comparison with Courbet's monumental Realist canvases of the
late I840S and 185 os, in which the (literally unrealizable) project of
incorporation-painter into painting-is vectored the other way. A com-
parable restriction of ambition marks Fantin's self-portrait drawings and
Whistler's French Set etchings, and it may be that that narrowing down-
that self-limitation of corporeal realism to the confines of the artist's
body-presaged the development of the expansive phase of ocular real-
ism that we call Impressionism.
4. Although I have come close to saying that the advent of Impression-
ism in the first half of the I870S marked the full emergence of ocular as
opposed to corporeal realism, I want also to stress that a certain relation
to the body persisted within and beyond Impressionism, which is to say
that the opposition between the two modes of realism was not and indeed
could not have been absolute. (Vision is a bodily faculty, as Merleau-
Ponty never ceases to remind us.) Among the Impressionists proper the
implied presence of the body is most evident in the work of Camille Pis-
sarro, who in pictures such as La Route de Louveciennes (1870), Sente
de Justice, Pontoise (1872; fig. 183), Coteau de ['Hermitage, Pontoise
(1873), and Rabbit Warren at Pontoise, Snow (1879; fig. 184), appre-
hended his chosen motifs as if from the rear. More precisely, I see Pissarro
as often having sought out "views" of the world (the French term is as-
pects) which allowed him to establish relations of congruence-of match-
ing, not facing-between himself as embodied perceiver and the motifs
that offered themselves to be painted. 31
5. So far in this chapter I have said nothing about Manet, who from the
start maintained a greater distance from Courbet's example than Fantin
and Legros and perhaps Whistler as well. But the transition from a corpo-
real to an ocular realism that has been brought to light constitutes a new
framework within which Manet's art will need to be rethought. One
work by him that invites being seen in those terms is his Self-Portrait with
a Palette (1878-79; fig. 185), which although outside the time frame of
most of this book is too important to ignore. In it, the right-handed
painter has represented himself with right and left hands reversed, no
doubt because he relied on an image of himself in a mirror. But the overall
effect of Manet's canvas differs sharply from that of Fantin's self-portrait
Figure 184. Camille Pissarro, Rabbit Warren at Pontoise, Snow, 1879.

Chapter Five
Figure 185. Edouard Manet, Self-Portrait with a Palette, 1878-79.

drawings, with which it is most usefully compared. Instead of the opposi-

tion noted in the drawings between the exact portrayal of what the artist-
model saw in a mirror (in which the body is subordinated to the eye) and
the act of upper-right-to-Iower-Ieft hatching (in which the orientation and
in a sense the reality of the artist-model's body are brought into play), in
Manet's self-portrait a primary commitment to what I have described as
speed or instantaneousness both of seeing and of execution places eye and
body, or rather eye and hand, in exactly the same situation or at least un-
der exactly equivalent pressure. ("Hand" rather than "body" in that the
Self-Portrait with a Palette foregrounds manual dexterity rather than mo-
bilizing the work of the hand or hands in the interest of embodiedness; d.
Mallarme's portrait of the painter, which recalls him saying, "'The eye, a
hand ... ' ")32 More precisely, the implied fiction of the Self-Portrait with
a Palette is that Manet no sooner glimpsed his reversed image in a mirror
than he rendered it in paint by the virtuoso action of his hand and brush;
put slightly differently, that undoing the effects of mirror reversal would
have required more time than was available to him: the extremely sum-
mary nature of the painted Manet's left (the actual Manet's right) hand
holding a paintbrush endorses such a fiction by intimating that being in
rapid ceaseless motion-being everywhere at once-the hand could not
be captured in paint and fixed in place. (The sense of an unbreakable link
between the fact of mirror reversal and a commitment to speed of seeing
and of execution is only sharpened by an awareness of the Self-Portrait
with a Palette's historical prototype, Velasquez's unreversed self-portrait
in Las Meninas [fig. 186], the commitment to speed taking precedence
even over a conceptually prior reference to the earlier work.) This may
seem to imply the subordination of the hand to the eye, or say to the in-
stantaneousness of seeing at its most unimpeded. But Manet's profound
involvement with instantaneousness-also with strikingness-as a marker
of the primordial encounter, the inescapable or quasi-transcendental re-
lation of mutual facing, between painting and beholder was a decisive fea-
ture of his work from the beginning, and one of my main points in the
previous chapter, indeed a major reason behind my refusal throughout
this book to accept an "Impressionist" reading of Manet's art, is that it
would be simplistic to think of that involvement as essentially visual. In
any case, the Self-Portrait with a Palette e~gages head on with the issues
we have been tracking even as it inflects those issues in ways that are noth-
ing if not characteristic of its maker. (Something should also be said about
the paintbrushes held both in the painted Manet's volatilized left hand
Figure 186. Diego Velasquez, Las Meninas, 1656, detail of painter.
and in his right or palette hand, most of which is elided by the bottom
framing edge. One has the impression that those were the last elements-
the last brushstrokes-added to the painting, and since they slant force-
fully from upper right to lower left, they perhaps suggest the inscription
of a certain bodily register almost as an afterthought, and of course under
the sign of speed.)33
Coda: Manet's Modernism
IN T HIS BOO K I have tried to accomplish three aims, though not in

this order: (I) analyze in considerable detail the particular artistic con-
cerns of the group of painters I call the generation of I863; (2) present a
fuller and more nuanced account than any previously available of the dis-
course of French art criticism in the I 860s; and (3) develop, partly on the
basis of those two endeavors, a new set of terms for understanding the
novelty, force, difficulty, and significance of Manet's art during that cru-
cial decade. Having arrived at this coda I want to acknowledge that, for
all the efforts I have made to come to grips with individual canvases by
Manet as well as to trace the parameters of certain of his overarching
(though far from unchanging) intentions and preoccupations, my chap-
ters on his art do not culminate in any single, sustained account of his
extraordinary achievement. The present work thus differs sharply from
Courbet's Realism, which is nothing if not relentless in its tracking of
a single, fundamental problematic throughout virtually the whole of
Courbet's oeuvre. But my claim is that Courbet and Manet are very differ-
ent painters precisely as regards the degree that their respective oeuvres
lend themselves to intensive interpretation of the sort I practiced in my
previous book.
One way of glossing that difference would be to recall my emphasis in
chapter 4 on the resistance Manet's paintings of the I 8 60S offered to what
were then the available modes of intelligibility. In particular I described
Manet's art as seeking to deny the values and effects of absorptive closure
at a historical moment when the alternative values and effects he put in
their place were literally indescribable except in negative terms, as faults,
ineptitudes, violences, approximations, bizarreries, attempts to gain at-
tention at any price, and so on. I have, naturally, made the most of those
instances where one or another critic, in a flash of insight, contrived to say
something positively useful about his work. But flashes of insight seem to
399
400 Coda
have been the best that even the most astute critics could manage-Zola,
for all his limitations, is the exception-even though, as we have seen, the
general standard of French art criticism in the 18 60S was high. (Basically,
the more absorptive in intention was the painting under review, the more
relevant a piece of criticism is likely to seem to us today.) It doesn't follow,
of course, that modern accounts of Manet's enterprise are doomed to an
equivalent inconsistency, and in fact my entire purpose in stressing his re-
lation to other painters of his generation and to contemporary writing
about those painters has been to make his art intellectually accessible as
never before. But it shouldn't be surprising that that purpose has turned
out to be realizable only up to a point.
More broadly, there is a sense in which the need to see Manet's enter-
prise within the framework of a contemporary discourse of painting with
its own history (or rather within the framework of a multiplicity of such
discourses, the respective histories of which bear intricate relations to one
another) militates against the feasibility of providing exhaustive, inter-
nally seamless readings of individual works. Not that detailed accounts of
Manet's paintings are impossible or unrewarding: Sandblad's chapters
on the Music in the Tuileries, Olympia, and Execution of Maximilian and
T. J. Clark's on Olympia, Argenteuil, and A Bar at the Folies-Bergere
amply prove that that isn't so. In this book, too, without focusing in a
comparably intensive way on individual canvases (except for the Old
Musician and Execution of Maximilian), I nevertheless engage at some
length with such pictures as the Street Singer, Dijeuner sur l'herbe,
Olympia (at least with respect to its use of sources), Angels at the Tomb of
Christ, Races at Longchamps, Balcony, and Self-Portrait with a Palette.
But I have already suggested that even Clark's strong and nuanced read-
ings proceed in part by bracketing the possible implication of the works
he discusses in certain larger, explicitly pictorial problematics. And I am
all too aware that my own accounts of individual works are fragmentary
(for want of a better word) and that my attempt to do justice to a broad
spectrum of critical and historiographical issues-for example, those of
artistic nationality and its complement, universality (as distinguished
from eclecticism); of the proliferation of genres and the desire for the re-
sume; of absorption, theatricality, and related concepts; of the tableau, in
all its elusiveness; of the voulu and its changing valences; of the question
of execution, especially as regards issues of closure and conviction; of a
new, expanded notion of the portrait; and of excess, intensity, facingness,
instantaneousness, strikingness, and so on-has meant that my chapters
Manet's Modernism 4 01
on Manet, while mutually reinforcing, can't be said to produce the effect

of a unified whole. (The relatively late addition of chapter 5, with its shift
of focus back toward Fantin, Whistler, and Legros, has made this even
more apparent than would otherwise have been the case.) And yet a cer-
tain absence of unity, in a study that nevertheless aspires toward it as an
ideal, is not wholly inappropriate to my subject.
It is as though as regards Manet's canvases of the I 860s, at least at the
present stage of our knowledge and understanding, a fundamental ten-
sion exists between the desire to read individual works in depth (from
whatever point of view or combination of points of view) and the need to
come to terms with their place within both Manet's oeuvre and the larger
artifactual and discursive field of French painting and art criticism be-
tween Realism and Impressionism. Put more strongly, it is as though
something-an obduracy or opacity (or "blankness" or "indifference")
not unrelated to what I earlier thematized by the notion of a "remainder"
-in the nature of Manet's enterprise during that decade, and to a lesser
extent throughout the rest of his career, rebuffs or at least strongly re-
sists all attempts at hermeneutic penetration. The unreadability of the
red streak between the trousered legs of one of the members of the firing
squad in the Execution of Maximilian may be taken as exemplifying that
quality. But perhaps its most direct expression in Manet's oeuvre is ap-
propriately to be found in the most inspired, lyrical, and matter-of-fact
of all his paintings-the quarter-smile on the face of Victorine Meurent
in the Dijeuner sur l'herbe. If it were practicable-it isn't-this book
would conclude by returning once more to the Dijeuner, the summa and
epitome of the young Manet's dream of painting. If the Execution alle-
gorizes the conditions of painting and spectatorship in the way I have
claimed it does, the Dijeuner incomparably projects a sense of those con-
ditions being features of a world (sans quotation marks), with all the
largeness and complexity of feeling that implies. Not a world apart, like
that of Legros's Ex-Voto as described by Duranty, but one lacking in clo-
sure in every dimension, including that of time: for all the Dijeuner's ca-
nonical prestige, it remains disconcertingly "provisional," in Desnoyers's
inspired formulation. Look, in parting, at the folds of flesh at the back
of Victorine's neck (fig. 187): is there even today a point of view that
can reconcile those with the demands of painterly "effectiveness"? (The
bullfinch hovers over an abyss.) All this, however, could not be farther
from Jean Clay's idea that Manet had no more constant purpose than
simply to oppose every conceivable structure of pictorial meaning.
Coda
figure 187. Edouard Manet,

Le T)ejeuner sur l'herbe, 1863,
detail of head of Victorine
Meurent.
There is a fourth ambition at work throughout the present book, one

touched on in the introduction but not yet mentioned here, and in ob-
vious respects it is the biggest of all-to relay the foundations of our
imagination of pictorial modernism. So the question must be addressed:
What are the implications of the present study for our understanding of
Manet's modernism? Put slightly differently, in light of the arguments ad-
vanced in this book and especially given my insistence that we view him
neither as an Impressionist nor as a wholly solitary figure but rather as a
member of a specific generation, what does it mean to characterize Manet
Manet's Modernism
in the 1860s (unlike other members of that generation) as a modernist

painter? Indeed does it still make sense to describe him in those terms? I
think it does, but no longer on the basis of a single, comprehensive defini-
tion of modernism tout court. Instead there are three partly overlapping
sets of considerations that must be stressed.
First, Manet in the first half of the 1860s sought to establish what I
have called, following Theophile Thore, the universality of his painting
with respect to the major national schools-French, Italian, Spanish,
Dutch, and Flemish-as well as to the major pictorial genres. (The inclu-
sion of Japan came only later, after the Exposition Universelle of 186 7.)
He did this, as regards national schools, by a practice of deliberate quota-
tion of and allusion to earlier works of art; at the same time, he program-
matically worked in all the major genres except landscape in its
traditional form, and in the Dtijeuner sur l'herbe, arguably his most am-
bitious painting of the decade, he brought together a wide range of
genres, including landscape, in a single composition that may be thought
of as either transcending, hence notionally liquidating, individual genres
as such, or acknowledging their inevitability even as it aspired to over-
come the divisions among them.
As I suggest in chapter 1 and confirm elsewhere in this book, Manet's
aspiration toward universality must be seen against the background of a
widely shared intuition of contemporary painting's deeply problematic
relation to the great art of the past. That intuition was sometimes made
explicit, as in the writings of Baudelaire, Thore, and Astruc, and was
sometimes acted out, as in the art of Manet's contemporaries: I attach
particular importance to the fact that so many of the most interesting and
ambitious painters of the 1860s conspicuously adapted earlier painting
in one way or another, often in the teeth of repeated critical disapproval.
Another concern of the art criticism of the time was the vertiginous prolif-
eration of individual genres, a development also described in terms of the
immense expansion of the portmanteau category of "genre painting."
This too threw into relief the incommensurableness of most contempo-
rary painting with the art of the museums, which is to say that Manet's
attempt at once to revalidate and, in the Dtijeuner, to totalize across the
traditional genres was a further expression of the need he clearly felt to
retain or restore connection with the art of the Old Masters even in those
pictures (Music in the Tuileries, Olympia) the subject matter of which
was most conspicuously of his time.
Coda
. Perhaps the notion of totalization, even more than that of universality,

IS what should be stressed. The attitude toward the past I have tried to
define has nothing in common with the usual formalist-modernist em-
phasis on ascesis, reduction, radical simplification. What we find instead
is a deliberate marshaling and combining of resources, as if with a view to
forging a new, more inclusive, if also necessarily tentative and short-lived
conception of the art of painting than any currently available. (One nam;
for the conception, I suggest in "Manet's Sources," is "painting alto-
g~the~. ".) Moreover, the resources in question were defined in strongly
~lstonC1st terms: the late I 8 50S and I 860s saw noteworthy developments
m the area of proto-art history in France-the revival of the Le Nains and
Vermeer,. the celebration of Watteau and the French eighteenth century,
t~e ~onfhct between opposed views of Frenchness in painting, the pub-
hcatlOn of Charles Blanc's Histoire des peintres de toutes les ecoles, the
founding of the Gazette des Beaux-Arts, the holding of major exhibitions
of older art-and as I have tried to show, those and similar developments
were exploited by Manet to the extent that his paintings of the 1860s and
specifically his use of sources in earlier art, cannot be understood ~part
from them. I have also stressed the evident affinities between his practice
of quotation and Thort~'s and other critics' articulation of a "republican"
account of the French pictorial tradition (as well as, at a remove, between
Manet's concern with Frenchness and Michelet's vision of France as la
patrie universelle), and have suggested that in these as in other respects
Manet's personal republicanism played an active role in his art. If we are
to thin~ of Manet's .engagement with previous painting as essentially
modernIst, and I belIeve we must do so, it is on the basis of an idea of
modernism that defies easy summary and has no precise equivalent in the
work of any other painter, writer, or composer.
A second set of considerations concerns what I have described in
Courbet's Realism and elsewhere, as a crisis within the antitheatrical ;ra-
ditio~ that I have claimed was central to the evolution of French painting
s~artmg around the middle of the eighteenth century. Put as briefly as pos-
sIble, by 1860 the means and conventions by which French painting for
more than a century had sought to establish the ontological illusion (in
Absorption and Theatricality I called it a "supreme fiction") that the be-
holder did not exist had come nearly to the end of their efficacy. In partic-
ula~ Courbet's project of quasi-corporeal merger with the painting on
whlCh he was working had become increasingly untenable for the artist
himself (The Quarry of 1856 is perhaps the last work in which that proj-
Manet's Modernism
ect was fully in force), and in any case the conspicuous materiality of
his pictures, along with their primary reference to the painter-beholder,
meant that they failed to make themselves felt as neutralizing beholding
generally. Originally I thought it sufficed to contrast Manet's paintings of
the 1860s with Courbet's Realist canvases, but in the present book I
greatly complicate the story, in the first place by showing the continued
viability of Millet's art in the eyes of many sophisticated viewers, and
in the second by characterizing a crucial dimension of the practice of
Manet's cogenerationists Fantin-Latour, Whistler, and Legros as one in
which an "excess" of absorption (as in Millet) gave rise to effects of inten-
sity, instantaneousness, facingness, and strikingness (the key term
throughout this book). In other words, I show the operation in their art of
a certain double structure, at once ostensibly denying and implicitly ac-
knowledging the beholder's presence.
Manet's response to the crisis, however, was more extreme than theirs.
Not only did he systematically avoid or subvert absorptive or potentially
absorptive motifs; he also deliberately courted unintelligibility on the
plane of subject matter and internal disparity on that of mise-en-scene as
distancing and freezing, one might almost say medusizing, devices; his
execution was almost invariably seen as deficient with respect to finish,
which I have interpreted in terms of a refusal of absorptive closure on that
plane also (cf. Carle Desnoyers's brilliant, pseudonymous text of 1863
reproduced in appendix 3); in painting after painting he depicted figures,
the model for whom was often the compelling Victorine Meurent, gazing
directly out of the painting (and thereby thematizing the painter-model
relation even as the rule that no more than one such figure at a time ever
confronts the beholder in this way suggests that the painting itself does
the confronting); his combination of strong figural and drawing gestalts
with abrupt, quasi-photographic (also quasi-Japanese woodblock) light/
dark patterning promoted an experience of the instantaneous stamping-
or cutting-out of the image as a whole (a kind of strikingness, often
described as assaulting the beholder); and in general he appears to have
done all he could to underscore, in a sense to dramatize, what I have
called the primordial convention that paintings are made to be beheld. I
have associated that aspect of Manet's endeavor with his friend Astruc's
theorization of the portrait in the latter's "Salon of 1868" as well as with
the interest of other painters in his generation, notably Fantin-Latour and
Whistler (Degas too is an example, and in a less adventurous vein Car-
olus Duran), in the portrait as the basis for a rethinking of the tableau. In
Coda
Manet's art, the pursuit of a new form of tableau or portrait-tableau was

linked-I have not been able to say exactly how-with both the impulse
toward totalization and the concerns with facingness, instantaneousness,
strikingness: as if only a tableau, not a morceau, were capable of respond-
ing to those concerns with sufficient focus and force, and as though a sub-
stitute had partly to be supplied from "outside" (via national schools
and, in the Dijeuner, genres) for the absorptive/dramatic unity that had
always been the essence of the tableau and that his eschewal of absorption
prevented him from mobilizing. It's likely, too, that the consistent facing-
ness of the works of earlier art and/ or motifs in that art (notably including
French art) 1 to which he found himself drawn sanctioned his privileging
of facing structures, hence also his association of the portrait and the tab-
leau. But we are on speculative ground.
All this may be understood, as I say in Courbet's Realism, as an em-
brace of theatricality in the presentational rather than "actional" mean-
ing of the term; Manet's involvement with Watteau, whose art Diderot
had criticized as mannered, is altogether to the point. At the same time, I
suggest there that the very extremity of the measures by which Manet's
paintings acknowledge beholding as inescapably the fate of painting can
have the effect of making the actual beholder feel excluded or supereroga-
tory, and that it may be that experience that Manet's viewers have found
more disorienting than any other. (I also describe Manet's intentions as at
once theatrical and anti theatrical, hence as neither one nor the other in
the sense I had been giving the terms until that moment.) In any case,
Manet's modernism, with respect to the issue of beholding, consists pre-
cisely in the doubleness of its relation to the Diderotian tradition: on the
one hand, marking the close of that tradition by insisting as never before
on the "truth" about painting that the tradition had come about to deny
or forestall; on the other hand, demonstrating by example that there
could be no mere laying bare of that "truth" and therefore no entire extin-
guishing of that tradition, which is to say that "presentationality" in
Manet's art is itself not simply presented (what could that have meant?)
but rather is represented (not that the opposition "present/represent" is
other than unstable, but precisely that constitutive instability is my
point). For all its radicalization of theatricality, in other words, something
in Manet's art was in the profoundest tension with the latter (d. my dis-
cussion of his courting of unintelligibility, subversion of potentially ab-
sorptive motifs, denial of individual psychology, refusal of closure on the
plane of technique; all such operations imply the "presence" of the sup-
Manet's Modernism
pressed term, as does Bataille's insistence that Manet's art "effaces" tradi-
tional subject matter). Painting after Manet would be severed from the
Diderotian tradition that had made it possible (it would no longer be a
requirement of ambitious painting that it defeat theatricality, though an-
tagonism to the latter would remain a live option).2 But painting after
Manet would not be liberated from the concerns of that tradition (it
would not thereafter be indifferent to problems of beholding), least of all
when a final step in a formalist-modernist evolution would purport to go
beyond painting into Minimalist objecthood. 3
And what of Manet's cogenerationists? May we say that they are not or
not quite modernist painters because they remained less radical than he in
their relation to the anti theatrical tradition, that is, because they re-
mained committed to a pictorial dynamics of absorption, inwardness,
closure, character, and the like, even though in their work that dynamics
was partly transformed from within? I think we may. And yet it is no
accident-nor is it a matter of contrivance-that my chapter "Manet in
His Generation," after looking briefly at a few works by Courbet, begins
with a consideration of Legros's Angelus and concludes with an analysis
of his Amende honorable. (The two-part title of this book is meant to
make the same point.) For all the uniqueness of his art and the salience of
his historical position, Manet belongs in, and with, his generation. (A
question that I have held off posing until now: Does what I have described
as internal disparity in Manet's work amount to still another version of
what, in the work of Legros, Fantin, and Whistler, I have called a double
or divided structure with respect to the treatment of absorption? I'm not
sure; I think not.)
A third aspect of Manet's modernism concerns the dual thematics of
flatness and visuality that we find in Greenberg'S "Modernist Painting"
and that I argue in my introduction should be understood as an artifact
of Impressionism. Put baldly, it was Impressionism, much more than
Manet, that simplified the art of painting. But the logic of Impression-
ism's indebtedness to Manet's pictures of the I 860s was such as to attri-
bute that simplification to them, an attribution that has stuck, as a casual
survey of the memorial articles of 1883 and 1884, Matisse's interview of
1932, and Greenberg'S essay of 1960 suffices to show. In its early phase
this development was abetted by Manet's quick acceptance of certain
"impressionist" means and ambitions (a lightened palette, the use of bro-
ken brush strokes, a willingness to work en plein air), with the result that
by the time of the first Impressionist exhibitions (1874, 1876, 1877), and
Coda
although he abstained from taking part in them, he was viewed as the

nascent movement's chef de file.
Also pertinent here is the extreme rapidity with which the import of the
new style was correctly grasped by its commentators. From the outset,
critics recognized that the new painting was addressed to the sense of
sight virtually to the exclusion of other faculties; that its basic assump-
tions were realist in that it sought to capture as directly and "naively" as
possible the truth of the painter's instantaneous impression (an ostensibly
simple but in fact ambiguous notion), and that in particular instances
(e.g. Monet's Boulevard des Capucines) the illusionistic effect was aston-
ishing; that it placed special emphasis on the harmonious relations of
tones and colors (which caressed rather than assaulted the eye), and more
broadly that it aspired to a new, essentially surface mode of unity which
the critics called "decorative" (the terminology was in use as early as
I 874); and that in these and other respects it involved a considerable sim-
plification of the aims of painting, or as was also said, an attempt to return
painting to its basic elements (propaedeutically, so to speak).4 So imme-
diate and acute an uptake contrasts dramatically with the incomprehen-
sion that greeted Manet's paintings of the I860s and that would largely
continue to greet his work, despite the critical assimilation of aspects of
his style to that of Impressionism. And my claim has been that between
the "system" of Manet's paintings of the I 860s and that of early Impres-
sionism there existed fundamental differences that have never fully been
given their due. s The fact remains, however, that the discourse of Im-
pressionism provided contemporary critics with a way of approaching
Manet's achievement (his pursuit of strikingness and facingness was
viewed as a concern with visuality and "decoration," just as his pursuit of
instantaneousness, a complex and many-sided affair, was registered as a
simpler concern with the instantaneousness of perception and/or of ap-
pearances), and as the I870S went on and his own work became more
consistently "impressionist" in subject matter and handling, the dis-
course in turn became increasingly able to respond to nuances in his art,
though not without signs of strain precisely as regards the question of the
relation of his painting to that of the younger men. (Stephane Mallarme's
article of I876, "The Impressionists and Edouard Manet," is a case in
point.)~· Beyond that, as was noted in the introduction, the Impressionist
"The Art Monthly Review r (Sept. 30, r 876): r 17-22; rpt. in Documents Stephane Mallarme,
ed. Carl Paul BarbIer, 7 vols. (Paris, 1968-80), r:59-86. The text in question is an English
translatIOn by one Arthur O'Shaughnessy of the lost French original; the former has itself been
Maner's Modernism
reading of Manet provided a basis for the upward revaluation of his

oeuvre in the I 8 80S. And beyond that the Impressionist emphasis on visu-
ality and" decoration" led in just a few steps to what became the standard
formalist-modernist account of the essence of painting, an account that
was then able to return to and claim for modernism Manet's pictures of
the I860s, indeed that recognized in them the first modernist paintings
"by virtue of the frankness with which they declared the surfaces on
which they were painted."6
It may seem to follow that Impressionism, not Manet, should be con-
sidered the fountainhead of formalist-modernist painting or at least
theory-that formalist-modernism got it wrong not only about the
meaning of Manet's art but also about its own historical origins. But it
would be more accurate to say that Manet's priority as the first formalist-
modernist painter should be shared with the Impressionists (from an Im-
pressionist point of view his paintings do have that significance), and on
somewhat different grounds with Courbet, whose Realist paintings, the
Burial at Omans especially, frankly and massively declared, if not the sur-
translated back into French, but of course the new French version has infinitely less authority
than the En~lish version, which Mallarme read and approved. (See Mallarme, "Les Impres-
sionistes et Edouard Manet," trans. Philippe Verdier, GBA, 6th ser., 86 [Nov. 1975]: 147-56.)
For a long time Mallarme's essay was largely ignored by scholars, but in the course of the
past twenty-five years it has received extensive commentary. One passage in particular is of spe-
cial interest in view of the argument of this book. In it Mallarme seeks to justify the necessity of
the Impressionist practice of painting in the open air. When a figure is placed in an interior, he
explains, "the reflected lights are mixed and broken and often discolour the flesh tints" (p. 73).
This happens in Manet's Reverie (better known as Le Repos) of 1869-70, a portrait of Berthe
Morisot half-reclining on a divan that despite being an interior scene Mallarme finds "alto-
gether exceptional and sympathetic" (ibid.). Mallarme's reference to flesh tints, together with
the mention of Reverie, implies that the true subject of plein air painting is nothing other than
woman. Without further transition the next paragraph reads:
Woman is by our civilisation consecrated to night, unless she escape from it sometimes to
those open air afternoons by the seaside or in an arbour, affectionated by the moderns. Yet I
think the artist would be wrong to represent her among the artificial glories of candle-light or
gas, as at that time the only object of art would be the woman herself, set off by the immediate
atmosphere, theatrical and active, even beautiful, but utterly inartistic. Those persons much
accustomed, whether from the habit of their calling or purely from taste, to fix on a mental
canvass the beautiful remembrance of woman, even when thus seen amid the glare of night in
the world or at the theatre, must have remarked that some mysterious process despoils the
noble phantom of the artificial prestige cast by candelabra or footlights, before she is admit-
ted fresh and simple to the number of every day haunters of the imagination. (Yet I must own
that but few of those whom I have consulted on this obscure and delicate point are of my
opinion.) The complexion, the special beauty which springs from the very source of life,
changes with artificial lights, and it is probably from the desire to preserve this grace in all its
integrity, that painting-which concerns itself more about this flesh-pollen than any other
human attraction-insists on the mental operation to which I have lately alluded, and de-
mands daylight-that is space with the transparence of air alone. The natural light of day
4 IO Coda
faces on which they were painted at any rate their status as surfaces made
of paint, with uncontrollable consequences for Courbet's project of
quasi-corporeal merger.? This implies a complexly recursive three-part
hingelike structure that calls into question any absolute distinction be-
tween Courbet's Realism and Manet's modernism (from a formalist-
modernist perspective, at any rate) as well as between what in the preface
to this book I call the prehistory of modernist painting and modernist
painting "itself." (The quotation marks are there to acknowledge that the
larger story of modernist painting in the later nineteenth and twentieth
centuries is that of a plurality of modernisms or say of modernist adven-
tures.) Another version of that structure, not at all formalist-modernist,
emerged in chapter 5, in which some mirror-reversed self-portraits and
related works in several media by Fantin-Latour, Whistler, Legros, and
Manet turned out to require interpretation in terms of a three-part rela-
tion among Courbet, the generation of 1863, and the Impressionists, a
relation in which, conceptually, the first and third "moments" precede
penetrating into and influencing all things, though itself invisible, reigns also on this typical
picture called Le Linge [1876; fig. 188], which we will study next, it being a complete and fi-
nal repertory of all current ideas and the means of their execution. (pp. 73-74)
Several points should be stressed. (1) Painting is held to bear a special relation to the human
face. This extends the thematic of facingness, also of the portrait, which we saw at work in the
art ofthe generation of 1863 as well as in the writings of Astruc and other critics. (2) The asso-
ciation between painting and the face is mediated by "woman": the faciality of painting is
essentially feminine (in fact the gender connotations of the passage as a whole are not so simple,
but let this stand for the moment). (3) The connections among painting, femininity, faciality,
and natural light and air are established by way of the notion of woman's "complexion" on the
grounds that painting as an art "concerns itself more about this flesh-pollen than any other
human attraction" and so has a special affinity for women's faces seen under conditions that
preserve the "integrity" of that "grace." The implicit logic would seem to be that painting,
being the representation of surfaces, and itself consisting in the elaboration of a surface, is par-
ticularly bound or drawn to the most delicate or superficial surface of them all. Such a focus on
considerations of surface is obviously indebted to Impressionism, though it is here inflected
against the Impressionist preference for landscape. (4) The thematization of femininity (also of
faciality) leads directly to an engagement with the issue of theatricality. It is above all the desire
to avoid theatricality, which he calls "inartistic," that impels Mallarme to deprecate artificial
lighting and come out in favor of effects of daylight and air. Mallarme thus implicitly construes
Impressionism, to which he attaches Manet, as an antitheatrical school. (5) The actual wording
of the passage (in the absence of the original French) complicates the question of gender by
equating woman's complexion with something called "flesh-pollen," pollen being a substance
produced by the male organ of the flower. This is to say that the faciality Mallarme evokes is at
once feminine and masculine. And my suggestion is that we understand the element of mas-
culinity to be contributed by the implied male beholder's gaze, as though that gaze were itself
part of the surface-the superficies-of both the woman's face and the painting. (An anticipa-
tion of the Bar.)
A final point turns on distinguishing sharply between "flesh-pollen" -a natural substance,
for all its strangeness-and cosmetics-an unnatural or artificial substance applied to faces
Manet's Modernism 4 II
Figure 188. Edouard Manet, Le Linge, r876.

412 Coda
the second and thus jointly determine its meaning. Among those three
"moments" the second is by far the hardest to characterize. I have de-
scribed the art it comprises as negotiating a "crossing of borders" be-
tween Courbet's corporeal realism and the ocular realism of the
Impressionists, but exactly how are we to understand that feat of negotia-
tion? Phenomenologically and (quasi-)ontologically, what came "be-
tween" the two realisms? Chapters 3 and 4 especially attempt to answer
those questions, and it is perhaps fitting that they were conceived before
the questions were framed.
An analogous structural uncertainty marks the beginning of the an-
titheatrical tradition in my account. In an obvious sense, the first body of
works in which the new concern with the beholder as a disruptive force is
consistently manifest are Jean-Baptiste Creuze's genre paintings of the
second half of the 1750S. But it was in terms of a comparison between
Creuze and his major predecessor, Chardin, that the nature of absorption
from outside. The passage just quoted, indeed Mallarme's entire article, should be read in op-
position to Baudelaire's defense of cosmetics in The Painter of Modern Life (see esp. pt. 6, "In
Praise of Makeup"). ("The Impressionists and Edouard Manet" begins by citing Baudelaire in
order to establish its distance from him-to win Manet from him.) This means that Jean Clay
(to cite him one last time) is exactly wrong when he sums up Mallarme's argument by saying:
"Not to paint women, but the way these women are painted. Not faces, but that which, on these
faces, is painting: makeup. To paint, not the structure of the model (bones, muscle), but the
surface areas where the object offers itself as light sedimentation, and to render these sprin-
klings of powder by the powder of the pigment. Manet, in this respect, would have chosen to
identify the object that he paints and the procedure that makes it possible. He would flatten the
referent on the canvas, favoring in his choice of objects the rich surfaces that are already those of
painting" ("Ointments, Makeup, Pollen," trans. John Shepley, October, no. 27 [winter 19 8 3]:
43)· He also says: "The ultimate Mallarmean reversal: if the face is only worth something to the
artist because it is already a painting (a painted/cosmetic surface), the painting in its turn is
worth something as a face" (ibid.). Nothing could be more foreign to Mallarme's article of
18 7 6 (as distinct from "Le Jury de peinture pour 1874 et M. Manet," in which he praises
Manet's work for acknowledging "the origin of this art made from ointments and colors"
[\'origine de cet art fait d'onguents et de couleurs]) than Clay's conflation of his thought with
Baudelaire's (my use of the term "superficies" in this note is, however, indebted to Clay's essay).
(See Mallarme, Oeuvres completes, ed. Henri Mondor and G. Jean-Aubry [Paris, 1945],
p.69 6.)
This is not the place for even a brief discussion of Le Linge, but two points are worth re-
marking. First, without straining interpretation Le Linge may be understood as a delayed re-
sponse to the central group in Courbet's Studio, or say to the feminization of that group in
Whistler's Lange Leizen and Courbet's Source. And second, neither the woman wringing out a
piece of wet laundry nor the small child bedazzledly, in that sense absorbedly, looking on seems
aware of being beheld. But the large sunflower in the upper right-hand corner may be seen both
as a figure for beholding not unlike the "eyed" peacock feathers in the Portrait of Emile Zola
and as virtually allegorizing sunlight, the very condition of vision, hence of painting and a forti-
ori of Impressionism. For Jacques-Emile Blanche, who in 'lis youth saw Le Linge in Manet's
studio, it is the painting in which Manet most closely approached Impressionism; he also re-
ports that it cost Manet infinite pains (Manet [Paris, 1924], pp. 47-4 8 ).
Manet's Modernism
as pictorial theme and effect was first articulated and the innovative force
of Creuze's art was brought to light. 8 Moreover, a basic distinction be-
tween what I call the axis of absorption and the axis of beholding is al-
ready discernible in Chardin's genre paintings of the 173os, which
suggests that a heightened awareness of the beholder's point of view was
already in place. 9 Chardin may thus be thought of either as immediately
preceding or as inaugurating the antitheatrical tradition,IO which is to
say that he and Creuze together form a sort of hinge at once separating
and connecting that tradition from and to the painting that precedes it.
Indeed it may be argued that only with the towering achievement and
pedagogical force of David's history paintings of the 1780s was an anti-
theatrical tradition truly instituted. So that hinge too is really a three-part
affair, anticipating the Courbet/Manet-plus-generation of 1863 /Impres-
sionism structure of roughly a century later.
One last range of implications centers on what was widely regarded at the
time as the problematic status of Impressionist pictures with respect to
the issue of the tableau. Even the movement's early advocates-Burty,
Chesneau, Armand Silvestre-believed that Impressionist pictures fell
short of the "completeness," the experiential density and artistic self-
sufficiency, of the fully realized tableau. 11 By this the critics mainly meant
that the works in question were too sketch like-mere esquisses, ebauches,
or etudes. (But not morceaux: the tableau/marceau distinction of the
1850S and 1860s was superseded by Impressionism.1 2 Of course, as we
have seen, Manet's paintings of the 1860s had also been described as
ebauches by contemporary critics, which suggests that Manet's execu-
tion, his refusal of closure on the plane of technique, was a crucial link
between his art and that of the Impressionists. As was his decision, break-
ing with both Couture and Courbet, to paint on a light, not a dark,
ground.) Eventually, the Impressionists themselves would try to devise
equivalents for that "completeness," most importantly by working in se-
ries of pictures and, when it became feasible, exhibiting those series as
ensembles. (Monet's Water Lilies represent the apogee of that develop-
ment.) 13 But I want to stress something else, namely the way in which the
"decorative," modest-sized, landscape-based non-tableau-like Impres-
sionist picture, in conjunction with with the new, perceptually reposeful
conditions of display at Impressionist exhibitions and one-man shows of
Impressionist works at private galleries (so different from the crowded-
ness and visual cacophony of the Salons), gave rise to a manifestly judg-
Coda
mental, self-consciously "esthetic" mode of seeing and experiencing

painting that itself was largely new and would go on to have a tangible
effect on avant-garde pictorial practice. 14 Naturally I am not suggesting
that before the advent of Impressionism critics were any less judgmental
than they became afterward (see the critical literature on Manet in the
1860s). But there are signs in the criticism of the 1870S and 1880s of
a subtle but momentous shift of rhetorical and experiential emphasis:
from an often binary, all-or-nothing type of judgment expressive of the
writer's general critical position and engaging with a range of representa-
tional considerations (including, centrally, ones of absorption) to a less
ideological-seeming, more contemplative or "disinterested," but also
more rigorously comparative type of judgment that claimed to bring into
focus what soon came to be called "the intrinsic quality of painting it-
self." And one of the first beneficiaries of that development was Manet,
who came to seem the very prototype of the painter the distinctive merits
of whose work were revealed only in this way. IS
The phrase in quotation marks comes from Theodore Duret's preface
to the catalogue for the posthumous exhibition and sale of the contents of
Manet's studio of 1884, and is part of a contrast he drew between jour-
nalistic art critics, bent on judging pictures mainly according to subject
matter, and a class of viewers whom he described as connoisseurs, ama-
teurs, and collectors. "In their eyes," Duret wrote, "the intrinsic quality
of painting itself dominates everything in the work of a painter, and
the subject, which almost by itself decides the preferences of others, is
nothing more than an accessory." Duret continued: "The connoisseurs are
generally without parti pris as regards styles and schools. They are strong-
ly eclectic. All that they ask of a painting is that it be painted, in the ful-
lest sense of the word. But on that point they are pitiless. In preference to all
the gods of Olympus, to all Homer's and Virgil's heros, treated in the man-
ner of half the students of the ecole de Rome, they will prefer, unhesitat-
ingly, any cauldron from the brush of a Chardin." 16 There follows a long
paragraph (the last in the preface) that I want to quote in its entirety:
The connoisseurs, men whose taste, functions, and status lead them to spe-
cially occupy themselves with paintings, will not judge a painter except after a
long acquaintance with his works. For an artist to be definitively accepted as a
painter among the connoisseurs, it's necessary that his canvases, placed
alongside ones by great painters, his predecessors, have been able to sustain the
comparison. It's necessary that, in private collections, in museums, they hold
up alongside those by the masters. Now, Manet's paintings hold up alongside
Manet's Modernism
those of any painter whatsoever. No painting has a firmer facture and more ex-
act tones than his, no painting is more luminous, more transparent, or more
airy in its backgrounds, none shows more life in the eyes and on the face. Put a
Manet among works by Delacroix, Corot, and Courbet, and you will leave it
there, as if in its natural place, among its coequals. In every collection and mu-
seum where one wants to possess specimens of all the French masters and to
repres~nt the modern school in its entire development, Manet will inevitably
have hIS place marked out, because he has been, as much as anyone at all, origi-
nal and personal, and because he has given, with a brilliance that will never be
surpassed, a special note in painting, that of bright tones, open air, and direct
sunlight. I7
The passage ends by implicitly assimilating Manet to Impressionism. It

also provides an unexpected sequel to my earlier suggestion, gleaned
from numerous remarks in the criticism of the 1860s, that Manet was
admired by a cadre of amateurs and connoisseurs from the outset of
his career. And its statement that Manet will henceforth inevitably-
{orcement-have his place marked out in the museums amounts to a final
displacement of the notion of forcing that we first noted in Duranty's
reading of Legros's Ex- Voto and in the Ex- Voto itself. But what I want to
underscore is, first, Duret's insistence on the intrinsically pictorial quality
of Manet's art, and second, his claim that we discover whether the work
of a given artist possesses such quality by hanging a painting by him
alongside paintings by earlier masters whose greatness is not in doubt
and then watching what happens as the new work strives to measure up
to its forebears. If the new painting "holds up" in that exacting situation,
it possesses pictorial quality; if not, it doesn't. By that simple but decisive
criterion, Manet seemed to Duret to have already won his future place in
the museums. iS
In other words, by 1884 nearly all the elements of a "Greenbergian"
formalist-modernist point of view were not only clearly articulated but
also specifically brought to bear on Manet's painting, which in turn
seemed to fit them perfectly. Indeed Manet soon came to be seen as having
pursued pictorial "quality," in the sense of "esthetic" value, virtually to
the exclusion of all else. "In Manet," George Moore wrote in the 1890S,
"there is nothing but good painting." And: "Whatever he painted be-
came beautiful-his hand was dowered with the gift of quality, and there
his art began and ended." 19 And a page or so later: "Never did this mys-
terious power which produces what artists know as 'quality' exist in
~reater abundance in any fingers than it did in the slow, thick fingers of
Edouard Manet; never since the world began; not in Velasquez, not in
Coda
Hals, not in Rubens, not in Titian. As an artist [but what does Moore
mean by this?] Manet could not compare with the least among these illus-
trious painters; but as a manipulator of oil-colour he never was and never
will be excelled. Manet was born a painter as absolutely as any man who
ever lived, so absolutely that a very high and lucid intelligence never for a
moment came between him and the desire to put anything into his picture
except good painting."20 The simplification of Manet's enterprise could
scarcely be taken further. And with that new phase of simplification came
a glorification of his execution, which had been a focus of negative com-
ment throughout his career.21
These developments were, at least initially, the work of Impressionism,
or rather they followed from the rapid and lasting triumph of Impression-
ism's reconstitution of the easel picture and concomitant revision of the
nature and content of pictorial experience. Accordingly, my effort in this
book has been directed at recovering the original meaning of Manet's art,
before that double process of reconstitution and revision had got under
way. And yet in a sense that effort has been possible only within the frame-
work of the viewpoint I have been trying to overcome. I mean not only
that the terms in which I posed the art-historical problem I initially set for
myself, to understand the seminal role of Manet's paintings of the first
half of the I 8 60S, imply the persistence, the at-least-vestigial "presence,"
of the "Impressionist" Iformalist-modernist perspective the origins of
which I have just evoked. I mean also that without endorsing Duret's "in-
trinsic quality of painting itself" (though as a young critic I embraced
similar ideas), and without subscribing to the excesses of Moore's vision
of Manet as involved only with quality (though standing before individ-
ual canvases I too have marveled at a touch that seemed to be concerned
with nothing more), my continued stake in Manet rests importantly on
the conviction that Manet's best paintings "sustain comparison"-
Duret's phrase seems exactly right-with those of the great painters who
preceded him. 22 To the extent that that belief became central to a certain
reflection on painting only in the wake of Impressionism, the mind of this
book remains divided. But no truly serious book on Manet could be oth-
erWIse.
Appendix 1: Antonin Proust,
L'Art d'Edouard Manet (1901)
J'ai publie, il y a quatre ans, dans un recueil fran<;ais, La Revue Blanche, a l'aide
de notes prises au cours d'une intimite nee sur les bancs du college et qui n'a pris
fin qu'a la mort de mon ami, une serie d'articles sous Ie titre de Souvenirs de
Manet. Je me suis interdit dans ces articles to ute appreciation personnelle, vou-
lant conserver aux Souvenirs de Manet leur expression phonographique.
Un recueil anglais, Ie Studio, me demande aujourd'hui une etude sur Ie chef de
l'Ecole impressionniste.
Cette etude, je la donne d'autant plus volontiers que l'eeuvre de Manet est peu
connu en Angleterre.
Edouard Manet est ne a Paris, au mois d' avril 1832. A vingt ans, en 1852, il
avait deja dans Ie monde des ateliers la reputation d'un maitre. Ses camarades et
tous ceux qui s'interessaient au mouvement de l'art, tres actif a cette epoque, sui-
vaient attentivement les etudes de ce jeune homme, dont l'eeil, sensible au moin-
dre frisson de l'atmosphere, revait de ramener a l'observation de ce qui s'agite
autour de nous, la peinture fran<;aise egaree dans la reconstitution des choses
disparues.
Les paysagistes, influences par l'Ecole anglaise, vivaient depuis longtemps re-
pandus dans la campagne, loin des laboratoires officiels et, selon l'expression de
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, se laissaient seduire "par l'or des genets et la pourpre des
bruyeres."
Courbet, qui etait venu d'un pas quelque peu lourd de son pays franc-
comtois, avait tente dans la figure IiI meme transformation qui s'etait operee dans
la peinture de paysages.
En peignant l'Enterrement a Ornans, expose precisement en 1852, dans les
galeries du Salon annuel, installe au Palais-Royal, il avait voulu reagir dans Ie
sens du reel contre Ie manierisme que nous avait valu l'enseignement donne par
David; mais, demeure tres epris des methodes italiennes, au point de vue du me-
tier, il n' etait parvenu dans ce premier tableau a donner la sensation de la lumiere
qu'a force d'oppositions violentes, et encore cette lumiere demeurait-elle Ie plus
souvent sourde, faute par Ie peintre de reconnaitre, comme ill'a fait plus tard,
particulierement dans la Remise des Chevreuils, que les ombres sont d'autant
plus limpides que les clartes sont plus ardentes.
Appendix One
Manet apparait a ce moment, "apportant ainsi que I'a dit tres justement Paul
Mantz, a la palette contemporaine, la note claire, c'est-a-dire une sorte de fleur,
non pas inconnue, mais trop oubliee. Sur les tons eteints de la peinture a la mode,
la sienne avait les fraicheurs deIicates d'une rose de Bengale."
Des ses premiers essais a I'atelier, il avait laisse de cote les preparations noires
conseillees par son maitre Couture. Sur la toile blanche, il dessinait du bout de la
brosse; puis, apres avoir cherche a rendre d'un seul ton les parties eclairees, il
conduisait la lumiere jusqu'a l'ombre, dont il etudiait les moindres nuances.
Si ces essais de Manet avaient eu lieu entre les quatre murs d'un atelier, on en
aurait peu parle; mais Manet dessinait et peignait souvent hors de I'atelier, dans
la rue, et sa silhouette blonde etait rapidement devenue populaire dans Ie quar-
tier de la place Pigalle.
En outre, Baudelaire, qui faisait de la critique d'art et qui avait ete du premier
coup seduit par les theories de Manet, ne s' etait pas contente de parler de lui dans
Ie prive, ill'avait indique comme un renovateur au cours de l'un de ses articles.
Ces debuts si brill ants et si bruyants de Manet sont aujourd'hui oublies. Pres-
que tous ceux qui en ont ete temoins ont disparu, et les survivants, ce qui est tres
humain, oubliant leurs emotions de jeunesse, ne veulent garder Ie souvenir que
de ce qui interesse leur personnalite, a ce moment obscure.
Quelques-uns, parmi les plus illustres, reconnaissent cependant que Manet,
aussitot qu'il fut en possession d'un crayon, dessinait ou, pour employer sa lo-
cution favorite, mettait un plan avec une fermete et une hardiesse telles que ses
dernieres reuvres n'ont pas plus d'accent que ses croquis d'enfance.
Ces croquis lui avaient d'ailleurs valu, dans sa famille, un protecteur enthou-
siaste.
Le pere et la mere de Manet appartenaient a une famille de la vieille bourgeoi-
sie fran~aise.
Du cote paternel, on avait ete de tout temps dans les fonctions de la magistra-
ture. Le pere de Manet etait president de Chambre a la Cour d'appel de Paris. Sa
mere etait issue d'une generation d'amateurs. Son grand-pere maternel, qui avait
une tres grosse fortune, et qui avait aide a I' elevation de Bernadotte sur Ie trone de
Suede, avait ete fait citoyen suedois par I'ancien general fran~ais. Sa fille etait la
filleule de la reine de Suede. Le frere de sa mere, Ie colonel d'artillerie Fournier,
qui occupait aupres du duc de Montpensier les fonctions d'aide de camp, aimait
passionnement les arts, pour lesquels son fils, Edmond Fournier, capitaine d'ar-
tillerie, qui fut tue plus tard devant Sebastopol, n'avait aucun gout. Le colonel
Fournier, qui avait trouve dans son neveu, Edouard Manet, un enfant dont Ie plus
grand plaisir etait d'aller avec lui au Louvre ou de des siner dans leurs excursions
autour de Vincennnes, OU il tenait garnison, se prenait souvent de querelle avec
son beau-frere a son sujet.
-II ne faut jamais contrarier la vocation d'un enfant, disait Ie colonel Four-
mer.
Antonin Proust
Le pere de Manet n'entendait pas de cette oreille.

-Si mon fils, expliquait-il, ne se sent pas attire par les choses du Palais, qu'il
fasse comme vous, qu'il embrasse la carriere militaire, mais faire de la peinture,
jamais.
Pour en finir avec cette exigence paternelle, Edouard Manet consentit a se pre-
senter a l'Ecole du Borda. II serait marin, et, comme les reglements de cette
epoque accordaient a ceux qui avaient fait un stage dans la marine marchande
une annee de plus pour concourir, Edouard Manet s'embarqua a Bordeaux a
destination de Rio-de-Janeiro, en qualite de pilotin.
II revint de ce voyage de moins en moins ouvert au charme des mathematiques.
Son oncle Fournier aidant, son pere ceda, et il entra chez Couture.
Lorsqu'il quitta l'atelier Couture, en 1856, Ie front ceint de cette aureole de
revolutionnaire qui lui avait valu les sympathies de la jeunesse du temps, contre
toute attente il ne se hilta pas d'exposer. "Avant d'aborder les Salons, il me faut,
disait-il, aller deposer rna carte chez les grands and~tres."
II voyage a en Hollande, en Italie, en Espagne. Quand il rencontra, en Espagne,
chez Velasquez, la preoccupation de la simplicite du des sin et de la transparence
de la coloration, il se sentit heureux comme un homme qui se retrouve parmi les
siens, apres une exploration dans un pays ou sa langue est ignoree.
L'influence que Velasquez eut sur lui, il ne la niait pas, ilia confessait.
La consciencieuse sincerite des Primitifs italiens I'emut et la hardiesse des
partis pris de Franz Hals lui causa, en Hollande, une telle impression que, revenu
a Paris, arme de tous ces souvenirs, il se decida a aborder franchement les divers
aspects de la vie parisienne.
La vie de Manet est, a cet egard, un superbe exemple de loyaute. De 1858 a
1860, il fait une serie d'etudes, I'Etudiant de Salamanque, Moise sauve des eaux,
la Toilette, la Promenade, en not ant simplement au dos de ces etudes ce que les
maitres qu'il admire lui ont appris.
Le premier tableau qu'il envoie au Salon est Ie Buveur d'absinthe. Ce tableau
est refuse. La critique, attachee au culte des vieilles images, pousse un cri d'hor-
reur devant ce tableau expose sur Ie boulevard des Italiens. Couture se montre
impitoyable. Personne ne voit dans cette conception d'un des sin si serre, d'une
couleur si harmonieuse, une reuvre qui rappelle comme Ie dit Manet lui-meme,
les Buveurs du Musee de Madrid.
"J'ai fait, dit-il, un type de Paris, etudie a Paris, en mettant dans I'execution la
naivete du metier que j'ai retrouvee dans Ie tableau de Velasquez. On ne com-
prend pas. On comprendra peut-etre mieux si je fais un type espagnol."
Et, avec cette bonne humeur que rien ne deconcerte, il donne Ie Joueur de gui-
tare, qui lui vaut une mention honorable au Salon de 1861.
II n'existe dans aucun musee une page plus vigoureusement peinte que Ie
Joueur de guitare. La maniere dont sont traitees la figure et les mains, d'un mo-
dele si complet, obtenu cependant a I'aide de procedes sommaires, les nuances si
4 20 Appendix One
delicates des gris du vetement, la justesse de coloration du banc vert, la frakheur

des natures mortes du premier plan font du Joueur de guitare une manifestation
dans laquelle la critique se decide a reconnaitre un art qu'elle n'a pas vu ou
qu'elle a perdu de vue. Revenant sur l'aveuglement dont elle a fait preuve l'annee
precedente devant Ie Buveur d'absinthe, elle s'excuse, en affirmant que ce premier
tableau n'est qu'une erreur d'eleve, une conception procedant de la methode de
Couture.
Le Portrait de mon pere et de ma mere, expose au meme Salon de I 8 6 I,
de route completement cette meme critique. Si elle a pu executer, a propos du
Joueur de guitare, des variations sur Velasquez et sur Goya, elle est muette sur Ie
Portrait du pere et de la mere Manet, OU parait l'influence de Franz Hals, qu'elle
ne connait pas encore. Franz Hals ne sera, en effet, note que plus tard, au lende-
main de la vente Pourtales.
En France, la critique d'art a toujours ete, a quelques rares exceptions pres,
tres miserable. Quand elle n'a plus sous la main les manuels en usage, elle se
montre Ie plus souvent incapable de discerner par elle-meme.
Lorsque l'on voit aujourd'hui dans la gal erie de M. Faure, qui en est l'heureux
possesseur, les trois premiers tableaux de Manet, Ie Buveur d'absinthe, Ie Joueur
de guitare, et Ie Portrait de ses parents, on peut penser aux maitres espagnols et
au peintre de Harlem, mais il est impossible de trouver la moindre trace de l'en-
seignement donne a Manet par l'auteur des Romains de la Decadence. C'est a
peine si, dans les dessous du chapeau de Buveur, on peut entrevoir un indice des
frottis chers a Couture. Mais ce qui frappe, c'est la personnalite puissante de Ma-
net, qui do mine les influences qui ont pu s'exercer sur lui. On prevoit, a l'examen
attentif de cette premiere etape de l'infatigable lutteur, que chaque jour qui
s'ecoulera a dater de ce moment produira une tentative nouvelle.
Apres Ie succes duJoueur de guitare, la vie s'ouvrait aussi souriante devant lui.
On Ie vit circuler dans Paris, y peindre partout OU il trouvait un sujet qui lui plai-
sait et aussi aisement que s'il eut ete dans son atelier.
La Chanteuse des rues, representant une femme sortant d'un cafe et tenant
dans une main des cerises que l'autre main porte ases levres, toile devant laquelle
un reil affine admire la souplesse de l'enveloppe de la figure principale et une
qualite des tons de chair qui en font une reuvre superieure aux reuvres prece-
dentes, fut Ie marceau capital qui suivit de pres les trois premiers tableaux de
Manet. Mais la Chanteuse des rues fut violemment critiquee. Cette recherche
scrupuleuse de la verite contemporaine ne trouva grace devant personne, sauf
devant Paul Mantz. Faute de pouvoir s'en prendre a l'reuvre elle-meme, on se
rabattit sur la vulgarite du sujet, qui est, a dit recemment un fonctionnaire des
Beaux-Arts, emprunte a l'Assommoir de M. Zola, dont la publication eut lieu
cependant plusieurs annees apres l'apparition du tableau.
C'est ainsi que l'on ecrit l'histoire dans les regions officielles. Seul, Paul Mantz
Antonin Proust 42I
loue la Chanteuse des rues. "Manet est tout ce que l'on voudra, ecrit-il, mais un
realiste brutal, jamais!"
Peu de mois apres, Manet exposa Ie Dejeuner sur l'herbe. Ce fut encore Ie sujet
qui parut inacceptable a la critique. Des femmes nues dejeunant avec des jeunes
gens vetus, une telle corruption n'etait pas tolerable, et les ecrivains du temps,
oubliant Ie tableau du Giorgione qui est dans Ie salon carre du Louvre et dont
Manet declarait tres haut qu'il s'etait inspire, crierent al'indecence.
Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe marque cependant, dans l'reuvre du peintre, cette pre-
miere recherche du fremissement de la pleine clarte qu'il devait plus tard traduire
avec une grande puissance dans la Barque d'Argenteuil et dans Ie pere Lathuille.
On sent que Manet est a la veille d'etre pleinement maitre de sa volonte.
Entre temps, les sujets espagnols : Ie Jeune homme en costume de Majo,
fait d'apres son frere Gustave, la Lola de Valence, peinte, comme Ie Torero
femme, d'apres son modele favori, Victorine, sont autant d'etudes qui Ie prepa-
rent, comme l'Homme mort, fragment decoupe dans Ie Combat de taureaux, a
simplifier sa palette, qui nous donne deux ans plus tard Ie Fifre et la Joueuse de
guitare, reuvres d'une maestria telle que la posterite s'inclinera devant elles avec
Ie respect que l'on doit au genie, sans parvenir a comprendre que Ie peintre qui a
pu faire de telles choses n'ait pas ete de son vivant honore comme il meritait de
l'etre.
Le Fifre, qui appartient aujourd'hui au comte Isaac de Camondo, a ete tres
durement traite quand il parut. Autant on s'etait montre seduit par l'Enfant a
l' epee, en Amerique, al'heure actuelle, autant Ie Fifre fut accueilli avec severite. 11
y a cependant entre ces deux toiles une distance enorme. La premiere est interes-
sante par la cranerie du dessin, par l'accentuation de la couleur. La seconde est
un morceau qui, dans sa rudesse voulue, n'a plus rien de la tonalite indecise de
certains details de la premiere trop sacrifies. Le fifre est campe sur un fond clair et
son gros drap de troupier s'enleve sur ce fond avec des nuances d'une sensibilite
exquise. La joueuse de guitare, placee en pleine lumiere, vetue de blanc, fait sentir
so us son vetement leger la nervosite de sa forme. La pose de la main sur Ie
manche de la guitare est d'un dessin admirable. Ce dernier tableau est dans une
collection privee des Etats-Unis. C'est un des symptomes les plus curieux de la
force des superstitions que l'erreur qui a, pendant des siecles, depuis la funeste
epoque de la Renaissance, entraine l'art hars de sa voie naturelle, soit a ce point
forte que to ute loyale expression de la verite ait pu apparaitre comme un men-
songe.
On s'etait fait dans notre pays une idee si fausse des conditions du beau dessin,
de la belle couleur et de la saine composition que Watteau et Chardin sont passes
presque inaper«us au milieu du tap age des pinceaux bruyants, a cote du dessin
metallique et de la banalite des arrangements prevus par Ie codex des professeurs
attitres. C'est tout au plus si l'on a concede aWatteau l'elegance des personnages
422 Appendix One
de ses fetes gal antes et a Chardin un brevet de maitre de la nature morte. Des
etonnantes sanguines rehaussees de crayon noir du premier et des portraits du
second, on ne faisait pas plus de cas que des ceuvres de Clouet, de Janet et de
Cousin. Manet no us ramenait au respect de cette tradition nation ale, a l'admira-
tion des choses meconnues. 11 faisait revivre tout cela par des observations per-
sonnelles, mais l'ceil de ses contemporains persistait a ne pas voir. Lorsqu'il
disait que, dans notre siede, M. Ingres avait ete Ie maitre des Maitres, on tenait
pour un blaspheme du peintre du Dejeuner sur l' herbe cette manifestation de son
culte pour Ie peintre de la Source.
Dans ce meme ordre d'idees, je me souviens qu'un jour, a La Rochelle, Corot
ayant tres vivement loue la sincerite d'observation du paysagiste Boudin, ceux
qui l'ecoutaient temoignaient visiblement de cette conviction que l'ermite de
Ville-d'Avray se moquait d'eux.
Le celebre tableau de l'Olympia, expose au Salon de 1865 et qui est, a l'heure
presente, au Musee du Luxembourg, procede, pour quiconque examine les
choses de sang-froid, de la con stante preoccupation qu'a eue M. Ingres et qu'a
voulu avoir Manet de chercher dans les contours de ses figures une irreprochable
purete de lignes. Est-il rien de mieux mis en place, pour employer l'expression
favorite de Manet, que la figure d'Olympia? Assurement non. Mais comment
faire comprendre, a un public qui se fait d'une courtisane l'idee precon~ue d'une
femme opulente etalant sur des draps luxueux les chairs debord antes d'un mo-
dele a la Jordaens, que l'image vraie de la fille est aussi bien dans cette nudite
indigente qu'a representee Manet? Dans un chapitre de son volume Mes Haines,
Zola a fait une description magistrale de l'Olympia de Manet. Zola dedaigne
avec raison ce reproche fait a l'Olympia d'etre cerdee d'un trait noir conforme-
ment, avait dit la critique, a l'enseignement de Couture, qui, soit dit entre paren-
theses, n'a jamais accentue les contours de ses peintures.
Ace moment, d'ailleurs, a l'exception de Theophile Gautier, de Paul Masson,
de Duret, de Zola et de Barbey d'Aurevilly, qui n'avait pas coutume de parler
d'art, mais qui fit une exception en faveur de Manet, to ute la critique se mobilisa
pour ecraser sous ses foudres Ie peintre de l'Olympia.
Manet, il faut Ie reconnaitre, fut tres affecte de cette levee de boudiers. Mais
ses convictions etaient tellement fortes, son courage tellement grand que son ceil
garda sa surete, et son jugement sa serenite.
Dans ses promenades au Louvre, avec les habitues du cafe Guerbois, qui
avaient pour principe de ne rien trouver de bien, Manet s'arretait et les arretait
devant les Poussin. Tout ce qui etait fran~ais Ie seduisait. La plupart des talents
consacres Ie laissait, en revanche, tres froid. 11 tenait Leonard de Vinci pour tres
superieur au divin Raphael, et, quand il allait au Luxembourg, c'etait devant les
dessins de M. Heim qu'il s'arretait de preference.
"Etre vrai," telle est sa formule. A Boulogne, quand il peint cet admirable ta-
bleau des Femmes de pecheurs au clair de lune, il se montre scrupuleux a ce point
Antonin Proust
qu'il se refuse a donner Ie moindre coup de brosse quand il n'a pas retrouve Ie
meme effet que la veille.
Toujours desireux de rendre ce qui l'a frappe, il marche la tete libre au milieu
des choses de son temps. C'est l'heure de ce que l'on a appele sa troisieme ma-
niere. 11 a pris son empreinte definitive. Aucun souvenir de l'atelier. Aucun rappel
de tel ou tel maitre.
De 1869 a 1879, il fait une serie de dessins, de pastels, de tableaux ou d'etudes
peintes ou il est en pleine possession de lui-meme. La critique, qui s'est adoucie
devant Ie Bon Bock, qu'il a peint pour montrer a ses imitateurs qu'il saurait, s'ille
voulait, plaire au public, reprend son verbe hostile quand il peint les blancheurs
edatantes du Chemin de fer ou qu'il expose Ie Linge.
Les portraits succedent aux portraits; puis, voici Polichinelle, Dans la serre, la
suite des eaux-fortes, les illustrations d'Edgar Poe, les etudes de Champfleury.
Partout c'est la vie, la lumiere. 11 se produit sur toutes les palettes, un reflet de sa
maniere de peindre. Personne n'y echappe. Depuis les membres de l'Institut, a
commencer par Paul Baudry, qui l'imite dans son Saint-Hubert du chateau de
Chantilly, jusqu'aux derniers des intransigeants de l'Ecole impressionniste, cha-
cun suit attentivement tout ce qui sort de I'atelier de la rue d'Amsterdam. Mais ce
n'est rien d'emprunter la maniere de peindre, ce qu'il faudrait derober a Manet,
c'est sa maniere de voir, et cela ne s'acquiert pas.
Manet renonce d'ailleurs a envoyer ses ceuvres dans les expositions organisees
par la petite eglise qu'il a creee, parce que la on ne se montre pas plus tendre pour
lui que sous la coupole du Palais Mazarin. Pour un peu meme, les impression-
nistes, qui lui doivent tout, seraient tentes de Ie renier comme Pierre a renie Jesus.
Sans se soucier de ces miseres, il prodigue sa seve genereuse et feconde sur les
talents qu'il a fait naitre. Quand on lui vient dire qu'il ne sait pas dessiner, il
hausse les epaules et repond : "Je ne trace pas des lignes betes comme on apprend
a les tracer a l'Ecole, cela est vrai. Mais qu'on demande aux illustres professeurs
qui y enseignent de faire une mise en place avec Ie sentiment de la lumiere au bout
des doigts. Je les en defie. Ah! l'atmosphere avec sa darte, sa mobilite qui enve-
loppe tout de son eblouissante splendeur! Allez donc parler de cela a des gens qui
piquent une figure sur une toile comme on pique un papillon dans une vitrine."
Et, faisant allusion a un portrait d'un peintre en vogue: "Je vois bien, s'ecriait-il,
qu'il a peint une redingote. Elle est meme d'une coupe irreprochable, cette redin-
gote. Mais OU sont les poumons du modele? 11 ne respire pas sous son vetement. 11
n'a pas de corps. C'est un portrait pour tailleur."
Un jour, etant alle rendre vi site a de Goncourt, deux ans apres la mort de
Manet, je lui dis: "J'ai lu dans Manette Salomon ce que vois faites dire au peintre
Coriolis et j'ai retrouve la un recit de Manet presque textue!." "Cela est parfaite-
ment exact, me repondit de Goncourt. J'ai ecrit Ie chapitre, non pas sous la dictee
de Manet, mais en sortant de chez lui, et vous savez combien je me fais un devoir
de reproduire maintenant les propos de mes contemporains."
Appendix One
Ce passage de Manette Sa/oman, je Ie donne ici, ne serait-ce que pour montrer

combien des critiques, qui ont pour excuse de ne l'avoir jamais connu, se trom-
pent quand ils nous representent un Manet amoureux de la reclame et du bruit et
qu'ils pretent des mots dignes d'un marchand de chocolats a cet homme qui a
toujours ete d'une grande modestie.
"J'etais, dit Ie peintre de Manette Sa/oman, dans un omnibus. J'avais fini
d'epeler les annonces que l'on a sur la tete.Je regardais stupidement des maisons,
des rues, des grandes machines d'ombre, des choses eclairees, des becs de gaz, des
vitrines, un petit soulier rose de femme dans une montre, sur une etagere de
glaces, des betises, rien du tout, ce qui se passait. J'en etais arrive a suivre meca-
niquement sur les volets des boutiques fermees l'ombre des gens, qui recom-
mence eternellement une serie de silhouettes. J'avais en face de moi un monsieur
avec des lunettes qui s'obstinait a vouloir lire un journal. II y avait toujours des
reflets dans ses lunettes. As-tu remarque comme les femmes paraissent myste-
rieusement jolies, Ie soir, en voiture? De l'ombre, du fantome, du domino, je ne
sais pas. Elles ont de tout cela, un air voile, un empaquetage voluptueux, des
choses d'elles qu'on devine et qu'on ne voit pas, un teint vague, un sourire de
nuit, avec ces lumieres qui leur battent sur les traits, tous ces doux reflets qui leur
flottent sous Ie chapeau, ces grandes touches de noir qu'elles ont dans les yeux,
leur jupe meme, remuante d'ombre. Tiens, elle etait comme <;:a, tournee, regar-
dant, un peu baissee. La lueur de la lanterne lui donna it sur Ie front. C'etait
comme un brillant d'ivoire. Cela mettait une vraie poussiere de lumiere a la ra-
cine de ses cheveux. Trois touches de clarte sur la ligne du nez, sur un bout de la
pommette, sur la pointe du menton et tout Ie reste dans l'ombre."
Tout Manet est dans ce recit qui traduit l'observation constante de son <ril
emu par tout ce qui se passe autour de lui.
II est, au reste, aujourd'hui admis, reconnu que Manet a rendu a l'art l'emi-
nent service de Ie ramener dans Ie champ de l'observation, de l'eloigner de l'imi-
tation de la chose deja faite et de Ie faire vivre non plus de la vie passee, mais de la
vie qui nous est commune.
Manet a fait plus. II a legue une palette plus claire, plus saine, une vision plus
grande de la transparence des ombres que l'on s'obstinait a voir opaques.
Thore, qui ecrivait sous Ie pseudonyme de Burger, au moment OU Rousseau,
Corot et Millet etudiaient attentivement la campagne des environs de Paris, di-
sait devant les premiers tableaux de Meissonier : "Quel dommage d'affubler en
seigneurs Louis XIII des modeles, de vouloir remonter Ie cours des siecles, quand
il serait si facile a M. Meissonier de peindre au cabaret, a Poissy, de braves gens
dans leurs attitudes vraies!"
Acette epoque, Manet n'etait pas ne. Ses tendances l'ont porte tout naturelle-
ment a faire ce que desirait Thore. II a ete l'homme de son temps, et il a apporte
dans la representation des choses de son temps sa force individualiste.
On lui a reproche d'avoir vu les femmes en laid. II n'est pas de reproche plus
Antonin Proust
lllJuste. Le portrait d'Eva Gonzales n'est pas seulement Ie portrait fidelement

rendu d'une tres jolie femme. L'attitude en est d'une grace parfaite, Ie mouve-
ment en est des plus heureux et, si l'on voulait enumerer les portraits exquis de
Mile Demarsy, de Mme Valtesse, de Mery Laurent, de Mile Lemonnier, on ne
trouverait dans l'<ruvre d'aucun peintre un plus haut sentiment de la distinction.
Lorsque, au lendemain de sa mort, survenue brusquement Ie 30 avril r 88 3, on
fit l'exposition de son <ruvre a l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts, ce qui choqua Ie public,
comme a l'exposition du pont de l'Alma, qu'il avait faite en r867, ce fut Ie grand
nombre de toiles demeurees a l'etat d'ebauche.
L'inachevemeilt de tant de peintures est tout a l'honneur de Manet. II n'eut
jamais consenti a poursuivre de chic une etude commencee d'apres nature. II
avait un tel respect pour la chose observee qu'il ne voulait a aucun prix deflorer
son observation. C'est un scrupule que l'on ne rencontre pas assez souvent chez
les artistes, et l'une des faiblesses de Corot et de Millet a ete de terminer dans
l'atelier; pour Ie dernier, de composer meme de toutes pieces des tableaux qui ne
pechent pas seulement par l'inferiorite du metier, mais par la pauvrete de la con-
ception. Un jour viendra OU notre <ril, perverti par certaines conventions, recon-
naitra la justesse de la doctrine de Manet, a ne rien faire sans Ie secours de la
nature. "Si la definition de Bacon, disait-il, que l'art est l'homme ajoute a la na-
ture, homo additus naturae, est d'une absolue verite, encore faut-il que la nature
so it lao On ne remplace pas, meme par Ie souvenir Ie plus fidele."
Les lecteurs du Studio seront peut-etre quelque peu surpris d'entendre parler
ainsi de Millet par celui qui a pousse l'Ange/us, a la vente Secretan, jusqu'a un
prix invraisemblable.
Je dirai, ace sujet, que tout est relatif. L'Ange/us porte, comme tout l'<ruvre de
Millet, une recherche de philosophie rurale qui s'impose sous la faiblesse souvent
trop manifeste des moyens d' execution. II fallait, a l'heure OU l'Ange/us paraissait
en vente publique, honorer Ie penseur et l'honorer d'autant plus qu'il avait brise
avec to utes les conventions en usage.
Mais il n'y a rien de commun entre l'<ruvre de Millet et l'<ruvre de Corot,
cherchant a seduire l'imagination par l'introduction de demi-dieux ou de
naiades dans des paysages fidelement observes, et l'<ruvre de Manet.
L'auteur du Buveur d'eau, que reproduit Ie Studio a cote d'autres reproduc-
tions, n'a qu'un but, comme l'a spirituellement ecrit Paul Mantz: "reduire au
silence les derniers cuisiniers de l'Ecole bolonaise." Ce qu'il recherche avant
tout, c'est, dans un sujet simple, emprunte a la vie moderne, l'etude de l'intensite
reelle des tons clairs, les differents degres des valeurs. Manet a Ie sens de la cou-
leur a un tel degre que Ie jeu du dessin ne se separe pas pour lui de son mariage
avec la coloration. Tout est lie dans sa pensee et il repete volontiers, dans ses en-
tretiens intimes, "que sans ponctuation il n'y a orthographe ni grammaire, et que
vouloir separer Ie dessin de la couleur est une absurdite."
Son <ril est tellement doue que, dans une nuance d'apparence grise et uni-
Appendix One
forme, il pen;:oit et rend des delicatesses qui nous echappent. Au fur et a mesure
qu'il avance dans la vie, sa sensibilite devient a cet egard de plus en plus aigue.
Les tons violaces des ombres dans Ie Portrait de Pertuiset, la mobilite des con-
tours qu'il maintient indecis dans la Barque d'Argenteuil et dans Ie Pere Lathuille
etonnent tout d'abord. Mais on ne tarde pas a en reconnaitre la verite et,
lorsqu'on se trouve en presence de l'ensemble de son ceuvre, ce qui frappe c'est la
poursuite incessante d'un ideal qu'il a atteint dans ses dernieres productions et
que 1'0n pourrait definir ainsi: la realisation des effets optiques resultant du mou-
vement des colorations variees que la nature no us offre.
Cette vibration des tons clairs, ill'obtient des Ie debut. Mais, de 1860 a 1883,
c'est chaque jour un progres nouveau, parce que chaque jour est marque par une
tentative nouvelle.
Aujourd'hui, la force des preventions est telle que Ie grand nombre resiste en-
core a accepter la plupart des ceuvres de Manet. On y veut trouver des remini-
scences, des faiblesses. II viendra cependant un jour OU Ie moindre croquis de cet
artiste vraiment genial sera recherche et analyse comme renfermant un ens eigne-
ment dans la plus legere de ses indications.
Pour citer l'un des exemples les plus frappants de cette intuition superieure qui
fait de Manet Ie plus peintre des peintres de notre siecle, quel tableau a ete plus
malmene que Ie Combat du Kearsarge et de l'Alabama, et dans quelle toile, ce-
pendant, ancienne ou moderne, la mer a-t-elle ete rendue avec plus d'ampleur?
Et quelle jouissance des yeux pour ceux qui aiment la peinture pour elle-meme et
qui la degagent de tous les prejuges de la rhetorique ou de toutes les pretentieuses
reflexions de la litterature?
Causant un soir avec lui, dans son atelier de la rue d'Amsterdam, Manet en
vint a parler des appreciations Ie plus souvent injurieuses qui avaient encombre
la presse pendant vingt ans, toutes les fois qu'il avait expose soit au Salon, so it
dans Ie biitiment eleve a ses frais, en 1867, au bord du pont de I'Alma, soit dans sa
galerie de la rue Saint-Petersbourg. C'etait en 1882; il etait deja tres souffrant du
mal qui devait l'emporter l'annee suivante. "Cette guerre au couteau me dit-il
m'a fait Ie plus grand mal. ren ai cruellement souffert, mais elle m'~ donne l~
coup de fouet. J e ne souhaite a aucun artist d' etre loue et encense a ses debuts. Ce
serait pour lui I' aneantissement de sa personna lite. " Puis, souriant, il ajouta :
"Les imbeciles! ils n'ont cesse de me dire que j'etais inegal : ils ne pouvaient rien
dire de plus elogieux. Cela a toujours ete mon ambition de ne pas demeurer egal
a moi-meme, de ne pas refaire, Ie lendemain, ce que j'avais fait la veille, de m'ins-
pirer constamment d'un aspect nouveau, de chercher a faire entendre une note
nouvelle. Ah! les immobiles, ceux qui ont une formule, qui s'y tiennent, qui s'en
font des rentes, en quoi cela peut-il interesser l'art? Je te Ie demande. Determiner,
au contraire, un pas en avant, et un pas suggestif, voila la fonction de l'homme
qui a une caboche! Us seront heureux, mon cher ami, les gens qui vivront dans un
Antonin Proust
siecle; les organes de leur vision seront plus developpes que les notres. Us verront
.
mleux. "
Un long silence s'etant fait a l'approche de la nuit, no us no us quittames sur ce
mot de Manet, qu'il me repetait souvent : "Tu sais, moi il faut me voir tout entier.
Et, je t'en prie, si je viens a disparaitre, ne me laisse pas entrer dans les collections
publiques par morceaux; on me jugerait mal."
L'annee suivante, mon ami mourait. Quelques mois apres sa mort, nous orga-
nisions, a l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts, l'exposition complete de son ceuvre. Huit ans
apres, en 1889, je pouvais renouveler cette exposition au Champ-de-Mars. En
1883 comme en 1889, ce fut une veritable apotheose. Mme Edouard Manet, qui
vit dans la retraite, a Gennevilliers, entouree des portraits de son mari, Ie portrait
de Manet jeune, par Fantin-Latour, celui que lui a fait plus tard Claude Monet et
deux portraits qu'il a peints d'apres lui-meme, a deux epoques differentes de sa
vie, l'un en 1862, l'autre en 1875, ne pouvait, l'autre jour, me parler sans etre
profondement emue de ces deux grandes manifestations.
Quelle trainee lumineuse Manet a, en effet, laissee dans l'art fran<;:ais? Mais, si
Ie public commence a se montrer moins rebelle, ce n'est que plus tard qu'il com-
prendra l'eclat de cette carriere si prematurement brisee.
(Le Studio 21 (Jan. 15, 1901): 71-77)
Four years ago, in a French journal, La Revue Blanche, with the help of notes
taken during the course of an intimacy which was born on a school bench and
which did not end until my friend's death, I published a series of articles under
the title Souvenirs de Manet. I forbade myself any personal evaluation in those
articles, wishing to preserve in the Souvenirs de Manet their phonographic ex-
pressIOn.
An English journal, The Studio, today asks me for a study of the leader of the
Impressionist school, which I provide all the more willingly since Manet's work
is little known in England.
Edouard Manet was born in Paris in April 1832. At twenty, in 1852, he al-
ready had the reputation of a master in the studio world. His comrades and all
who took an interest in the art movement, which was very active at the time,
attentively followed the studies of this young man, whose eye, sensitive to the
least atmospheric trembling, dreamed of bringing French painting back to the
observation of what stirs around us, after it had strayed into reconstituting things
that had disappeared.
The landscape artists, influenced by the English school, for a long time were
spread out around the countryside, far from the official laboratories, and, in
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's expression, were letting themselves be seduced "by the
gold of the broom and the purple of the heather."
Appendix One
Courbet, who had come with a rather heavy step from his native Franche-
Comte, had attempted the same transformation in the human figure which had
occurred in landscape painting.
In painting the Burial at Ornans, exhibited precisely in 1852, in the galleries
of the annual Salon at the Palais-Royal, he wanted to react in the direction of the
real, in contrast to the mannerism that David's teaching had given us; but, still
very taken with Italian methods from the point of view of technique, he did not
manage in that first painting to convey a feeling of light except through violent
contrasts, and even this light most often remained dull, because the painter failed
to recognize, as he did later, especially in the Remise des Chevreuils, that
shadows become more li11!pid as light areas are more brilliant.
Manet appears at this moment, "bringing to the contemporary palette," as
Paul Mantz rightly said, "the light note, that is to say, a sort of flower, not un-
known, but too often forgotten. Compared with the muted tones of fashionable
painting, his had the delicate freshness of a Bengal rose."
Right from his first studio attempts, he put aside the black preparations that
his master Couture had advised. On the white canvas he drew with the tip of his
~rush; then, after trying to render the light areas with a single tone, he brought
light down to shadow, whose slightest nuances he studied.
If these attempts had taken place within the four walls of a studio, we would
have heard little about them; but Manet often drew and painted outside the stu-
dio, in the street, and his blond head quickly became popular in the Place Pigalle
quarter.
Furthermore, Baudelaire, who wrote art criticism, and had been seduced by
Manet's theories from the start, was not content to speak of him in private, but
pointed him out as an innovator in one of his articles.
Manet's so brilliant and noisy debuts have been forgotten today. Nearly all
who witnessed them have died, and the survivors-forgetting their youthful
em?tions, which is very human-want to hold on to the memory of only that
which concerns their personality, which is obscure at this moment.
Several among the most illustrious people recognize however that as soon as
Manet took hold of a pencil, he drew, or to use his favorite locution, he set down
a design with a firmness and boldness such that his last works have no more im-
pact than his earliest sketches.
Those sketches, moreover, earned him an enthusiastic protector in his family.
Manet's father and mother belonged to the old French bourgeoisie. On his fa-
ther's side, they had always worked in the magistrature. Manet's father was head
of chambers at the Court of Appeals in Paris. His mother came from a generation
of connoisseurs. His maternal grandfather, who had a very large fortune and had
assisted in the elevation of Bernadotte to the Swedish throne, had been made a
Swedish citizen by the former French general. His daughter was the queen of
Sweden's goddaughter. The brother of Manet's mother, the artillery colonel
Antonin Proust
Fournier, who was aide-de-camp to the duke of Montpensier, passionately loved

the arts, for which his son, Edouard Fournier, an artillery captain later killed at
Sebastopol, had no taste. Colonel Fournier, finding in his nephew Edouard
Manet a child whose greatest pleasure was to go with him to the Louvre or to
draw during their excursions around Vincennes, where the garrison was, often
quarreled with his brother-in-law on Manet's behalf. "One must never go
against a child's calling," Colonel Fournier would say.
Manet's father would not listen to any of this. "If my son," he explained,
"does not feel himself drawn by matters of the Palace of Justice, let him do as
you've done, let him embrace a military career, but painting-never."
To put an end to this paternal demand, Edouard Manet agreed to enroll in the
school of the Borda. He would be a sailor, and, as the rules of that time granted
those who had done a stint in the Merchant Marine an extra year to pass the
entrance examination, Edouard Manet embarked at Bordeaux for Rio de Janeiro
with the commission of pilot's apprentice.
He returned from this voyage less and less receptive to the charm of mathe-
matics. With his uncle Fournier's help, his father gave in, and Manet entered
Couture's studio. When he left in 1856, his head encircled by the revolutionary
halo that showed off the sympathies of the youth of his time, contrary to every
expectation, he did not rush to exhibit. "Before tackling the Salons," he said, "I
must go and leave my card with the great ancestors."
He traveled through Holland, Italy, Spain. In Spain, when he encountered in
Velasquez the preoccupation with simplicity of drawing and transparency of
color, he felt as happy as a man who finds himself once again among his own,
after exploring a country where his language is unknown. He did not deny the
influence that Velasquez had on him, in fact he confessed it.
The conscientious sincerity of the Italian primitives moved him and the bold-
ness of Frans Hals's forceful manner made such an impression on him in Holland
that, back in Paris, armed with all those memories, he decided to take on frankly
the diverse aspects of Parisian life.
Manet's life is, in this respect, a superb example of loyalty. From 1858 to 186o,
he produces a series of studies, the Student of Salamanca, Moses Saved from the
Waters, La Toilette, La Promenade [La P&he? J, noting simply on the back of
these studies what the masters he admires taught him.
The first painting he sends to the Salon is the Absinthe Drinker. The painting
is rejected. The critics, attached to the cult of old images, emit a cry of horror at
this painting exhibited on the boulevard des Italiens. Couture proves to be merci-
less. No one sees in this conception of such concise drawing, of such harmonious
color, a work that recalls, as Manet himself says, the Drinkers in the Prado.
"I have made," he says, "a Parisian type, studied in Paris, while putting into its
execution the technical naIvete that I recognized in Velasquez's painting. No one
understands. Perhaps they will understand better if I make a Spanish type."
43 0 Appendix One
And, with that good humor undisturbed by anything, he offers the Cuitar-
rero, which earns him an honorable mention in the Salon of 1861. In no museum
is there a work more vigorously painted than the Cuitarrero. The way the face
and hands are treated, with such complete modeling, though obtained by means
of simple procedures, the delicate nuances of grays in the clothing, the accuracy
of the coloring of the green bench, the freshness of the stilllifes in the foreground,
make the Cuitarrero a manifestation in which criticism resolves to recognize an
art which it has not seen or which it has lost sight of. Returning to the blindness
they displayed the previous year with the Absinthe Drinker, the critics excuse
themselves by affirming that this first painting is just a student's mistake, a con-
ception derived from Couture's method.
The Portrait of the Artist's Parents, exhibited in the same Salon of 1861, com-
pletely baffles these same critics. If they were able to perform, apropos the Cui-
tarrero, variations on Velasquez and Coya, they are mute before the Portrait of
the Artist's Parents, in which the influence of Frans Hals appears, whom they
don't know yet. Frans Hals will not, in fact, be recognized until later, the day after
the Pourtales sale.
In France, art criticism has always been, with several rare exceptions, very
poor. When it no longer has manuals to tell it what to think, it usually proves
incapable of discerning anything on its own.
When today we see Manet's first three paintings, the Absinthe Drinker, the
Cuitarrero, and the Portrait of the Artist's Parents, in the gallery of M. Faure,
who is their fortunate owner, we can think of the Spanish masters and the painter
of Haarlem, but it is impossible to find the slightest trace of the teaching given
Manet by the creator of the Romans of the Decadence. It is only with difficulty
that, in the underpainting of the hat in the Absinthe Drinker, one might catch a
glimpse of the washes dear to Couture. But what is striking is Manet's powerful
personality, which dominates the influences that have worked on him. One fore-
sees, examining attentively this indefatigable fighter's first phase, that from this
moment each passing day will produce a new challenge.
After the success of the Cuitarrero, life unfolded happily before him. One saw
him going around Paris, painting everywhere he found a subject that pleased him
and as easily as in his studio.
The Street Singer, representing a woman leaving a cafe and holding in one
hand cherries that her other hand brings to her lips, was the principal work im-
mediately following Manet's first three paintings. A refined eye admires the sup-
pleness of the main figure and a quality of flesh tones that make it a work superior
to the preceding ones. But the Street Singer was violently criticized. This scru-
pulous examination of contemporary truth found favor with no one, except Paul
Mantz. Without being able to come to terms with the painting itself, people went
on about the vulgarity of the subject, borrowed, an official of the Beaux-Arts re-
cently said, from L'Assommoir of Zola, whose publication in fact took place sev-
Antonin Proust 431
eral years after the appearance of the painting. This is the way history is written
in official places. Paul Mantz alone praises the Street Singer. "Manet is all one
could want," he writes, "but a brutal realist, never!"
Just a few months later, Manet exhibited the Dejeuner sur l'herbe. Again it
was the subject that seemed unacceptable to the critics. Nude women having
lunch with clothed young men, such corruption was intolerable, and the writers
of the time cried out against indecency, forgetting the painting by Ciorgione in
the Louvre which Manet loudly declared had inspired him.
In the painter's work, however, the Dejeuner sur l'herbe marks the first re-
search into the shimmering of full daylight which he would later translate power-
fully in Argenteuil and Chez Fere Lathuille. One feels that Manet is on the verge
of fully becoming master of his will.
Meanwhile, the Spanish subjects: Young Man in the Costume of a Majo,
posed by his brother Gustave; Lola de Valence, painted, like Mlle V. .. in the
Costume of an Espada, after his favorite model, Victorine, are so many studies
that prepared him, like the Dead Torero, a fragment cut from the Episode in a
Bull Fight, to simplify his palette, which two years later gives us The Fifer and the
Joueuse de Cuitare. These are works of such mastery that posterity will bow be-
fore them with the respect owed to genius, without managing to understand how
the painter who could have made such things hadn't been honored in his lifetime
as he deserved.
The Fifer, which today belongs to the Count Isaac de Camondo, was very
harshly treated when it appeared. As much as people appeared to be seduced by
Boy with a Sword in America at the present time, the Fifer was greeted with se-
verity. There is, however, an enormous distance between these two paintings.
The first is interesting for the directness of the drawing, for the accentuation of
the color. The second is a piece which, in its willed roughness, no longer has any
of the uncertain tonality of certain details that the first painting oversacrificed.
The fifer is set on a light background and his rough costume of a trooper stands
out from this background with nuances of exquisite sensitivity. The guitar player,
placed in full light, dressed in white, makes you feel the nervousness of her form
under her light garment. The pose of the hand on the neck of the guitar is ad-
mirably drawn. This last painting is in a private collection in the United States.
One of the most curious symptoms of the force of superstition is that the error
which, for centuries, since the fatal epoch of the Renaissance, has led art away
from its natural path, should be so strong that every loyal expression of the truth
could appear as a lie.
In our country we have such a false idea of the conditions of beautiful draw-
ing, beautiful color, and sound composition that Watteau and Chardin went al-
most unnoticed in the midst of a clamor of noisy brushes and metallic drawing,
and the banal arrangements prescribed by the formulas of titled professors. At
best, Watteau was praised for the elegance of the characters of his fetes galantes
43 2 Appendix One
and Chardin was granted the badge of master of still life. But no more attention
was paid to Watteau's astonishing drawings in red chalk heightened with black
pencil, or to Chardin's portraits, than to the works of Clouet, Janet, and Cousin.
Manet led us back to a respect for this national tradition, to an admiration for
these unrecognized things. He made all this live again by his personal observa-
tions, but the eyes of his contemporaries persisted in not seeing. When he said
that in our century Ingres had been the master of masters, people regarded this
manifestation by the painter of the Dijeuner sur l'herbe of his cult for the painter
of The Source as a blasphemy.
In this same train of thought, I remember that one day, at La Rochelle, after
Corot had greatly praised the landscapist Boudin's sincerity of observation,
those who heard him testified to the conviction that the hermit of Ville-d'Avray
had been mocking them.
The famous painting Olympia, exhibited at the Salon of 1865 and currently in
the Musee du Luxembourg, proceeds, for anyone who examines matters objec-
tively, from the constant preoccupation that Ingres had and that Manet wished
to have with seeking an irreproachable purity of line in the contours of his figures.
Is anything better set in place, to use Manet's favorite expression, than the figure
of Olympia? Certainly not. But how could one make it understood, for a public
that thinks of a courtesan in terms of the preconceived idea of an opulent woman
displaying on luxurious sheets the overflowing flesh of a model ala Jordaens, that
the true image of the girl is just as much in that indigent nudity that Manet repre-
sented? In a chapter of his volume Mes Haines, Zola gave a magisterial descrip-
tion of Manet's Olympia. Zola rightly disdained the reproach leveled against
Olympia of being circumscribed with black outlines in conformity, the critics
said, to the teachings of Couture, who, let it be said parenthetically, never accen-
tuated the contours of his paintings.
At this moment, moreover, with the exception of Theophile Gautier, Paul
Masson, Duret, Zola, and Barbey d'Aurevilly, who was not accustomed to speak-
ing about art but who made an exception for Manet, all the critics mobilized to
crush the painter of Olympia with their thunderbolts.
Manet, it must be recognized, was very affected by this general outcry. But his
convictions were so strong, his courage so great, that his eye kept its sureness and
his judgment its serenity.
During his strolls in the Louvre, with the regulars of the Cafe Guerbois, who
made it a matter of principle to find nothing praiseworthy, Manet would stop
and force them to stop in front of the Poussins. Everything that was French se-
duced him. Most consecrated talents left him, by contrast, very cold. He consid-
ered Leonardo da Vinci greatly superior to the divine Raphael, and, when he
went to the Luxembourg, it was in front of Heim's sketches that he would stop by
preference.
"Be true": this is his formula. At Boulogne, when he paints the admirable
Antonin Proust 433
painting of the Boulogne Harbor by Moonlight, he shows himself so scrupulous

that he refuses to apply the slightest brushstroke if he has not again found the
same effect as the day before.
Always anxious to render what has struck him, he walks with his head free in
the midst of the things of his time. This is the hour of what has been called his
third manner. He has made his definitive imprint. No memory of the studio. No
recollection of this or that master.
From 1869 to 1879, he makes a series of drawings, pastels, paintings, or
painted studies in which he is in full possession of himself. The critics, who had
softened in front of Le Bon Bock, which he painted to show his imitators that he
could, if he wanted, please the public, again sling their hostile words when he
paints the dazzling whitenesses of the Chemin de Fer or exhibits Le Linge.
Portraits follow portraits; then appear Polichinelle, In the Conservatory, the
series of etchings, the illustrations to works of Edgar Allan Poe, the cats for
Champfleury. Everywhere there is life, light. His influence extends to all other
palettes, a reflection of his manner of painting. No one escapes it. From the mem-
bers of the Institute, beginning with Paul Baudry, who imitates Manet in his
Saint-Hubert at Chantilly, down to the last intransigents of the Impressionist
school, everyone follows attentively all that comes out of the studio on the rue
d'Amsterdam. But it is nothing to borrow his manner of painting; what one must
steal from Manet is his manner of seeing, and this cannot be acquired.
In addition, Manet gave up the idea of sending his works to the exhibitions
organized by the little church he created, because they did not prove any kinder
to him there than under the cupola of the Palais Mazarin. For a while even the
Impressionists, who owe him everything, would be tempted to deny him as Peter
denied Jesus.
Without bothering about these hardships, he lavishes his generous and fertile
vigor on the talents to which he gave birth. When someone comes to him saying
he doesn't know how to draw, he shrugs his shoulders and answers: "I don't
trace stupid lines as one learns to do at the Ecole, that's true. But let us ask the
illustrious professors who teach there to make a setting-in-place with the feeling
of light at their fingertips. I defy them to do that. Ah! the atmosphere with its
lightness, its mobility that envelops all in its dazzling splendor! Go and speak of
this to people who stick a figure on a canvas as one sticks a butterfly in a glass
case." And, alluding to a portrait by a fashionable painter: "I see clearly," he
cried, "that he has painted a frock coat. It even has an irreproachable cut, this
frock coat. But where are the model's lungs? He's not breathing under his
clothing. He doesn't have a body. This is a portrait for a tailor."
One day, having gone to visit Goncourt two years after Manet's death, I said
to him: "I read in Manette Salomon what you have the painter Coriolis say and I
found in it an almost word-for-word citation of Manet." "That is exactly right,"
Goncourt replied. "I wrote the chapter not at Manet's dictation, but just having
434 Appendix One
left him, and you know how much 1 make it my task now to reproduce the state-
ments of my contemporaries."
1 offer the passage from Manette Salomon here, if only to show how much
critics, who have the excuse of having known him, are mistaken when they repre-
sent to us a Manet in love with fame and commotion and attribute words befit-
ting a chocolate vendor to this man who was always very modest.
"I was," says the painter of Manette Salomon, "in a bus. 1 had finished spell-
ing out the signs overhead. 1 was looking blankly at houses, roads, huge awnings,
bright things, gas jets, shop windows, a woman's little pink slipper in a watch on
top of a shelf of glasses, silly things, nothing at all, whatever was passing by. 1
ended up mechanically f~llowing people's shadows on the shutters of closed
shops, eternally starting a series of silhouettes. Facing me was a gentleman with
eyeglasses who insisted on trying to read a newspaper. Constantly there were re-
flections in his glasses. Have you ever noticed how women seem mysteriously
pretty in a carriage at night? Because of the shadow, the illusion, the hooded
cloak, 1 don't know. From all that they have a veiled air, a voluptuous wrapping,
things about them that you guess and don't see, a vague tint, a nighttime smile,
with lights that flicker over their features, all those soft reflections that float un-
der their hats, those large touches of black they have in their eyes, their very skirts
shifting with shadow. Yes, she was like that when she turned around, gazing, her
head slightly lowered. The glimmer of the lantern shone onto her forehead. It was
like a jewel of ivory. It spread a veritable dust of light on the roots of her hair.
Three touches of brightness on the line of her nose, on her cheekbone, on the tip
of her chin, and all the rest in shadow. "
All of Manet is in this description which translates the constant observation of
his eye, moved by everything that happens around him.
Furthermore, it is today admitted and recognized that Manet performed for
art the eminent service of bringing it back to the domain of observation, of re-
moving it from the imitation of things already made, and of making it no longer
live the life of the past, but the life that is common to us.
Manet did more. He left behind a lighter, clearer palette, a larger vision of the
transparency of shadows, which one insisted on viewing as opaque.
Thon~, who wrote under the pseudonym Burger, at the moment that Rous-
seau, Corot, and Millet were attentively studying the countryside around Paris,
said as he looked at the first paintings of Meissonier: "What a shame to deck out
models like lords from the time of Louis XIII, to want to go back through the
course of centuries, when it would be so easy for Meissonier to paint at the caba-
ret, at Poissy, good, decent people in their real actions!" At that time Manet
hadn't been born yet. His tendencies led him completely naturally to do what
Thorc~ wanted. He was a man of his time, and he brought his own individualistic
force to the representation of the things of his time.
He has been reproached for depicting women as ugly. No reproach is more
Antonin Proust 435
unfair. The portrait of Eva Gonzales is not merely the faithfully rendered portrait
of a very pretty woman. Her pose is one of perfect grace, her movement entirely
happy, and, if one wished to count the exquisite portraits of Mile Demarsy, Mme
Valtesse, Mery Laurent, and Mile Lemonnier, one would not find a loftier senti-
ment of distinction in the work of any painter.
When, shortly after his death, which occurred abruptly on April 30, 1883, an
exhibition of his work was held at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, what shocked the
public, as at the exhibition at the pont de l'Alma held in 1867, was the great num-
ber of canvases remaining in the state of ebauches.
The incompleteness of so many paintings is entirely to Manet's credit. He
would never have consented to continue without a model a study begun from
nature. He had such a respect for things observed that he did not want to com-
promise his observation at any price. This is a scruple one does not encounter
often enough among artists, and one of the weaknesses of Corot and Millet has
been to finish paintings in the studio; Millet even composed from scratch paint-
ings that erred not only in the inferiority of their technique but in the poverty of
their conception. A day will come when our eye, now perverted by certain con-
ventions, will recognize the correctness of Manet's doctrine of doing nothing
without the aid of nature. "If Bacon's definition," he used to say, "that art is man
added to nature, homo additus naturae, has absolute truth, then nature needs to
be present all the more. It cannot be replaced, even by the most faithful memory."
Readers of the Studio will be somewhat surprised perhaps to hear Millet spo-
ken of thus by one who pushed the Angelus, at the Secretan sale, to an improb-
able price. On this subject, 1 will say that everything is relative. The Angelus
contains, like all Millet's work, an examination of rural philosophy which as-
serts itself under the often too obvious weakness in execution. It was necessary, at
the time when the Angelus came up for public sale, to honor the thinker and to
honor him all the more for having broken with all customary conventions.
But the work of Millet and Corot, who sought to seduce the imagination by
the introduction of demigods or naiads into faithfully observed landscapes, has
nothing in common with that of Manet.
The creator of the Buveur d'Eau [a fragment of the Gypsies], which the Studio
is reproducing along with other reproductions, has but one goal, as Paul Mantz
has wittily written: "to reduce to silence the last cooks of the Bolonaise school."
What he seeks above all is, in a simple subject borrowed from modern life, the
study of the real intensity of clear tones, the different degrees of value. Manet has
a sense of color to such a degree that the play of the drawing is for him not sepa-
rated from its marriage with coloring. Everything is linked in his thought and he
frequently repeats, in private conversation, "that without punctuation there is
neither spelling nor grammar, and to want to separate drawing from color is an
absurdity. "
His eye is so gifted that, in a nuance apparently gray and uniform, he perceives
Appendix One
and renders delicate details that escape us. As he goes along in life, his sensibility
becomes sharper and sharper in this respect. The purplish blue tones of the
shadows in the Portrait of Pertuiset, the mobility of the contours that he keeps
undecided in Argenteuil and in Chez pere Lathuille, are astonishing at first. But
we are not long in recognizing the truth in them and, when we find ourselves
before the totality of his work, what is striking is the incessant pursuit of an ideal
that he attained in his last productions and could be defined thus: the realization
of optical effects resulting from the movement of the varied colorings that nature
offers us.
This vibration of light tones he obtained from the beginning. But, from 1860
to 1883, every day means new progress, because every day is marked by a new
attempt.
Today, the force of prejudice is such that the great majority still resist accepting
most of Manet's works. They want to find reminiscences, weaknesses there. A
day will come, however, when the least sketch of this true artist-genius will be
researched and analyzed as containing a lesson in the most subtle of its features.
To cite one of the most striking examples of the superior intuition that makes
Manet the most natural painter of our century, what painting has been more
abused than the Battle of the Kearsarge and the Alabama, and yet in what
canvas, old or modern, has the sea been rendered with greater sweep? And what
visual pleasure for those who love painting for its own sake and who disengage it
from the prejudices of rhetoric or from all pretentious literary reflections?
Talking with me one evening in his studio on the rue d'Amsterdam, Manet
came to speak of the usually injurious assessments that had crammed the news-
papers over twenty years, every time he had exhibited, whether in the Salon, in
the building erected at his expense in 1867 on the pont de l'Alma, or in his studio
on the rue Saint-Petersbourg. This was in 1882; he was already suffering badly
from the illness that would claim him the following year. "This war at knife
point," he told me, "did me the greatest harm. I've suffered cruelly because of it,
but it spurred me on. I don't wish upon any artist praise and flattery at his begin-
nings. This would be for him the annihilation of his personality." Then, smiling,
he added: "The imbeciles! They never stopped telling me I was uneven: they
couldn't have spoken any greater praise. It has always been my ambition not to
remain on the same level as myself, not to redo the next day what I had done the
day before, constantly to be inspired by a new aspect, to seek to make a new note
heard. Ah! the ones who don't move, who have a formula, who hold themselves
to it, who make a living from it, how can that interest art? I ask you that. On the
contrary, to decide on one step forward, and a suggestive step, that is the function
of a man with a brain! They will be happy, my dear friend, the people who live a
century from now; the organs of their vision will be more developed than ours.
They will see better."
Antonin Proust 437
A long silence occurred as night approached, and we took leave of each other
at this word of Manet's, which he often repeated to me: "You know, I need to be
looked at as a whole. And, I beg you, if I die, don't let me enter public collections
piece by piece, I would be poorly judged."
My friend died the following year. Several months after his death, we orga-
nized a complete exhibition of his work at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Eight years
later, in 1889, I was able to restage that exhibition at the Champ-de-Mars. In
1883 as in 1889, it was a veritable apotheosis. Mme Edouard Manet, who lives
in retirement at Gennevilliers, surrounded by portraits of her husband-the por-
trait of the young Manet by Fantin-Latour, the one that Claude Monet made
later, and two portraits he painted of himself at two different times of his life, one
in 1862, the other in 1875-could not, just the other day, speak to me of those
great displays without being deeply moved.
What a luminous trail has Manet, in fact, left in French art? Yet, if the public
is beginning to show itself less rebellious, only later will it understand the bril-
liance of that career so prematurely shattered.
Translation by Bridget McDonald
© 1996 by the University of Chicago
All rights reserved
Appendix 2: Edmond Duranty,
"Ceux qui seront les peintres" (r867)
En 1861, un remarquable tableau parut a 1'Exposition de Peinture, intitule l' Ex

Voto; il representait de vieilles femmes, agenouillees dans la campagne au pied
d'une colonne portant une image votive. Il etait signe LEGROS.
On y reconnaissait d'abord Ie temperament d'un peintre, d'un peintre qui sa-
vait se servir de ressources simples et larges, sans tomber dans Ie pro cede special
d'un atelier donne. En meme temps, et chose plus importante, Ie sentiment de la
vie moderne eclatait fortement dans cette oeuvre.
C' etaient de vieilles femmes communes, habillees de vetements communs, que
1'artiste avait prises pour personnages, mais la stupidite rigide et machinale que
l'existence penible et etroite des pauvres donnait a ces faces crevassees apparais-
sait avec une profonde intensite. L'accent d'un monde particulier etait complete-
ment exprime. Tout ce qui peut frapper, arreter, retenir devant des etres; tout ce
qui est signi£1catif, concentre, violent en eux rayonnait autour de ce groupe de
vieilles femmes, autour de leurs visages, de leurs habits, dans la campagne, et Ie
long de la colonne votive.
Et par un accord force, Ie moyen meme de peinture s'identi£1ait si bien avec la
nature des personnages ainsi rendus, que l' on etait saisi par une seule impression,
vive et nette; on s'ecriait[,] c'est bien peint, voila une oeuvre vraie, une oeuvre
forte.
Les peintres eux-memes, d'ordinaire plus preoccupes de la matiere du metier
que de l'impression interieure de l'artiste, consentirent a voir la une tentative, qui
appliquait heureusement une forme d'art libre et neuve a l'expression du senti-
ment de la vie moderne.
Depuis les beaux tableaux de M. Courbet, c'etait la premiere fois qu'une indi-
vidualite semblait entrer dans cette voie.
L'oeuvre inspirait a quelques-uns d'autant plus d'interet que 1'auteur etant
jeune, on devait y voir la premiere impulsion d'un mouvement qui sans doute ne
s'arreterait pas.
En 1862, dans les salles du boulevard des Italiens, plusieurs tableaux signes
MANET £1rent du bruit et causerent presque du scandale. Les gens qui se scanda-
lisaient, pretendaient fort a tort qu'on avait voulu les scandaliser. Le meme effet
Edmond Duranty 439
se produisit a l'Exposition officielle suivante, OU ces tableaux furent relegues

parmi les refuses.
M. Manet peignait autrement que M. Legros, mais il relevait bien du meme
principe d'art: rendre Ie sentiment des choses modernes avec les moyens d'une
peinture personnelle.
C'etaient bien des peintres decides a la liberte et voulant exprimer Ie plus £1-
delement possible la nature, sans se servir des recettes d'atelier.
La peinture de M. Manet, a la fois fraiche et solide, montrait des rapports de
tons inattendus.
En 1863, les tableaux de M. Manet furent, avons-nous dit, rejetes dans les
salles de honte, OU l'on mettait, pour les punir, a cote des maladroits, les peintres
coup abIes de hardiesse et de nouveaute. A cette meme Exposition, on accrochait
dans des corridors ecartes les peintures de M. Legros, autre genre de pestilence.
Dans les salles des refuses, purgatoire des peintres mechants, se trouvait, avec
de fort meritantes oeuvres de MM. Viel-Cazal, Collin, Gautier, Chintreuil, etc.
Une jeune fllle blanche signee WHISTLER, peinture ou eclatait encore cette
franche comprehension de la nature, qui distingue les hommes de la nouvelle re-
cherche. M. Whistler savait, de son cote, tirer de la nature ce qu'elle contient
d'elegance, de delicatesse et d'etrangete. Comme les precedents, M. Whistler est
un homme jeune, et, point important peut-etre pour 1'avenir, un peintre de Lon
dres, exposant la-bas et ici. Nous n'avons plus des lors qu'a dresser Ie terrible
mot international, sans quoi qu'il soit besoin d'autre explication.
Au Salon de 1864, on a vu un grand tableau intitule Hommage II Delacroix et
signe FANTIN, dont l'aspect s'imposait aux yeux. MM. Legros, Manet et Whis-
tler y £1guraient a cote de 1'auteur. Ils se reconnaissent done bien comme freres
d'art. Les autres personnes, peu ou tres-connues, representees en outre dans ce
tableau, suivent aussi Ie meme principe d'art, quelles que soient les apparentes
divergences.
Quant au sujet meme de l'oeuvre, il se bornait a ceci; des artistes contestes
rendant hommage a la memoire de 1'un des grands contestes de ce temps.
En£1n, cette annee, M. Manet a cause un veritable, un serieux scandale, et il a
recueilli la gloire a 1'envers. Epiciers, gens du monde, etudiants, femmes philo-
sophes, artistes second aires, tout Ie monde a beau coup rio Le malheureux M.
Manet ne savait ni peindre, ni dessiner, puisque ses tableaux ne rassemblaient
pas II ceux des autres, ou bien c'etait un charlatan. Quelques peintres, qui con-
naissent les desiderata Ie leur art, quelques litterateurs habitues a n'estimer que
l'accent, que les hommes qui savent trouver une fac;:on a eux, ont seuls reconnu
tout l'interet de cette oeuvre tres-originale, tres-vigoureuse, et ou les defauts
sont ceux de quiconque cherche et s'ecarte du chemin battu. Oeuvre sincere,
soigneusement faite en vue de la nature et dont la bizarrerie tient uniquement a ce
soin. Ah! comme la platitude bien bros see a ri, et que ce M. Manet est grotesque!
Cependant, les peintres dont nous venons d'indiquer la petite succession his-
44 0 Appendix Two
torique, ne sont pas arrives a la plenitude de leur talent, et il faut que de nom-
breux travaux leur apportent de plus decisifs resultats.
Nous n'insisterons pas non plus, a leur propos, sur M. Courbet, Ie robuste
initiateur de ces tentatives. M. Courbet parait avoir imprime personnellement
tout Ie mouvement qu'il pouvait donner, et tout fait penser que la marche, l'inte-
ret du mouvement, en bien ou en mal, est a present dans les peintres dont nous
avons parle et dans ceux qui commencent a se rallier autour d'eux.
Sont-ils arrives d'eux-memes a ce rendez-vous d'une meme route et s'y
maintiendront-ils par l'instinct ou par la volonte? N'y ont-ils pas ete pousses de
force, par l'opinion du public qui pourchasse les essais d'originalite?
II n'est pas sur qu'ils soient encore tres-affermis et sachent bien OU ils doivent
aller. Aussi faut-illeur souha'iter, comme mobile certain du developpement futur,
de longs insucces, un gain mediocre, beaucoup de railleries de la part de leurs
adversaires et l'antipathie du public.
Alors si ce ne sont pas des natures mediocres, s'ils ont quelque vaillance et que
leur tres-legitime de gout des routines ne se change pas en un paresseux contente-
ment de soi-meme, si un succes momentane ne leur fait pas croire que leur ca
price fera leur role, tandis que to ute l'importance de ce role est dans la ferme
volonte de suivre une meme ligne, toujours la meme ...
lis seront les peintres!
lis pourront voir peut-etre tous les vaudevilles et les anecdotes coloriees de ce
temps-ci, bretons, orientales, historiques; to ute la friperie de mardi-gras des
peinturlureurs, empiles dans les greniers, pour amuser les rats et faire pleurer les
heritiers des amateurs actuels.
lis seront les peintres.
A Londres leurs tableaux preoccupent academiciens et preraphaelites. Les
Belges et les Allemands s'y interessent aussi. Les Expositions annuelles vont exte-
nuer les paresseux et les cervelles banales. En rassemblant constamment ce re-
massis de toiles, qui ont l'air de sortir de la meme fabrique de paravents de
cheminee, on finira par faire soupirer tout Ie monde apres quelque changement
dans cette inexorable monotonie. Les forces de temperaments sanguins et entre-
prenants, comme ceux de MM. Manet et Legros, nerveux, fins et passionnes
comme ceux de MM. Fantin et Whistler peuvent, bien conduites et unies, se re-
nouveler, s'accroitre et produire a outrance!
Tous ceux qui iront dans la meme voie s'en trouveront bien. lis engendreront
une race vigoureuse et hardie qui detruira les especes rivales.
Et maintenant, quelle est donc cette voie?
Eh bien, il est bon de leur dire a eux-memes; tant qu'ils auront peur du gros
mot, tant qu'ils mettront pudiquement la main devant les yeux pour ne pas aper-
cevoir ce terrible mot, sans se douter que tout Ie monde leur en voit l'ecriture
attachee au dos et Ie montre au doigt derriere eux, ils n'arriveront arien.
Edmond Duranty 441
lis sont condamnes aetre realistes, et s'ils n'acceptent pas leur condamnation,
c'est qu'ils ne reflechissent pas.
Peut-etre, accueilleront-ils fort mal Ie boute-selle qu'on leur sonne ici, prefe-
rant la trompette des compliments ato ute autre, mais il est sur que s'ils n'accep-
tent pas franchement la situation, ils n'en auront jamais aucune. Eh! la nouvelle
philosophie, la philosophie positiviste et materialiste a bien su Ie comprendre et
se rallier armes et bagages au realisme artistique. Allez donc, et qu'on ne compte
pas seulement sur vos adversaires pour vous maintenir dans la voie du salut: Ie
Realisme!
DURANTY
(In Fernand Desnoyers, ed., Almanach parisien, 6e annee, r867 (Paris, 186 7),
PP·13- 18 )
In 186 I, a remarkable painting appeared at the Salon, entitled the Ex- Voto; it
represented some old women, kneeling in the countryside at the foot of a column
bearing a votive image. It was signed LEGROS.
One recognized in it first the temperament of a painter, a painter who knew
how to exploit simple and broad resources without falling into the particular
techniques of some specific atelier. At the same time, and more important, the
feeling of modern life shone forth strongly in this work.
These were common old women, dressed in common clothing, whom the art-
ist took for his personages, but the rigid and machinelike stupidity that the pain-
ful and difficult existence of the poor gave to their crevassed faces appeared with a
profound intensity. The accent of a particular world was completely expressed.
Everything that can strike, arrest, and hold one before human beings; every-
thing that is meaningful, concentrated, violent in them radiated from this group
of old women, from their faces, their clothing, the countryside, and the votive
column.
And by a forced accord, the very means of painting was identified so well with
the nature of the personages thus rendered, that one was gripped by one single
impression, vivid and clear; one cried out, it's well painted, here is a true work, a
strong work.
The painters themselves, ordinarily more concerned with technical matters
than with the interior impression of the artist, agreed in seeing there a successful
attempt to apply a free and new form of art to the expression of the feeling of
modern life.
Since the beautiful paintings of Courbet, it was the first time that an individual
seemed to enter into this path.
The work inspired all the more interest in some viewers because the author
442 Appendix Two
being young, one had to see in it the first impulse of a movement that surely
would not stop.
In 1862, in the galleries of the boulevard des Italiens [i.e. at Martinet's], sev-
eral paintings signed MANET attracted notice and caused almost a scandal.
Those who were scandalized insisted wrongly that the artist had wanted to
scandalize them. The same effect was produced at the next Salon, where these
paintings were officially relegated among the rejected works.
Manet painted differently from Legros, but he adhered to the same principle
of art: to render the feeling of modern things with a personal way of painting.
These were obviously painters committed to freedom and wanting to express
nature as faithfully as possible, without using outworn recipes.
Manet's painting, at once fresh and solid, showed unexpected relationships
of tones.
In 1863, Manet's paintings were, we have said, condemned to the galleries of
shame, where were put, to punish them, alongside the incompetents, those art-
ists who were guilty of daring and novelty. At that same exhibition, Legros's
paintings, another kind of plague, were hung in the farthest corridors.
In the galleries of the rejected artists, purgatory for unruly painters, was
found, along with meritorious works by Viel-Cazal, Collin, Gautier, Chintreuil,
etc., A Young Woman in White signed WHISTLER, a painting in which shone
forth that frank comprehension of nature which distinguishes the men of the new
research. Whistler knew, for his part, to extract from nature what it contained of
elegance, delicacy, and strangeness. Like the artists already mentioned, Whistler
is a young man, and, an important point for the future perhaps, a London
painter, exhibiting both there and here. From then on we have only to raise up the
terrible word internationat without needing any further explanation.
In the Salon of 1864, one saw a large painting entitled Homage to Delacroix
and signed FANTIN; it had an imposing look. Legros, Manet, and Whistler fig-
ured in it alongside its author. They thus recognize themselves as brothers in art.
The other personages represented in that painting, little or well known, also fol-
low the same artistic principle, whatever their apparent divergences.
As for the subject of the work, it was simply this: some controversial artists
rendering homage to the memory of one of the great controversial artists of our
time.
Finally, this year, Manet caused a true, a serious scandal, and gathered glory
of a negative sort. Storekeepers, worldly people, students, women philosophers,
minor artists, everyone had a good laugh. The unfortunate Manet didn't know
how to paint or draw, because his paintings didn't resemble those of the others,
or perhaps he was a charlatan. A few painters, who know the requirements of
their art, a few writers used to valuing only the accent that marks the work of
men who have found a personal manner, alone recognized all the interest of this
very original and vigorous body of work, the faults of which are those of some-
Edmond Duranty 443
one who is searching and therefore avoids the beaten path. A sincere body of
work, done with care in the sight of nature and the bizarreness of which stems
uniquely from that care. Ah! how the well-brushed platitudes laughed, and how
grotesque this Manet is!
However, the painters whose little historical succession we have indicated
have not yet arrived at the fullness of their talent, and it's necessary that nu-
merous works bring them more decisive results.
Nor will we insist, apropos their art, on Courbet, the robust initiator of these
attempts. Courbet seems to have personally imprinted as much of the movement
as he can, and everything suggests that the course, the interest of the movement,
for good and ill, at present resides in the painters of whom we have spoken and in
those who begin to rally around them.
Have they arrived by themselves at this rendezvous by the same route, and do
they maintain themselves there by instinct or by will? Were they not pushed there
by force, by the public opinion that hounds all original efforts?
It isn't yet certain that they are wholly resolved and understand perfectly
where they must go. Therefore it's necessary to wish on them, as a sure motive
for their future development, protracted lack of success, mediocre earnings, lots
of mockery on the part of their adversaries, and the antipathy of the public.
Then if they aren't mediocre natures, if they have some courage and if their
legitimate disgust with routine procedures doesn't change into a lazy content-
ment with oneself, if some momentary success doesn't lead them to believe that
their role is to be capricious, whereas all the importance of this role is in the
strong will to follow a single line, always the same ...
They will be the painters!
They will perhaps be able to see all the vaudevilles and colored anecdotes of
our time, Breton, Oriental, historical; all the mardi-gras frippery of the daubers,
piled high in attics, to amuse the rats and make the inheritors of today's collec-
tors weep.
They will be the painters.
In London their paintings interest academicians and pre-Raphaelites. Bel-
gians and Germans are interested in them as well. The annual expositions will
exhaust the lazy ones and the banal intelligences. In constantly assembling that
mass of canvases, which have the air of issuing from same factory for fireplace
screens, the result will be to make everyone long for some change in that inexor-
able monotony. The forces of sanguine and enterprising temperaments such
as Manet's and Legros's, and of nervous, fine, and passionate temperaments such
as Fantin's and Whistler's, can, properly guided and united, renew themselves,
grow, and produce without limit!
All those who go in the same path will find themselves doing well. They will
engender a vigorous and hardy race that will destroy all rival species.
And now, what then is that path?
444 Appendix Two
Well, it's good to tell it to them personally; as long as they have fear of that
gross word, as long as they shyly put their hand over their eyes in order not to
perceive that terrible word, without realizing that everyone else sees the writing
attached to their backs and points to it behind them, they will come to nothing.
They are condemned to be realists, and if they don't accept their condemna-
tion, it's because they aren't thinking.
Perhaps they will resent the wake-up call being sounded here, preferring the
blast of compliments to all others, but it is certain that if they don't frankly accept
the situation, they won't ever have any. Eh! the new philosophy, the positivist and
materialist philosophy has perfectly been able to understand artistic realism and
to rally heart and soul around it. Go on now, and don't count only on your adver-
saries to keep you on the path of salvation: Realism!
Appendix 3: Le Capitaine Pompilius
[Carle Desnoyers] on Manet (1863)
... J'aborde ce sujet [the authorization of the Salon des Refuses] pour arriver a
vous parler d'un peintre autour duquelle monde des arts fait grand bruit depuis
quelque temps. Remarquez, monsieur, que je dis Ie monde des arts et non Ie pu-
blic, car Ie public n'est pas assez verse dans la connaissance des procedes du me-
tier pour comprendre et apprecier la valeur des ouvrages de M. Manet; c'est Ie
nom du peintre dont il s'agit. Je l'appellerais novateur si l'Espagnol Goya, d'une
part, et Ie Franc Comtois Courbet, de I'autre, n'etaient venus avant lui. Je ne puis
donc vous Ie presenter que so us la qualification d'une des plus puissantes indivi-
dualites artistiques de notre temps.
L'expulsion de ses tableaux et celie d'un autre, dont je vous parlerai tout a
I'heure, sont les seuls evenements marquants de l'exposition des refuses, les seuls
du moins qui aient pu donner lieu a preter des intentions hostiles au jury de
r863. Eh! bien, monsieur, pour rna part, je suis d'avis que les amis et les defen-
seurs de M. Manet, ne prennent pas Ie bon chemin pour faire arriver leur client a
la gloire en se servant de ses oeuvres pour convaincre Ie public de I'indignite du
Jury.
Si les tableaux de M. Manet etaient enveloppes de leur forme definitive; si,
jusque dans cette touche supreme qui clot une oeuvre en la signant energique-
ment d'une griffe magistrale, ils affirmaient Ie principe nouveau du jeune maitre,
on pourrait croire que l'aspect de cet art sain et vigoureux a dil confondre ou
horripiler ces representants des ecoles vermoulues. Malheureusement, il n'en est
pas ainsi: les connaisseurs saisissent au premier coup d'oeilles qualites excep-
tionnelles de cet admirable ebaucheur; mais pour Ie public, a qui il faut mettre les
points sur les I: pour l'Institut, qui ne sait estimer encore que la peinture qui sent
l'etude et la recherche, les compositions de M. Manet ne peuvent guere passer,
comme rendu, que pour des a peu pres.
Partant de la, faut-il admettre en son honneur, I'antagonisme systematique du
jury? Je ne Ie pense pas. Quand M. Eugene Delacroix affirmait, il y a vingt-cinq
ans, l'art romantique, ille faisait en s'appuyant sur des oeuvres qui s'intitulaient:
Les Massacres de Scio, les Croises a Constantinople, la Mort de Sardanapale, Ie
Trajan, la Medee, etc., c'etaient la des oeuvres auxquelles un trait de plus n'au-
445
Appendix Three
rait rien ajoute. M. Manet, j'en ai l'espoir, deviendra quelque jour un maitre: il
possede la franchise, la conviction, la puissance, l'universalite, c'est-a-dire
l'etoffe du grand art.
II voit clair dans la nature et ilia traduit simplement, lumineusement. Son
grand tableau des Baigneuses, place sur Ie mur de fond d'une salle, fait, aux
yeux du spectateur, l'effet d'une trouee sur la campagne. Tout autour de lui, les
paysages les plus corses paraissent des visages que cette male et vigoureuse colo-
ration fait palir; mais encore une fois, monsieur, vous n'y verriez, comme moi,
qu'une surprenante, qu'une admirable ebauche; mais personne ne saurait y re-
connaitre l'affirmation triomphante d'un art nouveau, parce que si tout ce que
l'art reclame du maitre est indique, rien n'y marque Ie sceau du travail arrive a
terme.
En un mot, une telle oeuvre achevee serait solennelle. Dans l'etat ou M. Manet
nous la livre, elle n'est qu'interessante: elle est conditionnelle, elle n'est pas effec-
tive.
("Lettres particulieres sur Ie Salon," Le Petit Journal, no. 131 [June I I, 1863])
. . . I raise this subject to get to speak to you of a painter about whom the art
world has been making a lot of noise for some time. Note, monsieur, that I say the
art world and not the public, because the public isn't well enough versed in the
knowledge of matters of technique to understand and appreciate the value of
Manet's works; that's the name of the painter I'm referring to. I would call him
an innovator if the Spaniard Goya, on one side, and the Franc-Comtois Courbet,
on the other, hadn't come before him. I can therefore present him to you only as
one of the most powerful artistic individuals of our time.
The rejection of his paintings and of another artist [Whistler], of whom I will
speak presently, are the only significant events of the Salon des Refuses, or at
least the only ones that could have given rise to the notion of the hostile inten-
tions of the Salon jury. But, monsieur, for my part, I hold the view that Manet's
friends and defenders are not taking the right path to secure their client's glory in
using his works to convince the public of the unworthiness of the jury.
If Manet's tableaux were enveloped in their definitive form; if, down to that
supreme touch that closes a work by energetically signing it with a magisterial
stroke, they affirmed the young master's new principle, one might believe that the
look of this healthy and vigorous art must have confounded or horrified the rep-
resentatives of the moth-eaten schools. Unfortunately, that's not the case: the
connoisseurs comprehend the exceptional qualities of this admirable ebaucheur
with their first coup d'oeil; but for the public, for whom it's necessary to dot the
i's; for the Institute, which esteems only painting that smacks of study and re-
search, Manet's compositions are barely able to pass, with respect to how they
are rendered, for approximations.
Le Capitaine Pompilius 447
Based on that, is it necessary to posit in his honor the systematic antagonism

of the jury? I don't think so. When twenty-five years ago Eugene Delacroix af-
firmed romantic art, he did it on the strength of works entitled Scenes from
the Massacre at Scio, Crusaders Entering Constantinople, Death of Sardanapalus,
Death of Trajan, Medea, etc., all works to which an additional mark would
have added nothing. Manet, I hope, will someday be a master: he possesses the
frankness, the conviction, the power, the universality, that is to say, the stuff of
great art.
He sees nature clearly and translates it simply, luminously. His large tableau of
Bathers placed on the wall at the rear of a room, creates, in the eyes of the be-
holder, the effect of an opening onto the countryside. All around it, the coarsest
landscapes seem like faces that its male and vigorous colors have made go pale;
but again, monsieur, you would see in it, like me, only a surprising, an admirable,
ebauche; but no one could recognize in it the triumphant affirmation of a new
art, because if everything that art requires of a master is indicated, nothing in it
has the seal of work that has arrived at its completion.
In a word, such a work truly finished would be a solemn event. In the state that
Manet has left it to us, it is only interesting; it is conditional, it is not effective .
Appendix 4: Zacharie Astruc on Manet (186 3)
Un des plus grands caracteres artistiques du temps. Je ne dirait point qu'il ait les
triomphes de ce salon, OU tant de vaillants se rencontrent, me servant d'une
expression que sa modestie desavouerait-mais il en est l'eclat , l'inspiration , la
saveur puissante, l'etonnement. L'injustice commise a son egard est si flagrante
qu'elle confond-et pour qui veut s'arreter devant ses toiles, les examinant avec
l'attention que meritent des oeuvres to utes spontanees, si harmonieuses, execu-
tees avec tant de verve et de force qu'elles semblent jaillies de la nature par un seul
elan, il est impossible de meconnaitre leurs me rites et de ne pas les louer avec la
justice que reclament les beaux ouvrages.
Une chose digne de remarque, c'est qu'a l'inverse des grands talents naturels
qui nous portent d'abord a etudier leur art dans sa pratique materielle, lui n'im-
pose et ne montre pour ainsi dire que son accent vital. C'est l'ame qui frappe,
c'est Ie mouvement, Ie jeu des physionomies qui respirent la vie, l'action; Ie senti-
ment qu'exprime leur regard, la singularite expressive de leur role. II plait ou de-
plait aussitot; il charme, attire, ou repousse vite. L'individualite est si forte
qu'elle echappe au mecanisme de construction. Le role de la peinture s'efface
pour laisser a la creation to ute sa valeur metaphysique et corporelle. Longtemps
apres, seulement, Ie regard decouvre les formes de l'execution, les elements qui
constituent Ie sens de la couleur, la valeur du relief, la verite du modele.
Qui ne se souvient du petit Enfant a l'epee-cette page si heureuse? de
I'Homme au livre, du Guitarero [sic], de sa delicate fantaisie: Gil-BIas, de sa dan-
seuse Lola-ce ramage de tons, de la Danseuse couchee, d'une si douce colora-
tion. Eh bien! les trois tableaux:-Portrait de son frere, en Espagnol-Repos
sur l'herbe-la Espada, bizarre tableau qui no us montre une femme victorieuse,
dans une cirque, sont des peintures encore superieures. Rien de plus seduisant de
ton que la jeune femme tenant son epee nue a la main; de plus franc, de plus
robuste que Ie portrait; de plus savoureux que Ie grand paysage d'un caractere si
jeune, si vivant, et que Giorgione semble avoir inspire. J'ai parle de franchise:
c'est la note dominante de cet air plein et viril qui resonne comme un cuivre et
qui a des hardiesses toutes geniales-meme en tenant compte de certaines habi-
tudes relichees-autant vaudrait dire de simplifications. J'aimerais pourtant
Zacharie Astruc 449
moins de ces qualites qui tiennent a l'esprit de l'art et parfois plus de consistance'
pourtant, il faut l'avouer, ce sont des facultes qui s'etablissent peu a peu, a mesur~
que l'accent s'epure et se corrige.
Le talent de Manet a un cote de decision qui frappe-ce quelque chose de
tranchant, de sobre et d'energique constituant une nature aussi contenue qu'em-
portee, et surtout sensible aux impressions accentuees. II menage l'effet; sa na-
ture se voue a la verite sans trop de recherches subtiles, peu soucieuse du brillant
mais stimulee par tout ce qui lui montre dans la nature un cote de passion. L' ecol~
e~pagnole l'attire invinciblement par ses colorations grises ou les blancs passent
algus et comme frissonnants; il eteint les tons eclatants et leur donne une certaine
fievre qui les transpose. II est surtout un fils cheri de la nature qu'il idolatre. La
nature est encore plus savante que toutes les ecoles-Manet Ie sait bien. Sa
grande intelligence, beau fruit encore un peu vert et apre-fort mauvais, je
l'avoue, pour des levres trop minaudieres-demande a fonctionner librement
dans une sphere nouvelle qu'il vivifiera.
(Le Salon de 1863, feuilleton quotidien paraissant tous les soirs, pendant les
deux mois de I'Exposition: Causerie, critique genera Ie, bruits et nouvelles du
jour, no. 16 [May 20,1863])
One of the greatest artistic personalities of our time. I wouldn't say that he has
the triumphs of this Salon, where so many worthies encounter one another, to
use an expression that his modesty would disavow-but he is its brilliance, its
inspiration, its strong savor, its astonishment. The injustice committed in his
regard i~ so flagrant that it confounds-and for those who are willing to stop
before hIS canvases, examining them with the attention that these entirely spon-
taneous works deserve, works so harmonious, executed with such verve and
force that they seem to burst from nature in a single bound, it is impossible not to
recognize their merits and not to praise them with the justice to which beautiful
works lay claim.
Something worth noting is that, contrary to those great natural talents who
prompt us at first to study their art in its material practice, he imposes and shows
only its vital accent so to speak. It is the soul that strikes, it is the movement, the
play of faces breathing life and action, the feeling that their looks convey, the ex-
pressive singularity of their roles. He pleases or displeases immediately; he
charms, attracts, or repels quickly. The individuality is so strong that it escapes
the mechanism of construction. The role of painting effaces itself to grant the
c~eation all its metaphysical and corporeal value. Only much later does the gaze
dIscover the forms of the execution, the elements that give meaning to the color,
value to the relief, truth to the modeling.
Who doesn't recall the small Boy with a Sword-that happy page? the Man
with the Book, the Guitarrero, the delicate fantasy Gil BIas, his dancer Lola-
45 0 Appendix Four
that floral pattern of tones-the Young Woman Reclining in Spanish Costume,

its coloration so gentle. And then! the three paintings:-the Portrait of his
brother, in Spanish dress-Dejeuner sur l'herbe-the Espada, bizarre painting
that shows us a victorious woman in an arena, are even superior paintings. Noth-
ing more seductive in its tone that the young woman holding her naked sword in
her hand; nothing more frank, more robust, than the portrait; nothing more to
be relished than the large landscape of such a young, alive character, and which
Giorgione seems to have inspired. I've spoken of frankness: that's the dominant
note of this full and virile atmosphere that resounds like the brasses and has an
inspired boldness-even taking account of certain too-relaxed habits-one
might just as well say simplifications. I would, however, like fewer of those quali-
ties that belong to the spirit of art and at times greater consistency; but it must be
acknowledged that these are faculties that establish themselves little by little, as
the accent is refined and corrected.
Manet's talent has a decisive aspect that strikes-something cutting, sober
and energetic constituting a nature as contained as it is carried away, and above
all sensible to accented impressions. He is sparing of effects; his nature is devoted
to the truth without too many subtle researches, without caring much about bril-
liance, but stimulated by everything in nature that shows him an aspect of pas-
sion. The Spanish school attracts him invincibly by its gray ~olorations in which
the whites go by piercing and as if shivering; he softens dazzling tones and gives
them a certain fever that transposes them. He is above all a cherished son of the
nature that he idolizes. Nature is still more knowledgeable than all the schools-
Manet knows this very well. His great intelligence, beautiful fruit still a little un-
derripe and bitter-unhealthful, I admit it, for simpering lips-demands to
function freely in a new sphere that he will bring to life.
Notes
Abbreviations
EXHIBITION CATALOGS
Brown University 1981

Edouard Manet and the "Execution of Maxmilian" (Providence: Bell Gallery, List Art
Center, Brown University, Feb. 2I-Mar. 22, 1981). Exhibition and catalog under the
general direction of Kermit S. Champa.
Fantin-Latour 1982-83
Douglas Druick and Michel Hoog, Fantin-Latour (Paris: Grand Palais, Nov. 9,19 82 -
Feb. 7, 19 8 3; Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, Mar. I7-May 22,1983; San Fran-
cisco: California Palace of the Legion of Honor, June I8-Sept. 6,19 8 3).
Legros 1987-88
Timothy Wilcox et aI., Alphonse Legros (1837-1911) (Dijon: Musee des Beaux-Arts,
Dec. 12, I987-Feb. IS, 1988).
Manet 1983
Fran~oise Cachin, Charles S. Moffett, et aI., Manet: 1832-83 (Paris: Grand Palais,
Apr. 22-Aug. 8, 1983; New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Sept. Io-Nov. 27,
19 83).
Reff 1982-83
Theodore Reff, Manet and Modern Paris (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art,
Dec. 5, I982-Mar. 6, 1983).
Wilson-Bareau 1992
Juliet Wilson-Bareau et aI., The Execution of Maximilian: Painting, Politics and Cen-
sorship (London: National Gallery, July I-Sept. 27, 1992).
OTHER WORKS
Astruc, Le Salon
Zacharie Astruc, Le Salon de 1863, feuilleton quotidien paraissant tous les soirs, pen-
dant les deux mois de l'Exposition: Causerie, critique genera Ie, bruits et nouvelles du
jour.
Baudelaire, Curiosites esthitiques
Charles Baudelaire, Curiosites esthetiques; L'Art romantique et autres oeuvres cri-
tiques, ed. Henri Lemaitre (Paris, 1962).
Burger [ThoreJ 1860 (I, II, III)
W. Burger (Theophile Thore), "Exposition de tableaux de l'ecole fran~aise, tires de
collections d'amateurs," GBA, 1st ser., (I) 7 (Sept. I, 1860): 258-77; (II) 7 (Sept. IS,
1860): 333-58; (III) 8 (Nov. IS, 1860): 228-4 0 .
451
452 Notes
Burger [Thon~], Salons de W. Burger

W. Burger (Theophile Thore), Salons de W. Burger, I86I a I868, 2 vols. (Paris, 1870).
Castagnary, Salons
Jules-Antoine Castagnary, Salons, 2 vols. (Paris, 1892).
Clark 1985
T. J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and His Followers
(New York, 1985).
Darragon 1989
Eric Darragon, Manet (Paris, 1989).
Farwell 198 I
Beatrice Farwell, Manet and the Nude: A Study in Iconology in the Second Empire,
Outstanding Dissertations in the Fine Arts (New York, 198 I).
Fried 1969
Michael Fried, "Manet's Sources: Aspects of His Art, 1859-1865," Artforum 7 (Mar.
1969): 28-82.
Fried 1970
Michael Fried, "Thomas Couture and the Theatricalization of Action in 19th-Century
French Painting, Artforum 8 (June 1970): 36-46.
Fried 1980
Michael Fried, Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of Di-
derot (1980; Chicago, 1988).
Fried 1984
Michael Fried, "Painting Memories: On the Containment of the Past in Baudelaire and
Manet," Critical Inquiry 10 (Mar. 1984): 510-42.
Fried 1990
Michael Fried, Courbet's Realism (Chicago, 1990).
GBA
Gazette des Beaux-Arts
Proust 1897
Antonin Proust, Bdouard Manet souvenirs (Caen, 1988). This edition reproduces the
first version of Proust's recollections of Manet, originally serialized in La Revue
blanche between February and May 1897, as well as his article, "L'Art d'Edouard
Manet," published in Le Studio in January 1901.
Proust 1913
Antonin Proust, Bdouard Manet: Souvenirs (Paris, 19 I 3). A somewhat revised and
expanded version of the original text.
Reff 1969
Theodore Reff, "'Manet's Sources': A Critical Evaluatior;," Artforum 8 (Sept. 1969):
4 0 -4 8 .
Sandblad 1954
Nils G6sta Sandblad, Manet: Three Studies in Artistic Conception (Lund, 1954).
Wilson-Bareau 1986
Juliet Wilson Bareau, The Hidden Face of Manet: An Investigation of the Artist's
Working Processes (London, 1986). Published by the Burlington Magazine in connec-
tion with an exhibition at the Courtauld Institute Galleries (Apr. 23-June 15, 1986).
Zola, Bcrits sur l'art
Emile Zola, Bcrits sur l'art, ed. Jean-Pierre Leduc-Anine (Paris, 1991).
Notes to Pages vii-5 453
Epigraphs
1. Charles Baudelaire, Correspondance, ed. Claude Pichois and Jean Ziegler, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1973), 2:49 6-97.
2. Stephane Mallarme, "Quelques Medaillons et portraits en pied," Oeuvres com-
pletes, ed. Henri Mondor and G. Jean-Aubry (Paris, 1945): 532-33.
3. Jacques-Emile Blanche reports that Edgar Degas made this statement on the occa-
sion of Manet's funeral, or at least that he then began to say these words "which finally
became irritating because of being repeated when his friend was no longer there to hear
them" (Manet [Paris, 1924], p. 57). (Mais il commen"a de dire son mot qui a fini par
devenir irritant a force d'etre repete quand son ami n'etait plus la pour l'entendre: "11 etait
plus grand que nous ne pensions.")
Introduction
1. The most recent biography, Darragon 1989, is the best, but A. Tabarant, Manet et
ses oeuvres (Paris, 1947), remains an invaluable source of information.
2. See Proust 1897, pp. 10-II, 13, 17-18.
3. Relevant letters and other documentation pertaining to Manet's Spanish trip were
recently collected by Juliet Wilson-Bareau in Bdouard Manet: Voyage en Espagne (Caen,
19 88 ).
4. See the texts collected in Zola, Bcrits sur l'art.
5. The classic study of Impressionism is John Rewald, The History of Impressionism
(1946; 6th ed., New York, 1973). On the Impressionist exhibitions see the catalog by
Charles S. Moffett et ai., The New Painting: Impressionism I874-1886 (Washington,
D.C.: National Gallery of Art, Jan. 17-Apr. 6, 1986; San Francisco: M. H. De Young
Memorial Museum, Apr. 19-July 6,1986).
6. Fried 1969.
7. Reff 1969. Although in chapter 2 of this book I respond vigorously to Reff's cri-
tique, I appreciate his taking "Manet's Sources" seriously enough to want to counter it.
8. Throughout this book, Courbet's Realism will be designated with a capital R; in all
other instances the word will be a common noun.
9. That is, I compare Courbet's painting with Baudelaire's art criticism, Flaubert's
Madame Bovary and letters to Louise Colet, some key passages in Marx's Grundrisse,
and the philosopher Felix Ravaisson's treatise De l'habitude (1838).
10. I refer here not to all the painters who took part in the Impressionist exhibitions, a
heterogeneous and continually shifting group, but chiefly to the landscape Impressionists
Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, and Alfred Sisley. For most critics of the 1870S and
1880s, those were the painters who represented a new pictorial esthetic based on the ex-
clusively visual and essentially fleeting or instantaneous "impression" and on a new
mode of "decorative" unity. See in this connection the early reviews of Impressionist ex-
hibitions by three critics favorably inclined toward the new school, Philippe Burty, Ernest
Chesneau, and Armand Silvestre (references in Moffet, The New Painting) as well as rwo
articles by Steven Z. Levine, "Decor/Decorative/Decoration in Claude Monet's Art,"
Arts Magazine 51 (Feb. 1977): 136-39; and "The 'Instant' of Criticism and Monet's
Critical Instant," Arts Magazine 55 (Mar. 1981):114-21. See also Levine, Monet and
His Critics, Outstanding Dissertations in the Fine Arts (New York and London, 1976),
and the individual essays gathered in The New Painting. I briefly discuss Burty's,
Chesneau's, and Silvestre's writings on Impressionism in the coda.
454 Notes to Pages 5-6
II. See Ernest Chesneau, "A cote du Salon: II Le Plein Air. Exposition du boulevard
des Capucines," Paris-Journal, May 7,1874.
12. "Edouard Manet vu par Henri Matisse," interview with E. T[eriade], L'Intransi-
geant, Jan. 25, 1932. (Manet est Ie premier peintre qui ait fait la traduction immediate de
ses sensations en liberant ainsi l'instinct. II a ete Ie premier a agir par reflexes et a simplifier
ainsi Ie metier du peintre.) The interview ends with the following short statement: "A
great painter is one who finds personal and durable signs to express in plastic terms the
object of his vision. Manet found his." (Un grand peintre est celui qui trouve des signes
personnels et durables pour exprimer plastiquement l'objet de sa vision. Manet a trouve
les siens.)
13. See e.g. Philippe Burty (a longtime supporter and one of Manet's pallbearers),
who criticized both the Dejeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia and added that "Manet always
composed badly when he juxtaposed personages"-his basic approach throughout his
career but most obviously in his paintings of the I860s ("L'Oeuvre d'Edouard Manet a
l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts," Republique fram;aise, Jan. 16, 1884). (Manet composa toujours
peniblement des qu'il juxtaposait des personnages.) See also Josephin Peladan, whose ad-
miration for Manet was measured to say the least but who greatly preferred the paintings
of his second manner to those of his first ("Le Procede de Manet," L'Artiste, Feb. 1884,
republished in Manet raconte par lui-meme et par ses amis, ed. Pierre Cailler and Pierre
Courthion, 2 vols. [Geneva, 1953],2:155-83). For Peladan, Olympia in particular was
"a model of bad painting," incapable of sustaining "the most cursory examination"
(p. 169). (Modele de mauvaise peinture, l' Olympia ne soutient pas Ie plus cursif examen.)
A major exception to the general preference for Manet's "impressionist" manner is Emile
Zola, author of the preface to the catalog of the retrospective exhibition of January 1884.
See Zola, "Preface," Ecrits sur l'art, pp. 45 I-58; and the interesting analysis of Zola's
views in the context of other articles of that moment in Jean-Paul Bouillon, "Manet 1884:
Un bilan critique," in Jean-Paul Bouillon, ed., La Critique d'art en France, 1850-1900,
Actes du Colloque de Clermont-Ferrand, May 25-27, 1987 (Saint-Etienne, 1989),
pp. 159-75. See also n. 60 below.
14. "The Olympia," Matisse was reported as saying, "belongs to Manet's transitional
period. If in certain respects that celebrated painting contains indications of the future, it
remains very close to the tradition"al painting of the Old Masters. Besides, it isn't, perhaps
for that reason, one of his best canvases" ("Edouard Manet vu par Henri Matisse").
(L'Olympia appartient a l'epoque de transition de Manet. Si par certains cotes ce tableau
celebre contient des indications pour l'avenir, il demeure tres rap proche de la peinture
traditionnelle des Anciens. Ce n'est d'ailleurs pas, peut-etre pour cette raison, l'une de ses
meilleures toiles.) For Jacques-Emile Blanche in 1924, however, Olympia was one of the
"pearls" of the Louvre, "more serene, more majestic in its living reality than Ingres's
Odalisque and Bather of Valpinqon; metamorphosed into a 'masterpiece-type' like Tit-
ian's Mistresses, Olympia begins to lose its 'disquieting' signs that earned it, sixty years
ago, the insults of all good people and the cult of some 'unhealthy minds' " (Manet [Paris,
1924], p. 34). (Aujourd'hui l'une des perles du Louvre, plus sereine, plus majestueuse
dans sa vivante realite que l'Odalisque et la Baigneuse au foulard d'lngres; meta-
morphosee en "chef-d'oeuvre-type" com me les Mattresses de Titien, l'Olympia com-
mence a perdre les signes "inquietants" qui lui valurent, il y a soixante ans, les insultes des
honnetes gens, Ie culte de quelques "esprits malsains. ") Elsewhere in the same text
Blanche remarks: "Aren't [Manet's] strongest and most prized works today the ones that
he conceived in the contrastive light of an atelier or an apartment, in the manner of Vel<is-
quez, of most of the Dutch or Chardin?" (p. 17). (Ses ouvrages les plus forts et les plus
Notes to Pages 6-7 455
prises aujourd'hui ne sont-ils pas ceux qu'il con<;ut dans la lumiere polarisee d'un atelier
ou d'un appartement, a la fa<;on de velasquez, de la plupart des Hollandais ou de Char-
din?) See also the lukewarm remarks on Olympia by an earlier admirer of Manet's art,
George Moore, in his Modern Painting (London and New York, 1898), pp. 42-43.
15. Albert Pinard, "L'Exposition Manet," Le Radical, Jan. 10, 1884. (Si Manet a
souffert pour l'impressionisme c'est par l'impressionisme qu'il doit triompher.) Even The-
odore Duret, who in his preface to the catalog for the sale of Feb. 4-5,1884, would have
wanted to avoid seeming to privilege any part of Manet's oeuvre, wrote: "It is he in effect
who banished opaque shadows from contemporary painting, and it is in following him
that others learned to juxtapose clear and vivid tones on the canvas, to paint in full sun-
light" ("Edouard Manet," Critique d'avant-garde [Paris, I885J, p. 123). (C'est lui en ef-
fect qui a banni de la peinture contemporaine les ombres opaques, et c'est en Ie suivant
qu'on a appris a juxtaposer sur la toile les tons clairs et tranches, pour peindre en pleine
lumiere.)
In a recent article on the critical response to the retrospective exhibition, Michael R.
Orwicz interprets the tendency of "liberal" Republican writers such as Burty to downplay
the Dejeuner and Olympia as a strategy designed to purge Manet's oeuvre of its most
unsettling elements and thereby secure his biographical and artistic respectability ("Rein-
venting Edouard Manet: Rewriting the Face of National Art in the Early Third Republic,"
in Michael R. Orwicz, ed., Art Criticism and Its Institutions in Nineteenth-Century
France [Manchester, 1994], pp. 131-32). What this view fails to recognize, however, is
the extent to which the "impressionist" reading of Manet's art in 1884 expressed a deeply
grounded shift of sensibility, not simply the political-rhetorical needs of the moment. Or-
wicz is nearly forced to acknowledge as much when toward the end of his article he ex-
plains that the "liberal" republican critics credited Manet with "nothing less than the
wholesale transformation of modern French painting towards impressionism" (p. 137).
"Nevertheless," he adds, "they were careful to avoid explicitly naming him as an Impres-
sionist or calling him the chef d'ecole des Batignolles. Evading those epithets served their
strategy well, since the term 'Impressionist' continued to provoke varying degrees of hos-
tility not only among Manet's academic and conservative critics, but with his more mod-
erate supporters as well" (pp. 137-38). But of course the mere avoidance of the term
"Impressionist" would hardly have sufficed to deflect the hostility to which Orwicz refers.
And besides, as Pinard's remarks show, not all "liberal" critics avoided mentioning Im-
pressionism. In short, Orwicz's article, while interesting and informative, is reductive in
granting absolute priority to social-political considerations.
16. See Darragon 1989, pp. 416-19, and Gustave Geffroy, Monet, sa vie, son oeuvre,
ed. C. Judrin (Paris, 1980), pp. 221-58.
17. See Geffroy, Monet, p. 251; cited by Darragon 1989, p. 418. (Chose singuliere! ce
sera vous qui ferez Ie trou par ou passera Manet, quoi qu'il ait ete Ie precurseur. Votre
oeuvre venant plus tard, trouve Ie terrain mieux prepare, puis Manet etait un peintre de
figures et la la terrible convention academique et Ie poncif regnent et regneront toujours
en maitres.)
18. The first art historian to insist on the distinctive character of the 18 60S as a period
was Nils Gosta Sandblad, to whose pathbreaking book I am deeply indebted; see Sand-
blad 1954, pp. 14-15. However, his exclusive focus on Manet (appropriate at that stage
of Manet studies) meant that he had little to say about the other artists of the same genera-
tion who figure importantly in the present book. The other major art historian who pub-
lished an important study of the painter in 1954-, George Heard Hamilton, believed that it
was between 1871 and 1882 that Manet "made his enduring contribution to modern art,
Note to Page 7
modern both in relation to the progressive painting of his own day and in the sense of
providing a body of work to which future painters would look for solutions to their own
problems in discovering a truly modern expression" (Manet and His Critics [New Haven,
1954],p·18).
Also, at the very moment the completed manuscript of this book was sent to the pub-
lisher, a large exhibition devoted to the "New Painting" of the I 860s opened at the Grand
Palais in Paris and then traveled to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The
exhibition, organized by Gary Tinterow and Henri Loyrette, was called "Origins of Im-
pressionism" and was accompanied by an ambitious catalog of the same title. This is not
the place for a detailed critique of the intellectual premises ofthe exhibition and catalog,
but it should at least be said that by conceiving of the 1860s teleologically-as leading to
Impressionism-the organizers did nothing to challenge prevailing views of the period.
The catalog essays by Tinterow and Loyrette may therefore usefully be read in counter-
point to my argument in the chapters that follow: where we disagree is not only with
respect to the pictorial issues in question but also as regards our respective approaches to
historical understanding. For example, although they quote extensively from contempo-
rary art criticism, they invariably do so to illustrate a general point they have already
made; they never begin by analyzing a passage in order to discover something they did not
know beforehand. Although they aren't unaware that Manet himself belonged to a gener-
ation distinct from that of the Impressionists, the entire thrust of their account prevents
them from focusing on that prior generation so as to illuminate its particular situation and
aspirations. And their decision to organize both the catalog and the exhibition according
to types of paintings (History Painting, The Realist Landscape, The Nude, Figures in a
Landscape, Still Life, Portraits and Figures, The Impressionist Landscape, and Modern
Life) imposes a largely arbitrary grid on the pictorial production they survey.
On another front, I might add that my insistence on seeing Manet's paintings in the
context of the work of artists with whom he had most in common is at the farthest pole
from John House's ostensibly contextualist but in fact a priori and ahistorical view that
Manet in his art deliberately sought to subvert "academic conventions" or the norms of
"Salon painting" ("Manet's NaiVete," in Wilson-Bareau 1986, pp. 1-19; and "Manet's
Maximilian: History Painting, Censorship and Ambiguity," in Wilson-Bareau 1992,
pp. 88-IIl). Certainly Manet's art differed radically from what House means by aca-
demic or Salon painting; no doubt Manet held the bulk of such painting in low esteem;
but precisely because he did, he would not have felt it a worthy ambition (it would not
have been adequate to his aspirations) to seek to overthrow its norms, which in any case
House understands in the most general terms. A version of the same cliche is operative in
Seymour Howard, "Early Manet and Artful Error: Foundations of Anti-Illusion in Mod-
ern Painting, Art Journal 37 (fall 1977): 14-21, where various "errors" and inconsisten-
cies in his paintings are seen in the context "of Academic, even Realist, painting" as
"[drawing] attention to themselves by their blatant repudiation of convention. They be-
came self-justifying aberrations that irritated and arrested the observer while reinforcing
the broader effects of Manet's new style. Combined with Manet's new approaches to
subject and form, these errors aided not only in undermining simple imitation but in
disintegrating the traditional coherence and power of narrative" (p. 19). But "simple imi-
tation" and "the traditional coherence and power of narrative" are generalizations with
only the dimmest relevance to the situation of ambitious painting in the 1860s.
An indispensable guide to the art criticism of the 185 os and 18 60S is Christopher Par-
sons and Martha Ward, A Bibliography of Salon Criticism in Second Empire Paris (Cam-
bridge, 1986). See also La Promenade du critique influent: Anthologie de la critique d'art
en France I850-I900, ed. Jean-Paul Bouillon, Nicole Dubreuil-Blondin, Antoinette

Ehrard, and Constance Naubert-Riser (Paris, 1990).
19. For a recent discussion of the Homage and some of its preparatory drawings see
Fantin-Latour 1982-83, pp. 167-80. See also Michael Fried, "Manet in His Generation:
The Face of Painting in the 1860s," Critical Inquiry 19 (autumn 1992): 22-69, for a pre-
liminary version of the analysis of the Homage here and in chapter 3.
20. In the early I 850S Fantin and Legros had been students together under the uncon-
ventional teacher Lecoq de Boisbaudran; others in their circle included Charles Cuisin,
Leon Ottin, Guillaume Regamey (the future painter of military subjects), and Louis-Marc
Solon. In October 1858 Fantin met Whistler at the Louvre, and shortly afterward they
and Legros formed the Societe des Trois, the nucleus of the larger gathering in the Hom-
age. Fantin and Manet are said to have first met at the Louvre in 1857, but their friendship
seems to date from the visit to Manet's studio in 1861. According to Fernand Desnoyers,
the visitors included Fantin, Legros, Carolus Duran, and Bracquemond. See chap. I,
n.65·
21. Whistler, letter to Fantin, May 1867, Pennell Collection, Library of Congress. See
the discussion of this letter in the context of Whistler's growing involvement with British
aestheticism in Katherine A. Lochnan, The Etchings ofJames McNeill Whistler (New Ha-
venandLondon, 1984),P. ISS.
22. Champfleury's role in the revival of the Le Nain brothers is discussed in chapter 1.
For a selection of his writings see Champfleury, Le Realisme, ed. Genevieve and Jean La-
cambre (Paris, 1973).
23. See Legros 1987-88, pp. 38-39, cat. no. 6.
24. Antonin Proust quotes the young Manet as saying: "Yes, it's very good, the Burial.
It can't be said too much that it's very good because it's better than everything. But, be-
tween you and me, it's still not 'it'. It's too black" (Proust 1897, p. 21). (Oui, c'esttres bien,
I' Enterrement. On ne saurait dire assez que c'est tres bien parce que c'est mieux que tout.
Mais, entre nous, ce n'est pas encore c;a. C'est trop noir.) A similar ambivalence marks
Fantin's correspondence of 1858-59 with the German painter Otto Scholderer, whose
studio in Frankfurt was across from Courbet's and whose admiration for the master of
Omans was unqualified (Brame and Lorenceau archives, Paris).
25. Baudelaire's critique of Courbet is found in his "Exposition Universelle de 1855"
(Curiosites esthetiques, pp. 225-26), and "Puisque realisme il y a," notes for an article
never completed (pp. 823 -2 5). Legros's Angelus, Ex-Voto, and Vocation of St. Francis are
praised in his "Salon de 1859" (the Angelus, pp. 331-34) and "L'Exposition de la Galerie
Martinet en 1861" (the other two, p. 402), and Legros, Manet, and Whistler are praised
for both etchings and paintings in "L'Eau-forte est a la mode" (pp. 405-6) and "Peintres
et aqua-fortistes" (pp. 410-13). See also various letters and references to all three artists
in Charles Baudelaire, Correspondance, ed. Claude Pichois and Jean Ziegler, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1973).
26. See Claude Pichois, Baudelaire, trans. Graham Robb (London, 1989), pp. 315-
62.
27. Jean Rousseau, "Salon de 1864," L'Univers illustre, June I, 1864. (Je ne crois pas
que la poetique de Delacroix ait jamais ete celle de M. Courbet. Comment donc une alli-
ance s'est-elle subitement etablie entre ces ecoles qui semblaient s'exclure, et qui se sont si
longtemps fait la guerre? II faut que Ie realisme ait singulierement modifie son pro-
gramme, et no us serions curieux d'en connaitre la nouvelle formule.) Earlier in that "Sa-
lon" Rousseau wrote: "[Fantin's] painting of this year is somewhat to glorify realism,
whose principal apostles are shown grouped, in a touching reunion, around their lord and
Notes to Pages 9-II
master Champfleury. But, for the love of heaven and the truth, what is the portrait of De-
lacrOix, placed behind them, doing there? Does the realist school claim to be affiliated
with the greatest fantasist of modern times? It would be very curious to see their
genealogical tree" (May 14, 1864). ([S]on tableau de cette annee est un peu a la gloire du
realisme dont il nous montre les principaux apotres groupes, dans une touch ante union,
autour de leur maitre et seigneur M. Champfleury. Mais, pour l'amour du ciel et de la
verite, qui fait la ce portrait de Delacroix, place derriere eux? L'ecole realiste pretendait-
elle se rattacher au plus grand fantaisiste des temps modernes? Je serais bien curieux de
voir son arbre genealogique.) And in a second "Salon" of that year he identified Fantin as
representing contemporary painting, Baudelaire the romanticism of 1830, and Champ-
fleury the realism of recent years ("Salon de 1864," Le Figaro, May 26, 1864). (Voila M.
Fantin qui represente la peinture actuelle, M. Baudelaire qui represente Ie romantisme de
183°, M. Champfleury qui represente Ie realisme de ces dernieres annees.)
28. The connection was first noted by Douglas Druick in Fantin-Latour 19 82 - 8 3,
P·I74·
29· For more on that exhibition see chap. I.
30. Actually, the situation is more complex than I have indicated. For a second source
~as been associated with the Homage-an unspecified group portrait by Frans Hals, pos-
sibly the Banquet of the Officers of the St. Hadrian's Civic Guard Company (1627), a copy
of whl~h is sup~osed to have been instrumental in leading Fantin to imagine his compo-
SItion III ostensibly realist, not openly allegorical, terms (see Fantin-Latour 19 82 - 8 3,
p. 174, where the Hals is reproduced). There is no reason to doubt the validity of such a
connection, but it should be noted that it is much less evident in the final painting than
the reference to the Champaigne.
3 I. Fantin, Ribot, and Moreau will be discussed in this connection in chapter 3 and
Man~t in chapters I, 2, and 4. The affinity between Legros's paintings and those of early
Renaissance masters was remarked by various critics including Hector de Callias, "Salon
de 1863," L'Artiste, June I, 1863; and Ernest Chesneau, Les Nations rivales dans l'art
(Paris, 1868), p. 333. On the young Tissot's predilection for pastiching Leys and earlier
artists see e.g. Callias, "Salon de 1863"; Maxime Du Camp, Le Salon de 1861 (Paris,
1861), p. 5; and Paul Mantz, "Salon de 1863," GBA, 1St ser., 14 (June I, 1863): 506. On
Puvis's evocations of the look of Renaissance frescoes see e.g. Dubose de Pesquidoux, "Sa-
lon de 1861," L'Union, June 8, 1861; and Paul de Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1861," La
Presse, May 12, 186 I. Whistler is said to have pastiched Chinese painting in his Princesse
du pays de la porcelaine by both Louis Auvray, Salon de 1865 (Paris, 1865), p. 58; and
Jules Claretie [Arsene Arnaud], "Deux Heures du Salon de 1865," in Peintres et sculp-
teur~ contemporains (Paris, 1874), p. 109. Recently, too, it has been suggested that Whis-
tler Intended a resemblance between his Woman in White in the Salon des Refuses and
Wat~eau's Gilles, another La Caze picture exhibited at Martinet's three years before (see
DaVid Park Curry, "Artist and Model," in James McNeill Whistler at the Freer Gallery of
~rt [New York and London, 1984], pp. 35-51). Alone among the painters I have just
clt~d, Degas figures scarcely at all in the art criticism of the I860s; among the books,
artICles, and catalogs documenting Degas's involvement with older art are Theodore Reff
Degas: The Artist's Mind (New York, 1976), chap. 3, "Pictures within Pictures"; idem:
"~egas's Copies of Older Art," Burlington Magazine 105 (June 1963): 241-51; Eleanor
Mitchell, "La fille de Jephte par Degas: Genese et evolution," GBA, 6th ser., 18 (Oct.
1937): 175- 89; Genevieve Monnier, "La Genese d'une oeuvre de Degas: Semiramis con-
struisant une ville," La Revue du Louvre et des Musees de France 28, nos. 5-6 (197 8 ):
4 0 7- 26 ; and Jean Sutherland Boggs et aI., Degas, exhib. cat. (Paris: Grand Palais, Feb. 9-
Notes to Pages II-I2 459
May 16, 1976; Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada,June I6-Aug. 28, 1988; New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Sept. 27, I988-Jan. 8, 1989).
32. More precisely, they were responding to a new stage in a development the origins
of which went back at least to the early 19th century. Baudelaire's attack on "eclecticism"
in his "Salon de 1846" may be taken as emblematic of a decisive moment in that develop-
ment: for Baudelaire the rise of eclecticism was correlated with the erosion of tradition in
the face of the modern malady of doubt (Curiosites esthhiques, esp. pp. 168-70, 175-77,
191-94). For a reading of that "Salon" which focuses on the question of the relation of
new art to that of the Old Masters see Fried 1984 and chapter 2 in the present book.
On the general topic of present-past relations in French painting of the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries, see Norman Bryson, Tradition and Desire: From David to
Delacroix (Cambridge, 1984), which applies to the painting of David and Ingres certain
ideas concerning the conflicted nature of artistic inheritance developed by the literary
critic and theorist Harold Bloom. Bryson's chapters on David strike me as arbitrary and
unargued, but those on Ingres make a valuable contribution.
33. Zacharie Astruc, Le Salon, no. 9 (May 10-II, 1863). (Pour se formuler grand
homme, il n'est point absolument necessaire de s'inspirer de Raphael, de Titien, de Rem-
brandt, de Rubens ou de Velasquez.) Or to quote a critic less sympathetic to the young
realists, Jean Rousseau: after discussing the way in which Manet, Ribot, and Legros all
invoked earlier masters, Rousseau asked rhetorically, "[H]ow is it that several of [the
realists]-who make a profession of sincerity-counterfeit someone else instead of being
themselves?" ("Salon de 1868," L'Univers illustre, June 6,1868). ([Clomment se fait-il
que plusieurs de ces artistes-qui font de la sincerite une profession-contrefassent
quelqu'un au lieu d'etre eux-memes?)
34. See Anne Coffin Hanson, Manet and the Modern Tradition (New Haven and Lon-
don, 1977); Reff 1982-83; Clark 1985; and Robert L. Herbert, Impressionism: Art, Lei-
sure and Parisian Society (New Haven and London, 1988). Among these books, Clark's is
by far the most distinguished: its interpretive energy, imaginative scholarship, and nu-
anced treatment of the question of modernism make it one of the most compelling works
in the entire body of Manet scholarship. Its influence on recent Manet studies has been
great, and it is a basic reference throughout the present work. Herbert's book also makes a
significant contribution, though to my mind its weakest pages are those on Manet; in
particular Herbert's decision to treat Manet as an Impressionist is a mistake. I discuss
Reff's Manet and Modern Paris toward the end of chapter 2. Hanson's book, though not
devoid of useful observations, is best left to itself.
35. Here, for example, is how Cachin characterizes the unprecedentedness of Manet's
procedures: "To paint openly from paintings, almost to the point of parody, taking paint-
ing itself as the object of its own attention; Olympia, daughter of Titian, Ingres, and Goya,
throws down a challenge to the masters but in contemporary terms" (Manet 1983, p. 18).
She also says that Picasso's variations on the Dejeuner sur l'herbe "do unto Manet as he
had done unto the Italian Renaissance painters" (p. 172), a perfect example of the sort of
historical leveling I seek to counteract. The limits of Beatrice Farwell's engagement with
the question may be gauged from the following summary remarks on the Dejeuner sur
l'herbe: "Why did [Manet] need Raphael? Like those complexities in Bach's cantatas that
were inaudible in the acoustics of the Thomas-Kirche though the composer knew they
were there, the presence of Raphael in the poses of Manet's figures was there, whether
recognized or not, to represent 'the ideal.' It is this and not 'weakness of imagination' that
b_y behind Manet's quotations from the old masters. By the time of Dejeuner sur l'herbe it
was done with the wry humor of persiflage, while it contributed as well an ingredient of
Notes to Pages 13-14
monumentality. Thus it made of the composition a marvellously artificial set piece, like
that moment in the film M.A.5.H. in which a team of American military medics in Korea
seems to fall inadvertently into the composition of Leonardo's Last Supper. The inten-
tions are roughly equivalent, except that Manet's prototype was less obvious" (Farwell
I9 8I ,p.255)·
George Mauner's Manet Peintre-Philosophe: A Study of the Painter's Themes (Univer-
sity Park, Pa., and London, 1975) discusses the relation of a number of paintings by
Manet to their respective sources, but interprets all of Manet's art in terms of a conscious
iconological program thematizing the duality of spirit and matter (unpersuasively, in my
view). Finally, James H. Rubin explains Manet's allusions to earlier art in his paintings of
the I860s in terms of "Manet's theme of the classics renewed through contact with real-
ity" (Manet's Silence and the Poetics of Bouquets [London, 1994], p. 59)·
36. See Wilson-Bareau 1986 and 1992. The omission of any reference to "Manet's
Sources" is especially pointed in the case of her eponymous essay in The Hidden Face of
Manet, which deals at length with Manet's allusions to earlier pictures.
37. Clement Greenberg, "Modernist Painting," in The New Art: A Critical Anthol-
ogy, ed. Gregory Battcock (1966; rev. ed., New York, 1973), p. 68. Greenberg's essay was
first published in 1960 as a pamphlet by the Voice of America; it then appeared in Arts
Yearbook, no. 4 (1961), and with slight revisions in Art and Literature, no. 4 (spring
1965) before its publication in The New Art. Recently the original essay has been repub-
lished in Clement Greenberg, The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol. 4, Modernism
with a Vengeance, I957-I969, ed. John O'Brian (Chicago and London, 1993)·
38. Greenberg, "Modernist Painting," pp. 68-69.
39. See Fried 1990, pp. 284-87. See also idem, "Shape as Form: Frank Stella's New
Paintings" (originally published in Artforum in 1966), in Henry Geldzahler, ed., New
York Painting and Sculpture: I940-I970 (New York, 1969), pp. 403-25, esp. pp. 413-
14; idem, "Art and Objecthood" (originally published in Artforum in 1967), in Gregory
Battcock, ed., Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology (New York, 1968), pp. II6-47, esp.
pp. 123-24, n. 4; and idem, "How Modernism Works: A Response to T. J. Clark," Criti-
cal Inquiry 9 (Sept. 1982): 217-34. Clark's original essay, "Clement Greenberg's Theory
of Art," appeared in the same issue of Critical Inquiry, 139-56; his reply to my critique
was published (along with his essay and my critique) in W. J. T. Mitchell, ed., The Politics
ofInterpretation (Chicago and London, 1983). See also Leo Steinberg, "Other Criteria,"
in Other Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth-Century Art (New York, 1972),
pp. 55-91; Stephen Melville, "Notes on the Reemergence of Allegory, the Forgetting of
Modernism, the Necessity of Rhetoric, and the Conditions of Publicity in Art and Criti-
cism," October, no. 19 (winter 1981): 55-92; idem, Philosophy beside Itself: On De-
construction and Modernism, Theory and History of Literature, vol. 29 (Minneapolis,
1986), chap. I, "On Modernism"; and Thierry de Duve, "The Monochrome and the
Blank Canvas," in Serge Guilbaut, ed., Reconstructing Modernism: Art in New York,
Paris, and Montreal (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1990), pp. 244-310.
40. Greenberg, "Necessity of Formalism," New Literary History 3 (autumn 1971):
171 (quoted by Thierry de Duve, "The Monochrome and the Blank Canvas," p. 251). See
also Greenberg, "Beginnings of Modernism," Arts Magazine 57 (Apr. 19 83): 77-79,
where he again identifies Manet as the first Modernist painter by virtue of the "sheer
handling of his medium"; observes that" [i]t's the renovation of the medium, of the imme-
diate phenomenal substance, that has largely made Modernism the renovation of aes-
thetic quality by which it justifies itself. Away from such renovation Modernism
evaporates: what happens becomes something else-not necessary something less, by no
means, but still no longer or not yet Modernism" (p. 78); and explains that the Modernist
renovation of the medium of painting in the interests of sustaining esthetic quality took
the form of a "creative devolution" toward flatness, which he compares and contrasts
with the transformation of Greco-Roman pictorial art into Byzantine art that took place
between the fourth and sixth centuries of the modern era (p. 79). And d. Walter Darby
Bannard: "Modernism is a frame of mind or working attitude toward both the making
and taking in of art which embodies two primary principles. One, art in the making is self-
critical, turning naturally to the best art of the past to emulate the highest standards for
the present, bringing to itself whatever changes seem necessary to maintain those stan-
dards. Two, art objects are relatively good or not so good, and that [sic] this goodness or
'quality' must be taken in through feeling and intuition above and beyond the sum of de-
scribable parts. The driving force of Modernism is self-improvement, esthetic better-
ment" ("Jules Olitski at the New Gallery," exhib. cat. [Miami, Fla: The New Gallery,
University of Miami, Feb. 25-Mar. 25,1994], n.p.). I shall have more to say about the
issue of "esthetic quality" in the coda.
41. ClarkI985,P·IO.
42. Ibid., p. 12.
43. Ibid., pp. 12- 13.
44. The idea that the Impressionist painters were in pursuit of a new, "decorative"
mode of unity that stressed the relations of tones and colors on a flat surface was first put
forward by the critics Armand Silvestre (in 1874 and 1876) and Philippe Burty (in 1874,
1876, and 1877). See Armand Silvestre, "L'Exposition des revoltes" and "Exposition de
la rue Le Peletier," L'Opinion nationale, Apr. 22, 1874, and Apr. 2, 1876); Philippe Burty,
"The Paris Exhibitions," The Academy, May 30,1874; idem, "The Exhibition ofthe 'In-
transigeants,'" The Academy, Apr. 15, 1876; and idem, "Exposition des impression-
nistes," La Republique franqaise, Apr. 25, 1877. In the decades that followed the concept
of the decorative underwent considerable development, largely though by no means ex-
clusively in connection with the art of Claude Monet. The best discussions of this topic
remain Levine's in "Decor/Decorative/Decoration," and Monet and His Critics. See also
the coda.
45. The exchange is cited by Albert Wolff, "Edouard Manet," Le Figaro, May I,
188 3.
Courbet lui-meme en voyant paraitre, en 1865, au Salon, l'Olympia de Manet, ne put

s'accommoder de cet art moderne et s'ecria: -C'est plat, ce n'est pas modele; on dirait une dame
de pique d'un jeu de cartes sortant du bain.
Ce a quoi Manet, toujours pret a la riposte, repondit: -Courbet nous embete a la fin avec ses
modeles; son ideal a lui c'est une bille de billard!
46. See the discussion of these criticisms in chapter 4.

47. Zola, "Edouard Manet, etude biographique et critique," Ecrits sur l'art, p. 152.
Zola goes on to compare Olympia to a gravure d'Epinal (p. 160) and the Fifer to "une
ens eigne de costumier" (p. 161). The nearest approach to a reading of some of Manet's
paintings as flat is found in E. Spuller's highly interesting account of Manet's one-man
exhibition of 1867 ("M. Edouard Manet & sa peinture," Le Nain jaune, June 9, 1867).
Spuller criticizes Manet for his belief that painting was meant to be seen not up close but
only at a distance. When Manet's paintings are viewed from far back, Spuller wrote, "the
patches [of color] disappear into the ensemble, the desired effect is obtained, one has be-
fore us a relief: the object is surrounded by air, by reality, the aim of painting is achieved."
But Spuller added that in the exhibition none of Manet's nude figures actually achieved
that effect, because they couldn't be seen from far enough away. "There is no modeling,"
he complained, "no chiaroscuro, all the artifices of ordinary painting are suppressed; one
is forced, despite the opposite desire that one would have, to find these nude figures of a
desperate flatness, not to mention their other faults."
Pour bien voir les tableaux de M. Manet, il faut les voir it une grande distance, se reculer Ie plus loin
possible. Les taches disparaissent alors dans I'ensemble; on obtient l'effet voulu, on a devant soi un
relief: I'objet est dans l'air, dans la realite, Ie but de la peinture est atteint.
Soit! c'est un systeme comme un autre, moins commode cependant que celui qui n'exige pas des
appartements immenses pour recevoir des tableaux comme des mouchoirs de poche. Mais
admettons I'idee de M. Manet. Eh bien! je regrette d'avoir it lui dire qu'au moins dans son salon de
I'avenue de l'Alma, aucune des figures nues qu'il a exposees se prend de relief, car on ne peut pas les
voir d'assez loin. II n'y a point de modele, point de clair-obscur, tous les artifices de la peinture
ordinaire sont supprimes; on est bien force, malgre Ie desir contraire qu'on pourrait avoir, de
trouver ces figures nues d'une desesperante platitude, sans parler de leurs autres defauts.
But Spuller complains of the flatness only of the nude figures, not of the Dejeuner and
Olympia in their entirety. Indeed earlier in his article Spuller comments that Manet's
method isn't really new, that many artists were familiar with it before Manet but refrained
from practicing it "because it is defective and in the end inevitably leads the painter who
resorts to it to produce only works of trompe-l'oeil, which is the coldest and most irritat-
ing thing in the world that one can imagine." (In other words, in Spuller's view the inher-
ent tendency of Manet's method was toward untrammeled illusionism.) (J'ajoute que
cette methode n'a rien de bien neuf, que bien des gens la connaissent avant M. Manet,
mais ne la pratiquaient point parce qu'elle est defectueuse et qu'enfin elle doit forcement
amener Ie peintre qui s'en sert a ne plus produire que des tableaux en trompe-l'oeil, c'est-
a-dire la chose la plus froide et la plus aga\ante qui se puisse concevoir au monde.) In any
case, Spuller's criticism of the apparent flatness of Manet's nudes at the avenue de l'Alma is
not the note of most Manet commentary from the 18 60S.
48. See chap. I, n. 96 and Fried 1990, pp. 286-87. In his discussion of Olympia in The
Painting of Modern Life Clark considers various internally problematic or disparate fea-
tures of that painting and goes on to say: "To call these disparities 'flatness' or 'flattening'
does not seem to me quite right. The passages I have pointed to insist on something more
complex than a physical state, or at any rate the state of a medium. They put in question
how the world might appear in a picture if its constituents were conceived-it seems they
may be-as nothing but material; and how paint might appear as part of that world, the
ultimate dry sign of it" (p. 138). Clark goes on to detect a thematization of flatness in
Argenteuil (1874) and A Bar at the Folies-Bergere (1881-82), but of course both paint-
ings reflect Manet's engagement with Impressionism, which is to say with a conception of
painting and of pictorial unity that differed in crucial respects from those implicit in his
canvases of the 18 60S.
49. Greenberg, "Modernist Painting," pp. 71-72.
50. Ibid., p. 74.
51. In an important article Yve-Alain Bois calls attention to a sweeping change in
Greenberg'S point of view that took place in the mid- I 9 5as ("Greenberg's Amendments,"
Kunst & Museumjournaal 5, no. I [1993]: 1-9). Briefly, by comparing a number of es-
says by Greenberg as originally published and as revised and republished in Art and Cul-
ture (1961), Bois shows how a prior emphasis on materiality came increasingly to be
displaced by one on opticality, as exemplified, finally, in the art of Morris Louis and the
color-field painters. Bois cites approvingly John O'Brian's account of a slightly earlier shift
in Greenberg'S political views, from what T. J. Clark has called his "Eliotic Trotskyism" to
"Kantian Anti-Communism" (see O'Brian, Introduction, Clement Greenberg, The Col-
lected Essays and Criticism, 3: Affirmations and Refusals, 1950-1956 [Chicago and
London, 1993], pp. xv-xxxiii), and suggests that the new emphasis on opticality is con-
sistent with that development. "Such an ideological conversion," Bois writes, "finds
its counterpart in the realm of esthetics (with a small time-lag, a deferral of a few years,
and in a gradual fashion): from the materialism of 'positive facts' to the transcendence
of the mirage, from tactility to opticality, and so forth" (p. 6). (Bois also suggests a bio-
graphical explanation, tied to Greenberg's love affair starting in 1950 with Helen
Frankenthaler, "whose 'Mountains and Sea,' dating from 1952, will become a key-
element of Greenberg'S new reading of Pollock and of Abstract Expressionism as a whole"
[ibid.].) Whatever the reasons for Greenberg's change of mind, his later position, which
Bois characterizes as "idealist" (p. 8), has the crucial consequence of enlisting Manet and
the Impressionists under the dual sign of flatness and opticality. See also Bois's discussion
of that change of mind in "The Limit of Almost," in Ad Reinhardt, exhib. cat. (New York:
Museum of Modern Art, May 30-Sept. 2, 1991; Los Angeles: Museum of Contemporary
Art, Oct. 13, 1991-Jan. 6, 1992),PP. 14-17.
52. Armand Silvestre, "Chronique des Beaux-Arts," L'Opinion nationale, Apr. 22,
1874. (II faut, en effet, des yeux speciaux pour erre sensibles a cette justesse dans les rela-
tions des tons qui fait leur honneur et leur merite.)
53. Marc de Montifaud [Marie-Amelie Chatroule de Montifaud], "Exposition du
boulevard des Capucines," L'Artiste, May I, 1874, pp. 307-13. (Si ce petit groupe pouv-
ait constituer une ecole, on devrait l'appeler "I' ecole des yeux. ")
54. See e.g. Ernest Chesneau, "Salon de 1875," Paris-Journal, May 14, 1875; Phi-
lippe Burty, "Salon de 1875," La Republique franqaise, May 23, 1875; and Stephane
Mallarme, "The Impressionists and Edouard Manet," Art Monthly Review, Sept. 30,
1876. I briefly discuss the last of these in my footnote in the coda.
55. Pinard, "L'Exposition Manet," Le Radical (Jan. 9, 1884). ([A] peine croirait-on
que la main humaine a dft etre employee pour transporter sur la toile l'image recueillie par
l'oeil de l'artiste, on pourrait supposer que son regard a ete Ie seul agent de reception et de
reproduction de l'image.) Pinard also said that he regarded those two works as the most
useful for understanding Manet's art: "Si je m'attache particulierement a ces deux
oeuvres, c'est qU'elles me paraissent les plus prop res a faire comprendre Ie peintre."
56. Jacques de Biez, "Edouard Manet," Le Voltaire, May 2, 1883. (Manet doit-il
blame du soin qu'il parut prendre a repudier de son oeuvre toute intention psychologique
ou tout sujet philosophique? Manet fut un peintre avant tout, et son ambition la plus
haute etait de rester peintre dans la pleine acception plastique du terme. Manet fut un oeil
plutot qu'un raisonnement.)
57. Edmond Bazire, Manet (Paris, 1884), p. 135. (Sa carriere se resume en une ascen-
sion continue vers la lumiere et la verite, et presente cette extraordinaire particularite que
chaque manifestation du peintre est un acheminement, une transition, pour ainsi dire,
vers une expression nouvelle de sa conception interieure .... Peindre d'apres les yeux,
non d'apres l'imagination, fut son programme.) Significantly, Bazire also remarks: "To
adjust patches to patches is not to model: it's at most to pursue the opportunity to obtain
decorative ensembles, but not lines" (p. 136). (Ajouter des plaques a des plaques, ce n'est
pas modeler: c'est tout au plus courir la chance d'obtenir des ensembles decoratifs, mais
pas de lignes.)
58. Theodore Duret, Histoire de Edouard Manet et de son oeuvre (1902; Paris, 1926),
pp. 63-65. In his words:
Never in effect has anyone painted with more sincerity and, in part, with more naivete than
Manet; never has anyone, brush in hand, absorbed by the subject, sought to render it more
Notes to Page I9
faithfully. The disaccord between the public and him stems therefore from a difference of vision.
Manet and others didn't see in the same way....
His faculty of seeing in a particular manner was not the result of a reasoned act, or an effort of
the will, or of work. It came from nature. It was the gift.... He saw things in a dazzle of light that
the others didn't discover, he fixed on the canvas the sensations that struck his eye. In so doing, he
acted unconsciously, in that what he saw derived from his [nervous and sensory] organization.
Nothing was more false than to accuse him of pursuing so-called peinture bariollie, deliberately and
out of a pure desire to attract attention.
Jamais en effet personne n'a peint avec plus de sincerite et, pour une part, avec plus de naivete
que Manet; jamais personne n'a, Ie pinceau a la main, absorbe par Ie sujet, cherche Ie rendre plus
fidelement. Le dissentiment survenu entre Ie public et lui provenait donc d'une difference de vision.
Manet et les autres ne voyaient pas de la meme maniere ....
Sa faculte de voir d'une fa"on particuliere ne venait ni d'un acte raisonne, ni d'un effort de
volonte, ni du travail. Elle venait de la nature. Elle etait Ie don .... II voyait les choses dans un eclat
de lumiere que les autres n'y decouvraient pas, il fixait sur la toile les sensations qui avaient frappe
son oeil. En Ie faisant, il agissait inconsciemment, puisque ce qu'il voyait lui venait de son
organisation. Rien n'etait plus faux que de l'accuser de s'adonner a la soi-disant peinture bariolee,
de propos delibere, et par pur desir d'attirer l'attention.
59. Antonin Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," Le Studio 21 (Jan. 15, 1901): 76; see
chap. I, no. 29, for more on that article, which is reproduced in its entirety along with an
English translation in appendix 1. Near the beginning of that article Proust refers to
Manet as the "leader of the Impressionist school."
60. This despite Zola's proto-Impressionist insistence that the distinction of Manet's
art lay in the simplicity and directness (also the subtlety, the finesse) with which the
painter transcribed the scene before him into a tonally coherent whole. "What first strikes
me in his painting is the extremely delicate accuracy of the relations among tones," he
wrote in 1867 ("Edouard Manet," Ecrits sur l'art, p. 150). And: "The artist's whole per-
sonality consists in the manner in which eye is organized: he sees blond, and he sees by
masses" (ibid., p. 151). And finally: "Don't ask him for anything other than a literally
accurate translation [of nature]. He doesn't know to sing or philosophize. He knows how
to paint and that's all: he has the gift, and therein lies his distinctive temperament, to seize
the dominant tones in all their delicacy and to thus be able to model in broad planes both
things and beings" (ibid., p. 153). (Ce qui me frappe d'abord dans ces tableaux, c'est une
justesse tres delicate dans les rapports des tons entre eux .... Toute la personnalite de
l'artiste consiste dans la maniere dont son oeil est organise: il voit blond, et il voit par
masses .... Ne lui demandez rien autre chose qu'une traduction d'une justesse litterale. II
ne saurait ni chanter ni philosopher. II sait peindre, et voila tout: il a Ie don, et c'est la son
temperament propre, de saisir dans leur delicatesse les tons dominants et de pouvoir ainsi
modeler a grands plans les choses et les etres.)
I discuss Zola's idiosyncratic critical perspective in chapters 3 and 4 of this book; here I
will simply remark that his writings on Manet of 1866-68 anticipate Impressionism's
simplificatory view of Manet's achievement. As he says: "I can't repeat too often that it's
necessary to forget a thousand things to understand and appreciate this talent" (ibid.). (II
no us faut, je ne saurais trop Ie repeter, oublier mille choses pour com prendre et gouter ce
talent.) What's curious, of course, is that Zola finally was ambivalent about Impression-
ism itself, in part because of his continued allegiance to the human figure, in part because
he never became fully reconciled to Impressionist technique. In 1879, for example, he
wrote of Manet, whom he called the leader of the Impressionists: "His long struggle
against the incomprehension of the public is explained by the difficulty he finds in execut-
ing, which is to say that his hand isn't the equal of his eye .... If his technique equaled the
Notes to Page I9
accuracy of his perceptions, he would be the great painter of the second half of the nine-
t;enth century" ("Lettres de Paris: Nouvelles artistiques etlitteraires [Le Salon de 1879],"
Ecrits sur l' art, p. 4°°). (Sa longue lutte contre l'incomprehension du public s'explique par
la difficulte qu'il rencontre dans l'execution, je veux dire que sa main n'egale pas son
oeil. ... Si Ie cote technique chez lui egalait la justesse des perceptions, il serait Ie grand
peintre de la seconde moitie du XIXe siecle.) But his deepest assumptions about painting
were far closer to those of early Impressionism, or rather to the views of the painters who
became the Impressionists, than to the collective aspirations of the generation of 1863.
61. In The Optical Unconscious (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1993), Rosalind E.
Krauss simultaneously endorses Greenberg's hypostatization of opticality and attacks
opticality as such, and by implication modernist painting, in the name of what she calls,
adapting a phrase of Walter Benjamin's (but on quasi-Lacanian grounds), "the optical un-
conscious." Put slightly differently, Krauss has something against opticality; but she also
thinks that Greenberg has it right when he claims that modernist painting "confine[s] it-
self exclusively to what is given in visual experience," and understands her own project as
an attempt to tell (in the words of the book jacket) "the story of a small, disparate group of
artists who defied modernism's most cherished self-descriptions, giving rise to an unruly,
disruptive force that persistently haunted the field of modernism from the I920S to the
19 50S and continues to disrupt it today." The result is a curious argument in which mod-
ernist painting stands indicted as the merely "retinal" enterprise Marcel Duchamp con-
sidered it to be (see, however, Thierry de Duve's complicating account of Duchamp's
thought in Pictorial Nominalism: On Marcel Duchamp's Passage from Painting to the
Readymade, trans. Dana Polan, Theory and History of Literature, vol. 5 I [Minneapolis
and Oxford, 1991]), and in which even the verticality of painting emerges as a reprehen-
sibly conservative force (see Krauss's discussion of Pollock's drip paintings).
62. This is perhaps as good a place as any to cite my own first summary remarks about
Manet, in a long footnote to the introductory essay to Three American Painters: Kenneth
Noland, Jules Olitski, Frank Stella, exhib. cat. (Cambridge: Fogg Art Museum, Harvard
University, Apr.-May 1965). The footnote is appended to the clause set off by hyphens in
the sentence: "Roughly speaking, the history of painting from Manet through Synthetic
Cubism and Matisse may be characterized in terms of the gradual withdrawal of painting
from the task of representing reality-or of reality from the power of painting to represent
it-in favor of an increasing preoccupation with problems intrinsic to painting itself"
(p. 5). The footnote reads:
This is more than just a figure of speech: it is a capsule definition of what may be seen to take
place in Manet's paintings. Manet's ambitions are fundamentally realistic. He starts out aspiring to
the objective transcription of reality, of a world to which one wholly belongs, such as he finds in the
work of Velasquez and Hals. But where Velasquez and Hals took for granted their relation to the
worlds they belonged to and observed and painted, Manet is sharply conscious that his own
relation to reality is far more problematic. And to paint his world with the same fullness of
response, the same passion for truth, that he finds in the work of Velasquez and Hals, means that he
is forced to paint not merely his world but his problematic relation to it: his own awareness of
himself as in and yet not of the world. In this sense Manet is the first post-Kantian painter: the first
painter whose awareness of himself raises problems of extreme difficulty that cannot be ignored:
the first painter for whom consciousness itself is the great subject of this art.
Almost from the first-surely as early as the Dlijeuner sur l'herbe-Manet seems to have striven
hard to make this awareness function as an essential part of his paintings, an essential aspect of
their content. This accounts for the situational character of Manet's paintings of the I 860s: the
painting itself is conceived as a kind of tableau vivant (in this sense Manet relates back to David),
but a tableau vivant constructed so as to dramatize not a particular event so much as the beholder's
Note to Page 19
alienation from that event. Moreover, in paintings like the Dejeuner and the Olympia, for example,
the inhibiting, estranging quality of self-awareness is literally depicted within the painting: in the
Dejeuner by the unintelligible gesture of the man on the right and the bird frozen in flight at the top
of the painting; in the Olympia above all by the hostile, almost schematic cat; and in both by the
distancing calm stare of Victorine Meurent.
But Manet's desire to make the estranging quality of self-awareness an essential part of the
content of his work-a desire which, as we have seen, is at bottom realistic-has an important
consequence: namely, that self-awareness in this particular situation necessarily entails the
awareness that one is looking at is, after all, merely a painting. And this awareness too must be
made an essential part of the work itself. That is, there must be no question but that the painter
intended it to be felt; and if necessary the spectator must be compelled to feel it. Otherwise the self-
awareness (and the alienation) Manet is after would remain incomplete and equivocal.
For this reason Manet emphasizes certain characteristics which have nothing to do with
verisimilitude but which assert t~at the painting in question is exactly that: a painting. For example,
Manet emphasizes the flatness of the picture-surface by eschewing modeling and (as in the
Dejeuner) refusing to depict depth convincingly, calls attention to the limits of the canvas by
truncating extended forms with the framing edge, and underscores the rectangular shape of the
picture support by aligning with it, more or less conspicuously, various elements within the
painting. (The notions of emphasis and assertion are important here. David and Ingres rely on
rectangular composition far more than Manet; and some of Ingres's forms have as little modeling as
Manet's. But David and Ingres are not concerned to emphasize the rectangularity or the flatness of
the canvas, but rather they make use of these to ensure the stability of their compositions and the
rightness of their drawing.)
No wonder Manet's art has always been open to contradictory interpretations: the
contradictions reside in the conflict between his ambitions and his actual situation. (What one
takes to be the salient features of his situation is open to argument; an uncharacteristically subtle
Marxist could, I think, make a good case for focusing on the economic and political situation in
France after 1848. In this note, however, I have stressed Manet's recognition of consciousness as a
problem for art, as well as the estranging quality of his own consciousness of himself.) Manet's art
represents the last attempt in Western painting to achieve a full equivalent to the great realistic
painting of the past: an attempt which led, in quick inexorable steps, to the founding of modernism
through the emphasis on pictorial qualities and problems in their own right. This is why Manet
was so easily thrown off stride by the advent of Impressionism around 1870: because his pictorial
and formal innovations of the preceding decade had not been made for their own sakes, but in the
service of a phenomenology that had already been worked out in philosophy, and had been
objectified in some poetry (e.g. Blake), but which had not yet made itself felt in the visual arts. It
was only at the end of his life that Manet at last succeeded in using what he had learned from
Impressionism to objectify his own much more profound phenomenology, in the Bar at the Folies-
Bergere. (pp. 49-50)
There is much that might be said about this (and much that's wrong with it), but let me
make just three points: (I) Already in 1965 I insisted that Manet should be seen as a realist
and that his endeavor in his paintings of the I 860s differed fundamentally from that of the
Impressionists. (2) My emphasis on Manet's thematization of consciousness and aliena-
tion, though crude and untenable as it stands, is not without a certain relation to the
social-historical notion of the "self-distanced" or "alienated" subject of modernism men-
tioned above. (3) My claim that the thematization of consciousness and alienation in this
particular situation entailed calling attention to the painting in question being merely
that, a painting, also might be linked with the passage from Clark cited above. But there is
a sharp difference between Clark's emphasis on the first modernist painters' skepticism
and unsureness about the nature of pictorial representation and what I imply was Manet's
deliberate strategy of underscoring the "paintingness" of his pictures of the I 8 60S, and of
course nothing could be more "impressionist" (in the sense that I have been using the
term) than my Greenbergian stress on the flatness and rectangularity of the picture plane.
Similarly, the phrases "problems intrinsic to painting itself" and "pictorial qualities and
problems in their own right" express an ahistorically essentialist notion that all my art
historical writings, and indeed my art critical writings subsequent to Three American
Painters, implicitly or explicitly repudiate. See the brief commentary on my footnote in
Charles Harrison's chapter, "Impressionism, Modernism and Originality," in Francis
Frascina, Nigel Blake, Briony Fer, Tamar Garb, and Charles Harrison, Modernity and
Modernism: French Painting in the Nineteenth Century (New Haven and London, 1993),
p. 20I. Finally, the question of Manet's status as "the first modernist andlor the last old
master" is central to David Carrier's essay, "Manet and His Interpreters" (Art History 8
[Sept. 1985]: 320-35), a survey of competing views of Manet that declines to take sides
among them, concluding that art history's "present practice involves, unavoidably, con-
cerns about relativity of interpretation" (p. 333).
1. Manet's Sources, 1859-1869

I. Ernest Chesneau and Theophile Thore. Their observations are discussed in the last
section of this chapter.
2. For example, Edmond Bazire, Edouard Manet (Paris, 1884); Jacques de Biez,
Edouard Manet (Paris, 1884); Louis Gonse, "Manet," GBA, 2d ser., 29 (Feb. I, 1884):
133-52. Gonse is not exactly an admirer of Manet's work but argues that its importance
is incontestable.
3. Jacques-Emile Blanche, Essais et portraits (Paris, 1912), p. 162.
4. I discuss the articles and books that most importantly contributed to this realiza-
tion below. I might remark, however, that Manet's use of the art of the past began to be a
historical problem shortly before the exhibition of 1932. See Paul Jamot, "Etudes sur
ManetI," GBA, 5th ser., 15 (Jan. 1927): 27-50.
5. Quoted in Pierre Cailler and Pierre Courthion, eds., Manet reconte par lui-meme et
parses am is, 2vols. (Geneva, 1953), 1:135.
L'artiste ne dit pas aujourd'hui: venez voir des oeuvres sans defauts, mais: venez voir des
oeuvres sinceres.
C'est l'effet de la sincerite de donner aux oeuvres un caractere qui les fait ressembler a une
protestation, alors que Ie peintre n'a songe qu'a rendre son impression.
6. See e.g. Germain Bazin, "Manet et la tradition," L'Amour de l'art 13 (May 1932):
152-63; Rene Huyghe, "Manet, peintre," L'Amour de l'art 13 (May 1932): 165-84;
Paul Colin, Manet (Paris, 1937).
7. Michel Florisoone, Manet (Monaco, 1947), p. xvii.
8. Meyer Schapiro, review of French Painting between the Past and the Present, by
Joseph c. Sloane, Art Bulletin 36 (June 1954): 163-65.
9. Bazin, Huyghe, and Florisoone are among those who have expressed this view. See
also John Richardson, Manet (1958; London and New York, 1967). Alan Bowness in "A
Note on Manet's 'Compositional Difficulties,''' Burlington Magazine 103 (June 1961):
276-77, takes issue with Richardson.
10. Alain De Leiris, "Manet, Gueroult and Chrysippos," Art Bulletin 46 (Sept.
1964): 402. But De Leiris says nothing about why it is wrong to postulate such an ele-
ment.
I I. I hope that something of what it means to say this will become clear by the end
of the present study [i.e. chapter I]. I am not suggesting that the history of the concept of
composition in the nineteenth century should be investigated apart from the history of
nineteenth-century painting. On the contrary, it is only in the context of the painting of a

given moment that the meaning of the notion of composition for that painting can be un-
derstood. In discussing the painting of the past two hundred years-since Lessing, Di-
derot, Greuze, Chardin, David-the concept of composition must be used with extreme
care: it had meanings for these men which have been lost, and which as historians we must
try to recover, if we are to understand their thought. One of the points that will emerge is
that the concept of composition cannot be understood apart from other concepts, which
at different moments were equally if not more crucial to the structure of the paintings in
question, and which do not at first seem to bear any direct relation to what we (un-
historically) tend to think of as compositional concerns. The art of David, for example,
must eventually be seen in relation to the work of Lessing and Diderot-not just their
writings on painting and sculpture but their discussions of drama as well-and in terms of
such concepts as action (in particular an action and a moment in an action), grimace and
theatricality (both used as pejoratives), and tableau (in as much of its complexity as we can
encompass). This at least must be done if we are even to approach an adequate sense of
David's actual enterprise.
12. In his article (above n. 10) De Leiris remarks of the Old Musician: "Manetdid not
'borrow' the composition of Velasquez's Drinkers but transposed fragments of it"
(p. 403). This is an important distinction. Manet did both throughout the first half of the
1860s, often in the same painting.
13. It was thought that Velasquez had depicted himself and Murillo in the Petits Cava-
liers. See Sandblad 1954, pp. 37-39,42-45. Most of my references to Sandblad's book
will be related to disagreements over various points. So I want to express at the outset my
deep sense of indebtedness to his work. More than any other modern historian, Sandblad
demonstrates that it is possible to investigate Manet's specific intentions and the develop-
ment of his thought through careful analysis of individual works and of the context in
which each was painted.
14. Theodore Reff, "The Meaning of Manet's Olympia," GBA, 6th ser., 63 (Feb.
1964): 116.
15· Sandblad 1954, p. 45·
16. Ibid., p. 9 I; emphasis in original.
17. De Leiris, "Manet, Gueroult and Chrysippos," p. 404.
18. For example, the Gypsies, Dejeuner sur l'herbe, Olympia, Angels at the Tomb of
Christ, and Christ Mocked. Of course Manet also painted numerous pictures of single
figures. But in four of the most important of these-the Street Singer, Lola de Valence,
Mile V .. in the Costume of an Espada, and Portrait of Zacharie Astruc-he seems to
have made a deliberate effort to activate and even to people the backgrounds in various
ways (see n. 26 for more on this). After his visit in the summer of 1865 to Madrid, where
he was enormously impressed by Velasquez's Pablo de Valladolid, the weight of his art fell
predominantly on the single full-length figure, as in the Tragic Actor, Monk in Prayer, the
three Beggar-Philosophers of 1865, the Torero Saluting, and the Fifer. But by the late
1860s, in paintings such as the Luncheon in the Studio and Balcony, the multifigure
painting again became a major vehicle for him.
19· Sandblad 1954, p. 33.
20. De Leiris, "Manet, Gueroult and Chrysippos," p. 403. [For the suggestion that
Manet based his allusion to Velasquez's Drinkers on Nanteuil's lithograph, see Reff
1982-83, p. 174· As Reff remarks, that lithograph appears in the background of Manet's
Portrait of Emile Zola in 1868 (see also Reff, "Manet's Portrait of Zola," Burlington Mag-
azine 117 [Jan. 1975]: 39).]
Notes to Pages 30 - 32
21. Richardson connects the boy nearest the seated musician with the boy in Velas-
quez's Water Carrier in Apsley House, London, which Manet could have known from an
engraving by Amertler (Manet, p. 13).
22. Florisoone, Manet, p. xxxii.
23. The first writer to spot the relationship seems to have been Paul Fierens, Les Le
Nain (Paris, 1933), p. 29. There are several versions of Le Nain's painting, the best known
of which is in the Ionides Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum. It is not clear
how Manet came to see any of the known versions, but the visual evidence alone suggests
overwhelmingly that he did. For a discussion of the different versions see Basil S. Long,
Catalogue of the Constantine Alexander Ionides Collection, Victoria and Albert Mu-
seum, I (London, 19 25): 36-37.
24. Florisoone seems to have been the first to connect the Old Musician with the
Gilles (Manet, pp. xvi-xvii).
25. La Charrette, then in the collection of Philippe de Saint-Albin who subsequently
willed it to the Louvre, was discussed by Champfleury in "Nouvelles Recherches sur la vie
et l'oeuvre des freres Le Nain," GBA, 1st ser., 8 (Dec. I, 1860): 275. An engraving of the
painting by Sotain, after a drawing by Parent, appears on p. 273.
26. One important difference between the Halte du cavalier and the Old Musician (it
is also a difference between the Drinkers and the Old Musician) might be mentioned here.
In Le Nain's and Velasquez's paintings several of the figures stare directly at the
beholder-or if we think them as posing to be painted, at the painter himself-whereas in
Manet's canvas only a single figure, the Old Musician, actually meets one's gaze with his
own. In fact, there is not a single large multi figure painting in Manet's oeuvre in which
more than one of those figures looks out at us. (The closest thing to an exception occurs in
Olympia, in which both Victorine Meurent and the black cat at the foot of her bed con-
front us directly.) This may not strike the reader as important-it has gone unremarked
until now-but I believe that Manet seems consciously or unconsciously to have felt that
to have more than a single figure look directly at the beholder would in effect be to estab-
lish several individual, and so to speak merely psychological, relationships between the
beholder on the one hand and the figures in question on the other. Whereas Manet seems
to have wanted to establish a particular kind of relationship between the beholder and the
painting as a whole, in its essential unity as a painting. In this sense it is as though the
painting itself looks or gazes or stares at one-it is as though it confronts, fixes, even
freezes one-through the eyes of the Old Musician, or through those of Victorine
Meurent in the Dejeuner sur I' her be, or through those of the soldier holding a cloak in the
Christ Mocked . .. and as though this was an essential source of Manet's conviction, inso-
far as he achieved that conviction, that the paintings in question really were paintings.
(The claim that Manet was explicitly concerned with the concept of a painting-Ie
tableau-is not based only on the character of his pictures themselves. It is also grounded
in the criticism of the time, in particular that of Zacharie Astruc, who more than any other
writer spoke for Manet's generation. See n. 97 for more on Manet's search for the tab-
leau.)
If there is truth in this, Manet's preference for arrangements of more than one figure
becomes at least partly intelligible: in his paintings of a single figure, the latter inevitably
tended to detach or anyway to distinguish itself-if only "psychologically"-from the
rest of the painting. Hence his decision to activate the backgrounds of such pictures as the
Street Singer, Lola de Valence, Mile V .. in the Costume of an Espada. Hence also his
indecision whether or not to include a maid and/or a peeping figure in the shrubbery in
the Surprised Nymph of 1861. [We now know from old photographs that the face of a
47 0 Notes to Pages 34-40
satyr was visible among the boughs at the upper right, and that most likely it was painted
out only after the painter's death (see Manet 1983, pp. 83-84, cat. no. 19 ).]
27· Bazin, "Manet et la tradition," p. 155. George Heard Hamilton remarks that "in
costume, if not in mood, the Absinthe Drinker appears not unrelated to Daumier's sculp-
ture ... Ratapoil (1850)" (Manet and His Critics, p. 23, n. 7).
28. Paul Jamot and Georges Wildenstein, Manet, 2 vols. (Paris, 1932), 1:89. See also
Anne Coffin Hanson, Edouard Manet r832-r883, exhib. cat. (Philadelphia: Phila-
delphia Museum of Art, Nov. 3-Dec. I I, 1966; Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago,
Jan. I3-Feb. 19, 19 67), p. 45.
29· Antonin Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," Le Studio 21 (Jan. 15, 1901): 71-77,
at p. 72. (Le Studio was the French edition of the English magazine The Studio, in which
Proust's essay appeared in an inadequate translation.) Proust was Manet's friend from
childhood, and his witness is invaluable. "L'Art d'Edouard Manet" contains information
not in Proust's Souvenirs. The article is not exactly unknown since it is cited in several
Manet bibliographies and one brief excerpt from it is anthologized in Cailler's and Cour-
thion's Manet raconte par lui-meme. But it has been neglected by historians of Manet. [It
has since been republished in Proust 1897, pp. 85-102. The French text of the original
essay plus a new English translation are given in appendix r.]
30. [See n. 21 above.]
3 I. Some exception must be made for Florisoone, who in his book of 1947 insists on
the importance of seeing Manet (in particular his "eye") in relation to French artists of the
eighteenth century such as Watteau, Desportes, Oudry, Louis Moreau l'aine. He does not
emphasize the importance of Watteau, however, and seems to have had in mind the aspect
of French eighteenth-century art that Sandblad characterized by the words "flaneur real-
ism" and associated with the Music in the Tuileries (Sandblad 1954, pp. 47-57, 159-61).
32· The Joueuse de guitare (Hill-Stead Museum, Farmington, Conn.) is placed in
186 7 by Jamot and Wildenstein. But A. Tabarant is certain that it was painted in 1866
(Manet et ses oeuvres [Paris, 1947], pp. II9, 124, 134). [It is placed in 1867 in Denis
Rouart and Daniel Wildenstein, Edouard Manet: Catalogue raisonne, 2 vols. (Lausanne
and Paris, 1975), I:II6-I7,cat.no. 122.]
33· Bazin, "Manet et la tradition," pp. 154-55. Previously, Jamot had connected La
Peche with the painting of the same title by Annibale Carracci in the Louvre ("Etudes sur
Manet I," 38-39). Bazin argues that Manet's work is based on two paintings by Rubens,
the Landscape with Rainbow in the Louvre and the Castle Garden in Vienna. Sandblad
believes that Manet had both Carracci and Rubens in mind (Sandblad 1954, pp. 42-44).
He also observes that Manet probably relied on Bolswert's engravings after both Rubens
paintings: thus the reversal, in relation to the paintings, of the borrowed motifs. In any
case, Manet's references to Rubens are far more precise than his rather general allusion, if
it is as much as that, to the Carracci.
34· For these works see respectively Helene Adhemar, Watteau, sa vie, son oeuvre
(Paris, 1950), p. 226, cat. no. 186, engraved by Favannes; p. 226, cat. no. 188, engraved by
Le Bas; p. 228, cat. no. 198, engraved by Aubert; p. 221, cat. no. 159, engraved by Caylus
(the original has been lost). There is a striking resemblance between the weedlike plant
that dominates the leftmost portion of Manet's canvas and the device or piece of equip-
ment, itself suggestively like a child's fishing rod, to the right of center in the Caylus en-
graving. The resemblance between the half-submerged bit of fence in the middle distance
in La peche and the similar construction in La Chasse aux oiseaux might also be re-
marked. (The same kind of fence appears in Rubens's Landscape with Rainbow sited
firmly on dry land.)
L'Amour paisible and Le Rendez-vous de chasse, then in the Morny Collection, were
exhibited on the boulevard des Italiens in 186o. L'Assembtee dans un parc belonged to La
Caze with whose collection Manet was familiar.
The possibility that La Peche might be closely related to Watteau as well as to Rubens
was independently remarked, at the 1966 Manet exhibition in Philadelphia, by Kermit
Champa.
35. Jean Collins Harris, "The Graphic Work of Edouard Manet" (Ph.D. diss., Har-
vard University, 1961), p. 242. Harris relates Les Voyageurs to Ruisdael.
36. See Adhemar, Watteau, p. 205, cat. no. 34, for a discussion of the different ver-
sions of Recrue allant joindre Ie regiment.
37. Ibid., pp. 220-21, cat. no. 155, engraved by Watteau and Simmoneau l'aine. A
version of this painting was exhibited on the boulevard des Italiens in 1860.
38. Ibid., p. 212, cat. no. 92, engraved by Thomassin fils.
39. Ibid., p. 229, cat. no. 204, engraved by C.-N. Cochin.
40. Other possible sources include Les Jaloux, ibid., p. 208, cat. no. 64, engraved by
G. Scotin; Le Rendez-vous, p. 21 I, cat. no. 85, engraved by Audran; La Game d'amour,
p. 223, cat. no. 169, engraved by J-P. Le Bas; Le Lorgneur, pp. 223-24, cat. no. 171, en-
graved by G. Scotin; and Fetes Yenitiennes (see n. 42 below).
4r. Ibid., p. 23 I, cat. no. 2II, engraved by Baron in the eighteenth century and by
W. Marks in L'Artiste, Feb. 3, 1856, opp. p. 322.
42. Ibid., p. 228, cat. no. 197, engraved by Laurent Cars. Also, the pose of the male
dancer in Fetes Yenitiennes is close to that of Manet's Absinthe Drinker.
43. Cf. in particular Watteau's Les Champs-Elysees (Adhemar, Watteau, p. 225, cat.
no. 184, engraved by N. Tardieu, fig. 78). This connection was first suggested by Ellen
Phoebe Wiese, "Source Problems in Manet's Early Painting" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard Uni-
versity, I959),P. 154·
44. Schapiro, in his review of Sloane (above, n. 8), calls attention to Manet's "positive
interest in the refractory, the independent, the marginal, and the artistic in life itself (the
world of performers and spectacle)" (p. 164). This interest was consistent with an impor-
tant facet of the generation of young painters to which Manet belonged: their belief in the
value of art as an independent activity which did not require social justification. Delacroix
and Baudelaire epitomized this point of view for them, and Fantin-Latour's Homage to
Delacroix is perhaps its most explicit monument. Not that Manet's involvement with
theatricality was simply an aspect of his interest in the artistic. The kind of relationship
(roughly, of a particular mode of confrontation) between the beholder and the work itself
which I suggest Manet wanted to establish (see n. 26)-and on the establishing of which
his conviction in his work as paintings partly depended-may be thought of as essentially
theatrical. And later (n. I I I) I suggest that Manet's involvement with theatricality was a
function of his realism as well.
In any case, its ubiquitousness in his art is beyond question. Even Manet's subjects
from contemporary "history" -the Battle of the Kearsarge and the Alabama and the
Execution of Maximilian-are essentially theatrical. In both cases the events were wit-
nessed by an audience, some of whom are depicted in the actual paintings. Maximilian
himself is shown as a kind of Gilles-figure, a large sombrero on his head, companions at
his side, like the boy in white in the Old Musician. Often, however, what one experiences
as the theatricality of Manet's subject matter seems to be a function of nothing more than
the fact that he depicted it: as though in Manet's art the very act of posing, or fact of being
represented, was for the first time revealed as ineluctably theatrical-as inescapably, even
when inadvertently, a performance.
/ ~,<'
45. [I have moved the sentences between parentheses from the notes to the body of the
text.]
46. Philippe Burty quoted these lines in his Tableaux de /'ecole franqaise principale-
ment du XVIIIe siecle tires de collections d'amateurs . .. (Paris, 1860), p. 56, cat. no. 273.
This was the catalog for the exhibition on the boulevard des Italiens in which a version of
Une Mascarade was shown.
Manet's painting of 1859-60, the Students of Salamanca, may also be relevant here:
Le Sage's Gil Bias, on which it is based, is a French classic in Spanish dress. Moreover, the
incident depicted, which occurs in the prologue, has for its theme the need to pursue the
meaning of what in the work itself may appear at first arbitrary or meaningless.
47. Marcel Guerin, L'Oeuvre grave de Manet (Paris, 1944), pI. 29 [reference missing
from "Manet's Sources"].
48. Theodore Reff, "The Symbolism of Manet's Frontispiece Etchings," Burlington
Magazine 104 (May 1962): 184.
49. Ibid.,p. 18 3.
50. Ibid., p. 185.
51. See n. 13 above.
52. Reff, "Manet's Frontispiece Etchings," p. 185.
53. Guerin, L'Oeuvre grave de Manet, pI. 28 [reference mlsslllg from "Manet's
Sources"].
54. Ibid., p. 182.
55. Fernand Desnoyers, Le Theatre de Polichinelle, prologue en vers par F. Desnoyers
pour l' ouverture du theatre de marionnettes dans Ie jardin des Tuileries (Paris, 186 I). Reff
mentions Duranty's theater and Desnoyers's prologue in a footnote ("Manet's Fron-
tispiece Etchings," p. 185, n. 39), to show the topicality of Manet's reference to Pulcinella
in the Deuxieme Essai. He does not connect the Premier Essai with the theatre de Poli-
chinelle.
56. Edmond Duranty, Theatre des marionnettes du jardin des Tuileries (Paris, 1862).
57. See Reff, "Manet's Frontispiece Etchings," p. 185. According to Marcel Crouzet,
Duranty's book was published during the last weeks of 1862 (Un Meconnu du realisme:
Duranty [Paris, 1964], p. 179). This means that Manet could not have based the cat in the
Premier Essai on the published book itself. Crouzet also notes that Nadar's vignette had
already been used by Jules Viard's journal, Polichinelle aParis (ibid.); so there is no ques-
tion but that Manet, who was Nadar's friend, could have known it.
Moreover, the Polichinelle-cat connection suggests that the Deuxieme Essai was in fact
executed first and that the Premier Essai came second, the cat alone now standing for
Polichinelle, and the commedia dell'arte generally, in a simplified and highly symbolic
image. [In this connection, Etienne Moreau-Nelaton lists the Pulcinella frontispiece
before the one with the cat in his pioneering work, Manet graveur et lithographe (Paris,
1906), nos. 48 and 49, and Leon Rosenthal, in Manet aquafortiste et lithographe (Paris,
1925), states that the Pulcinella frontispiece preceded the other, "d'une sobriete classi-
que" (pp. 28-29). Jean C. Harris follows Guerin in maintaining the reverse order
CEdouard Manet: The Graphic Work: A Catalogue Raisonne, rev. ed., ed. Joel M. Smith
[San Francisco, 1990], pp. 130-33, cat. nos. 37 and 38).]
58. Victor Luciennes, "Theatre de Polichinelle aux Tuileries," L'Artiste (Oct. 15,
1861): 185-86. (Mais il y manque quelque chose: un chat, je n'ai pas vu de chat. Vous en
souvenez-vous, quand nous etions enfants et que nos meres nous conduisaient par la
main, vous en souvenez-vous de ce beau chat, Ie compagnon inseparable de Polichinelle?
II rappelait Ie choeur dans Sophocle et dans Euripide. Le chat, mon Dieu! c'est la tradi-
tion, c'est la poesie de notre enfance!)
59. Henri Beraldi, Les Graveurs du XIXe siecie, 12 vols. (Paris, 1885-92),9: 102, cat.
no. 159. See also A Catalogue of the Etchings, Drypoints, and Lithographs by Professor
Alphonse Legros in the Collection of Frank E. Bliss (London, 1923), pI. XLVI. Harris
("Graphic Work of Edouard Manet," p. 144) sees a stylistic relation between Legros's
lithograph and Manet's Balloon.
60. See Seymour O. Simches, Le Romantisme et Ie gout esthitique du XVIIIe siecie
(Paris, 1964); and Crouzet, Un Meconnu du Realisme, who discusses the relation of the
puppet theater to the Realist esthetic of its creator (pp. 149-66).
6 I. See Fernand Desnoyers, "Du realisme," L'Artiste, Dec. 9, 1855, 197-200.
62. See Crouzet, Un Meconnu du Realisme, esp. pp. 133-66.
63. That announcement is reproduced in Gerstle Mack, Courbet (New York, 1951),
pI. 35.
64. Crouzet does not give a date for their first meeting. By 1862, though, Champfleury
was well enough known to Manet for the painter to depict him in Music in the Tuileries,
and Duranty was Champfleury's protege. (Duranty himself may be represented in
Manet's painting, just to the right of Baron Taylor and further back, in a light or perhaps a
straw hat. Cf. the portrait drawing of Duranry by Evariste de Valernes, pI. V in Crouzet's
study.) Both Duranry and Manet appear in Fantin-Latour's Homage to Delacroix, which
was begun in 1863.
65. Fernand Desnoyers in his Salon des Refuses: La Peinture en 1863 (Paris, 1863),
pp. 40-42, claims that Legros, Fantin-Latour, Gautier, Carolus Duran, and Bracque-
mond, stunned by Manet's Guitarrero in the Salon of 1861, visited him to pay their
respects, and later brought to his studio several critics and at least one poet. This may
be when and how Duranty and Zacharie Astruc first met Manet. Both Crouzet (Un
Meconnu du Realisme, p. 198) and John Rewald (The History of Impressionism [1946;
rpt. New York, 1961], pp. 51-52) think that it was.
66. It is, I think, not inconceivable that Manet's experience of the puppet theater en-
couraged him in the direction of the willed, intense naIvete-the deliberate, almost pain-
ful crudeness-with which Music in the Tuileries was painted and which sets it somewhat
apart from the rest of his ambitious pictures of the first half of the 1860s. "I thus have
composed a written theater for marionettes," Duranry wrote in the introduction to his
collection of plays, "an attempt without precedent in Europe, and I give this attempt over
to the meditation and the criticism of naIve and sophisticated minds." (J' ai done compose
un theatre ecrit de Marionnettes, tentative sans precedents en Europe, et je livre cette ten-
tative a la meditation et a la critique des esprits nalfs et savants.) And in the Petit Discours
that ends the book he wrote (in the person of Polichinelle), pp. 385-86:
This book is not at all written for children, that's to say it isn't specially written for them. It is
meant, as was said in the Introduction, for very naive and very sophisticated minds. Children
belong to the first category, that's why the book suits them perfectly, even those parts of it that they
won't understand ....
Certain things will escape the children, just as certain other things will escape the sophisticated.
That doesn't prevent this collection of Comedies from being the most complete comic monument
that has been erected in the nineteenth century, embracing at the same time mystery and reality.
Le livre n'est nullement fait pour les enfants, je veux dire fait d'une maniere speciale. II est
destine, comme il a ete dit dans I'Introduction, aux esprits tres nalfs et aux esprits tres savants. Les
enfants appartiennent a la premiere categorie, voila pourquoi Ie livre les conviendra parfaitement,
meme dans les parties qu'ils ne comprendront pas ....
Certaines choses echapperont aux enfants, de meme que certaines autres echapperont aux
esprits tres savants. Cela n'empeche cette collection de Comedies d'etre Ie monument comique Ie
plus complet qui ait ete eleve aux dix-neuvieme siecie, em brass ant a la fois Ie mystere et la realite.
The same deliberate, extreme naivete characterizes two other works of roughly this mo-
ment, both of which can be connected with Music in the Tuileries and The Balloon: the
etching known as the Street Singer (which Jean Collins Harris was the first to place in
1862), and the small oil painting, Children in the Tuiieries, in the museum of the Rhode
Island School of Design. Each contains figures seen from the rear, a motif that occurs only
very rarely in Manet's oeuvre. But that motif is common to representations of the mario-
nette theater in operation, those by Legros already cited, for example, and it seems likely
that Manet had such representations in mind.
Two further analogies between the marionettes and Manet's paintings of the early
I860s might be mentioned. In "The Symbolism of Manet's Frontispiece Etchings" Reff
remarks that the Deuxieme Essai de frontispice contains discrepancies of scale, e.g. be-
tween the actor and the sword, and that similar discrepancies also occur in Manet's paint-
ings of the time. While in the introduction quoted above Duranty includes among the
sources of the special charm of the marionettes: "disproportion between the animate be-
ing and the objects that surround him; large things reduced, small objects magnified, un-
inhabitable houses, dwarf trees, procrustean beds, microscopic mountains, but giant
bottles, colossal pots, monumental casseroles, rifles, sabers, umbrellas ... " (p. ii). I do
not say that Duranty's marionettes influenced Manet's paintings in this respect. The sig-
nificance of the analogy is rather that it helps specify a further tract of common sensibility.
At the very least, it suggests that if Manet recognized discrepancies of scale in some of his
pictures, as he almost certainly did-which is not to say that he explicitly intended those
discrepancies in the first place-there was a point of view, associated with the concept of
naivete, from which they could be not just tolerated but welcomed. (The spatial inconsis-
tencies in paintings by the Le Nains, which Champfleury regards as characteristic and
which seem to anticipate the problematic spatial relations of such pictures as the Mile
V. .. in the Costume of an Espada, Dejeuner sur l'herbe, and Episode in a Bullfight, may
have a similar significance for Manet.)
Finally, there is a sense in which Manet may perhaps be said to have identified with
Polichinelle: not with his character but with his relation to the marionette theater as a
whole. Roughly, the theater belonged to Polichinelle; he was not only its chief protagonist
but, according to the plays themselves, its director, author, and creator. In effect, he put
himself in his productions-much as Courbet had put himself at the center of his Painter's
Studio, or in numerous other paintings, or as Manet had put himself in La Feche and
Music in the Tuileries. Unlike Courbet, Manet quickly came to remove all overt evidence
of himself from within his paintings; though the relation of his pictures to the beholder,
who of course was in the first place the painter himself, implies that there may be a sense in
which it simply was not possible for Manet to take himself out of his pictures entirely.
(Here I might mention that Legros too depicts himself in his lithograph Le Theatre de
Polichinelle des Tuileries, which further suggests that self-awareness of some more or less
explicit sort was associated with Duranty's marionettes.)
67. This was first observed by Ernest Chesneau, "Le Salon des Refuses," in L'Art et les
artistes modernes en France et Angleterre (Paris, 1864), p. I90n. More than forty years
later it was rediscovered by Gustav Pauli, "Raffael und Manet," Monatshefte fur Kunst-
wissenschaft 1(1908): 53-55.
68. Zacharie Astruc was the first to connect the Dejeuner sur l'herbe, then called Le
Bain, with Giorgione (Le Salon, no. 16 [May 20,1863]: 5). Astruc was close to Manet
and must have spoken from definite knowledge. See Proust 19 I 3, p. 43.
69. Florisoone, Manet, p. xvii.
70. Adhemar, Watteau, p. 203, cat. no. 15, engraved by Aveline. Adhemar wonders
whether a painting designated only as Jeune Fille passant un gue, which was part of an
anonymous sale in Paris on Feb. 6, 1862, was a replica of La Villageoise.
71. Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, RF 30510.
72. Reff, "The Meaning of Manet's Olympia," pp. III-22. [See also Theodore Reff,
Manet: Olympia, Art in Context (London, 1976).]
73. Sandblad 1954, esp. pp. 69- 10 7.
74. The maid bearing flowers, however, is not unlike figures in paintings by Watteau
who carry flowers in their raised aprons in much the same way. I am thinking of figures
such as that of the woman in L'Amante inquiete (Adhemar, Watteau, p. 2I 6, cat. no. 127,
engraved by Aveline); of the child in L'Automne (ibid., p. 225, cat. no. 179, not engraved
but in 1863 in the La Caze Collection, Paris); of the woman at the right of the Berlin Em-
barkation for Cythera (ibid., p. 227, cat. no. 195, engraved by N.-H. Tardieu; fig. I 89)·
75. Guerin, L'Oeuvre grave de Manet, pI. 87·
Figure I89. N.-H. Tardieu,

engraving after Antoine
Watteau, Embarkation for
Cythera, detail of woman
holding flowers in her apron.
7 6 . Julius Meier-Graefe, Edouard Manet (Munich, 1912), p. 141, pI. 67.

77· Maximilien Gauthier, Achille et Eugene Deveria (Paris, 1925), opp. p. 80.
7 8 . Gauthier, Achille et Eugene Deveria. See also Stanley Meltzoff, "Nineteenth-
Century Revivals" (M.A. diss., Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1941). The
first section of Meltzoff's thesis, "Revival of the Rococo," discusses the Deverias. For
Schall see A. Girodie, Un Peintre des fetes galantes:]. F. Schall (Strasbourg, 19 2 7).
79· Proust 19 13, p. 23.
II nous conduisit droit au relerins d'Emmaus de Rembrandt et aux Cavaliers de Velasquez, puis
no us fit faire une longue station devant les dessins des maitres, surtout devant ceux de Watteau et de
Chardin.
La no us trouvames [Eugene] Deveria, l'auteur de la Naissance de Henri IV; a qui il avait donne
rendez-vous. Deveria no us ramena devant les Veronese et nous fit un eloge enthousiaste des Italiens.
"Les jeunes gens," dit en riant Raffet, "ont assez gentiment ecoute l'avocat. Le peintre pourrait
les conduire devant son tableau au Luxembourg."
Notre visite y fut rapide. Raffet adressa a Deveria des eloges auxquels no us no us associ ames, ce
qui nous fit de Deveria un protecteur et un ami. Celui-ci donna me me a Manet ulterieurement une
petite Fete de Fragonard peinte sur ardoise, dont mon camarade me fit plus tard present.
This is just one instance of the richness of relevant detail in Proust's reminiscences of
Manet.
80. Charles Baudelaire, "Salon de 1845," Curiosites esthlitiques, p. 25; English trans-
lation from Baudelaire, "Salon of 1845," Art in Paris, 1845-62, trans. and ed. Jonathan
Mayne (London, 1965), pp. 11-12. (Pendant des longues annees, M. Achille Deveria a
puise, pour notre plaisir, dans son inepuisable fecondite, de ravissantes vignettes, de
charm ants petits tableaux d'interieur, de gracieuses scenes de la vie eIegante, comme nul
keepsake, malgre les pretentions des reputations nouvelles, n'en a depuis edite. II savait
colorer la pierre lithographique; tous ses dessins etaient pleins de charmes, distingues, et
respiraient je ne sais quelle reverie amene. Toutes ses femmes coquettes et doucement sen-
suelles etaient les idealisations de celles que l'on avait vues et desirees Ie soir dans les con-
certs, aux Bouffes, ii l'Opera ou dans les grands salons. Ces lithographies, que les
marchands achetent trois sols et qu'ils vendent un franc, scnt les representants fideles de
cette vie elegante et parfumee de la Restauration, sur laquelle plane comme un ange pro-
tecteur Ie romantique et blond fantome de la duchesse de Berry.)
81. Baudelaire, "Le Peintre de la vie moderne," Curiosites esthetiques, p. 45 8 (histo-
riens des graces interlopes de la Restauration); English translation from "The Painter of
Modern Life," in Baudelaire, The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, trans. and ed.
Jonathan Mayne (London, 1964), p. 5.
82. Baudelaire, "Salon de 1859," Curiosites esthlitiques, p. 352; English translation
from "Salon of 1859," in Baudelaire, Art in Paris, p. 180. (Cette epoque etait si belle et si
feconde, que les artistes en ce temps-Iii n'oubliaient aucun besoin de l'esprit. Pendant
qu'Eugene Delacroix et rEugene] Deveria creaient Ie grand et Ie pittoresque, d'autres, spir-
ituels et nobles dans la petitesse, peintres du boudoir et de la beaute legere, augmentaient
incessamment l'album actuel de l'elegance ideale.)
83· Proust writes that while he and Manet were students in Couture's atelier before
18 5 6 , that is, they often ate lunch at a shop on the rue Notre-Dame-de-Lorett:, in the
company of Murger, Barbey d'Aurevilly (who later praised the Kearsarge and the Ala-
bama), Baudelaire, and others (Proust 1913, p. 22). He also gives a long account of a con-
versation among Manet, Baudelaire, and himself just after Manet learned that the
Absinthe Drinker had been rejected by the jury for the Salon of 1859 (pp. 33-35).
84· Sandblad sees this grouping in different terms. He feels that the conjunction of
Gautier, Taylor, and Baudelaire "was not a matter of accidental choice. For if Gautier was
the representative of conservative criticism and Lord Taylor the habitue of the museums
and a connoisseur of Spanish art, Baudelaire's position in the circle was that of spokesman
for the realism of the flaneur" (Sandblad 1954, p. 57). But Gautier was not a representa-
tive of conservative criticism, and Taylor was far more than just a connoisseur. Both were
heroes of romanticism, and Gautier was a consummate artist, to whom Baudelaire had
dedicated both the 1857 and 1861 editions of Les Fleurs du mal. (For those dedications
see Charles Baudelaire, Oeuvres completes, ed. Y.-G. Dantec and Claude Pichois [Paris,
Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, 1961], pp. 1506 and 2 respectively. See also his essay, "Theo-
phile Gautier," ibid., pp. 675-700.) For Baron Taylor see Philippe de Chennevieres, "Le
Baron Taylor," Souvenirs d'un directeur des Beaux-Arts, 5 vols. (Paris, 1883-89), 3: 30-
5 I, from which I quote the following (p. 37):
No one, I repeat, has been more of his time, but as one should be, that's to say as a shrewd observer
of its needs, guessing its barely stated aspirations, he served his age without hesitation and with a
brave and noble heart that sought everything that could be honestly profitable to him. He was
among the first to understand that in the midst of contemporary discords, art was perhaps the most
serious of all France's interests. He hardly knew any other party than that of art; by that, he showed
himself indifferent to and above political parties; by that, he merited the respect and the favor of
every government.
Nul, je Ie repete, n'a plus ete de son temps, mais comme on do it en etre, c'est-a-dire qu'observateur
delie de ses besoins, devinant a demi-mot ses aspirations, il servit son temps sans hesitation et d'un
coeur brave et elevi' dans tout ce qui pouvait lui etre honnetement profitable. II fut des premiers qui
comprient qu'au milieu des tiraillements contemporains, I'art i'tait peut-etre Ie plus grave des
interets de la France. II ne connut guere I'autre parti que celui de I'art; par la, il se montra
indifferent et superieur aux partis politiques; par la il merita Ie respect et la faveur de taus les
gouvernements.
Chennevieres adds that Taylor was "the best armed, the earliest, and the least hesitant of
our most violent romantics" (p. 32) (Ie mieux arme, Ie premier en date et Ie moins hesitant
de nos plus violents romantiques). By placing Baudelaire in conversation with Gautier
and Taylor, Manet was asserting his friend's relation to early romanticism.
85. Harris ("Graphic Work of Edouard Manet," p. 86, n. 54) connects the cat in the
Olympia with the one in Legros's etching Le Chat noir (Beraldi, cat. no. 148; reproduced
in Etchings, Drypoints and Lithographs, pI. XLIII). Possibly both connections were at
work.
Olympia's cat is, I think, also related to the cat in Chardin's great still life of 1728, La
Raie depouillee (fig. 190). The connection is perhaps even more explicit between Char-
din's cat and the one in Manet's Young Woman Reclining in Spanish Costume.
86. [According to Jacques Thuillier, organizer (with Michel Laclotte) of a major retro-
spective exhibition of the brothers Le Nain in 1979, all efforts to attribute particular
works to Louis, Antoine, or Mathieu Le Nain must remain speculative (Preface, Les Freres
Le Nain, exhib. cat. [Paris: Grand Palais, Oct. 3, I978-Jan. 8, 1979], pp. 16-20).]
87. The exhibition took place at Martinet's (where Manet was to exhibit paintings
throughout the first half of the 18 60S), 26 boulevard des Italiens. The catalog was by Phil-
ippe Burty (above, n. 46). The importance of this exhibition for Manet's development can
scarcely be exaggerated. See also the discussion of that exhibition by Thore further on in
this chapter.
88. Perhaps it is relevant that Champfleury thought that The Forge might be a portrait
of Le Nain and his parents (Les Freres Le Nain [Paris, 1862], p. 45).
Note to Page 64
Figure 190. Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin, La Raie depouillee, I7 2 7·
89. The mood of Manet's painting is largely a function of the way in which his par-
ents, like most of the figures in Le Nain's Repas de paysans for example, do not look at the
beholder. This seems to conflict with the claims (see n. 26 above) concerning the role
played in Manet's art by figures who gaze directly at the beholder. But Manet had certain
problems with the portrait as a genre, precisely because direct confrontation with the be-
holder was built into it as one of its conventions; as a result, the special mode of confronta-
tion which Manet wanted his paintings to compel tended to be undercut, neutralized.
Moreover, a portrait traditionally depicted the character or personality of its subject; and
this too led to the wrong kind of confrontation as far as Manet was concerned-with the
painting's subject instead of with the painting as a whole (the painting as a painting, not as
a portrait). This is not to say that Manet was not interested in the personalities of his sit-
ters, or that he saw in them simply pretexts for paintings. His problem was how to make a
portrait a painting: and his resourcefulness in that regard was no less remarkable than in
any other. In the Portrait of the Artist's Parents Manet seems to have tried to counter the
portrait's traditional or conventional aspect as confrontation by having his parents direct
their gazes away from the beholder; and Le Nain was, I suggest, instrumental in enabling
him to do this. (The picture of the early I 860s which perhaps more lucidly than any other
exemplifies Manet's effort to make the portrait bear full conviction as a painting is the
intensely interesting Portrait of Zacharie Astruc of 1863 in Bremen [a work now believed
to have been painted in 1866].)
Here as elsewhere Manet emerges as Courbet's antithesis. Far from being problematic
for Courbet, the portrait in fact helped him confront reality as something outside himself
(instead of experiencing it as essentially continuous with himself, as an extension of his

own body or person).
90. Leon Lagrange, "Salon de 1861," GBA, 1st ser., II (July I, 1861): 52.
9 I. Harris argues c~nvincingly that the etching does not exactly reproduce the paint-
ing ("Graphic Work of Edouard Manet," pp. 256- 57). Almost certainly, however, it does
not depart from the painting in ways that call into question the conclusions I draw from it.
92. See n. 25.
93. See Stanley Meltzoff, "The Revival of the Le Nains," Art Bulletin 24 (Sept. 1942):
259-86. This is based on one section of Meltzoff's thesis (see above, n. 78). I want to
express my admiration for Meltzoff's work, which I found consistently illuminating. His
articles on the Le Nains contains one mistake which I call attention to because it bears on
the argument of the present study. Meltzoff writes: "In 1857 Thore praised the Le Nains
in a discussion of the Benedicite [the Repas de paysans], and called for a new French
school to be based on the Clouets, Poussin, Champaigne, and the Le Nains in opposition
to the petty futility of the Rococo" (p. 266). The call for a new French school based on
those masters was by Champfleury (Les Freres Le Nain, p. 57). The confusion evidently
arose because Champfleury had just quoted Thore's account-of 1860, not 185 7-of the
Repas de paysans, which indeed Thore admired intensely. But for Thore the Le Nains and
Watteau were similar rather than opposite, as we shall see.
94. Champfleury, "Nouvelles Recherches sur la vie et l'oeuvre des freres Le Nain,"
GBA, 1st ser., 8 (Dec. 15, 1860): 332; reprinted in Champfleury, Les Freres Le Nain,
pp. 138-39. ([crest qu'ils etaient pleins de compassion pour les pauvres, qu'ils aimaient
mieux les peindre que les puissants, qu'ils avaient pour les champs et les campagnards les
aspirations de La Bruyere, qu'ils croyaient en leur art, qu'ils l'ont pratique avec convic-
tion, qu'ils n'ont pas craint la bassesse du sujet, qu'ils ont trouve l'homme en guenilles
plus interessant que les gens de cour avec leurs broderies, qu'ils ont obei au sentiment
interieur qui les poussait, qu'ils ont fui l'enseignement academique pour mieux faire pas-
ser sur la toile leurs sensations; enfin parce qu'ils ont ete simples et naturels, apres deux
siecles ils sont restes et seront toujours trois grands peintres, les freres Le Nain.)
95. For example, Sainte-Beuve discussed Champfleury's study of the Le Nains, and his
realism generally, in the Lundi of Jan. 5, 1863; reprinted in Nouveaux Lundis, 13 vols.
(Paris, 1865), 4:II6-39.
96. I am convinced that Manet took the figure of the girl who stands facing us in the
Haite du cavalier; turned her sideways on the basis of the two girls in profile in Les
Moissonneurs; turned her face somewhat further away from us, until it was a Watteau-
like profil perdu; and based some of the details of that profil perdu on the kneeling figure in
Velasquez's Drinkers.
Manet's decision to depict the girl in the Old Musician in profile must be seen in con-
nection with the problems of confrontation discussed in nn. 26, 44, and 89. One might
say that Manet wanted to make the painting itself turn toward and face the beholder, and
that he sought this partly through the use of figures in profile, whose character and
the nature of whose conjunction with the other more or less frontal figures underscored
the fact that one was not being offered psychological intimacy with distinct individuals.
At the same time, the use of figures in profile did not fundamentally defy the frontality or
facingness of the painting as a whole (as the use of figures seen from the rear almost cer-
tainly would have done). It is as though the frontality, the problematic spatial relation-
ships, and finally what has been seen as the flatness of Manet's paintings are at bottom just
this facingness, this turning-toward.
The Surprised Nymph (186 I; fig. 73) seems to represent an earlier and still incomplete
Note to Page 69
stage in this development (I have not seen the painting itself so these remarks are especially
tentative). [I subsequently saw it when it was shown in the retrospective exhibition of
1983.] Despite her gaze, which is trained directly at the beholder, the fact that she is in
profile, together with other facts-that there is no other figure in the final version of the
painting to make the meaning of that profile equivalent to that of the girl in the Old Musi-
cian or Victorine Meurent in the Dejeuner sur l'herbe, that the background too is shown
in profile as it were, that the Nymph herself seems to turn away from the beholder in an
attempt to conceal her nakedness (even her crossed leg matters here)-keep the painting
as a whole from turning toward or facing us, as the Old Musician or Dejeuner sur l'herbe
may, I suggest, be said to do. It is almost as though the Surprised Nymph turns its side to
us. (For another view of that painting see Rosalind E. Krauss, "Manet's Nymph Sur-
prised," Burlington Magazine 109 [Nov. 1967]: 622-27.)
97. Among other things this will entail trying to place Manet alongside a number of
the most gifted and interesting of his contemporaries, including Whistler, Fantin-Latour,
and Alphonse Legros, all of whom, like Manet himself, came to maturity in the mid- and
late 18 50S, and who together with Manet may be said to have constituted a definite artis-
tic generation-one with its own critics, notably Zacharie Astruc, its own common im-
peratives, such as the demand that the artist be of his time, and finally its own climactic
moment, the Salon des Refuses of 1863, after which its coherence, never very great, pro-
gressively diminished. (Between 1859 and 1863 the young Astruc may have been the best
critic of new art in France, largely because he seems to have spoken for that generation.)
It was above all the shared need to come to grips with, and if possible to go on from, what
Courbet had done that appears in retrospect to have given that generation the brief coher-
ence it possessed. In 1859 Astruc visited Courbet and reported: "He complains mildly
about the malevolence of which he has been the object, and counts on the young and liber-
ated generation that is entirely devoted to him and acclaims him with a sort of veneration,
which he himself accepts only in the spirit of a coreligionist" (Les 14 Stations du Salon,
1859, suivi d'un dcit douloureux [Paris, 1859], p. 387). (11 se plaint fort doucement des
malveillances dont il est l'objet, et compte sur la jeune et libre generation qui lui est to ute
devouee et l'acclame avec une sorte de veneration, que lui-meme n'accepte qu'en maniere
de sympathique coreligion.) When Astruc wrote these words he had not yet made the ac-
quaintance of Manet, whose friend and champion he soon became. If he had, his descrip-
tion of the young generation's attitude toward Courbet might have been slightly but
significantly qualified: Proust tells us that while the young Manet admired Courbet enor-
mously, he found his paintings too black (Proust 19 I 3, p. 30); and in general Manet from
the start seems to have resisted being drawn into Courbet's orbit.
To my mind, probably the most important single difference between Manet and Cour-
bet involves the concepts of tableau and marceau as they were used in much of the most
important art writing of the 18 50S and I 860s. Roughly, Courbet's paintings tended to be
seen by his admirers and his detractors alike either as agglomerations of superbly painted
pieces of reality-a head, a hand, a dog, a woman's body, a stone outcropping, a breaking
wave, for example-or as entire largejmorceaux in their own right. This aspect of Cour-
bet's art was often criticized as a failure of composition: for example, by Planche, who
disapproved of Courbet, and for whom the concept of composition was intimately related
to the concept of a tableau, as contrasted explicitly with that of a marceau. (This is one
instance of what it means to say that the concept of composition has its own history in
nineteenth-century painting and criticism.) Champfleury countered by making a supreme
virtue of the avoidance of composition, as in the work of the Le Nains. But this did not, it
seems, wholly satisfy the younger generation, though it does seem to have forced them to
Note to Page 69
avoid the notion of composition wherever possible. Here for example is Astruc, who ad-
mired Courbet greatly: "Courbet does not bring to the arrangement [or composition] of
his works as much care as one would like. He doesn't burn with that flame of art that bears
down desperately and ceaselessly on each detail. There is a negligence and carelessness, a
letting-go, in his conception of the ensemble .... In contrast to Delacroix, who only sees
an ensemble resonating with the idea, he prefers the particular marceau that keeps it at a
distance. From the marceau we move toward the ensemble, the tableau: hence the errors
and inconsistencies. He doesn't concern himself enough in advance with the disposition
of the tableau" (Astruc, Le Salon intime: Exposition au boulevard des Italiens [Paris,
1860], p. 65; for French text, see chap. 4, n. 8).
Astruc's remarks suggest that Delacroix may have been important to the younger
painters for his conception of the picture in terms of its overall coherence as well as for his
exemplary dedication to art. In any case, Astruc's admiration for Courbet's art did not
prevent him from having strong reservations about it, reservations which I believe were
held by Manet as well.
It is in the context of this view of Courbet, and of the aspirations for a new kind of
painting that such a view implies, that Thore's characterization of the (best) pictures in the
Salon des Refuses is to be understood: "French art as one sees it in the banned works
seems to be beginning, or beginning anew. It is baroque and wild, sometimes very accurate
and even profound. The subjects are no longer the same as in the official galleries: little
mythology or history; contemporary life, especially that of popular types; little refine-
ment and no taste: things as they ordinarily appear, beautiful or ugly, distinguished or
vulgar. And a practice altogether different from the practices hallowed by the long domi-
nation of Italian art. Instead of laboring over contours, which is what the Academy means
by drawing, instead of slaving over each detail, which is what the amateurs of classicism
call finish, the new artists try to render the effect in its striking unity without worrying
about the correctness of the lines or the minutia of the accessories" (Biirger [Thore], "Sa-
lon de 1863," Salons de W. Burger, 1 :414, emphasis in original; for French text see chap.
4, n. 12).
The scandal of the Salon des Refuses was, of course, Manet's Dejeuner sur l'herbe
(then called Le Bain); and Astruc's description, in his feuilleton on the Salon des Refuses,
of what seemed to him a crucial aspect of Manet's art complements Thore's account in an
informative way: "Something worth noting is that, contrary to those great natural talents
who prompt us at first to study their art in its material practice, he imposes and shows
only its vital accent so to speak. It is the soul that strikes, it is the movement, the play of
faces breathing life and action, the feeling that their looks convey, the expressive singu-
larity of their roles. He pleases or displeases immediately; he charms, attracts, or repels
quickly. The individuality is so strong that it escapes the mechanism of construction. The
role of painting effaces itself to grant the creation all its metaphysical and corporeal value.
Only much later does the gaze discover the forms of the execution, the elements that give
meaning to the color, value to the relief, truth to the modeling" (Astruc, Le Salon, no. 16
[May 20,1863]; for French text see appendix 4).
The ability to paint wonderfully-to paint wonderful marceaux-was something
even Courbet's detractors granted him without stint. But they refused to grant that the
final result amounted to a painting, un tableau; and it seems that Astruc, and presumably
Manet, would have concurred (though of course what Courbet's detractors meant by a
tableau was not likely to have appealed to them). In this sense, Astruc saw Manet's paint-
ings as exactly opposite to Courbet's: that is, he claimed that how Manet's pictures were
painted was far less important in one's experience of them than their sheer individuality,
Note to Page 70
their vitality, their immediate, instantaneous power to attract or repel. Later it might turn
out that the forms were put together in special ways, that the drawing had a particular
character, that half-tones were suppressed and value contrasts intensified, that the pig-
ment itself was manifest in a new way-but in the moment, in the grip of the work, none of
these, Astruc claimed, were felt to matt!Cr or even were experienced as such. All that was
experienced, for good or ill, was the total result, the painting as a whole, in its essential
unity. Even the reservations of the young painter Gonzague Privat support this reading of
Manet's art: "Manet has sought the tableau without concerning himself sufficiently with
form or details" (Place aux jeunes! Causeries critiques sur Ie Salon de I865 [Paris, 1865],
p. 136, emphasis in original; for French text see chap. 4, n. 13). (Privat's italicizing of tab-
leau suggests that he meant it in a technical or at least a special sense, as a painter's term
and not just as a common noun.) The above helps relate Manet to his generation on the
one hand and to distinguish his superiority within that generation on the other. One way
of describing both that superiority and Manet's liberating importance for the succeeding
generation, that of the Impressionists, might be to say that in his great pictures of the first
half of the I 860s-the Dejeuner, for example, or Olympia-he not only sought the tab-
leau but in effect found it. At any rate, those pictures seem to have put an end to the
search-for everyone but Manet, perhaps.
One might sum this up by saying that during the first half of the I860s Manet was in
search of a new paradigm of what a painting was. (For a related though not identical use of
the concept of a paradigm, to which I am indebted, see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions [Chicago, 1962].) In part that search was the result of certain dis-
satisfactions with the art of Courbet. For Manet and Astruc, and presumably for other
members of their generation as well, Courbet was a magnificent painter who had pro-
duced pictures of permanent value which nevertheless were not paintings, not tableaux, in
the full sense of the word. At the same time, Courbet had done more than any other artist
to determine the conditions within which the tableau would be found-if indeed it could
be found. (For example, it would have to be essentially realistic.) All this is to say nothing
about why Courbet's paintings are the way they are, which will eventually have to be
done if Manet's relation to Courbet is to be understood in depth.
Those aspects of Manet's art which I have characterized as theatrical were instrumen-
tal in his search for the tableau. I mean to discuss them at length in the future study of
Manet's realism mentioned above. By the close of this chapter, I hope it will be clear that
Manet's involvement with the art of the past must be understood in the context of that
search as well. The question of finish, to which Thon"; adverts in the passage quoted above,
must also be seen in these terms. Manet's problem, one might say, was not so much to
know when a given picture was finished as to discover in himself the conviction that it
was now a painting.
Nothing more sharply underscores the young Zola's distance from Manet's art than
the claim, "What I seek above all else in a painting is a man and not a painting" (Emile
Zola, "Mon Salon," Salons, ed. F. W.]. Hemmings and Robert]. Niess [Paris and Geneva,
1959], p. 61). (Ce que je cherche avant tout dans un tableau, c'est unhomme et non pas un
tableau.)
98. Champfleury, "Nouvelles Recherches sur la vie et I'oeuvre des freres Le Nain,"
GBA, 1st ser., 8 (Nov. I, 1860): 184; idem, Les Freres Le Nain, p. 22. (Le doyen des cri-
tiques d'art, M. Delecluze, regarde "Ia voie simple qu'avait ouverte Le Nain comme bien
au-dessus du genre imaginaire et fantastique, tel que Watteau I'a traite." Je ne discuterai
pas cette opinion; les oppositions de maitres, la comparaison des anciens et des modernes
peuvent fournir de longues theses, mais sans grande utilite. Watteau est Watteau, Le Nain
est Le Nain. Si rna nature me pousse vers Le Nain, je ne saurais empecher les esprits de
fantaisie de s'enthousiasmer devant les masques italiens, les comediennes et les embarque-
ments amoureux; mais on a calomnie Ie XVIIIc siecle en l'affublant exclusivement de ga-
lanterie.)
99. Thore adopted the pseudonym William Burger while exiled from France during
the 183 os and retained it in his writings after his return to France in 1859. As a result,
many writers refer to him as Thore-Burger. I prefer to call him Thore throughout and to
cite his pseudonym in the references to his writings that appeared under the name Burger.
100. Champ fleury, Les Preres Le Nain, pp. 54-55. (Un des tableauxles plus singuliers
de Le Nain fut expose en 1860, au boulevard des Italiens, au milieu des maitres gal ants du
XVIIIc siecle, Watteau, Pater, Lancret, Boucher, Gillot, Lemoine, etc. Cette peinture
faisait une triste figure, je I'avoue, au milieu de to utes ces sensualites elegantes. Qu'on
s'imagine, au milieu de courtisans habilles de soie, une bande de charbonniers qui sont
tombes dans la farine, et on aura apeine I'idee du Le Nain sobre et severe dont je laisse la
description a M. W. Burger.)
101. Ibid., p. 56 (une singuliere anomalie au milieu de I'art pompeux et theatral du
xvnc siecle).
102. Ibid., pp. 56-57.
Et M. W. Burger ajoutait avec raison que, "parmi les peintres parisiens," Le Nain et Philippe de
Champaigne, par leurs convictions, semblaient deux "excentriques." Le mot est juste. Dans une
galerie de peintures du XVIIIe siecle, Le Nain est un excentrique. II est cal me et tranquille
d'habitude, il parait severe en telle compagnie. Placez un portrait d'Holbein a cote d'une tete de
femme de Fragonard, et rendez-vous compte de l'abime qui separe ces deux fa<;ons d'envisager la
nature, qui font penser a une lecture d'un roman de Crebillon fils apres avoir medite une pensee de
Pascal. L'art est regi par des courants mysterieux qui conduisent Ie pinceau d'un Watteau et d'un
Boucher; mais qu'on fasse actuellement une religion de ces maitres agreables, qu'on en arrive a
admirer leurs imitateurs, leurs copistes et tous leurs contemporains, voila une mode et une
adoration contre lesquels on ne saurait trop protester. Ces epoques de dissolution ont abouti a la
Revolution, et en presence de ce joli dans l'art, on est arrive a regretter que la revolution imprimee
par David n'ait pas ete plus nette et plus absolue, puisqu'un siecle apres nous revenons a cet art de
troisieme ordre qui avait sa raison historique et socia Ie, mais qu'il ne faut regarder que camme une
amusette.
Ne serait-il pas bon aujourd'hui de laisser de cote Watteau, Boucher, Fragonard, pour nous
preoccuper d'une ecole fran<;aise plus glorieuse: Les Clouet, les Poussin, les Champaigne, les Le
Nain?
103. See n. II. This use of "theatrical," as a prejorative term roughly synonymous
with rhetorical and grimacing, has its roots in the art and thought ofJacques-Louis David.
[Actually, it has its roots in the writings of Diderot and other French critics of the I750S
and after. See Fried 1980.] The important critic M.-E.-]. Delecluze, who had been David's
student, relates several instances of David's use of these terms in Louis David, son ecole et
son temps (Paris, 1855). For example, Delecluze writes: "However, toward the years
1796-1800, at a time when he was deeply preoccupied with rediscovering the artistic
doctrine of the Greeks, David judged his Oath of the Horatii with quite remarkably severe
justice. He characterized the difficulty relative to the composition by saying that it is theat-
rical" (p. 120). (Cependant vers les annees 1796-1800, lorsqu'il etait tout preoccupe de
retrouver les doctrines grecques, David jugeait ses Horaces avec une equite severe bien
remarquable. II tranchait la difficulte relativement a la composition, en dis ant qU'elle est
theatrale.) David's development from the Horatii to the Sabines has generally been dis-
cussed in narrowly stylistic terms. But Delecluze's remarks make clear that for David, as
for Delecluze, style and dramaturgy were a complex unity; and that major shifts in
David's art have at least as much to do with changes in his conception of the modes of
action proper for painting to depict, as with changes in his conception of the kind of draw-
ing, modeling, and coloring with which they are to be depicted.
104. Meltzoff, "Revival of the Rococo," p. 46, n. 133. Watteau's fidelity to nature had
previously been a major theme of eighteenth-century accounts of his life and art.
105. Thon~ (1807-69) was a staunch and lifelong republican. He began writing art
criticism in the 18 30S and continued until the Revolution of 1848, which naturally he
welcomed. Throughout the 1830S and 1840S he contributed political journalism to left-
wing publications; in 1840 his brochure La Write sur Ie parti democratique led to a law-
suit and finally imprisonment for about a year in Sainte-Pelagie. Thore's political activities
both before and after the Revolution of 1848 are described briefly by Marguery in the
articles cited below. After the failed insurrection ofJune 1849, in which he was implicated,
he was compelled to flee the country, not to return again until the amnesty of 1859. Thore
spent the 18 50S in Switzerland, England, and Holland. By 1857, when the Manchester
exhibition was held, he was one of the leading connoisseurs in Europe. During the late
185 os and early 18 60S, under the pseudonym William Biirger, he wrote a series of cata-
logs of major collections in Holland and Belgium. He returned to France in 1859 and
from then until his death in 1869 wrote both criticism and history (or studies in con-
noisseurship) under the name of Biirger. See also P. Petroz, Un Critique d'art au XIXe
siixle: Theophile Thore (Paris, 1884); H. Marguery, "Un pionnier de l'histoire de l'art:
Thore-Biirger," GBA, 5th ser., II (Apr. 1925): 229-45, (May 1925): 295-3II, and
(June 1925): 367-80; Stanley Meltzoff, "The Rediscovery of Vermeer," Marsyas (1942):
145-66 (from which the above is largely adapted); Andre Blum, Vermeer and Thore-
Burger (Geneva, 1946); Philippe Rebeyrol, "Art Historians and Art Critics: I. Theophile
Thore," Burlington Magazine 94 (July 1952): 196-200; and Pontus Grate, Deux Cri-
tiques d'art de l'epoque romantique: Gustave Planche et Theophile Thore (Stockholm,
1959). [For studies of Thore after 1969 see n. 12 in chap. 2.]
106. Biirger [Thore] 1860 (I): 268.
Pour les observateurs superficiels, Watteau n'a pas beaucoup l'air d'adherer ii la nature. C'est
pourtant Iii son supreme merite, avec Ie sentiment de l'elegance, un esprit subtil et delicat.
N'allait-il pas, Ie jeune melancolique, regarder et des siner dans les environs de Paris, toutes les
fois qu'il en avait Ie loisir? Quand la maladie eut attaque ses forces vitales, OU done eut-ill'idee
d'aller se raviver? A la campagne, au bord de l'eau, en pleine nature. Et quelle innombrable
quantite d'etudes n'a-t-il pas laissees, toutes, meme les moindres traits, accentuees avec une passion
penetrante! On Ie voit bien, qu'il aimait la nature, dans ses paysages mysterieux et poetiques, dans
ses ciels eblouissants de lumiere, dans la desinvolture incomparable de ses figurines aux extremites
si fines et si agiles, dans la couleur exquise des carnations de ses femmes, dans la combinaison
prestigieuse des nuances de ses etoffes, dans l'harmonie de ses effets d'ensemble.
107. Ibid. (Et, chose inexplicable! quoiqu'il parte ainsi directement de l'observation et
de l'amour de la nature, il arrive pourtant a un dessin extremement maniere, a des formes
presque impossibles, a des mirages de coloris comme on n'en voit guere. Mais cela est
arrive aussi a quelques autres artistes de genie, a Rembrandt, par exemple, et a Velazquez,
qui sont a la fois tres-fantastiques et tres-reels. C'est un des mysteres de la peinture chez
certains coloristes privilegies.)
108. Ibid., p. 266. (Watteau! Avant lui, on faisait des princesses, et il a fait des ber-
geres; on faisait des deesses, et il a fait des femmes; on faisait des heros, et il a fait des
saltimbanques-et meme des singes!)
109. Champ fleury, Les Freres Le Nain, p. 14 (acteurs qui viennent sur Ie devant de la
toile chanter Ie couplet final au public). In his "Nouvelles recherches sur la vie et l'oeuvre
Notes to Page 74
des freres Le Nain" of 1860 Champfleury wrote: "They are actors who come in front of
the curtain to sing a final couplet to the public, and who belong as much to nature as the
actor before the prompter's box" (p. 179). (Ce sont des acteurs qui viennent sur Ie devant
de la toile chanter un couplet final au public, et qui appartiennent autant ala nature que Ie
comedien devant Ie trou du souffleur.)
110. Ernest Chesneau, "Le Realisme etl'esprit fran"ais dans l'art, " in L'Art et les art-
istes modernes en France et en Angleterre (Paris, 1864), pp. 14- IS; originally published
m the Revue des Deux Mondes in 1863. (C'est donc dans les manuscrits fran"ais, a partir
du moment ou l'art se secularise et sort des couvents, apartir du XIIIe siecle, qu'il fautvoir
Ie berceau du realisme tel que Ie comportait, que Ie comporte maintenant encore notre
gout en fait d'art .... Comment nier la parente de certains groupes de saints dans les
miniatures, avec les groupes qui figurent dans l'oeuvre des freres Le Nain, de Philippe de
Champaigne, de Watteau lui-meme et de Chardin, bien moins encore, de Pater et de Lan-
cret? Sous la variete des talents humbles et modestes, ou brillants, eclatants, superficiels et
legers, que de fois ne rencontrons-nous pas, meme chez les plus corrompus, ce retour de
naivete qui pose bonnement les personnages d'une scene en face du spectateur, inattentifs
aux bruits du dehors, l'oeil vaguement dirige droit devant soi, regardant sans voir:-
singulier accent qui se retrouve aux dates les plus eloignees!)
Chesneau's essay was written in response to Champfleury's work on the Le Nains.
While Chesneau admired the Le Nains, he believed that Champfleury overvalued them'
~nd while he argued that French painting was naturally realistic, what he meant by real~
Ism excluded Courbet and the young artists influenced by him. For a brief discussion of
Chesneau's article in the context of the traditional policy of the Revue des Deux Mondes
see Thaddeus Ernest Du Val Jr., The Subject of Realism in the 'Revue des Deux Mondes '
18]I- I86 S (Philadelphia, 1936), pp. 142-44. Du Val quotes Jules Troubat (Saint:-
Beuve et Champfleury [Paris, 1908], p. 216) to the effect that Chesneau was a follower of
the conservative critic Gustave Planche. This is partly true; it is also true that Chesneau
was strongly influenced by a view of the history of French painting that ran counter to
Planche's, and which he tried to reconcile with his native conservatism.
I I I. By the early I 860s aspects of Le Nain's and Watteau's art that I have described as
essentially theatrical-that the figures are grouped, that they either confront the beholder
or in effect pose for him, that they participate only in the most formal or conventionalized
of actions-were experienced not just as compatible with realism but as intensely, even
uniquely realistic in their own right. The crucial notion, here as elsewhere, was that of
naIvete: what I have been calling theatrical seems, for the historical moment in question,
to have been seen and felt as the natural concomitant of a kind of radical fidelity to one's
sensations. The Le Nains, Champfleury wrote in the first passage quoted above, "spurned
academic instruction the better to render their sensations on canvas." That is, the very
conventions of their art were seen, at least by some critics and historians, as indexes of
vensm and naturalness.
Manet was, of course, also interested in the overtly theatrical, the theatrical for its own
sake. But it must be emphasized that that interest itself was more than just compatible
with his commitment to realism. The two reinforced each other completely: because Wat-
teau had come to be seen as realistic, and because various conventions in the art of Wat-
teau and other painters such as the Le Nains which can be described as theatrical and
which in Watteau's paintings are so to speak disclosed as overtly theatrical, were them-
selves experienced as paradigmatically realistic, natural. I have already suggested that
Manet's adaptation of those conventions was crucial to the securing of his work's identity
as pamting. The implication is that Manet's predilection for theatrical subject matter, his
fundamentally realist aspirations, and his search for the tableau, far from being disparate
or conflicting aspects of his enterprise, formed a single intuitive unity of vision and aspira-
tion.
II2. Burger [Thorej, Les Tnisors d'art en Angleterre (1857; 3d ed., Paris, 1865),
p. 327 (la premiere de l'Europe et presque la seule).
II3. Chesneau, "Realisme et l'esprit fran~ais dans l'art," pp. 5-6. (Les ten dances re-
alistes de l'ecole mod erne ne sont, en effet, que les indices preliminaires d'un retour legi-
time aux anciennes ten dances de l'art fran~ais. Ces aspirations primitives, refoulees,
etoufees des l'origine sans avoir pu se developper et se manifester avec suite, sont en rap-
port etroit avec Ie genie meme de la France intellectuelle .... Une etude successive des
peintres fran~ais qui sont restes vraiment Fran~ais, qui ont secoue ou n'ont pas accepte Ie
joug de la tradition italienne, etablirait abondamment la justesse de ces assertions.)
114. Another influence se.ems to have been Louis Vitet's study of Eustache Le Sueur
(see ibid., p. II).
II 5. Burger [Thorej, Les Tresors d'art en Angleterre, pp. 326-27.
Ah! pourtant, voici que commence au XVlIIe siecle une ecole fran<;aise: Watteau, c'est un
Fran<;ais par la tournure et I'esprit, par Ie style; encore est-il de la frontiere f1amande, et, comme
practicien et coloriste, sectateur de Rubens.-II n'y a pas loin de Valenciennes a Anvers.
Chardin, iI est Fran<;ais aussi, mais aussi un peu Flamand par la touche et la couleur.
A ce moment-la, et jusqu'a la fin du siecle ... oui, il y a une ecole fran<;aise, dont on peut avoir
une opinion quelconque, mais qui eut meme Ie privilege, en l'absence de toute peinture dans les
autres pays, de rayonner sur I'Europe et d'y insinuer son style. Nattier, Fran<;ois Boucher,
Fragonard et d'autres sont du moins des Fran<;ais-Pompadour. Greuze, voila un Fran<;ais-Louis
XVI.
II6. Burger [Thorej 1860 (I): 257-58.
~ui, c'est vraiment la I'ecole fran<;aise! Certains critiques ont I'air de pretendre qu'i1 n'y a guere
d'ecole fran<;aise. lis n'ont qu'a entrer dans cette exposition. Ah! que c'est fran<;ais! De I'elegance,
du caprice, de I'adresse, du gout; beaucoup de charme et beaucoup d'esprit: on sent tout de suite
qu'on est en France.
II faut bien reconnaitre que ces artistes sont de chez eux, que leur inspiration et leur maniere,
leur sentiment et leur style sont propres a leurs pays et a leur temps, et qu'i1s composent une ecole
originale, distincte de to utes les ecoles etrangeres.
A la verite, la pleiade qui brille a I'exposition du boulevard appartient presque exclusivement au
XVlUe siecle. L'ecole fran<;aise ne daterait-elle que de la fin du regne de Louis XIV?-Peut-etre.
Au XVle siecle en France on n'aper<;oit, en effet, que Ie style ita lien importe par Andrea del
Sarto, Vinci, Salai, Rosso, Primaticcio, Niccolo dell'Abbate et autres; du f10rentin ou du bolonais,
depuis Jean Cousin jusqu'a Martin Freminet.-Ceux qui ne sont pas italianises sont des Flamands:
les Clouet.
Au xvUe siecle, la fureur de l'imitation italienne est telle, que Moliere, Ie plus fran<;ais des
ecrivains fran<;ais, glorifie Mignard, "ce grand homme devenu tout Romain." L'ecole romaine et
bolonaise de Vouet, de Mignard et de Lebrun do mine si exclusivement, que les meilleurs artistes
indigenes s'etaient meme expatries et denationalises: Poussin Ie Normand, Claude Ie Lorrain,
Courtois Ie Bourgignon, Valentin et d'autres vivent et meurent a Rome,-a l'inverse des Florentins
et des Bolonais qui, au siecle precedent, etaient venus vivre et mourir en France .... Les seuls qui
ne soient pas italianises sont toujours des Flamands: Ie peintre du grand cardinal et Ie peintre du
grand roi, Philippe de Champaigne et Van der Meulen, qui meurent a Paris academiciens fran<;ais.
Vers la fin du siecle, cette influence neerlandaise commence a contrebalancer un peu Ie gout
ita lien, par Jacob Van Loo, qui implante en France sa dynastie,-par Largilliere, eduque dans la
ville de Rubens chez Ie Flamand Goubau, puis a Londres chez Lely, qui continuait la tradition de
Van Dyck,-par Rigaud, qui se perfectionnait aussi en copiant Van Dyck, avec les conseils de son
ami Largilliere,-par d'autres encore, qui servent de transition entre "Ie grand siecle" tout romain
et une epoque tres-divergente, ou la liberte des moeurs allait auto riser la liberte de l'art et
I'epanouissement de la fantaisie fran<;aise en peinture.
Est-il sur que cette ecole du XVIIIe siecle soit plus originale que celle du xVUe? Est-il sur que
Watteau soit plus fran<;ais que Lebrun? Mais cela saute aux yeux! A peu pres comme Rubens et
Jordaens sont plus de leur pays que leurs predecesseurs, les Van Coxcye et les Van Orley; com me
Velazquez et Murillo representent mieux l'Espagne que leurs predecesseurs, ambitionnant d'imiter
Raphael ou Ie Titien.
II7. Ibid., p. 268 (meme les plus ideales ou les plus religieuses).
II8. Castagnary, "Salon de 1866," Salons, 1:231-32.
L'art est indigene,-ou iI n'est pas. II est I'expression d'une societe donnee, de son esprit, de ses
moeurs, de son histoire,-ou iI n'est rien. II tient du sol, du c1imat, de la race,-ou il est sans
caractere.
Ne craignons pas de I'avouer, nous n'avons jamais eu en France de peinture fran<;aise.
Les germes d'un art national,-base sur la nature et l'expression de la vie comme tous les arts
nationaux qui se sont developpes en Europe,-commen<;aient a grandir dans les divers centres
intellectuels de nos vieilles provinces (on peut voir par les Clouet du Louvre ou il eut atteint),
quand, a la suite des guerres de la Peninsule, I'influence italienne entra subitement chez nous,
apportee par les gentilshommes de Fran<;ois lee, aux fers de leur chevaux. Le coup fut terrIble.
L'arrivee de Leonard da Vinci et d'Andre del Sarte, la formation de l'ecole de Fontainebleau, la
preponderance croissante de Paris, il n'en fallut pas davantage. Jamais invasion ne fut plus rap ide ni
plus decisive: la peinture fran<;aise fut tuee net .... Des lors plus d'art, hormis un art de seconde
main, un art inspire de I'art des autres peuples et non sorti des entrailles de la vie ambiante. Aussi
qu'arrive-t-il? c'est que nos plus belles gloires, celles dont nous sommes Ie plus disposes a nous
enorgueillir, ne no us appartiennent qu'a demi. Est-ce que Nicolas Poussin, Claude Gelee sont
fran<;ais? II ne Ie sont ni par la tournure de leur esprit, ni par Ie choix de leur patrie adoptive.
Lesueur lui-meme, qui pourtant n'a jamais quitte Paris, est italien. Dans ce grand courant
d'imitation qui part de Primatice pour aboutir on ne sait a qui vers la fin du dernier siede, quelques
individualites surnagent: Le Nain, Watteau, Chardin; mais combien peu nombreuses et de combien
peu d'influence?
I 19. It seems clear, however, that the development of art history in France deserves
further study, both in its own right and in relation to the painting and criticism of the time.
The work of Louis Dimier, who directly opposed the view of French painting that I have
associated here chiefly with Thore, would make an appropriate terminus for such a study.
120. Chennevieres, "Le Vicomte Both de Tauzia," Souvenirs, 5 (1889):67. (Et pour-
quoi n'aurions nous pas Ie courage de crier de suite tout haut et tout franc: "Assez, assez
du XVIIIe siecle; assez de cette faisanderie. Le XVIIIe siecle no us a amollis, il no us a gates,
il nous a pourris, et finalement il nous a tues. J'entends qu'i! a amolli et pourri ceux de son
temps, et qu'il a suffi a quelques amateurs d'en reglisser Ie ferment de notre gout, dans
notre art national, pour nous gater et nous decomposer a notre tour. Ah! qu'ils avaient
raison, David et la forte legion de ses eleves de honnir, de Ie maudire et de Ie proscrire avec
haine et sans pitie et du plus haut de leur dedain; et qu'il est vraiment temps de nous de-
barbouiller a notre tour de cette farine, de cette poudre de riz empoisonnee! ... Com-
ment, c'est-Ia ce XVIIIe siecle, que les Goncourt et les Marcille et les Walferdin, et tous nos
amateurs depuis trente ans, ceux dans lesquels nous avions Ie plus de confiance, nous ont
represente comme la seule ecole fran~aise, comme la date d'apogee du vrai genie fran-
~ais!")
121. Oysters, National Gallery, Washington, D.C. See Jamot and Wildenstein,
Manet, I: 122, cat. no. 57; 2:202, fig. 4 12 .
122. For another view see John W. McCoubrey, "The Revival of Chardin in French
Still-Life Painting, 1850-187°," Art Bulletin 46 (Mar. 1964): 39-53. McCoubrey seems
to doubt that Chardin's stilllifes were important for Manet. He writes: "Chardin's influ-
ence on Manet's still life cannot be traced with any certainty. Only two of them seem to
have been inspired directly by available Chardin stilllifes: a dead rabbit (Paris, Doucet
Collection) that seems related to Chardin's Lievre morte in the Louvre, and Brioche
fleurie (Berlin, Private Collection), which may relate to a Chardin of the same subject that
came to the Louvre in the La Caze Collection. Neither the small flower studies which Zola
particularly admired nor the more ambitious table pieces of fish owe anything to Chardin.
Among his fruit pictures are a few which resemble Chardin in their symmetrical arrange-
ments, but in them the fruit is frequently isolated on a strongly receding table top, smaller
in relation to the size of the canvas, and brushed in more quickly than in comparable sub-
jects by Chardin (pp. 49-50).~' Chardin's influence on Manet is not the point. Besides,
influence is not what one finds in the two paintings by Manet which McCoubrey cites.
The flower pieces and the larger paintings of fish may not owe anything to Chardin in a
narrow sense; but they seem to me inconceivable without his prior example.
In addition, there are the connections remarked in n. 85 between the cat in Chardin's
Raie depouillee, and those in Manet's Young Woman Reclining in Spanish Costume and
Olympia.
12 3. Proust 1913, pp. 43-44. ("L'autre jour, il [Courbet] entra chez Deforge. Diaz y
etait: 'Combien que vous vendez votre Turc? dit-il a Diaz, en design ant un de ses tableaux
a l'etalage. -Mais, repond Diaz, ce n'est pas un Turc, c'est une Vierge. -Alors cela ne
peut pas faire mon affaire, je voulais un Turco' Et Ie voila regagnant Ie cafe de Madrid avec
ses amis, en riant aux eclats. Diaz courait derriere lui, voulant Ie pourfendre avec sa jambe
de bois. Quel fumiste, hein! Mais il a beau gouailler, il a des cotes tres fran~ais, ce maitre
peintre, car, il n'y a pas a dire, nous avons en France un fonds de probite qui no us ramene
toujours a la verite, malgre les tours de force des acrobates. Regarde les Lenain, les Wat-
teau, les Chardin, David lui-meme. Quel sens du vrai!")
12 4. Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," pp. 73-74; for French text see appendix I.
12 5. Proust 1913, p. 19 (son aversion pour la Renaissance italienne, sa fidelite a la
simplicite et ii la mesure de notre art fran~ais).
126. Idem, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," p. 73; for French text see appendix I.
127. The relation of Manet's La Peche to the painting of the same title by Annibale
Carracci in the Louvre has already been discussed. It is striking, however, that while
Manet may have had Annibale's painting in mind, it was to two paintings by Rubens that
he chose to refer specifically.
128. Though not necessary to Raphael. In "L'Art d'Edouard Manet" Proust remarks
that Manet regarded Leonardo as much superior to Raphael (p. 74). And in his Souvenirs
Proust writes: "In Italy, he showed himself very taken with Titian and Tintoretto, little
seduced by the Raphaels and Michelangelos" (Proust I 9 I 3, p. 36). (En Italie, il se montra
tres epris de Titien, des Tintoret, peu seduit par les Raphael et les Michel-Ange.) Paul
Jamot observes that Manet sometimes borrowed from masters he did not cherish ("Etudes
sur Manet I," pp. 47-48); his use of Raphael in the Dejeuner sur l'herbe seems to be a case
in point.
12 9. See the passages already quoted from Les Tresors d'art en Angleterre, as well as
his remarks about Watteau in Galerie d'Arenburg a Bruxelles (Paris, 1859), p. 103: "His
master, his initiator-if he had another master than his own genius-would be Rubens.
As a practitioner, he was closer to Rubens than to anyone." (Son maitre, son initiateur,-
s'il avait en d'autre maitre que son propre genie,-serait Rubens. Comme practicien, il
tient plus a Rubens qu'a personne.)
130. The Goncourts played a role in this. Their "Philosophie de Watteau" connected
Watteau and Rubens, though only casually (first published in L'Artiste [Sept. 7, 1856]:
127-29). More important, they published in 1857 and again in 1860 the Comte de
Caylus's previously lost account of Watteau's life, in which Watteau's interest in Rubens is
documented. See Adhemar, Watteau, pp. 155-56, for a brief discussion of the Goncourts'
publications; and pp. 175-83, for Caylus's "Vie de Watteau." See also the introduction by
J.-P. Bouillon to Edmond and Jules de Goncourt, L'Art du dix-huitieme siecie et autres
textes sur l'art (Paris, 1967), pp. 9-32, for an annotated discussion of their views on art.
I3I. Burger [Thore], "Nouvelles Tendances de l'art," Salons de T. Thore, 1844-48
(Paris, 1868), p. xxix (sorte d'Espagnols egares). The essay was written in Brussels in 1857
(p. xliii). In the first of three articles on the 186o exhibition of French paintings at Mar-
tinet's, Thore wrote: "There is something Spanish in the superb painting entitled La
Creche in the Louvre" (Burger [Thore] 1860 [I]: 263). (II Y a quelque chose d'espagnol
dans Ie superbe tableau intitule La Creche au musee du Louvre.)
132. Champfleury, "Nouvelles Recherches sur la vie et l'oeuvre des freres Le Nain,"
p. 179; Les Freres Le Nain, p. 13 (certainement les Le Nain avaient ete eleves a I'ecole
flamande, par un maitre flamand, par la vue de tableaux flamands qui ont eu une grande
influence sur leur avenir. lis sont tout ii la fois Flamands et Espagnols; un annotateur de
catalogues du XVIIIe siecle ne manquait jamais de definir ainsi leurs toiles: "dans Ie gout
de Morillos," et cet annotateur avait quelque clairvoyance. Par Ie costume, ils sont sou-
vent Flamands, par Ie pinceau Espagnols. II y a Iii des delicatesses a trouver pour me faire
bien comprendre, car en meme temps ils sont tres Fran~ais).
133· Idem, Les Freres Le Nain, pp. 97-98. (Six petits enfants. L'un joue du violon, un
charmant objet de fantaisie, I'autre, du hautbois. lis sont presque sur Ie meme plan, et
semblent comme indifferents les uns aux autres. Fond de mur gris-sombre. Le sol offre des
nuances verdatres. Tres-brillant de couleur, quoique dans une gam me paisible. Se rap-
proche beaucoup des Velasquez par Ie me me sentiment cristallin des teintes. Plait par son
caractere simple et doux. Sa naivete vous frappe comme une bizarrerie gracieuse.)
134. Henri de La Borde, "De quelques traditions de I'art fran~ais a propos du tableau
de M. Ingres, Jesus au milieu des docteurs," GBA, 1st ser., 13 (Nov. I, 1862): 389. (Dira-
t-on qu'en pretendant reconnaitre les inclinations ou les traditions fran~aises dans Ie tal-
ent de M. Ingres, nous oublions les emprunts, assez dignes d'attention pourtant, que ce
talent a pu faire a I'art grec et a I'art italien? Certes, l'influence de pareils modeles a ete
grande sur Ie peintre du Virgile et de I' Apotheose d'Homere, du Voeu de Louis XIII et de
Saint Symphorien. Aujourd'hui encore, Ie tableau qu'il nous donne revele a cet egard des
admirations obstinees, des etudes poursuivies avec une ardeur infatigable; mais il ne de-
nonce pas, tant s'en faut, la manie de I'imitation et l'erudition servile. En voyant Ie jesus au
milieu des docteurs, on pourra se rappeler telle composition de Raphael ou de Fra Bar-
tolommeo exprimant, comme celle-ci, Ie gout de l'equilibre absolu, de la rigoureuse pon-
deration des lignes; la fraicheur et la Iimpidite du coloris remettront en memoire les
fresques d'Andrea del Sarto, tandis que la franchise et la diversite des types nous feront
songer aux oeuvres, si admirables en ce sens, des Masaccio et des Filippino Lippi: suit-il
de la que la merite du tableau consiste dans I'amalgame d'elements empruntes? La me-
thode de M. Ingres n'a-t-elle d'autre principe que I'eclecticisme, d'autre fin que I'introduc-
tion dans la peinture d'une sorte d'ordre composite dont les decouvertes d'autrui feront
les frais, et quelques combinaisons adroites la fortune?)
135. Ibid. (S'il en etait ainsi, on ne s'expliquerait pas chez Ie maitre cette facilite singu-
liere a varier, a renouveler son style en raison de chaque sujet qu'il traite, de chaque ex-
emple que la realite lui fournit.)
136. Castagnary, "Salon de 1866," Salons, 1:232-33.
Ce fut une des pretentions du romantisme de fonder I'ecole nationale. La grande levee de
boucliers contre la presence des Romains et des Grecs dans la litterature et dans I'art se fit au nom
des idees de nationalite. Ce souvenir est amusant; car c' est justement de cette epoque que date Ie
cosmopolitan is me dans Fart et Ie debordement de toutes les imitations. II n'y a pas vingt ans
encore, toutes les ecoles de tous les temps et de tous les lieux se trouverent a la fois chez nous. A
cote de M. Ingres, qui s'inspirait de Rome et d'Athenes, M. Eugene Delacroix se reclamait d'Anvers
et de Venise, M. Meissonier de la Flandre, et quant a Ary Scheffer, c'est a son compatriote
Rembrandt qu'il demandait Ie secret de la couleur. Au-dessous de ces illustres chefs de file chacun
imitait qui il pouvait. C'etait uneBabel, une anarchie, un pele-mele qui n'eurent d'egal et ne
devaient avoir pour parallele que cet effroyable tourbillonnement de tableaux empruntes a tous les
ages, a tous les pays, a tous les styles, dont depuis plus de trente ans la salle des commissaires
priseurs a comme infecte Paris.
C'est cet enviable etait que I'eclectisme batard de notre epoque, voudrait pro longer et
prolongera, si une jeunesse plus hardie ne vient prendre l'affaire en main, et si Ie classicisme avec Ie
romantisme ne sont pas definitivement extirpes.
137. Ibid., p. 233 (exprimer la vie et faire vrai).

138. Castagnary wrote in 1864: "Our painter will forget all painting previous to him,
and bygone societies, and the interpretations to which they will have given rise. One
doesn't make a book with books, one doesn't make a painting with paintings" ("Salon de
I 864," Salons, I: I 88). (Notre peintre oubliera la peinture anterieure a lui, et les societes
ecoulees, et les interpretations auxquelles elles auront donne lieu. On ne fait pas de livre
avec des livres, on ne fait pas de tableau avec des tableaux.)
139. The classic discussion of eclecticism in nineteenth-century painting is by Bau-
delaire, in his "Salon of 1846," where it is seen in terms that are at once metaphysical and
political. Roughly, Baudelaire contrasts eclecticism with conviction, faith, and naivete, by
which he means the spontaneous expression of one's individuality within a more compre-
hensive style or manner. In previous ages, faith, or at any rate the absence of doubt, was
provided by viable traditions or schools of painting. Whereas Baudelaire felt that by his
own time tradition as such had lapsed, and artists were compelled to seek conviction in
themselves alone. Few artists in any age would have been equal to this task; and in 1846
Baudelaire felt that only Delacroix was. I don't want to discuss Baudelaire's concept of
eclecticism here, except to say that unlike Castagnary twenty years later, he did not also
contrast eclecticism with Frenchness. On the contrary, Baudelaire tended from the outset
to identify French nationalism with its grosser manifestations, as in his remarks in the
"Salon of I 846" on Horace Vernet, and to contrast nationalism as such with his own ideal
of cosmopolitanism and universality, of being a man of the whole world, a citizen of the
universe, like Constantin Guys. (One might say that for Baudelaire universality pre-
cluded, or entailed the shedding of, nationality.)
The above suggests that the modern historian ought not to apply the term eclecticism
to nineteenth-century artists, either by stating that a particular artist-say Couture-was
eclectic, or by insisting that another artist-often Manet-was not. What is needed is
careful analysis of what the concept of eclecticism meant to the nineteenth century itself:
how it was used and understood by the leading artists and critics before the triumph of
Impressionism. The picture that results will be extremely complicated. For example, The-
ophile Gautier in Les Beaux-Arts en Europe, 1855 (Paris, 1856) both associated French
art with eclecticism and asserted that the modern French school was the best in the world.
Notes to Pages 85-89 49 1
140. Max Rooses, L'Oeuvre de P. P. Rubens, 5 vols. (Antwerp, 1886-92), 3:60-61,

cat. no. 574. Rooses reproduces the engraving by Jac. Schmuzer, 1793·
14 1. There is, however, at least the possibility of a specific connection between the
Gypsies and Watteau: the head of the female gypsy is virtually identical to that of the
woman sitting on the ground in Watteau's L'Amour paisible (fig. 77), a version of which
was exhibited at Martinet's in 1860. The distant mountain in L'Amour paisible resembles
the one in the Gypsies. The motif of a guitar on a performer's back in the Gypsies is also
found in Watteau, in Moyreau's engraving after the lost Partie quarree, for example (Ad-
hemar, Watteau, p. 209, cat. no. 66).
142. Charles Sterling, "Manet et Rubens," L'Amour de l'art 13 (Sept.-Oct. 1932):
29 0 . [The Vosterman engraving was not illustrated in "Manet's Sources"; also I have
moved the illustration of the Surprised Nymph from the notes, where it appeared earlier
on in "Manet's Sources," to the text.] Here the question arises whether any French paint-
ing mediated between the Rubens source and Manet's final picture. While it is impossible
to be sure, I suggest that such a role may have been played by Fragonard's Le Billet doux
(ca. 1776; fig. 76), which in 1860 also hung in the exhibition of French paintings on the
boulevard des Ita liens (see Georges Wildenstein, The Paintings of Fragonard [New York,
1960], p. 284, cat. no. 388). The bouquet and the small dog have their equivalents in other
paintings by Manet as well. Moreover, Fragonard's Le Chant (Wildenstein, p. 255, cat.
no. 244), which was also in that exhibition, may bear a relation to Manet's painting The
Reader of 186 I. At the very least, Manet must have been struck by the extraordinary per-
sistence in French painting of certain conventions-roughly, of direct but restrained, rela-
tively undramatic confrontation of the beholder-which Chesneau's essay of 1863
suggests was then one of the most salient features of the French painting of the past, but
which subsequent histories have tended not to discuss.
143. [This is to assume that La Peche was painted in 1861, a dating that recent schol-
arship has made less certain (see Manet 1983, pp. 71-73, cat. no. 12, where it is dated
1861-6 3).]
144. This is registered by the critics. For example, Thore describes Manet's painting as
"a young Parisian woman in the costume of an Espada, shaking her purple cape in the
circus of a bullfight," and as "the young Parisienne disguised as an Espada" (Burger
[Thore], "Salon de 1863," in Salons de W. Burger, 1:424) (une demoiselle de Paris en
costume d' Espada, agitant son manteau pourpre dans Ie cirque d'un combat de taureaux,
... la jeune parisienne deguisee en Espada).
There is at least a family resemblance between Mile V. .. in the Costume of an Espada
and specific figures in paintings by Watteau which Manet knew, e.g. the same woman in
Une Mascarade that I have connected with Manet's Young Woman Reclining in Spanish
Costume.
145. Thore connected Manet's painting with Goya at the time (ibid.). Jean Collins
Harris relates the group of men standing near the wall with the similar group in Tauroma-
quia No. 19, and the bull and picador with the virtually identical motif in Tauromaquia
NO.5. In addition, the man climbing over the wall in Manet's painting was clearly taken
from Tauromaquia No. 30. Moreover, the upper portion of Victorine's body, in particular
the pose of the head and right arm, may have been based on Velasquez's equestrian por-
trait of Don Gasper de Guzman, Conde de Olivares, with which Manet would have been
familiar through Goya's etching.
146. Rooses, L'Oeuvre de P. P. Rubens, 3:18, cat. no. 522/1.
147. Emile Galichon, review of W. Burger [Thore], Galerie Suermondt, a Aix-Ia-
Chapelle [Paris, 1860], GBA, 1st ser., 8 (Nov. I, 1860): 186-90. The small illustration is
on p. 186. Galichon refers to Rubens's painting as "a Fortune or a Venus, a vivid and
49 2 Notes to Pages 90-9I
charming study made for a life-size figure" (une Fortune ou une venus, etude vive et
charm ante faite pour une figure de grandeur naturelle). Thore himself describes the paint-
ing as probably having been made for some Triumph of Venus (Galerie Suermondt,
p. 124). ZacharieAstruc, who by 1862 was close to Manet, described the Mile V .. in the
Costume of an Espada as depicting "a victorious woman in a circus" (Le Salon, no. 16
[May 20,1863]) (une femme victorieuse dans une cirque). It is possible that Manet not
only used Rubens's painting as one of the sources for his own picture, but was deliberately
playing on Victorine Meurent's name (or initial) as well? At any rate, his painting repre-
sents the triumph of Victorine, his (future) Venus.
148. Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," p. 74; for French text see appendix 1.
149. But Manet seems never to have come to admire the Italian painters brought to
France by Francis I. In his Souvenirs Proust quotes Manet as admiring the portraits of
Velasquez, Goya, Hals, "and among us Largilliere, Nattier, whom one mustn't mock.
They were all right, those scoundrels. Too much arrangement, but they didn't lose sight of
nature. And the Clouets! When you think that Rosso and Primaticcio were preferred to
Clouet!" (Proust 1913, p. 79) (et chez nous les Largilliere, les Nattier, qu'il ne faut pas
blaguer. C'etaient des bonshommes, ces matins-la. Trop d'arrangement, mais ils ne per-
daient pas de vue la nature. Et les Clouet! Quand on pense qu'on a prefere a Clouet Ie
Rosso et Ie Primatice!). Manet's remarks seem to have been made around 1876, if Proust's
recollection is accurate.
ISO. Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," p. 74; for French text see appendix 1. One
wonders how much Proust knew. Is it possible that he was privy to Manet's intentions as
regards Frenchness but felt constrained (by Manet himself?) to no more than hint at them?
IS!. My account of the significance of Manet's references to Italian art in the De-
jeuner and Olympia does not explain why it was at this particular moment that (if I am
right) he arrived at a canon of authentically French painting that included the Italianate
French masters.
152. Thore's belief in the exemplary character of seventeenth-century Dutch painting,
which he saw as national, realistic, and humanitarian in impulse, was complemented by
his view of the Italian painting of the Renaissance as essentially Catholic, symbolic, and
politically reactionary. These views recur continually in his later writings. In the conclu-
sion to his study of the museums of Amsterdam and The Hague, Thore said of Dutch
painting:
Ah! it's no longer a mystic art, enveloped in old superstitions, a mythological art, reviving old
symbols, a princely and aristocratic art, in consequence an art of exceptions and consecrated
uniquely to the glorification of those who dominate the human species. It's no longer an art of
popes and kings, of gods and heroes. Raphael worked for Julius II and Leo X; Titian for Charles V
and Francis I; Rubens still worked for the archduke Albert and the kings of Spain, for the Medicis
of France and Charles I of England. But Rembrandt and the Dutch worked only for Holland and
humanity. (Burger [Thon~], Musees de fa Hollande I, Amsterdam et La Haye [Paris, 1858],
PP·3 2 3- 2 4)
Ah! ce n'est plus l'art mystique, envelop pant de vieilles superstitions, I'art mythologique,
ressuscitant de vieux symboles, I'art princier, aristocratique, exceptionnel par consequent, et
consacre uniquement a la glorification des dominateurs de I'espece humaine. Ce n'est plus l'art des
papes et des rois, des dieux et des heros. Raphael avait travaille pour Jules II et Leon X; Tiziano,
pour Charles-Quint et Franc;:ois Ie,; Rubens encore travaillait pour I'archiduc Albert et les rois
d'Espagne, pour les Medicis de France et Charles Ie, d'Angleterre. Mais Rembrandt et les
Hollandais n'ont travaille que pour la Hollande et l'humanite.
For an explicit comparison between Raphael and Rembrandt see Burger [Thore], Musees
de la Hoilande II, Musee van der Hoop a Amsterdam et musee de Rotterdam (Paris,
Notes to Pages 9I-94 493
1860), p. x. See also the passages from his "Salons" of the I 860s cited in the last section of
this chapter.
IS 3. Michel Florisoone, "Manet inspire de Yenise," L'Amour de l'art 18 (Jan. 1937):
26-27. Tintoretto's painting is in the Louvre, Veronese's in the Hermitage, but Manet
could easily have known the latter through engravings such as the one by Gaspard Du-
change. The Veronese connection seems the more important of the two. It is interesting to
note that in the eighteenth century Veronese's painting was in the Crozat Collection, Paris,
along with the Rubens Bacchus which I have claimed Manet used in the Gypsies. Now,
Caylus's life of Watteau, which the Goncourts published in 1857 and 1860, contains the
information that for a time Watteau actually lived at Crozat's and while there studied the
paintings in his collection (Adhemar, Watteau, p. 180). Is it possible that Manet deliber-
ately turned to the engravings of the Recueil Crozat in search of sources for his own paint-
ings, in order further to secure both the relation of his work to that of Watteau and its
connectedness through the medium of Frenchness with the art of foreign schools? An-
other painting in the Crozat Collection, Veronese's Finding of Moses, which Manet could
have known through an engraving by E. Jeaurat, perhaps lies behind his attempts to paint
such a subject in 1861. At any rate, there is a striking similarity between Jeaurat's engrav-
ing and the painting by Manet in the Oslo National Gallery which has been called both
Finding of Moses and Surprised Nymph. [In this note I confuse the Crozat Collection, to
which Rubens's Bacchus and Veronese's Descent from the Cross in fact belonged, with the
Receuil Crozat, the three-volume compilation of reproductive engravings after major Ital-
ian paintings in French collections published under Crozat's direction. Duchange's en-
graving of Veronese's Descent from the Cross and Jeaurat's engraving of Veronese's
Finding of Moses appeared in the Recueil, but the latter painting was then in the royal
collection. Recently, Juliet Wilson-Bareau has suggested (without reference to "Manet's
Sources") that Manet in the 1860s relied heavily on the engravings of the Recueil Crozat
as models for his art; see the discussion of this point in chap. 2.]
154. Gustave Planche, "Gericault," Portraits d' artistes (Paris, 18 53), pp. 35 2- 53;
originally published in the Revue des Deux Mondes 10 (Apr.-June 1851): 502-31. (Ger-
icault, sans accorder moins d'importance a l'effet dramatique, traite avec un soin perse-
verant l'imitation de la realite; il s'efforce d'en reproduire tous les details avec un soin
scrupuleux, et ses efforts sont presque toujours couronnes de succes. La poitrine du jeune
homme etendu aux pieds de son pere, qui est sans contredit la figure la plus remarquable
du tableau que j'etudie, ne laisse rien a desirer sous Ie rapport de l'imitation; les fausses
cotes sont indiquees avec une precision qui defie tous les rep roches. On trouverait difficile-
ment, dans l'histoire entiere de la peinture, un modele rendu plus exactement. Toutes les
parties de ce cadavre sont traduite avec une fidelite qui etonne, qui epouvante. Ni David,
ni Girodet, ni Gros n'ont jamais trouve, pour rep res enter la forme humaine, la puissance,
l'energie que no us admirons dans Gericault. Le Deluge de Girodet, si justement applaudi
d'ailleurs pour la science qu'il no us revele, demeure bien loin de la figure qui tout d'abord
attire l'attention dans Ie Radeau de la Meduse.)
ISS. Ibid., p. 320 (une passion pour la realite qui ne pouvait accepter aucune con-
trainte); p. 325 (a represente naivement, franchement ce qu'il avait vu); p. 339 (tout entier
au de sir de substituer la realite a la convention).
156. Ibid., p. 354 (ne s'est jamais propose, du moins dans ses oeuvres connues, qu'une
seule chose, l'expression de realite). Planche goes on to say that while Gericault's concen-
tration on reality was understandable and even salutary as a reaction against David's em-
phasis on the antique, it imposed limits on his achievement; that despite his prodigious
talent he was not a complete painter, an artist to be ranked alongside Leonardo, Raphael,
Michelangelo. Planche adds that this would not be worth saying if the French public had
not been told over and over that Gericault had revived French painting and was a master
beyond reproach (pp. 354-56).
157. See Georges Riat, Gustave Courbet (Paris, 1906), p. 58.
158. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Du principe de I' art et de sa destination sociale (Paris,
1865), pp. 133-34. (Un seul tableau comme Ie Naufrage de la Meduse, de Gericault, ve-
nant un quart de siecle apres Ie Marat expirant, de David, rachete toute une galerie de ma-
dones, d'odalisques, d'apotheoses et de saints Symphoriens; il suffit it indiquer la route de
l'art it travers les generations, et permet d'attendre.)
159. Hamilton, Manet and His Critics, p. 55: "Here he challenged not only the estab-
lished academic standards for such subjects but set out to test, as it were, the values of his
own esthetic against that of the realist group led by Courbet, for that master had indicated
his impatience with all religious painting by declaring that he could not paint an angel
because he had never seen one." Proust in his Souvenirs adverts to Courbet's having said
"'that he had never seen men with wings'" (Proust 1913, p. 34) (qu'il n'avait jamais vu
des hommes avec des ailes).
160. By the early 1860s Gericault had come to seem an alternative source for realist
aspirations. In I 863 Chesneau wrote: "Gericault having died too soon to legitimate and
assure the lastingness of the principle he followed, the nineteenth century still awaits its
interpreter and its school of interpretation" ("Le Realisme et l'esprit fran~ais dans l'art,"
pp. 39-40). (Gericault etant mort trop jeune pour legitimer et assurer la duree du principe
auquel il obeissait, Ie XIXe siecle attend encore son interprete et son ecole d'interpreta-
tion.) Later on in L'Art et les artistes modernes he added: "The man who has done the
greatest harm to the future of French realism is the very one who has usurped the flag, I
mean Courbet" (p. 27I). (L'homme qui a fait Ie plus de tort it I'avenir du realisme fran~ais
est celui-lit meme qui en a usurpe Ie drapeau, c'est M. Courbet.)
A parallel view is found in the Goncourts' novel Manette Salomon, which ostensibly is
set in the I 840S and I 8 5os but which largely reflects the issues and debates of the first half
of the I860s (it was written between December I 864 and August 1866). It is no exaggera-
tion to say that the novel is haunted by the figure of Gericault and the ideal of realism and
modernity which he is seen to have embodied. A negative estimate of Courbet's art is im-
plicit in the book as a whole. Coriolis, the protagonist, was modeled partly on Manet (see
Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," p. 75).
I am not suggesting that Manet's circumventing of Courbet in the Angels at the Tomb
of Christ relied on these or related developments. At most, it paralleled them.
16I. Chennevieres, "Le Comte Clement de Ris," Souvenirs, 1:40. The letter reads:
Mon cher ami, mon ignorance de votre adresse et aussi une maladie de volonte qui me fait
toujours renvoyer mes devoirs indefiniment, m'ont empeche de vous remercier de vos charmants
petits contes. Ne m'en veuiUez pas, et croyez que je ne suis jamais insensible a un bon souvenir.-
Voici l'Exposition. Je desire vous recommander vivement deux de mes amis, dont l'un a deja eu a se
louer de votre bienveiUance: M. Manet et M. Fantin. M. Manet envoie un Episode d'une course de
taureaux et un Christ ressuscitant, assiste par les anges.-M. Fantin envoie un Hommage a feu
Eugene Delacroix et Tannhauser au Yenusberg. Vous verrez queUes merveiUeuses facultes se
revt'lent dans ces tableaux, et, dans quelque categorie qu'ils sont jetes, faites votre possible pour les
trouver de bonnes places.-Votre ami bien reconnaissant,-CHARLES BAUDELAIRE.
To my knowledge, this letter has never been cited in connection with Manet. [It has since
been published in the standard edition of Baudelaire, Correspondance, ed. Claude Pichois
and Jean Ziegler, 2 vols. (Paris, I973), 2:350-51.)
162. Note, however, the analogy between the wooden block and the large stone, both
of which have writing carved into them, in the Marat and the Angels at the Tomb of Christ
respectively.
163. The battle occurred on June I9. Manet's Battle of the Kearsarge and the Ala-
bama was exhibited in Cadart's window within a month.
164. A possible source for the right-hand portion of Manet's painting, with the horses
coming right at the beholder, is Janet-Lange's Neron disputant Ie prix de la course aux
chars, a lithograph illustration of which may be found in L'Artiste, Nov. 4, I8 55. A short
description of the picture on p. 140 reads: "This painting was much remarked at the Salon
of I 8 5 5. The effect is gripping." (Ce tableau a ete fort remarque au Salon de 1855. L'effet
en est saisissant.) For a convincing reconstruction of the View of a Race in the Bois de
Boulogne of 1864 see Jean Collins Harris, "Manet's Racetrack Paintings," Art Bulletin
48 (Mar. 1966): 78-82.
165. I am not claiming that the Dead Torero is not almost exactly based on the Or-
lando Muerto; obviously it is. I am suggesting that Manet's decision to use the Orlando
Muerto in the first place may have been motivated by the desire to make his own indepen-
dent equivalent to Gericault's figure. Manet would not have been alone in his involvement
with it: perhaps more than any single image, Gericault's youthful corpse haunted the
great French painters of the nineteenth century. One thinks of Delacroix (e.g. the bodies in
the Scenes from the Massacre at Scio and Liberty Leading the People), of Gericault's chief
heritor Daumier (e.g. the lithograph Rue Transnonain, fig. 191), of Courbet who ad-
mired Gericault more than any modern master (e.g. his early Bacchante among other pic-
tures). It is, I think, relevant that Manet based the dead soldier in his Guerre civile litho-
graph of 187I (fig. 192) on the Dead Torero, as if to make explicit the latent political
or at any rate national connotations of the earlier painting, connotations which then were
perhaps wholly a function of its relation to Gericault. (Gericault's significance in this re-
gard is discussed below.) Moreover, the Guerre civile seems to bear some sort of explicit
Figure 191. Honore Daumier, Rue Transnonain, lithograph, 1834.

Figure 192. Edouard Manet, Guerre civile, lithograph, 1871.
relation to Daumier's Rue Transnonain of 1834; and since the latter clearly depends on
the figure of the dead man in the Raft of the Medusa, the inference is strong that in his
lithograph of 1871 Manet fully intended to align himself with Gericault and Daumier,
and that by basing the lithograph on his own Dead Torero he characteristically acknowl-
edged that painting's involvement with them as well.
166. Alain De Leiris, "Manet's Christ Scourged and the Problem of His Religious
Paintings," Art Bulletin 41 (June 1959): 198-201. (In fact Thore spotted Manet's use of
Van Dyck when the Christ Mocked was exhibited in the Salon of 1865.) De Leiris writes:
"In the years 1864 and 1865 Manet seems to turn away from Italian Renaissance sources,
apparent in the Dejeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia, to the starker naturalism of the Span-
ish masters, and to come to share and indulge in his contemporaries' taste for Spanish
subject matter. In this shift the Venetians are not forgotten, but a new vigor and starkness
come to Manet's style along with an objectivity in the interpretation of subject matter for
which Manet found precedents in Spanish art and ... in northern Baroque art as well"
(p. 199). But as we have seen, Manet's use of Spanish art began much earlier; and his
problem was not how to forego Italian sources but whether he was able to use them at all.
Anne Coffin Hanson suggests that the Christ Mocked's sources may include paintings by
Terbrugghen and Velasquez CEdouard Manet, p. 91).
167. The Flameng engraving accompanied Champfleury's third and last article on the
Le Nains (G BA, 1st ser., 8 [Dec. 15, 1860), opp. p. 3 3I). A similar motif is found in the
Louvre's La Creche, and it is possible that Manet had that painting in mind as well. And
there is a striking resemblance between the figures of the Virgin and Child and the woman
seated on the ground and holding an infant in Manet's Gypsies. [The sentence in paren-
theses that immediately precedes the endnote number has been added to the original text,
and this note has been modified accordingly.)
168. Proust 1913, p. 48.
169. Biirger [Thon~), "Van Der Meer de Delft," GBA, 1st ser., 21 (Oct. I, 1866):
297-330; (Nov. I, 1866): 458-70; (Dec. I, 1866): 542-75. The basic conception ofthe
Luncheon-a domestic interior-as well as its lighting, mood, accessories, and some-
thing of its mise-en-scene, seem to me clearly related to pictures by Vermeer such as those
reproduced in Thon~'s articles. Note also the similarity between the engraved monogram
(an E and an M superimposed?) on the coffeepot the maid holds in the Luncheon and the
various examples of Vermeer's monogram Thon~ reproduces (fig. 193). For discussions of
Thore's writings on Vermeer see Meltzoff, "The Rediscovery of Vermeer," and Blum, Ver-
meer and Thore-Biirger.
Figure 193. Vermeer's monogram.
170. Cf. the helmets and swords in the left foregrounds of Andromache Mourning
Hector and the Luncheon. Manet borrowed those pieces from a friend (Tabarant, Manet
et ses oeuvres, p. 53), perhaps expressly for this picture; at any rate, he does not use them
in any other picture. The similarities between the ways in which Manet's painting on the
one hand and David's and Guerin's paintings on the other are put together are striking; of
course, this may be the result of coincidence rather than of conscious emulation. If Manet
was in fact thinking of David and Guerin, the question arises what the Luncheon's rela-
tion is to the theme of domestic tragedy in Andromache Mourning Hector and the Return
of Marcus Sextus. Florisoone, incidentally, feels that the portrait of the young Leon Koella
in the Luncheon is close to David in handling and inspiration (Manet, p. xviii). (Leon
Koella, almost certainly Manet's son, was born in 1852, more than ten years before
Manet married the boy's mother, Suzanne Leenhoff.) [In recent years the suggestion has
gained credence that Leon's father was in fact the painter's father, Auguste Manet. See
Mina Curtiss, "Letters of Edouard Manet to His Wife during the Siege of Paris: 1870-
7 1 ," Apollo 113/232 (June 1981): 378-89.)
No connection between David and Guerin on the one hand and Vermeer and Dutch
painting generally on the other can be found in Thore or any other writer. If Manet ac-
tually intended such a connection, it was based on nothing more than his intuition of anal-
ogous qualities in the paintings themselves. "The great masters often resemble each other
in very different productions," Thore wrote in 1857 (Les Tn!sors d'art en Angleterre,
p. 78). (Les grands maitres se ressemblent souvent dans les creations tres-differentes.) Af-
ter the Dejeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia, and more emphatically after his trip to Spain in
the summer of 1865, such resemblances, whether or not anyone else had ever noted them,
came to play an increasingly important role in Manet's art.
17I. Proust 1913, p. 95. ("Lorsque nous allons it Amsterdam, Ie tableau des Syndics
nous empoigne. Pourquoi? parce que c'est l'impression vraie d'une chose vue. ")
172. Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," p. 72; for the French text see appendix I.
173. Bazin, "Manet etla tradition," p. 157.
174. Sterling, "Manet et Rubens," p. 290.
175. In fact, the Street Singer, Lola de Valence, and Portrait of Mme Brunet, all of
1862, seem related to a single source: Velasquez's Portrait of the Infant Don Ferdinand of
Austria, which Manet would have known through Coya's engraving. The relation to the
pose of the figure in Velasquez's ,painting is clearest in the case of Lola de Valence, which
suggests that that picture preceded the Street Singer and the Portrait of Mme Brunet.
176. Or at least Rembrandt's infinitely greater relevance to the needs of the nineteenth
century (see ThorC's introduction to Musee van der Hoop aAmsterdam cited above).
177. See ibid. Also his Musees de la Hollande, Amsterdam et La Haye, pp. 323-25;
and "Nouvelles Tendances de l'art," pp. xxx-xxxiv. (These are just a few of the numerous
references one might cite.)
178. Thore seems to have connected Chardin more than any other French painter
with Dutch art (see Burger [Thore] 1860 [III]: 333-34). During the first half ofthe 1860s
this seems at most to have helped Manet take advantage of his experience of Dutch still
lifes and flower pieces. For example, in 1864 Manet painted a number of pictures in those
genres which I have claimed relate generally to Chardin but which almost certainly reflect
the experience of Dutch prototypes seen by him in Holland in late 1863 as well.
179. See also the illustration of Frans Hals's Portrait of Willem van Heythuijsen (fig.
194) accompanying the first of two articles by Thore on the Dutch painter (Burger
[Thore], "Frans Hals," GBA, Istser., 24 [Mar. I, 1868]: 219-32; [May 1, 1868]: 431-
48). The illustration is opposite p. 228.
180. Roughly, Sandblad sees the Japanese prints as instrumental in promoting what
he regards as having been Manet's concern with artistic form for its own sake around the
time of Olympia. He argues that the detachment implicit in Manet's "flaneur realism,"
the concept Sandblad uses to describe Manet's esthetic in Music in the Tuileries, enabled
the painter to move quickly to a preoccupation with almost purely formal concerns. It is
clear, I hope, that I see both the Music and Olympia in radically different terms.
18I. Ernest Chesneau, "Le Japon it Paris," GBA, 2d ser., 18 (1878): 387. (En 1867
l'Exposition universelle acheva de mettre Ie Japon it la mode.)
182. Ernest Chesneau, "L'Art japonais," in Les Nations rivales dans l'art (Paris,
1868), p. 424. ([O]n peut dire que les artistes japonais ont pour la realite un respect pro-
fond qui s'allie chez eux it une intelligence esthetique admirable. Ils ont Ie don d'assouplir
Ie reel aux caprices d'imagination les plus etonnants, sans jamais trahir ni denaturer cette
realite, principe et point de depart infaillibles de toutes leurs combinaisons de formes. La
nature leur fournit toujours l'element primordial. Seulement ils en usent librement au
point de vue du caractere.) Chesneau also remarks of Japanese depictions of women: "The
type in those images has a lot in common with that of our classic Pierrot" (p. 424). (Le type
en ces images a beaucoup de celui de notre classique Pierrot.) Sandblad emphasizes the
importance of Chesneau's articles on Japanese art (Sandblad 1954, pp. 74-77).
183. Thomas Couture, Methode et entretiens d'atelier (Paris, 1867), pp. 361-62.
Note to Page 113 499
Vivrai-je assez pour voir renaitre Ie veritable art fran<;ais? ... Je Ie vois venir, ah! que vous etes
heureux d'etre jeunes.
Tout me l'annonce, cet art que j'ai tant reve: l'indifference du public pour celui qui existe est
d'un bon augure,-pourquoi lui, si vivant, s'interesseroit-il a cette peinture issue des tombeaux.
Il n'y a plus que quelques peintres, clients d'un monde qui s'eteint, qui produisent encore pour
la satisfaction de petits appetits bourgeois. L'art national est a naitre ou de moins a continuer, car
depuis Gros et Gericault il est interrompu, et meme je dirai malgre mon admiration pour l'art de la
revolution, qu'ils n'avoient pas completement trouve l'art fran<;ais, ils sembloient n'aborder les
sujets modernes qu'a regret, ils n'etoient pas francs d'allure, l'etude et les fleurs de rhetorique se
montroient trop, en fin cet art nouveau faisoit encore ses classes.
Reprenez aujourd'hui cette belle peinture interrompue, et soyez encore plus de sol, plus
franchement fran<;ais par la forme, et votre art egalera en grandeur, en majeste, les plus splendides
pages venitiennes. Vous deviendrez non les copistes, mais les egaux des Grecs.
Regardez autour de vous et produisez.
184. Ibid., p. 312. (En France, la peinture simplement d'imitation est loin de no us sa-
tisfaire; il faut que l'art s'eleve; comment s'eleve-t-il, c'est en s'augmentant par la pensee,
Figure 194. Engraving after

Frans Hals, Portrait of Will em
van Heythuijsen.
par la poesie, par la philosophie, ou par Ie sentiment chretien; plus l'artiste ajoute de qua-
lites a celles du peintre, plus il est grand.)
18 5. Ibid., p. 38o (il faut que nos peintres, nos sculpteurs, nos architectes les mieux
doues cessent de satisfaire les gouts particuliers; il faut qu'ils s'adressent a la nation).
186. Chennevieres, "Le Louvre en 1848," Souvenirs, 3 (1886):57.
18 7. See Eleanor Patterson Spencer, "The Academic Point of View in the Second Em-
pire," in Courbet and the Naturalistic Movement, ed. George Boas (Baltimore, 193 8 );
also J. Howe, "Thomas Couture" (M. A. diss., University of Chicago, 1952), pp. 53-54.
188. Couture, Methode et entretiens, pp. 68-7 6 .
18 9. Those admirations recur throughout ThorC's "Salons" of the I840s. His "Salon
de 1845" is dedicated to Beranger. The dedication begins: "Your name, monsieur, repre-
sents better than any other the direct meaning of our national tradition in the arts and
letters" (Salons de T Thoni, p. 99). And it ends: "You are, as Pierre Leroux has said, the
son of that great generation of the end of the eighteenth century that made the Revolution.
You are of the people and you are a philosopher, like Diderot and Voltaire, and, like them,
you have placed your poetry at the service of humanity" (p. 108). (Votre nom, monsieur,
represent mieux qu'aucun autre Ie sens direct de notre tradition nationale dans les lettres
et dans les arts .... Vous etes, comme l'a dit Pierre Leroux, Ie fils de cette grande genera-
tIOn de la fin du dix-huitieme siecle, qui fit la Revolution. Vous etes peuple et philosophe,
comme Diderot et Voltaire, et, comme eux, vous avez mis votre poesie au service de
I'Humanite.) The dedication of his "Salon de 1846" to George Sand begins: "Like Be-
ranger, you are of your time and your country; you are at once of nineteenth-century
France and eternal humanity" (p. 203). (Comme Beranger, vous etes a la fois de France de
dix-neuvieme siecle et de I'Humanite eternelle.) There are various admiring references to
Michelet as well.
I d~ not discuss here the relation of ThorC's earlier criticism to his later writings on art,
or hiS Illtellectual development generally. Both deserve serious examination as does the
relation of his thought, both early and late, to that of Michelet, Quinet, L;roux, Sand,
Proudhon, Taine, and others.
190. For more on those sympathies see G. Bertauts-Couture, Thomas Couture (181 5-
79), sa VIe, son oeuvre, son caractere, ses idees, sa methode, par lui-meme et par son petit-
fils, preface by Camille Mauclair (Paris, 1932). In a letter of April 1848, Michelet addressed
Couture as "illustre ami" (p. 27). And in his preface, Camille Mauclair writes: "In the
case of Couture, it seems to us that his philosophical intentions were somewhat 'forty-
eighti~h': tho.se of a brave man living in the atmosphere of liberals, of ideologues, from the
gran?lO~e MlChelet to the popular Beranger" (n.p.). (Dans Ie cas de Couture, il nous ap-
paralt bien que ses intentions philosophiques etaient un peu 'quarante-huitardes': celles
d:un brave hom.me vivant dans l'atmosphere des liberaux, des ideologues, depuis Ie gran-
dIOse MlChelet Jusqu'au populaire Beranger.)
I9I. See Jean Seznec, "The Romans of the Decadence and Their Historical Signifi-
cance," GBA, 6th ser., 24 (Oct. 1943): 221-32; and Francine Lifton Klagsbrun
"Thomas Couture and the Romans of the Decadence" (M. A. diss., New York Universi~
195 8).
19 2 . Seznec, "Romans of the Decadence," p. 228.
193· Gericault too seems to have been an important source of inspiration. The physi-
cal character and. even the actions of some of Couture's figures imitate the physique and
actions of figures III the Raft of the Medusa (and perhaps in other paintings by Gericault as
well). Couture also seems to have based individual figures in the Voluntary Enlistments on
ones in the Tennis Court Oath. The Romans of the Decadence, too, is involved far more
closely with the Raft of the Medusa than may at first appear. Figure after figure can be seen
to have its equivalent in Gericault's painting as well as in David's.
194. For Couture's account of Persigny's visit to his atelier and the revoking of the
commission see Bertauts-Couture, Thomas Couture, pp. 45-46.
195. Proust 19 1 3.
196. Couture, Methode et entretiens, p. 279. (Nous ne devons pas, nous, peintres, en-
trer dans des considerations politiques et discuter les sentiments que nous voulons repre-
senter; lorsque nous les avons choisis, tous nos efforts doivent tendre a les exalter dans
leurs beautes.)
197. See Bertauts-Couture, Thomas Couture, p. 46, where it is claimed that Couture's
refusal (if that is what it was) to paint in the head of Napoleon III in the Baptism of the
Imperial Prince was aimed at extorting permission to finish the Voluntary Enlistments.
198. The correspondence between Michelet's thought and the program of the Ro-
mans of the Decadence concerns far more than the view that contemporary society was
corrupt and that the ideals of the French Revolution had been abandoned. For example,
Couture's picture was based on two verses from Juvenal: "We are suffering today from the
fatal results of a long peace; more damaging than arms, luxury has rushed upon us, and
avenges the enslaved universe" (Seznec, "Romans of the Decadence," pp. 222-23); while
in Michelet's Le Peuple of 1846 (Paris, 1946) the thirty years of peace since Waterloo are
seen as having worked to France's ruin (pp. 27-28, n. I), and it is implicit in the book as a
whole that the resurrection of the ideals of the French Revolution almost certainly would
mean war with England and other hostile powers.
Furthermore, Rome in its decadence was finally overwhelmed by the invasions of the
barbarians. And in January 1846, Michelet wrote:
Often today one compares the rise of the people, its progress, to the invasion of the Barbarians.
The word pleases me, I accept it ... Barbarians! Yes, that's to say full of a new sap, living and
youthful. Barbarians, that's to say voyagers marching toward the Rome of the future, going slowly,
no doubt, each generation advancing a little, pausing with death, but with successive generations
continuing no less. ("A M. Edgar Quinet," Le Peupie, p. 24)
Souvent aujourd'hui l'on compare l'ascension du peuple, son progres, a l'invasion des Barbares.
Le mot me plait, je l'accepte ... Barbares! Oui, c'est-a-dire pleins d'une seve nouvelle, vivante et
rajeunissante. Barbares, c'est-a-dire voyageurs en marche vers la Rome de l'avenir, all ant lentement,
sans doute, chaque generation avan<;ant un peu, faisant halte dans la mort, mais d'autres n'en
continuent pas moins.
It was in November 1844 that Michelet began to deliver the lectures that led to the writing
of Le Peuple.
Michelet moreover refers to Couture in Le Peuple, though not by name, as "one of the
greatest painters of the epoch" (p. 155; see also p. 303) (l'un des plus grands peintres de
l'epoque).
199. Only the first three lessons were actually professed at the College de France. At
that point the course was suspended by the government of Louis-Philippe. But Michelet
went on to publish seven more lessons, one per week, up until the Revolution of 1848
broke out. The entire course was published with several related pieces as L'Etudiant,
cours de 1847-48 (Paris, 1877). The reference here is to the seventh lesson (Jan. 27, 1848)
called "La LCgende de la Revolution."
200. Michelet, L'Etudiant, p. 289.
Le mot de fraternite est tres-faible pour exprimer Ie sentiment qui domine ce livre; union, unite
vaudraient mieux, !'unite d'un monde en une arne.
502 Notes to Pages II9-2I
Cette unite en action, c'est Ie caractere divin des grands jours de la Revolution, tels que je les ai
racontes, celui de la Prise de la Bastille, et de nos Federations, et du Depart de 92, de tant d'autres
moments sublimes. Voila ce qu'il fallait degager et mettre en lumiere, si l'on voulait donner
vraiment Ie fond, la substance de la Revolution.
201. Ibid., p. 168. (II ne faut pas dire la Revolution, il faut dire la Fondation.)
202. Michelet, Le Peuple, p. 29. (Par-devant l'Europe, la France, sachez-Ie, n'aura
qu'un seul nom, inexpiable, qui est son vrai nom eternel: la Revolution!)
20 3. In Le Peuple Michelet wrote that while Thierry saw history as narration and
Guizat as analysis, "I have named it resurrection, and that name will last" (p. 25) (je l'ai
nommee resurrection, et ce nom lui restera).
20 4. Michelet, L'Etudiant, p. 301 (fonder la Republique dans les esprits); p. 3 00 .
La foi politique de la France qui doit determiner ses actes et ses paroles, sa politi que et son
enseignement, ne doit pas rester a I'etat de sentiment, ou de vague speculation; il faut lui donner la
base de I'histoire et de l' experience.
Voici la France reveillee, debout; qu'est-ce qu'elle va enseigner a ses enfants, a son peuple
hero"ique, au monde qui fait cercle autour d'elle? ... Est-ce la rhetorique? est-ce l'arithmetique?
... est-ce Ie mecanisme gouvernemental, la politique abstraite, ala Sieyes? ... Non, elle doit,
avant tout, fixer et promulguer les principes qui constitueront notre moralite civique, Ie dogme de
la Republique, Ie Credo de la patrie. Elle doit enseigner deux choses qui n'en font qu'une, et qui
sont Ie coeur de la France: La foi de la Revolution, et la meme foi en pratique, l'histoire de la
Revolution.
20 5. Michelet, Le Peuple, p. 257.
Pour cela, illui eut fallu, non renier Ie passe, mais Ie revendiquer au contraire, Ie ressaisir et Ie
faire sien, comme elle faisait du present, montrer qu'elle avait, avec l'autorite de la raison, celie de
I'histoire, de toute notre nationalite his tori que, que la Revolution etait la tardive, mais juste et
necessaire manifestation du genie de ce peuple, qU'elle n'etait que la France meme ayant enfin
trouve son droit.
Elle ne fit rien de cela, et la raison abstraite, qU'elle invoquait seule, ne la soutint pas en presence
des realites terribles qui se soulevaient contre elle. Elle do uta d'elle-meme, s'abdiqua et s'effa<;;a.
206. Ibid., p. 258. (La premiere question de l'education est celle-ci: "Avez-vous la foi?
donnez-vous la foi?")
20 7. Ibid., pp. 259-60.
La foi, c'est la base commune d'inspiration et d'action. Nulle grande chose sans elle ....
lei, s'eleve une objection grave. "La foi, comment la donner, quand je I'ai si peu moi-meme? La
foi en la patrie, comme la foi religieuse, a faibli en moi."
Si la foi et la raison etaient des choses opposees, n'ayant nul moyen raisonnable d'obtenir la foi,
il faudrait, comme les mystiques, rester la, soupirer, attendre. Mais la foi digne de I'homme, c'est
une croyance d'amour dans ce que prouve la raison. Son objet, ce n'est pas telle merveille
accidentelle, c'est Ie miracle permanent de la nature et de I'histoire.
Pour reprendre foi a la France, esperer dans son avenir, il faut remonter son passe, approfondir
son genie nature!' Si vous Ie faites serieusement et de coeur, vous verrez, de cette etude, de ces
premisses posees, la consequence suivre infailliblement. De la deduction du passe, decoulera pour
vous I'avenir, la mission de la France; elle vous apparaitra en pleine lumiere, vous croirez, et vous
aimerez a croire; la foi n'est rien autre chose.
208. Ibid., pp. 233-34, n. 2.

Nul objet d'art, nulle industrie, me me de luxe, nulle forme de culture elevee, n'est sans action
sur la masse, sans influence sur les derniers, sur les plus pauvres. Dans ce grand corps d'une nation,
la circulation spirituelle se fait, insensible, descend, monte, va au plus haut, au plus bas. Telle idee
entre par les yeux (modes, boutiques, musees, etc.), telle autre par la conversation, par la langue qui
Notes to Pages I2I-24
est Ie grand depot du progres commun. Tous re<;;oivent la pensee de tous, sans I'analyser peut-etre,
mais enfin ils la re<;;oivent.
209. Michelet, L'Etudiant, pp. II9-39.
210. Ibid., p. 129.
On sait l'etrange reaction de 1816, et comme la France semble se renier elle-meme. Eh bien! de
plus en plus, Gericault I'adopta. II protesta pour elle, par l'originalite toute fran<;;aise de son genie,
et par Ie choix exclusif des types nationaux. Poussin a peint des Italiens, David des Romams et des
Grecs, Gericault, au milieu des melanges batards de la Restauration, conserva ferme et pure la
pen see nationale. II ne subit pas I'invasion, ne donna rien a la reaction.
211. Ibid., p. 130.
En 1822, Gericault peint son radeau et Ie naufrage de la France. II est seul, il navigue seul,
pousse vers I'avenir ... sans s'informer, ni s'aider de la reaction. Cela est hero"ique.
C'est la France elle-meme, c'est notre societe tout entiere qu'il embarqua sur ce radeau de la
Meduse . .. Image si cruellement vraie que I'original refusa de se reconnaitre. On recula devant
cette peinture terrible; on passa vite devant; on tiicha de ne pas voir et de ne pas comprendre.
212. Ibid., p. 131 (I'artiste national d'une epoque, celui qui, seul, eut alors la vraie
tradition; je I'ai dit, et Ie redis: A ce moment, Gericault fut la France).
213. Ibid., pp. 132-33.
C'est Ie reproche grave qu'on doit lui faire. II n'a pas eu la foi dans l'eternite de la Patrie. "
Comment n'y crut-il pas? II venait de lui creer ses puissants et immortels symboles, sa premiere
peinture populaire. La France etait en lui.
I1l'ignore, il ne voulut plus vivre.
214. Ibid., p. 137. (Que ce grand homme nous serve par sa vie, par sa mort; ne cedons
pas, comme lui, au decouragement.)
215. Chesneau, Les Chefs d'ecole (Paris, 1862), pp. 393-98.
216. Burger [Thorel, Salons de T. Thore, pp. x-xi. . ..
217. Introduction to Maurice Chaumelin, Art contemporain (Pans, 1873), pp. VU-
xv; originally published in the Revue universelle des arts in 1855.
218. Introduction to Salons de T. Thore, pp. xiii-xliv; dated at the end "Bruxelles,
18 57."
219. Ibid., pp. xiv-xv.
[Ill y a main tenant en France, et partout, une inquietude singuliere, une aspirati?n incompress~b!e
vers une vie essentiellement differente de la vie passee. Toutes les conditIOns de I anclenne sOCiete
sont bouleversees, dans la science et dans les religions qui sont Ie resume de la science, dans la
politique et dans I'economie sociale qui est I'application de la politique, dans l'agnculture,
I'industrie et Ie commerce, qui sont les elements de l'economie sociale. D'incomparables .
decouvertes ont donne a toutes les idees, a tous les faits, une extension imp revue et indefime. II y a
comme un teIegraphe invisible, qui fait circuler presque instantanement et partout les impressions
des peuples, les pensees des hommes, les evenements, les nouveautes de toute sorte. Le momdre
tressaillement moral ou physique, eprouve sur un point quelconque, se perpetue de proche en
proche et se transmet tout autour de globe. L'Humanite est en train de se constituer, et bien tot elle
aura conscience d'elle-meme jusqu'aux extremites de ses membres.
Le caractere de la societe moderne-de la societe future-sera I'universalite.
Tandis qu'autrefois-hier-chaque peuple se renfermait dans les petites circonscriptions de son
territoire, de ses traditions speciales, de son culte idolatrique, de ses lois ego"istes, de ses prejuges
tenebreux de ses coutumes et de son langage, il tend aujourd'hui a s'epandre hors de ses bornes
etroites, a 'ouvrir ses frontieres, a generaliser ses traditions et sa my tho logie, a humaniser ses lois, a
eclairer ses conceptions, a elargir ses usages, a confrondre ses interets, ii prodiguer partout son
activite, sa langue et son genie.
220. Burger [Thore), "Des ten dances de I'art au XIXe siecle" (above n. 217), p. xiv.
Quand les arts de tous pays, avec leurs qualites indigenes, se seront ainsi rapproches souvent
quand lis aur~nt pris I'habitude d'echanges reciproques, Ie caractere de I'art y gagnera partout u~e
lllcalculable etendue, sans que Ie genie particulier a chaque peuple en soit altere. II se formera de la
sort~ une ecole europeenne d'abord, au lieu des sectes nationales qui divisent encore la grande
famtlle artiste selon la topographie des frontieres; puis, une ecole universelle, familiarisee avec Ie
monde, et a laquelle rien d'humain ne sera etranger.
221. Ibid., p. xv.

L'esthetique et la critique au XIXe siecle doivent done, suivant nous, abdiquer to ute ecole, tout
s~steme, toute nationalite, tout prejuge local ou historique. Elles ne doivent etre d'aucun pays, ni
d aucun temps, afin de favonser la convergence sympathique et providentielle des facultes creatrices
attribuees aux differents peuples.
... On dit que I'art est I'expression de la societe: assurement, puisqu'on appelle societe Ie
faisceau des manifestations humaines .... Le progres de I'art contemporain consiste done a
traduire dans une forme harmonieuse Ie sentiment irresistible qui entraine Ie monde vers I'unite.
222. This is obviously a complex question and may not have been clear even to Thon~.
At ti~es he seems to believe that the different races and nationalities will eventually co a-
les~.~ Into one race, one people ("Nouvelles Tendances de l'art" [no 218 above), pp. xvii-
XVlll). But the category of nationality was basic to his thinking; and he certainly does not
see.m to feel that what he meant by nationality was in basic conflict with what he meant by
umversality In hiS own time.
223. Burger [Thore), Les Tresars d'art en Angleterre, p. viii.
Une histoire generale de I'art semble etre dans les tendances et les necessites de la civilisation
mo?erne. Les monographies nationales ne suffisent plus. Le caractere de notre temps, en art, en
h,ttera,ture, en sCl~nces, aUSSl?len qu'en economie sociale et en industrie, c'est la generalisation,
c est I ulllversahte. Les frontleres morales sont abaissees entre les peuples. I1s sentent desormais
non-seulement la concordance de leurs interets, mais la solidarite de leur imagination et de leu:
intelligence.
eette histoire universelle de I'art, comment la faire, sinon en recoltant des faits des dates des
p~rticulari,tes de toute sorte, qui aident a comprendre les differentes epoques, les differents p~ys, les
gellles dlfferents, et surtout a saisir les analogies et les harmonies qui les relient dans une grande
ulllte?
.224. Once again Manet's art is fruitfully seen in the context of his generation. In n. 97
I diSCUSS the Importance of the concept of the tableau (as contrasted with that of the mar-
ceau) as it appears in the criticism of Zacharie Astruc. Another theme in Astruc's writing
connects with Manet's art during the first half of the I 860s: his insistence that ambitious
paintin? can no I,~nger circumscribe itself by the traditional genres. Here, for example, is
As~ruc In 1860: I conSider, first of all, that one cannot claim to be a painter even with a
solid talent as a lands~apist ... Painting is not fragmented-it is one. It sees everything, it
analyzes eve~ythIng:. It IS the expression of the colorful whole that sums up the world:
from man, hiS dwelling place, the objects that surround him, to the passions that make
him act. SpeCialties only end up trivializing art. I am irritated by this new tendency that
leads so m~ny ar~ists to stick to a path that has become facile and even lucrative, neglect-
Ing the solid baSIS of learmng that would have assured them undeniable authority. As a
result; narrowness of view, inferiority of arrangement, and without doubt, in the long run,
negatIOn of force. It IS not with such principles that a great school is formed, or a great
example given, not only to the future but to contemporaries .... The categories must
disappear, to make way for the resume. It is necessary that the landscapist efface himself in
favor of the painter. Only then will nature progress" (Le Salon intime [Paris, 1860],
pp. 100-01; for French text see chap. 2, n. 106.
From the perspective of Impressionism it may seem that landscape painting was artis-
tically progressive throughout the nineteenth century; and in the sense that previous de-
velopments in landscape (e.g. the Barbizon School) contributed to Impressionism, this is
not simply mistaken. But it overlooks the historical truth that for Manet and his genera-
tion, at any rate in the late 18 50S and early 1860s, landscape as such not only did not seem
rich with promise: it actually appears to have been antithetical to their collective intuition
as to what the comprehensive, authoritative, and exemplary painting of the future would
consist in. And, of course, as things turned out, they were not wrong. Earlier I noted that
Manet's most ambitious paintings of the first half of the 18 60S were larg~<lrrangements of
two or more figures. Now I want to suggest that those pictures may perhaps be thought of
as constituting a new genre of painting, which in effect sought to comprehend, and
thereby to supersede, all the others. The Dejeuner sur l'herbe represents a kind of cul-
mination of this development, being at once landscape, portrait, and still life-to say
nothing of the implications of its use of previous art. In other words, Manet's relation
during these years to the traditional genres seems to have been analogous to his relation to
the different national schools: his explicit aspiration was to bring them together in a natu-
ral and objective unity, the unity that I have called painting altogether.
225. Burger [Thore] 1860 (I): 259. (Assurement, pour arriver a faire une histoire de
I'art europeen depuis la Renaissance, ce qui semble tourmenter notre epoque, il faut
etablir une justice distributive entre les ecoles, constater leurs qualites essentielles et dis-
tinctives, reviser les pretentions de chaque pays et lui attribuer ce qui lui revient dans Ie
developpement general. Par instinct, on sent aujourd'hui chez presque to us les peuples
qu'il se prepare une sorte de Jugement dernier, apres quoi, Ie passe etant liquide, on en-
trera dans un nouveau monde.)
226. Michelet, Le Peuple, pp. 233-34. (Le plus puissant moyen de Dieu pour creer et
augmenter I'originalite distinctive, c'est de maintenir Ie monde harmoniquement divise
en ces grands et beaux systemes qu'on appelle des nations, dont chacun ouvrant a
I'homme un champ divers d'activite, est une education vivante. Plus I'homme avance, plus
il entre dans Ie genie de sa patrie, mieux il concourt a I'harmonie du globe; il apprend a
connaitre cette patrie, et dans sa valeur propre, et dans sa valeur relative, comme une note
du grand concert; il s'y associe par elle; en elle, il aime Ie monde. La patrie est I'initiation
necessaire a l'universelle patrie.)
By concentrating on Michelet I do not mean to imply that other thinkers-his intimate
friend Quinet, for example-were not also instrumental in formulating the vision of
France that I adumbrate in these pages. I regard Michelet as the most important single
figure in that development, and for reasons of conciseness have chosen to discuss his work
in isolation from theirs.
227. Ibid., p. 23 6.
Pour nous, quoi qu'il advienne de nous, pauvre ou riche, heureux, malheureux, vivant, et par
dela la mort, nous remercierons toujours Dieu, de nous avoir donne cette grande patrie, la France.
Et cela, non pas seulement a cause de tant de choses glorieuses qu' elle a faites, mais surtout parce
qu'en eile nous trouvons a la fois Ie representant des libertes du monde et Ie pays sympathique entre
tous, I'initiation a I'amour universe!' ...
Sans doute, tout grand peuple represente une idee importante au genre humain. Mais que ceia,
grand Dieu, est bien plus vrai de la France! Supposez un moment qU'elle s'eclipse, qU'elle finisse, Ie
lien sympathique du monde est rei ache, dissout, et probablement detruit. L'amour qui fait la vie du
globe, en sera it atteint en ce qu'il a de plus vivant. La terre entrerait dans J'age glace OU deja tout
pres de nous sont arrives d'autres globes.
228. Ibid., p. 247 (la patrie universelle), (bien plus qu'une nation; c'est la fraternite
vivante), (confondu son interet et sa destinee avec ceux de l'humanite).
229. Ibid., p. 267 (que Dieu lui a fait la grace d'avoir cette patrie, qui promulgua,
ecrivit de son sang, la loi de l'equite divine, de la fraternite, que Ie Dieu des nations a parle
par la France).
230. Ibid., p. 239. (Nous sommes les fils de ceux qui par l'effort d'une nationalite he-
ro'ique, ont fait l'ouvrage du monde, et fonde, pour toute nation, l'evangile de l'egalite.
Nos peres n'ont pas compris la fraternite comme cette vague sympathie qui fait accepter,
aimer tout, qui mele, abiitardit, confond. Ils crurent que la fraternite n'etait pas l'aveugle
melange des existences et des caracteres, mais bien l'union des coeurs. Ils garderent pour
eux, pour la France, l'originalite de devouement, du sacrifice, que personne ne lui disputa;
seule, elle arrosa de son sang cet arbre qU'elle plantait.)
231. Ibid., p. 268 (la France a donne sa vie pour Ie monde).
232. Ibid., p. 243, n. 2 (ce n'est pas Ie machinisme industriel de I'Angleterre, ce n'est
pas Ie machinisme scolastique de l'Allemagne, qui fait la vie du monde; c'est Ie souffle de la
France, dans quelque etait qU'elle soit, la chaleur latente de sa Revolution que l'Europe
porte toujours en elle).
233. Ibid., p. 229 (peut nous reunir, et par nous, sauver Ie monde).
234. Ibid., p. 271. (La patrie, rna patrie peut seule sauver Ie monde.)
235 .. For Manet> political sympathies see Sandblad 1954, pp. 148-58; Harris,
"Graphic Work of Edouard Manet," pp. 173-79, esp. p. 174, n. 5; and Proust 1913,
pp. 57- 5 8. In 1849 the young Manet wrote his father from Rio de Janeiro (where he had
gone on a training voyage in an unsuccessful attempt to enter the merchant marine): "Try
to hold onto a good Republic until our return; because I'm afraid that Louis-Napoleon
isn't very republican" (quoted by Cailler and Courthion, ed., Manet raconte par lui-
mer:xe, p. 42). (TIchez de nous garder, pour notre retour, une bonne Republique; car je
crams que LOUis-Napoleon ne soit pas tres republicain.)
236. Chesneau, "Le Salon de Refuses," L'Art et les artistes modernes, p. 190, n. 1.
237. "Les Sujets modernes," ibid., p. 279: "[W)hat would become of you, young Mr.
Manet, who corrects Raphael with Courbet?" (que deviendriez-vous, jeune monsieur
Manet, qui corrigez Raphael par Courbet?)
238. Biirger [Thore), Salons de W. Burger, 1:425. For the French text, see Chap. 4, n.
83·
Voici une autre victime de la ferocite des moeurs, victime volontaire, etendue roide dans Ie
cirque d'un combat de tau reaux, qui continue a l'extremite de la vaste arene. Ce toreador, eventre
pour Ie plaisir de quelques milliers de spectateurs affoles, est une figure de grandeur naturelle,
audacieusement copiee d'apres un chef-d'oeuvre de la galerie Pourtales ... peint par Velazquez
tout slmplement. M. Manet ne se gene pas plus pour "prendre son bien OU ille trouve," que pour
Jeter sur la tOIle son coloris splendide et bizarre, qui irrite les "bourgeois" jusqu'a I'injure. Sa
peinture est une espece de defi, et il semble vouloir agacer Ie public comme les picadores de son
cirque espagnol, piquant des fleches de rubans multicolores dans Ie nuque d'un adversaire
sauvage.-I1 n'a pas encore saisi Ie taureau par les cornes.
M. Manet ales qualites d'un magicien, des effets lumineux, des tons flamboyants, qui
pastichent Velazquez et Goya, ses maitres de predilection. C'est a eux deux qu'il a songe en
compos ant et en executant son Cirque.
240. Ibid., 2:99 (c'est un autre maitre espagnol, Ie Greco, qu'il a pastiche avec une
ega Ie furie, sans doute en maniere de sarcasme contre les amoureux transis de la peinture
discrete et proprette).
Notes to Pages 13 2 -34
241. Ibid., 2: 100 (Assez maintenant sur ces excentricites qui cachent un vrai peintre,
dont, quelque jour, les oeuvres seront peut-erre applaudies. Rappelons-nous les debuts
d'Eugene Delacroix, son triomphe a l'exposition universe lie de 1855 et sa vente-apres
deces!)
24 2 . For the text of Baudelaire's letter see Etienne Moreau-Nelaton, Manet raconte
par lui-meme, 2 vols. (Paris, 1926), I: 59. [The letter has since been collected in Bau-
delaire, Correspondance, 2:3 86 - 87.)
243. Salons de W. Burger, 2: 137 (tout naturellement coloriste a la fa~on de ce peintre
exquis et fantasque).
244. Ibid., 2:138. (Nous consignons toujours en passant que la peinture de Manet
n'est pas un pastiche de Goya, et no us avons plaisir a repeter que ce jeune peintre est un
vrai peintre, plus peintre a lui tout seul que la bande entiere des grands prix de Rome.)
245. Ibid., 2: 191. (Peintre, ill' est plus que tous les grands prix de Rome ensemble.)
246. Ibid., 2:192-93.
Pour exprimer I'idee ou l'image de la persecution et de la piete qu'elle suscite, si vous continuez a
adopter un symbole catholique sten~otype, il n'y a pas de raison pour ne pas continuer aussi a
exprimer la force et la beaute modernes par les symboles pa"iens, par Hercule et Venus. Or la
mission de l'art-et son instinct-sont justement de creer des formes plastiques, adequates aux
idees et aux moeurs de chaque epoque, sans deserter Ie caractere permanent, typique, de la vie
universelle.
II arrive aussi que pastichant une vieille idee vous etes entraine a imiter de vieilles formes et de
vieilles pratiques. Si vous peignez Venus, Diane, Galatee, des nymphes ou des naiades, comment ne
pas songer a la statuaire grecque et a la renaissance italienne qui en ressuscitait Ie style? Si vous
peignez des martyrs chretiens, qui done a plus cruellement dramatise la torture et la douleur que les
Espagnols mystiques et surtout que Ribera? Voila Ribot tombant avec son Saint-Sebastien dans les
noirceurs de Ribera!
247. Ibid., 2: 193. (C' est fatal, irresistible: il ne para!t pas que Manet veuille etre pris
pour un routinier de l'art pensif; neanmoins, ayant eu la malheureuse idee de peindre un
Christ dans Ie pretoire, bon! voila que cet original copie presque la celebre composition de
van Dyck! L'autre annee, faisant un sujet espagnol qu'il n'avait jamais vu, bon! voila qu'il
copiait Ie Velazquez de la galerie Pourtales!)
248. Ibid., 2:239.
Suivant nous et quelques esprits aventureux, I'art du Midi n'est plus qu'une tradition, tres-
glorieuse, mais morte. II a vecu-vixit, et il ne parait pas qu'i! compte desormais comme vivant, au
milieu de la civilisation toute moderne qui se prepare. Aux expositions universelles de Paris, de
Manchester, de Londres, est-ce qu'on a remarque la peinture des Italiens et des Espagnols? Oles
grands et nobles peuples-dans l'histoire! Quand la peinture franc;aise se tourne vers l'ltalie, elle
tourne vers Ie passe. L'archeologie sans doute est fort interessante, mais ce n'est pas l'affaire des
artistes, qui doivent etre inventeurs et non compilateurs. L'instinct de la nouveaute perit chez qui
s'enferme au milieu de ruines. Et la vie, n'est-ce pas Ie renouveau?
249. Ibid., 2:279-80.

Ce que Courbet represente dans l'ecole contemporaine, c'est un franc naturalisme, absolument
antipodique aux manieres pretentieuses et fausses des peintres recemment adoptees par un monde
frivole. Sa peinture pose deux questions a ceux qui etudient les ten dances de l'art et les moyens de
renovation.
II s'agit de savoir si l'art doit se trainer roujours sur les traces du passe: idees, symboles, images
de ce qui n'est plus, pastiches retrospectifs, etrangers desormais a la conscience, aux moeurs, aux
faits d'une societe nouvelle.
Que l'inspiration de I'artiste n'ait plus sa source dans l'antiquite paienne ni dans Ie moyen age
catholique, et la forme serait emancipee en meme temps que l'invention.
508 Notes to Pages I34-39
Car Ie sujet comporte la plastique. Un sujet absurde er contre nature, tel qu'un centaure au un
ange, entraine une plastique de fantaisie, puisque l'artiste ne peut pas consulter la realite naturelle.
Ou trouver Ie modele d'un cherubin avec deux ailes aux tempes, au d'un faune ii pieds de bouc?
250. Ibid., 2:318.
J'aime mieux les folIes ebauches de Manet que les Hercules academiques. Et done, j'ai ete revoir
son atelier, au j'ai trouve un grand portrait d'homme en nair, dans Ie sentiment des portraits de
Velazquez, et que Ie jury lui a refuse. II y avait Iii aussi, outre un "paysage de mer," comme dit
Courbet, et des fleurs exquises, une etude de jeune fille en robe rose, qui sera peut-etre refusee au
prochain Salon. Ces tons roses sur fond gris defieraient les plus fins coloristes. Ebauche, c'esr vrai,
comme est, au Louvre, I'lle de Cythere, par Watteau. Watteau aurait pu pousser son ebauche ii la
perfection. Maner se debat encore contre cette difficulte extreme de la peinture, qui est de finir
certaines parties d'un tableau pour donner ii I'ensemble sa valeur effective. Mais on peut predire
qu'il aura son tour de succes comme taus les persecutes du Salon.
2. "Manet's Sources" Reconsidered

I. Reff 1969, p. 40.
2. It may be relevant that Manet himself seems to have come to have doubts about the
pose of the Absinthe Drinker's legs; at any rate, when he exhibited the Absinthe Drinker
in his one-man show of 1867, he reframed it in a way that eliminated the legs, as a contem-
porary caricature reveals. Subsequently he converted the painting back to its original
composition (more or less), adding at this time the bright green absinthe in a glass on the
wall beside the painting's protagonist. See Anne Birgitte Fonsmark, "'The Absinthe
Drinker'-and Manet's Picture-Making," Hafnia: Copenhagen Papers in the History of
Art, no. II (1987): 76-92. Fonsmark stresses that the painting as it exists today is the
product of two distinct periods of work (1858-59 and at some time between 1867 and
1872, when it was sold to Durand-Ruel), and calls attention to the oddness of the treat-
ment of the legs in the finished work. My thanks to T. ]. Clark for bringing Fonsmark's
article to my attention. Another point I might have mad.: is that Manet's Polichinelle
(1873) is unquestionably based on L'Indifferent, as was noted by Germain Bazin, "Manet
et la tradition," L'Amour de ['art 13 (May 1932): 152.
3. Reff 1969, p. 4I.
4. Cited in ibid.
5. Ibid., p. 42. The source for the seated figure of the violinist in the Old Musician is an
antique statue in the Louvre; see Alain De Leiris, "Manet, Gueroult and Chrysippos," Art
Bulletin 46 (Sept. 1964): 401-4. Reff also charges me with ignoring the relevance of
Ernest Meissonier's painting of Polichinelle to several versions of Manet's Polichinelle as
well as "Gerald Ackerman's discovery that [Manet's Dead Toreador] closely resembles
Gerome's widely acclaimed Dead Caesar" (p. 42), but neither of those supposed omis-
sions bears on my argument, the second in particular being a red herring.
6. Ibid., p. 44. See also his criticism ot my association of Manet's Luncheon in the Studio
with "two Neo-Classical pictures ot death and despair, David's Andromache Mourning
Hector and Guerin's Return of Marcus Sextus" (pp. 44 -45), and of the forced reasoning in
my linking of Manet's early friendship with Eugene Deveria with his later use of a litho-
graph by Achille Deveria as a source for the first conception of Olympia (p. 47).
7. Theodore Reff, "Manet and Blanc's 'Histoire des peintres,''' Burlington Magazine
II2 (July 1970): 456-58, at p. 458.
8. I also misidentify Offenbach as Champfleury in the Music in the Tuileries (see Reff
1969, p. 48, n. 27); give Thore's pseudonym William (or W.) Burger as Willem Burger;
Notes to Page I40
and imply that the paintings depicted in the Recueil Crozat were in Crozat's personal col-
lection. Also, in connection with my discovery of the importance to Manet and his con-
temporaries of Duranty's theatre de Polichinelle, I state that the roofed structure in the
right-hand portion of Manet's lithograph The Balloon (fig. 28) depicts Duranty's puppet
theater (and by implication that the setting is the Tuileries). However, in an important
article Douglas Druick and Peter Zegers have shown that in fact the setting is the Es-
planade des Invalides on the occasiGn ot the Fete de l'Empereur on August 15, 1862
("Manet's 'Balloon': French Diversion, the Fete de I'Empereur 1862," Print Collector's
Newsletter 14 [May-June 1983]: 38-46). Accordingly, the roofed structure is not a pup-
pet theater but rather one of two large stages that were used for performances of military
pantomimes.
9. The address of Martinet's was 26 boulevard des Italiens, a fashionable location.
The gallery also published a highly interesting newspaper-format journal, Le Courrier
artistique, which for five years starting June 15, 186 I, appeared every two weeks. The
Courrier artistique listed many if not all of the paintings shown at Martinet's, in addition
to containing "Salons" and other articles on art-related subjects. On Louis Martinet, the
gallery'S founder and a former student of Gros, see Gustave Ribeaucourt, Une Figure
d' artiste: Louis Martinet (I8I4-I 894) (Paris, 1894); and Lorne Huston, "Le Salon etles
expositions d'art: Reflexions a partir de l'experience de Louis Martinet (1861-65 ),"
GBA, 6th ser., II6 (July-Aug. 1990): 45-50. The larger context of the role of private
versus public exhibitions during a slightly later period is examined by Martha Ward, "Im-
pressionistlnstallations and Private Exhibitions," Art Bulletin 73 (Dec. 1991): 599-622;
and Patricia Mainardi, The End of the Salon: Art and the State in the Early Third Republic
(Cambridge, 1993). The pioneering work on the emergence of what the authors call the
"dealer-critic system" (which however does not mention Martinet) is Harrison C. and
Cynthia A. White, Canvases and Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting
World (New York, 1965).
10. Burger [Thore] 1860.
I I. See e.g. Kenneth Silver, Esprit de Corps: The Art of the Parisian Avant-Garde and
the First World War, I9I4-I925 (Princeton, 1989); Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the
'90S: The Series Paintings (New Haven and London, 1989); Nancy Troy, Modernism and
the Decorative Arts in France: Art Nouveau to Le Corbusier (New Haven and London,
1991); James D. Herbert, Fauve Painting: The Making of Cultural Politics (New Haven
and London, 1992); and Mark Antliff, Inventing Bergson: Cultural Politics and the Pari-
sian Avant-Garde (Princeton, 1993).
12. See Francis Haskell, Rediscoveries in Art: Some Aspects of Taste, Fashion and Col-
lecting in England and France (Ithaca, N.Y., 1976), pp. II2-I6, where he takes a
common-sense approach to the question of Frenchness, rapping Champfleury and Thore
on the knuckles tor some ot their claims (p. II6) and deploring the extent to which a
concern with nationality led to a "distortion in our appreciation and understanding ot
French art that has remained with us to this day" (p. II7); and pp. 146-51, on Thore,
"the archetypal hero of this book" (p. 146). For more on Thore see Frances S. Jowell,
"Thore-Burger and the Revival of Frans Hals," Art Bulletin 56 (Mar. 1974): 101-17;
idem, Thore-Burger and the Art of the Past, Outstanding Dissertations in the Fine Arts
(New York and London, 1977); idem, "Politique et esthetique: du citoyen Thore a
William Burger," La Critique d'art en France, I850-I900, ed.Jean-Paul Bouillon (Saint-
Etienne, 1989), pp. 25-41; and idem, "The Rediscovery of Frans Hals," in Frans Hals,
exhib. cat. (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery ot Art, Oct. I-Dec. 3 1,1989; London:
Royal Academy of Arts, Jan. I3-Apr. 8, 1989; Haarlem: Frans Halsmuseum, May
II-July 22,1989), pp. 61-86.
51 0 Notes to Pages 14I-42
13. One work, the Portrait ofZacharie Astruc (1866; fig. 8 I), is perhaps an exception
to this generalization; see the brief discussion of that painting in this chapter.
14. W. Burger [Thort~], "Sur Metsu," L'Artiste, Oct. 10, 1858, 88. (Ne v~us se~ble
t-il pas que l'Europe aujourd'hui est en quhe d'un art nouveau, plu: comprehensIf ~ue
toutes les ecoles precedentes? Et n'est-ce pas la connalssance du passe qUi peut alder a la
preparation de l'avenir?)
15. Albert Boime, Thomas Couture and the Eclectic Vision (New Haven and London,
1980), p. 160 and passim. ,
16. Pierre Vaisse, Introduction generale, in L'Enr6lement des volontatres de 1792:
Thomas Couture (1815-1879): Les artistes au service de la patrie en danger, exhib. cat.
(Beauvais: Musee departemental de l'Oise, Oct. 5-Dec. 3 1,1989), pp. 13-29.
17. A fuller appreciation of the relations between the Manets and the MlChelets be-
came possible only with the publication of volumes 3 and 4 of Michelet's Journal in 1976.
There one discovers a pattern of reciprocal visits, beginning in 1867 and perhaps pro-
moted by the two wives but in any case testifying to mutual respect. By O~tober 1868 the
friendship was far enough advanced for the Manets to have offered the Mlchelets an etch-
ing; it's not clear whether the gift was accepted but in any case Michelet wrote ~hat he
feared ridicule, remembering the controversy over Olympia and her cat (Jules Mlchelet,
Journal, 4 vols., ed. Paul Viallaneix and Claude Digeon [Par,is, 19?9-76], 4:69). Inter-
estingly, Edmond Bazire in 1884 remarked that a~ong the IllustrIOUS figures who had
befriended and encouraged Manet was Michelet (Edouard Manet [Pans, 1884], p. 142).
Michelet's Journal records his encounters with the young Couture in volume I.
One further, tiny point. In her dissertation on Thore, Frances Jowell notes that there
are only a handful of references to Michelet in Thore's writing~ and that the lat~er ::as a
lifelong friend of another historian, Michelet's rival, HenrI Martlll (~ho~e-Bur!5.er,
pp. 140-42, and 353, n. 62). Having now read Martin, however, I persist III findlllg
Thore's thought closer to Michelet's than to his; the paucity of expliCit references to
Michelet-surprising in view of the dedication of early "Salon~" to Be~anger a,nd ?eorge
Sand-is perhaps to be explained precisely by a desire not to Cite the nval of hiS fnend.
18. See in this connection the important article by Philip Nord, "Manet and RadICal
Politics," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 19 (winter 1989): 447-80. Also, in a ~ecent
article Carol Armstrong refers to "Manet's Sources" approvingly but proceeds, without
producing new evidence, to characterize Manet's quotations o~ earli,er, art as "eclectic,'~ a
designation my essay explicitly rejected. "I would only differ with thiS Importa~t materIal
[she writes apropos my discussion of the Old Musician and my groundlllg of hiS ?orrow-
ings in a recuperation of the French past] in its opposition between the French and Ill~erna
tional sources-Manet seems, instead, to have seen internationalism as definitive of
Frenchness" ("Manet/Manette: Encoloring the Eye," Stanford Humanities Review 5
(1992): 43, n. 20). She goes on to cite Victor Cousin's philosophy of eclecticism :,nd ':the
18 50S theorizing (by Thiers et al.) of eclectiCism as the national genIUs of France (Ibid.).
But what reason is there to associate Cousin and Thiers with Manet in the first place?
Moreover, how is an "eclectic" attitude compatible with the vision of Frenchness that
emerges precisely in the Old Musician? And is it accurate to say that my account opposes
French and international sources?
For a study of Michelet's treatment of art in his historical writings see Francis Haskell,
History and Its Images: Art and Interpretation of the Past (New Haven and London,
1993), pp. 253-77·
19. Chap. I, nn. 26 and, esp., 97.
20. See Fried 1980, pp. 71-105; and Fried 1990, pp. 234-38.
Notes to Pages I4 2 -44 SIr
, 2I. See Steven Z. Levine, Monet and His Critics, Outstanding Dissertations in the
Fille Arts ,(New York and London, 1976); and Martha Ward, Pissarro, Neo-
ImpresslOmsm~ and the Spaces of the Avant-Garde (Chicago and London, 1995).
22. Zachar~e Astruc, Les Dleux en voyage (Paris, 1889), p. 144. ("Nous ne sortons
pa~ de la ,Renaissance; nous n'avons cesse de marcher dans les bottes italiennes. II suffit
qu ~n pUisse nous comparer a quelque Italien de chic pour faire notre fortune et chacun
b,adl~eonne sa nymp?e ou sa petite deposition de croix. J'aime beaucoup Veronese-mais
c est a travers Chardill. ")
2 3· Within a year this changed; see Fried I 970 for an early statement of Diderot's im-
portance. Of course, the issue of theatricality had been central to my art criticism for som
time (see my "Art and Objecthood," Artforum 5 [June 1967]: 12- 2 3); and a few year:
before that I took ~ first, crude stab at characterizing the "alienating" and "estranging"
character of Manet s pallltlllgs of the I 860s III Three American Painters: Kenneth Noland
Jules Olitsk/~ Frank Stella (see introduction, n. 62). '
24· See Harold Bloom, The AnXiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New York,
197~); Idem, A Map ofMlsreadmg (New York, 1975); idem, Poetry and Repression: Revi-
slomsm from Blake to Stevens (New Haven and London, 1976); and idem, The Breaking
of the Vessels, The Wellek Library Lectures at the University of California, Irvine (Chicago
and London, 19 82 ). Bloom's Anxiety of Influence was preceded by W. Jackson Bate The
Burden of th,e Past and the English Poet (1970; rpt. New York, 197 2 ). For attem~ts to
apply Bloom s Ideas to the history of painting see Norman Bryson, Tradition and Desire:
From DaVid to Delacroix (Cambridge, 1984); Marc Gotlieb, "From Genre to Decora-
tIOn: Studies In the Theory and Criticism of French Salon Painting" (Ph D d' J h
H k' " . . ISS., 0 ns
oP, InS Umverslty, 1991); and idem, Meissonier at the Pantheon (Princeton, forth-
comIng).
25: See for example R. Wittkower, "Imitation, Eclecticism, and Genius," in Aspects of
the Eighteenth Century, ed. Earl R. Wasserman (Baltimore, 19 6 5); Charles Dempsey,
Anmbale CarracCl and the Beginnings of Baroque Style (Kluckstadt, 1977); Terence Cave,
The Cornuco?ta~ Text:,!Jroblems ofWriting,!n the French Renaissance (Oxford, 1979),
esp. chap. 2, ImitatIOn ; C. W. Pigman III, VersIOns of Imitation in the Renaissance,"
Renatssance Quarterly 33 (spring 1980): 1-}2; Stephen Orgel, "The Renaissance Artist
as Plagiarist," ELl! 48 (fall 1981): 476-95; Jeffrey M. Muller, "Rubens's Theory and
PractICe of the Imitation of Art," Art Bulletin 64 (June 1982): 229-47; Thomas M.
Greene, The Light In Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry (New Haven
and London, 19 82 ); and David Quint, Origin and Originality in Renaissance Litera-
ture: Versions of the Source (New Haven and London, 19 8 3). See also various essays by
Richard Shiff, esp. "Mastercopy," Iris (Paris) I (Sept. 1983): II3- 2 7; "Representation
Copymg, and}he Tec?nique of Or~ginality," New Literary History 15 (winter 19 4);
6 8
3 3 1- 3; and The OngInal, the Imitation, the Copy, and the Spontaneous Classic," Yale
French Studies, no. 66 (1984): 27-54.
T~~s is an apt, place to cite Leo Steinberg's introductory essay, "The Glorious Com-
pany, m Jean Lipman and Richard Marshall, Art about Art, exhib. cat. (New York:
Whitney Muse,um of American Art, July 19-5ept. 24, 1978), pp. 8-3 I. Perhaps the most
valuable contnbutlon made by Steinberg's essay is its consideration of various names for
~,he phen~me~onin question (pp. 20-:-25). He concludes that no single term (certainly not
source, whICh ImplIes that the earlier work more or less simply generates the later one)
comes close to bemg adequate: "Is there, then, no satisfactory designation for this truck-
Ing out of and I,nto art? I doubt if there even should be, for we are not dealing with anyone
thIng. When Sir Joshua Reynolds discussed 'Imitation' in the sixth of his Discourses, he
Notes to Pages I44-45
tossed out, as his context kept changing, the following terms: Borrowing; Gathering; De-
predation; Appropriating; Assimilating; Submitting to Infection (or contagion); Being
impressed-as wax or molten metal is-by a die; Being fertilized like a soil; Being im-
pregnated. A single term that would comprehend such miscellanea as impregnation, con-
tracting infection, and depredation is hardly worth having. And the reality is bigger still.
The varieties of artistic trespass or repercussion (or whatever you call it) are inexhaustible
because there is as much unpredictable originality in quoting, imitating, transposing, and
echoing, as there is in inventing. The ways in which artists relate their works to their
antecedents-and their reasons for doing so-are as open to innovation as art itself, and
so much for that" (p. 25).
26. Michel Foucault, "Fantasia of the Library," in Language, Counter-Memory, Prac-
tice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. Donald F. Bouchard, trans. Donald F. Bouchard
and Sherry Simon (Ithaca, N.Y., 1977), pp. 91-93. Foucault writes: "Dejeuner sur l'herbe
and Olympia were perhaps the first 'museum' paintings, the first paintings in European
art that were less a response to the achievement of Giorgione, Raphael, and VeLisquez
than an acknowledgment (supported by this singular and obvious connection, using this
legible reference to cloak its operation) of the new and substantial relationship of painting
to itself, as a manifestation of the existence of museums and the particular reality and
interdependence that paintings acquire in museums. In the same period, [Flaubert's]
Temptation [of Saint Anthony] was the first literary work to comprehend the greenish
institutions where books are accumulated and where the slow and incontrovertible vege-
tation of learning quietly proliferates. Flaubert is to the library what Manet is to the mu-
seum" (p. 92). Foucault's essay originally appeared in 1967.
27. In Les Freres Le Nain, exhib. cat. (Paris: Grand Palais, Oct. 3, 1978-Jan. 8, 1979),
Jacques Thuillier and Michel Laclotte argue that sufficient evidence does not exist to allow
scholars to attribute specific works to one or another of the three brothers Louis, Antoine,
and Mathieu (pp. 75-87).
28. Reff 1969, p. 42.
29. Chap. I, n. 88.
30. Burger [Thon:J 1860 (1):263. Two recent discussions of Manet's Portrait of the
Artist's Parents should be mentioned. First, Nancy Locke has established that in Decem-
ber 1857 Manet's father was stricken with a paralysis, almost certainly the result of ter-
tiary syphilis-the same condition that ultimately led to the painter's death ("New
Documentary Information on Manet's 'Portrait of the Artist's Parents,' " Burlington Mag-
azine 133 [April 1991J: 249-52). As a result Auguste Manet was left unable to function
mentally, or at least unable to speak, and his death in September 1862 was a natural se-
quel to his collapse. Locke goes on to suggest that the averted gazes of both parents in
Manet's canvas should be seen as a strategy for dealing pictorially with Auguste Manet's
condition, which effectively ruled out a more direct or frontal mode of presentation. If this
is so, Le Nain's Repas de paysans and related works would have provided a useful model.
Second, Richard Wollheim has found in the Portrait of the Artist's Parents the key work
for understanding what he describes as "the great sequence of suspended encounters" in
Manet's art (Painting as an Art, The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, 1984 [Prince-
ton, 1987], p. 155). Wollheim's remarks on the Portrait of the Artist's Parents are part of a
longer analysis of what he takes to be an implied spectator in Manet's paintings (see his
chap. 3, "The Spectator in the Picture: Friedrich, Manet, Hals"). I shall comment briefly
on Wollheim's reading of Manet in chapter 4, but for the moment I will simply say that his
tendency to attribute definite if unspecifiable psychological states to the personages in
Manet's pictures seems to me largely mistaken, and that in general I believe his attempt to
distinguish between external and internal spectators of paintings cannot be sustained (see
IbId., pp. 3 64- 6 5, n. 34, where he considers that "the conflation of the external and the
external spectator" mars my analyses of the structure of beholding in Absorption and
Theatncallty and several essays on Courbet I published on the way to Courbet's Realism).
More recently he has rethought the issue and has concluded that the fact that "Fried's
conceptualization makes do with one less spectator" no longer presents a difficulty for his
vIew ("Who's Looking at the Pai~ting," unpublished paper). However, there remain sig-
nIficant dIfferences between us WIth respect to the larger question of the status of the be-
holder. See the further discussion of Wollheim's views in chap. 4, fn. at end of sect. 4.
31. Reff 1969, pp. 41-42.
3 2 . Beatrice Farwell, "Manet's 'Espada' and Marcantonio," Metropolitan Museum
Journal 2 (1969): 197-207.
33· CL Steinberg's analyses of similar multiple recyclings in "Glorious Company."
34· WIlson-Bareau 1986, pp. 27-36.
. 35· "It may seem fanciful to suggest that these paintings owed so much to the engrav-
Ings In the Crozat recuerl, but the relevance of the reversed images in the engravings ap-
pears to support the vIew that they may have been almost as important to Manet as his
study ofthe darkened paintings themselves in the Louvre" (ibid., p. 37). On the creation of
the Rec~erl Crozat see Francis Haskell, The Painful Birth of the Art Book, Walter Neurath
Memonal Lecture 1987 (New York, 19 87).
3 6 . The preface observes that whereas Flemish reproductive engravers were limited by
theIr traInmg and could faIthfully render only the works of Flemish masters, and the fiery
ItalIans lacked the phlegm that was required by engraving as a medium the French
"whose genius has in it something of the Flemish and something of the I~alian,,, hav~
p;oved more ~Pt ~han eIther of the others to cultivate all the aspects of engraving (Receuil
d estampes d apres les plus beaux tableaux et d'apres les plus beaux desseins qui sont en
France,3 vols. [Pans, 17 29 and I742J, I :iii-iv) (dont Ie genie tient quelque chose de celuy
des Flamands, & quelque chose de celuy des Italiens).
37· See Charles Sterling, "Manet et Rubens," L'Amour de l'art 13 (Sept.-Oct. 193 2 );
29 0 , where the SurprIsed Nymph IS associated with an engraving by Vosterman. Reff
however; suggests that a more,available image would have been the one in the chapter o~
Rube~s ,m the :olumes on the Ecole flamande in Blanc's Histoire des peintres ("Manet and
Blanc s HlstOlre des pemtres,''' p. 457). That chapter also includes engravings after the
Landscape with Rainbow and Castle Garden, sources of Manet's La peche.
38. See Bazin, "Manet et la tradition," p. 157.
39· According t~ Thore,.whose enthusiasm rises from the page, Fragonard was one of
the st~rs of the Martmet exhIbItIon (Burger [ThoreJ 1860 (II): 346-49; (III): 235-3 6 ); he
doesn t refer speCIfically to the Billet doux.
On the basis of a comparison with the Old Musician, I also argue in chapter I that the
Surp.nsed Nymph doesn't face us so much as turn its side to us (so to speak). However, my
readIng attnbutes SIgnIficance to the nymph's being alone in the painting. But Beatrice
Farwell has shown that the satyr originally present in the foliage just behind the nymph
must have been painted out only after Manet's death ("Manet's 'Nymphe Surprise,''' Bur-
lmgton Magazme II7 [Apr. I975J: 225- 29).
40. See especially her discussion of the Dejeuner and Olympia, pp. 37-47.
41. See chap. I, n. 70.
42. The status of Raimondi's engraving as representative of Raphael's oeuvre is dis-
cusse.d b; Hubert Damisch, Le Jugement de Paris (Paris, 1992), pp. 65-7 6 . See also
Damlsch s remarks on the Dejeuner, pp. 53-64, 173-79.
43. Autonin Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," Le Studio 21 (Jan. 15, 1901): 73;
see appendix 1. The Giorgione connection was first remarked by Astruc in 1863 (chap. I,
n. 68). Wilson-Bareau points out that an engraving after the Concert champetre was pub-
lished in the Recueil Crozat (1986, p. 37).
44. I make the connection in chapter 1. See also Reff, "Courbet and Manet," Arts
Magazine 54 (Mar. 1980): 100; Farwell 1981, pp. 248-250; and Manet 1983, pp. 168-
69·
45. At one point Manet called it La Partie carree (Party of Four), a traditional title for
fetes champetres (Manet 1983, p. 170).
46. On the dating of L'Amour paisible and other factual matters see Margaret Morgan
Grasselli and Pierre Rosenberg (with the assistance of Nicole Parmantier), Watteau 1684-
1721, exhib. cat. (Washington, D.G.: National Gallery of Art, June 17-Sept. 23, 1984;
Paris: Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Oct. 23, 1984-Jan. 28, 1985; Berlin: Schloss
Charlottenburg, Feb. 22-May 26, 1985), pp. 422-25, cat. no. 66.
47. See Leon Lagrange, "Les Cabinets d' amateurs aParis-La Galerie de M. Ie duc de
Morny," GBA, 1st ser., 14 (May 19, 1863): 391. A photograph of what the authors be-
lieve may be the Morny copy is reproduced in Watteau, p. 423, fig. 2.
48. Farwell emphasizes what she sees as the particular closeness of the Champs-
Elysees to the Dejeuner (Farwell 1981, pp. 245-46). ,
49. Indeed Thore in 1847 singled out the Champs-Elysees as one of "the most French
and the most individual" paintings in Watteau's oeuvre, adding that "one doesn't sense in
it any preoccupation with other schools," with the exception of the Flemish school in the
person of Rubens ("Galerie de M.le comte de Morny," L'Artiste, July 25,1847,53; cited
by Jowell, Thore- Burger and the Art of the Past, pp. 352- 5 3, n. 57). (Cette peinture est
une des plus fran<;:aises et des plus individuelles que Watteau ait jamais faites; on n'y sent
aucune preoccupation des autres ecoles, et elle ne rappelle aucun maitre, si ce n'est peut-
etre Rubens, dans la qualite fleurie des tons de la chair.)
50. In his critique of "Manet's Sources" Reff dismisses my suggestion that the wading
bather in the Dejeuner is ultimately derived from Watteau's La Villageoise (fig. 34), argu-
ing instead that it is based on the stooping figure of St. John from Raphael's tapestry car-
toon, The Miraculous Draft of Fishes (Reff 1969, p. 46). Here too, however, the
plausibility of the latter connection in no way implies that Manet's bather was not also
based on Watteau's figure-indeed the superimposition of Raphael and Watteau sources
would have matched the similar superimposition in the principal group. (On the other
hand, the Manet drawing I associate with La Villageoise doubtless was made in the
18 50S, not in the course of composing the Dejeuner.)
51. See Clark 1985, p. 94. The authors of those commentaries are Amedee Cantaloube,
"Salon de 1865," Le GrandJournal, May 21, 1865, and the pseudonymous Pierrot, "Une
Premiere Vi site au Salon," Les Tablettes de Pierrot-Histoire de la semaine, May 14,
1865. As Clark says, "[they] are surely one and the same writer" (p. 288, n. 60).
52. On the affinity between Olympia and the Large Odalisque see Theodore Reff,
Manet: Olympia, Art in Context (London, 1976), pp. 75-76. As for Manet's ar:itude
toward Ingres, Antonin Proust in "L'Art d'Edouard Manet" says that Manet conSidered
Ingres the "master of Masters" (maitre des Maitres) in the nineteenth century and, ap-
ropos Olympia, observes that both painters shared a preoccupation with "seeking in the
contours of [their] figures an irreproachable purity of line" (Reff, Manet: Olympia, p. 76;
see also chap. I, n. 148). (This is said in connection with Manet's passion for the French
tradition.) On the other hand, Proust doesn't actually claim that Manet admired Ingres in
1863, and there is the contrary testimony of a letter from Fantin-Latour to Whistler writ-
ten shortly after the opening of Salon des Refuses (probably in May 186 3) in which
he reports that Manet and Baudelaire have been heard to say "that Monsieur Ingres
isn't a painter" (que Monsieur Ingres n'est pas un peintre!) (Glasgow University Library,
letter F9).
Not directly relevant to the question of Manet's attitude toward Ingres in 186 3 but
interesting nonetheless is the report in Le Courrier artistique (of Oct. 15, 1861) that
Ingres had visited the current exhibition (which included Manet's Guitarrero) and had
greatly admired works that seemed almost incompatible with his artistic personality (1St
yr., no., 9, p. 34)· The notice goes on to quote Ingres as saying, "The present-day young
school IS very strong, monsieur; it includes great talent, and no nation in the world would
dare to compete with us." ("La jeune ecole actuelle est bien forte, Monsieur; il y a chez elle
un grand talent, et aucune nation du monde n'oserait lutter avec nous.")
5 3· Reff, Manet: Olympia, p. 76.
54· Le Courrier artistique, 2d yr., no. 20 (Apr. I, 1863). (Marat assassine dans son
bain atteint aux dernieres Ii mites de l'effet dans Ie simple. C'est du realisme dans toute
l'acceptation du mot, mais c'est du realisme double d'un sentiment grandiose.)
55· The contents of the new museum comprised works from the Campana collection,
assembled in Rome by Giovanni Pietro Campana in the I 840S and 18 5os. For a narrative
of the formation of the collection and its later vicissitudes see Helen and Albert Borowitz
Pawnshop and Palaces: The Fall and Rise of the Campana Art Museum (Washington:
D.G., and London, 1991), esp. chaps. 8-11.
56. Musee du Louvre, M.l. 546. See Catalogue sommaire illustre des peintures du
Musee du Louvre, vol. 2, Italie, Espagne, Allemagne, Grande-Bretagne et divers. Supple-
ment au catalogue des tableaux flamands et hollandais, coordination by Arnauld Brejon
de Lavargnee and Dominique Thiebault (Paris, 1981), p. 157. Both Berenson and Van
Marie assign the panel to Jacopo del Sellaio. See Bernard Berenson, Italian Pictures of the
Renaissance: Florentine School, 2 vols. (London, 1963), I: 199; and Raimond Van Marie,
The Development of the Italian Schools of Painting, 19 vols. (The Hague, 193 I), 12:4°7-8.
57· Wilson-Bareau 1986, p. 44.
58. Astruc, "Le Musee Napoleon III," Le Pays, June 26, 1862. (Le morceau capital
est s~, venus, admirable chef-d'oeuvre con<;:u dans une disposition d'un bizarre presque
mqUietant.)
59· Ibid. (Quel amante t'a trahie, Venus? ... L'amoureuse fille regarde devant elle
avec la prunelle calme du sphinx; sa bouche est immobile, une amere douleur blemit ses
joues; mais son front garde l'immuable serenite des forces; statue froide, impassible. Rien
ne bat dans cette jeune poitrine qU'emprisonne une robe de gaz recouverte d'une etoffe
pourpre serree sur les jambes.)
60. Ibid. (Dans Ie fond, pour horizon a ce beau sphinx, qui me donne a dechiffrer mes
propres angoisses, coule un fleuve, Ie fleuve de l'oubli, sans doute, baignant de ses eaux
troubles des temples, des palais, de frakhes rives, ber<;:ant des navires OU semblent embar-
ques les plaisirs voyageurs de Watteau.) He goes on to say that the landscape is a marvel
laid out like a beautiful Poussin, solid as the best Venetians, true as the Flemish, and with ~
grandeur of tone that outdoes all other painters, even Lorenzo Costa: again, it's the cast of
mind, the automatic appeal to interschool comparisons, that I mean to stress. (Le paysage
est une merveille, dispose pour Ie style comme un beau Poussin, soli de comme les
meilleurs Venitiens, vrai comme les Flamands, dans une grandeur de ton qui ne redoute
aucune rivalite, pas me me celie de Lorenzo Costa, ce sublime paysagiste qui a su meler
splendidement la nature a son action.)
61. Ibid. (La jeune femme glace Ie regard; elle epouvante, e1le torture et charme; ses
Notes to Pages I5 6 -57
yeux penetrants, fixes sur vous, eclaires d'un rayon glacial et mAagnifiq~e, sont ~ffreu,se
ment cruels. Voila bien Venus telle que la revent les poetes: tantot vampire, tantot syrene
-belle, implacable et lasse sans abattement,-c'es~-a-dire touj~~rs m;:titresse e,t tyran!)
62. The same term is used of the Venus by Henn Delaborde, Musee Napoleon III-
Collection Campana-Les Tableaux," GBA, 1st ser., 13 (Dec. 1,.1862): 501. A ~me e~
graving of the Venus accompanies Delaborde's article, further testimony to the pamtmg s
allure.
63. Proust, "L'Art d'Edouard Manet," P.72; for French text see aPl?endix I.
64. Astruc, "Tresors d'art de Paris: Exposition retrosp~cti.ve," L'Etendard, July 13,
1866. (Botticelli ... est une des passions du grand groupe reallste moderne.) .
65. Astruc, "Le Musee Napoleon III," Le Pays, June 2, 1862, emphaSIS ad?ed.
(Toutes les ecoles modernes se retrouvent en germe-que dis je! affirmees dans les vleux
maitres.) The context leaves no doubt that Astruc is referring here not to the Old Masters
in general but to the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century painters he and his contemporanes
called the "primitives." .
66. The literature on the development and significance of the modern art museum IS
large and growing. A sample of recent studies: Carol Duncan and Ala~ Wallach, :?he
Universal Survey Museum," Art History 3 (Dec. 1980): 448-69; FrancIs Haskell, The
Artist and the Museum," New York Review of Books 34 (Dec. 3, 19 87): 3 8-4 2 ; Douglas
Crimp, "The End of Art and the Origin of the Museum," Art Journal 46 (wm~er 19 8 7):
261-66; Daniel J. Sherman, Worthy Monuments: The Polt~:cs of C.ulture m ~1~eteenth
Century France (Cambridge, Mass., 1989); Yve-Alam BOIS, /ExpOSItlon: :sthetlque de la
distraction, espace de demonstration," Les Cahiers du Musee natIOnal dart moderne 2.9
(autumn 19 8 9): 57-79; Philip Fisher, Making and Effaci,ng Art: Mode~n ~mertcanAr: m
a Culture of Museums (New York, 1991); Jean-LoUIs Deotte, Le Musee, I ortgm~ de I es-
thitique (Paris, 1993); and Andrew L. McClellan, Inventing the Louvre: Art, Polmcs, and
the Origins of the Mode~n Museum in Eighteenth-Century PartS (~an?bndge, 1994)·
67. Jacques de Biez, Edouard Manet (Paris, 1884), p. 26 (les ~mmlt!fs, radleux de sou-
venirs, plein de promesses). This is said in the context of the ~1~lm that Manet and Ing~es
had the same vision of a return to nature by way of the pnmltlves (Ibid.); mdeed de Blez
calls Manet "a French primitive" (un primitif fran<;ais). .
68. Interestingly, though, Manet's friend Astruc didn't share the general enthu~lasm
for Gericault. "The Raft of the Medusa, by our Gericault, is only a large dramatic t~
bleau," he wrote in 1867, "not a great deed like Delacroix's Liberty at the Barricades, m
the Luxembourg, developed in the form of an epic allegory.... The Llbert~ scarcely
translates the physiognomy of the time. There is in it scarcely any of the m.eanmg of the
time; it adds nothing essential, it interprets nothing essential. What IS there IS a drama no
sooner seen than forgotten. By what means does it become great, then?--;-by the power of
art" ("Exposition Universelle-Les Beaux-Arts-Ecole anglaise," L'Etendard, May 3,
186 7). (Le Radeau de la Meduse, de notre Gericault, n'est. qu'un grand tablea~
dramatique,-point un grand fait comme la Barricade de DelacrOlx, au Luxembourg, de-
veloppee sous la forme d'une epique allegorie-comme Ie BOissyd'Anglas ou Ie MarqUIs
de Dreux-Breze devant Ie tiers-Etat. A peine Ie premier tradUlt-11 la physlOnomle du
temps. II n'en est point la signification; il n'y ajoute ou n'in~erprete rien d'esse~tiel. C'est
la du drame aussitot oublie que vu. Par quel cote se grandlt-ll donc?-par la pUls~anc~ de
l'art.) Astruc doesn't say that he finds the Raft theatrical but that seems to be the Implica-
tion of his remarks.
69. On the Saint-Eustache project see Jane Van Nimmen, "Tho~as Couture's Murals
in Saint-Eustache, Paris," in Thomas Couture: Paintings and Drawmgs m Amertcan Col-
Notes to Pages I58-60 517
lections, exhib. cat. (College Park, Md.: University of Maryland Art Gallery, Feb. 5-Mar.
15, 1970}, pp. 27-47; Boime, Thomas Couture, pp. 231-63; and the brief remarks in
Bruno Foucart, Le Renouveau de la peinture religieuse en France (I8oo-I866) (Paris,
1987), pp. 272-73. I first associated the Saint-Eustache murals with Manet's Angels at
the Tomb of Christ in Fried 1970, p. 45, n. 17.
70. According to Boime: "The project was painted on canvas which was later at-
tached in the maroufle technique to the wall: Couture completed the better part of the job
in his studio and retouched the work in situ. We know from his Entretiens that a scaffold-
ing was constructed for his activity in Saint-Eustache, and it is likely that he began the
detailed work there some time in 1854. He applied the finishing touches in May 1856 and
varnished the murals during the last week of September. The chapel was finally opened
to the public on 12 October 1856, and the eager crowd of visitors demonstrated that
Couture was one of the most exciting painters of the period" (Thomas Couture, p. 235).
71. In view of the case made in "Manet's Sources" for Couture's involvement with
Michelet's thought, as well as of my discussion there of Michelet's political reading of the
Raft, that Gericault's masterpiece presides over the Stella Maris raises the further question
of the political meaning of the Saint-Eustache project as a whole: specifically, does it carry
the subversive message that the collapse of the Second Republic and by implication the
establishment of the Second Empire amounted to the shipwreck of France? I suggest it
does in Fried 1970, pp. 36-40; Boime takes issue with this, arguing instead (very inter-
estingly) for a Michelet-infIuenced anticlerical content (Thomas Couture, pp. 247-61);
finally, Pierre Vaisse supports my reading (while modifying it in several respects) in his
general introduction to the catalogue for the Couture exhibition of 1989 (L'Enr6Iement
des volontaires de I792, p. 23). See also the discussion of Couture's relations with the
imperial regime in Pierre Vaisse, "Couture et Ie Second Empire," Revue de ['art (1977):
43- 68 .
72. See Bloom, A Map of Mis reading, pp. 84-1°5, esp. pp. 101-3.
73. See Manet 1983, pp. 202-3·
74. On Couture's technique see the excellent account in Albert Boime, The Acad-
emy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century (London and New York, 1971),
PP·7 1-75·
75. See Fried 1970, pp. 43-44, where I relate this to a struggle against theatricality.
76. In chapter I (n. 161) I publish the letter from Baudelaire to Chennevieres in which
the title of Manet's painting is given as Christ ressuscitant, assiste par les anges. For the
communication in which David described the subject of his painting as "Marat a son der-
nier soupir," see Daniel and Guy Wildenstein, Louis David, Recueil de documents com-
plementaires au catalogue complet de I'oeuvre de ['artiste (Paris, 1973), document 601
(cited by T. J. Clark, "Painting in the Year Two," Representations, no. 47 [summer
1994]: 13)·
Manet's most recent biographer, Eric Darragon, also takes that letter to mean that the
figure of Christ should be seen as reviving; as he points out, Theophile Gautier suggests
that this is the case, no doubt because he too had been informed by Baudelaire (Darragon
1989, pp. 96-97). (Thore as well says that Manet's Christ may be "in the process of resus-
citating, under the wings of the two angels who attend him" [Burger (Thore), Salons de W.
Burger, 1:99].) (Peut-etre est-it en train de ressusciter, sous les ailes des deux anges qui
I' assistent.) Darragon goes on to relate the Angels at the Tomb of Christ to Ernest Renan's
Vie de Jisus, published in June 1863, a book he believes "pouvait interesser un peintre
comme Manet pour des raisons beaucoup plus profondes que Ie simple gout de la provo-
cation. Car Ie livre de Renan s'acheve avec Ie mystere chretien par excellence, la resurrec-
51 8 Notes to Pages 160-6 I
tion, ou commence a proprement parler Ie domaine de la foi. 'Pouvoir divin de l'amour!

moments sacres ou la passion d'une hallucinee donne au monde un Dieu ressucite,' ecrit-il
en evoquant Ie role capital de Marie-Madeleine. Le realisme de Manet s'appliquait donc a
l'une des conclusions les plus scandaleuses du livre en dressant devant Ie public du Salon
une 'verite' par laquelle Ie temoignage de l'image, definie comme un acte de foi, prenait
par rapport aux textes et aux exegeses une dimension nouvelle" (pp. 97-98). (Darragon's
arguments are partly anticipated by Jane Mayo Roos, "Edouard Manet's Angels at the
Tomb of Christ: A Matter of Interpretation," Arts Magazine 58 [Apr. 1984]: 83-91.)
Darragon (p. 97) and Roos (p. 85) allude in passing to Manet's friend the Abbe
Augustin Hurel's L'Art religieux contemporain: Etude critique (Paris, 1868). Unfortu-
nately, Hurel doesn't analyze the Angels at the Tomb of Christ or the Christ Mocked. But
in the context of a discussion of the difficult relations between artists and the public he
mentions Manet's private exhibition of 1867 (p. 237 n.) and goes on to say of an unnamed
artist, almost certainly Manet: "What does this artist propose? What is his idea? What's
the tendency of his work? An antisocial or antireligious theory is doubtless concealed in
the depths of this talent. Let us hold off our support, or rather let us fear equally to grant it
and then refuse it; let's not recklessly create either a vogue or an antagonism that would
later be a blow to our self-esteem, a danger for our doctrines, and a disturbance for our
life. Anyway, let's be on our guard against either tendency. It's as if two adversaries were
trying to anticipate and surprise the other, as in an American gunfight (p. 238)." (Que se
propose cet artiste? quelle est sa pensee? a quoi tend son oeuvre? Une theorie antisociale
ou antireligieuse se cache sans doute au fond de ce talent. Differons notre suffrage, ou
plutot craignons egalement de l'accorder et de Ie refuser; ne creons pas imprudemment
une vogue ou une de£aveur qui seraient plus tard un echec pour notre amour-propre, un
danger pour nos doctrines et une inquietude pour notre vie. De la sorte, et de part et d'au-
tre, l'on s'observe. II semble deux adversaires cherchant a se prevenir et a se surprendre.
C'est comme un duel americain.)
For his part, Reff expressed skepticism both about the proposed Marat connection and
about my claim that Christ in Manet's canvas is resuscitating on the grounds that they
"depend primarily on verbal instead of visual evidence" (Reff 1969, p. 47).
77. Finally, I want to cite in this connection one other famous work by a recent French
master, Ingres's The Source (1856; fig. 195), exhibited at Martinet's in June 1861 (see Le
Courrier artistique, 1st yr., no. I, June 15, 1861, p. 2). My point is not that Ingres's
famous nude in any way undergirds the Angels at the Tomb of Christ. But we are free to
note the parallels between the absolute frontality of the standing girl and the seated
Christ, between the inexpressiveness of both figures' physiognomies, and between the
weight that is given in both pictures to the immediate foreground (the very bottom of the
picture field). It may be that nothing in Manet's art is more elusive than the question of his
relations with Ingres, and my introduction of The Source in this context is meant to ac-
knowledge that fact.
7 8 . Manet 1983,P. 304.
79. See Reff, "Manet's Portrait of Zola," Burlington Magazine I 17 (Jan. 1975): 35-
44; and Manet 1983, pp. 280-85.
80. Sharon Flescher, "Manet's 'Portrait of Zacharie Astruc': A Study of a Friendship
and New Light on a Problematic Painting," Arts Magazine 52 (June 1978): 100-101.
The references are carried respectively by the book of Japanese prints, the closed, seem-
ingly Spanish fan, and "the brilliantly colored peeled lemon, the glass, and the overall
still-life arrangement" (p. 100). Flescher doesn't relate this to "Manet's Sources."
81. See Manet 1983, p. 304.
519
Figure I9 5· Jean-Auguste-Dorninique Ingres, La Source, I 8 56.

82. See ibid., pp. 293-94. The topic of Manet's involvement with Dutch art is briefly
treated by Petra ten-Doesschate Chu, French Realism and the Dutch Masters: The Influ-
ence of Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting on the Development of French Painting be-
tween 1830 and 1870 (Utrecht, 1974), pp. 42-46.
83. I owe the latter suggestion to T. J. Clark. A similar ball lies in the lower right-hand
corner of the Music in the Tuileries. See also the engraving after Frans Hals's Portrait of
Willem van Heythuijsen reproduced in chap. I, n. 179 (fig. 194) as a possible (loose)
source for the figure of Guillemet.
84. Astruc, "L'Empire du Soleil Levant," L'Etendard, Feb. 27, 1867. For a discussion
of Astruc's japonisme see Flescher, Zacharie Astruc, pp. 328-4°4.
85. Astruc, "L'Empire du Soleil Levant." (On peut avancer ceci en toute assurance:
l'originalite fait defaut a notre art europeen. Nous nous coulons doucement dans quel-
ques moules acceptes, et c'est' tout. Nul ne pro cede par l'impression personnelle absolu-
ment independante. On veut a l'avance l'assentiment du public; et, prejugeant toujours de
sa maniere de voir, de son initiative, on Ie condamne a d' eternelles redites qui ne Ie portent
a eprouver ni absolu degout ni veritable plaisir,-mais qui lui font dire, sans autre emo-
tion: "Je connais cela; c'est bien." Rarement il echappe a son monotone sommeil d'esprit
par quelque secousse de genie,-fut-elle maladroite.)
86. Ibid. (C'est un art national. II traduit la vie feodale, seigneur ale, tres complexe de
ce peuple, et vient directement de la nature qu'it envisage sous toutes ses faces. En plus
d'un endroit, on dirait qu'il continue les Venitiens: les Carpaccio, les Bellin, les Lorenzo
Costa.)
87. Ibid. (L'art japonais, qui se prend corps a corps avec la nature, qui n'est point,
comme chez nous, prepare de longue main, affaire de transmission absolue, borne a des
genres, restreint a deux ou trois combinaisons, no us a surtout etonnes.
88. A third perspective is Chesneau's in his essay "De l'influence des expositions inter-
nationales sur l'avenir de ['art," where he expresses concern that increasing contact
among different national schools will lead to the loss of those qualities that made each
school distinctive (Les Nations rivales dans l'art [Paris, 1868], pp. 457-67). But he goes
on to suggest that the period of cosmopolitanism that has just begun will be merely transi-
tional, and expresses the hope that eventually great artists will exert a more profound in-
fluence on humanity for not being confined within particular traditions (pp. 464-65).
89. See Burger [Thore], "Salon de 1861," Salons de W. Burger, 1:84. In a second
"Salon" of that year Thore asserted unequivocally (p. 92): "To be a master is not to re-
semble anyone. Otherwise, one is only the student or follower of someone." (Etre maitre,
c'est ne ressembler a personne. Autrement, on n'est que l'eleve ou Ie sectateur de quelqu'un.)
Not surprisingly, on the various occasions when Astruc wrote in praise of Manet, he
mostly ignored the latter's use of earlier art, of which he must have been aware. At the
same time, Astruc recognized that without the guidance of earlier art contemporary
painting ran the risk of losing its essentially pictorial qualities. "Will we descend to the
level ofthe English makers of images," he wrote in 1868, "when we will have rejected all
influence of the past? .. What means are there for conciliating the fertile examples of the
great art [of the past] with the necessities of our modern minds?" ("Exposition
Universelle-Beaux-Arts-France," L'Etendard, Feb. 27, 1868). (Descendons-nous au
niveau des Anglais imagiers, quand no us aurons repousse toute influence du passe? ...
Quel moyen pour concilier les fertiles exemples du grand art avec les necessites de notre
esprit moderne?) Interestingly, Proust quotes Manet to the effect that he found museums
depressing, in part because they killed portraits (Proust 1897, p. 42); the special signifi-
cance of portraits for Manet and his generation will emerge in chapters 3 and 4.
90. Baudelaire, "Salon de 1846," Curiosites esthlftiques, pp. 97-200; key passages
on the need for a "criterion" and the importance of "memory" can be found on pp. 108,
II9, 147,14 8 -49,166, 168-69, and 18o. The first ofthose passages in particular under-
scores the paradox .of what I have referred to as "immediate" memorability: "The right
~ay to .know If a picture is melodious is to look at it from far enough away to make it
ImpOSSible ~o under~tand its subject or to distinguish its lines. If it is melodious, it already
has a meanmg, and It has already taken its place in your store of memories" (p. 108, em-
phaSIS added). (La bonne maniere de savoir si un tableau est melodieux est de Ie regarder
d'assez loin pour n'en comprendre ni Ie sujet ni les lignes. S'il est melodieux, il a deja un
sens, et il a deja pris sa place dans Ie repertoire des souvenirs.) I have also consulted
Baudelaire: 'Salon de 1846', ed. David Kelley (Oxford, 1975), which contains a useful
introduction and bibliography.
9~. See Fried 1984. See also Richard Shiff, "Remembering Impressions" (a response
to Fned 1984) and Michael Fried, "Forget It: A Response to Richard Shiff," Critical In-
quiry 12 (winter 1986): 439-48 and 449-52. In Fried 1984 I suggest that Baudelaire's
inability to theorize the relationship between new and older art (other than to insist that
th~ .first have nothing to do with the second) is analogous to his inability throughout his
cntIcal writing to distinguish in principle between legitimate and illegitimate uses of
poetry in painting (see pp. 518-19 and 535-36, n. 15).
92. Baudelaire, "Salon de 1846," p. 166, n. 1. ("La veritable memoire, consideree
sous un point de vue philosophique, ne consiste, je pense, que dans une imagination tres
~ive, facile,a emouvoir, ~t par consequent susceptible d'evoquer a l'appui de chaque sensa-
tIOn les scenes du passe, en les douant, comme par enchantement, de la vie et du carac-
tere propres a chacune d'elles.") The un annotated quotation is from E. T. A. Hoffmann
"De:nieres Aventures du chien Berganza," Contes fantastiques, trans. Henri Egmon~
(Pans, 183 6). F~r a general discussion of Baudelaire's interest in Hoffmann, see Rosemary
Lloyd, BaudelaIre et Hoffmann: Affinites et influences (Cambridge and New York, 1979).
93· Baudelaire, "Salon de 1845," Curiosites esthlftiques, pp. 16-19. Significantly, the
reader is directed to the discussion of Haussoullier's canvas by a footnote in the" Salon de
18 4 6 " (p. 101, n. I), which in effect annexes the Haussoullier passage to the later
"Salon."
94· "Salon de 18 45," pp. 18-19. (Oserons-nous, apres avoir si franchement deploye
nos sympathies (mais notre vilain devoir no us oblige a penser a tout), oserons-nous dire
que Ie nom be Jean Bellin et de quelques Venitiens des premiers temps nous a traverse la
memoire, apres notre douce contemplation? M. Haussoullier serait-it de ces hommes qui
en savent trop long sur leur art? C'est la un fleau bien dangereux, et qui comprime dans
leur naivete bien d'excellents mouvements.)
Earlier in his discussion of the Fountain of Youth (p. 16), Baudelaire reassured the artist
that his painting might be mocked, "but it would remain in the memory of anyone who
had eyes and feeling" (mais elle restera dans la memoire de quiconque a de l'oeil et du
sentiment).
9? Ibid., p. 18. (Cette peinture a, selon nous, une qualite tres importante, dans un
musee surtout-elle est tres voyante.-II n'y a pas moyen de ne pas la voir.)
9 6 . See Baudelaire's brief account of the failure of his previous attempts to enclose
himself in a system and judge art according to a single criterion in his "Exposition Univer-
selle de 18 55," Curiosites esthetiques, p. 215. To escape the embarrassment of having
constantly to adjust his system to take account of works that lay outside its terms but
whose vitality was unmistakable, "I became happy to feel; I returned to seek asylum in an
Impeccable naivete." (Pour echapper a l'horreur de ces apostasies philosophiques, je me
suis orgueilleusement resigne a la modestie: je me suis contente de sentir; je suis revenu

chercher un asile dans l'impeccable naivete.)
97. See Fried 1984, pp. 519-22.
98. Baudelaire, letter of May II, 1865, Correspondence, 2:496-97 (vous n'etes que
Ie premier dans la decrepitude de votre art). For the context in which this is said, see the
epigraphs.
99. It might be noted that Baudelaire in his last major text on painting, "The Painter of
Modern Life," again took up the theme of memory but did so in connection with an ac-
count of the creative process that effectively circumvents all relation to previous works of
art ("Le Peintre de la vie moderne," Curiosites esthitiques, pp. 453-502; see esp. the sec-
tion headed "L'Art mnemonique," pp. 469-72). Put another way, one reason for making
Constantin Guys the protagonist of that essay may have been that the Guys's eschewal of
the ordinary sorts of pictorial ambition meant that the art of the museums was irrelevant
to his practice. See also Fried 1984, p. 533.
100. For example, Castagnary wrote in 1863: "Genre painting, singularly enlarged,
leaves its former limits, attacks the universality of nature and life, threatens finally to alone
become all the painting of the future; and no philosopher, no prophet dreams of establish-
ing the legitimacy of that unexpected extension, nor of deducing the probable conse-
quences. Of all the elements that previously composed the art of painting, one part, that
which was said to be the noblest and was believed to be the most alive [i.e. history paint-
ing], has fallen from the trunk of the tree like a sapless branch; another part, which was
regarded as unimportant and ephemeral, brings forth unhoped-for shoots and covers it-
self with a dense snow of blossoms" (Jules-Antoine Castagnary, "Salon de 1863: Les
Nouvelles Tendances de l'art," Revue du monde colonial 8 [1863]: 504-5). (La peinture
de genre, singulierement grossie, sort de ses anciennes limites, s'attaque a l'universalite de
la Nature et de la Vie, menace enfin de devenir a elle seule toute la peinture de l'avenir; et
nul philosophe, nul prophete ne songe a etablir la legitimite de cette extension imprevue,
ni a en deduire les consequences probables. De toutes les choses en fin qui composaient
autrefois l'art du peintre, une part, celie qui composaient la plus noble et qu'on croyait la
plus vivace, s'est dessechee sur Ie tronc comme une branche oubliee de la seve; l'autre,
qu'on tenait pour miserable et qu'on jugeait ephemere, pousse des rameaux inesperes et
se couvre d'une neige epaississante de £leurs.)
Recent discussions of this and related developments include Nicholas Green, "Dealing
in Temperaments: Economic Transformation of the Artistic Field in France during the
Second Half of the Nineteenth Century," Art History 10 (March 1987), 59-78; Leila
Kinney, "Genre: A Social Contract?," Art Journal 46 (winter 1987): 267-77; Patricia
Mainardi, Art and Politics in the Second Empire: The Universal Expositions of 1855 and
1867 (New Haven and London, 1987); idem, End of the Salon; and Gotlieb, "From
Genre to Decoration" and Meissonier at the Pantheon.
101. See e.g. Ernest Chesneau, "Salon du 1864," Le Constitutionnel, May I, 1864:
"The confusion of genres increasing from year to year also makes increasingly difficult the
task of the writer who, studying the Salon, would like to present the results of that study in
a form as clear as possible and as literary as the public has the right to demand. He is no
longer able to compose his text on the Salon as a coherent work in which each section is
foreseen and has its determined place, even before the pen has written the first words. In
the past ... the critic posited three large divisions, History, Genre, and Landscape, under
which all the paintings securely grouped themselves. Today it isn't any longer the case: the
old frames are broken, the limits are effaced, the brush of the most experienced geogra-
pher in these matters hesitates and doesn't know any longer where to trace the colored
Notes to Page 169 523
lines that would circumscribe the principal provinces on the map of the Salon." (La confu-
sion des genres augmentant d'annee en annee rend aussi chaque annee plus difficile la
tache de l'ecrivain qui, etudiant Ie Salon, voudrait presenter les resultats de cette etude
sous une forme aussi claire que possible et aussi litteraire que Ie public a Ie droit de l'exi-
ger. II ne peut plus desormais composer son travail sur l'Exposition comme une oeuvre
d'ensemble ou toute partie est prevue, a sa place determinee, avant meme que la plume en
ait ecrit les premiers mots. Autrefois ... Ie critique posait trois grands divisions qui ven-
aient se range surement tous les tableaux so us la rubrique, Histoire, Genre et Paysage.
Aujourd'hui ce n'est plus cela: les vieux cadres sont rompus, les limites s'effacent, Ie pin-
ceau du geographe Ie plus experimente en ces matieres hesite et ne sait plus OU tracer les
lignes colorees qui encadreraient les principales provinces sur la carte de l'Exposition.)
Or in the words of Maxime Du Camp: "The divisions we draw are absolutely arbi-
trary, because all the kinds of painting are so mixed together, history painting is
descended so much toward genre painting, and genre painting has so much penetrated
landscape painting, that it is extremely difficult to make a normal and regular classifica-
tion" (Le Salon de 1861 [Paris, 1861], p. 81). (Les divisions que nous faisons sont absolu-
ment arbitraires, car toutes les especes de peintures se sont tellement melangees, la
peinture d'histoire est tellement descendue jusqu'a la peinture de genre, et la peinture de
genre a tellement penetre Ie paysage qu'il est fort difficile de faire une classification nor-
male et reguliere.)
102. Edmond About, "Salon de 1868," Revue des Deux Mondes,2d per., 75 (June I,
1868): 741. (Avec la perfection miraculeuse des procedes, la division du travail, cette loi
de l'industrie moderne, envahit peu a peu la peinture. Le temps n'est peut-etre loin OU tel
peintre de genre fera et refera toute sa vie une femme au coin du feu, et toujours la meme.)
103. Chesneau, "L'Art contemporain," L'Artiste, Apr. I, 1863, 148. (Les grands ar-
tistes n'ont point de specialite; la nature tout entiere et l'homme leur appartiennent.)
104. See e.g. Baudelaire, "Salon de 1846," Curiosites esthitiques, p. 121; and Paul de
Saint-Victor, "Le Genie de Eugene Delacroix," L'Artiste, Nov. I, 1864, 195. See also
Astruc, who wrote in 1868: "Velasquez, barely Spanish by his choice of subjects, shows
himself European by his style and ideas. He is a universal genius, one hard to localize, like
our Delacroix. His admirable gifts could have been exercised fully as well in Venice or
Paris as in Madrid" ("Exposition Universelle," L'Etendard, Mar. 1868). (Velasquez, a
peine Espagnol par Ie choix des sujets, se montre europeen par Ie style et les idees. C' est un
genie universel peu ou point localise comme un Delacroix chez nous. Ce sont d'admi-
rabies dons qui pouvaient aussi bien s'exercer a Venise, a Paris qu'a Madrid.) This state-
ment is part of a larger discussion of Spanish painting, which Astruc saw as the product of
something other than a school. That is, the great Spaniards seemed to him to possess a
universalizing vision of painting that transcended merely national considerations. "Velas-
quez," he wrote, "will be that cosmopolitan genius endowed with a knowledgeable eclec-
ticism which led him to choose the best art from everywhere and then apply it in an
essentially personal manner." (Velasquez sera ce genie cosmopolite doue d'un savant
eclectisme qui lui fait choisir partout Ie mieux pour une application rendue ensuite essen-
tiellement personnelle.) And in the same article he praised the Spaniards for their ener-
getic "multiplicity of vision, an eclecticism which extended from Italy to France, stopping
especially here" (les multiplicites de la vision, un eclectisme qui va de I'Italie a la France,
s'arretant plus specialement chez nous). Here as elsewhere in Astruc's criticism, we have
the sense that he is indirectly describing Manet's art, or at any rate that his understanding
of one or another historical crux has been mediated by his experience of his friend's paint-
ing. Another feature of Astruc's remarks is the way they exemplify what I take to have been
524 Notes to Pages I70-7I
an uncontrollable slippage between considerations of genre (the usual grounds for prais-
ing Delacroix's universality) and those of nationality (the grounds, more or less, of As-
truc's comparison of Delacroix to Velasquez).
105. The discussion that follows expands on observations first made in chap. I,
n.224·
106. Astruc, Le Salon intime: Exposition au boulevard des Italiens (Paris, 1860),
PP·99- 10 I.
Le paysage est un enfant giite de la critique qui ne cesse de crier au prodige. Quoi qu'on en ait
dit, il faut pourtant avoir Ie courage d'etablir que cette production speciale de notre temps n'etablit
qu'une maigre formule d'art. Science commode a la portee de tout esprit un peu organise, elle ne
merite qu'un regard distrait. Elle sert d'excuse a la paresse. Nous connaissons fort bien et sa portee
et ses complications. Pour s'dever a sa hauteur, il suffit d'un coup d'oeil juste et d'une ou deux
bonnes annees de travail. J'estime, tout d'abord, que I'on n'est point un peintre, me me avec un
talent solide de paysagiste, pas plus que l'on n'est un musicien pour quelques bluettes de piano. Le
paysage (que l'on me pardonne cette figure) est un instrument dans Ie grand orchestre des gammes
qui doivent tout embrasser indifferemment. La peinture ne se fragmente point-elle est une. Elle
voit tout, elle analyse tout; elle est I'expression de I'ensemble colore qui resume Ie monde; allant a
I'homme, a la maison qu'il habite, aux objets qui l'entourent-a la passion que Ie fait agir. Les
specialites n'aboutissent qu'a rapetisser l'art. Je suis fache de cette ten dance nouvelle qui porte tant
d'esprits a se refugier dans une voie rendue facile, et me me lucrative, desertant les bonnes bases de
l'enseignement qui devait leur assurer une autorite incontestable. De la, etroitesse de vues,
inferiorite d'ordonnance, et sans nul doute, a la longue, negation de force. Ce n'est point avec de
tels principes qu'une ecole importante se forme et qu'un grand exemple est donne, non-seulement a
I'avenir, mais aux contemporains .... Les categories doivent disparaitre, pour faire place au
resume. II est necessaire que Ie paysagiste s'efface devant Ie peintre. Alors seulement la nature sera
en progreso
107. For a recent restatement of that idea see Charles Rosen and Henri Zerner, Ro-
manticism and Realism: The Mythology of Nineteenth-Century Art (New York, 1984),
pp. 9-4 8,133-79.
108. Rosen and Zerner encapsulate that alleged development in a phrase. Of Geri-
cault's paintings of severed limbs they write, "with the abolition of subject, painting took
a first step toward abstraction" (ibid., p. 46). More recently, Robert L. Herbert has re-
marked of the various small-scale contemporary personages in Renoir's Pont des Arts
(1867): "These casually posed figures, standing and walking about, have supplanted Job
and his friends. Religion, history, and mythology, the mainstays of French painting until
1848, were simply done away with by the impressionists [among whom Herbert includes
Manet]. This casting out of history had been well launched by Courbet, Millet, and other
artists in the 18 50S, but the process was completed and urbanized, as it were, by the im-
pressionists. It was a drastic 'purification,' a wrenching of art into the present" (Impres-
sionism: Art, Leisure and Parisian Society [New Haven and London, 1988], p. 7). For a
different and stimulating account of nineteenth-century landscape painting in France, one
that attaches great importance to the example of Romantic music (Beethoven's in particu-
lar), see Kermit S. Champa, "The Rise of Landscape Painting in France," in Champa et aI.,
The Rise of Landscape Painting in France, exhib. cat. (Manchester, N.H.: The Currier
Gallery of Art, Jan. 29-Apr. 28, 1991; New York: IBM Gallery of Science and Art,
July 30-Sept. 28, 1991; Atlanta: High Museum of Art, Jan. 28-Mar. 29, 1992), pp. 23-
55·
109. See e.g. Burger [Thore], "Salon de 1864," Salons de W. Burger, 2:14-19, and
Zola, "Edouard Manet," Ecrits sur l'art, pp. 158-61.
Notes to Pages I7I-72 525
110. See Fried 1980,PP. 71-105.

III. Astruc, "Recit douloureux," Le Quart d'heure, vol. 4, no. I I (July 20, 1859):
195- 226 .
II2. "What Delacroix pursues with a kind of drunkenness is violent life, terrible
movement," Duranty wrote. "In all the beings which his brush creates, he imprints agita-
tion, tumult. If he paints a lone personage, there will still be tumult in the picture ....
Delacroix only knows, only loves, that tormented population, full of fever and action,
which dances drunkenly over the canvas, which twists, which reverses itself, which
runs, howls, climbs" ("Salon de 1859," Le Courrierde Paris, Apr. 19, 1859). (Mais ce que
poursuit M. Delacroix avec une sorte d'ivresse, c'est la vie violente, Ie mouvement terrible.
A tous les etres que cree son pinceau, il imprime I'agitation, Ie tumulte. S'il peint un seul
personnage, il y aura encore du tumulte dans la toile .... M. Delacroix ne conna!t,
n,aime, que cette population tourmentee, pleine de fievre et d'action, qui danse enviree sur
la toile, se tord, se renverse, court, hurle, grimpe.) In that article, too, Duranty criticized
the contemporary practice of landscape: "Landscape, as it is understood today, becomes
tiring, it embarrasses and impedes." (Le paysage, tel qu'on l'entend aujourd'hui, devient
fatigant, il accroche et gene.)
I 13. On Monet's figure paintings of the 18 60S see e.g. Kermit Swiler Champa, Studies
in Early Impressionism (New Haven and London, 1973), pp. 1-12, 22-32;Joel Isaacson,
Monet: 'Le Dijeuner sur l'herbe', Art in Context (London, 1972); and Herbert, Impres-
sionism, pp. 174-80.
114. See Anne Wagner, "Why Monet Gave Up Figure Painting," Art Bulletin 76 (Dec.
1994): 613-29. Wagner argues that "Monet gave up figure painting as the vehicle and
measure of his contribution to a modern painting not-or at least not simply-because he
'preferred' landscape, but because figure painting, as he conceived it, was an activity ulti-
mately emotionally intolerable to him; it was overdetermined from the start, since it in-
volved a difficult positioning of himself as subject in relation to the fiction of reality
represented with such studied urgency in his pictures" (p. 613). Among the subjective
factors Wagner posits is "on the one hand, [a] need to control the objects of his vision,
both people and landscape, and on the other, the necessity somehow to deflect or circum-
vent the threat involved in confrontation with the individual before him. In fact I would
argue that these patterns of control and avoidance [as evinced, for example, in his early
predilection for caricature], which track Monet's efforts to secure an imaginative distance
from his subject, structure his work with the figure. How else might we explain the repeti-
tive insistent morphology of the 1860s figures: men and women, whether alone or in
groups, shown in profile or three-quarter view or, very often, with their backs turned four-
square to the painter? Their gaze seldom meets the spectator's eyes, because it seldom met
the eyes of the artist." She stresses the extent to which, in her view, this was not a matter of
conscious intention: "it points to a pronounced lack of willingness to confront other egos,
other subjects, particularly as he painted; he did not mean to be looked at as he looked."
And although she acknowledges the possible influence of Courbet, in whose work figures
with their backs turned are often found, she claims "by contrast that Monet's characteris-
tic deployment of the figure in painting depends on deep-structured and psychically neces-
sary responses to the actual situation of painting-responses, that is, to the stresses of
confrontation between the painter and his object/subject. These psychological factors,
moreover, must be though of as keying the availability and relevance of what art history
sees as 'influences' -in this case, of Courbet, fashion prints, and even Vermeer's composi-
tional structures. It is in the psychological sense that we may most usefully call these
choices 'personal,' though the irony is that this 'personal' aspect motivates exactly those
strategies which keep his subjects at a certain distance from his gaze" (pp. 626-27). (She
adds: "This is an odd constraint for a figure painter to labor under, the fear of being
looked at while one paints" [po 627 J.) But of course I would relate this aspect of Monet's
figure paintings-as well as an almost opposite characteristic, their studied avoidance
of strongly absorptive effects-to my problematic of absorption and theatricality, which
is to say I would largely depsychologize the problem in favor of understanding those
paintings as a response to a particular historical situation that precisely concerned
the imagined relations of the represented figures, and by extension the paintings them-
selves, to painter and beholder. In terms of the argument I shall be developing, Monet
seems to have wanted to avoid the complementary alternatives of "strong" absorptive
closure and "blank" Manet-like facingness, and to have found it all but impossible to
devise a third alternative that would provide a comparable basis for ambitious figure
painting.
I I S. See in this connection Ward, Pissarro.
I I 6. Some of the complexity of this problem is suggested by Clark's statement that
"landscape, for Monet as for many other painters in the later nineteenth century, was the
one genre left. They seemed to believe-the belief was not often stated explicitly, but the
drift of practice is unmistakable-that nature possessed consistency now, in a way that
nothing else did. It had a presence and a unity which agreed profoundly (this was the cru-
cial point) with the act of painting. The flat unison of a picture like Monet's was like land-
scape, like the look of sky and water en plein air; and these were the things on which
painting could thrive. No other subject proved to match so well with the actual material of
oil and canvas; no other offered painting the right kind of resistance, the kind which had
the medium seem more real the harder it was pressed in the service of an illusion" (Clark
19 8 5, p. 182). The complexity arises when we consider that such a vision of the profound
affinity between the act of painting and landscape subject matter depended on (or at least
implied) a conception of painting as essentially the articulation of a flat surface-also as
the pursuit of "decorative" unity-both of which I have associated with the advent of
Impressionism. In other words, there was nothing inevitable about the affinity between
painting and landscape, as Clark recognizes when he goes on to say: "This was a powerful
belief and in some ways a merited one. The achievements of the previous generation, and
above all the work of Courbet and the Barbizon school, could be taken to confirm it;
though they also suggested-in Millet's art the suggestion was particularly strong-that
the genre of landscape would have to be rephrased and extended if it were to go on provid-
ing matter for major art" (ibid.). Still, "for Monet and his colleagues," Clark concludes,
"landscape was the guarantee of painting above all; it was the thing that justified their
insistence on manner and making, on the artisanal facts of the art. Perhaps that guarantee
would not hold, least of all in places like Argenteuil. But painting in a sense had nowhere
else to go" (p. 185). Within a generation, however, it would discover other possibilities.
II7. For example, Astruc wrote in 1863: "It's necessary to limit the taste for land-
scape and never cry that one is a masterpiece. It's an inferior genre; it's a special article in
that great code of art that encompasses many" (Le Salon, no. 14 [May 17, I863J). (II faut
limiter son gout pour Ie paysage et ne jamais crier au chef-d'oeuvre. C'est un genre infe-
rieur; c'est un article special dans ce grand code de l'art qui en comprend beaucoup.) And:
"Here is a great danger for talent: landscape-an absolutely inferior genre which makes
of the painter a kind of pianist always and uniquely concerned with the mechanism of his
instrument; landscape scarcely elevates taste, scarcely accentuates force-it strengthens
only the feelings-a small result" (ibid., no. IS [May 18, I863J). (lei un grand ecueil pour
Ie talent: Ie paysage-genre absolument inferieur qui fait du peintre une maniere de
pianiste toujours et uniquement occupe du mecanisme de son clavier; Ie paysage n'eleve

point Ie gout, n'accentue point les forces-il ne fortifie que Ie sentiment-petit resultat.)
II8. Astruc, "Salon de 1868," L'Etendard, June 27, 1868. (La Lise de M. Renoir
complete la trinite bizarre intronisee par la tres curieuse et puissamment expressive Olym-
pia, d'orageuse memoire.)
119. Astruc, "Salon de 1868," L'Etendard, Aug. 5, 1868. (Voici une nouvelle
heureuse et peu repandue assurement: Ie paysage se meurt, Ie paysage est mort. Le resultat
poursuivi depuis dix ans sera bient6t atteint. Certes, no us n'avons pas la pretention de
croire qu'une si brillante defaite est due it nos coups seulement; bien d'autres ont compris
que cette etude paresseuse n'apportait qu'une vitalite factice it notre ecole et ne lui ont
sans doute pas menage les critiques; mais enfin, nous fUmes seul d'abord it signaler ce mal,
en nous insurgeant contre une pretendue decouverte qui privait nos peintres des plus
grands resultats de leur art, pour les attacher seulement it des produits secondaires. La
jeunesse, cela est visible, se rallie it la figure. Elle a compris que son domaine embrasse
tout: l'homme, l'objet, la plante, la fleur, l'arbre;-la nature, dans son ensemble harmo-
nieux, tel est Ie vaste sujet propose au peintre.)
120. A year later Alfred Sensier, for decades the champion of Millet and Theodore
Rousseau and a lifelong advocate of absorptive painting, made the opposite case in land-
scape's favor. "The true painters were formerly the great landscapists," he wrote, "the
landscapists will one day be universal artists" ("Le Salon de 1869, Le Paysage et les pay-
sans," Revue internationale de l'art et de la curiosite, May IS, 1869, p. 405). (Les vrais
peintres etaient jadis de grands paysagistes, les paysagistes seront un jour des artistes uni-
versels.)
121. The paragraph that begins with this statement reads in its entirety:
The landscape school will dissolve in the universal school; we will have great artistic
personalities to oppose to those of older art,-like them passionate about ideas whose realization
will take place in nature and [like them] combining in a superior way expressions that form a
whole,-placing man within the frame of the fields or woods, or of streets or noble buiIdings,-by
the banks of rivers, on the ocean, in his active life or in dreams,-without making these alone
the subjects of poems-without reserving for the elements man dominates an exclusive place of
their own.
L't~cole de paysage se fondra dans I'ecole universelle; no us aurons de grands caracteres
artistiques a opposer aux anciens,-comme eux se passionnant pour les idees dont la realisation se
trouve dans la nature et combinant avec superiorite des expressions qui sont un tout;-mettant
l'homme dans Ie cadre ou des champs ou des bois, ou des rues ou des nobles architectures,-au
bord des fleuves, sur I'Ocean, dans sa vie d'activite ou de reve,-sans se faire un poeme
d'exception,-sans reserver aux elements qu'il do mine une place a part tout a fait exclusive.
Further on in the same article Astruc wrote: "Landscape painting-manifested by the
group and declared sovereign-disappears. There are some superior exceptions who still
support it; but before long it will dissolve in a wiser unity, in a more complete artistic
formula, and it will assume again the place that the Old Masters always meant it to have."
(Le paysage-manifeste par la groupe et proclame souverain-disparait. Ce sont des ex-
ceptions superieures qui Ie maintiennent encore; mais dans un temps donne il se fondra
dans une unite plus savante, dans une formule d'art plus complete, et reprendra la place
que lui ont toujours destinee les maitres.)
122. Cf. Clement Greenberg: "That its background falls away hurts Dejeuner sur
l'herbe-which would have profited by having its canvas cut down at the top and sides"
("Manet in Philadelphia," The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol. 4, Modernism with a
Vengeance, 1957-1969, ed. John O'Brian [Chicago and London, I993J, p. 243).
123. The bird in flight was first identified as a bullfinch by Wayne Andersen in his
article, "Manet and the Judgment of Paris," first published in Art News in February 1973,
and recently reprinted in My Self (Geneva, 1990), pp. 431-41. Andersen argues that the
bullfinch amounts to a symbolic transformation of the winged Victoria in the Judgment of
Paris (p. 437) and more broadly that the Dejeuner must be seen in relation to Raphael's
composition as a whole (and indeed to the story of the Judgment of Paris). My reading of
the bullfinch as evoking the dove of the Holy Ghost, hence religious painting as a genre,
responds not just to the iconographical connotations of the hovering bird in Manet's pic-
ture but also to the bird's excessiveness and outrageousness, the impossibility of inte-
grating it within any real-world narrative/descriptive scheme. It is the sign within the
Dejeuner of the uncanny and preposterous, the intervention of something "beyond" real-
ism as the latter was then understood.
124. I call attention to the combining of distinct genres in the Dejeuner in chap. I,
n. 224, and again in Fried 1984, p. 541, n. 43. In a chapter on the Dejeuner sur l'herbe in
her book, Naked Authority: The Body in Western Painting, 183°-19°8 (Cambridge,
1990), Marcia Pointon writes: "The boundaries between genres that had been so closely
policed by the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the Academy are here challenged in a work
which coterminously and symptomatically presents examples in all four genres: the nude
of history painting (courtesy of Marcantonio after Raphael), the contemporary portrait
(the painter's brother Gustav [sic] and the Dutch sculptor Ferdinand Leenhof [sic], and
Victorine Meurand [sic]), landscape, and still-life in the foreground. The structural rela-
tions between these separate components are secured by the variation in the handling of
paint in different parts of the canvas. Most notably the naked woman is painted with a
high degree of finish in contrast to the liquid approximation of the painting of the land-
scape background" (p. 126). (Actually it remains uncertain whether the male figure in
question was posed for by Gustave [not Gustav] or Eugene Manet [see Manet 1983,
p. 169].) For Pointon that combining of genres is analogous to the Dejeuner's structure of
oppositions among the four "individuals" it comprises, an analogy she relates in turn to
what she sees as the painting's simultaneous activation and subversion of an "allegorical"
pictorial mode (esp. pp. 125-26). None of this is very clear or particularly helpful.
125. Le Capitaine Pompilius [Carle Desnoyers], "Lettres particulieres sur Ie Salon,"
Le Petit Journal, no. 131 (June II, 1863), emphasis added. For the French text of the
portion of this article that concerns Manet see appendix 3.
126. The evidence for that identification involves bringing together several items from
different issues of Le Petit Journal. (I) In the May 14 issue one "Herald" wrote that Le
Capitaine Pompilius had been dispatched to cover the Salon but that being young and
French, therefore loving bushes and flowers, he had come across a horticultural exhibi-
tion. (2) The May 15 issue contains a review of the exhibition of the Societe d'horticulture
signed by Carle Desnoyers, which would seem to make him a prime candidate for being
Pompilius. (3) The original article by Herald begins as follows: "Le capitaine Pompilius
est un brave et franc volontaire, servant par vocation, ou, comme Ie comte Ory, pour
plaire aux dames et pour se desennuyer, mais n'en etant que plus exact a ses devoirs et
fidele a sa consigne." The phrase "pour se desennuyer" is a pun on "Desnoyers."
For a brief biographical notice for Bieville (Charles-Henri-Etienne-Edmond Desnoy-
ers de), see Pierre Moreau and Mgr. Louis Pichard, Dictionnaire des lettres fran~ais, Ie
dix-neuvieme siecle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1971), I: 162.
127. See Fernand Desnoyers, Salon des Refuses: La Peinture en 1863 (Paris, 1863). In
fact a fourth piece of evidence for the identification of Pomp iii us is that his June I I "Lettre
sur Ie Salon" explains that he would have gone into greater detail about the Salon des
Refuses were it not that "the Refuses [i.e. the artists in question] have a special organ in an
original and humorous publication devoted to them by a writer as convinced and as con-
scientious as he is brilliant and original, in a word, by Fernand Desnoyers" (Ies Refuses
ont un organe special dans une publication originale et humoristique aeux consacree par
un ecrivain aussi convaincu, aussi consciencieux qu'il est spirituel et originel, en un mot
par M. Fernand Desnoyers).
128. Marilyn R. Brown, "Manet's Old Musician: Portrait of a Gypsy and Naturalist
Allegory," Studies in the History of Art 8 (1978): 77-87.
129. The consequences of Haussmannization are emphasized by Clark 1985, pp. 23-
78. On the transformation of Paris under Napoleon III see David H. Pinkney, Napoleon
III and the Rebuilding of Paris (Princeton, 1958); Howard Sa alman, Haussmann: Paris
Transformed (New York, 1971); and David Harvey, Consciousness and the Urban Expe-
rience: Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbanization (Baltimore, 1985),
pp.63- 220.
130. Reff 1982-83, p. 19; the phrase in quotation marks comes from Sandblad 1954,
p. 28. Many of the features of Reff's interpretation of the Old Musician are taken up un-
critically by Nigel Blake and Francis Frascina in Blake, Briony Fer, Frascina, Tamar Garb,
and Charles Harrison, Modernity and Modernism: French Painting in the Nineteenth
Century (New Haven and London, 1993), pp. 80-103.
131. Reff 1982-83, p. 174. For example, Reff simply asserts that the bearded man at
the far right "was posed by Guerouit, the 'old Jew with a white beard' mentioned in
Manet's notebook, who thus represents the popular figure of the Wandering Jew," and
suggests that one of the two boys "was perhaps posed for by Alexandre, a poor deranged
boy who served as Manet's assistant and occasional model." The Guerouit connection is a
leap of faith: we have only a name and a phrase in a notebook, on the strength of which
Adolphe Tabarant long ago proposed that he was the model for the old violinist himself
(Manet et ses oeuvres [Paris, 1947], pp. 46-47); with the discovery of the violinist's re-
semblance to Jean Lagrene, that connection was made invalid; but it hardly follows that
"Gueroult" posed for the bearded figure at the right or indeed for any figure in any paint-
ing Manet ever made. For the (to my mind far from certain) identification of the bearded
figure at the right as the Wandering Jew see Anne Coffin Hanson, "Popular Imagery and
the Work of Edouard Manet," in Ulrich Finke, ed., French 19th-Century Painting and
Liberature (Manchester, 1972), pp. 144-45; and George Mauner, Manet Peintre-
Philosophe: A Study of the Painter's Themes (University Park, Pa., and London, 1975),
pp. 74-77. As for the reference to Alexandre (the presumed original for the boy who
hangs himself in Baudelaire's prose poem La Corde), it too rests on shaky ground and
seems determined by an a priori thematics of marginality and victimage.
13 2 . ReffI982-83,P· 174.
133. Ibid.,p. 177.
134. Ibid., p. 176.
135. Ibid., pp. 178-79. See De Leiris, "Manet, Gueroult and Chrysippos," 401-4.
The illustration of the statue reproduced here (fig. 85) is not the same as that in Reff 1982-
83. A letter from Charlotte Hure of the Musee du Louvre explains: "'[L']histoire' de cette
oeuvre est complexe. La statue que Manet a vue et dont je vous joins un contretype d'une
photo ancienne (cliche E. Dontenvill-Paris) vers 1920, ne figure plus [dans la] salle des
Caryatides sous cette forme car la tete a ete reconnue etre un portrait d'Aristote. L'oeuvre
presentee sous Ie no. 92 dans Ie catalogue 'Manet and Modern Paris' est Ie produit d'une
reconstructon executee sur les indications de M. Charbonneaux vers 1940; la tete est un
pLhre, pris sur un marbre du British Museum, adapte d'une maniere hypothetique sur Ie
corps. Les recherches les plus recentes contredisent ce raccord. D'ou Ie retrait du pLitre en
1989 pour la presentation actuelle [as a headless figure]. Il n'existe donc pas de 'Chrysippe
intact' d'autant plus que les travaux de Lidiano Bacchielli publies en 1987 font de la statue
un portrait d'Aratos, poete et astronome vers 315-305 avo J.-c." My thanks to Mme
Hure for the above information and to M. Pasquier, conservateur general, for permission
to publish the Dontenvill-Paris photograph.
136. Reff 1982-83, p. 178.
137. Ibid., p. 174; the first two phrases in quotation marks are from Theodore Duret's
Manet, the third from Pinkney's Napoleon III and the Rebuilding of Paris. The Petite Po-
logne association goes back to Moreau-Nelaton in 1906 (see Tabarant, Manet et ses
oeuvres, p. 47; and Anne Coffin Hanson, "Manet's Subject Matter and a Source of Popu-
lar Imagery," Museum Studies, Art Institute of Chicago, 3 [1969]: 70-72).
1 3 8. This isn't quite fair. He was anticipated by Hanson, who describes the Old Musi-
cian as "a work of haunting impact" in Manet and the Modern Tradition, p. 61.
139. Reff 1982-83, pp. 188-89. Schlesinger's painting appeared in the Salon of
1861; a wood engraving after it appeared in Le Magasin pittoresque 29 (1861): 293. The
connection was first noted by Hanson, "Popular Imagery and the Work of Edouard
Manet," p. 146; see also idem, Manet and the Modern Tradition, p. 63.
140. It's worth noting that the concept of an "image" as contrasted with that of a
tableau or related terms was a definite pejorative for certain critics of the 1860s and
1870S. See Astruc's query, "Descendons-nous au niveau des Anglais imagiers ... ?" cited
in n. 89 above, as well as the superb paragraph by Eugene Fromentin in Les Maitres d' au-
trefois (1876; Brussels, 1991), p. 199, in which the author contrasts works by the Old
Masters with those by modern painters precisely in this regard.
141. Jean Clay, "Ointments, Makeup, Pollen," trans. John Shepley, October, no. 27
(winter 1983): 4-5. Originally published as "Onguents, fards, pollens," in Bonjour
Monsieur Manet, exhib. cat. (Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou, Musee national de l'art
moderne,June 8-0ct. 3, 1983),PP· 6-24.
142. This is not to deny that the Schlesinger obviates the need to imagine rotating
figures in the Le Nain paintings, a too-elaborate operation I propose in chap. I, n. 96. It is
also necessary to distinguish between Manet's quotations from key pictorial works from
the past and the resemblances that may be found, in the case of the Old Musician and
elsewhere, with popular imagery of various sorts. As Farwell remarks (without realizing
the full implications of what she is saying), "While Sandblad, [A. G.] Barskaya, and
Michael Fried as well as Hanson all have pointed to specific popular imagery as 'sources'
for Manet's work of 1862-3, in no case is there a convincing example of his deriving a
motif 'line-for-line' from such an image in the sense in which he derived the Nymphe Sur-
prise from Rubens, for instance" (Farwell 1981, p. 114).
143. As noted by Reff 1982-83, p. 178.
144. One more example might be useful. In "Manet's Sources" I associate Manet's
Gypsies (fig. 43) with an engraving after Rubens's Bacchus (fig. 45; actually I should have
chosen another engraving of it, from the Recueil Crozat). However, Hanson connects the
principal figure exclusively with an image called La Limosine from Les Franqais peints
par eux-memes (Manet and the Modern Tradition, p. 61). I'm persuaded that Manet used
the latter image in the Gitanos; but once again this doesn't displace the Rubens (note
especially the suggestive resemblance between the two drinking figures in the Rubens
and the boy lifting a jug to drink in the Gypsies), which remains the crucial Old Master
reference.
3. The Generation of 1863

1. On Legros see esp. Legros 1987-88. See also Alexander Seltzer, "Alphonse Legros:
The Development of an Archaic Visual Vocabulary in Nineteenth Century Art" (Ph.D.
diss., State University of New York at Binghamton, 1980); and idem, "Alphonse Legros:
Waiting for the Ax to Fall," Arts Magazine 62 (Jan. 1988): 40-45. A major source for
recent scholars is the unpublished manuscript by Noel Clement-Janin, "Alphonse Legros,
sa vie et son oeuvre," Bibliotheque Doucet: Papiers Clement-Janin, MS 470.
2. See Horace Lecoq de Boisbaudrin, L'Education de la memoire pittoresque et la for-
mation de l'artiste (Paris, 19 I 3). Plate IV in that book reproduces a drawing by the young
Legros after Holbein's Portrait of Erasmus in the Louvre. See also Felix Regamey, Horace
Lecoq de Boisbaudran et ses eleves (Paris, 1903); and Petra ten-Doesschate Chu, "Lecoq
de Boisbaudran and Memory Drawing: A Teaching Course between Idealism and Natu-
ralism," in The European Realist Tradition, ed. Gabriel P. Weisberg (Bloomington, Ind.,
1982), pp. 24 2- 89.
3. The present whereabouts of the Angelus is unknown. See Baudelaire, "Salon de
1859," Curiosites esthlitiques, pp. 331-34; "L'Eau-forte est a la mode," ibid., p. 406;
and "Peintres et aqua-fortistes," ibid., pp. 410-13. The set of engravings Legros pub-
lished in 1861 under the title Esquisses a l'eau-forte bore the dedication "a son ami
Baudelaire. "
4. On the Ex-Voto see Legros 1987-88, pp. 49-51, cat. no. 16. See also Astruc, Le
Salon, no. I I (May 14, 1863): 2-3, where he explains that originally the painting de-
picted a group of women kneeling before a coffin in a dark interior; Legros soon changed
his mind, but in a strong light (or a good color reproduction) the coffin can today be seen
showing through from underneath.
5. I discuss Duranty in section 4 of "Manet's Sources" (chap. I). Although he first
emerged as a critic in the mid- 18 50S, he was an exact contemporary of the painters of the
generation of 1863. For a magisterial study of Duranty's life and writings in the context of
his age see Marcel Crouzet, Un Meconnu de Realisme: J?uranty (Paris, 1964).
6. Edmond Duranty, "Ceux qui seront les peintres (A propos des derniers salons)," in
Almanach Parisien, ed. Fernand Desnoyers (Paris, 1867), pp. 13-14. The entire essay is
republished together with a translation in appendix 2.
Duranty's italicization of the adjectives communes and communs is probably an ironic
response to the negative review of the Ex- Voto by Paul de Saint-Victor, who referred de-
meaningly to the women's "laideur ingrate et commune" ("Salon de 1861," La Presse,
June 25,1861). The importance of the concept of the tableau and related notions for the
artists and critics of the I 860s, first touched on in "Manet's Sources," will be further ex-
plored in this chapter and in the first section of chapter 4.
7. See Fried 1990, pp. 40-45.
8. See Fried 1980 and 1990.
9. So for example Chesneau wrote in 1859: "Millet's works are remarkable by virtue
of what seems a preestablished absence of personality. Behind his Gleaners as behind the
Woman Pasturing Her Cow one doesn't perceive the artist saying: 'See how these women
are unhappy.' ... He avoids all dramatic effect because it would be false. And if these
women are unhappy, it's we who have to draw that conclusion, they themselves are un-
aware of it; wholly occupied with their labor, living their hard life, they are oblivious to
being beheld, and if they weren't, they wouldn't change their demeanor in any way" ("Li-
bre Etude sur l'art contemporain: Salon de 1859," Revue des races latines, 3d yr., vol. 14
[1859]: 123). (Les oeuvres de M. Millet sont remarquables par une absence evidemment
53 2 Notes to Page 191
precon<;:ue de personnalite. Derriere ses Glaneuses comme derriere la Femme faisant

paftre sa vache, on ne s'aper<;:oit pas l'artiste dis ant: "Voyez comme ces femmes sont mal-
heureuses." ... II evite tout effet dramatique parce qu'il serait faux. Et si ces femmes sont
malheureuses, c'est no us qui devons tirer cette conclusion, elles l'ignorent elles-memes,
tout occupees de leur labeur, vivant de leur penible vie, elles ne se doutent pas qu'on les
regarde, et s'en douteraient-elles, qu'elles ne changeraient rien a leur allure.) For one mo-
ment, in 1863, Chesneau feared that Millet's art risked being a dangerous influence on the
younger generation (see his "L'Ecole fran<;:aise au Salon de 1863," L'Art et les artistes
modernes en France et en Angleterre [Paris, 1864], pp. 283-84), but he continued to ad-
mire him as an antitheatrical master par excellence; see for example the remarks from his
memorial article, "Jean-Fran<;:ois Millet," GBA, 2d ser., II (May I, 18 75): 434-35,
quoted and discussed in Fried 1980, pp. 221-22.
Similarly, Du Camp wrote· in 1861: "There is one point in regard to which I can't
praise Millet enough: his personages never pose, one would say that they must always be
unaware that they are exhibited in a golden frame before the curiosity of the public; they
are there for themselves, and not for anyone else. Most personages that artists show us
now seem to say to us: 'Look at me, and above all find me beautiful. ... ' In painting, the
French school might be called the school of the Pose. Millet escapes all that absolutely, and
that's a real virtue for an artist. His personages are entirely absorbed by the occupation in
which they are engaged" (Le Salon de 1861 [Paris, 1861], pp. 114-15). (Mais il est un
point sur lequel je ne saurais donner a M. Millet de trop grands eloges: ses personnages ne
posent jamais, on dirait qu'ils doivent ignorer toujours qu'ils seront exposes dans un
cadre dore a la curiosite du public; ils sont la pour eux-memes, et non point pour les au-
tres. La plupart de tous ceux que les artistes no us montrent maintenant semblent no us
dire: "Regardez-moi, et surtout trouvez-moi beau .... " En peinture, l'ecole fran<;:aise
pourrait s'appeler l'ecole de la Pose. M. Millet y echappe absolument, et c'est une vertu
reelle pour un artiste. Ses personnages sont tout entiers absorbes par l'occupation a
laquelle ils se livrent.) Du Camp's testimony is impressive in that he is highly critical of
Millet's art in other respects.
As for Astruc, a critic whose writings have already engaged our attention, his admira-
tion for Millet was unstinting (see below).
10. My use of the male pronoun for the beholder is consonant with the gendering of
the beholder as male in the criticism and painting with which I am dealing.
II. See Baudelaire, "Salon of 1859," Curiosites esthetiques, p. 372; Gautier, "Salon
de 1861," Le Moniteur universel, July 6, 1861; Duranty, "Salon de 1870," Paris-Journal,
May 15,187°; and Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1861," La Presse, June 25,1861. Saint-Victor
described what he took to have been a change in style on Millet's part in terms of a turn
toward theatricality. As he recalled them, Millet's first peasant pictures depicted sowers
and gleaners "sincerely given over to the work of the fields," hence their critical success.
But "from that day, Millet's peasants were lost; they overdid their poverty, they exagger-
ated their rusticness .... Expression gave way to a melancholy cretinism that his fanatic
admirers took for a transcendant naivete. One goes far in false grandiosity." (Le succes
vint de lui-meme a ces humbles figures si sincerement adonnees au travail des champs ....
Des ce jour, les paysans de M. Millet furent perdus; ils outrerent leur indigence, ils exa-
gererent leur rusticite .... L'expression meme fit place a un cretinisme melancolique qui
passa chez les fanatiques pour une naivete transcend ante. On va loin, dans Ie faux grandi-
ose.) As early as 1857, though, Saint-Victor's response to Millet's art was violently nega-
tive precisely because the women in The Gleaners seemed to him to "pose like the three
Fates of pauperism" and in general because Millet's figures struck him as theatrical
("Salon de 1857," La Presse, Aug. 4, 1857) (elles posent comme les trois Parques du pau-
perisme).
12. Astruc, L'Echo des beaux-arts, June 12, 1870. (On ne l'aime pas a moitie: it fan a-
tise ou repousse.) Millet could even do both at the same time: of two paintings by him in
the Salon of 1864, the Shepherdess Guarding Her Flock and the New-Born Lamb, the
first was universally admired, the second almost universally detested.
13. Fried 1990, p. 79-80.
14. See Theodore Pelloquet, "Salon de 1863," L'Exposition, July I, 1863; and
Theodore Duret, Les Peintres franc;ais en 1867 (Paris, 1867), pp. 37-48, 85-98.
15. See e.g. Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1861," June 25, 1861; Leon Lagrange, "Salon de
1861," GBA, 1st ser., II (July I, 1861): 52; Louis Leroy, "Salon de 1861," Le Charivari,
June 7,1861; Olivier Merson, Exposition de 1861: La Peinture en France (Paris, 1861),
p. 21 9·
16. No doubt he also had in mind the accord between the subject and the restrained
(or "tight") painterliness of the handling, a permanent feature of Legros's art. Writing in
1875, A. Poulet-Malassis commented admiringly on the way in which Legros's Chaud-
ronnier "gave us another proof of that master faculty of incorporating execution in the
subject, of dissolving them in a harmonious and indissoluble unity" (Monsieur Alphonse
Legros au Salon de 1875: Note critique et biographique [Paris and London, 1875], p. 8)
(nous donne une autre preuve de cette faculte maitresse d'incorporer l'execution au sujet,
de les fondre dans une harmonieuse et indissoluble unite).
17. Du Camp, Le Salon de 1861, pp. 34-35,99. (II est d'une simplicite lugubre
comme la mort; rien de theatral, rien de force ... [Apropos Tissot:] il y a de la naivete
dans Ie dessin, mais cette naivete me semble bien voulue). In the same Salon, however,
Du Camp admired Puvis de Chavanne's strong will, which led to a good artistic result
(pp. 75-76) (il a suivi imperturbablement sa propre volonte, et, com me sa volonte etait
tres-forte, it est arrive a un bon resultat).
18. The letter is dated June 2,1863; see Jean-Fran<;:ois Millet, Ecrits choisis (Caen,
1990), p. 44. (Que les choses n'aient point l'air d'etre amalgamees au hasard et par occa-
sion, mais qU'elles aient entre elles une liaison indispensable et forcee.) Two years earlier,
Thore had praised Millet for possessing "a wholly personal style and an opinionated
will" ("Salon de 1861," Salons de W. Burger, I: 3 5) (un style tout personnel et une volonte
opiniatre). In the same "Salon" Thore had criticized a painting by Courbet for lacking
"those willed effects that always strike one in Courbet's works" and attributed to those
who came from the Jura, as Courbet did, "an invincible will" (1:99) (l'ensemble manque
de ces effets volontaires qui frappent toujours dans les oeuvres de Courbet.... Ces en-
fants duJura ont une volonte invincible). Baudelaire too in his "Exposition Universelle de
1855" characterized Courbet as "a powerful worker, a wild and patient will" (Curiosites
esthetiques, p. 225) (un puissant ouvrier, une sauvage et patiente volonte). But Courbet is
less often seen in those terms than are Legros, Fantin-Latour, Ernest Meissonier, Puvis de
Chavannes, Ribot, and Moreau-all, including Courbet, absorptive painters to a greater
or lesser degree. It's also true that Manet is sometimes criticized for the willed harshness,
incompleteness, or unintelligibility of his art; but the negative judgment here bears not on
the factor of will so much as on the particular qualities the critics find objectionable. Or
rather the seeming willing of those qualities leads to the charge of parti pris and the fur-
ther accusation of seeking to attract attention at any price (see chap. 4).
In Courbet's Realism I compared Courbet's paintings with photography with respect
to the different relations in each between will and automatism (pp. 278-83); I would now
add Millet's paintings to that comparison inasmuch as they were seen by both admirers
and detractors as intensely willed representations of figures absorbed to the point of out-
right automatism. In any case, the valorization of will and willing in the art criticism of the
I860s refutes Edgar Wind's assurance that voulu is always "a term of aesthetic censure"
(Edgar Wind, Art and Anarchy [New York, I963], p. 88).
I9. This by no means exhausts the interest of Duranty's article, which (as I shall claim
further on) anticipates the argument of his famous brochure of 1876, La Nouvelle Pein-
ture, in important respects. Two further points are worth noting. First, Duranty gave pride
of place chronologically to Legros's Ex- Voto rather than to Manet's Guitarrero in the
same Salon, which is consistent with his greater comfort with Legros's absorptive compo-
sitions. And second, Duranty seems annoyed that the artists he supported were reluctant
to call themselves realists although in his view there was only one legitimate path to follow
and that was realism (or indeed Realism). Duranty might have been reacting in part to
Zola's brash assertion in I 866 that "the word 'realist' doesn't mean anything to me, who
advocate subordinating the real to temperament" ("Mon Salon," Ecrits sur ['art, p. I08).
(Le mot 'realiste' ne signifie rien pour moi, qui declare subordonner Ie reel au tempera-
ment.)
20. Joris-Karl Huysmans, L'Oblat (Paris, I903), p. 220. (Les expressions simples et
concentrees de ces orantes recueillies, absorbees, loin des visiteurs, devant la croix, de-
gageaient une saveur religieuse reelle.) As might be expected, Huysmans in his art criti-
cism passionately admired painting that seemed to him genuinely absorptive (see his
remarks on Fantin-Latour and Caillebotte, the latter of whom he esteemed above Manet)
and found nothing more repulsive than works that depicted personages who appeared to
be playing to the gallery (see his L'Art modernelCertains [Paris, I975]). Huysmans ad-
mired Millet's pastels but not his paintings (see pp. 4I I-I9).
21. On the link between tears and blindness see Jacques Derrida, Memoirs of the
Blind: The Self-Portrait and Other Ruins, trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas
(Chicago and London, I993). For more on Derrida's Memoirs see chap. 5 of this book.
22. See Fried I980, pp. 48-49.
23. Burger [Thore], "Salon de I86I," Salons de W Burger, I:II1. (Elles sont si re-
cueillies dans leur pieuse imploration, qu'elles seront exaucees, bien sur. ... L'une est en
blanc, et vue de dos)
24. Ibid. (M. Legros doit travailler tout seul, dans la retraite, car il ne parait pas se
preoccuper des autres peintres ni du public.)
25. On Fantin see esp. Fantin-Latour I982-83. The standard early biographical
study is Adolphe Jullien, Fantin-Latour, sa vie et ses amities (Paris, I 9°9).
26. See Fantin-Latour I982-83, pp. 95-96, cat. no. 2I, and pp. 14I-43, cat. no. 42.
27. Burger [Thore], "Salon de I863," Salons de W. Burger, I:384 (Thore's notes or
perhaps his memory let him down; there is no white collar). (Mais Ie plus charmant, Ie
plus intime, Ie plus naturellement distingue de tous les portraits de femme est celui d'une
Liseuse, par M. Fantin-Latour. Jeune fiUe blonde, en modeste caraco brun et jupon gris,
assise, vue jusqu'aux genoux, sur un fond uni, neutre. Aucun accessoire qui puisse dis-
traire la Liseuse ni ceux qui la regardent. Elle tient des deux mains son livre vu en rac-
courci, et dont la tranche est frappe de lumiere. Sa petite main droite, egalement en
lumiere sur les pages du livre, est delicieuse. Quelle attention! Comme elle lit bien et
comme elle pense a ce qu'eUe lit! Et qu'eUe est de race fine, malgre sa toilette discrete! Et
comme la couleur est juste, harmonieuse, tranquille! L'heureuse femme, avec son jupon
de laine grise et son petit col blanc!)
28. On the Homage to Delacroix, see Fantin-Latour I982-83, pp. I67-80.
29. Gautier, "Salon de I864," Le Moniteur universel, June 25, I864. (Sur Ie devant
sont groupes, vus ami-corps, et toumant Ie dos a I'objet de leur veneration pour regarder
Ie public, les amis du peintre, artistes et litterateurs, que reunit une commune admiration
du maitre illustre tant regrette de tous. L'oeuvre de M. Fantin-Latour est plutot une collec-
tion de portraits qu'une composition raisonnee et dirigee dans Ie sens de son motif; mais
ces portraits sont eux-memes fort bien peints et tres-ressemblants .... II y a, malgre la
bizarrerie de I'arrangement ou pour mieux dire malgre l'absence de tout arrangement, un
veritable merite dans cette toile dont Ie public s'est fort preoccupe.)
30. Chesneau, "Salon de I864," Le Constitutionnel, June 7, I864. (Mais Ie tableau
en lui-meme n'existe point comme tableau, il n'est la ni composition, ni intention nette-
ment marquee, ce n'est point une oeuvre en un mot.)
3 I. Ibid. ([N]e pense-t-il point qu'il serait temps de songer a presenter au public autre
chose que des morceaux interessans pour quelques amateurs seulement?)
32. Leroy, "Salon de I864," Charivari, May II, 1864. (En quoile portrait d'un grand
artiste place sur une table a laqueUe des personnages toument Ie dos peut-il constituer un
hommage suffisant a sa memoire? Je I'ignore. Ah! si vous n'eussiez montre une statue ou
un buste du merveilleux coloriste et qu'autour du piedestal j'eusse vu dans des poses ad-
miratives ou simplement recueillies les apotres du maitre, j'aurais compris.)
34. Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, RF I2653.
36. Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, RF 1240 I. On the project that eventuated
in The Toast! Homage to Truth, see Leonce Benedite, "Histoire d'un tableau: 'Le Toast,'
par Fantin-Latour," Revue de ['art ancien etmoderne 17 (1905): 2I-3 I and 12I-3 6; and
Fantin-Latour I982-83, pp. 181-92.
37. Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, RF I248 5, RF I2486, RF I2467·
38. Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, RF 12395. In Fantin-Latour I982-83,
Douglas Druick suggests that for the composition of the "Dinner" Fantin apparently
drew "upon his knowledge of the Old Masters in the Louvre, including Philippe de Cham-
paigne's Last Supper (lnv. I I 24), with its symmetrical arrangement and cropped figures at
either side, and Fran~ois Puget's Reunion de musiciens (then entitled Portraits de plusieurs
musiciens et artistes du siixle de Louis XIV; Inv. 7436), in which the table comes right
down to the lower edge of the composition and the objects on it are seen from above"
(P· 18 4)·
39. Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, RF I25I9, RF I2414. Manet seems to
have been the reference for individual figures in other drawings for these projects.
40. Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, RF 124I8, RF I24I9 (for the drawings).
Fantin's correspondence suggests that he would have liked to include Legros, the English
painter Edwin Edwards, and the German painter Otto Scholderer, each of whom, for dif-
ferent reasons, was unable to pose for him; the final painting comprised portraits of
Fantin, Whistler (in a Japanese robe), Manet, Bracquemond, Cordier, Duranty, Astruc,
Antoine YoUon, and Jean-Charles Cazin (see Fantin-Latour I982-83, p. I9I). The pre-
paratory drawings for "Truth," "The Dinner," The Toast!, and The Toast! Homage to
Truth are also discussed by Luce Abeles, Fantin-Latour: Coin de table. Verlaine, Rimbaud
et les vilains bonshommes, Les Dossiers du Musee d'Orsay 18 (I987), pp. 6-12. My
thanks to Douglas Druick for making a photograph of the oil sketch available to me.
41. According to Auvray, Fantin depicted himself seated in the center foreground, his
back to the public but with his head turned toward the beholder. (Another critic, Amedee
Cantaloube, tells us that Fantin pointed with his finger at the figure of Truth ["Le Salon de
I 865," Le Grand Journal, May 2 I, I 8 6 5].) Among the other figures in the painting were
Notes to Pages 2II-I2
two men "seen from the rear, with their hats on their heads in the presence of a naked
woman whom they gaze at from the front" (Louis Auvray, Salon de r865 [Paris, 1865],
pp. 51-52) (deux autres vus de dos, avecle chapeau sur la tete en presence d'une femme
nue qu'ils regardent en face). For his part, Laincel ironically deplores the bad manners of
those in the painting (he doesn't say how many or whether we see them f~om the rear) who
"in front of a woman-of Truth!-keep their hats on their heads-horrible stovepipe
hats!" (Louis de Laincel, Promenade aux Champs-Elysees. CArt et la democratie. Causes
de decadence. Le Salon de r865 [Paris 1865], p. 13). (Ces Messieurs sont denues de po-
litesses et des sentiments de convenance les plus elementaires. Comment donc en face
d'une femme, de la Verite! ils gardent sur leur tete leur chapeau,-un afireux tuyau de
poele!)
4 2 . In a fascinating article on exhibition spaces in Paris between the 1870S and 1890S,
Martha Ward has pointed out that male visitors to the Salon (and most other exhibitions)
typically did not remove their hats ("Impressionist Installations and Private Exhibitions,"
Art Bulletin 73 [Dec. 1991]: 606,609).
43· "Then, nonchalant and distracted, they look about, this one to the right, that one
to the left. One would say that having Truth before them, they don't see her, don't want to
s~e her and don't look at all as if they're seeing her" (Laincel, Promenade aux Champs-
Elysees, p. 13; it's not clear grammatically whether Laincel is referring to the men in hats
or the other figures). (Puis, nonchalants et distraits, ils regardent, qui a droite, qui a
gauche. On dirait qu'ayant la Verite devant eux, ils ne la voient pas, ne veulent pas la voir
et ne tiennent pas du tout a la voir.)
44· Fantin to Edwards, Feb. 3, 1865. (Ils boivent a la verite leur ideal et par une de ces
licences permises a la peinture et qui sont un de ses charmes, leur Ideale, Ie sujet de leur
toast, apparait pour celui qui regarde Ie tableau.) This is part of a longer description of the
composition, quoted in translation in Fantin-Latour 1982-83, p. 191. Fantin's letters to
Edwards are in the Bibliotheque Municipale, Grenoble.
45· Edwards to Fantin, letter dated Feb. 1865 (je trouve tres spirituel que les convives
n'ont pas l'air d'apercevoir la Verite-elle doit apparaitre aux spectateurs et a mon cher
seulement). Edwards's letters to Fantin are in the archives at Brame and Lorenceau, Paris.
My thanks to Philippe Brame for allowing me to consult those archives and to Douglas
Druick for sharing with me his extensive knowledge of Fantin's work and correspon-
dence.
4 6 . Fantin to Edwards, Feb. 15, 1865. (Vous avez raison, il n'y [sic] que moi, qui la
verrai. Oui, Shakespeare, mais moil Banquo ne fit pas tant peur a Macbeth, que la Verite
pourmoi.)
47· See Auvray, Salon de r865, p. 52, and Cantaloube, "Le Salon de 1865," both cited
in n. 4 I above. See also Fantin's description of the composition in his letter to Edwards of
Feb. 3, 1865 (Fantin-Latour 1982-83, p. 191). According to Jankowitz, the picture was
so devoid of atmosphere that the figure of the painter in the foreground risked being
crushed against the frame (V. de Jankovitz, Etude sur Ie Salon de r865 [Besan\on, 1865],
p. 65)· (De plus, l'oeuvre est si depourvue d'atmosphere, que l'auteur, dont la figure est au
premier plan, menace d'etre ecrase contre Ie cadre par tous les assistants.)
4 8 . Fantin to Edwards, Feb. 15, 1865. (Mais que je vais etre batonne, oh mon dos, il
me cuit deja, je commence a me faire sentire [sic] cela sur Ie dos.) See also the letter of Feb.
3, 186 5.
49· Ibid. (A present, au catalogue je n'aurai que ce mot, "Ie Toast" et moi, alors je
montre la Verite, cela fait Toast a la Verite.)
50. See Jankowitz, Etude sur Ie Salon de r 865, p. 65.
Notes to Pages 213-I6 537
51. See Fantin-Latour, 1982-83, pp. 155-57, cat. no. 48, and pp. 159-61, cat.
no. 50.
52. Baudelaire's essay, "Richard Wagner et Tannhduser a Paris" commemorates his
encounter with Wagner's music and may profitably be read in conjunction with Fantin's
Tannhduser: Venusberg (Curiosites esthitiques, pp. 689-728) and indeed with the trans-
valuation of will and excess in the interests of intensity that we noted in both Duranty's
account of Legros's Ex- Voto and the Ex- Voto itself. "Everything implied by the words
will, desire, concentration, nervous intensity, explosion, can be felt and intuited in [Wag-
ner's] works," Baudelaire wrote. "In matters of art, I admit that I don't hate extremism;
moderation has never seemed to me the sign of a vigorous artistic nature. I love those
excesses of health, those overflowings of will which inscribe themselves in works of art like
burning tar in the soil of a volcano, and which, in ordinary life, often mark the phrase, full
of delight, following a great moral or physical crisis" (p. 719). (Tout ce qu'impliquent les
mots: volonte, desir, concentration, intensite nerveuse, explosion, se sent et se fait deviner
dans ses oeuvres .... En matiere d'art j'avoue que je ne hais pas l'outrance; la moderation
ne m'a jamais semble Ie signe d'une nature artistique vigoureuse. J'aime ces exces de
sante, ces debordements de volonte qui s'inscrivent dans les oeuvres comme Ie bitume
enflamme dans Ie sol d'un volcan, et qui, dans la vie ordinaire, marquent souvent la phase,
pleine de delices, succedant a une grande crise morale ou physique.] On Baudelaire on
Wagner see Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Musica (lcta (Figures de Wagner) (Paris, 1991),
PP·25-9 0 .
53. Fantin-Latour 19 82 - 8 3,PP· 97-99·
54. Chesneau, "L'Ecole fran\aise au Salon de 1863" (above n. 9), pp. 187-88. (C'est
une marqueterie de tons violents, et, malgre l'abondance de couleurs vives, ce n'est point
la l'ebauche d'une oeuvre de coloriste. Les couleurs ne sont pas la couleur, et Ie portrait de
jeune fille tenant un livre, peinture si sobre d'eclat, prouve que M. Fantin-Latour sait cela
mieux que personne. On ne devine pas a quelle impulsion il a obei lorsqu'il a meconnu si
etrangement des lois qu'il s'impose et qu'il respecte fort bien lorsqu'ille veut .... M.
Fantin-Latour a eu tort d'envoyer sa Feerie a l'etat d'esquisse.)
55. A good discussion of these terms in nineteenth-century usage is by Albert Boime,
The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century (London and New York,
1971), esp. pp. 36-41, 43-47. In the criticism we shall be considering, esquisse often
seems to coincide more or less with what we today mean by "sketch." Ebauche suggests
something more ambitious, the penultimate version of a work of some complexity or in-
deed the first, loosely painted layer (or underpainting) of such a work; the second mean-
ing in particular is what critics had in mind when they accused Manet of painting only
ebauches, that is, of being unable or unwilling to make finished paintings (more on this in
chap. 4).
56. See Gautier, "Salon de 1864," Le Moniteur universel, June 17, 1864. Druick
notes that the work as it stands today is more finished than when it was shown in the Salon
of 1864 (Fantin-Latour 1982-83, p. 162).
57. Madame Fantin-Latour, Catalogue de ['oeuvre complete (r849-r907) de Fantin-
Latour (Paris, 19II), p. 30; quoted in translation in Fantin-Latour 1982-83, p. 155. (Une
jeune princesse des contes de fees descend les marches d'un palais de fantaisie, et voit
devant elle un jeune prince Charm ant, avec une suite, qui lui ofire de precieux presents.)
58. See Fantin-Latour, 1982-83, pp. 155-57 and 159-60.
59. Jules-Antoine Castagnary, "Salon de 1877," Salons, 2 vols. (Paris, 1892), 2:304.
(La couleur est charmante et Ie dessin sur; mais ce qui est incomparable et ce qui produit
sur Ie public une si grande impression, c'est l'intimite, Ie calme, l'honnetete paisible de cet
interieur. Je ne sais rien de plus puissamment expressive dans ce genre. II y a une contagion
du bien qui vous gagne. Apres avoir contemple, on se sent penetre de meilleurs senti-
ments. Quelle en est la raison? Pourquoi Ie spectacle de ces deux filles humbles et dis-
cretes, produit-il cet effet sur moi; tandis que tous les Christ, tous les Vierges, tous les
Saint-Etienne et tous les Saint-Sebastien me laissent indifferent ou me font hausser les
epaules? J'indique Ie probleme a ceux qui cherchent comment I'art pouvait exercer une
action morale directe.)
60. Idem, "Salon de 1878," Salons, 2:342. (Nous connaissons les deux demoiselles;
cette annee M. Fantin-Latour a juge poli de no us presenter Ie pere et la mere. La famille est
complete, mais Ie tableau n'y a pas gagne. C'etait pourtant un bien joli interieur que cette
Lecture, d'un charme si profond, d'une intimite si penetrante. Avec les nouveaux venus, Ie
parfum s'est evapore, et il ne reste plus que quatre personnages assez gauchement groupes
et peints sans finesse ni eclat.) On The Dubourg Family see Fantin-Latour, 1982-83,
pp. 249-51, cat. no. 90.
61. Castagnary, "Salon de 1879," Salons, 2:381-83. (Seul, entre les hommes de son
temps, cet artiste original possede Ie don de moraliser sans precher. Sa peinture est ver-
tueuse, et, en outre, excellente .... Vous connaissez Ie sujet? II represente deux jeunes
filles, deux artistes, qui travaille. L'une debout, dessine d'apres un modele qu'on ne voit
pas; I'autre assise, la tete un peu penchee, copie un platre place sur la table .... Je n'aime
pas beaucoup Ie type de la brune res tee debout, mais la figure assise, n'est-elle pas un mor-
ceau delicieux, un chef-d'oeuvre dans un chef-d'oeuvre?) On The Drawing Lesson or Por-
traits see Fantin-Latour 1982-83, pp. 253-55, cat. no. 93.
62. Baudelaire, "Salon de 1859," Curiosites esthlitiques, p. 334. (Dans une oeuvre
moins intime et moins penetrante, il n'eut pas ete tolerable.)
63. Castagnary, "Salon de 1869," Salons, I: 3 56. (Est-celle assez mere, cette paysanne
a qui Ie soleil a fait Ie teint hale et Ie travailles mains calleuses? Elle l'est de tout Ie mouve-
ment de son corps et de toute l'attention de ses yeux; elle I'est depuis Ie regard qui dirige
jusqu'a la main qui voudrait executer. Et cette petite fille, vrai sauvageon des champs qui a
des airs de chevreau embarrasse, est-elle assez vierge et gauche? Vous pouvez rester la
aussi longtemps que vous voudrez, peu de tableaux s'imposent autant, ont une force plus
penetrante. J'y suis revenu, et chaque fois j'ai ete plus profondement atteint. D'ou vient
cela? De la beaute des lignes assurement, de la puissance du modele, du charme de la cou-
leur, mais surtout, croyez-moi, de la verite de nature. Rien n'est factice ici; ce ne sont pas
des modeles sortis de leurs habitudes pour venir devant no us prendre une pose arbitraire,
ce sont des etres vivants, envisages dans leur cadre naturel et se manifestant a nous avec
leurs costumes, leurs habitudes, leurs sentiments, leurs idees, dans les conditions nor-
males et ordinaires de leur champetre existence.) On the Knitting Lesson see Robert Her-
bert, jean-Franqois Millet, exhib. cat. (Paris: Grand Palais, Oct. 17, 1965-Jan. 5, 1976;
London: Hayward Gallery, Jan. 22-Mar. 7, 1976), p. 148, cat. no. 91.
64. For Astruc's use of the phrase "the frame of nature" in a similar context apropos
Millet see n. 94 below. Significantly, Fantin greatly admired Millet; see his letters to Otto
Scholderer of Oct. 14,1874, Feb. 1875, Apr. II, 1875, and June II, 1875, in the last of
which, accompanying a gift of drawings by Millet and Corot, he refers to "Millet whom I
can never praise to you enough" (Brame and Lorenceau archives) (Millet dont je ne peux
vous faire assez I'eloge).
65· Chesneau, "Salon de 1875," Paris-journal, May 12, 1863; the article is entitled
"Les Refuses de 1863."
Une volonte tenace, obstinee, persistant en depit de toutes les traverses, telle est, pour appliquer
Ie mot de Taine, la faculte-maitresse du peintre.
Ceux qui ne reculent point devant une certaine austerite puritaine, et qui ont su briser la
premiere glace que l'artiste etablit entre Ie public et ses oeuvres, comme de parti-pris, n'ont pas
attendu jusqu'il ce jour pour proclamer les rares et serieux merites des portraits annuellement
envoyes aux Salons par M. Fantin-Latour. Ils regrettent seulement cette frOideur du premier aspect
que I'artiste leur impose.
Mais combien parmi ceux-lil ignorent que ce qu'ils doivent dans leur pensee attribuer au
temperament meme du peintre, n'est au contraire que l'effet de la discipline excessive dont il s'est
fait une loi severe, vraiment trop severe.
Nul plus que cet homme, qui affecte une sobriete de couleurs voisine de I'indigence, n'est au
fond plus amoureux, plus passionne des fetes, des fanfares, des prestiges, des feux d'artifice, de la
coloration.
Autrefois il a envoye au Salons, on a tantat re<;u, tantat refuse des esquisses de lui qu'i! intitulait
Feeries, ou il trahissait tout l'emportement, toute la fougue, toutes les folies ardentes de son vral
temperament. , ,
A-t-il fait un voeu? Je ne sais. Toujours est-i! que la sagesse actuelle de ses pro cedes accuse Ie
plus extrordinaire empire de la volonte sur I'instinct.
66. Cf. Astruc, "Salon de 1870," L'Echo des beaux-arts, June 5, 1870. Astruc refers
there to "those two faces, so opposed, of the most singular artistic mind that I know" (ces
deux faces, si opposees du plus singulier esprit d'art que je connaisse). See also the quota-
tions from Duranty in n. 68 below. .
67. Theodore de Banville, "Salon de 1872," Le National, May 16, 1872 (et II semb~e
que je ne sais quelle brume legere, presque invisible, les estompe et les en~elopp.e: M. Fantm
a-t-il voulu exprimer ce voile de I'indifference publique que toute poe~e d.Olt secou,er ~t
dechirer avant d'entrer dans la pleine possession de sa vertu, et dans la ]OUlssance defim-
tive de la gloire?). .
68. Duranty expressed a comparable perception. For example, m 187~ h~ wrote of
Fantin's characteristic facture: "It creates the effect of an artist enclosed wlthm a bour-
geois and unable to break through that envelope, with the result that neither of the two
natures prevails and both are at odds" ("Salon de 1870," Paris-journal, May 8, 1870). (II
fait l'effet d'un artiste enferme dans un bourgeois, et ne pouvant percer son enveloppe, de
sorte qu'aucune des deux natures ne l'emporte et que toutes deux se contrarient.) And
seven years later he said of Fantin: "He has always lived. enclose.d mart .as m a re~ug~:
watching lots of others run avidly, pan tingly, tongues hangmg out, m purSUit of notonety
("Reflexions d'un bourgeois sur Ie Salon de Peinture," GBA, 2d ser., 19 [June I, 1877J:
55 0 ). (II a toujours vecu enferme dans I'art comme dans un re!uge, regar~a~t passer tant
de gens qui courent avides, haletants,.la lan~ue pendante~ apres lano;onete.) .The I~age
in both cases is one of enclosure, as If Fantm and hiS pamtmgs dldn t qUite mhablt the
same world as the latter's viewers (d. the discussion of "cloistering" later in this chapter).
The second article also speaks of "the scrupulousness with which Fantin eliminated
from his paintings everything that could grossly strike the beholder; the pers?nages re-
mained without gesture, without pose, without action, the accessones were vlr~u.ally ml
or purposeless, the coloring was discrete, silent, although rich and sleek, com~osltlon was
absolutely absent, and from this willed negation that one cannot speak of wlthou: smil-
ing, from this austerity which makes one think of the sackcloth and ashes of pemtence,
came works that were extremely curious, original, and gripping for those who don't loo~
at paintings as posters" (p. 55 I) (avec quel scrupule il ecartait de ce~ tableaux tout ce qUi
pouvait frapper grossierement Ie spectateur; les personnages r~stale~t sans gestes, ~ans
attitude, sans action, les accessoires etaient presque nuls ou sans mtentIon, les colorations
discreres, silencieuses, quoique riches et grasses, la composition absolument, ab~ent.e, ~t
de cette negation volontaire dont on ne peut parler sans sourire, de cette austente qUi fait
penser au sac et aux cendres de penitence, ressortaient des oeuvres extremement cu-
rieuses, originales, saisissantes pour quiconque ne regarde pas des tableaux comme des
affiches).
69. The scholarly literature on Whistler is extensive; often-cited biographies include
Elizabeth R. and Joseph Pennell, The Life ofjames NcNeili Whistler, 2 vols., (London and
Philadelphia, 1908); Stanley Weintraub, Whistler: A Biography (New York, 1974); Hil-
ary Taylor, james McNeill Whistler (New York, 1978); and Gordon Fleming, The Young
Whistler, 1834-66 (London, 1978). The standard catalogue raisonne is Andrew
McLaren Young, Margaret MacDonald, Robin Spencer, with Hamish Miles, The Paint-
ings of james McNeill Whistler, 2 vols. (New Haven and London, 1980). For works by
Whistler in the Freer Art Gallery, Washington, D. C, see David Park Curry, james McNeill
Whistler at the Freer Gallery of Art (New York and London, 1984). As mentioned in the
introduction to the present book, Whistler settled permanently in London in 1863 taking
Legros with him, but his early paintings and etchings are mainly to be understood in the
context of French developments. The early dissolution of the young realist group was
noted by the critic Paul Mantz, who commented in I86S: "Evidently their enthusiasm is
dampened, the group is troubled and disperses" (Paul Mantz, "Salon de 186 S ," GBA, 1st
ser., 19 [July I, 186 sl: 6). (Evidemment I'enthousiasme s'eteint, Ie groupe se trouble et se
disperse.)
70. On the Woman in White see Young et aI., Paintings of Whistler, I: 17-20, cat.
nO·3 8.
71. Fernand Desnoyers, Salon des Refuses: La Peinture en r863 (Paris, 1863), p. 27.
Desnoyers's attempt to render in words the effect of Whistler's painting is worth citing at
length: "C'est Ie portrait d'une spirite, d'un medium. La figure, I'attitude, la physi-
onomie, la couleur, sont etranges. C'est tout ala fois simple et fantastique. Le visage a une
expression tourmentee et charmante qui fixe I'attention. II y a quelque chose de vague et
de profond dans Ie regard de cette jeune fille, qui est d'une beaute si particuliere, que Ie
public ne sait s'il doit la trouver laide ou jolie."
72. Le Capitaine Pompilius [Carle Desnoyers], "Lettres particulieres sur Ie Salon," Le
Petit journal, June II, 1863.
73. Horace de Viel-Castel, "Salon de 1863," La France, May 21,1863.
74· Paul Mantz, "Salon de 1863," GBA, 1st ser., IS (July I, 1863): 64. (D'oll vient
cette blanche apparition? Que nous veut-elle avec ses cheveux denoues, ses grands yeux
noyes dans I'extase, son attitude alanguie et cette £leur sans petals aux doigts de sa main
pendante?)
7S. Jules Claretie [Arsene Arnaud], "Lettres familieres sur Ie Salon de 1863," jean
Diable, June 6,1863. (Mais est-ce Ie portrait d'une folle, cette figure roide et fixe qu'on
prendrait pour lady Macbeth ou pour Ophelie?)
76. Along with, perhaps, an unspecifiable sexual allure; see Mantz's remarks quoted
above as well as Castagnary's belief that Whistler's picture represents a young woman on
her wedding night (Salons, I: I 79-80).
77. See Chesneau, "Le Salon des Refuses," L'Art et les artistes modernes, p. 191; and
Un Bourgeois de Paris [Auguste Villemot?l, "Salon de 1863," La Gazette de France,July
21, 1863.
78. Alexandre Pothey, "Lettres aun millionnaire sur Ie Salon de 1863," Le Boulevard,
May 3 1,1863. (La figure deMo Whistler est mal dans Ie cadre; nous pensons que quelques
pouces de toile, ajoutes au-dessus de la tete, lui donneraient encore plus d'eclat.)
79. Viel-Castel, "Salon de 1863" (une peau de loup, dont la tete empaillee et pourvue
d'yeux d'email, se dresse mena~ante vers Ie spectateur).
Note to Page 224 54 1
80. It may be, too, that the woman's facial expression appeared more absorbed before
Whistler reworked the face, probably in the spring of 1872. A photograph made between
I86S and 1870 (New York Public Library, Avery Collection) "shows a thinner face and
smaller mouth, the eyes are larger and have a more wistful expression, and the hair to the
left of the head is more abundant and curly. In addition the cuffs at the wrist are striped,
and the hand holding the lily is more slender, un foreshortened, with the thumb hidden
from view. X-rays of the face and hands ... show that these areas have been heavily re-
worked and also reveal that the canvas was once damaged underneath the right eye"
(Young et aI., Paintings of Whistler, 1:19).
As for the real or imagined aggressiveness of the bear's head, a somewhat later work by
a major painter of the rising generation rehearses that motif (or one very like it) in unam-
biguous terms. In 1870 the future Impressionist Claude Monet depicted a severed boar's
head (fig. 196) directly facing the beholder along with, lying alongside it point first, the
large hunting knife that presumably had been used to do the severing. The result is a work
of tremendous force in which the boar's head (its tiny eyes almost indiscernible) and the
heavy, gleaming knife (wiped clean of every trace of blood but all the more menacing for
that) converge in what is virtually an assault on vision itself. (The painting's composition,
we might say, reverses that of Monet's contemporary roadscapes and riverscapes, in which
converging lines signify perspective recession into deep space.) On the Boar's Head see the
exhibition catalog, Les Oublies du Caire: Chefs-d'oeuvre des Musees du Caire (Paris:
Figure 196. Claude Monet, Boar's Head, 1870.

54 2 Notes to Pages 224-3 2
Musee d'Orsay, Oct. 5, 1994-Jan. 8, 1995), p. 152·, cat. no. 97· To what extent we are
entitled to see Monet's Boar's Head as actively recalling the bear's head in Whistler's
Woman in White is impossible to say.
81. On those paintings see Young et aI., Paintings of Whistler, 1: 24- 2 5, cat. no. 47;
1:34, cat. no. 60; 1:30, cat. no. 56, respectively. The second and third works are also
discussed in Curry, Whistler at the Freer Gallery, pp. 104 and 106, pis. 4 and 6 respec-
tively.
82. See Fried 1990, chap. 6, "Courbet's 'Femininity.'''
83. See ibid., pp. 155-71.
84. On that painting see Young et aI., Paintings of WhIstler, 1:26- 2 7, cat. no. 50; and
Curry, Whistler at the Freer Gallery, p. 10 5, pI. 5·
85. In the opinion of Auvray, for example, Whistler had merely reproduced on a large
scale "a small painting on porcelain, without modeling, without expression, without move-
ment" (Salon de 186 5, p. 59). (Mais reproduire en grand une petite peinture de por-
celaine, sans modele, sans expression, sans mouvement!) The one critic who frankly
admired Whistler's painting was Alfred Sensier, writing under the nom de plume Jean
Ravenel, "Salon de 1865," L'Epoque (June 21, 186 5).
86. See Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1865," La Presse, May 28,1865, who wrote: "There
is no one under that long floral robe; it's any old head, planted on a clothed bamboo." (11
n'y a personne so us cette longue robe a ramages; c'est une tete quelconque, plantee sur un
bambou habille.) His commentary ends by stating that "[colored] patches don't make a
tableau" (des taches ne font pas un tableau). See also C. Postwer, "Exposition de peinture
& sculpture de 1 865," La Fraternite, June 10, 186 5.
87. See Mantz in 1863, cited in n. 74. The same note is struck at greater length by
Thore the same year: "The Woman in White by Whistler will displease lovers of objective
painting, and they will say: 'Ah! how droll that is! No one has ever seen such a woman! She
has the air of a phantom!' -Okay, yes, exactly! The image is rare, conceived and painted
like a vision that would appear in a dream, not to everyone, but to a poet. What's the good
of art if it didn't let us see what one has never seen? -All right!" (Burger [Thore], Salons
de W. Burger, I :424). (La Dame blanche de M. Whistler deplaira aux amateurs de la pein-
ture objective, et ils diront: "Ah! que c'est drale! on n'a jamais vu cette femme-Ia! elle a
l'air d'un fantame!" -Eh bien, oui, justement! l'image est rare, con<;;ue et peinte comme
une vision qui apparaitrait en reve, non pas a tout Ie monde, mais a un poete. A quoi serait
bon l'art, s'il ne faisait pas voir ce qu'on n'a jamais vu? -All right!) Cf. also the remarks
by Louis Etienne cited in n. 165 below.
88. In fact, in Atthe Piano and another early work, The Music Room (1859), the walls
are hung with what seem to be framed prints or paintings covered with at once transpar-
ent and reflective glass.
89. Charles Bataille, "Le Salon de 1865," L'Univers illustre, May 10, 1865 (faite avec
un rien).
90. On the Music Room see Young et aI., Paintings of Whistler, 1:13 cat. no. 34; and
Curry, Whistler at the Freer Gallery, pp. 102-3, pI. 3. The scene takes place in the London
home of the Seymour Haden family; the woman in the mirror has been identified as
Haden's wife and Whistler's half sister, Deborah, and it has been suggested that she may
be playing the piano. Haden, a doctor, was soon to become famous as an etcher, and be-
fore the 18 60S were out he and Whistler would no longer be on terms. See the discussion
of their relations in Katherine A. Lochnan, The Etchings ofJames McNeill Whistler (New
Haven and London, 1984).
91. Theodore Duret, Histoire de James McNeill Whistler et de son oeuvre (Paris,
1904), p. 58. (11 est arrive la, a une limite qu'on ne saurait depasser, il a atteint cette ex-
treme region ou la peinture devenue vague, en faisant un pas de plus, tomberait dans l'in-
determinisme absolu et ne pourrait plus rien dire aux yeux.)
92. On that painting see Young et aI., Paintings of Whistler, I: I 23, cat. no. 212.
93. Astruc, Le Salon intime: Exposition au boulevard des Italiens (Paris, 1860), p. 66.
(Les mouvements sont d'une observation excessive ... une force intime de plus surpre-
nant effet .... Nous ne sommes plus devant une peinture, mais devant la nature.)
94. Astruc, "Exposition Universelle," L'Etendard, Jan. 8, 1868. Astruc's remarks on
Millet in 1868 are worth citing at length:
He has defined his manner in two words, in a letter that has become celebrated: "Characterize
the work." To study in depth an artistic nature so powerful, astonishingly willful, it suffices to
analyze the terms of that letter, which isn't one of his least good works ....
It's impossible to formulate a more subtle esthetic and to more powerfully show the
individuality of his thought. In comparison with that reasoning, that concentration of talent, that
new and strong expression, in comparison with the works of that hand that engraves the things [it
represents] with such intensity, all other painters are weak. Yes, his execution is awkward,
monotonous, often puerile; he lets one see his effort, he reveals the difficulties of his craft that are
for others play; but see the master, observe the miracles of that will endowed for the aim that it
pursues .... His personages are always in accord with the frame of nature which serves as their
background, things are placed with surprising relations of intimacy in their movement, their effect,
their symmetry.... Nothing for the spectator,-here, no theater,-everything for the fact in
itself....
Millet never paints just to paint,-the artist wishes to express. In each accent, there is always
something like an undertone of thought, so much does the face of the work absorb [the viewer),
with its unaccustomed depths, its peacefulness or its sadness and the unity of impression that
results from it.
II a defini sa maniere en deux mots, dans une lettre demeuree celebre: "Caracteriser I'oeuvre."
Pour etudier a fond une nature aussi puissante, etonnamment volontaire, il suffirait d' analyser les
termes de cette lettre, qui n'est pas un de ses moins bons ouvrages ....
II est impossible de formuler une plus savante esthetique et de montrer avec plus de puissance
I'individualite de sa pensee. Aupres de cette raison, de cette concentration de talent de cette
expression si neuve et forte, aupres des ouvrages sortis de cette main qui grave les choses avec une
pareille intensite, tous les autres peintres sont chetifs. ~ui, son travail est maladroit, monotone,
souvent pueril; il montre sa peine, il affiche des difficultes de metier qui sont pour autres un jeu;
mais voyez Ie maitre, observez les miracles de cette volonte douee pour Ie but qu'elle poursuit....
Les personnages conviennent toujours au cadre de la nature qui leur sert de fond, les choses se
placent avec de surprenantes relations d'intimite dans leur mouvement, leur effet, leur symetrie ....
Rien pour Ie spectateur, -ici, point de theiitre,-tout pour Ie fait en lui-me me.
Millet ne peint jamais pour peindre,-I'artiste veut exprimer. Dans chaque accent, il y a
toujours comme un sous-entendu de pensee, tant la face de l'oeuvre absorbe, avec ses profondeurs
inaccoutumees, sa paix ou sa tristesse et I'unite d'impression qui en resulte.
95. Astruc, "Salon de 1868," L'Etendard, July 19, 1868. The first paragraph of his
article entitled "Les Portraits" reads: "You can be a great genius, you are not a great
painter, in the fullest sense of the word, if it's established that your oeuvre doesn't include
even one beautiful portrait. It's the touchstone of perfect and, above all, reasoned cre-
ations." (Vous pouvez etre un grand genie, vous n'etes pas un grand peintre, dans toute
l'acception de ce mot, s'il demeure etablit que votre oeuvre ne renferme pas un seul beau
portrait. C'est la pierre de touche des creations parfaites et surtout raisonnees.)
96. Idem, "Tresors d'art de Paris: Exposition retrospective," L'Etendard, July 13,
1866 (attache davantage Ie regard).
97. Idem, "Salon de 1868," L'Etendard, July 19, 1868. ([LJe portrait do it s'exposer
par Ie langage expressif des traits, et nous communiquer pour ainsi dire sa pensee des que
nous l'envisageons; il do it frapper, par consequent,-et c'est l'inverse du tableau qui
laisse peu a peu penetrer ses plus belles parties.) The verb envisageons acknowledges that
we face the portrait even as it faces us.
9 8 . Ibid. (Le portrait n'a point les ressources du ton, les agrements du faire, les sur-
prises de l'idee; il est puissant, il impressionne comme un objet ayant pris aun etre l'inten-
site de sa vie personnelle.)
99. A work by Astruc himself that allegorizes his fascination with the portrait is his
sculpture, The Seller of Masks, exhibited in the Salon of 1882 (fig. 197); see Chesneau,
Figure 197. Zacharie Astruc,

lithograph after his sculpture,
The Seller of Masks, 1882.
"Salon de 1882,"Annuaire illustre des beaux-arts, I882 (Paris, 1882), p. 230, and the
illustration of the sculpture by Astruc on p. I I 5 (reproduced here). According to
Chesneau, among the portrait-masks being hawked by the young seller are those of Victor
Hugo, Gambetta, Gounod, Banville, Corot, Dumas fils, Berlioz, Carpeaux, Faure, Dela-
croix, Balzac, and Barbey d'Aurevilly.
See also L. Lauren-Pichat's discussion of Astruc's entries (water colors and plasters) in
the Salon of 1869, where a certain double or divided structure can be sensed in the follow-
ing description: "His watercolors are violent; the sites are bizarre, the fantasies macabre;
strangeness mixes with feeling. He likes monks who hold the skulls of dead men" ("Salon
de 1869," Le Reveil, June 12, 1869). The remainder of Lauren-Pichat's commentary
makes it clear that Astruc favored absorptive motifs (e.g. a life-size plaster of an old man
reading, a bas-relief of a reclining monk kissing a skull). The review concludes: "One is
well aware of a little pity for Manet in this art; but we are able to hope that Z. Astruc
doesn't seek to give us a sculptor who would be a pendant to that painter. Let them look at
each other and correct each by the other" -which perhaps means that Manet should be
more absorptive (what it means for Astruc I have no idea). (Ses aquarelles sont violentes;
les sites sont bizarres, les fantaisies macabres; l'etrangete s'y mele au sentiment. II aime les
moines qui manient les tetes de mort .... On remarque bien un peu de pitie pour M.
Manet dans cet art; mais nous pouvons esperer que M. Z. Astruc ne cherche pas a nous
donner un sculpteur qui ferait pendant a ce peintre. Qu'ils se regardent l'un l'autre et se
corrigent l'un par l'autre.)
Astruc's views on the portrait may be compared with those of Castagnary, who wrote
in 1867:
Of all the objects that can affect the artist's gaze and thought, the human being, taken in its
male or female individuality and conditioned by social moeurs, is the most interesting that he can
reproduce and the most likely to captivate us. It's he [or she1that expresses the largest sum of
intellectual life and who allows the painter to raise himself to the level of a moralist.
Even more, a man, a woman, a young girl, represented in the diversity of their functions, their
temperaments, their characters, characterized by the moeurs that surround them and by the society
that produced them, reveal not only individual life but in addition the collective life. With a single
portrait by Clouet, Holbein, Van Dyck, Titian, Rigaud, or David, you are able to reconstruct, along
with the personage who served as model, the entire epoch in which that personage lived. And that
is why the portrait, which puts to work the painter's highest faculties, remains the culminating
point of the art of painting. (Castagnary, "Salon of 1867," Salons, 1:245)
De tous les objets qui peuvent affecter Ie regard et la pensee de l' artiste, I' etre humain, pris dans
son individualite male ou femelle et conditionne par les moeurs sociales, est Ie plus interessant qu'il
puisse reproduire et Ie plus fait pour nous captiver. C'est lui qui exprime la plus grande somme de
vie intellectuelle et qui permet au peintre de s'elever jusqu'au moraliste.
Bien plus, I'homme, la femme, la jeune fllle, representes dans la diversite de leurs fonctions, de
leurs temperaments, de leurs caracteres, caracterises par les moeurs qui les enveloppent et par la
societe qui les produit, ne sont pas seulement revelateurs de la vie individuelle, mais encore de la vie
collective. Avec un seul portrait de Clouet, d'Holbein, de Van Dyck, de Titien, de Rigaud, de David,
vous pouvez reconstruire, avec Ie personnage qui a servi de modele, I'epoque tout entiere OU ce
personnage a vecu. Et c'est pourquoi Ie portrait, qui met en oeuvre les plus hautes facultes du
peintre, demeure Ie point culminant de I'art de la peinture.
Cf. also Chesneau's remarks, in his account of the Salon of 1863, to the effect that the
portrait was the genre most likely to last but that it was also one of the most difficult (L'Art
et les artistes modernes, p. 259); and Proust on Manet's enthusiasm for portraits by var-
ious artists, especially Clouet (Proust 1897, p. 42). Apropos the Clouets, as early as 1850
Leon de Laborde in La Renaissance des arts a la cour de France (Paris, 1850), seeking
Notes to Pages 235-4I
to refute the notion that there wasn't any art worth the name in France before Vouet,
Poussin, and Le Brun, championed the Clouets who, he wrote, "[knew] well at bottom
that a portrait is the highest mission of art" (p. 97) (sachant bien au fond qu'un portrait
est la plus haute mission de l'art). For Laborde, too, the portrait was a particular strength
of French painting (pp. 44-45). See Eve Endicott, "The Revival of the French Primitives"
(Senior Honors Thesis, Harvard University, 1970).
Astruc's advocacy of the portrait as well as his distaste for landscape are interestingly
discussed in relation to Bazille's Vue de village and related works by Dianne Williams
Pitman, "The Art of Frederic Bazille (1841-187°)" (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, 1989), chap. 3.
100. See Fried 1990, chap. 2, and the present book, chap. 5.
101. It's likely that Manet was familiar with Astruc's ideas about the portrait and that
his Portrait of Zacharie Astruc (fig. 8 I) should be understood as in implicit dialogue with
them. In "Manet's Sources" I suggest that it represents Manet's most extreme attempt to
make a portrait bear full conviction as a tableau; see also the discussion of that work in
Sharon Flescher, "Manet's 'Portrait of Zacharie Astruc': A Study of a Friendship and New
Light on a Problematic Painting," Arts Magazine 52 (June 1978): 98-1°5.
102. See Whistler's letter to Fantin of late January 1864 (Washington, D.C., Library
of Congress). To the best of my knowledge, there is no recent monographic study of
Ribot, but see Louis de Fourcaud, Theodore Ribot, sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1885);
Gabriel P. Weisberg, "Theodule Ribot and 'The Litle Milkmaid'," Bulletin of the Cleve-
land Museum of Art 63 (Oct. 1976): 253-63; and idem, entries on Ribot in The Other
Nineteenth Century: Paintings and Sculpture in the Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M.
Tanenbaum (Ottawa: The National Gallery of Canada, 1978), pp. 157-75.
103. Jankovitz, Etude sur Ie Salon de 1865, p. 5 I (il a Ie temperament Ie plus violent de
I'ecole franc,:aise, et semble avoir peinte cette annee avec un ebauchoir).
104. Geronte [Louis Leroy?], "Le Salon de 1865," Gazette de France, June 2,1865 (Ie
plus prodigieux morceau d'execution du Salon tout entier, et ce cadavre raidi par la mort
dans la derniere convulsion de sa douleur est digne des plus grands maitres).
105. Jean Ravenel [Alfred Sensier], "Salon de 1865," L'Epoque, May 20, 1865.
He also called Ribot "this worker of will and courage" (ce travailleur de volonte et de
courage).
106. Carolus Duran too awaits his modern monographist, but see Jules Claretie
[Arsene Arnaud], Peintres et sculpteurs contemporains, 2d ser. (Paris, 1884), pp. 153-76;
and Sharon Flescher, Zacharie Astruc: Critic, Artist and Japoniste, 1833-1907, Out-
standing Dissertations in the Fine Arts (New York and London 1978), pp. 9-12. A recent
article by Atsushi Miura interestingly associates Carolus Duran's double portrait of
Fantin-Latour and Oulevay in the Musee d'Orsay with Giovanni Cariani's Portrait of Two
Young Men in the Louvre ("Un Double Portrait par Carolus-Duran: Fantin-Latour et
Oulevay," GBA, 6th ser., 124 [July-Aug. 1994]: 25-34).
107. The painting depicted a group of friends bringing flowers to the sleeping artist; in
fact Carolus Duran had fallen seriously ill and had been nursed back to health by Astruc,
who presumably was among the visitors. According to the Courrier artistique, 1st yr.,
no. 13 (Dec. IS, 186 I), it was then on view at Martinet's.
108. Astruc, Le Salon, no. 9 (May 10-II, 1863).
Plusieurs moines de I'ordre de Saint-Fran~ois sont agenouilles au pied d'une croix dans un
paysage austere. Des pierres, de gran des roches grises, un peu d'herbe baignee de petits filets d'eau
qui s't~panchent goutte it goutte, quelques £leurs egayant Ie gazon-puis, une plaine que I'ombre du
soir envoloppe, une montagne tirant sur l'horizon sa ligne vigoureuse, un ciel it peine eclaire,
Notes to Pages 24I-43 547
noir-et,par places, dechire de bleu-voila Ie site. La lumiere se retire; Ie soleil a deja disparu; les
momes, stlencleux, reposent leurs regards sur la nature, avant Ie sommeil plus doux a gouter.
L'un d' eux tient sa tete dans sa main; un autre se renverse, travers ant Ie ciel de ses ardents
prunelles qui voudraient cantempler Dieu; celui-ci penche son front vers la terre, dans une attitude
d'humilite profonde; Ie superieur, debout, vetu de noir, tend ses bras vers la croix de bois avec une
ferveur saisissante. On Ie voit prier; on entend sa voix pronon~ant les formules de I'oraison avec
une violente tendresse et la melancolie que donnent les dialogues celestes dans cette elevation
continuelle de la creature vers son Redempteur.
Cette contemplation chretienne emeut et trouble. On est penetre d' admiration devant ces etres
innocents et doux, ces enfants sinistres et sublimes-dieux par Ie devoir, hommes par l'action
monotone-ces privilegies du sentiment qui ne veulent pas d'autre bonheur ici-bas que l'intimite
du neant, la grace de leur farouche vertu ou l'isolement vers Ie ciel-et qui se prennent a soupirer-
adorables maniaques-voyant £lottant dans I'espace Ie nuage qu'emporte Ie vent. C'est qu'ils Ie
croient plus pres de Dieux qu'eux, et lui confient leurs pensees dont l'unique voyage est Ie ciel.
Le peintre s'est inspire de cette piete. Avec que lie simplicite il en a traduit I'accent, Ie mystere!
qu'il est pres de leur arne! camme ill'entend fremir! quel beau style religieux il prete a leur priere!
Heureux fervents, Ie monde ne les occupe guere .... une unique aspiration tient leurs yeux
emerveilles-l'image des anges, des bienheureux, des martyrs. Ce n'est pas Ie peintre qui troublera
leur belle priere.
10 9. Edouard Lockroy, "Cinquieme lettre d'un eclectique," Courrier artistique, 2d
yr., no. 26 (May 30, 1863): 102. Lockroy also remarked that the painting was made "with
care, with love, with will." (Elle est faite avec soin, avec amour, avec volonte.)
IIO. "Lettres d'un bourgeois de Paris," La Gazette de France, July II, 1863 (ce realisme
tres acceptable qui, dans une circonstance donnee, procede comme Ie doute methodique
de Descartes, et fait table rase de tous les raffinements de la science pour peindre simple-
ment la naturel, sans y ajouter aucun de ces ornemens de convention qui ne pourraient
qU'affaiblir I'impression, au lieu de la fortifier).
III. Vignon, Le Salon de 1863, p. 380. (Son tableau, il ne I'a point compose d'apres
les traditions academiques ni modele sur aucun type convenu; peut-etre sait-il beaucoup
et a-t-il fait table rase; peut-etre ne sait-il rien que Ie maniement de la brosse. Un soir, en se
promenant dans la campagne de Rome, dans ce desert superbe dont les grandes !ignes
semblent les horizons choisis pour de hautes destinees, il a rencontre son tableau tout
fait.)
II2. Olivier Merson, "Salon de 1863," L'Opinion nationale, May 2, 1863 (receuille-
ment profond .... Ce n'est pas une composition dans la veritable acception du mot: les
figures sont disseminees, et I'artiste ne s'est pas Ie moins du monde preoccupe d'harmonie
litteraire).
I I 3. Chesneau, "Salon de 1863," L'Art et les artistes modernes, p. 254. (Ces hommes
agenouilles dans Ie tableau de M. Duran, sont des croyants isoles au sein de la nature; la
brise qui passe et les caresse les laisse indifferents, tout emus qu'ils sont de I'haleine celeste
qui jette ses parfums dans leur arne.)
114· Ibid. (franchement originale, moderne et tres-elevee).
115· Gautier, "Salon de 1866," Le Moniteur universel, July 4, 1866. (La scene est
bien disposee, d'une maniere un peu theatrale peut-etre pour nous, chez qui la douleur se
traduit par des attitudes mornes, mais admirable chez les Ita!iens, grands gesticulateurs.
L'assassine vient d'etre rapporte tout sanglant, et la famille autour du corps se livre a des
manifestations excessives de desespoir et de colere.)
II6. Viel-Castel, "Salon de 1869," Le Pays, May 13,1869 (une de ces toiles rares qui
marquent dans une epoque comme une oeuvre characteristique et demeurent dans
I'avenir comme Ie saint Franc,:ois de Zurbaran, Ie Christ de Ribera, Ie portrait au gant du
Titien).
II7. Chesneau, "Cercle de l'union artistique: Exposition de 1873," Paris-Journal,

Feb. 25, 1873, on Carolus Duran's Portrait of Mme Ratazzi. (On con<;oit que dans cette
recherche de l'exteriorite fastueuse disparaissent les nuances charm antes ettouchantes de
I'intimite, les accents fugitifs de I'expression, les delicatesses de l'etre moral connu, aime
des familieres et des proches.)
II 8. Castagnary, "Salon de 1869," Salons, I: 364. (C'est un portraittout exterieur, de
surface pour ainsi dire, l'etude d'une toilette, ou plutot d'une pose elegante.) Castagnary
continued to criticize Carolus Duran's portraits for their purely exterior qualities until in
18 7 6 he encountered the painter's absorptive Portrait of Emile de Girardin, in which the
famous editor has been depicted in the act of writing or rather of intense reflection, as if
seeking the precise phrasing for what he wants to say. Predictably, Castagnary approved,
finding that "Carolus Duran has shown himself in this work truly an artist" ("Salon de
18 7 6 ," Salons, 2:238). (M. Carolus Duran s'est montre dans cette oeuvre veritablement
artiste.)
Another critic, A. Bonnin, raved about the Portrait of Mme ,:- ,:- ':-, but his commitment
to a conventional set of antitheatrical assumptions meant that he was forced to see its
protagonist as virtually unaware of being beheld. "She doesn't pose before a painter," he
wrote, "she isn't self-conscious, she hasn't dressed herself up for posterity; she is as she
appears every day; the artist has surprised her without her knowing it in the natural aban-
don of an ordinary hour of her life" ("Salon de 1869," La France, June 3, 1869). (Elle ne
pose pas devant un peintre; elle n'est pas endimanchee; elle n'a pas fait toilette pour la
posterite; elle est ce qu'elle para!t taus les jours; l'artiste I'a surprise a son insu dans
I'abandon naturel d'une heure indifferente de sa vie.)
For his part, Viel-Castel insisted on the woman's distinction, so different from the vul-
garity and insecurity of the demimonde, which seeks to "seize the eye of the passer-by"
("Salon de 1869"). (Elle vit, elle passe, la femme elegante et distinguee de la societe mo-
derne, vue dans sa beaute et I'ampleur de sa toilette, vue par les yeux d'un homme du
monde, d'un artiste et d'un poete ala fois .... Voila I' elegance parfaite a laquelle Ie demi-
monde n'atteindra jamais, car, malgre I'impudence qu'il affiche, il sent sa misere, la
bassesse de son origine doublee de la bassesse de l'ame et de la vulgarite vicieuse de tous
les jours, et croit n'avoir jamais assez accumule de soieries, de dentelles et de colifichets
etages, comme une pagode chinoise, pour dissimuler ses pauvres turpitudes et tirer l'oeil
au passant.)
119. In a somewhat different register, Jules Claretie, writing in 1872, described Caro-
lus Duran's portraits in terms that link them with my argument. "Durant [sic] has a
system of extracting a dominant note from a model, and of exploiting that note so as
accentuate to an extreme the physiognomy that he wants to render_ Thus, nothing is
avoided, softened, or cleverly dissimulated. Everything is clear, absolute, frank to the
point of brutality; everything is willed, and the impression that arises from this virile art is
a singular impression of vitality and power" (cited in Peintres et sculpteurs contem-
porains, p. 164). (M. Durant a pour systeme de degager d'un modele la note dominante, et
d'appuyer sur cette note de fa<;on a accentuer jusqu'a I'extreme la physionomie qu'il veut
rendre. Aussi, rien d'evite, d'adouci, d'habilement dissimule. Tout est net, absolu, franc
jusqu'a devenir brutal; tout est voulu, et I'impression qui se degage de cet art viril est une
impression singuliere de vitalite et de puissance.)
120. Meissonier was born in 1815 (the same year as Couture) and died in 18 91.
There is no modern monograph, but see the catalog of the recent exhibition curated by
Philippe Durey and Constance Cain Hungerford, Ernest Meissonier: Retrospective (Lyon:
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Mar. 25-June 27, 1993). An important study by Marc Gotlieb,
Meissonier at the Pantheon, is forthcoming. A basic early study is M. O. Greard, Jean-

Louis-Ernest Meissonier, ses souvenirs, ses entretiens, precedes d'une etude sur sa vie et
son oeuvre (Paris, 1897).
121. Gautier, "Artistes contemporains-Meissonier," GBA, 1st ser., 12 (May I,
1862): 423 (absorbe toute son attention, ce n'est pas un theme bien complique, mais cela
attache com me la vie). Gautier goes on to praise the firmness and largeness of Meissonier's
facture, which seen through a loupe recalls that of Philippe de Champaigne or Van Dyck
(p·4 26 ).
122_ Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1857," La Presse, Aug. I 1,1857. (Ses petits personnages
... ne savent guere que lire, ecrire, fumer leur pipe, jouer de la contrebasse, et causer entre
la poire et Ie fromage, les coudes sur la table. Ce repertoire est borne.)
123. Mantz, "Salon de 1857," Revue fram;aise 10 (1857): 51. (Serait-ce aussi se mon-
trer bien exigeant que de demander a I'habile artiste de renouveler un peu Ie choix de ses
sujets?)
124. Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1861," La Presse, July 14,1861.
125_ See Hungerford, "Le Redingote grise," in Ernest Meissonier: Retrospective,
pp. 188-99 and pp. 200-1, cat. 106 (where the painting is dated 1860-64); and idem,
"Ernest Meissonier's First Military Paintings: 2 '1814, the Campaign of France,'" Arts
Magazine 54 (Jan. 1980): 98-107.
126. Charles Beaurin, "Une Date dans I'histoire de l'art: Les Salons de 1864 et 1865,"
L'Artiste, April I, 1866, 147. (Napoleon reflechit, soucieux, la tete inclinee, Ie regard
ouvert devant lui, devant I'avenir, devant la brume. Vaste pensee, profond calcul, puissant
volonte qui ne peut pas s'empecher son etoile de s'eteindre a l'horizon.)
127. Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1864," La Presse, June 2, 1864. (Son visage est sublime
de desespoir resigne; il sent que son genie n'est pas mort, mais qu'il est vaincu; il voit
sombrer son etoile dans Ie ciel obscur. Mais il defie encore la fatalite, et la resolution des
luttes supremes imprime une fixite tragi que a ses traits.)
128. Theophile Gautier fils, "Salon de 1864," Le Monde illustre, 19 (1864), May 14,
1864 (montre la volonte luttant contre la fatalite). See also Theophile Gautier, "Salon de
1864," Le Moniteuruniversel, May 18, 1864, for whom I8I4 attained a tragic grandeur
even as it avoided all hint of theatricality. Napoleon, Gautier went on, was shown brood-
ing on his plans for battle, with no ray of hope on his features. "Only the will to defend
France to the end placed there its immovable character." (La volonte de defendre la France
jusqu'au bout y met seule son caractere immuable.)
129. "I don't want any returns to the past, any supposed resurrections, any paintings
made according to an ideal formed by ideal fragments gathered from different ages," Zola
wrote in 1866 ("Mon Salon," Ecrits sur ['art, p. 109). (Je ne veux pas des retours au passe,
des pretendues resurrections, des tableaux peints suivant un ideal forme de morceaux
d'ideal qu'on a ramasses dans to us les temps.) And in "Edouard Manet, etude biographi-
que et critique" (1867) he insisted on the need for the viewer of Manet's art to proceed as
the artist had done, by "[forgetting] the riches of museums and the necessities of supposed
rules [and by banishing] the memory of paintings heaped up by dead painters" so as to see
in Manet's work "only a translation of reality, by a particular temperament, beautiful
with human interest" (Ecrits sur ['art, p. 148). (II faut pro ceder comme l'artiste a procede
lui-meme: oublier les richesses des musees et les necessites des pretendues reg/es, chasser
Ie souvenir des tableaux entasses par les peintres morts; ne plus voir que la nature face a
face, telle qu'elle est; ne chercher enfin dans les oeuvres d'Edouard Manet qu'une traduc-
tion de la realite, particuliere a un temperament, belle d'un interet humain.)
130. "I could care less about the French school! I have no traditions myself ... "
("Mon Salon," Ecrits sur L'Art, p. 134). (Je me moque bien de l'ecole franc;:aise!Jen'ai pas
de traditions, moi ... )
131. "There are two thousand tableaux [in the Salon], and there aren't ten men"
(ibid., p. 109). (II y a la deux mille tableaux, et il n'y a pas dix hommes.) .
13 2. So for example his discussion of Millet in "Mon Salon" says nothmg about ,the
expressive and dramaturgical aspects of the latter's art that had been the focus of cntIcal
commentary for a decade (ibid., p. 129).
133. "I don't discuss a length of drapery, the position of a limb, the expression of a
physiognomy" (ibid., p. 134) (je ne discute pas un pan de draperie, I'attitude d'un mem-
bre, I'expression d'une physionomie). He al~o wrote with appr<,?val of Manet, "What one
calls composition doesn't exist for him" ("Edouard Manet," Ecrits sur ['art, p. 153) (ce
qu'on appelle la composition n'existe pas pour lui).
134. Emile Zola, L'Oeuvre (Paris, 1983), pp. 52-53; quotations in English are based
on Zola, The Masterpiece, trans. Thomas Walton (Ann Arbor, 1968), though I have not
hesitated to modify Walton's version when that has seemed desirable.
Un long silence se fit, tous deux regardaient, immobiles. C' etait une toile de cinq metres sur
trois, entierement couverte, mais dont quelques morceaux a peine se degagaient de I'ebauche. Cette
ebauche, jetee d'un coup, avait une violence superbe, une ardente vie de couleurs. Dans un trou de
foret, aux murs epais de verdure, tombait une ondee de soleil; seule, a gauche, une allee sombre
s'enfon<;ait, avec une tache de lumiere, tres loin. La, sur I'herbe, au milieu des vegetatIOns de Jum,
une femme nue etait couchee, un bras sous la tete, enflant la gorge; et elle souriait, sans regard, les
paupieres closes, dans la pluie d'or qui la baignait. Au fond, deux autres petites femmes, une brune,
une blonde, egalement nues, luttaient en.riant, detachaient, parmi les verts des feUilles, deux
adorables notes de chair. Et, comme au premier plan, Ie peintre avait eu besoin d'une opposition
noire, il s'etait bonnement satisfait, en y asseyant un monsieur, vetu d'un simple veston de velours.
Ce monsieur tournait Ie dos, on ne voyait de lui que sa main gauche, sur laquelle il s'appuyait dans
I'herbe.
135. See Robert J. Niess, Zola, Cezanne, and Manet: A Study of 'L'Oeuvre' (Ann Ar-
bor, 1968), pp. 103-4. The literature on L'Oeuvre is extensive; in addition to Niess, see
esp. Patrick Brady, "L'Oeuvre" de Emile Zola: Roman sur les arts (Geneva, 1969); the
essays gathered in Emile Zola and the Arts, ed. Jean-Max Guieu and Alison Hilton
(Washington, D.C., 1988); and Kermit Swiler Champa, "Masterpiece" Studies: Manet,
Zola, Van Gogh, & Monet (University Park, Pa., 1994), chap. 2, "Zola's L'Oeuvre: Its
Status as an Art-Historical Text (Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist?)," pp. 5 1-9 0 .
13 6 . Something not dissimilar takes place in Duranty's story about an artist of
Manet's generation, "Le Peintre Louis Martin," first published in 1872 in Le Siecle and
republished in slightly revised form in Le Pays des arts (Paris, 188 I). Martin, like Manet,
exhibits a painting at the Salon des Refuses; it depicts a garden scene with several fig-
ures: "A woman worked alongside a child sleeping in a small carriage; partly hidden by
the rows of climbing plants, a gardener watered the flowers and a young man, his arms
crossed, leaned against a tree, daydreaming, gazing toward the horizon. The artist had
wanted to render the universal brilliance, the struggle of colors under direct rays of sun-
light, all that evidently not without relation to the intense and equal colorations of Japa-
nese and Chinese images" (Le Pays des arts, p. 328). (Une femme travaillait a cote d'un
enfant endormi dans une petite voiture; a demi caches par les haies de plantes grimpantes,
un jardinier arrosait et un jeune homme, les bras croises, appuye contre un arbre, revait,
regardant l'horizon. L'artiste avait voulu rendre l'eclat universel, la lutte des couleurs en
pleins rayons du soleil, et cela evidemment n'etait pas sans rapport avec les colorations
intenses et egales des images japonaises et chinoises.) There is little of Courbet in this, but
Duranty has followed his natural preference for scenes of absorption.
137. No doubt Fagerolles was a composite of various artists, but it seems likely that
one of his originals was Carolus Duran. At any rate, in 1875 Zola described Carolus
Duran as an adroit artist who knows how to "make Manet comprehensible to the bour-
geois" while always staying safely within accepted limits ("Salon de 1875," Ecrits sur
['art, p. 297). (Seulement Carolus-Duran est un adroit; il rend Manet comprehensible au
bourgeois, il s'en inspire seulement jusqu'a des limites connues, en l'assaisonnant au gout
du public.)
138. Zola, L'Oeuvre, pp. 307-8. ("Oh! mon tableau est bien simple, Un Dejeuner,
comme j' ai nomme c;:a, deux messieurs et trois dames so us des arbres, les invites d'un cha-
teau qui ont emporte une collation et qui la mangent dans une clairiere.... Tu verras,
c' est assez original.")
139. Ibid., p. 325 (retrouvait son Plein Air, dans ce Dejeuner, la meme note blonde, la
meme formule d'art, mais combien adoucie, truquee, gatee, d'une elegance d'epiderme,
arrangee avec une adresse infinie pour les satisfactions basses du public).
140. Ibid., pp. 326-27; English translation, pp. 290-91.
Ces dos enfles, ces admirations montant en une maree d'echines, finissaient par exasperer
Claude; et, pris du besoin de voir les tetes dont se composait un succes, il tourna Ie tas, il
manoeuvra de fa<;on a s'adosser contre la cimaise. La, il avait Ie public de face, dans Ie jour gris que
filtrait la toile du plafond, eteignant Ie milieu de la salle; tan dis que la lumiere vive, glissee des
bords de I'ecran, eclairait les tableaux des murs, d'une nappe blanche, ou I'or des cadres prenait Ie
ton chaud de solei!. Tout de suite, il reconnut les gens qui I'avaient hue, autrefois: si ce n'etait ceux-
la, c'etaient leurs freres; mais serieux, extasies, embellis de respectueuse attention. L'air mauvais
des figures, cette fatigue de la lutte, cette bile de I'envie tirant et jaunissant la peau, qu'il avait
remarquees d'abord, s'attendrissaient ici, dans I'unanime regal d'un mensonge aimable. Deux
grosses dames, la bouche ouverte, baillaient d'aise. De vieux messieurs arrondissaient les yeux,
d'un air entendu. Un mari expliquait tout bas Ie sujet a sa jeune femme, qui hochait Ie menton,
dans un joli mouvement du co!. II y avait des emerveillements beats, etonnl's, profonds, gais,
austeres, des sourires inconscients, des airs mourants de tete. Les chapeaux noirs se renversaient a
demi, les fleurs des femmes coulaient sur leurs nuques. Et tous ces visages s'immobilisaient une
minute, l'taient pousses, remplaces par d'autres qui leur ressemblaient, continuellement.
141. See Zola, "Edouard Manet," Ecrits sur ['art, pp. 142-43, 163-69.
142. Fantin-Latour, letter to Scholderer, Apr. 25, 1875, Brame and Lorenceau ar-
chives, Paris.
Mon Dieu, faites Ie mourir, disais-je a chaque instant; ce n'est qu'a 3 h. du matin qu'il est
devenu calme, peu a peu la respiration est devenue calme, puis il a plaint doucement comme si il
disait "ah! je repose enfin." Voyez vous, mon cher Scholderer, a ce moment j'l'tais dans un etat
extraordinaire; j'etais si heureux, je l'embrassais, je lui pariais, je Ie voyais delivre de la souffrance
horrible, il paraissait si heureux, mais je ne lui voyais aucune connaissance, tout cela etait
I'interieur qui se reflechissait sur la face, puis alors est arrive un etat que je ne peux pas raconte, des
eclairs qui passait [sic] sur la face, une suite d'expressions differentes; I'Intelligence avait pris la
place de l'Imbecillite, il devient grave. Oh! c'etait admirable, j'ai regarde pendant quelques minutes
Ie plus grand spectacle que I'on puisse voir; je ne cessais de dire "Oh! que c'est beau, que c'est
beau."
143. Still another manifestation of the new sensibility was the revival in the 1860s of
interest in the art of Jean-Baptiste Greuze (1725-1805). As I show in Absorption and
Theatricality, Greuze was the major painter of the first phase of the antitheatrical tradi-
tion, which is to say that the contrast between Greuze's genre paintings and those of his
predecessor Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin provides early evidence for the radical trans-
formation of French painting that took place starting in the 1750S. In brief, Chardin's
genre paintings combine a thematics of absorption with a representational modality
552 Note to Page 251
keyed to what might be described as the resolutely ordinary or everyday; whereas in

Greuze's pictures of the mid-I750S and after absorption is always "excessive," always a
heightened response to an extraordinary situation, one that has been narrativized, mor-
alized, sentimentalized, and often sexualized so as to compel the figures' absorption and
thus sustain the metaphysical illusion that they are unaware of being beheld. At first
Greuze's work was enthusiastically received, but by the 1780s it had largely fallen out of
fashion as the various means and devices that had served to immure his personages within
the painted scene came increasingly to be perceived as seeking merely to manipulate the
viewer emotionally.
The eclipse of his reputation continued throughout much of the nineteenth century, but
about 1860 the situation began to change. An early sign of this was Thon?s largely favor-
able discussion of Greuze in his three-part article on the landmark exhibition of French
paintings from private collections at Martinet's (Burger [Thon~] 1860 [III]:236-38).
Three years later the Goncourt brothers published the essay on Greuze they went on to
include as a chapter of L'Art du dix-huitieme siecie. And in 1868 an entire issue of L'Ar-
tiste (Oct. I, 1868), one of the two leading French journals on painting and related arts,
was given over to a series of articles (some excerpted from previously published books and
essays) on different aspects of Greuze's life and work by more than a dozen writers, includ-
ing Arsene Houssaye, Gautier, Thon~, Chesneau, the Goncourts, and Saint-Victor. (The
issue marked the dedication of a statue to Greuze in his native town of Tournus.) What
was at stake in those developments, I suggest, was not simply a new recognition of the
merits of a neglected French master but the discovery of a certain parallel between the
intensification of absorption in Greuze's art and the thematics of excess that we have seen
at work in French painting and its criticism in the 1860s.
In this connection it's worth noting that Astruc in 1863 likened Ribot's Prayer to "a
slightly black and strengthened Greuze" (Le Salon, no. 16 [May 20,1863]). (On dirait un
Greuze un peu noir et fortifie.) And that Carolus Duran's Murdered Man has much in
common with Greuze's more emotionally heated genre paintings as regards both subject
matter and mise-en-scene, though not physical dimensions or execution. Finally, two
paintings by the Alsacian painter Gustave Brion, A Bible Reading in Alsace and A Protes-
tant Marriage in Alsace, enjoyed surprising success at the Salons of 1868 and 1869 largely
by reviving Greuze's absorptive subject matter and something of his composition with a
sobriety of drawing and execution that made them acceptable to a broad spectrum of taste
(see e.g. Paul Mantz's comparison of Brion with Greuze as well as his praise for the inter-
nal equilibrium of Brion's composition and the "intimacy" and "character" of his heads
["Salon de 1869," GBA, 1st ser., 2 (July I, 1869): 6-7]) (sans chercher dans M. Brion
que Diderot a decouvert dans Greuze, il nous suffit de trouver dans Ie Mariage protestant,
comme l'an passe dans la Lecture de la Bible, une forte saveur morale et beaucoup de
bonne peinture. M. Brion ne donne rien a hasard: il compose son tableau, il equilibre ses
groupes, et, bien que l'expression so it chez lui discrete et contenue, il fait dire aux physi-
onomies, aux attitudes de ses personnages tout ce qu'elles doivent dire. Sans aller
jusqu'au portrait, ses tetes ont de l'intimite et du caractere.)
Apropros the 1860 exhibition at Martinet's, among the paintings exhibited there was
Greuze's Danae (also thought to be Aegina Visited by Jupiter), today in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. Although different in basic respects from Olympia, the Danae or Aegina
belongs to the context in which the former was conceived, as do the following remarks in
Thore's commentary on Greuze's canvas: "Every painter with any ambition has always
wanted to paint his nude, just as much as Titian or Correggio. Rembrandt himself painted
his Danae, which is one of the prodigies of the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. Velasquez
painted his Venus, which was one of the prodigies of the Manchester exhibition. In our
time, hasn't Ingres painted his Odalisque, which is considered one of his masterpieces?"
(Burger [Thore] 1860 [III]: 23 6). (Tout peintre un peu ambitieux a toujours voulu faire sa
Femme nue, aussi bien que Titien ou Correge. Rembrandt lui-meme a fait sa Danae, qui
est un des prodiges de l'Ermitage a Saint-Petersbourg. Velazquez a fait sa venus, qui etait
un des prodiges de l'exhibition de Manchester. De nos jours, M. Ingres n'a-t-il pas fait son
Odalisque, qui passe pour un de ses chefs-d'oeuvre?)
144· Saint-Victor, "Societe des Aqua-fortistes. Eaux-fortes modernes, publication
d'oeuvres originales et inedites," La Presse, Apr. 27, 1863.
Tous les aqua-fortistes devraient frequenter les cloitres; ils y trouveraient ce que recherche leur
outil de caprice et de liberte: des haillons pittoresques, des tetes caracteristiques, des interieurs
entrecoupes de clartes et d'ombres, Ie mystere et I'etrangete .... [L]e Chartreux jouant un
violoncelle de M. Morse [Moyse] se modele avec ampleur et justesse. Le vieillard penche sur
I'instrument son crane denude. Voue au silence par la Regie, il semble converser avec lui; prive de la
societe des hommes, il se refugie dans Ie monde des sons; la voix des cordes lui tient lieu de la voix
humaine.
145· Dubose de Pesquidoux, "Salon de 1863," L'Union,July 10, 1863.

J'entends par peinture realiste religieuse un certain genre de tableaux qui s'attache a des sujets
courans et modernes de religieux et de saintete, pour employer Ie mot technique. Les processions,
les ex-voros, les consecrations d'eglise, les ceremonies de toute espece, les faits et personnages
religieux passant sous nos yeux journellement, constituent un filon nouveau que beaucoup
d'artistes exploitent de nos jours, et ils font bien. Tout aussi moderne, tout aussi vivante que Ie
genre proprement dit, cette peinture, inauguree depuis peu de temps parmi nous, est plus elevee et
plus interessante, et agit plus surement sur Ie public.
. .. [L ]es moines, les pretres, les soeurs, les enfans de choeur, que ces artistes mettent en scene
ont une realite et une vie merveilleuse.
14 6 . Astruc, Le Salon, no. I (May I, 1863). (Le caractere! note supreme, qu'il faut
moins demander aux modes d'expression qu'a l'imposante grandeur d'une realite pour-
suivie dans ses plus fugitifs aper~us, et se presentant a nos yeux avec cette personnalite
inexplicable qui frappe, retient, emeut.)
147· Millet, "Lettre a Pelloquet," Ecrits choisis, p. 45. (Caracteriser! voila Ie but.)
14 8. On the Societe des Aquafortistes, see Janine Bailly-Hertzbert, L'Eau-forte de
peintre au dix-neuvieme siecie: La Societe des Aquafortistes, 1862-1867, 2 vols. (Paris,
197 2 ).
149· Saint-Victor, "Societe des Aqua-fortistes." (En gravure comme en peinture,
M. Ribot se voue au tablier blanc. II s'est cloitre dans l'office pour s'y livrer a l'etude exclu-
sive, unique, absorb ante du mitron et du marmiton.)
15 0 . Chesneau, "Salon de 1868," Le Constitutionnel, June 12, 1868. (En effet, il s'est
ouvert un domaine d'observation tres speciale OU il se mont de jour en jour avec une li-
berte plus magistrale; il a toujours eu une passion toute particuliere pour les scenes de la
vie clericale et monastique. Par l'eau-forte et par Ie tableau, il a reproduit tour a tour les
grandes architectures de nos eglises, la physionomie inti me et exterieure des hommes et
des choses qui vivent habituellement enfermes dans l'ombre des cloitres et dans Ie demi-
jour des cathedrales.)
151. Astruc, "Salon de 1868," L'Etendard, May 29,1868. (Detelles oeuvres veulent
un milieu choisi; il me semble qu'elles sont fatalement perdues au milieu de ces gran des
batailles de cadres aux luxuriantes tonalites qui sollicite beaucoup plus Ie sens de la curi-
osite que celui de la meditation; mais prenez-Ies, placez-Ies dans un jour favorable, dans Ie
cadre necessaire, et vous-meme considerez-Ies avec Ie sentiment qui les anime; bient6t
vous vous sentirez penetn~ de leur effet. Plus que jamais, I'auteur de l' Assassine circonscrit
son drame et donne une intime vita lite, un nerf special a sa production.)
15 2 • Georges Lafenestre, "Salon de 1869," L'Art vivant: La Peinture et la sculpture
aux Salons de 1868 a1877,2 vols. (Paris, 188 I), 1:80. (Le genre qu'il [Legros) affectionne
n'est pas, a vrai dire, Ie genre religieux. On I'appellerait, avec plus de raison, Ie genre des
religieux.)
153· There is no modern study of Legros's graphic work, but see Bailly-Hertzberg,
L'Eau-forte, 2:131-38; Seltzer, "Alphonse Legros"; and H. J. L. Wright, The Etchings,
Drypoints and Lithographs of Alphonse Legros, Print Collector's Club, Publication 13,
1934·
154· Mantz, "Salon de 1868," L'Il/ustration, May 16, 1868. (M. Legrosetait alors un
peintre un peu barbare, la laideur ne l'effrayait pas; son pinceau sans finesse associait du-
rement les tons blancs et les tons noirs; mais il allait loin dans Ie caractere, il frappait fort
et il frappait juste.) A year later Mantz wrote: "Alphonse Legros is another painter who
has become much wiser. He commenced with extremely striking singularities, and we
can't forget the violent paintings of his beginnings, when he opposed whites and blacks
and sought the eloquence of ugliness" ("Salon de 1869," GBA, 2d ser., I [June I, 1869):
500 ). (Alphonse Legros est encore un peintre qui s'est fort assagi. II avait commence par
des singularites tres-frappantes, et nous ne saurions oublier les violents tableaux de ses
debuts, alors qu'il opposait les blancs et les noirs, et qu'il cherchait l'eIoquence de la
laideur.)
155· Astruc, Le Salon, no. I I (May 14, 1863). (Les belles choses frappent-elles sont
absolues.)
15 6 . Ibid. (Le bedeau est plein de caractere .... II imprime a I'ame une receuillement
extreme.)
157· Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1869," La Liberte, May 30, 1869 (une force et une
gravite singuliere ... Toute la rigidite de Ie vie monastique est empreinte dans I'austere
maintien et sur la physionomie maceree de cette vieille soeur de charite qui tricote des bas,
asslse contre une table .... On peut dire qu'il [Bonvin) est Ie Chardin de la claustration et
la misere). Bonvin (1817-87), a full generation older than Legros, Fantin, Whistler, et a!.,
was .one of the most consistently and rigorously absorptive artists of the century. Sympa-
thetic to the art of the younger artists, Bonvin in 1859 held an intimate exhibition of about
eight works by Fantin, Whistler, Legros, and Ribot (also possibly Antoine Vollon) in his
studio, the so-called Atelier Flamand, on the rue Saint-Jacques in Paris. For details of that
exhibition see Colleen Denney, "Exhibitions in Artists' Studios: Fran~ois Bonvin's 18 59
Salon des Refuses," GBA, 6th ser., 122 (Sept. 1993): 97-108. On Bonvin generally see
the monograph by Gabriel P. Weisberg, Bonvin, in French and English (Paris, 1979).
15 8 . Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1869." (Leurs physionomies affectent cet hebetement
:o~sterne qui est l'unique mode d'expression de M. Millet. Si du moins cette stupidite
etalt naturelle! mals elle a la raideur et I'ostentation d'un systeme.)
159· Just to complicate matters further, Thore admired both Millet and Breton.
160. Burger [Thore), Salons de W. Burger, 1:95. (Dans tous ses tableaux, Millet a
toujours je ne sais quel caractere qui eleve sa creation a la hauteur d'un type.) In the same
"Sal?n" he wrote: "What preoccupies [Millet) is the essential character of the personage
he wishes to create. Making a sower, for example, he would have the ambition for it to be
the So,":er in general, the very type of the thing, always as in the Bible or Homer" (p. 101).
(Ce qUi Ie preoccupe, c'est Ie caractere essentiel du personnage qu'il entend creer. Faisant
un semeur, par exemple, il aurait I'ambition que ce fut Ie Semeur en general, Ie type meme
de la chose, toujours comme dans la Bible ou dans Homere.)
161. Mantz, "Salon de 1863," GBA, 1st ser., 14 (June I, 1863): 501; this is said ap-
ropos the Man with the Hoe (son ardente recherche a concilier l'expression intime avec Ie
type simplifie).
162. Ernest Chesneau, Notice sur G. Regamey (Paris and London, 1879), pp. 25,44.
(Guillaume Regamey no us montrait enfin Ie soldat vrai, simple, sans pose, naivement tout
a ce qu'il fait .... [C]e qui domine partout et toujours, c'est Ie caractere essentiel de la
verite ramenee au type par Ie fait seul de l'extraordinaire justesse des mouvements et de
l'action.)
163. As was recognized by Baudelaire in "Le Peintre de la vie moderne" (Curiosites
esthetiques, pp. 479-8 I).
164. Castagnary, "Salon de 1875," Salons, 2: I 68. (A genoux, drapees dans leurs
capes brunes, embeguineees de leurs coiffes blanches, elles prient avec une ferveur telle,
qU'elles n'entendent, ni Ie pas des arrivants, ni la voix nazillarde du chantre .... M. Al-
phonse Legros a etudie ces singuliers etats d'ame avec un rare bonheur. Par toutes les
qualites qu'il enferme, modernite du sujet, verite des types, justesse des expressions, ca-
ractere des draperies, transparence des ombres, unite de l'impression, son tableau est une
oeuvre de haut style et l'un de ceux qui honorent Ie salon de cette annee.)
165. Louis Etienne, Le Jury et les exposants: Salon des Refuses (Paris, 1863), p. 31.
(Tout un caractere, tout une vie a part sont empreints la, et vous forcent a rester et a re-
garder encore. C'est une apparition, une heroine inconnue; et au point de vue pictural, il
s'emane une saveur artistique recherchee et puissante, qui annonce Ie chercheur fort.)
166. Clark 1985, p. 49. The next sentence reads: "The modern, to repeat the myth
once more, is the marginal; it is ambiguity, it is mixture of classes and classifications, it is
anomie and improvisation, it is the reign of generalized illusion."
167. Ibid. Clark continues: "What the myth of modernity fails to do-what entitles
us to call it mythical-is to put together its account of anomie with that of social division;
it fails to map one form of control upon another. The question will be asked of modernist
painting in the pages that follow: To what extent does it contrive to do some of that map-
ping, most often in spite of its ideology?" The" oscillation between the notions of Paris as
readable or unreadable, as being this side or the other side of representability" is a central
theme in Christopher Prendergast, Paris and the Nineteenth Century (Oxford and Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1992), p. 16 and passim.
168. Edmond Duranty, La Nouvelle Peinture: A propos du groupe d'artistes qui ex-
pose dans les galeries Durand-Ruel (1876) (Caen, 1988), p. 34. An English translation
appears in Charles S. Moffett et a!', The New Painting: Impressionism 1874-1886, exhib.
cat. (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, Jan. 17-Apr. 6, 1986; San Francisco:
The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, Apr. 19-
July 6, 1986), pp. 37-49. The translation of individual passages given here is my own.
Et ce que veut Ie dessin, dans ses modernes ambitions, c'est justement de reconnaitre si
etroitement la nature, de I'accoler si fortement qu'il soit irreprochable dans tous les rapports des
formes, qu'il sache I'inepuisable diversite des caracteres. Adieu Ie corps humain, traite comme un
vase, au point de vue du galbe decoratif; adieu I'uniforme monotonie de la charpente, de I'ecorche
saillant sous Ie nu; ce qu'il nous faut, c'est la note speciale de l'individu moderne, dans son
vetement, au milieu de ses habitudes sociales, chez lui ou dans la rue. La donnee devient
singulierement aigue, c'est l'emmanchement d'un flambeau avec Ie crayon, c'est l'etude des reflets
moraux sur les physionomies et sur I'habit, I'observation de I'intimite de I'homme avec son
appartement, du trait special que lui imp rime sa profession, des gestes qu'elle I'entralne a faire, des
coupes d'aspect lesquelles il se developpe et s'accentue Ie mieux.
55 6 Note to Page 260
The rhetorical continuity of La Nouvelle Peinture with the criticism we have been examin-
ing is even plainer in Duranty's claim that the modern movement developed "a penetrat-
ing [mode of] drawing, wedded to the character of modern beings and things, following
them when necessary with infinite sagacity in their demeanors, in their professional inti-
macy, in the gesture and feeling that stem from their class and rank" (p. 23) (il a apporte
un dessin penetrant, epousant Ie caractere des etres et des choses modernes, les suivant au
besoin avec une sagacite infinie dans leurs allures, dans leur intimite professionnelle, dans
Ie geste et Ie sentiment interieur de leur classe et de leur rang.)
What at first may seem confusing is that Duranty credited the modern movement with
getting the artist out of his cloister. "The idea," he wrote, "the basic idea was to raise the
partition that separates that studio from the common life, or to open the door onto the
street.... It was necessary to make the painter leave his shop, his cloister where he has
relations only with the sky, and to make him mingle with men, in the world" (p. 36).
(L'idee, la premiere idee a ete cl'enlever la cloison qui separe I'atelier de la vie commune,
ou d'y ouvrir ce jour sur la rue .... II fallait faire sortir Ie peintre de sa tabatiere, de son
cloitre ou il n'est en relations qu'avec Ie ciel, et Ie ramener parmi les hommes, dans Ie
monde.) But the world of men as Duranty understood it was a network of cloisters, in the
sense that I have been using the term. As he went on to say: "One showed the artist what
he never realized, that our existence takes place in rooms or in the street, and that rooms
and the street have their special laws of illumination and expression" (p. 36). (On lui a
montre ensuite, ce qu'il ignorait completement, que notre existence se passe dans des
chambres ou dans la rue, et que les chambres, la rue, ont leurs lois speciales de lumiere et
d'expression.) And (p. 38):
[Sjince we embrace nature closely, we will never separate the personage from the background of
the apartment or the background of the street. He never appears to us, in real life, against
backgrounds that are neutral, empty and vague. But around him and behind him are the furniture,
the fireplaces, the wall hangings, a wall that expresses his fortune, his class, his profession: he will
be seated at his piano, or he will examine his bit of cotton in his business office, or he will wait
offstage for his moment to enter the scene, or he will press down with his iron on his trestle table,
or else he will be dining with his family, or he will settle in his armchair to ruminate near his
worktable, or he will avoid being run down by carriages as he crosses the street, or he will look at
his watch while hurrying along a public thoroughfare. His rest will not be a pause or an aimless,
meaningless pose before the photographer's lens, his rest will be in life, an action in its own right.
Et puisque no us accolons etroitement la nature, nous ne separerons plus Ie personnage du fond
d'appartement ni du fond de rue. II ne nous apparait jamais, dans I'existence, sur des fonds neutres,
vi des et vagues. Mais autour de lui et derriere lui sont des meubles, des cheminees, des tentures de
murailles, une paroi qui exprime sa fortune, sa classe, son metier: il sera a son piano, ou il
examinera son echantillon de coton dans son bureau commercial, ou il attendra derriere Ie decor Ie
moment d'entrer en scene, ou il appliquera Ie fer a repasser sur la table a treteaux, ou bien il sera en
train de dejeuner dans sa famille, ou il s'assoira dans son fauteuil pour ruminer aupres de sa table
de travail, ou il evitera des voitures en travers ant la rue, ou regardera l'heure a sa montre en
pressant Ie pas sur la place publique. Son repos ne sera pas une pause, ni une pose sans but, sans
signification devant I'objectif du photographe, son repos sera dans la vie comme une action.
169. Ibid., p. 34. (Cet homme extraordinaire est au seuil de tout ce que l'art du dix-
neuvieme siecle aura voulu realiser.) Carol Armstrong, writing about Duranty and Degas,
rejects out of hand the notion that there existed an antitheatrical tradition grounded in
Diderot to which Duranty subscribed. Although she quotes Diderot on theatricality (Odd
Man Out: Readings of the Work and Reputation of Edgar Degas [Chicago and London,
1991], p. 80) and associates Duranty with Diderot's notion "that a painting's protago-
nists should appear natural, unstaged, and unselfconscious to the eye of the viewer, and
unaware of his glance" (p. 125), she cites Absorption and Theatricality only to insist "that
Duranty and other nineteenth-century critics looked to Diderot's writing as a model-
not for a system of judgment categories, but for what it also provided: an anticategorical,
unsystematic style of critical prose and critical attention. From midcentury on, when his
art criticism became known [a strange idea: starting in the late 18th century it was never
not known], critics increasingly aped the Diderotian style: the breeziness, the playful dia-
logues and arguments, the mixed modes, the sarcasm, the epigrams, the contradictions,
and the carelessnesses-Diderot's critical whimsy, in other words, rather than his theoret-
ical structure" (p. 266, n. 43). Obviously I think this is wrong, not only about Duranty
but about other critics as well. Indeed in the case of one major critic, Felix Feneon, the
evidence has been ever so slightly cooked: in a long quotation from Feneon on Degas
(pp. 3-4), the Diderotian claim that Degas didn't work from nature because a model who
knows himself or herself to be observed loses all spontaneity has simply been elided, along
with the concluding remark, "[N]ever have paintings less evoked the tedious image of a
'model' who 'poses'" (jamais tableaux n'ont moins evoque la penible image du 'modele'
qui 'pose'). Here as elsewhere, Armstrong's concern to establish Degas's uniqueness has
peculiar consequences.
As I remarked in a footnote to the introduction, Degas is the great absent from this
book. In the place of the long and detailed analysis that would be required to secure
the point, let me say that although Degas's paintings, pastels, and monotypes are rarely
straightforwardly or traditionally absorptive in the way that, for example, Gustave Caille-
botte's pictures often are, they cannot be understood in isolation from the issues we have
been considering. By the same token, while it is true that La Nouvelle Peinture shows the
influence of Degas (a point stressed by all modern commentators), it was in part Duranty's
long-standing commitment to an absorptive esthetic that made him receptive to Degas's
art in the first place.
170. See Duranty, La Nouvelle Peinture, pp. 25-26, on the Ex-Voto.
I7!. See the list of actions cited in the second of the long quotations in n. 168, most or
all of which are taken from works by Degas and Caillebotte.
Until now I have been citing Clark in support of my questioning of the "myth" of
Paris's illegibility during the years in question. However, toward the end of his chapter on
A Bar at the Folies-Bergere in The Painting of Modern Life he remarks apropos a canvas
by Degas that "Degas seems to have believed for a while in the I870S that modern life
would offer the painter of sufficient skill a new set of characteristic physiognomies; he
would be able to elaborate a repertoire of types, gestures, and expressions to stand for his
century and give the viewer the feel of its life." And: "The modern city, Degas thought,
would produce 'characters'; it would therefore be subject to sharp, ironical notation and
equally fine physiognomical encoding. What this confidence amounted to-it was plainer
still in the sketches and recipes of Degas's spokesman, Edmond Duranty-was a kind
of nostalgia for times when identities had been stamped on a man's skin; and this at a
moment when the mapping of the psyche around the polarities of 'inside' and 'outside'
was being displaced by quite other topographies." Clark goes on:
These were eventually to issue in a new kind of polarity-that of conscious and unconscious
mind-which theorized (among other things) the great fact of character in bourgeois society: that
the "inside" cannot be read from the "outside," and that the determinant facts of mind need have
no visual effects, or may appear at most as interruptions in the flow of public signals. The previous
pictorial concept of the psyche had depended on a notion of the self as something acted out, in
familiar contexts and informing roles. This chapter has tried to describe the circumstances in which
such acting out became rare. (Clark 1985,P' 255)
And finally: "What is visible in modern life, in other words, is not character but class"
(p. 25 8 ). The question, however, is whether such a claim can be sustained, indeed whether
Clark's description of Duranty's theorizing as essentially physiognomic and nostalgic is
justified, in view of the discursive network we have just examined. ("A physiognomies of
exteriority" is also the key to Armstrong's reading of Duranty's criticism in Odd Man Out
[esp. p. 87].) See in this connection Carlo Ginzburg's discussion of what he calls a "conjec-
tural model" of human knowledge and of the relation between ideas of character and indi-
viduality in "Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and Scientific Method," trans.
Anna Davin, History Workshop 9 (spring 1980): 5-3 6 .
4. Manet in His Generation

I. See Stephen Melville's review of Courbet's Realism, "Compelling Acts, Haunting
Convictions," Art History 14 (Mar. 199 1 ): II7·
2. Metonymies, in the sense that the ideal aim of Courbet's Realism is that of continu-
ation or "prolongation" between painter-beholder and painting; see ibid., I I 6-21.
3. Fried 1990, pp. 200-201, with minor changes.
4. Ibid., pp. 286-87. Facing and facingness are thematized repeatedly in "Manet's
Sources" as well; see e.g. chap. I, nn. 26, 89, 96, and I I I.
5. See the discussion of Shaftesbury in Fried 1980, p. 89·
6. See Fried 1980, pp. 71-105.
7. See chap. I, n. 97, and Fried 1990, pp. 234-38. A classic statement to this effect
toward the end of the I860s is by Albert Wolff, "Salon de 1869," Le Figaro, May II,
186 9: "It is well understand that Courbet paints what's called the morceau like a master,
but does that suffice for an artist to maintain himself on the pedestal where an imprudent
enthusiasm has placed him? ... Courbet is and will only be a great artist in the inferior art
of painting a morceau." (11 est bien entendu que M. Courbet peint ce qu'on appelle Ie
morceau comme un maitre, mais cela suffit-il a un artiste pour se maintenir sur Ie piedestal
ou un imprudent enthousiasme l'a placee? ... Courbet n'est et ne sera un grand artiste
que dans l'art inferieur de peindre un morceau.)
8. Astruc, Le Salon intime: Exposition au boulevard des Italiens (Paris, 1860), p. 65·
(M. Courbet n'apporte pas, dans l'ordonnance de ses oeuvres, tout Ie soin desirable. 11
n'est point brule de cette £lamme d'art qui s'attache desesperement et sans reliiche a cha-
que detail. 11 y a du laisser-aller negligent et quelque incurie dans la conception de l'ensem-
ble .... Al'inverse de Delacroix, qui ne voit plus qu'un ensemble OU resonne l'idee, lui se
plait au morceau special qui l'eloigne. Du morceau on monte a l'ensemble, au tableau: de
la des erreurs et des contradictions d'accord. II ne se preoccupe pas assez a l'avance de la
disposition du tableau.)
9. Ibid. (les plus saines de tout Ie Salon).
10. Jean Rousseau, "Salon de 1864," L'Univers illustre (June I, 1864)· See introduc-
tion, n. 27, for the original French.
II. Eugene Delacroix, "L'Ideal et Ie realisme," L'Artiste, June I, 1868, p. 339· (Le
realiste Ie plus obstine est bien force d'employer, pour rendre la nature, certaines conven-
tions de composition ou d'execution. S'il est question de la composition, il ne peut pren-
dre un morceau isole ou me me une collection de morceaux pour en faire un tableau. II faut
bien circonscrire l'idee pour que l'esprit du spectateur ne £lotte pas sur un tout necessaire-
ment decoupe; sans eel a il n'y aurait pas d'art.)
12. Burger [Thore], "Salon de 1863," Salons de W. Burger, 1:414. (L'art fran<;ais, tel
qu'on Ie voit dans ses oeuvres proscrites, semble commencer ou recommencer. II est
baroque et sauvage, quelquefois tres-juste et meme profond. Les sujets ne sont plus les
memes que dans les salles officielles: peu de mythologie ou d'histoire; la vie presente, et
surtout dans les types populaires; peu de recherche et point de gout: ce qui se manifeste tel
quel, beau ou laid, distingue ou vulgaire. Et une pratique toute differente des pratiques
consacrees par la longue domination de l'art italien. Au lieu de chercher les contours, ce
que l'Academie appelle de dessin, au lieu de s'acharner au detail, ce que les amateurs clas-
siques appellent Ie fini, on aspire a rendre l'effet dans son unite frappante, sans souci de la
correction des lignes ni de la minutie des accessoires.)
13. Gonzague Privat, Place aux jeunes! Causeries critiques sur Ie Salon de 1865 (Paris,
1865), p. 136. (M. Manet a cherche Ie tableau sans se preoccuper assez de la forme et des
details.)
14. Ibid., pp. 63-64. (Dans l'Olympia, de M. Manet, ne vous en deplaise, il y a plus
que du bon, il y regne de solides et rares qualites de peinture. La jeune fille est d'un ton
mat, ses chairs sont d'une delicatesse exquise, d'une finesse, d'un rapport juste sur les
draps blancs. Le fond est charmant, les rideaux verts qui ferment Ie lit sont d'une couleur
legere et aerienne. Mais Ie public, Ie gros public, qui trouve plus commode de rire que
regarder, ne comprend rien du tout a cet art trop abstrait pour son intelligence.)
15. Ibid., p. 64. (Selon moi, Ie jour ou M. Manet arrivera avec une oeuvre plus com-
prehensible pour tout Ie monde, ce sera a qui lui fera fete.)
16. Ibid., p. 65. (Si ces braves gens, qui plaisantent grossierement M. Manet, pou-
vaient savoir Ie peu qu'il faudrait pour leur rendre lisible cette peinture trop artistique;
s'ils savaient combien sont rares l'originalite, la finesse dans la couleur et l'harmonie, ils
ne tueraient pas sous de vulgaires railleries un homme convaincu que l'on irrite par un
presumptueux dedain.)
17. Ibid., pp. 65-66. (Si cet artiste fUt venu au temps de Velasquez, l'illustre Espagnol
eut fortement encourage Ie hardi jeune homme; ill'eut sin cerement engage a perseverer,
sans prendre garde au qu'en dira-t-on, illui eut dit: "Continuez, monsieur, laissez dire et
faites! Soyez persuade que certaines gens vous comprendront; n'exagerez pas vos qualites,
elles deviendraient des defauts; acharnez-vous a rendre la nature dans toute sa verite;
peignez beaucoup Ie morceau, mais gardez bien precieusement votre temperament artis-
tique; marchez avec conviction dans votre voie. ")
Toward the end of his pamphlet Privat returned to Manet's defense. "If Manet weren't
a true artist," he wrote, "a good temperament, would his Olympia live? Why are certain
people frightened by the look of this young woman? Why does she make others laugh?
Because she's alive, and that life is visible to everyone; because one feels that she could
move, this woman whom one finds ugly and badly built, not without reason. But finally, in
fact, this painting is a hundred times better than the yellow and dangling Odalisque that
puffs itself up across from it" (p. 137). (Si M. Manet n'etait pas un veritable artiste, d'un
bon temperament, son Olympia vivrait-elle? Pourquoi certaines gens sont-ils effrayes par
l'aspect de la jeune femme? pourquoi en fait-elle rire d'autres? Parce qU'elle vit, que cette
vie est sensible pour tout Ie monde; parce qu'on sent qu'elle pourrait remuer, cette femme
que l'on trouve laide et mal faite, non sans quelque raison. Mais enfin, par Ie fait, ce tab-
leau est cent fois meilleur que la jaune et pandouillarde Odalisque qui se gon£le en face
de lui.)
Clark in his chapter on Olympia grants that Privat wanted to say something favorable
about Manet but argues that his remarks on the picture itself are "preliminary to a discus-
sion which does not, in fact, follow" (Clark 1985, p. 290, n. 75). Clark also wishes to
minimize the force of Privat's claim that Manet's art was "too abstract" for the public's
intelligence (ibid., and p. 295, n. 30). My own assessment of Privat's critical performance,
including the latter claim, is much more positive. But as Clark says, "about Gonzague
Privat it is possible to disagree" (p. 290, n. 75)·
I 8. Antonin Proust reports that while Manet was still studying with Couture, people
said "'At Couture's there is someone named Manet who it seems paints astonishing mor-
cea~x, but who isn't on good terms with the models'" (Proust I897, p. I2). (On disait
couramment: "II y a chez Couture un nomme Manet qui fait, parait-il, des morceaux
etonnants, mais qui n'est pas commode avec les modeIes.")
I9. By I874 Privat's attitude toward Manet had hardened. For him, both the Bon
Bock, which had enjoyed public success, and the Chemin de fer, which was widely crit-
icized, came to the same thing artistically. "Manet does what he does and will not do
otherwise," he wrote. "As an example of painting nothing could be better, as an artistic
realization one has the right to demand more. The patch is there [a reference to the famil-
iar idea that Manet painted with "patches" of color], but all effort stops at that point"
(Gonzague-Privat, "Salon de I874," L'Evenement, June 22, I874). (M. Manet fait ainsi
et ne fera pas autrement; comme note de peinture rien de mieux, comme realisation d'art
on est en droit de demander davantage. La tache y est, mais l'effort s'arrete la.) He contin-
ued in terms that bear on the argument to come: "The day when Manet will consent to
research a hand, to investigate a head, to paint a figure otherwise than as a still life, in sum
to get more emotionally involved, his success will be certain." (Le jour ou M. Manet con-
sentira a chercher une main, a fouiller une tete, a peindre une figure autrement comme une
nature morte, a s'enflammer davantage, pour tout dire, son sucd:s sera certain.)
20. Theodore Pelloquet, L'Exposition: Journal du Salon de 1863, no. 22 (July 23,
I863)·
En realite, je ne sais pas ou va M. Manet, et je ne crois pas me tromper bien fort, en supposant
qu'il ne Ie sait pas trop lui-meme. II y a dans ses toiles la preuve qu'il a l'organisation d'un peintre.
II possede une bonne palette, mais il ne suffit pas de posseder une bonne palette, il importe encore
et surtout de savoir s'en servir. S'il pense Ie contraire, je lui conseille de se faire teinturier.
M. Manet ne sait pas composer un tableau, ou plutot, il ne se rend pas compte de ce qu'on
entend par un tableau. Je ne dis pas qu'on apprenne cela comme une recette, mais enfin il faut
arriver a Ie savoir. Si on Ie sait d'une autre fac;on que les autres, tant mieux; c'est la privilege des
grands peintres. Mais quand il place deux ou trois figures nues, sur une grande toile, a cote de deux
ou trois autres vetues de paletots, au milieu d'un paysage, brosse tant bien que mal, je voudrais
qu'il me fit comprendre son intention. Je ne lui demande pas un enseignement philosphique, mais la
traduction visible d'une impression quelconque. Je cherche la sienne et je ne la trouve pas; c'est un
rebus d'une dimension exageree et qu'on ne devinera jamais.
21. Jules-Antoine Castagnary, "Salon de I 870," Salons, I :429. (Je n'ai rien a dire de
ce peintre qui depuis dix ans semble avoir pris a tache de nous montrer a chaque salon
qu'il possede une partie des qualites necessaires pour faire des tabeaux. Ces qualites je ne
les nie pas; rna is j'attends les tableaux.)
22. Bibliotheque Doucet, Carton 20 Peintres (j'appellerais tableaux tout morceaux
reussis qui naturellement [the words "font une" are then crossed out] sans recherche de
composition en font une). In general I have made no effort to correct errors of spelling or
grammar in the passages from artists' letters cited in the pages that follow.
23. I have already alluded to Baudelaire's remarks on the Angelus in his "Salon of
I 8 59." More interesting, however, is Astruc's commentary of the same year, which begins
by asking whether the painter has himself gone to the church in order to understand the
"religious intimacy" (l'intimite religieuse) of the personages and goes on to describe the
painting as follows:
Notes to Page 274 5 6r
A large old woman, with a stately white cap, kneels and joins her hands in the foreground. She
mutters her prayers with a tender vivacity. A little girl in a gray dress and black apron is against her.
An umbrella precedes them. That umbrella intrigues one and makes one smile! What a crime! it
sprawls in the dust ... [ellipsis in original]. Further back, other women pray, one, among the
others, in a red jacket, in gloves, who is saying her rosary;-but as there are numerous beads, she is
seated. Near her, the candlelighter bundles herself up and falls asleep in her black hood. She seems
like a crow on its perch,-and I can hear from where I am her mechanical croaking: "candles!
candles! ... " The gray and violet flagstones mount up to the reddish woodwork in the
background. On the wall, a funerary plaque is displayed. An open door gives access to a shadowy
corridor where some chairs are. To the right is a small boy who looks at the church-or at the holy-
water sprinkler, that Catholic scarecrow-with great uneasiness, all the while turning his cap in his
hands. He has been told to wait: his mother is taking a look around the church. A young woman
seen only in part, dressed in black with a pretty bonnet with violet ribbons, arrives, holding a book
in her hand, head slightly bowed, with that half-coquettish half-religious allure of pretty women in
church, because she is pretty, oh! charming and modest too.
I truly take great pleasure in speaking of this painting in which art and nature unite so weIl-
and which I see lost in a chaos of unhealthy discordance [at the Salon]-a violet among brambles.
A violet, I've said of it: it has the qualities of that flower;-the same modest simplicity, the same
fragrance, and the color,-joking aside-is not far, I swear, from having adopted its mysterious
tone.
I have no wish to give a detailed account of this picture, all of which is successful. I prefer to say
to you that there is in it a striking charm of nature,-Iots of intelligence,-a pictorial ignorance [i.e.
a deliberate nalvete]-a sense of relish and youth-and that curious character of life that is not
composed and is simply rendered. He resembles no one unless it is the old Gothic artists. From this
perspective, his closest forebear seems to me to be Hemling [sic]. But he is still more himself, that is
to say, original, simple, seeing and extremely taken by reality,-which is good. He has a great
feeling for color, but color maintained in a severe tone,-almost sad.
I can assure you that he paints with passion, and that he has the devil in his flesh in spite of this
Christian absorption. His temperament will astonish ....
This lively character will force everything,-even the public's indifference. ("Les 14 Stations du
Salon [1859]," Le Quartd'heure, vol. 4, no. 10 [July 5,1869]: 54-56)
Vne grande vieille femme, a pompeuse coiffe blanche, s'agenouille et joint les mains sur Ie
devant. Elle marmotte ses prieres avec une tendre vivacite. Vne petite fille en robe grise et tablier
noir est contre elle. Vn parapluie les precede. Ce parapluie intrigue et fait sourire! Quel crime! il est
etale dans la poussiere .... Au fond, d'autres femmes prient, une, entr'autres, en camisole rouge,
gantee, qui egrene son chapelet;-mais comme il y a de nombreuses mailles, elle s'est assise. Pres
d'elle, l'allumeuse de bougies s'emmaillotte et s'endort dans sa capuche noire. On dirait un corbeau
sur perchoir,-et j'entends d'ici son croassement machinal: "des bougies! des bougies! ... " Les
dalles grises et violettes montent jusqu'a la bois erie rousse du fond. Sur Ie mur, une plaque
mortuaire s'etale. Vne porte sans battants donne acces dans un couloir sombre ou sont des chaises.
A droite est un petit garc;on qui regarde I'eglise-ou Ie goupillonneur, ce catholique epouvantail,
avec une grande inquietude, tout en roulant sa casquette entre ses mains. On lui a dit d'attendre: la
mere fait Ie tour de I'eglise. Vne jeune fille que I'on ne voit pas en entier, habillee de noir avec un joli
bonnet a rubans violets, vient, tenant un livre a la main, la tete un peu penchee, avecl'allure demi-
coquette demi-religieuse des jolies femmes a I'eglise, car elle est jolie, oh! charmante, et modeste.
rai veritablement un grand bonheur a parler de cette peinture ou l'art et la nature s'unissent si
bien-et que je vois perdue dans un fatras de malsaines discordances-violette au milieu de ronces.
Violette, je l'ai dit: elle ales qualites de cette fleur;-meme simplicite modeste, meme parfum, et la
couleur,-folie a part,-n'est pas loin, rna foi, d'avoir adopte sa gamme mysterieuse.
Je ne veux pas detailler les parties qui sont toutes heureuses. Je prefere vous dire qu'il ya la un
charme de nature saisissant,-beaucoup d'esprit,-une ignorance pittoresque,-de la saveur, de la
jeunesse-et ce caractere curieux de la vie non composee et rendue simplement. II ne resssemble a
personne, si ce n'est aux vieux gothiques. A ce compte, son plus proche parent me parait etre
Hemling [sic]. Mais il est encore plus lui-meme, c'est-a-dire, original, simple, voyant et tres-epris de
realite,-ce qui est bien. II a un grand sentiment de la couleur, mais e1le se maintient dans un ton
severe,-presque triste.
Je puis assurer qu'il peint avec feu, et qu'il a Ie diable au corps malgre ce chretien recueillement.
Son temperament etonnera ....
Ce caractere forcera tout,-meme I'indifference du public.
By now Astruc's terms of criticism are familiar, but a few points are worth noting. First,
the kneeling woman's umbrella is seen by Astruc as a marker of her absorption in prayer,
as if she were unaware that she had let it drop or that it was lying in the dust. But the verb
haler that Astruc uses in this connection means not just to sprawl but also to show or
display, as if for sale. And in fact the same verb is applied to the mode of presentation of the
mortuary plaque (Legros seems to think there is just one), which as we have noted directly
faces the viewer. So the umbrella in itself, Astruc's language suggests, embodies the double
or divided structure with respect to the beholder at work in the painting as a whole. And
second, something of the same tension or division is implied by first likening the Angelus
to a modest violet and then immediately saying that there is in it "a striking [saisissant]
charm of nature," by comparing Legros to Memling (Fromentin's epitome of reclusive-
ness) and then saying that he is taken by reality, by assuring the reader that despite the
artist's Christian absorption he has the devil in his flesh, and by noting Legros's preference
for "life that is not composed" and concluding with the remark that he will "force every-
thing" -including, presumably, composition itself.
24. Whistler to Fantin-Latour, Library of Congress, Pennell Collection. (Mais, mon
cher, Millais a cette annee produit vraiment un vrai tableau, enfin une chose tout ce qu'il y
[sic] d'artistique-tu l'aimeras beaucoup.)
25. Bibliotheque Doucet, Carton 20 Peintres. In that letter Legros asks in return to be
called "Master Painter" (Maitre Peintre), which suggests a sense of closeness to Courbet.
26. Rousseau, "Salon de 1864," L'Univers illustre, June I, 1864. ("Comme peintres
... no us procedons du mouvement imprime par M. Courbet, et nous ne croyons nulle-
ment, en Ie reconnaissant, detruire notre originalite personnelle.")
2 7. In a letter to Fantin dated March I I, 1865, Scholderer defended Courbet against
what he took to be Fantin's slights, saying among other things that the painters Fantin
placed above Courbet-Ingres and Delacroix-were nothing compared to him. "Is it
Delacroix who shows me the path to understanding nature? For me, never" (Brame and
Lorenceau archives). (Est-ce que Delacroix me montre Ie chemin a connaitre la nature? a
moi jamais.)
28. Whistler to Fantin-Latour, Library of Congress, Pennell Collection. The letter is
quoted and discussed in various studies of Whistler, including Katharine A. Lochnan, The
Etchings ofJames McNeill Whistler (New Haven and London, 19 84), p. 155·
29. Fantin-Latour to Whistler, letter of November 10, 1862, Brame and Lorenceau
archives. (rai de plus que les autres, Ie deb at entre la Vie humaine et la vie Artistique.-
Cette simple question.l'hude d'apres Nature Ie tableau. me tient en suspens depuis plus
d'un an, je n'ai encore rien ou presque rien trouve, et cela me devore. Sitot que je ne peint
plus cela me tourmente .... Ce que je cherche, c'est faire bien, ce bien de quelques grands
Artistes. Ce bien qui fait que l'on revient toujours a de certaines oeuvres, a de certains
Artistes qui ont su ce que c'etait que l'Art. Cette beaute qui est de tout les temps dans tous
les pays, cette mysterieuse harmonie, ces rapports, Deux tons mis a cote qui produise un
tout vrai beau complet.)
30. Ibid. (Mon reve de bonheur est un Atelier dans un en droit tranquille avec Ie mo-
dele sans cesse, non pas Ie modele qui paye son portrait, horreur!! ... le modele de 3h de
4h, 5h-que l'on fait poser avec rigueur (c'est son metier). Apres Ie diner de retirer dans
une chambre petite chaude en Hiver-des Cartons de Gravures et Passer a Songer devant
les Autres, et l'on y apprend quelque chose a cette exercice et au lieu du monde stupide on
a la des conversations charmantes avec les plus belles intelligences du Monde.)
31. Fantin-Latour to Legros, letter quoted in Noel Clement-Janin, "Alphonse Legros,
sa vie etson oeuvre," Bibliotheque Doucet, MS 470, pp. 60-61. (Aucune nouvelle, pas de
tableau au Salon; je t'en ai voulu de te faire du tort a toi-meme et de nous laisser ainsi,
surtout dans un moment si interessant pour tous. Tu es, tu Ie sais bien, un des rares
peintres. Nous nous disons cela bien souvent avec Whistler avec Manet, Scholderer dans
ses lettres, quel dommage ce Legros qui ne fait plus rien pour nous, qui n'est plus Ie peintre
d'autrefois! Au Salon dernier, voila, mon tableau etait meilleur, mais comme ton Lutrin,
par morceau, mais pas dans l'ensemble. Whistler un peu de meme, mais il avait contre
lui surtout, que ses idees ne sont pas dans Ie courant, que cela n'a fait l'effet de la Fille
blanche. C'est lui qui est en progreso C'est etonnant, comme autrefois tes tableaux les
siens maintenant me font un grand effet. Ses colorations larges m'ont fait beaucoup re-
flechir, aussi les tableaux de Manet. Tu ne peux t'imaginer Ie grand effet qu'il faisait a
l'exposition, cela m'a ete bien utile de les voir, quant a l'effet sur Ie public cela a ete im-
mense, cela m'a fait plaisir et m'a donne raison.)
In the remainder of the letter Fantin elaborated on Manet's succes de scan dale, men-
tioned Ribot's success and Lecoq's official award, and recalled the time when he and
Legros in a small room on the rue du Dragon began the movement that was now flourish-
ing. Something of Fantin's continuing perplexity as to his own path may be felt in the
unnoticed contradiction in his account of his present activities: "You see me always in
the Louvre looking, reflecting, always returning to a few men who for me are alone in the
right. You see from here it's the facing meal of the Marriage of Cana. I do almost nothing
now that isn't after nature [except, presumably, when copying in the Louvre]. I am more
and more all alone in my opinion and I no longer discuss except with myself." (Tu me vois
toujours au Louvre regardant, reflechissant, revenant toujours aux quelques hommes qui
pour moi sont seuls dans Ie vrai. tu vois d'ici c'est Ie repas en face des Noces de Cana. Je ne
fais presque plus que d'apres nature. Je suis tout seul de mon opinion de plus en plus je ne
discute plus qu'avec moi.) His description of Veronese's canvas as Ie repas en face shows
his continuing attraction to facing structures.
32. It was Fantin who had introduced the Edwardses to Schumann's music; for more
on the circumstances surrounding the etching see Fantin-Latour 1982-83, p. 143, cat.
no. 63.
33. A similar structure is already in place in Legros's Portrait of the Artist's Father
(1857; fig. 88) in Tours, where a variety of objects on a table surface in the immediate
foreground (a quill pen, some keys, a stamping device for sealing letters with wax[!]) are
variously oriented in toward and out from the "world" of the picture. Moreover, Legros's
signature on a folded leaf of paper is oriented toward the beholder (and away from the
absorbed figure of the artist's father) much as is the writing in Un Marceau de Schumann
(which however postdates Legros's canvas by seven years). Cf. also my discussion (chap. 5)
of Legros's etching Le Souper (1858-60). On the Portrait of the Artist's Father see Legros
1987-88, pp. 38-39, cat. no. 6.
34. Castagnary, "Salon de 1864," Le Grand Journal, June 12, 1864 (l'homme tombe
et presente en raccourci est un morceau excellent; mais ou est la perspective et que devient
l'ensemble du tableau?).
35. Chesneau, "Salon de 1868," Le Constitutionnel, June 12, 1868. (Le Lutrin, dans
sa large simplicite, est peut-etre un morceau de tableau plutot qu'un tableau; mais
I' Amende honorable est vraiment une oeuvre superieure.) For Chesneau's honorific use of
the term oeuvre, see the remarks in his "Salon de 1864" on Fantin's Homage to Delacroix
quoted in chapter 3. I compare the Amende honorable with Manet's Execution of Maxi-
milian toward the end of chapter 4.
36. Chesneau, "La Jeune Ecole," Les Nations rivales dans l'art (Paris, 1868), p. 324
(leur attachment exclusif a la peinture de morceau, leur eloignement-moins volontaire
qu'ils ne Ie disent-pour l'idee et l'expression .... Qu'il arrive au tableau. Qu'il nous
revele enfin I'artiste, apres avoir reveie une fois de plus Ie peintre dans cet excellent portrait
de M. Manet).
37. One more passage from a letter from Fantin to Whistler is revealing in this connec-
tion (letter dated Oct. 1862, Brame and Lorenceau archives): "Arrangement, disposition,
composition, etc.-mysterious words harmonious laws-not at all conventions-needs
of the Artist-glory of Raphael, Michelangelo, etc. etc.-for me a stammering a hesita-
tion, an affair of feeling-which must however become a law, something mathematical,
like form, like light, color, I find a parallel with color that proceeds by oppositions to
arrive at harmony that is to say to make of a canvas a whole, to put in a small space an
image with all the forces all the principles of nature-[then crossed out: instead of taking
a part] there you see I cross out I can't say more of what I wish to say ah the pen only serves
those who have banalities to say-" Where Fantin's breathless theorizing breaks down is
where he tries to bring together an ideal of artistic unity with a conception of the unity of
nature, which his realist premises make almost unthinkable. (Arrangement, disposition,
composition, etc.-mots mysterieux lois harmonieuses-nullement de convention-
besoins de l'Artiste-gloire des Raphael, Michel-Ange, etc., etc.-pour moi un begal-
ment une hesitation, une affaire de sentiment-qui doit etre pourtant une loi, une chose
mathematique, comme la forme, comme la lumiere, la couleur, je trouve des rapproche-
ments avec la coloration qui procede par oppositions pour arriver a l'harmonie c'est a dire
a faire d'une toile un tout, de mettre sur un petit espace une image avec to utes les forces
tous les principes de la nature [then crossed out: au lieu d'en prendre une partie] tiens tu
vois je rature je ne peux plus dire ce que je veux dire ah la plume ne sert que les gens qui ait
les banalites a dire-)
38. Edouard Manet: Voyage en Espagne, ed. Juliet Wilson-Bareau (Caen, 1988),
p. 44. (Le morceau Ie plus etonnant de cet oeuvre splendide et peut-etre Ie plus etonnant
morceau de peinture que l'on ait jamais fait est Ie tableau indique au catalogue, portrait
d'un acteur celebre au temps de Philippe IV; Ie fond disparait, c'est de l'air qui entoure ce
bonhomme tout habille de noir et vivant; et les fileuses, Ie beau portrait d'Alonzo Cano,
las Meninas (Ies nains), tableau extraordinaire aussi, ses philosophes, etonnants
morceaux-tous les nains, un surtout assis de face les poings sur les hanches, peinture de
choix pour un vrai connaisseur, ses magnifiques portraits, il faudrait tout enumerer, il n'y
a que des chefs-d'oeuvre ... )
39. Chesneau, "Salon de 1864," Le Constitutionnel, June 14, 1865. (Cette annee les
tableaux de M. Manet figurent parmi les oeuvres admises au concours des recompenses.
Le jury a ete indulgent.)
40. Astruc, "Salon des Champs-Elysees," L'Etendard, July 23, 1867. ("Ah! jeunes
gens pratiquez Ie beau en cherchant Ie vrai, sans maniere, vous inspirant des simplicites de
la nature si harmonieuses dans ses prodiges de fecondite. Abandonnez Ie detail; elargissez
Ie morceau jusqu'a I'oeuvre.")
41. "'There is a defender of present things [i.e. contemporary art]; he has placed his
pen at the service of the new painting and its free practitioners. Manet seduced him early
on'" (ibid., July 28, 1867). ("Voila un defenseur des choses presentes; il a mis sa plume au
service de la jeune peinture et des libres caracteres. Manet I'a seduit de bonne heure.")
42. See Steven Z. Levine, Monet and His Critics, Outstanding Dissertations in the
Fine Arts (New York and London, 1976), pp. 1-5 I.
43. This is a large topic. Suffice it to say that the Impressionist bracketing of the ta-
bleau was not a matter of simple indifference. For one thing, it did not imply a rejection of
the ideal of unity; rather, the Impressionists were seen from the first by sympathetic critics
as aiming at a different sort of unity, keyed to notions of decor and decoration (see Steven
Z. Levine, "Decor/Decorative/Decoration in Claude Monet's Art," Arts Magazine 51
[Feb. 1977]: 136-39, and the coda to this book). Andin the work of Monet and Pissarro a
sense of the inadequacy or incompleteness of the single Impressionist picture by the stan-
dards of the tableau led to the elaboration of the series, "homogeneously treated ensem-
bles of paintings of related motifs meant for joint exhibition" and aiming at a complex,
internally differentiated but also powerfully unified decorative effect (Levine, Monet and
His Critics, esp. p. 109; see also Martha Ward, Pissarro, Neo-Impressionism, and the
Spaces of the Avant-Garde [Chicago and London, 1995]).
44. Pelloquet, L'Exposition (above n. 20). (On y chercherait vainement I'indication
d'un mouvement. De quelque fa"on qu'il veuille indiquer une attitude ou un geste, Ie
membre et Ie corps qu'il a essaye de peindre restent inertes, comme empailles.)
45. Ernest Chesneau, "Salon annexe des ouvrages d'art refuses par Ie jury," L'Art et
les artistes modernes en France et en Angleterre (Paris, 1864), p. 189. (II a Ie gout cor-
rompu par I'amour du bizarre, et cependant il a des gaucheries que j'ose a peine, en un tel
sujet, qualifier de nalves. Cette naIvete n'est point deplaisante, a condition toutefois
qU'elle ne durera pas, et que Ie jeune artiste saura un jour nous montrer autre chose que
des etoffes vi des de corps qui les soutiennent. Les figures de M. Manet font involontaire-
ment songer aux marionnettes des Champs-Elysees: une tete soli de et un vetement
£lasque.)
46. Adrien Paul, "Salon de 1863," Le Silkle, July 19, 1863.
47. Ibid. (Ah si cette nalade effrontee n'y etait pas!)
48. Burger [Thore], "Salon de 1863," Salons de W. Burger, 1:425-26 (sous ces bril-
lants costumes, manque un peu la personne elle-meme; les tetes devraient etre peintes
autrement que les draperies, avec plus d'accent et de profondeur).
49. E. Spuller, "M. Edouard Manet et sa peinture," Le Nain jaune, June 8, 1867.
(Vous vous trouverez entoure de personnages doues de toutes les apparences de la realite,
au fond depourvus de ce qui la constitue, je veux dire I'expression. Tout cela est froid, sans
accent; rien n'est remue en vous, et vos yeux memes qui tout a I'heure, patients et dociles,
s'accommodaient a la fantaisie de I'artiste, n'aper"oivent bientot plus que des person-
nages tristes, sans grace, d'un aspect etrange, d'une coloration noire et lourde.)
50. Burger [Thore], "Salon de 1868," Salons de W. Burger, 2: 532. (Son vice actuel est
une sorte de pantheisme qui n'estime pas plus une tete qu'une pantou£le; qui parfois ac-
corde meme plus d'importance a un bouquet de £leurs qu'a la physionomie d'une femme,
par exemple dans son fameux tableau du Chat noir; qui peint tout presque uniformement,
les meubles, les tapis, les livres, les costumes, les chairs, les accents du visage, par exemple
dans son portrait de M. Emile Zola, expose au present Salon.)
51. Zola, "Edouard Manet, etude biographique et critique," Ecrits sur l'art, p. 159.
(Les peintres, surtout Edouard Manet qui est un peintre analyste, n'ont pas cette preoc-
cupation du sujet qui tourmente la foule avant tout; Ie sujet pour eux est un pretexte a
peindre, tandis que pour la foule Ie sujet seul existe.)
52. Ibid., p. 134 (je ne discute pas un pan de draperie, I'attitude d'un membre, I'ex-
pression d'une physionomie).
53. Jacques de Biez, "Edouard Manet," Le Voltaire, May 2, 1883.

54- See Paul Mantz, "Les Oeuvres de Manet," Le Temps, Jan. 16, 1884, who com-
plained that "Manet's works, seen from the point of view of the motif, have very little
physiognomy. Except for the beer drinker who savors his bock while smoking, except for
Lola de Valence . .. , the actors he puts on stage are mostly mute personages. They pose
immobile before the photographic lens. They have the calm of still life, and are morceaux
of painting the interest of which resides uniquely in the technical questions that they give
rise to." ([L]es oeuvres de Manet, prises au point de vue du motif, ont bien peu de physi-
onomie. Sauf Ie buveur de biere qui savoure son bock en fumant, sauf Lola de Valence . .. ,
les acteurs qu'il met en scene sont pour Ie plupart des personnages muets. Ils posent
immobiles devant l'objectif. Ils participent du calme de la nature morte, et sont des mor-
ceaux de peinture dont l'interet reside uniquement dans les questions techniques qu'ils
soulevent.)
55. "Manet's divinity was the truth of air, the truth of light," de Biez wrote in 1884
("Edouard Manet"). (Cette divinite, c'est la verite de l'air, la verite de la lumiere.)
56. See Reff 1982-83.
57. Robert L. Herbert, Impressionism: Art, Leisure and Parisian Society (New Haven
and London, 1988), p. 172. Roughly twenty years earlier Linda Nochlin wrote: "What
has never been sufficiently taken into account by 'serious' criticism [of the Dejeuner and
Olympia] is the character of these works as monumental and ironic put-ons, blagues, a
favorite form of destructive wit of the period, inflated to gigantic dimensions-pictorial
versions of those endemic pranks which threatened to destroy all serious values, to pro-
fane and vulgarize the most sacred verities of the times" ("The Invention of the Avant-
Garde: France, 1830-80," in Avant-Garde Art, ed. Thomas B. Hess and John Ashbery
[New York and London, 1967, 1968], p. 20). Farwell, responding to Nochlin, thinks this
goes too far: "It is hard to believe that Manet seriously sought to consolidate his Salon
career with a put-on" (Farwell 1981, p. 238). And the Dejeuner "is a large and serious
picture, not a mere joke" (ibid., p. 256). On the other hand, Farwell's bottom-line sense of
the meaning of the Dejeuner and Olympia is disappointing. She imagines Manet having
posed to himself and then having answered certain questions with respect to the nude:
"What does a civilized man dream of, hypocrisy aside, as a desirable image of the good
life? And if he seeks to buy it in reality, what does he actually get? The answers, radical
then and still radical today, were Dejeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia" (ibid., p. 271). The
Dejeuner is related to the Goncourts' notion of la blague (without crediting Nochlin or
anyone else) in Darragon 1989, p. 86.
58. Herbert, Impressionism, p. 61.
59. Ibid., p. 80.
60. Ibid. pp. 80-8 I. Herbert also writes: "It is precisely because Manet first estab-
lishes a cold dialogue between the statuesque barmaid and the viewer that the second dia-
10gue in the mirror [between the reflections of the barmaid and the customer] gains its
peculiar force. We can't really be that man, yet because we are in the position he would
occupy in front of the bar, he becomes our second self. His disembodied image seems to
stand for a male client's hidden thoughts when facing such an attractive woman. The ap-
parently aberrant detachment of the reflection in the mirror from the woman, and of the
man from ourselves, is the game this wily artist is playing. The very fulcrum on which the
picture balances, in other words, is a violation of the conventions of traditional art. To
have 'corrected' it would have destroyed the painting" (p. 81).
61. Clark 1985, p. 253. The reference to Paul Alexis is to his description of Manet's
painting that appeared in Le Reveil one month before the Salon opened (see ibid., p. 239);
the reference to Simmel is to his 1903 essay, "The Metropolis and Modern Life," which
Herbert also cites (Impressionism, p. 50 and passim).
62. Herbert, Impressionism, p. xv.
63. Clark 1985, pp. 250- 51. However, in an earlier essay on the Bar Clark wrote of
the barmaid: "She is impassive and self-contained; her gaze resists interpretation; her ex-
pression is impenetrable: it is the face, to paraphrase a remark of Michael Fried's, of the
painting itself, in which the painting stares at us [a reference to chap. I, n. 26]. All these
things-and I am casting around, as Fried was, for words to suggest the complex, shifting
relationship we have with that face, that pose, that expression-cannot simply be a matter
of buying and selling, the mere professional impassivity of the barmaid" ("The Bar at the
Folies-Bergere," in The Wolf and the Lamb: Popular Culture in France from the Old
Regime to the Twentieth Century, ed. Jacques Beauroy, Marc Bertrand, and Edward T.
Gargan [Saratoga, Calif., 1977], p. 237). And in a footnote to that paraphrase Clark adds:
"The phrases come in the context of a different argument, one about Manet's stress in the
I860s on the painting as a unity. Not that this is necessarily in conflict with what I am
arguing here: it might be said, and sometimes I believe Fried is saying, that in order to
confront the beholder with the unity of the picture as painted surface all the other kinds of
unity which are built into our normal appropriation of the work of art-including the
unity of ourselves, the 'beholder'-have to be deconstituted." I take this to mean (among
other things) that I am not the "inveterate modernist" of the later passage, any more than
Clark represents for me the social historian of art tout court. I will add, though, that it
now seems crucially important to distinguish between what Manet would have meant by
the "unity of the picture" in the I860s and what Clark refers to as its unity "as painted
surface," an Impressionist idea. Finally, when I say as I have just done that Clark's inter-
pretation of the barmaid's face fails to address the larger question of inexpressive or unre-
adable faciality in Manet's art I do not mean to rule out the possibility-which indeed
seems to be the case-that Manet in the I870S and I880s sometimes sought to depict
subtle and in principle describable psychological states of a sort that are rarely found in
his paintings of the I 860s. The fact remains, however, that readings of the barmaid's ex-
pression have been almost comically diverse; see Steven Z. Levine, "Manet's Man Meets
the Gleam of Her Gaze: A Psychoanalytic Novel," in Current Methodologies: Thirteen
Approaches to Manet's 'Bar at the Folies-Bergere', ed. Bradford R. Collins (forthcoming).
64· Clark 1985, p. 252·
65. On the Vocation see Legros 1987-88, pp. 65-66, cat. no. 31.
66. This was already remarked in chap. I, n. 26.
67. Le Courrier artistique for Dec. I, 1861 (1St yr., no. 12) lists a painting by Legros
called Moines en priere as on view at Martinet's at that time. Both the Ex- Voto and the
Vocation are warmly praised by Baudelaire (who doesn't give their titles) in "L'Exposition
it la Galerie Martinet en 1861," Curiosites esthetiques, p. 402. In those brief remarks
Baudelaire refers to the "concentrated and luminous landscape" (emphasis added) in the
Ex- Voto (un paysage concentre et lumineux), further attesting to the effect that I have
called forcing, and says of the Ex-Voto that it makes one think" of the most solid Spanish
compositions" (fait penser aux plus solides compositions espagnoles), among which we
might cite Velasquez's Drinkers.
68. See e.g. the account of that incident in Henry Osborn Taylor, The Mediaeval
Mind: A History of the Development of Thought and Emotion in the Middle Ages, 2 vols.,
(Cambridge, Mass., 1925), 1:441-43. My thanks to Daniel Weiss for this reference.
5 68 Notes to Pages 29I-92
69. See Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration: On Thomas Eakins and
Stephen Crane (Chicago and London, 1987), pp. 42-45; Fried 1980, p. 43; and Fried
1990, pp. 179-80.
70. I have deliberately used the French coup d'oeil in order to avoid the English
"glance," which before it can be used in this context must be stipulated as not carrying the
range of meanings associated with it by Norman Bryson in the chapter entitled "The Gaze
and the Glance" in his Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze (New Haven and Lon-
don, 1983), pp. 87-131. Bryson himself treats coup d'oeil and "glance" as more or less
synonymous. But as he implicitly acknowledges, the word "glance" can connote "a fur-
tive or sideways look whose attention is always elsewhere, which shifts to conceal its own
existence, and which is capable of carrying unofficial, sub rosa messages of hostility, collu-
sion, rebellion, and lust" (p. 94)-none of which holds for the French coup d'oeil. In fact
the opposition Bryson draws between two fundamentally different acts of vision, "one
vigilant, masterful, 'spiritual,' [the regard or "gaze"] and the other subversive, random,
disorderly [the coup d'oeil or "glance"]" (p. 93), while crucial for his purposes, is far too
ideologically biased to capture the distinction I have just made between an indefinitely
protracted act of seeing and what I call "a single immeasurably brief coup d' oei!." The
latter, to take up Bryson's language, is no less "masterful" or "'spiritual'" than the for-
mer. In the remainder of this book I shall feel free to use the word "glance" to mean an act
of "instantaneous" perception tout court.
71. See Clement Greenberg, "The Case for Abstract Art," The Collected Essays and
Criticism, vol. 4, Modernism with a Vengeance, 1957-1969, ed. John O'Brian (Chicago,
1993), pp. 80-8 I. For Greenberg, the quality of "at-onceness" is a mark of all successful
paintings: "[I]deally the whole of a picture should be taken in at a glance; its unity should
be immediately evident, and the supreme quality of a picture, the highest measure of its
power to move and control the visual imagination, should reside in its unity. And this
is something to be grasped only in an indivisible instant of time" (p. 80). As readers
of Absorption and Theatricality will have recognized, this amounts to an updated re-
statement of Grimm's and Diderot's (and before them, Shaftesbury's) conception of the
esthetics of the autonomous easel picture. Indeed the updating is by way of the early Im-
pressionist notion of "decorative" unity, which also was imagined as to declaring itself (or
failing to do so) instantaneously. My own use of the term "at-onceness" in the present
context is meant rather to direct attention to a particular temporal effect, one that in prin-
ciple is neither superior nor inferior to any other.
72. The Street Singer is often underrated in the Manet literature. But not by Jacques-
Emile Blanche, whose brief description deserves to be left untranslated: "[V]oici la Chan-
teuse des rues. Cette fille mange des cerises; Ie sac de bigarreaux s'appuie sur Ie bras
gauche, dont la main tient une guitare; pale, affligee d'un gros nez, les yeux en boules de
loto, avec sa toque, son caraco gris et sa jupe bouffante 'a tirettes,' elle semble collee aune
porte d'estaminet a persiennes d'un vert de banc; a l'interieur de cet endroit louche, on
apen;oit tromblons et gibus de buveurs. De cette chanteuse populaire, a la figure plate,
sans expression; de l'ensemble de cette composition assez ordinaire, Manet a fait une page
plus 'distinguee,' plus succulente qu'un portrait de Goya, mieux peinte qu'une Infante de
Velasquez; bizarre et stylisee comme un Ingres" (Manet [Paris, 1924], p. 26).
73. See Daniel Arasse, "L'Ange spectateur: La 'Madone Sixtine' et Walter Benjamin,"
Traverses, n.s., no. 3 (fall 1992): 8-19. Interestingly, Arasse argues that the "anges spec-
tateurs [at the bottom of the picture] ne servent pas seulement de relais au regard devot
porte sur Ie tableau d'autel; ils annoncent l'autonomie artistique de la representation a
laquelle ils appartiennent et dont ils marquent Ie seuil" (p. 17). As he also says: "Par son
dispositif de presentation, par ce qui se passe a ses bords superieurs et, plus encore, a son
rebord inferieur, la representation se presente elle-meme comme oeuvre d'art: tout en rep-
resentant (au moyen de figures) Ie concept chretien de revelatio, elle affirme l'autonomie
artistique de cette representation" (ibid.). See also the brief discussion of the implied
movement of the Virgin in John Shearman, Only Connect: Art and the Spectator in the
Italian Renaissance, The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, 1988 (Princeton, 199 2 ),
°
P·.1 5; and the remarks on the implication of the metaphor of the curtain in Hans Belting,
LIkeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, trans. Edmund
Jephcott (Chicago and London, 1994), pp. 478-84, 488.
74· "Lettres d'un bourgeois de Paris," La Gazette de France, July 21, 1863. (M.
Manet ales qualites qu'il faut pour etre refuse a l'unanimite par tous les jurys du monde.
Son coloris aigre et aga<;:ant entre dans les yeux comme une scie d'acier; ses personnages se
decoupent a l'emporte piece, avec une crudite qu'aucun compromis n'adoucit. n a to ute
l'aprete de ces fruits verts qui ne doivent jamais murir. Les critiques d'estaminet se pament
devant ces belles toiles d'un realisme a faire paraitre M. Courbet lui-meme academique.)
75· A notion sometimes applied to Manet's work and in particular to the treatment of
figures in the Dejeuner. See e.g. Rene Payant, "L'Art a propos de l'art," Parachute: Revue
d'artcontemporain 16 (autumn 1979): 5-8 (where the figure of the nude bather is seen as
superimposed on the rest of the image in an effet collage); and Hubert Damisch, Le Juge-
ment de Paris (Paris, 1992), p. 175 (where the terms decoupage, montage, and collage are
all loosely equated). Cf. also Blanche's description of the Street Singer in n. 72 above.
7 6 . Sandblad 1954, p. 82.
77· Marc de Montifaud [Marie-Amelie Chatroule de Montifaud], "Salon de 186 7,"
L'Artiste, May I, 1867: 247. (On est d'abord in quiet et surpris de l'obscurite, mais peu a
peu on s'aper<;:oit que ces massifs d'ombres se degagent dans une clarte qui vient de la
profondeur des bois et qui, avan<;:ant graduellement sur les plans du fond, gagnent les
plans principaux par des va leurs d'une transition si mesuree, si penetrante, si largement
distribuee, qu'il n'y a pas une mousse, pas un lichen, pas une fibre d'arbrisseau, qui ne se
detende d'aise sous les antres verdurants.) Montifaud's description perfectly fits the mas-
terly Stream of the Black Well, Valley of the Loue (Doubs) (1855) in the National Gallery
of Art (illustrated in Fried 1990, p. 342, fig. 1 II).
78. See Fried 1980, pp. 88-92.
79· On David's pictorial dramaturgy see Fried 1970, pp. 41-42; Fried 1980, pp. 154-
60, 175-78; Fried 1990, pp. 15-20; and idem, "David et l'antitheatralite," in Regis
Michel, ed., David contre David, Actes du colloque organise au Musee du Louvre par Ie
service culturel du 6 au 10 decembre 1989, 2 vols. (Paris, 1993), 1:201- 2 7.
80. Recently Kermit Swiler Champa has summed up the effect of Manet's characteris-
tic figure paintings as follows: "[T]he various female figures seem to serve as familiar and
interesting imaging pegs for Manet to hang his paintings on, and pretty much the same
could be said for his male figures. Whatever their gender, Manet's figures tend to be mo-
tific and readable as such. Their development is, however, always stunningly original in
pictorial terms. At base, figures are Manet's way of seizing his viewer's attention rapidly, at
times frontally using spectator-contracting gaze, at other times both frontally and lat-
erally to introduce a kind of perpendicular pictorial counterpoint, but one that always
refuses either to narrate, or to indent the picture spatially in any abrupt or complicated
fashion. A fictive pictorial immediacy is what Manet seems to want, and what he usually
gets. In addition, the narratively thin character of that immediacy serves rapidly and very
consistently to establish Manet's images as 'paintings' -as original Manet's" ("Master-
piece" Studies: Manet, Zola, Van Gogh, & Monet [University Park, Pa., 1994], pp. 4 2-
57 0 Notes to Pages 297-9 8
43). This is excellent, but its closing claim-that narrative thinness establishes Manet's
images as " 'paintings' "-risks implying that other works of the time were somehow not
seen as "paintings," or at least not to the same degree, which would be untrue (as Champa
perhaps suspects: hence the scare quotes around "paintings" in the final sentence). For a
similar implication, see the passage from Three American Painters quoted in the introduc-
tion, n. 62.
81. They were seen as "philosophers" by Comte Horace du Viel-Castel, "Salon de
186 3," La France, May 21,1863, and as "two rap ins, dressed in velvet, talk[ing] esthetics
with a woman clothed in her virtue" by Louis Enault, "Le Salon de 1863," La Gazette des
etrangers, May 24,1863 (deux rapins, habilles de velours, causaient esthetique avec une
femme habillee de sa vertu). Cf. Mary Vidal's insistence on the "conversational" basis of
Watteau's art, including his feres champetres, in Watteau's Painted Conversations (New
Haven and London, 1992).
82. Louis Etienne, Le Jury et les exposants: Salon des Refuses (Paris, 186 3), p. 30 (je
cherche en vain ce que peut signifier ce logogriphe peu seant).
83. Burger [Thore], "Salon de 1863," Salons de W. Burger, 1:425. (La femme nue
n'est pas de belle forme, malheureusement, et on n'imaginerait rien de plus laid que Ie
monsieur etendu pres d'elle et qui n'a pas me me eu l'idee d'oter, en plein air, son horrible
chapeau en bourrelet. C'est ce contraste d'un animal si antipathique au caractere d'une
scene champetre, avec cette baigneuse sans voiles, qui est choquant. Je ne devine pas ce qui
a pu faire choisir a un artiste intelligent et distingue une composition si absurde, que l'ele-
gance et Ie charme des personnages eussent peut-etre justifiee.)
84. Paul Mantz, "Salon de 1869," GBA, 2d ser., 2 (July I, 1869): 13. (On ne sait pas
bien ce que ces honnetes personnes font a leur bakon .... L'accentuation d'un type, Ie
caracterisation d'un sentiment ou d'une idee, seraient vainement cherchees dans ce tab-
leau sans pensee.) Mantz concludes his discussion of the Balcony by saying, "His painting
has almost as much interest as a still life" (ibid.). (Son tableau a presque autant d'interet
qu'une nature morte.)
85. In his comments on Carolus Duran's portrait Mantz began by recalling the paint-
er's "violent" origins and his earlier pursuit of reality "a la Courbet" and closed with the
following: "The dress is painted ravishingly; but it doesn't attract the eye of the spectator
more than it ought to, and nothing prevents him from examining at his leisure the head
from which the individuality of the model shines forth and above all the eyes, which are
full of eloquence. In its victorious charm, this portrait is serious and is bound to last; it's a
landmark in the history of the feminine ideal" ("Salon de 1869," GBA, 2d ser., I [June I,
186 9]: 503). (La robe est peinte a ravir; mais elle n'arrete pas plus qu'il ne convient l'oeil
spectateur, et rien ne l'empeche d'examiner a loisir la tete OU eclate l'individualite du mod-
ele, et les yeux surtout, qui sont pie ins d'eloquence. Dans son charme victorieux, ce por-
trait est grave et devra rester; c'est une note dans l'histoire de l'ideal feminin.) Not just the
evocation of the sitter's liveness and individuality but also the perfect relation between the
treatment of her costume and the rendering of her head and features are what Mantz and
other critics routinely found lacking in Manet's art.
Interestingly, the portrait's admirers weren't wholly in agreement about what the
woman was doing. Olivier Merson, for example, believed that "Mme D. is about to leave;
as she puts on her gloves, she crosses a salon and while passing sends you the most gra-
cious smile" ("Salon de 1869," Le Monde illustre, May 22,1869). (Mme. D. est prete a
sortir; tout en mettant ses gants, elle traverse un salon et vous envoie au passage Ie plus
gracieux sourire.) Elie Roy, on the other hand, thought that the woman had just returned
home. "She enters," he wrote, "moved by the rapidity of her walk, in a hurry to see a male
Notes to Pages 298-99 57!
friend, her face radiant with an honest brightness, her eyes full of caresses, and it seems
that she brings with her a breath of spring air" ("Salon de 1869," L'Artiste, Sept. I, 1869,
p. 356). (Elle entre, emue par la rapidite de la marche, pressee de voir un ami, Ie front
rayonnant d'un eclat honnete, les yeux pleins de caresse, et il semble qu'elle apporte avec
elle une bouffee d'air printanier.) No doubt Roy was correct in thinking that Carolus's
sitter was meant to be seen as having just returned from a walk or visit rather than as being
about to leave. But however the woman's actions were understood, the painting struck
contemporary viewers as a tour de force of vividness and intelligibility.
86. Castagnary, Salons, 1:364-65.
A quoi tient cette sterilite? A ce que, tout en bas ant son art sur la nature, il neglige de lui donner
pour but l'interpretation meme de la vie. Ses sujets, illes emprunte aux poetes ou les prend dans
son imagination; il ne s'occupe pas de les decouvrir sur Ie vif des moeurs. De la, dans ses
compositions, une grande part d'arbitraire. En regardant ce Dijeuner, par exemple, je vois, sur une
table ou Ie cafe est servi, un citron a moitie pele et des huitres fraiches; ces objets ne marchent guere
ensemble. Pourquoi les avoir mis? Je Ie sais bien, Ie pourquoi. C'est parce que M. Manet a au plus
haut point Ie sentiment de la tache colorante, qu'il excelle a reproduire ce qui est inanime, et que, se
sentant superieure dans les natures mortes, il se trouve naturellement porte a en faire Ie plus
possible .... De meme que M. Manet assemble, pour Ie seul plaisir de frapper les yeux, des natures
mortes qui devraient s'exclure; de meme, il distribue ses personnages au hasard, sans que rien de
necessaire et de force ne commande leur composition. De la I'incertitude, et souvent I'obscurite
dans la pensee. Que fait ce jeune homme du Dijeuner, qui est assis au premier plan et qui semble
regarder Ie public? II est bien peint, c'est vrai, brosse d'une main hardie; mais ou est-il? Dans la
salle a manger? Alors, ayant Ie dos a la table, il a Ie mur entre lui et nous, et sa position ne
s'explique plus. Sur ce Balcon j'aper,>ois deux femmes, dont une toute jeune. Sont-ce les deux
soeurs? Est-ce la mere et la fille? Je ne sais. Et puis, I'une est assise et semble s'etre placee
uniquement pour jouir du spectacle de la rue; I'autre se gante comme si elle allait sortir. Cette
attitude contradictoire me deroute. Certes, j'aime la couleur, et je reconnais volontiers que M.
Manet a Ie ton juste, souvent meme agreable .... Mais Ie sentiment des fonctions, mais Ie
sentiment de la convenance sont choses indispensables .... Comme les personnages dans une
comedie, il faut que dans un tableau chaque figure soit a son plan, remplisse son role et concoure
ainsi a I'expression de l'idee generale. Rien d'arbitraire et rien de superflu, telle est la loi de toute
composition artistique.
87. Ibid., p. 355. (11 est difficile d'ecrire une pensee avec plus de nettete, de vigueur et
d'harmonie. Rien n'est oublie et il n'y a pas un trait qui ne concoure a l'expression.) For
Castagnary's detailed commentary on the Knitting Lesson see chap. 3, n. 63.
88. See e.g. Theophile Gautier, "Salon de 1865," Le Moniteur universel, June 24,
1865, where reference is made to Manet's "willed bizarreries, his extravagant excesses
and the too visible desire to force attention [on himself] by firing, as we say, a pistol shot in
the midst of the Salon ... " (des bizarreries voulues, des outrances extravagantes et Ie
desir trop visible de forcer l'attention en tirant, comme on dit, un coup de pistolet au
milieu de l'Exposition ... ).
89. Marius Chaumelin, "Salon de 1869," LArt contemporain (Paris, 1873), p. 236.
(Le premier aspect de ces deux toiles est peu agreable, nous devons Ie reconnaitre; les
personnages,-a l'exception de la femme assise,-ne sont rien moins que beaux, les faces
ont quelque chose de morne, de maussade, comme celles de gens qui posent, et, de fait,
tous ces gens-Ia ont l'air de no us dire: regardez-moi! I1s ne pensent pas a autre chose; no us
en excepterons toutefois Ie monsieur qui attend son cafe et qui rumine tranquillement son
dejeuner, sans s'occuper de nous. Ainsi, pas d'expression, pas de sentiment, pas de compo-
sition.)
90. Ibid. (a reproduire des sujets d'une vulgarite repoussante, des types sans caractere,
des scenes depourvues de tout interet).
91. Ibid., p. 332. (M. Manet a fait Ie portrait d'un Balcon et celui d'un Dejeuner.)
92. Duranty, "Salon de 1869," Paris-Journal, May I 2, I 869, cited in Marcel Crouzet,
Un Meconnu du realisme: Duranty (Paris, 1964), pp. 289-90; I have been unable to find a
copy of that issue of Paris-Journal. (Si l'on voyait vite en passant des gens a un baleon, on
aurait une impression assez egale a celle du tableau de M. Manet, mais si l'on prolongeait
Ie coup d'oeil, l'impression changerait; les blancs et les verts, par exemple, perdraient de
leur valeur, et d' autres colorations en prendraient une nouvelle. C' est un peu la Ie secret et
de la peinture de M. Manet et de l'opposition qu'on lui fait. Il a toujours saisi une impres-
sion de la nature plus vite, et par consequent autrement que ses critiques.)
The negative version of this explanation was Albert Wolff's insistence that Manet ha-
bitually rendered only the first, brutal, gross impression of nature that struck his eyes, an
impression "to which thought remained foreign"; so that in the green shutters of the Bal-
cony he debased himself "to the point of competing with house painters" ("Salon de
1869," Le Figaro, May 20, 1869) (il rend admirablement la premiere impression de la
nature, impression brutale, grossiere ... en jetant sur la toile cette premiere impression
des yeux, a laquelle la pensee demeure etrangere ... il s'abaisse jusqu'a faire concurrence
aux peintres en biitiment). (The French just quoted brings together portions of different
sentences.)
93. Duranty, "Salon de 1870," Paris-Journal, May 5,187°. (Si les autres tracassent
sechement ou cares sent mollement leurs teres, il jette, prompt, sommaire, brutal et large,
les siennes dans une mate clarte, un peu crayeuse, supprimant les details .... L'effet vio-
lent de la nature, l'intense cruaute de ses aspects, de ses notes opposees Ie saisissent, Ie
dominent.)
94. Ibid. (Il faudrait entrer enfin dans Ie sentiment expressifde la vie moderne .... n
faut arriver a l'imagerie transcendante, l'imagerie admirablement faite, admirablement
dessinee, et d'une puissance complete.... [E]t nous ne savons plus comment nous de-
fendre, nous justifier devant cette accusation "d'aimer les superiorites incomprehensi-
bles" d'un homme auquel nous avons souhaite et pronostique les triomphes d'un des
premiers peintres de ce temps-ce.) Whatever else Duranty meant by the "expressive feeling
of modern life," he wanted Manet to go beyond his characteristic one- and two-figure
compositions" and to get excited in grappling bodily with assemblies of figures. Because it
truly seems that an invisible police keeps an eye on his hardy brush and forbids it society"
(ibid.). (Il faudrait se renouveler, laisser la ce personnage, ou ces deux personnages sur
fond ardoise et nu, et s'exciter soi-meme en se prenant corps a corps avec Ie rassemble-
ment de figures. Car on dirait vraiment qu'une invisible police surveille ce pinceau hardi et
lui interdit la societe.)
95· Armand Silvestre, "Salon de 1874," L'Opinion nationale, Apr. 15, 1874. (S'il
vous arrivait d'apercevoir sur Ie bord de pierre que surmonte un grillage une femme assise
et un enfant pres d'elle, la fantaisie vous prendrait-elle d'analyser bien profondement ce
spectacle fortuit? nse pourrait cependant qu'il vous restat quelques instants dans les yeux.
C'est cette impression instantanee que M. Manet a voulu rendre, et il n'y a pas lieu de Ie
defendre de n'avoir pas pousse plus loin l'execution d'un semblable motif.... On peut
regretter que M. Manet n'ait pas cherche autre chose; mais il est clair qu'il a rendu ce qu'il
cherchait, c'est-a-dire, une impression immediate et tres nette.)
96. Ernest Duvergier de Hauranne, "Salon de 1874," Revue des Deux Mondes, 3d
ser., 47th yr. (June I, 1874): 671-72. (Est-ce un portrait a deux personnages ou un tab-
leau de style ... ? Les informations nous manquent pour resoudre ce probleme; nous
hesitons d'autant plus qu'en ce qui concerne la jeune fille ce serait tout au moins un por-
trait vu de dos. M. Manet a fait tant d'innovations que rien de sa part ne saurait no us
etonner.)
97. Years later two other critics, Edmond Bazire and Henry Cochin, returned to
the portrait theme. "For [Manet], everything is a portrait," Bazire wrote in 1884, while
Cochin explained: "Manet also understood very well the portrait of inanimate things; his
still lifes, fish, flowers, fruit, vegetables, are strongly painted and natural." See Bazire,
Edouard Manet (Paris, 1884), p. 139; and Cochin, "L'Exposition des oeuvres d'Edouard
Manet," Le Franqais, Feb. 4, 1884. (Pour lui, tout est portrait.) (Manet entendait bien
aussi Ie portrait des choses inanimees; ses natures mortes, poissons, fleurs, fruits, le-
gumes, sont fortement peintes et naturelles.)
The idea that Manet was basically a portraitist, which is to say that his still lifes
amounted to portraits of various things (fish, flowers, fruit, etc.), is the reverse of the com-
plaint, voiced by some critics of the 18 60S, that Manet rendered persons as if they were
nothing more than inanimate objects. Obviously I think the emphasis on the portrait, or
say on an enlarged and (to use Gontague Privat's term) "abstract" notion of the por-
trait-tableau, was closer to Manet's intentions. But it isn't hard to see how his voiding of
psychology and related strategies gave his representations of persons a character that
could be associated with still life and that modern art historians, viewing Manet from the
perspective of Impressionism and subsequent developments, have made into a virtue. Cf.
James H. Rubin's privileging of the still-life metaphor, which he believes captures the es-
sence of Manet's art, in Manet's Silence and the Poetics of Bouquets (Cambridge, Mass.,
and London, 1994), chap. 3, "A Poetics of Bouquets." For Rubin, "Manet's figures [in his
paintings of the I860s] are bearers of still-life .... That is, the patterns and colours to
which their costumes give rise seem the veritable subject-matter of such canvases. They
embody the values of still-life to the same degree as drapery studies by the Old Masters,
except that Manet's are independent works .... As in the Olympia, these paintings pro-
duce an aesthetics of display, rather than narrative. Spread over the surface, indeed, press-
ing toward the eye, Manet's pigments create a world physically manipulated-like that of
still-life objects, except here more intimately fused with the painter's eye as expressed
through gesture and touch" (p. 181). Similar reasoning leads Rubin to emphasize the "si-
lence" of Manet's paintings, which in the I860s were routinely described as the visual
equivalent of loud and unpleasant noise (see below).
98. So for example Philippe Burty wrote on the occasion of the first Impressionist ex-
hibition of 1874 that the new esthetic was "based on the swiftest possible rendering of
physical sensation" ("The Paris Exhibitions: Les Impressionistes-Chintreuil," The
Academy, May 30, 1874). And Castagnary noted apropos the same exhibition: "This
young group has a way of understanding nature that isn't at all tedious or banal. It's lively,
it's quick, it's light; it's ravishing. What a rapid intelligence of the object and what an
amusing facture. It's summary, true, but how accurate the indications are!" ("Exposition
du boulevard des Capucines: Les Impressionistes," Le Siecle, Apr. 29, 1874). (Cette
jeunesse a une fa~on de comprendre la nature qui n'a rien d'ennuyeux ni de banal. C'est
vif, c'est preste, c'est leger; c'est ravissant. Quelle intelligence rapide de l'objet et quelle
facture amusante. C'est sommaire, il est vrai, mais com bien les indications sont justes!)
See also Chesneau's praise of Monet's Boulevard des Capucines in his account of the first
Impressionist show, cited in the coda.
99. In the words of Rene Maizeroy: "He saw, in effect, faster than he painted. His
hand was less active than his brain, than his eyes whose acuity was astonishing, and, three-
quarters of the time, he abandoned any painting that he hadn't almost finished in the first
574 Notes to Pages 30I-3
sitting" ("Portraits posthumes: Edouard Manet," Le Reveil, Jan. 12, 1884). (It voyait, en
effet, plus vite qu'il ne peignait. Sa main eta it moins active que son cerveau, que ses yeux
dont I'acuite etonnait et, les trois quarts de temps, il abandonnait Ie tableau qu'il n'avait
presque pas fini dans une premiere seance.) Another critic, Albert Pinard, emphasized the
relation between Manet's speed of seeing and executing and the speed of modern life:
Yes, we live rapidly, we have more notes than reflections, more apen;:us than certainties, more
whims than willings, and, certainly, that rapidity of life acts on the painter as on all the other
human atoms in society.
He sees more rapidly and he renders more rapidly; and as few men will see more rapidly and
more accurately, will reproduce [reality] more rapidly and more accurately than Manet, his
superiority to contemporary artists is easily comprehensible. His labor is in accord with that of his
century. It's not a matter of establishing different levels of art and of saying that this one is inferior
to that one. Do you consider as a superior art that which is able to determine an intense expression
by summary means? To realize the maximum of intensity of impression by the minimum of efforts
is a pretty miracle. That must be Manet's dream. ("L'Exposition Manet," Le Radical, Jan. ro,
r884)
~ui, nous vivons vite, noilS avons plus de notes que de reflexions, plus d'apen;:us que de sfrretes,
plus de velleites que de vouloirs, et, certainement, cette vitesse de la vie agit sur Ie peintre comme
sur tous les autres atomes humains de la societe.
II voit plus vite et rend plus vite; et comme peu d'hommes verront plus vite et plus juste,
reproduiront plus vite et plus juste que Manet, sa superiorite sur les artistes contemporains est
aisement comprehensible. Son travail concorde avec celui de son siecle. II ne s'agit pas d'etablir de
differents niveaux d'art et de dire que celui-ci est inferieur a celui-I.1. Considerez-vous comme un art
superieur celui qui arrive a determiner une expression intense par des moyens sommaires? Realiser
Ie maximum d'intensite d'impression par Ie minimum d'efforts est un joli miracle. C'a dfr etre Ie
reve de Manet.
100. Astruc, Le Salon, no. 16, May 20, 1863. Astruc also refers to Manet's paintings
as "entirely spontaneous ... so harmonious, executed with such verve and force that they
seem to burst from nature in a single bound" (ibid.). The whole of his remarks on Manet
in 1863 are reproduced in appendix 4.
101. Ibid.
102. Etienne, Le Jury et les exposants, p. 30. (Le paysage est bien traite dans cette
toile, la plus considerable qu'ait envoye M. Manet; mais les figures sont trop lCichees, et
nous se saurions mieux lui exprimer notre critique que de lui rappeler, afin qu'il s'en in-
spire davantage, la forte etude qu'il a exposee en 1861 dans son Jeune homme ala lourde
epee.)
103. Castagnary, "Salon de 1863," Salons, 1:173-74. (Le Bain, Ie Majo, l'Espada
sont de bonnes ebauches, j'en conviens. It y a une certaine vie dans Ie ton, une certaine
franchise dans la touche qui n'ont rien de vulgaire. Mais apres? Est-ce la dessiner? Est-ce
la peindre? M. Manet croit etre ferme et puissant, il n'est que dur; chose singuliere, il est
aussi mou que duro Cela vient de ce que tout est in certain chez lui et abandonne au hasard.
Pas un detail n'arrive a sa forme precise et rigoureuse.)
104. Ibid. (Je vois des vetements, sans sentir la charpente anatomique qui les soutient
et justifie leurs mouvements. Je vois des doigts sans os et des tetes sans cranes. Je vois des
favoris figures par deux bandes de drap noir qu'on aurait collees sur les joues. Que vois-je
encore? l'absence de conviction et de sincerite chez I'artiste.)
105. Ernest Fillonneau, "Salon de 1863," Moniteur des arts, June 6,1863. (Le Repos
sur l'herbe et les Espagnols de M. Manet, la Dame blanche de M. Wistler [sic] nous repre-
sentent des peintures par a peu pres, ou Ie parti pris et la volonte jouent evidemment un
plus grand role que la science et I'etude .... Qu'on ne confonde pas la bizarrerie avec
I'originalite, la raideur avec Ie style, la brutalite avec la franchise, I'exageration avec Ie
caractere.)
106. Gautier, "Salon de 1864," Le Moniteur universel, June 25,1864. (It attaque Ie
morceau hardiment et sait lui conserver une grande unite de teinte locale. Ses figures se
tiennent d'un bout a I'autre dans la gamme adoptee et rassemblent a des preparations du
maitre. Malheureusement M. Manet, par systeme, les abandonne a cet etat et ne pousse
pas son travail plus loin.)
10 7. Idem, "Salon de 1865," Le Moniteur universel, June 24, 1865. (M. Manet a
perdu la bataille dans des conditions des plus favorables .... L'originalite qui pouvait,
avec Ie temps, se debarrasser de ses scories, est devenue difforme et monstrueuse. Les qua-
lites que l'oeil des connaisseurs savait de meier dans ce chaos, ont disparu sous l'envahisse-
ment des defauts naturels et cherches.)
108. Burger (Thore), "Salon de 1864," Salons de W. Burger, 2:98.
10 9. Idem, "Salon de 1866," ibid., 2:318. For French text see chap. I, n. 250.
1I0. Amedee Cantaloube, "Salon de 1864," Nouvelle Revue de Paris, 2 (1864): 601.
(Une autre fois, ce sera un peintre puisant dans I'ecole espagnole Ie germe d'ebauches ou
d'improvisations fougueuses d'un des sin barbare, ou I'on entrevoit, il est vrai, quelques
traces confuses d'un temperament de coloriste.)
III. Idem, "Salon de 1865," Le Grand Journal, May 21, 1865. (Nous voulons, ici,
parler de certaines ebauches informes ou grotesques qui causent une veritable scandale.)
112. Theodore Duret, Les Peintres frangais en 1867 (Paris, 1867), pp. 1I0-1I. (Le
plus grand reproche que l'on puisse peut-etre faire a M. Manet est celui de travailler trop
vite et de traiter ses tableaux trop en esquisses. Son faire n'est pas pousse a un point assez
arrete, son modele manque de fermete, et ces defauts s'accusent surtout chez lui dans Ie
traitement des figures. It faut, pour qu'il donne toute sa mesure, qu'un artiste pousse la
valeur et la merite de la forme aussi loin que possible, et M. Manet se condamne a rester
fort au-dessous de ce qu'il pourrait etre en peignant d'une maniere trop rapide et trop
hative.)
113· Castagnary, Salons, 2:89-90 (un profil perdu gracieusement indique, une robe
de toile bleue modelee avec ampleur, me font passer sur I'inacheve des figures et des
mains).
114· Idem, "Salon de 1875," Salons, 2:178. (Que si l'on ajoute que M. Manet est un
artiste absolument consciencieux, qu'il fait ses toiles sur nature, qu'il n'epargne ni Ie
temps ni la peine pour les amener a bien, qu'il s'en separe seulement Ie jour ou il juge avoir
atteint Ie but qu'il s'etait propose.)
II 5. Pelloquet, L'Exposition.
L'execution est loin de m'offrir une compensation suffisante; c'est aussi un rebus. Je vois bien <;a
et 1.1 des morceaux qui approchent de la nature, particulierement dans une des femmes nues et dans
une des tetes du premier plan, mais cela ne suffit pas, et Ie reste est d'une incoherence tout a fait
inexplicable. On ne saurait designer Ie travail de M. Manet so us Ie nom d'esquisse ou d'ebauche.
Dans une esquisse bien comprise et bien faite, toutes les parties sont executees au meme degre les
unes que les autres.
L'incoherence, I'inegalite d'execution de M. Maner [sic] ne s'expliquent et ne se justifient
en rien.
II 6. Le Capitaine Pompilius [Carle Desnoyers], "Lettres particulieres sur Ie Salon,"
Le Petit Journal, no. 131 (June I I, 1863). For French text see appendix 3, where the whole
of Desnoyers's commentary on Manet in 1863 is given.
117. Ibid.
II8. Astruc, Le Salon, no. II (May 14, I863). (Entre tous, je lui reconnais un carac-
tere bien marque:-l'accent;-il se distingue par une facture plus serree, par une con-
struction etudiee profondement.) Forty years later Huysmans in his novel L'Oblat,
describing Legros's Ex- Voto, wrote that the woman in white in the foreground "evoked
the memory of Manet, but a more pondered, skillful, firm [in facture] Manet" (Joris-Karl
Huysmans, L'Oblat [Paris, I903], p. 220) (la femme en blanc evoquait, elle, Ie souvenir de
Manet, mais d'un Manet mieux pondere, plus savant, plus ferme).
II9. Rapinus Beaubleu [Carle Desnoyers], "Salon de I865," Le Hanneton, June I I,
I865. (Mon cher directeur, M. Manet n'a pas sans doute la pretention d'avoir fait deux
chefs-d'oeuvre, et je crois meme qu'il pouvait mener beaucoup plus loin ses tableaux qui,
dans certaines parties, restent presque a l'etat d'esquisses. Un peintre de cette valeur de-
vrait se mefier de son extreme facilite qui touche en quelque sorte a l'improvisation. Mais
ce defaut prouve une ardeur, une vigueur, un temperament peu communs a notre epoque.
M. Manet est en grand progres sur lui-meme: dans la toile Jesus insulte par les soldats, il y
a des morceaux, principalement la tete du soldat de droite, qui sont traites d'une maniere
extremement remarquable. Aussi dans Olympia, OU la poi trine, les mains, to us les mor-
ceaux faits, en un mot, peuvent servir d'enseignement aux malins de ce temps qui ameu-
tent, en grima<;:ant, la foule stupide contre une personnalite tres-vive et tres-originale.)
The entire "Salon" comprises three short articles; only the third is serious in tone, and
only Manet is discussed in detail.
I20. See Jean Ravenel [Alfred Sensier], "Salon de I865," L'Epoque, June 7, I865.
"The Christ," he wrote, "would require a certain technical analysis which we haven't the
time to give.-In sum it's hideous, but all the same it is something [he had just said the
same about Olympia]. A painter is in evidence and this strange group is bathed in light."
(Le Christ demanderait une certaine analyse technique que no us n'avons pas Ie temps de
donner.-En resume, c'est hideux, mais c'est encore quelque chose. Le peintre y apparait
et la lumiere court sur ce groupe etrange.)
A third critic, Theophile Gautier fils, also found good morceaux in Olympia; it was the
Christ Mocked that seemed to him to escape description; Olympia he saw, incredibly, as
making concessions to public taste! See Gautier fils, "Salon de I865 ," Le Monde illustre,
May 6, I865. (Le jesus insulte par les soldats echappe a la description. Dans Olympia M.
Manet semble avoir fait quelque concession au gout publique et a travers Ie parti pris on
discerne des morceaux qui demandent pas mieux que d'etre bons.) Gautier fils also wrote
that the jury ought to have asked Manet to provide a statement of his esthetic to be printed
in the Salon livret, because simply looking at his paintings left one in the dark-testimony
to how difficult his art appeared even to a critic who was not automatically inclined to
dismiss it. (Le Jury aurait bien du pousser l'obligeance jusqu'a demander a M. Manet une
notice sur ses tendances qu'on aurait fait imprimer au livret; cela aurait peut-etre eclaire
l'opinion publique: en effet, l'aspect seul des tableaux de M. Manet ne satisfait pas suf-
fisamment l'oeil et l'esprit, il n'explique pas non plus Ie bruit qu'on a essaye de faire autour
de cette nouvelle ecole; son esthetique est peut-etre excellente, mais il est vraiment impos-
sible de s'en faire une idee en face de que fournit sa pratique.)
I2I. Alan Krell, "Manet's Dejeuner sur l'herbe in the Salon des Refuses: A Re-
appraisal," Art Bulletin 65 (June I983): 3 I6-20.
I22. See esp. Clark I98 5 and Darragon I989. See also T. J. Clark, "Preliminaries to a
Possible Treatment of 'Olympia' in I865," Screen 2I (spring I980): I8-4I; Peter Wollen,
"Manet: Modernism and Avant Garde" (a response to Clark's article), Screen 2I (sum-
mer I980): I5-25; and Clark,"A Note in Reply to Peter Wollen," Screen 2I (fall I980):
97- IOO • Two recent interpretations of Olympia that acknowledge Clark and then purport
to go beyond him are Charles Bernheimer, "Manet's Olympia: The Figuration of Scan-
dal," chap. 4 of his Figures of III Repute: Representing Prostitution in Nineteenth-Century
France (Cambridge, Mass., and London, I989), pp. 89-128 (basically, Bernheimer reads
the contemporary response to the painting as a function of castration anxiety); and Mieke
Bal, "His Master's Eye," in David Michael Levin, ed., Modernity and Hegemony of Vi-
sion (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, I993), pp. 379-404 (an explicitly antipatri-
archal critique of Clark and Bernheimer that suggests that the black woman holding a
bouquet may be simply visiting Olympia friend-to-friend). This isn't the place for a de-
tailed assessment of either, but I will say that I found both Bernheimer's chapter and Bal's
essay simplistic and ahistorical (Bal, I think, would take the latter epithet as a com-
pliment).
I23. On the Dead Torero see Reff I982-83, pp. 214-I5; Manet I983, pp. I95-98,
cat. no. 73; and Wilson-Bareau, "Manet and the Execution of Maximilian," in Wilson-
Bareau I992, pp. 4I-44.
I24. See Pierre-Louis Mathieu, Gustave Moreau, with a Catalogue of the Finished
Paintings, Watercolors, and Drawings, trans. James Emmons (Boston, I976); Julius
Kaplan, The Art of Gustave Moreau: Theory, Style, and Content (Ann Arbor, I982); and
idem, Gustave Moreau, exhib. cat. (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
July 23 -Sept. I, I 974; and San Francisco: California Palace of the Legion of Honor, Sept.
14- Nov. 3, I974)·
I 25. See e.g. Thore, who wrote, "Ah, the lovers of the ideal have their desideratum
this time!" ("Salon de I864," Salons de W. Burger, 2:I5). (Ah! les amants de l'ideal ont
leur desideratum cette fois!)
I26. See e.g. Jean Rousseau, "Salon de I864," Le Figaro, May I9, I864, who argued
that the heads of Oedipus and the Sphinx remain Moreau's property and that the latter's
imitation of Mantegna didn't warrant the term pastiche; Maxime Du Camp, "Salon de
I864," Les Beaux-Arts a l'Exposition universelle et aux salons de 1863, 1864, 1865,
1866 et 1867 (Paris, I 867), p. II6, who wrote that if pastiche of this sort was so easy to
do, he was astonished that no one had tried it before; and Amedee Cantaloube, "Salon de
I864," Nouvelle Revue de Paris (I864), 3:604, who asked whether, because Oedipus had
dark outlines and a body analogous to those of certain personages in works by Mantegna,
it followed that the painting was a pastiche? He continued: "But the crowd comes running
and then stops, astonished; but a prince who knows what is beautiful buys the canvas for
his gallery; but all the distinguished men take part [in the debate], for or against. It's the
same for the writers, moved by the poetry and the strange character of the composition!
Let there be lots of such pastiches, many of us will be perfectly happy." (Parce qu'CEdipe a
des contours cernes et un corps qui a de l'analogie avec ceux de certains personnages du
Mantegna, s'ensuit que Ie peintre qui a fait ces emprunts de detail pour exprimer dans un
sujet complexe l'austerite du nu et les marques de la virilite, n'ait fait qu'un pastiche? mais
la foule accourt et s'arrete etonne; mais un prince qui connait ce qui est beau achete la toile
pour sa galerie; mais to us les hommes distingues prennent parti, pour ou contre. II en est
de me me des ecrivains, remues par la poesie et Ie caractere etrange de la composition!
Qu'on fasse beaucoup de ces pastiches-la, beaucoup sauront s'en contenter.)
I27. Du Camp, "Salon de I864," p. II2. (M. Moreau n'a rien abandonne au hasard;
tout ce qu'il a fait, ill'a voulu faire ainsi. Chaque partie de son tableau est raisonnee et
ponderee avec un souci serieux.)
128. Paul de Saint-Victor, "Salon de I864," La Presse, May 7, I864. (La premiere
impression est grande et profonde: Ie tableau ressort du milieu des toiles qui l'entourent,
avec une etrangete saisissante. II s'en degage cette idee de force que la volonte imprime a
Notes to Page 310
ses oeuvres. Tout est concerte et premedite dans l'oeuvre de M. Moreau: pas un trait in-
utile, pas un detail que ne marque l'empreinte de la reflexion.)
129. Chesneau, "Salon de 1864," Le Constitutionnel, May 3, 1864. (Tous les details,
leur forme et leur disposition aussi bien que la combinaison generale du tableau, ont ete
medites, reflechis et poses avec intention. Chaque morceau de l'oeuvre de plus petit au
plus grand, a ete serieusement voulu.) Chesneau also claimed, contradictorily, that the
unity of the painting was such that "all trace of effort is absent," a remark that betrays his
allegiance to the Diderotian ideal in its classic form even as his insistence on intention and
willing amounted to a partial break with that ideal. ([C]'est lit une oeuvre ideale, car elle
est composee, dans un but determine, d'elements distincts empruntes a la realite, reunis,
groupes pour une creation absolument neuve et soudes pour ainsi dire dans une unite
merveilleuse. 11 semble que l'oeuvre ait pris forme ainsi, qU'elle n'ait jamais pu etre autre-
ment: tout trace d'efforts est absente, la pen see de l'artiste a trouve sa forme exacte pleine
et entiere, telle qu'elle ne pourrait etre modifiee en aucune fa<;:on.)
130. Burger (Thore), "Salon de 1864," Salons de W. Burger, 2: 16. (Ils sonttete a tete,
profil a profil, nez a nez, oeil a oeil. Elle Ie magnetise de son regard feminin, l'irresistible!)
Thore went on to support the prize committee's decision to award Moreau's canvas a
medal (p. 19).
13 I. Rousseau, "Salon de 1864" (quel drame dans les expressions de ces deux figures,
par elles-memes si peu significatives! ... Et Oedipe, qui semble Ie regarder sans Ie voir,
parait bien perdu dans les profondes contemplations d'un probleme de vie ou de mort).
132. C. de Sault [Mme de Charnace], "Salon de 1864," Le Temps, May 12, 1864. (On
sent la quelque chose de profond, de solennel et d'intime it la fois qui porte au recueille-
ment et qui s'impose aux meditations du spectateur.)
133. Cantaloube, "Salon de 1864," p. 604. (Le sujet traite par Ie peintre se per<;:oit des
la premiere impression et frappe vivement l'esprit, parce que l'idee en est plastique et non
litteraire.) Not that a commitment to an esthetics of absorption necessarily conduced to
clarity of content; one aspect of Moreau's originality is that the two were often disen-
gaged. As Kaplan writes: "The mysteriousness at the core of Oedipus and the Sphinx
derives from a characteristic he borrowed from Michelangelo and employed for the first
time in this work: the use of static figures whose staring expressions suggest they are lost in
thought or dream. Moreau himself said that his pictures were mysterious and one reason
for this was the characteristic transfixed quality of the figures in them. He called this stasis
'la belle inertie.' He wrote that all the figures in Michelangelo's work seemed to be
asleep-their movements unconscious. They seem absorbed in a dream world and inhabit
a divine and non-material realm quite different from our own. They do not enact clearly
recognizable scenes, and in some inexplicable way their actual movements often seem in
contradiction to the meaning we attach to them. Despite our curiosity, they are enigmatic
and puzzling and refuse to let us know what they are doing and thinking" (Gustave
Moreau, p. 23). For Moreau's brilliant short text on Michelangelo see the indispensable
collection of his writings, L'Assembleur de reves: Ecrits complets de Gustave Moreau, ed.
Pierre-Louis Mathieu (Fontfroide, 1984), pp. 197-98.
134. Gautier wrote that Manet's Christ "seems never to have known the use of wash-
ing. The lividity of death is mixed with muddy half-tones, with dirty, black shadows
which the Resurrection will never wash clean, if so decayed a cadaver is capable of resus-
citating at all" ("Salon de 1864," Le Moniteur universel, June 25, 1864). (Si Ie Christ de
M. Lazerges est trop blanc, trop propre, trop savonne, en revanche, celui de M. Manet ne
semble pas avoir connu jamais l'usage des ablutions. La lividite de la mort se mele chez lui
a des demi-teintes crasseuses, a des ombres sales et noires dont jamais la resurrection ne Ie
debarbouillera, si un cadavre tellement avance peut ressusciter toutefois.)
Notes to Pages 3II-I2 579
135. See Jean Clay, "Ointments, Makeup, Pollen," trans. John Shepley, October, no.
27 (winter 1983): 20-22. Clay makes a first distinction between flatness and "a move-
ment toward the flat," which leads him to posit a further distinction between" surface and
superficies" (p. 20). By "surface" Clay refers to a feature of the picture support (its literal
flatness, so to speak); certain modernist paintings (by Gauguin, Vuillard until 1905, the
N abis, Juan Gris, Matisse before 1918) are" organized in accordance with the support,
leaning on it and clinging to it," seeking "to equate the support and the painting" (ibid.).
The term "superficies" refers to something else, a sort of "film" or "windowpane" just
this side of the surface against which certain of Manet's figures-sliding forward, as it
were-"end up crushed" (p. 21). Of the Angels at the Tomb of Christ Clay writes:
"Thanks to the lighting, to the viewing angle, to the daring frontal pose, and to the closing
off of the represented space, the dead Christ ... seems on the point of sliding toward us.
His archaicizing monumentality, however, holds him back. In any case, it is the 'staging'
that arouses our conflicting feelings" (ibid.).
136. The most detailed discussion of these features of the painting is by Jane Mayo
Roos, "Edouard Manet's Angels at the Tomb of Christ: A Matter of Interpretation," Arts
Magazine 58 (Apr. 1984): 83-91.
137. See the discussion of the wound in Roos, who argues that its placement on the
left should not be seen as a simple error. "The gospel of John, the only gospel to mention
the wound, does not specify into which side of Christ the lance was thrust," she observes.
"Since the purpose of the wound was to make certain Christ was dead, realist artists since
the Renaissance had often placed the wound on Christ's left side, in close proximity to the
heart .... By the mid-19th century, as one contemporary writer remarked, 'il y a diver-
site, parmi les artistes, au sujet du cote de Jesus-Christ que fut perce d'une lance, apres sa
mort'" (ibid., p. 88). Cf. Baudelaire's caution to Manet in a letter of April 1864: "[I]t
appears that the blow from the lance was definitely to the right. You had better change the
location of the wound before the opening [of the Salon]. Verify this in the four Gospels.
And take care not to give ill-wishers an occasion to laugh at you" (Baudelaire, Correspon-
dance, 2 vols., ed. Claude Pichois and Jean Ziegler [Paris: Bibliotheque de la Pleiade,
1973],2: 3 5 2). (A propos, il parait que decidement Ie coup de lance a ete porte a droite. 11
faudra donc que vous alliez changer la blessure de place, avant I'ouverture. Verifiez donc
la chose dans les quatre evangelistes. Et prenez garde de preter a rire aux malveillants.)
138. Castagnary, "Salon de 1864," Le Grand Journal, June 12, 1864. (Quant au
Christ entoure par les anges, c'est un cauchemar sur lequel il n'est pas bon d'arreter
la vue.)
139. Saint-Victor, "Salon de 1864," La Presse, June 19, 1864. (La foi du charbonnier
regne dans cette ecole qui aurait besoin d'etre ramo nee. Les petites pauvresses [in the
Ribot] rebutent les yeux par leur malproprete volontaire. Mais apres Ie Christ a la Cave,
soutenu par les deux ramoneurs ailes de M. Manet, hola!)
140. Du Camp, "Salon de 1864," p. 113. (Le rendu est aussi fini que possible; rien n'a
ete neglige; les accessoires aussi bien que les personnages ont ete pousses a la limite ex-
treme)
141. Rousseau, "Salon de 1864" (May 19 and May 1, 1864). (L'oeuvrede M. Moreau
choque les regards, presque autant qU'elle les frappe, par l'autorite inexorable de son des-
sin et l'imperieuse precision de sa facture .... Son tableau ... ne vise pas it reussir par des
bizarreries d'effet ou d'accessoires, toujours faciles, mais par la pure perfection du rendu,
qui est du fini Ie plus acharne.)
142. Rousseau, "Salon de 1864," L'Univers illustre, June 18, 1864. (11 faudrait etre
aveugle pour ne pas voir dans cette oeuvre si profondement sentie et d'une execution si
ferme, si certaine, la trace des observations patientes et des longues contemplations. Son
imprevu n'a rien d'excentrique; c'est cette nouveaute qui se rencontre dans la verite
meme, quand on la fouille a quelque profondeur, et qui, dans les sciences, prend Ie nom de
decouverte.)
143. Du Camp, "Salon de 1866," Les Beaux-Arts, p. 209. (II est en opposition fla-
grante avec tous ses confreres; illes laisse chercher des succes faciles, s'epuiser sur les cotes
sensuels de la peinture, et se contenter des a peu pres equivoques qui ont valu quelque
bruit a leur nom .... II veut, cela est visible, et je crois qu'il ne quitte un tableau qu'apres
avoir depense a Ie parfaire toute la somme d'efforts dont il est capable.)
144. Leon Lagrange, "Salon de 1864," GBA, 1st ser., 16 (June I, 1864): 506. (Nous
discuterons cependant, non pas les ebauches de M. Manet, qui voudra bien nous par-
donner de Ie fourvoyer en si bonne compagnie, mais la tentative serieuse de M. Gustave
Moreau.)
145. De Sault [Mme de Charnace], "Salon de 1864."
S'il vous plait, done, eher leeteur, passons de I'un it I'autre sans transition. Vous reeulez, Ie eontraste
vous heurte? N'eeoutez pas votre degout. Vous etes Ie public, vous avez mission de juger. Courage,
done! promenez vos regards de I'CEdipe que nous laissons sur Ie droite it ce pretendu Christ:
eomparez les pieds avec les pieds, les mains avec les mains, les draperies avec les draperies, la tete du
sphinx avec les tetes des anges.
-Ah! direz-vous, M. Manet ou tout autre peut faire beaucoup de sembi abies tableaux en une
annee. -Sans do ute, et e'est tant pis. - Tandis qu'un CEdipe, on n'en peut faire souvent. - Tant
pis encore; mais du moins I'artiste qui consacrerait dix ans it un tel ouvrage, n'aurait pas perdu son
temps.
The nearest thing to a defense of Manet against such charges came from Baudelaire's
friend Charles Asselineau, who didn't share the general enthusiasm for Moreau and who
wrote of Manet: "One senses in the rapidity of his execution the impatience of a man
always in a rush to arrive at a result, always in haste to savor the piece of fruit at the risk of
only half-peeling it .... In a word, Manet has ... that devil in the flesh which leads him
to treat things brusquely and which his contempt for platitudes makes him seek out. 0
charming impetuousness! How you console us for imperturbable mediocrity and preco-
cious pedantry"-the latter probably an allusion to Moreau ("Salon de 1864," Revue
nationale et etrangere 17 [June 10, 1864]: 286-87). (On devine a la rapidite de son exe-
cution l'impatience d'un homme toujours presse d'arriver au resultat, toujours en hate de
savourer Ie fruit au risque de ne l'eplucher qu'a demi .... M. Manet a, en un mot ... ce
diable au corps qui fait brusquer les choses et que Ie mepris pour la platitude fait re-
chercher. 0 fougue charmante! comme tu nous consoles de la mediocrite imperturbable,
et la pedanterie precoce!) But even Asselineau felt compelled to say that Manet's paintings
in the Salon of 1864 didn't seem to him among the painter's strongest.
146. Paillot de Montabert, Traite de peinture (1829), cited by Louis Hautecoeur,
Louis David (Paris, 1954), p. 85. "Paillot de Montabert raconte dans son Traite de pein-
ture qu'a son entree a l'ecole de David, on ne parlait que du pied avant du fils aine et qu'on
Ie citait comme un chef-d'oeuvre. 'Et l'on avait grande raison; en lui seul, it renferme tout
un cours de peinture.' "
14 7· Paul Valery reports the following from Degas's table talk, as recorded by Berthe
Morisot:
Degas declared that the study of nature is meaningless, since the art of painting is a question of
conventions, and that it was by far the best thing to learn drawing from Holbein; that Edouard
[Manet] himself, though he made a boast of slavishly copying nature, was in fact the most
mannered painter in the world, never making a brush stroke without thinking of the masters-for
Note5 to Pages 314-17 581
example, he never showed the fingernails, because Frans Hals left them out. ("Degas Dance
Drawing," Degas Manet Morisot, trans. David Paul, vol. 12 of the Collected Works of Paul Valery
[New York, 1960], p. 83. For the original French see Valery, Degas Danse Dessin [Paris, 1938],
p.126.)
A complementary quotation attributed to Degas comes from an article by George Moore,

"Degas: The Painter of Modern Life," Magazine of Art 13 (Sept. 1890): 416-25. A visi-
tor (doubtless Moore himself) called on Degas in his apartment in the rue Pigalle and was
admitted. "As they entered the apartment the eye of the visitor was caught by a faint draw-
ing in red chalk, placed upon a sideboard; he went straight to it," Moore reports. "Degas
said, 'Ah! look at it, I bought it only a few days ago; it is a drawing of a female hand by
Ingres; look at those finger-nails, see how they are indicated. That's my idea of genius, a
man who finds a hand so lovely, so wonderful, so difficult to render, that he will shut him-
self up all his life, content to do nothing else but indicate finger-nails'" (p. 419).
148. My description of Olympia's hand is indebted to a seminar paper by Harry Cooper,
at present a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard.
149. For an account of In the Conservatory that focuses in part on the figures' hands
see Jonathan Crary, "Unbinding Vision," October, no. 68 (spring 1994): 21-44.
150. Zola, "Mon Salon," Ecrits sur tart, p. 200. (Mais je recommande tout partic-
ulierement la main placee sur un genou du personnage; c'est une merveille d'execu-
tion .... Si Ie portrait entier avait pu etre pousse au point ou en est cette main, la foule
elle-meme eut crie au chef-d'oeuvre.)
151. Castagnary, "Salon de 1868," Salons, 1:314. (Les accessories, table, livres, gra-
vures, tout ce qui est nature morte, est traite de main de maitre. Le personnage principal
n'est pas aussi heureux, sauf la main qui est tres belle et Ie velours du paletot qui est eton-
nant.)
152. Idem, "Salon de 1873," Salons, 2:89-90. (Pourquoi faut-il qu'il ait neglige a ce
point ses extremites? Les mains, etant en avant de la figure, devraient etre logiquement
d'un des sin plus serre que celle-ci. Pourquoi sont-elles si deplorablement lil.chees? Avec Ie
progres que fait Ie gout contemporain, je ne vois que cette cause de querelle entre M.
Manet et Ie public serieux. Dut-illui en couter cher, il devrait s'efforcer bien vite de la faire
disparaitre. )
Another text of the I 870S is interesting in this connection. Chesneau, in a curious pas-
sage in his novel about a contemporary painter, La Chimere (Paris, 1879 )-dedicated, we
might note, to Moreau-imagines a portrait from the early I 860s in which the treatment
of the hands alone suffices to announce it as a masterly work. The passage purports to give
the text of a review of the portrait, which reads in part: "'If one saw only the hands in this
beautiful portrait, one would recognize in them a magisterial painting. The hands, that
revelation of the woman, those naked hands are a masterpiece of life, of amorous expres-
sion, and of voluptuousness'" (pp. 254-55). ("Ne vit-on de ce tres beau portrait que les
mains, on y reconnaitrait une peinture magistrale. Les mains, cette revelation de la
femme, ces mains nues sont un chef-d'oeuvre de vie, d'expression amoureuse et de vo-
lupte.")
153. Astruc, Le Sa/on, no. 16 (May 20, 1863); for French text see appendix 4.
This might be compared with the following remarks by Valery on Degas's attitude to-
ward Manet, in which some of the same terms are deployed: "He admires and envies the
assurance of Manet, whose eye and hand are certainty itself, who sees infallibly that
which, in the model, will give him the opportunity to put forth all his force, to execute in
depth. There is in Manet a decisive power, a sort of strategic instinct for pictorial action. In
his best canvases he attains poetry, that's to say the summit of art, by means of what I may
perhaps call ... resonance of execution" (Valery, "Degas Dance Drawing," 12:25-26,
translation modified. For the original French see Valery, Degas Danse Dessin, p. 38).
154. Rene Maizeroy, "Chez Manet," Cils Bias, Jan. II, 1882. (Voici I' Olympia eten-
due dans sa blanche nudite sur un lit de repos, indifferente aux bouquets que lui apporte
une negresse et aux frottements voluptueux de son chat familier.)
155. Cf. T. J. Clark's excellent analysis of comparable tensions, inconsistencies, and
disparities in Olympia in Clark 1985, pp. 134-39. "It is as if the painter welcomes dis-
parity and makes a system of it," he writes, "as if the picture proposes inconsistencies, of a
curiously unrelieved kind-left without excuse or mediation-as the best sort of truth
when the subject is nakedness" (p. 135). My point, though, is that such inconsistencies
are characteristic of Manet's practice generally (and of course Clark would agree: see his
readings of Argenteuil and A Bar at the Folies-Bergere in the same book).
156. Hector de Callias, "Salon de 1864," L'Artiste,June I, 1864,P. 242.
... il nous rapporte une Course de Taureaux divisee en trois plans,-un discours en trois
points.-Le premier plan, c'est un toreador, une espada peut-etre, qui n'a pas su geometriquement
enfoncer sa petite epee dans la nuque du taureau, et que Ie taureau aura enventre avec les deux
epees qui lui servent de comes.
Vient ensuite un taureau microscopique. -C'est la perspective, direz-vous. -Mais non; car au
troisieme plan, contre les gradins du cirque, les toreros representent une taille raisonnable et
semblent rire de ce petit taureau, qu'ils pouraient ecraser so us les talons de leurs escarpins.
For a partial reconstruction of the original composition, based on X rays of the two surviv-
ing "fragments," see Reff 1982-83, p. 215.
157. Georges Bataille, Manet (1955; Geneva, 1983), p. 114. (Cette opposition des fi-
gures atones et d'une figure chargee au contraire de sensibilite subtile, nous la trouvions
deja dans les trois portraits que Le Balcon assemble en une seule toile, ou l'atonie
d'Antoine Guillemet et de Fanny Claus sert d'ecrin neutre au joyau qu'est Ie visage de
Berthe Morisot, que de I'interieur illuminent les ardeurs de I'art et de la beaute.) Earlier in
his book Bataille characterized Morisot's gaze as "excessive" (p. 85), an epithet that is all
the more suggestive in that he was surely unaware of the thematization of excess in the
pictorial discourse of the period. Actually one feels Morisot is either gazing intently or,
behind her splendid eyes, absorbed in thought or reverie, but in either case the meaning of
that gaze or that absorption has been deliberately withheld, which in part is what Bataille
means when he claims "we can say that the subject is, at the same time, given to us and
taken away" (ibid.). The whole paragraph reads: "Le Balcon presente un ecartelement
sournois, fonde sur une telle divergence des regards que no us en eprouvons un malaise.
Nous n'en pouvons voir en une fois que la fuite dans I'insignifiance et ce n'est qu'apres un
temps que nous no us eveillons et que I'attention se concentre sur Ie regard excessif, sur les
grands yeux de Berthe Morisot. Si bien que de cette peinture hallucinee, nous pouvons
dire que Ie sujet no us est, dans Ie meme temps, donne et retire."
158. Manet 1983, p. 306.
159. The bullfinch and frog are associated with one another by George Mauner,
who sees them "as underscoring the theme [of the spirit-matter, soul-body polarity that
Mauner believes governs all of Manet's art] on an emblematic level, although these an-
cient signs for the spirit and the flesh are made to appear plausible within the naturalistic
context of the setting" (Manet Peintre-Philosophe: A Study of the Painter's Themes [Uni-
versity Park, Pa., and London, 1975], p. 28). Farwell sees the frog as "suggesting an hom-
age [sic] to Tintoretto in the Italian gallery at the Louvre, where at the feet of Susannah are
found two examples of the creature" (Farwell 1981, p. 197).
160. Stephane Mallarme, "Edouard Manet," Oeuvres completes, pp. 532-33. (Sou-
venir, il disait, alors, si bien: "L'oeil, une main ... " que je resonge.)
161. On that painting see Jean Harris, "Manet's Race Track Paintings," Art Bulletin
4 8 (Mar. 1966): 78-82; Reff 1982-83, pp. 132-33, cat. no. 42; and Manet 1983,
pp. 262-64, cat. no. 99.
162. Cf. Jacques Derrida's use of the concept of a "remainder," in French restance, in
The Truth in Painting, trans. Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod (French ed. 197 8 ;
Chicago and London, 1987).
16 3. Two seemingly minor details of the narrow-focus Races are emblematic of
Manet's internally disparate practice. The first concerns the near-conjunction of two
small but well-defined figures near the top of the grandstand at the left, a top-hatted man
following the race through a pair of binoculars and, just below him and to the right, a
woman in a bonnet who gazes off to the left, at nothing that we can see. As I read that
juxtaposition, the woman's eccentric gaze almost literally undercuts the man's strongly
purposeful one, thereby encapsulating Manet's rejection of psychological focus (also of
absorption) as a means of organizing the composition as a whole. The second detail, also
a near-conjunction, involves the pink flag or banner blowing in the wind from an upright
pole further back in space from, but laterally very near, the distance marker and circle. I
take the freely painted banner as a token of painterliness, or say of rapidity of execution,
and I take its proximity to the distance marker to imply the sort of tension or opposition
between stillness and rapidity that I have been analyzing.
16 4. See Sandblad 1954, pp. 109-58; Aaron Scharf, Art and Photography (1968;
Harmondsworth, England, 1974), pp. 66-75; Albert Boime, "New Light on Manet's
Execution of Maximilian," Art Journal 36 (autumn 1973): 172-208; Brown University
1981; and Wilson-Bareau 1992.
16 5. Elizabeth Anne McCauley, A. A. E. Disderi and the Carte de Visite Portrait Pho-
tograph (New Haven and London, 1985), pp. 173-85.
166. Ibid.,p. 185.
16 7. See Farwell 1981, pp. 125-35,178-79,195,205; Gerald Needham, "Manet,
'Olympia' and Pornographic Photography," in Woman as Sex Object, ed. Thomas B.
Hess and Linda Nochlin (London, 1972), pp. 80-89; and McCauley, Disderi, p. 172. See
also McCauley's recent, more ambitious study, Industrial Madness: Commercial Photo-
graphy in Paris, 1848-1871 (New Haven and London, 1994), chap. 4, "Brauquehais and
the Photographic Nude." Chapter 7, "Art Reproductions for the Masses," also contains
material relevant to this book.
168. Farwell 1981, pp. 161-62,205.
169. Clay, "Ointments, Makeup, Pollen," p. 6. Actually the sentence ends with a pa-
renthesis: "(likewise Warhol and Lichtenstein paint not objects but what is perceived of
them in the ebb and flow of the mass media)." Clay continues: "Thrust to the front of the
stage, restored to the status of an erotic instrument, Victorine is obscene; but this much-
denounced obscenity lies neither in the supposed 'professional' coldness of the model, nor
in the otherwise conventional treatment of the nude; it is due to the integration of a figura-
tive practice foreign to painting. The photograph contaminates the painted image-
accelerating here again what Walter Benjamin called the decline of the aura" (pp. 6-7).
The passage is revealing in that it shows Clay'S inveterate tendency to compare Manet's
art with later developments and theories (Pop Art, Benjamin on aura), and also because
the basic claim is typically overdone: the "obscenity" of Olympia cannot be said to lie
simply in the "contamination" of painting by photography; there were countless contem-
porary paintings that openly displayed that "contamination" (Meissonier's, for example)
without seeming "obscene" or indeed provoking audiences in any way.
Some further remarks about Clay's essay are in order here. For Clay, too, the notion of
internal disparity-his term is "discrepancy"-is important. But Clay cautions that we
Note to Page 325
should not think of Manet's oeuvre as one founded on "willful discrepancy" (p. 8), by
which he seems to mean a deliberate pursuit of originality. He proceeds:
Actually it is an indescribable oeuvre, one that constantly breaks the rules that it has just set for
itself. One can say nothing about it-about its fabrication, its palette, its conceptions of
perspective, its 'backgrounds' -that is not immediately contradicted by this or that group of
paintings .... There is repeated cleavage and conflict among the components of the painting. It is
no longer a matter of painting masterpieces, or entities, but of introducing elements of torsion and
contradiction. Of inventing painting while destroying it. A borderline art, always reactive, with no
other aim than to place all tradition, even its own, in an untenable position. Here, in defiance of the
law, a perverse component of painting is manifested that will be one of its moving forces until
Robert Ryman. How to produce discordances, pictorial aporias? How to constrain the forces
contending before our eyes in the painting? Manet, by this reckoning, would not be a painter, but
discrepancy at work in painting. And this would have been his-albeit unformulated-program.
(pp.8-9)
"[WJith no other aim than to place all tradition, even its own, in an untenable position"-
this is the heart of Clay's vision of Manet (note once more the reference to a recent figure,
in this case Ryman, one of Clay's strongest admirations). And it is very far from my ac-
count of the painter as striving at once to totalize "tradition" and to place the relations
between painting and beholder on a new footing-and thereby, it might be added, to pro-
duce masterpieces (an ambition Manet never relinquished; it would be truer to say that his
Salon entries, culminating in the Bar, were nearly all attempts to produce just that). Put
slightly differently, Clay and I share a dissatisfaction with the standard formalist-
modernist reading of Manet's art as the first term in a Greenbergian "positivist reduction"
(p. 9, n. 15). But my response to that dissatisfaction has been to try to contextualize
Manet's undertaking by reinserting him in his artistic generation, which has also meant
by reconstructing crucial aspects of the discourse of painting in Paris during the I 860s and
after. In contrast, Clay proceeds by a series of "wild" observations (as in "'wild' anal-
ysis "), many of which, for all their brilliance, are anachronistic and misleading. See how-
ever his highly interesting discussion of the role of speed in Manet's art, which (again
typically) cites Barthes on Requichot and concludes with a comparison between Manet
and Benjamin (pp. 31-34).
170. "There can be no doubt that Manet, unlike Courbet and Delacroix when they
worked from photographs, welcomed and accepted the clarity, the hard edges, and the
sharp distinctions between light and dark that photographic images sometimes provided,
and that this acceptance was put to artistic use in the reduced modeling and harsh lighting
that contributed so much to the vigor of his early style" (Farwell 1981, p. 127). In some-
what greater detail, Clement Greenberg noted that Manet was able to give his browns and
grays the feeling of local color by virtue of "the new, syncopated kind of shading-modeling
that he adopted. This kind of shading was not entirely new; there were precedents, among
them the very recent one of photography. In frontally lit photographs especially, the shad-
ing becomes compact and patch-like because it skips so many of the intermediate grada-
tions of light-and-dark value that the sculpturally oriented painting of Renaissance
tradition contrived to see. By being juxtaposed more abruptly, without gradual transi-
tions and blurrings, the different shading tones of grey and brown are allowed to come
through as particularized colors in their own right. This has the effect, in turn, of letting
the local colors that the greys or browns shade come through more purely-which means
more flatly. For the sake of luminousness Manet was willing to accept this flatness .... "
(" Manet in Philadelphia" [originally published in Artforum in 1967], in Collected Essays
and Criticism, 4:242).
Notes to Page 326
171. In an issue of Astruc's newsletter on the Salon of 1863 he described the experi-
ence of posing for Disderi. The photographer, he wrote, "invites us to martyrdom, gri-
macing in the effort to suppress movements of the head and blinks of the eye" (nous
invitait au martyre, grima<;ant pour reprimer nos ecarts de tete et nos clignements du pau-
piere). And he had Disderi say: "'What a head! No grimaces! You have a deplorable ex-
pression on your face; no one is made like that! Put that arm naturally there, bend it a
little. -Bad, bad! How do you expect me to proceed with a nose that comes from the
other side of the mouth! The head isn't together-I would have done a good job, but
you're not serious .... Stop smiling: that gives you a common air. -Attention, turn your
eyes here! It's me you should be looking at-listen, it's only at me! Fix me in the eyes-a
little intelligence-in the eyes! Aie! ... DON'T MOVE NOW!!" ("Spectres solaires, II.
Disderi," Le Salon, no. 4 [May 5, 1863]). ("Quelle tete! pas de grimaces! vous avez une
deplorable expression de visage; on n'est pas fait comme <;a! mettez ce bras nature-la, un
peu penche. -Mauvais, mauvais! Comment voulez-vous que je marche avec un nez qui
va de l'autre cote de la bouche! La tete n'est pas d'ensemble-j'aurait beau faire, vous
n'etes pas serieux.... Pas de sourire: <;a vous donne I'air commun. -Attention, par ici
les yeux! c'est moi qu'il faut regarder-entendez-vous, moi seul! Fixez-moi dans les
yeux-un peu d'intelligence-dans les yeux! ale! ... NE BOUGEONS PLUS!!")
172. See A. -A. -E. Disderi, L'Art de la photographie (Paris, 1862) and the discussion
of that text in Fried 1990, pp. 45-46. The closeness of Disderi's concerns to those of the
generation of 1863 is suggested by his statement: "What must be found is the characteris-
tic pose, that which expresses not this or that moment, but all the moments, the individual
in his or her entirety" (p. 281). (Ce qu'il faut trouver, c'est la pose caracteristique, celle qui
exprime non pas tel ou tel moment, mais tous les moments, I'individu tout entier.) For
more on the relation of Disderi's views to painting in the I 860s and I870S, see Dianne
Williams Pitman, "The Art of Frederic Bazille, 1841-187°" (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins
University, 1989), chap. 2; my thanks to her for drawing my attention to Disderi's text.
173. Sandblad 1954, pp. 72-77. By now the secondary literature on the influence of
Japanese art on French painting and printmaking of the second half of the nineteenth cen-
tury is considerable. Although it is almost twenty years old, the exhibition catalog, Japo-
nisme: Japanese Influence on French Art 1854- I 9 I 0 (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum
of Art, July 9-Aug. 3 1,1975; New Brunswick: The Rutgers University Art Gallery, Oct.
4-Nov. 16, 1975; Baltimore: The Walters Art Gallery, Dec. 10, 1975-Jan. 26, 1976),
with essays by Gabriel P. Weisberg, Phillip Dennis Cate, Gerald Needham, and Martin
Eidelberg and William R. Johnston, remains a useful resource.
174. Sandblad 1954, esp. p. 82.
175. See Reff, "Manet's Portrait of Zola," p. 39. The woodblock is The Wrestler
Onaruto Nadaemon of Awa Province by Utagawa Kuniaki II; the identification was first
made by Ellen Phoebe Wiese, "Source Problems in Manet's Early Painting" (Ph.D. diss.,
Harvard University, 1959), p. 228.
176. See Stephen Melville and Bill Readings, "Feminism and the Exquisite Corpse of
Realism," Strategies, no. 4/5 (199 I): 254- 56. Melville writes: "The term ukiyo is usually
translated as 'floating world.' The term is Buddhist, and means to name what is illusory or
fleeting about life; its value but not its meaning shifts in Tokugawa Edo, so that what the
rising class will cherish and represent for itself is at once the transience of this world and
their commitment to or engagement with it. This is why the world of this bourgeoisie is so
very different from its European counterpart: daily life is being named not as what stands
over and against theater but precisely as theater. Kabuki memorializes the inherent theat-
ricality of daily movement and the most dramatic of the theatrical ukiyo-e recapture and
exaggerate that memorialization."
Melville's discussion of Japanese woodblocks (and their utilization in a series of color

prints by Mary Cassatt) is explicitly engaged with the argument of Absorption and Theat-
ricality and Courbet's Realism. This becomes clear as he continues: "What may well be
striking here is the continuing pertinence of 'theater' and 'the theatrical' as critical terms
across the two traditions. Ukiyo-e may devote themselves to everything Diderot con-
demns in painting, but in their devotion to those things they can seem exemplary of the
path Western painting refuses-until it comes to the end of that refusing. And when it
does, in Courbet's wake, in Impressionist and Post-Impressionist Paris, come to the end of
refusing, it will find in these woodblocks deep possibilities and recognitions that cannot
be described as simply formal" (p. 256).
177. The sense that Japanese art actively sought the viewer's gaze seems to have been
part of the excited response to it in the 1860s and 1870s. So for example Theodore de
Banville recalls the first albums of prints to arrive in Paris in the following terms: "How
witty, entertaining, and poetic they are, those albums of Japanese drawings in which war-
riors, gods, amazons, peach blossoms as big as pagodas, canary yellow tigers, all engage
and solicit the gaze to the same degree and in which everything has the same intensity of
life emanating from the infinite and inexhaustible fantasy of the artist!" ("Salon de
1870," Le National, May 7,187°). (Qu'ils sont spirituels, rejouissants et poetiques, ces
albums de dessins japonais, OU guerriers, dieux, amazones, fleurs de pecher grosses comme
des pagodes, tigres jaune-serin, toute occupe et sollicite au me me degre Ie regard et OU tout
ala meme intensite de vie, emane de I'infinie et inepuisable fantaisie de I'artiste!) Banville
goes on to claim that Japan triumphed completely over painting, all the French artists
having become Japanese according to their individual temperament (the first name he
mentions is Manet). Apropos the phrase intensite de vie, it's interesting that Astruc the
same year attributed the quality of intensite de l' existence both t<; Manet's personages and
to the two women in Fantin's La Lecture ("Salon de 1870," L'Echo des beaux-arts, May
29 and June 5,187°).
178. Cf. Melville: "The [Japanese] woodcut is not about the depth of the body but
about its surface, about what is stamped into visibility. It is not about the possession of
the body (or the impossibility of such possession)"-the implied contrast here is with
Courbet's art in my reading of it- "but about the body's prior possession by design, pat-
tern, and visibility-its 'imageability.' The kimono is the print within the print, the para-
digm of visibility; and in the erotic shunga genitals do not emerge from its interior but
gain their visibility on the same floating surface.... Perspective, whatever its realist sig-
nificance in the West, appears to figure for ukiyo-e not in the name of depth of vision, but
of pattern and pure visibility; we do not move into such perspective, rather it opens at us"
("Feminism," pp. 261-62). It scarcely needs saying that Manet's "instantaneization" of
the photograph via the Japanese woodblock amounts to an altogether different solution
to the problem of the inherent theatricality of the still photograph from Disderi's pursuit
of la pose caracteristique, which as we have seen he equated with a distinctly non-
momentary form of expression. Within the next few decades, of course, photography it-
self would conquer instantaneity; see Thierry de Duve's contrasting of the (still) "funerary
portrait" photograph and the (instantaneous) "press photograph" in "Time Exposure
and Snapshot: The Photograph as Paradox," October, no. 5 (summer 1978): I I 3-25.
179· See Clark 1985, p. 137.
180. Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film (en-
larged edition; Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1979), p. 21, glossing the long footnote
on Manet in my Three American Painters (see introduction, n. 62).
181. See Melville and Readings, "Feminism," pp. 262-69; and Nancy Mowll
Mathews and Barbara Stern Shapiro, Mary Cassatt: The Color Prints, exhib. cat. (Wash-
ington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, June 18-Aug. 27, 1989; Boston: Museum of Fine
Arts, Sept. 9-Nov. 5,1989; Williamstown: Williams College Museum of Art, Nov. 25,
1989-Jan. 21, 1990).
182. The confluence of photography and Japanese prints as factors bearing on the art
of painters such as Millet and Theodore Rousseau is stressed by Deborah Johnson in her
essay, "Confluence and Influence: Photography and the Japanese Print in 1850," in Ker-
mit S. Champa et aI., The Rise of Landscape Painting in France, exhib. cat. (Manchester,
N.H.: The Currier Gallery of Art, Jan. 29-Apr. 28, 1991; New York: IBM Gallery of
Science and Art,July 3o-Sept. 28,1991; Atlanta: High Museum of Art, Jan. 28-Mar. 29,
1992), pp. 78-97. Johnson suggests that "it may have been Edmond de Goncourt in his
book on Utamaro of 1891 who first noted that photography and the Japanese print of-
fered certain mutually supportive pictorial systems" (p. 88).
183. Castagnary, "Salon de 1863," Le Courrier de dimanche, June 14, 1863. (Ai-je
l'oeil malade, ai-je I'esprit faible? Ie systeme de coloration noir et blanc blesse mes yeux;
ce dessin suspect, ce modele insuffisant, troublent mon esprit.)
184. Theophile Gautier fils, "Salon de 1863," Le Monde illustre 13 (Aug. 8, 1863).
(Le Jeune Homme en costume de majo, tout vetu de noir avec sa cape bigarree sur Ie bras,
son teint olivatre, sa face martelee et accidentee, est assurement traite par une main vi-
goureuse guidant un pinceau enrage de contrastes, mais qui oublie trop qu'il y a dans la
nature autre chose que du noir et du blanc.)
185. Adrien Paul, "Salon de 1864," Le Siecle, May 29, 1864. (De la peinture soli de, si
vous voulez, mais des clairs et des obscurs qui se heurtent brutalement ... Les toiles es-
pagnoles de M. Manet n'attirent pas l'attention, elles la prennent de force; on se sent ar-
rere comme au coin d'un bois, et I'on s'en revient devalise.)
186. Geronte [Louis Leroy?], "Le Salon en 1865," La Gazette de France, June 30,
1865. (Son coloris au verjus, aigre et acide, penetre dans l'oeil comme la scie d'un chi-
rugien dans les chairs.) In 1869 Jean-Paul [Charles Alphonse Brot] wrote in only some-
what less violent terms: "[Manet's] color, at once livid and loud, produces on the eye the
effect of the grating of a saw on the ear" ("Le Salon," La Gazette de France, May 18,
I 869). (La coloration, a la fois blafarde et criarde, produit sur l'oeill'effet du grincement
de la scie par I' oreille.)

187. Felix Deriege, "Salon de 1865," Le Siecle, June 2, 1865. (Le blanc, Ie noir, Ie
rouge, Ie vert font un vacarme affreux sur cette toile; la femme, la negresse, Ie bouquet, Ie
chat, tout ce tohu-bohu de couleurs disparates, de formes impossibles, vous saisit Ie re-
gard et vous stupefie.)
188. Jean Ravenel [Alfred Sensier], "Salon de 1865." (Le bouc emissaire du Salon, la
victime de la loi du Linch parisien. Chaque passant prend sa pierre et la lui jette a la face.)
Ravenel's remarks on Olympia are quoted in full and analyzed in detail by Clark, who
rightly considers them to be the most interesting by any critic of the Salon of 1865 (Clark
1985, pp. 139-44; I would qualify this only by insisting on the perhaps equal mterest of
the commentary by Gonzague Privat). But I find Clark's assessment of Sensier's final esti-
mation of Manet and Olympia a little harsh. "This is an extraordinary piece of writing,"
Clark says of Sensier's observations. "It is the only salon entry in 1865 to say anything
much-or anything reasonable-about form and content in Olympia, and the way one
might possibly inflect the other. It seems to accept or produce a measure of complexity in
its object, and the points of reference it proposes for Manet's picture are not only well
chosen but really explored in the text. This does not mean that Ravenel approves of Olym-
pia, or thinks its allusions coherent. Rather the contrary, in fact: the more points of refer-
ence he proposes, the more certain he seems that they are ill-assorted, and the better
prepared is his final, crushing verdict on the whole thing" (p. 140). (Clark's reference is to
the sentences: "Perhaps this olla podrida de toutes les Castilles is not flattering for Manet,
but all the same it is something. One does not make an Olympia simply by wanting
to." (Ce n'est peut-erre pas flatteur pour M. Manet que cette olla podrida de to utes les
Castilles, mais enfin c'est quelque chose. Ne fait pas une Olympia qui veut.) (The few
sentences that follow, quoted in n. 120 above, apply to the Christ Mocked.) For me this
verdict seems far from crushing, indeed it has a positive ring, especially in view of the
scapegoating of Olympia at the time. Incidentally, Sensier's tolerance for Olympia is all
the more impressive given his lifelong commitment to absorptive painting such as Millet's.
On Sensier's criticism generally see Christopher Parsons and Neil McWilliam, "'Le Pay-
san de Paris': Alfred Sensier and the Myth of Rural France," Oxford Art Journal 6, no. 2
(19 8 3): 38-5 8 .
189. Zola, "Edouard Manet," Bcrits sur l'art, p. 142. "J'imagine que je suis en pleine
rue et que je rencontre un attroupement de gamins qui accompagnent Edouard Manet a
coups de pierres. Les critiques d'art-pardon, les sergents de ville-font mal leur office;
ils accroissent Ie tumulte au lieu de Ie calmer, et meme, Dieu me pardonne! il me semble
que les sergents de ville ont d'enormes paves dans leurs mains."
190. Ravenel [Sensier], "Salon de 1865." (Insurrection armee dans Ie camp des bour-
geois: c'est un verre d'eau glacee que chaque visiteur re<;oit au visage lorsqu'il voit
epanouir la BELLE courtisane.) For his part, Zola in 1867 wrote that at first glance the
viewer distinguished "only two tints [in Olympia], two violent tints, each contending
with the other," though he also stressed the need for the viewer to look past that effect and
appreciate (for example) the exquisite finesse with which the painter had differentiated
the pale tones of the linen on which Olympia reclined ("Edouard Manet," Bcrits sur l'art,
p. 160). (Au premier regard, on ne distingue ainsi que deux teintes dans Ie tableau, deux
teintes violentes, s'enlevant l'une sur I'autre .... Rien n'est d'une finesse plus exquise que
les tons pales des linges blancs differents sur lesquels Olympia est couche.)
191. Paul Mantz attributed those qualities to Manet's characteristic method of sup-
pressing half-tones while exaggerating the contrasts between light and dark, remarking of
the Manet of those years (oddly, in the present tense): "He dreams of an exasperated and
combative reality" ("Les Oeuvres de Manet," Le Temps, Jan. 16, 1884). (II reve d'une rea-
lite exasperee et batailleuse.) He also remarked: "Manet wasn't slow to perceive that he
had struck too hard." (Manet ne tarda pas a s'apen;evoir qu'il avait frappe trop fort.)
192. Darragon stresses Manet's predilection for exhibiting contrasting works in indi-
vidual Salons (Darragon 1989, pp. 429-33). "Le caractere entier dont Manet se reclame
[when he told Antonin Proust that he hoped his oeuvre would not be dispersed] s'est pre-
sente non pas comme une somme, comme une accumulation de valeurs, mais davantage
comme une suite de confrontations et de divisions" (p. 429). And: "En dehors de l'oppo-
sition des images, de leur repulsion reciproque, on ne peut saisir que l'insistance d'un art a
etablir to ute sa puissance" (p. 430).
193. Paul Mantz, "Exposition au boulevard des Italiens," CBA, 1st ser., 14 (Apr. 1,
1863): 383, emphasis added. (M. Manet est entre avec sa vaillance instinctive dans Ie do-
maine de I'impossible. Nous refusons absolument de l'y suivre. Toute forme se perd dans
ses grands portraits de femmes, et notamment dans celui de la Chanteuse, ou, par une
singularite qui nous trouble profondement, les sourcils renoncent a leur position horizon-
tale pour venir se placer verticalement Ie long du nez, comme deux virgules d'ombre; il n'y
a plus la que la lutte criarde de tons platreux avec des tons noir. L'effet est blafard, dur,
sinistre. D'autres fois, quand M. Manet est de joyeuse humeur, il peint la Musique aux
Notes to Page 332
Tuileries, Ie Ballet espagnol ou Lola de Valence, c'est-a-dire des tableaux qui reveient en
lui une seve abondante, mais qui, dans leur bariolage rouge, bleu, jaune et noir, sont la
cancature de la couleur et non la couleur elle-meme.)
Five years later Mantz hadn't changed his views: "Since then [the Boy with a Sword
and Cuitarrero], Manet went far away from the healthy practices [that gave rise to those
works]; as a colorist, he has less courage; in his execution, he is less original. He has ac-
quired a singular taste for black tones, and his ideal consists in opposing them to chalky
whItes, so as to present on the canvas a series of more or less contrasting patches" ("Salon
de 1868," L'Illustration, June 6,1868). (Depuis lors, M. Manet s'est fort eloigne de ces
saines pratiques; coloriste, il a moins de courage; executant, il est moins original. II a pris
pour les tons noirs un gout singulier, et son ideal consiste a les opposer a des blancheurs
crayeuses, de fa<;on a presenter sur la toile une serie de taches plus ou moins contrastees.)
Significantly, Mantz in 1868 and 1869 also described Legros's paintings of the early
1860s as full of black-white contrasts, but the result in those works was a strikingness of
which he approved (ibid., May 16, 1868, and "Salon de 1869," CBA, 2d ser., I [June I,
1869]: 500).
194· Saint-Victor, "Societe des Aqua-fortistes. Eaux-fortes modernes, publication
d'oeuvres originaires et inedites," La Presse, Apr. 27, 1863, emphasis added. (Imaginez
Coya passe au Mexique, devenu sauvage au milieu des pampas, et barbouillant des toiles
avec de la cochenille ecrasee, vous aurez M. Manet, Ie realiste de la derniere heure. Ses
tableaux de l'Exposition du boulevard des Italiens sont des charivaris de palette; jamais
on n'a fait plus effroyablement grimacer les lignes et hurler les tons. Ses Toreros feraient
peur aux vaches espagnoles; ses Contrebandiers n'auraient qu'a se montrer pour mettre
en fuite les douaniers les plus intrepides; son Concert aux Tuileries ecorche les yeux
comme la musique des foires fait saigner I'oreille. II y a pourtant un certain talent dans ces
pochades indigestes, mais nous doutons que M. Manet s'applique jamais a Ie degrossir.)
195· Cf. the last paragraph of Fried 1970: "One last point. In 'Manet's Sources' I char-
acterized Manet's art, in particular the great paintings of the first half of the sixties, as
essentially theatrical. By that I referred above all to the relationship-of confrontation,
of mutual facing-which Manet seems to have found himself compelled to establish
between each painting in its entirety (the painting itself, the painting as a painting) and the
beholder. In this sense Manet's paintings may be said to take account of the beholder; in
any event, they refuse to accept the fiction that the beholder is not there, present before the
painting, which Diderot a century before had insisted was crucial to the convincing repre-
sentation of action. (Manet's exploitation of Watteau, whom Diderot found theatrical, is a
further index of that refusal.) Not that Manet's paintings revert to a prior dramaturgy. For
Manet, as for Courbet, ambitious painting no longer entailed the representation of action.
[I modify this in Courbet's Realism by claiming that Courbet's Realist masterpieces find
different ways of representing the action of painting.] Accordingly the theatricality of his
great canvases of the early sixties is as it were disengaged from action or expression-
though the complete opacity, the frozen (or freezing) blankness of both in these pictures
ratifies that theatricality and makes it all the more perspicuous. Paul Mantz writing in
1863 found in Manet's paintings 'the caricature of color and not color itself'; while in the
same year Paul de Saint-Victor complained that Manet 'made his lines grimace.' The the-
atricalization of action and expression ends in that of paint" (p. 46).
This is as good a place as any to make a related point concerning a partial analogy
between Manet's art and David's. In almost all David's late "Anacreonic" paintings the
presence of the beholder is frankly acknowledged and the composition assumes an asser-
tively theatrical character. This is true, for example, of the earliest of those paintings, the
59° Note to Page 333
Sappho, Phaon, and Love (1809), a work that has tended to make its cO,mme~tators un-
easy and indeed has been viewed as marking the breakdown of David s ~blhty to deal
effectively with classical subject matter (see Amta Brookner, Jacques-LoUIs DavId [New
York, 1980], p. 163). The exact subject of the Sappho has been vanously descnbed, but
there has been general agreement that Sappho has just been surpnsed by her lover, Phaon,
that she has lost her grip on her lyre, and that Love or Eros has seiz~d It before It could fall.
What makes the picture enigmatic, however, IS, first of all, Phaon s bodIly stance, which
far from implying movement (as if he had entered the scene a moment before) suggests on
the contrary that he has been standing with his left leg beanng most of hiS weight, and
second, the way in which both Phaon and Sappho appear to gaze directly out from the
painting. It is as if the point of Phaon's gesture is to force Sappho to break off her playmg
and turn her face toward the beholder or indeed the pamter (to enable the ~atter ~o get a
better view of her features), while Phaon's stationary posture can be read as Implymg that
he has been holding a more or less frontal pose for some time. The overall effect comes
close to being "photographic," all the more so in that Phaon's features convey the sense of
having been based on those of an actual model. (A recurrent c~iticism of the" Anacreomc"
works concerns what has been seen as an intrusively prosaIc reahsm). In a subseq~ent
canvas, the Cupid and Psyche (1817), the arresting complexities of the Sappho have gIven
way to an even more baldly theatrical mise-en~sd:ne as an adolescent CUPI~ cheerfully but
delicately disentangles himself from the sleepmg Psyche~ all the whIle lookmg dIrectly out
of the painting as if at a viewer standing before It. Agam, we have the sense of a~ actual
model more or less realistically depicted. And of course the pomt-blankness of the Imphe.d
address to the viewer is inflected thematically by the myth according to which Psyche IS
never allowed to see her lover Cupid. Finally, the last of David's major canvases, Mars
Disarmed by Venus (1824), restricts eye contact with the beholder to the figures of CupId
and the rightmost of the three Graces, but the picture as a whole IS even more emphatically
a piece of theater than the Cupid and Psyche. . .
All this suggests that starting around 1809 and gathenng force after hIS move to Br.us-
sels in 1816, David began to cast about for a subject matter and a mode of presentation
that would allow him to embrace the theatricality he somehow knew hecoul~ no longer
overcome but that would also avoid encroaching upon the realm of heroIC action: which,
precisely for that reason, was now definitively closed to him. Understood m that hght, the
"Anacreonic" pictures are no simple failure: they are an attempt to make the best of a
situation that threatened to disable David as an ambitious artist and that m any case drove
him once and for all from the high ground of traditional history painting. Roughly half a
century later Manet (in my account) would also find it necessary to acknowledge the mes-
capableness ~f beholding in works that, for all their startling "mod~rnity," perhaps have
more in common with David's late canvases than has been recogmzed. (ThiS argument
was first advanced in Fried, "David et l'antitheatralite," pp. 218-20).
19 6 . See George Heard Hamilton, Manet and His Critics (New Haven, 1954), p. 66;
Anne Coffin Hanson, Manet and the Modern Tradition (New Haven and London, 1977),
pp. 109- 10 ; and Manet 19 8 3, pp. 228-29. Hamilton w~ites: "The Itahanate composI-
tion, the somber Spanish coloring, the theatrical properties, and the contemporary per-
sonages are parts which fail to coalesce into a whole convmcmg either as deSIgn or
expression. A popular model, Janvier, posed for the central figure; the three attendant
soldiers were commonplace contemporary types, dressed in a curious mIxture of modern
clothing and theatrical costume. The soldier to the right of Christ wears trousers, a~ an-
tique sword, and a fur jacket .... The attempt to create a 'modern' version of a tradItIonal
subject resembles in intention the Dejeuner sur l'herbe, although thIS time the character of
the shock effect differed" (p. 66). Or as Hanson says: "Manet's Christ is particular and
immediate, recognized as a contemporary Parisian. His flesh is reddened where the sun
has reached his neck above the collar, his hands even redder where the ropes have cut off
the circulation. In contrast his body, set off against the red-brown cloak, is pale, naked and
vulnerable" (p. IIO). She attempts to redeem the internal inconsistencies of the Christ
Mocked by suggesting that it was intended to be "a universal image for all time, any time,
all people and all places which has to do with human feelings on a level shared by saints
and heroes with the most ordinary of men" (p. 110). Cachin rightly finds this improbable
(Manet 1983, p. 229).
197. Leroy wrote: "The feet of Christ, red and swollen, clearly indicate that the model
wore boots that were too tight before his session of posing" (L. Leroy, "Salon de 1865,"
Le Charivari, May II, 1865). ([Ljes pieds du Christ, rouges et gonfles, indiquent claire-
ment que Ie modele portait des bottes trop justes avant de poser sa seance.)
198. See Denis Diderot, "Mes Pensees bizarres sur Ie dessin" (the first of his "Essais
sur la peinture"), Oeuvres esthhiques, ed. Paul Verniere (Paris, 1959), pp. 669-73. On
the role of the model in the French Academy see James Henry Rubin, Eighteenth-Century
French Life-Drawing: Selections from the Collection of Mathias Polakovits (Princeton,
1977), and idem, "Concepts and Consequences in Eighteenth-Century French Life-
Drawing" in Diana Dethloff, ed., Drawing: Masters and Methods-Raphael to Redon,
Papers Presented to the Ian Woodner Master Drawings Symposium at the Royal Academy
of Art (New York, 1992), pp. 7-18.
r99. Manet himself was said by Proust to have criticized the professional models in
Couture's studio for striking exaggerated poses that had nothing to do with ordinary ac-
tions (Proust 1897, p. 12). The proper use of the model is a major theme in Horace Lecoq
de Boisbaudran's Education de la memoire pittoresque (2d ed. r862; rpt. in L'Education
de la memoire pittoresque et la formation de l'artiste [Paris, 19 r 3 j). See also Thomas
Couture, Methodes et entretiens d'atelier (Paris, 1867), where he deplores the usual prac-
tice of clothing ordinary models in mock-ancient drapery and instead urges: "If you take
models then take them, or, more precisely, surprise them; don't let them know that you
are looking at them" (pp. 5 r - 52). (Si vous prenez les modetes, prenez-Ies, ou, pour mieux
dire, surprenez-les; qu'ils ignorent que vous les regardez.) (My thanks to Veerle Thiele-
mans for these references, as well as for provoking me to further reflection on Manet's use
of the model.) Finally, Chesneau in 1875 maintained that because Millet never worked
from nature (i.e. from actual persons present before him and aware of being beheld), his
work was devoid of theatricality, a claim also made on behalf of Degas by the Neo-
Impressionist critic Felix Feneon in r886 (see Fried 1980, pp. 221-22, n. 144, and Fried
1990, pp. 302-3, nn. 47-48). At the latter moment, too, posing was explicitly thematized
by Georges Seurat in Les Poseuses (begun 1886, exhibited 1888); on that painting see
Ward, Pissarro.
200. One additional response to the Homage shows how a general awareness of pho-
tography could influence the reception of so facing a work. "The Homage to Delacroix by
Fantin-Latour is, I ask pardon of the author's realism, a quintessentially symbolic work,"
C. de Sault wrote in r864. "Before a portrait of Delacroix, but turning their back on him,
are grouped some writers and artists of a good and noble confraternity bound together
more closely, I like to think, than in this simultaneous and perfectly silent pose. No word,
no action. They all seem under the blow of the fatidic 'Don't move' of the photographer;
and yet the sun would have given us finesses of which we are here deprived" ([Mme de
Charnacej, "Salon de 1864," Le Temps, July 6, r864). (L'Hommage ii Delacroix, par M.
Fantin-Latour est, j'en demande pardon au realisme de l'auteur, du symbolism quintes-
sencie. Devant un portrait de Delacroix, mais lui tournant Ie dos, sont groupes quelques
ecrivains et quelques artistes, qu'une bonne et noble confraternite lie plus etroitement,
j'aime a Ie croire, que cette pose simultanee et parfaitement silencieuse. Ni parole, ni ac-
tion. lis semblent tous sous Ie coup du fatidique: "Ne bougeons plus" du photographe; et
encore Ie soleil nous eilt-il donne des finnesses dont ici nous sommes privees.)
201. See S. J. Freedberg, Circa 1600: A Revolution of Style in Italian Painting (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 19 83), pp. 51-79·
202. See Darragon 1989.
20 3. To risk an anachronism, Manet's relation to Victorine Meurent seems to antici-
pate that of certain film directors to particular female stars (Von Sternberg and Dietrich,
Antonioni and Monica Vitti, for example). Recently there has been increased interest in
Victorine herself. See Mary Armburst Siebert, "A Biography of Victorine-Louise Meurent
and Her Role in the Art of Edouard Manet" (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 19 86 );
and Eunice Lipton, Alias Olympia: A Woman's Search for Manet's Notorious Model and
Her Own Desire (New York, 1992). For Carol Armstrong in a recent article, the fact that
in different paintings by Manet "Victorine is seen in a different guise, in different clothes,
and in different roles" and that "in each image her features remain recognizable and yet
alter subtly too" means that "Victorine's features are used by Manet to explore questions
of the constitution and singularity of a 'person,' here a female person, and of the instability
fundamental to personhood, especially to personhood in paint" ("Manet/Manette: En-
coloring the Eye," Stanford Humanities Review 5 [1992]: 1-46). But despite the em-
phatic italics, the claim is not made good.
20 4. "The profile face is detached from the viewer and belongs with the body in action
(or in an intransitive state) in a space shared with other profiles on the surface of the im-
age," Schapiro writes. "It is, broadly speaking, like the grammatical form of the third
person, the impersonal 'he' or 'she' with its concordantly inflected verb; while the face
turned outwards is credited with intentness, a latent or potential glance directed to the
observer, and corresponds to the role of 'I' in speech, with its complementary 'you'"
(Meyer Schapiro, Words and Pictures, Approaches to Semiotics II [The Hague and Paris,
1973], pp. 38-39). The Althusserian term "interpellate" is here taken from W. J. T.
Mitchell's suggestive juxtaposition of key passages in texts by Erwin Panofsky and Louis
Althusser in Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation (Chicago and
London, 1994), pp. 29-34·
20 5. In a suggestive though too-simple article Charles F. Stuckey argues that realist
painters such as Courbet, Manet, Whistler, and Monet deliberately called attention in
their work to their models' being precisely that; what their paintings "truthfully reveal,"
Stuckey writes, "are the necessarily artificial underpinnings of the activity of painting per
se" ("What's Wrong with This Picture?" Artin America 69 [Sept. 1981]: 101-2). Stuckey
goes so far as to suggest (humorously?) that the strangeness of Manet's Luncheon in the
Studio was the work of Manet's models, not the painter himself. "As if irked by their
model's roles," he writes, "Manet's sitters seem to sabotage his efforts at Realism, for they
refuse to remove their hats and they leave the table at which the artist had presumably
instructed them to remain for as long as it took to complete the picture. Resigned to their
lack of cooperation, Manet's only option was to record people unwilling to hide their
genuine impatience with a slow painter" (p. 104). A less extreme but not dissimilar view
was recently advanced apropos the Dejeuner sur l'herbe by Carol Armstrong in a paper
called "To Paint, To Point, To Pose: Manet's Dejeuner sur l'herbe," delivered at a College
Art Association session on that painting (Feb. 19, 1994). In another context, Jacques-
Emile Blanche compared Manet's art with that of the Belgian painter Alfred Stevens.
"Small scale, vignettelike drawing, a triumph of the still life in miniature in Alfred
Stevens," Blanche wrote. "In Manet, on the contrary, in the still life as in the figure, gran-
diose drawing. But both of them copy the living model immobilized in a studio pose"
(Manet, p. 25). (Petit dessin de vignette, triomphe de la nature morte en miniature, chez
Alfred Stevens. Chez Manet au contraire, dans la nature morte, comme dans la figure,
dessin grandiose. Mais tous deux il copient Ie modele vivant immobilise dans la pose d'at-
elier.)
206. Gautier, "Salon de 1865," Le Moniteur universel, June 24,1865. (Olympia ne
s'explique a aucun point de vue, meme en la prenant pour ce qU'elle est, un chetif modele
etendu sur un drap.) A less perceptive critic, Jules Claretie, wrote: "What is that odalisque
with a yellow stomach, an ignoble model picked up I don't know where and who repre-
sents Olympia?" ([Arsene Arnaud], "Deux Heures au Salon," Peintres et sculpteurs con-
temporains [Paris, 1874], p. 109). (Qu'est-ce que cette odalisque au ventre jaune, ignoble
modele ramasse je ne sais ou, et qui represente Olympia?)
207. Bataille, Manet, p. 44. (Du peintre qui introduisait Ie desordre dans la pose.)
Bataille also speaks of Olympia'S realism as having had "the power to situate itself no-
where, not in the charmless world revealed by the movement of prosaic language, nor in
the convulsive arrangement of fiction" (p. 63), a promising formulation that however is
somewhat weakened by its sequel: "Positively, the latter arrangement is destroyed in
Olympia: the incongruity of a naked model is substituted for the academic compositions
of Couture, which, to the point of delirium, are fixed by the Academy" (ibid.). ([L]e rea-
lisme de Manet-celui du moins de l'Olympia-eut une fois Ie pouvoir de ne Ie situer
nulle part, ni dans Ie monde sans charme que revele Ie movement du language prosaique,
ni dans l'ordonnance convulsive de la fiction. Positivement, cette derniere ordonnance est
detruite dans l'Olympia: l'incongruite d'un modele nu se substitue a ces compositions
academiques de Couture, qui, jusque dans l'ivresse, sont figees par l'Academie.)
For his part, Sandblad compares the Dejeuner and Olympia in the following terms: "It
cannot be denied that in Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe something can be traced of the conflict
between the two realities which lay at his disposal. He does not make it quite clear to us
whether it is a part of Saint-Ouen or a part of the studio in Paris which he wishes to pre-
sent. But in Olympia, this conflict, like practically all the others, is over and done with; he
has quite simply proceeded from Victorine Meurend, the model posing in the studio. It
does not follow from this, however, that the. picture need be interpreted only as a model-
study-and we are all too well acquainted with Manet's penchant for the mysterious and
the briefly indicated to assume that he meant it to be no more" (Sandblad 1954, p. 97).
Finally, Clark's acute description of Olympia's gaze, her look, is to the point: "This is
not a look which is generalized or abstract or evidently 'feminine.' It appears to be blatant
and particular, but it is also unreadable, perhaps deliberately so. It is candid but guarded,
poised between address and resistance-so precisely, so deliberately, that it comes to be
read as a production of the depicted person herself; there is an inevitable conflation of the
qualities of precision and contrivance in the way the image is painted and those qualities
as belonging to the fictive subject; it is her look, her action upon us, her composition of
herself" (Clark 1985, p. 133).
208. Burty, "Le Salon," Le Rappel, May 11,1870.
II est surtout un reprache qu'on adresse chaque annee a cet artiste tres militant et tres
convaincu: c'est celui de travailler trap vite. Rien ne touche plus a faux.
Sa peinture n'est fait pas pour la foule. M. Manet pracede par des partis pris trap voulus pour
que son systeme soit, je ne dis pas admis, mais facilement comprehensible.
Tout a son bout de traduire la sensation exterieure que donne aux yeux un regard jete sur un
J •
\
individu, une fleur, une draperie, un meuble, il semble vouloir s'arreter au relatif de l'esquisse. Je
sais pourtant qu'il fait poser ses modeles plusieurs seances, plusieurs semaines, plusieurs mois
meme. Mais Ie resultat parait quelquefois trop hatif.
209. In a letter to her mother of March 1869, Berthe Morisot wrote: "Tomorrow we
are going to see Manet's paintings. Antonin [Guillemet] says that he had him pose fifteen
times for a poor result and that [the figure of] Mlle Claus is atrocious; but that both of
them, exhausted from posing standing up, tell Manet, 'It's perfect, there's nothing more to
do'" (Denis Rouart, ed., Correspondance de Berthe Morisot [Paris, 1950], p. 25). (De-
main, nous allons voir les toiles de Manet. Antonin dit qu'ill'a bien fait poser quinze fois
pour Ie manquer et que Mlle Claus est atroce; mais que tous deux extenues de poser de-
bout disent: "C'est parfait, il n'y a rien a reprendre.")
210. Mallarme, "Edouard Manet," Oeuvres completes, p. 532. (Cet oeil ... gardait
nagueres l'immediate fraicheur de la rencontre, aux griffes d'un rire du regard, a narguer,
dans la pose, ensuite, les fatigues de vingtieme seance.) See the epigraphs to this book for
the whole of Mallarme's short text.
211. Burty, "Salon de 1870." (Je ne reprendrai qu'un certain vide dans l'ensemble.
Ces amis-Ia ont l'air un peu embarrasse. Chacun est tout a ses propres pensees, et une
conversation generale ne vient point donner une raison a cette reunion presque fortuite.
On sent trop que M. Fantin les a appeles, l'un apres l'autre, a venir prendre place dans Ie
tableau.)
212. For Fantin, the ideal was short-lived. By 1874 we find him writing to Scholderer
to tell him of the success of Manet's Chemin de fer at the dealer Deschamps but also to
complain that Manet now had imitators who were doing him no good. "Monet, Pissarro,
Sisley, and others paint in so unfinished and exaggerated a manner that it's bad for those
ideas. They make caricatures of him without his finesse and his naturalness ... " {letter of
Jan. 25, 1874, Brame and Lorenceau archives). (N'est-ce pas que Ie tableau de Manet de
chemin de fer chez Deschamps est charmant; ce sera, je crois, son tableau du Salon cette
annee. Il a ici un grand succes, il devient a la mode. Mais il a des imitateurs qui vont lui
faire du tort. Monet, Pizarro [sic], Sizslai [sic] et d'autres font de la peinture si peu faite, si
exageree que c'est mauvais pour ces idees lao Ils font des charges de lui sans sa finesse et
son naturel.) See also the discussion of Fantin's growing disaffection not just with Impres-
sionism but with Manet's own Impressionist tendencies in Robin Spencer, "Whistler,
Manet, and the Tradition of the Avant-Garde," Studies in the History of Art 19 (1987):
58-59·
213. Thus Roland Barthes: "I call 'photographic referent' not the optionally real
thing to which an image or a sign refers but the necessarily real thing which has been
placed before the lens, without which there would be no photograph .... [I]n Photogra-
phy I can never deny that the thing has been there . ... The name of Photography's noeme
will therefore be: 'That-has-been,' or again: the Intractable" (Camera Lucida: Reflections
on Photography, trans. Richard Howard [New York, 1981], pp. 76-77). And: "[S]ome-
one has seen the referent (even if it is a matter of objects) in flesh and blood, or again in
person" (p. 79). Stanley Cavell inflects this somewhat differently. "Photography main-
tains the presentness of the world by accepting our absence from it," he writes. "The real-
ity in a photograph is present to me while I am not present to it; and a world I know, and
see, but to which I am nevertheless not present (through no fault of my subjectivity), is a
world past" (World Viewed, p. 23). See also De Duve, "Time Exposure and Snapshot."
214. Or, following Cavell, they insist on the beholder's presence to the painting but
not to the model, both of which are present to him. Manet's figures, we might say, seem to
address the the beholder but not to acknowledge him.
21 5. Th~ second~ry literature on the Bar is large and growing. The most important
recent contributIOn IS Clark 1985, chap. 4, "A Bar at the Folies-Bergere"; see also the
earlier version of that chapter cited in n. 63 above. See also Novelene Ross, Manet's "Bar
at the Folies-Bergere" and the Myths of Popular Illustration (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1982).
Clark's (and Herbert's) accounts of the Bar are discussed along with others by David
Carrier, "Art History in the Mirror Stage: Interpreting Un Bar aux Folies-Bergere," His-
tory and Theory 29 (1990): 297-319. Recently Kermit Swiler Champa has devoted a
highly original chapter to the Bar in his "Masterpiece" Studies, pp. 19-49. A collection
of essays on the Bar is forthcoming (see n. 63); among those essays Steven Z. Levine's
"M~net's Man Meets the Gleam of Her Gaze: A Psychoanalytic Novel," brings a La-
cam an perspectIve to bear on the question of the nature and meaning of the barmaid's
gaze. In that essay Levine suggests that "the frame-amputated trapezist's legs" at the up-
per left of the Bar "might already intimate the amputation of Manet's syphilitic and gan-
grenous leg in 1883," which is to say that Manet might be marginally (and partially)
present in the painting after all. The same possibility is implied, as Levine remarks, by the
barmaid's bracelet, which if it is the same as the one worn by Olympia actually contained
a lock of Manet's baby hair (see Alain Clairet, "Le Bracelet de l'Olympia: Genese et des-
tinee d'un chef-d'oeuvre," Oeil, no. 333 [Apr. 1983]: 36-41). Clairet writes: "Nous
avons retrouve ce dernier bijou [un curieux bracelet a medaillon] qui fut transmis a son
actuelle proprietaire, accompagne d'une notice de la main de Julie Manet: 'Bracelet
d'Olympia. Le medaillon contient des cheveux d'Edouard Manet a 15 mois'" (pp. 37-
3 8 ). See also Fried 1990, p. 338, n. 28.
216. On the Execution see esp. Sandblad 1954, pp. 109-61; Albert Boime, "New
Light on Manet's Execution of Maximilian," Art Quarterly 36 (autumn 1973): 17 2 -
208; Brown University 1981; Wilson-Bareau 1986; Wilson-Bareau 1992; Manfred Fath
and Stefan Germer, Edouard Manet: Augenblicke der Geschichte, exhib. cat. (Mann-
heim: Stadtischen Kunsthalle, Oct. 18-Jan. 17, 1993); Oskar Batschmann, Edouard
Manet: Der Tod des Maximilian (Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig, 1993); and idem,
"L'Artiste expose" (adapted from the preceding), Traverses, n.s., no. 3 (autumn 199 2 ):
4 8 -57.
21 7. The most detailed discussion is by Wilson-Bareau, "The Hidden Face of Manet,"
in Wilson-Bareau 1986, pp. 55-61.
218. Wilson-Bareau remarks that a photograph of the Execution made when the
painting was exhibited in America in late 1879 shows the picture in its present state
("Manet and the Execution of Maximilian" in Wilson-Bareau 1992, p. 60).
21 9. See Darragon 1989, pp. 145-46. "La comparaison avec Ie tableau de Chardin
sur Ie meme theme, qui passa en vente en avril 1867, ne peut que renforcer l'idee d'une
peinture qui revendique une tradition et une legitimite," he writes (p. 146), without say-
ing anything more about what that might mean. His remarks conclude: "Le tableau joue
un role esthetique et, en septembre 1867, son sujet represente egalement une pause eton-
nante quand on la rapporte a la fumee de l'execution du 19 juin" (ibid.). But the pause
appears less astonishing when the Boy Blowing Bubbles is seen as an expression of
Manet's rethinking of his art in the wake of his retrospective exhibition.
220. Wilson-Bareau, "Manet and the Execution of Maximilian," in Wilson-Bareau
199 2, p. 47·
221. Kathryn L. Brush, "Manet's Execution and the Tradition of the Histoire " in
Brown University 1981, p. 45. '
222. Actually she stresses the connection between the Old Musician and the Boston
Execution ("Structure and Meaning in the Execution Series," in Brown University 19 81 ,
p. 14), but goes on to associate the sombreroed figure of the emperor in the Mannheim
version with the Gilles figure in the earlier picture (p. 21). (I make this point in chap. I,
n. 44). The Gilles-Maximilian connection is emphasized by Batschmann, who goes on to
cite Michelet's interpretation (in the volume on the Regency in his history of France
[186 3]) of Watteau's canvas as virtually an image of a doomed gladiator (Der Tod des
Maximilian, pp. 69-70; "L'Artiste expose," pp. 54-55). For Batschmann the larger con-
text is what he sees as a contemporary thematics of tragic confrontation between artists
and public, which in the case of Manet involves not only the Execution but his religious
paintings, especially the Christ Mocked, and the pictures of bullfights. I think Batsch-
mann's claims are too sweeping, but (as will emerge) our readings of the Execution have
important points in common.
223. See Jones, "Structure and Meaning," in Brown University 19 81 , p. 14·
224. Bataille, Manet, p. 48. (Manet peignit la mort du condamne avec la meme indif-
ference que s'il avait elu pour objet de son travail une fleur, ou un poisson.)
225. Ibid.; the last short sentence quotes Verlaine. (A priori, la mort, donne methodi-
quement, froidement, par des soldats, est defavorable a l'indifference: c'est un sujet
charge de sens, d'ou se degage un sentiment violent, mais Manet parait l'avoir peint
comme insensible; Ie spectateur Ie suit dans cette apathie profonde. Ce tableau rappelle
etrangement l'insensibilisation d'une dent: il s'en degage une impression d'engourdisse-
ment envahissant, comme si un habile practicien avait applique comme a l'habitude et
conscienceusement ce precepte premier: "Prends l'eloquence et tords-lui Ie cou.")
226. Ibid., pp. 73-76.
227. Ibid., p. 62. (Dans l'un et l'autre cas, Ie texte est effaqe par Ie tableau. Et ce que Ie
tableau signifie n' est pas Ie texte, mais l' effacement.) An even more characteristic formula-
tion evokes the notion of sacrifice: "The intention of a sliding in which the immediate
sense [of the subject] is lost is not the neglect of the subject but something else: it is compa-
rable to what goes on in sacrifice, which alters, which destroys the victim, which kills
it, without neglecting it" (pp. 94-95). (L'intention d'un glissement ou se perd Ie sens im-
mediat n'est pas la negligence du sujet, mais autre chose: il en va de meme dans Ie sacrifice,
qui altere, qui detruit la victime, qui la tue, sans la negliger.)
228. In fact, however, Maximilian had insisted that Miramon have the place of honor
in the middle (Wilson-Bareau, "Manet and the Execution of Maximilian," in Wilson-
Bareau I992,P. 31).
229. Wilson-Bareau notes that the "active" position of the NCO's right hand differs
from the "passive" position of the hand in the right-most London fragment and in fact
reverts to the position the hand originally had in that fragment, as revealed by X rays
(ibid., p. 62). This suggests that Manet was specifically concerned with the question of just
how strongly absorptive a motif would work best at this focal point in the composition.
Note too the curious affinity between the two-handed action of the NCO and that of the
seated violinist plucking a string on his instrument in the Old Musician.
230. See Fried 1980, pp. 45-51·
231. Cf. Stephen Bann, "The Odd Man Out: Historical Narrative and the Cinematic
Image," The Inventions of History: Essays on the Representation of the Past (Manchester
and New York, 1990), pp. 186-87. See also Batschmann, Der Tod des Maximilian,
PP·9 6 - IIO .
232. For Zola's remarks see n. 189 above. The Zola passage is quoted by Batschmann
in Der Tod des Maximilian (p. 73, in German translation) and in "L'Artiste expose"
(p. sr, in French) in connection with his claim that the Execution symbolizes Manet's
relation to the public. Batschmann underscores the already recognized affinity between
the Execution and Manet's pictures of bullfights, in particular the painting in the Chicago
Art Institute (1865-66) in which, as in the Execution, "victimes et agresseurs s'exposent
aux spectateurs dans un etat de supreme concentration et la plus grande proximite"
("L'Artiste expose," p. 54). And he goes on to relate the bullfight theme to Manet's deci-
sion to put on his own one-man exhibition in 1867= "Selon Manet, l'artiste n'a aucun
choix: 'Montrer est la question vitale, Ie sine qua non pour l'artiste,' est-il ecrit dans la
preface du catalogue de 1867 .... Peut-etre pour la premiere fois, la monstration et la
presentation devenaient une partie integrante des conditions d'elaboration de l'art et de
la conscience de l'artiste .... Mais, pour l'artiste, exposer signifie s'exposer aux agres-
sions du public: l'artiste devient Ie taureau, les critiques sont les matadors et les toreros, et
Ie public applaudit Ie vainqueur" (ibid.).
Other scholars too have found in the Execution something like an allegory of Manet's
sense of victimage; see Sandblad 1954, p. 156, and, especially, Boime, "New Light on
Manet's 'Execution of Maximilian,''' pp. 190-93, both of whom cite Zola's remarks.
"Given Manet's state of mind [in 1867]," Boime writes, "we may assume that the figure of
Maximilian is in some wayan intimate projection of Manet's feelings about himself"
(p. 19 I). Boime closes his article by noting that Manet signed the Mannheim canvas
"Manet 19 juin 1867," the date of Maximilian's execution, which suggests a desire to
memorialize the event, not merely to represent it (p. 193). Could Manet have been think-
ing too of David's dedication of the Marat to its murdered protagonist?
Another short text might just be relevant here. Among Manet's letters to Duret is a
draft for a notice in the press, written by Manet himself and reading: "We have learned
that Manet has been refused the authorization to print a lithograph that he has just made,
representing the execution of Maximilian; we are astonished at this act of the authorities
striking with interdiction an absolutely artistic work" (quoted by Sandblad 1954,
pp. 154-55, emphasis added). (Nous apprenons qu'on a refuse aM. Manet l'autorisation
de faire imprimer une lithographie qu'il vient de faire, representant l'execution de Maxi-
milien; nous nous etonnons de cet acte de l'autorite frappant d'interdiction une oeuvre
absolument artistique.)
233. Finally, the nearness of the firing squad to the victims may also be read as
picture-painting distance, which would associate the act of painting with an act of vio-
lence on the part of the painter against the painting itself. The Execution may be com-
pared in this regard with Caravaggio's last canvas, the Martyrdom of St. Ursula (1610),
his most profound exploration of the uncontrollably labile consequences of the link be-
tween violence and representation. Cf. two other readings of the Execution with respect
to the question of beholding, both of which make use of my work on eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century French painting: Elizabeth A. Reid, "Realism and Manet," in Brown
University 198 I, pp. 69-82; and Stefan Germer, "Le Repertoire des Souvenirs: Zum Re-
flexion des Historischen bei Manet," in Manet: Augenblicke der Geschichte, pp. 40-54.
234. Astruc, "Salon de 1870," L'Echo des beaux-arts, May 29, 1870. (Cf. the near-
animism of Astruc's theorization of the portrait two years earlier.) (Avec toutes les qualites
et les bizarreries de l'eclair, il jette un froid dans la salle frissonnante. Que pourrais-je dire
d'un homme pareillement attaque-battu par toutes les plumes, moins trois ou quatre,
expiant son talent depuis une foule d'annees, sevre de la moindre joie artistique, sinon de
celle de bien faire, d'etre un homme. Par une fatalite inconcevable, en dirait que ses dons
ne peuvent se communiquer a la foule. Celle-ci observe, regarde, sourit, doute-et donne,
vous en conviendrez, quelque embarras a l'artiste. On devient gauche quand on ne sent
pas la sympathie autour de soi. On dirait que les tableaux de Manet ont une arne et qu'ils
eprouvent en eux-meme les effets de cette hostilite.)
Note to Page 359
The remainder of Astruc's remarks are also of interest, in part because they show how
even to one of the few critics who believed in Manet's superiority, the latter's art presented
itself as an altogether exceptional case, one that because of its combination of brilliance
and unevenness virtually defied criticism and that seemed to be dependent for its
success-for its very look-on the context in which it was encountered. For example,
Astruc imagined artists who (unlike the public) grasped the merits of Manet's work saying
of him: "'Yes, there is a new feeling, an expression of rare and charming qualities; a spon-
taneous, curious alive artist-whom it's necessary to take in his entirety, with his faults,
his bizarreries-as with the sincerity of his instinct and the marvelous curiosity of his race.
He isn't an ordinary man who can be classed with the usual mode of judgment; he's an
exceptional artist-unequal, powerful-capable of lapses-but soaring to heights only
attained by the most beautiful intelligences. He needs a milieu, he wants to be appreci-
ated; in that case, one can say he is excellent; he charms, he astonishes by his caprice and
by the strength of emotion that he provides. In a bland milieu he appears barbarous-
preserving in essence, on the outside, that harshness that is his own and that is only the
translation of an expression at once energetic and profound.''' In terms of the larger argu-
ment of this book, we might say that Impressionism was shortly to give rise to a milieu of
the sort that Astruc claimed was required for Manet's remarkable qualities to be
perceived-but at the cost of making the "harshness that is his own" all but invisible.
("Oui, c'est la un sentiment nouveau, expression de qua lites rares et charmantes; un art-
iste spontane, curieux, vivant-qu'il faut prendre tout entier avec ses de£auts, ses
bizarreries-comme avec la since rite de son instinct et la merveilleuse curiosite de sa race.
Ce n'est pas un homme ordinaire pouvant etre classe avec I'habituel jugement; c'est un
artiste d'exception-inegal, puissant,-pouvant faiblir-mais s'elevant a ces hauteurs
qu'atteignent seules les plus belles intelligences. II a besoin d'un milieu, il veut etre gOllte;
dans ce cas, on peut Ie dire excellent; il charme, il etonne par Ie caprice et la vigueur
d'emotion qu'il donne. Dans un milieu fade, il apparait barbare-conservant a la nature,
a I'exterieur, cette crudite qui lui est propre et qui ne traduit qu'une expression a la fois
energique et profond.") Remarkably, Astruc had written as early as 1863 that Manet's
"great intelligence ... demands to function freely in a new sphere that he will bring to
life" (Le Salon, no. 16 [May 20, I863J). For the French see appendix 4.
Astruc's commentary ends with a prediction of further struggle: "I don't believe that
he is definitively condemned to that hostile parti pris that seeks to make him submit to
defeats. Yes, we will see a successful return. Because he must force one.-His soul is virile
enough to convert the public to the work he is constructing. The artist must conquer. He
has, to support him, a quantity of works that proudly sign his special name." (Je ne Ie
crois point condamne definitivement a cette hostilite de parti pris qui ne cherche qu'a faire
des echecs. Oui, nous verrons un heureux retour. Car il doit Ie forcer.-Son esprit est assez
viril pour convertir Ie public a l'oeuvre qu'il edifie.-L'artiste doit vaincre. II a pour Ie
seconder une quantite d'ouvrages qui signent fierement son nom special.) The reference to
Manet's "special name" concerns its Latin meaning, "he (or it) lasts, endures."
235. Cf. my discussion of surrogates for the painter not only in Courbet's Realism but
also, apropos Eakins's The Gross Clinic (1875), in Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, pp. 1-
89. The NCO has been associated by Boime with the figure of a veteran examining the
lock of his musket in Alexandre Protais's Morning before the Attack, first exhibited in the
Salon of 1863 and later in the Exposition Universelle of 1867 ("New Light on Manet's
Execution of Maximilian," pp. 188-89 and fig. 18). In her essay in the Brown University
catalogue Jones draws attention to the resemblance between the facial features of the
NCO in the London fragment and those of Napoleon III, commenting, rightly, that if the
resemblance was intended "the political statement would have been amazingly strong"
(" Structure and Meaning," p. 17; Jones credits Kermit Champa with this suggestion). The
observation is repeated and developed by Biitschmann, Der Tod des Maximilien, pp. 32-
36. (Sandblad previously had remarked that the NCO wears "a little pointed beard of
exactly the type made fashionable by Napoleon III himself" [Sandblad 1954, p. I37J.)
236. Both reasons seem tenuous to me. See Wilson-Bareau, "Manet and the Execu-
tion of Maximilian," in Wilson-Bareau 1992, p. 60. For his part, Sandblad believes that
"once the wall had been straightened out and moved forward" (in comparison with its
location in the Copenhagen sketch) there simply "was no place" for the officer (Sandblad
1954, p. 146).
237. Jones, "Structure and Meaning," in Brown University 1981, p. 21.
238. Bataille, Manet, p. 92. Bataille is comparing Manet's art with that of Delacroix,
Courbet, and Corot. (La maniere, moins sure d'elle, de Manet, procede d'un elan plus
agressif, plus malade aussi. Manet derange et ne veut pas satisfaire: il cherche meme a
decevoir. II conteste la possibilite que la toile lui donne: il a tient sous sa brosse, mais sous
la brosse elle se retire.)
239. Seen. 215 above.
240. Chap. 5 in Bataille's Manet is called, simply, "Le Secret." On p. I I 5 he writes: "I
wanted to show in Manet one of the most secret painters, the most difficult to penetrate."
(rai voulu montrer en Manet l'un des peintres les plus secrets, les plus malaisement pene-
trables.)
241. Wilson-Bareau describes "the Mexican people on the wall" as expressing "hor-
ror and dismay like the victims in the Third of May," which seems too strong (" Manet and
the Execution of Maximilian," in Wilson-Bareau 1992, p. 62). But she is right to say that
they are "the only overtly emotional note in the picture" (ibid.).
242. Paul Mantz, "Salon de 1868," L'Il/ustration, May 16, 1868. (Les deux tableaux
que no us venons de citer sont, d'ailleurs, fort remarquables; la figure de I'eveque, dans
l' Amende honorable, a beaucoup de finesse et de distinction. M. Legros devrait faire un
pas de plus en avant et accentuer d'un trait plus profond les physionomies de ses modeles.)
Note, by the way, the assumption that Legros, a realist, would have based his figures on
models.
243. Marc de Montifaud [Marie-Amelie Chatroule de MontifaudJ, "Salon de 1868,"
L'Artiste, June I, 1868, p. 399. (II y a une sobriete de teinte, une severite, une concision de
touche qui fait croire que M. Legros a voulu reveiller I'idee d'une creation monastique.
C'est bien Ie cachet raide et gourme de la morgue episcopale en ses epoques de haute in-
quisition. Les costumes sont traites avec un soin scrupuleux; quoique un peu froide, cette
conception est vivante et fortement caracterisee; on a un reflet du temps dans to ute son
imperative regueur.)
244. ]. Grangedor, "Salon de 1868," GBA, Istser., 25 (July I, 1868): 22. (M. Legros,
apres Zurbaran et Lesueur, cherche a retrouver les visages, impassibles et durs comme la
discipline monacale, des pretres devenus juges dans un tribunal ecclesiastique. Le soin
meme avec lequel sont accentues les moindres traits de ces hommes qui representent une
authorite sans contr6le retire a l'ensemble de la scene l'unite, la profondeur et Ie mystere
qui en completeraient I'expression serieusement poursuivie par l'auteur.)
245. Mantz, "Salon de 1868," L'Il/ustration, June 6,1868 (Ia nature l'interesse peu;
les spectacles de la vie ne I'emeuvent pas. Cette indifference sera son chiltiment. M. Manet
no us parait avoir moins d'enthousiasme que de dilettantisme. S'il avait tant soit peu de
passion, il passionnerait quelqu'un, car no us sommes encore une vingtaine en France qui
avons Ie gout des nouveautes et des hardiesses. Mais M. Manet ne fait pas meme emploi
des modestes res sources de sa palette. Avec Ie peu qu'il possede, il pourrait dire quelque
chose,-et il ne dit rien.).
24 6 . Chesneau, "Salon de 1868," Le Constitutionnel, June 12, 1868. (L'intention de
cette belle page est tres curieuse aetudier; l'artiste n'a manifeste dans cette oeuvre aucune
preference, aucune partialite, soit pour Ie condamne, soit pour Ie tribunal; conception
grande, simple et dramatique, precisement par l'absence de toute intention dramatique.)
247· Two other accounts of the Amende honorable are worth citing. The first is by
Astruc, who saw the two monks against the rear wall as deeply absorbed (profondement
absorbes) and praised the drawing of the figures as "sustained, clear, and of an excessive
research" ("Salon de 1868," L'Etendard, May 29,1868, emphasis added). (Le des sin est
soutenu, net, et d'une excessive recherche.) The second is by Leonce Benedite, writing in
19 00 , who drew attention to the contrast between the gravity of the subject as well as of
various "formal" and expressive features of the Amende honorable and what was then
apparently the brilliance of at least certain of its colors-still another version, by no
means the least interesting, of what I have been calling a double or divided structure ("Al-
phonse Legros," Revue de l' art ancien et moderne [1900], p. 336). (Le contraste entre la
gravite de ce sujet, Ie caractere religieux des personnages, la tension des physionomies, la
sobriete presque nu du decor, les grands partis pris de tons largement localises et, d'autre
part, l'eclat argentin et brillant des couleurs, la frakheur des roses et des blancs, la valeur
lumineuse des chairs jouant entre Ie vert sombre du tapis et la pourpre vibrante du dais, ce
melange de splendeur et d'austerite qui semble l'expression sensible de la majeste sereine
et inflexible de l'Eglise, cette opposition, comme paradoxale, donne acette toile un accent
etrange et inoubliable.)
5. Between Realisms
1. Derrida, Memoirs of the Blind, p. 53.
2. Ibid., p. 54.
3· Ibid., p. 57.
4. Ibid., p. 60.
5. Ibid., p. 62.
6. Ibid., p. 65.
7· The term "quasi-transcendental" occurs more than once in Memoirs of the Blind,
and in fact has been used with some frequency by Derrida at least since Glas. On the status
of that notion in his writing see Geoffrey Bennington and Jacques Derrida, Jacques
Derrida, trans. Geoffrey Bennington (Chicago and London, 1993), pp. 26 7- 84.
8. This is not to say that we have indisputable "external" evidence of his right-
handedness, though it is conceivable that such evidence (e.g. a photograph or even a por-
trait by another painter of Fantin in the act of painting) might turn up. It is to say that
commentators on early Fantin self-portraits in which the sitter holds a brush in his left
hand have never doubted that they were made with the help of a mirror. "Here, as in all his
self-portraits, Fantin typically did not bother to invert the image he saw in the mirror, with
the result that the paintbrush appears in the left hand," Michel Hoog writes of Fantin's
Self-Portrait, Standing Holding a Paintbrush (1859; fig. 173) in Grenoble (Fantin-Latour
19 82- 8 3, p. 77, cat. no. 3)· One might wish to object that the mirror itself is not repre-
sented in those paintings (e.g. we are not shown its borders and no effort has been made to
suggest its shiny surface), and that the case for mirror reversal remains conjectural. But the
evidence could hardly be more powerful, and one detail in particular, the right-over-left
(or "feminine") buttoning of the sitter's jacket as in the second drawing (fig. 167), is deci-
sive. My thanks to James G. Ravin of Toledo, Ohio, for calling that detail to my attention.
9. Zirka Zaremba Filipczak, Picturing Art in Antwerp, 1550-1700 (Princeton,
1987), p. 202. Actually the situation is not quite so clear-cut. There exists at least one
important full-blown exception, Annibale Carracci's Self-Portrait with other figures of
1585 in the Brera (in conversation with Filipczak it emerged that she was aware of this).
There is also Luca Cambiaso's Portrait of the Artist Painting His Father (ca. 1580) in the
Uffizi, in which the artist has portrayed himself wielding a brush with his left hand and
apparently straining to see himself in a mirror outside the picture field to the left; what
further distinguishes Cambiaso's canvas, however, is that the figure of the painter is shown
painting a portrait not of himself but of his father, whom we are invited to imagine taking
the place of the mirror. (For a brilliant reading of this little-known work see Daniel Arasse,
Le Detail: Pour une histoire rapprochee de la peinture [Paris, 1992], pp. 221 -22.) In addi-
tion, Sophonisba Anguissola's Self-Portrait (ca. 1554- 56) in the Uffizi depicts the painter
holding two brushes in her left hand, which moreover is not shown in the act of painting.
But she seems to have put down her palette (and three other brushes) in order to grasp a
scroll of paper with her right hand, which suggests that in a general way the image may
have been meant to be seen as mirror-reversed. (My thanks to Megan Holmes for bringing
this picture to my attention.) See also the self-portraits by Cornelis Saftleven (1629) in the
Louvre and by an anonymous artist (perhaps Isaac van Ostade), whereabouts unknown,
illustrated in Hans-Joachim Raupp, Untersuchungen zu Kunstlerbildnis und Kunstler-
darstellung in den Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert (Hildesheim, 1984), figs. 139 and
188 (lowe this reference to Filipczak). Finally, I have recently developed an account of
various paintings by Caravaggio that views them as disguised or displaced mirror-reversed
self-portraits (in "Some Thoughts on Caravaggio," a lecture given first at a colloquium in
memory of Louis Marin held at The Johns Hopkins University, Nov. 12-13, 1993, and
subsequently as one of two Una Lectures at the University of California, Berkeley, Mar.
1995). It's likely too that other seventeenth- and eighteenth-century paintings will turn
out to contain elements of mirror reversal; for example, Salvator Rosa's Self-Portrait of
around 1650 in the Detroit Institute of Arts depicts the sitter gesturing off-canvas with his
left arm in a manner that suggests he may be painting; and there may even be some rare
sixteenth-century works, such as Jacopo da Pontormo's Self-Portrait drawing in the Brit-
ish Museum, that lend themselves to such a reading.
Within the modern French tradition, Jacques-Louis David's Self-Portrait of 1794,
made during his imprisonment after the fall of Robespierre, is mirror reversed, but we are
not shown the canvas on which the sitter presumably is working; the canvas is shown,
however, in Camille Corot's Portrait of the Artist (I 825?) and Theodore Chasseriau's Por-
trait of the Artist Holding His Palette (1838), both in the Louvre. Another seemingly
mirror-reversed self-portrait of roughly the same period is Victor Emil Janssen's Self-
Portrait at the Easel (1828) in Hamburg, in which the artist has depicted himself appar-
ently drawing (not painting) with his left hand on a canvas or sheet of paper almost wholly
off-canvas to the right. But these and no doubt other examples to the contrary, Filipczak is
plainly correct that mirror reversal became truly current starting in the 1860s.
A few more remarks about David's Self-Portrait are in order. It not only reverses his
ordinary appearance, it also amounts to a reversal of the Self-Portrait's hitherto unrecog-
nized prototype, the Death of Marat of the year before: the quill pen in Marat's right hand
has become the brush in the painted David's left hand, the letter from Charlotte Corday in
Marat's left hand has become the palette in the painted David's right hand, indeed the
dominant left-to-right orientation of the earlier work has been turned around in the later
one. David evidently intended the Self-Portrait as a barely disguised act of identification
with the fallen Marat, perhaps in anticipation of his own likely death by guillotine. (The
disgUise lay In the "mirroring" more than anything else, which suggests that it may have
been the deSire at once to testify to his allegiance to Jacobin ideals and to render that testi-
mony unreadable by his captors that led him to reinvent the mirror-reversed self-portrait
prematurely, so to speak.) Put slightly differently, the Self-Portrait "mirrors" the Marat in
a way that would surely have cost him his life had it been recognized. In this connection
see T.]. Clark's marvelous discussion of the flesh-and-blood-like lapel of the sitter's coat in
the Self-Portrait as well as his suggestion that the palette in that painting "has almost the
look of an anamorphosis, or of a face discolored and turned on its side. There is something
like a mouth In eVidence, or a nostril, or an eye socket" ("Gross David with the Swoln
Cheek," in Rediscovering History: Culture, Politics, and the Psyche, ed. Michael S. Roth
(Stanford, 1994), pp. 291-93, 3°0-3°1).
See also the brief discussion of the role of mirror reversal in John Pope-Hennessy, The
Portratt In the Renatssance, The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts (Princeton, 1966),
pp. 124-:-3.0 (on Durer); Louis Marin, Detruire la peinture (Paris, 1977), pp. 154-60
(emphaSIZing th: role of convex mirrors in preparation for a reading of Carravaggio's
Medu~,a); Idem" Vanatlons sur un portrait absent: Les Autoportraits de Poussin, 1649-
1650, . Corps emt, no .. 5 (1983): 87-107 (remarking that the artist in the Pointel Self-
Portratt holds a pencil In hiS left hand and suggesting that the crossing of that figure's
hands at the wnst alludes to the mirror reversal of left and right); Richard Brilliant Por-
traiture (C.am~ridge, Mass:, 1991), p. 146 (on mirror reversal generally), pp. 157-5'8 (on
ParmlglanIno s Self-Portratt In a Convex Mirror), and 159-61 (on Norman Rockwell's
Triple Self-Portrait); Arasse in Le Detail, pp. 218-22 (on Poussin's self-portraits and
Cambiaso's Portrait of the Artist Painting His Father); and Joseph Koerner, The Moment
of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art (Chicago and London, 1993), pp. 3-5, 28,
139-42 (again on Durer).
It might be noted that Umberto Eco, in a chapter on "Mirrors" in his Semiotics and the
Philosophy of Language (Bloomington, Ind., 1984), insists that mirrors as such do not
Invert. "A mirror reflects the right side exactly where the right side is and the same with
the left si~e. I.t is t?e observer (so ingenuous even when he is a sci;ntist) who by self-
Identification Imagines he is the man inside the mirror and, looking at himself, realizes he
IS weanng hiS watch on his right wrist. But it would be so only if he, the observer I mean
were the o~e who is inside the mirror (Je est un autre!). On the contrary, those who avoid
behaVing like Alice, and getting into the mirror, do not so deceive themselves .... It is
only when we anthropomorphize the virtual image that we are puzzled by right and left-
that IS, only at this poi~t do we start wondering what right and left would be if the virtual
Image were the real object" (pp. 2°5-6). We might say that what in this chapter I call the
mmor-revers~d self~portrait performs that feat of anthropomorphization precisely by
treatIn? the virtual Image as a real object (which is why I don't hesitate to speak of the
Image Itself as "reversed," which technically it isn't). I'm grateful to David Wellbery for
alertmg me to Eco's text, and to James Elkins for calling my attention to two other inter-
estmg articles: N. J. Block, "Why Do Mirrors Reverse Right/Left but Not Up/Down?,"
Journal of Ph do sophy 72 (May 16,1974): 259-76; and Nicholas Denyer, "Why Do Mir-
rors Reverse Left/Right and Not UplDown?," Philosophy 69 (1994): 205-10.
ro. LoUIS Leroy, "Salon de 1861," Le Charivari, June 7, 1861. A fictive exchange be-
tween "Barbeau" and "Houspin" has the former say: "Wow! There is an artist with a
really hairy face!" To which the other replies: "And he's a lefty." (Barbeau. -Matin! voila
un artiste qUI a une mine joliment herissee [1060, de M. Fantin la Tour]. Houspin. -Et
puis il est gaucher.) The humor of the second quip depends on recognizing the sitter's left-
handedness to be the product of mirror reversal, which in turn supports the claim that
commentators have never doubted that Fantin in fact was right-handed.
II. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith
(London, 1962), p. 91.

12. Or indeed from lower left to upper right: what I mean to stress is the slant of the
hatching more than the direction in which the strokes in question were actually made. (I
shall continue to refer to that slant as upper right to lower left throughout this chapter.)
Considerably after the present chapter was written I was led by a reference in Svetlana
Alpers and Michael Baxandall, Tiepolo and the Pictorial Intelligence (New Haven and
London, 1994), p. 55, to an interesting book on the actual processes of drawing and mark
making by Peter Van Sommers, Drawing and Cognition: Descriptive and Experimental
Studies of Graphic Production Processes (Cambridge and London, 1984), which speaks
to these matters (see esp. chap. I).
13. See Fried 1990, chap. 2.
14. The term "allegorie reelle" is taken from the title of Courbet's painting, L'Atelier
du peintre: Allegorie reelle determinant une phase de sept annees de rna vie artistique
(1855), on which see Fried 1990, chap. 5·
15. There is, however, one exception in Courbet's oeuvre to his otherwise consistent
efforts to undo mirror reversal. In the highly finished charcoal drawing in the Fogg Art
Museum, Painter at His Easel (1847), Courbet has depicted himself painting with his left
hand. (It's just possible that the implement the sitter is using is a pencil or charcoal holder,
but he is at work on a canvas and his action seems that of a painter rather than a drafts-
man). The sitter holds no palette in his right hand, but what seems to be an outsized cuff of
his coat surrounding that hand is palette shaped; and what makes all this even more odd is
that because it is a drawing, not a painting, Painter at His Easel can't be imagined to repre-
sent an actual reflection in a mirror (assuming, of course, that the sitter is painting, not
drawing)! See the brief discussion of this work in Fried 1990, p. 95 and fig. 45·
16. Cf. Fantin's letter to Whistler of June 26, 1859: "Oh nature, what a beautiful
thing. I return from the Louvre, I dine, and between 5 and 8 in the evening I place myself
before my mirror and in a tete-a-tete with nature we tell each other things that are a thou-
sand times more valuable than everything the most charming woman can say" (Fantin-
Whistler correspondence, Glasgow University Library). (Oh la nature quelle belle chose.
Je rentre du Louvre et je dine et de 5h a 8h du soir je me mets devant rna glace et en tete a
tete avec la nature nous no us disons des choses qui valent mille fois tout ce que la plus
charmante femme peut dire.)
17. On Derrida's notion of the "supplement" see Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology,
trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore and London, 1976), pp. 14 1- 64.
18. Blindness has been a major topos in my writings on the French antitheatrical tra-
dition. Specifically, I have argued that whereas painters in that tradition before Courbet
sought to make paintings that would in effect be blind to the presence before them of the
beholder (which is why a certain thematics of blindness, keyed to classical prototypes such
as Homer and Belisarius, was important to an artist like David), Courbet's Realist works
evoke the blindness of the painter-beholder, or if this seems too strong, they evoke the
eclipse of vision that physically merging with the painting before him would have entailed
(which is why various figures in Courbet's paintings, including self-portraits like the
Wounded Man, have their eyes closed). Both blindnesses thus belong to the enterprise of
painting, as distinct from the blindness of drawing on which Derrida insists.
19. Cf. Carol Armstrong's reading of two early self-portraits by Edgar Degas, Self-
Portrait with a Crayon-Holder (I 8 54-55) in the Musee d'Orsay and Self-Portrait (I 8 57-
58) in the Clark Collection in Williamstown, Mass., in "ocular" (as opposed to "corpo-
real") terms (Odd Man Out: Readings in the Work and Reputation of Edgar Degas
[Chicago and London, I99IJ, pp. 227-35). Of the Musee d'Orsay picture she writes:
"The elusive ability of the image to conjure up the body's differences in substance and
solidity resides nowhere but in the play between shade and highlight, and so it is of an
optical nature, as is its more durable capacity to remind us of the reflecting surface of the
mirror. Indeed the pleasure of this self-portrait lies precisely in that subtle oscillation be-
tween the opticality of the image surface itself and the optically suggested corporeal life of
the artist's depicted body" (p. 229). More radically, in the Williamstown painting "it is
... as if the site of the painter's craft is in the eye and not in the hand, as if his painter's
clothes are now the sign of his job of looking, rather than his manual, material activity"
(p. 233). One implication of the present chapter is that in this respect as in others, Degas is
not the altogether exceptional figure Armstrong takes him to be. Cf. also Degas's Portrait
de ['artiste en blouse d'atelier (I860-62), an oil sketch on gray cardboard in the Gezira
Museum, Egypt, that strongly suggests that the artist has depicted himself mirror reversed
in the act of painting (see Les Oublies de Caire: Chefs-d'oeuvre de musees de Caire, exhib.
cat. [Paris: Musee d'Orsay, Oct. 5, 1994-Jan. 8, I995], p. 132, cat. no. 82).
20. Another early painted self-portrait has a bearing on this issue. In his Self-Portrait,
Seated at Easel (I858; fig. I98), a work of evident ambition, Fantin portrayed himself
seated on a chair before a large canvas; we see only part of the edge and back of the canvas,
most of which, it is suggested, lies beyond the right-hand edge of the painting; the chair
faces the canvas but the sitter, with legs crossed, has turned his body so as to face the
viewer; and of course the sitter holds his palette in his right hand, thereby declaring the
mirror-reversed status of the painted image as a whole (which further suggests that the
artist-model must have turned his body so as to face his image in a large mirror, set up
more or less at right angles to the actual painting on which he was working). All this may
be taken as fairly obvious, once the basic premise of mirror reversal is granted. But what is
less obvious, what indeed is easy to miss (especially in reproduction), is that the sitter also
holds a brush in his left hand: while looking directly out of the painting-i.e. not at the
depicted canvas-he nevertheless seems to be adding a brushstroke to the lower right-
hand corner of that canvas, which is more less exactly where, on the actual picture surface,
the depicted brushstroke is to be found. Put slightly differently, it is as though the depicted
brushstroke asks to be understood as the record of an actual brushstroke that was made
near the lower right-hand corner of the actual painting; the implied (also elided) point of
contact between the two brush strokes may thus be thought of as another switch point
between the "worlds" of artist-model and sitter-between the two modes of realism we
have been considering-comparable to the inkwell in the third of the self-portrait draw-
ings discussed earlier in this chapter. But of course everything I have just said depends on
not thinking of the image of the canvas as itself mirror reversed, in which event the brush-
stroke being added to that canvas by the left-handed sitter would imply a location near the
lower left, not lower right, corner of the actual canvas. In other words, for the Self-
Portrait, Seated at Easel to function as a facing off of the two modes of realism, as I claim it
does, a certain parasitism on the mirror-reversed image is again required. On that painting
see Fantin-Latour I982-8 3, pp. 74-77, cat. no. 2; on the Self-Portrait, Standing Holding
a Paintbrush, see ibid., p. 77, cat. no. 3.
2I. On Whistler as an etcher see Katharine A. Lochnan, The Etchings of James
McNeill Whistler (New Haven and London, I984).
22. For a discussion of anthropomorphism in Courbet's art see Fried I990, pp. 238-54.
Figure 198. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, Seated at Easel, 1858.

23. Lochnan rightly associates La Vieille aux loques with Millet's etching of I 8 5 5, La
Cardeuse (Etchings of Whistler, p. 50).
24. See ibid., pp. 5 2- 53·
25. No doubt coincidentally, it was in I860 that a British colonial administrator, Sir
William Herschel, first thought of adapting the Bengalese practice of imprinting letters
and documents with a fingertip dipped in ink or tar for the purpose of identifying individ-
uals (see Carlo Ginzburg, "Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and Scientific
Method," trans. Anna Davin, History Workshop 9 [spring I980]: 26- 2 7). Herschel pub-
lished an article explaining his method in I 880, and Francis Galton's Finger Prints, which
acknowledged Herschel but went far beyond him, appeared in I 89 2 (ibid.).
26. The relationship between will and automatism is basic to my reading of Courbet's
Realism (also of photography; see Fried I990, pp. 278-80 and passim). Also, the associa-
tion between ocular realism and the will that the present analysis of Whistler's etchings
implies could lead us to consider another important French text on drawing, Paul Valery's
Degas Danse Dessin (Paris, I938); the English translation as "Degas Dance Drawing"
appears in Degas Manet Morisot, trans. David Paul, vol. I2 of the Collected Works of Paul
Valery (New York, I960), pp. I-I02. Briefly, Valery understands Degas's practice of
drawing as crucially a matter of willing: "A sustained act of will is essential to drawing [by
which Valery means tracing precisely what one sees], for drawing demands the collabora-
tion of separate means whose one instinct is to resume their own independent automat-
ism. By nature, the eye tends to wander, the hands curl up, move at a tangent. To ensure the
freedom of drawing, so that the draftsman can carry out his will, he must suppress those
local autonomies" ("Degas Dance Drawing," p. 37; for the original French see Degas
Danse Dessin, p. 55). The whole short chapter, "Seeing and Copying" -in French, "Voir
et tracer" -is pertinent to the notion of ocular realism developed in this chapter. The last
paragraph reads: "The artist approaches, withdraws, leans over, screws his eyes up, his
whole body behaving like an instrument of his eye, becoming entirely a means for aiming,
pointing, controlling, reducing to focus" ("Degas Dance Drawing," p. 3 8 ; Degas Danse
Dessin, p. 57). Cf. Carol Armstrong's discussion of Valery on Degas in Odd Man Out,
pp.2I6-26.
27. In fact six of the twelve prints in the French Set also depict figures looking more or
less directly at the viewer; what distinguishes the Thames Set figures is the contrast be-
tween their nearness to the viewer and the representation of distance elsewhere in the im-
age. Other French Set prints such as The Kitchen (the most powerful evocation of an
absorptive-somatic space in the whole series) and The Title to the French Set (in which
Whistler sits drawing while surrounded by a crowd of children) also bear on my argu-
ment.
28. Lochnan suggests that the Thames Set etchings represent an attempt by Whistler
to find an equivalent for the eye's inability to focus with equal sharpness and at the same
time on objects at different distances (Etchings of Whistler, pp. 95- IOO ). She writes: "If
one looks closely at Black Lion Wharf, Eagle Wharf, The Pool and Longshoremen, it is
immediately apparent that while some areas are 'in focus,' others are 'out of focus,' and
that some fall beyond the range of peripheral vision" (p. 95). I disagree: the cardinal fea-
ture of the first three etchings, it seems to me, is the extremely sharp focus of all the spatial
zones, which is to say that the etchings seek to evoke an impossibly clear, precise, and
spatially comprehensive act of seeing. (Longshoremen scarcely seems to belong to this
discussion.)
29. On that painting see Andrew McLaren Young, Margaret MacDonald, Robin
Spencer, with Hamish Miles, The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler, 2 vols. (New Ha-
ven and London, I980), I:36-37, cat. no. 63. Together with a nearly identical picture in
DublIn (cat. no. 62), The Artist in His Studio is thought to have been preliminary to a
m~ch larger pICture-a group portrait with Albert Moore, a British artist Whistler ad-
mired, and FantIn-Latour-which Whistler intended to paint for the Salon of I866
(PP·3 6 -37)·
30. There is also a fine mirror-reversed self-portrait drawing by Whistler, Portrait
of the ~rtlst (.ca. I860s), In the Freer Gallery of Art, which $eems particularly close to
FantIn s draWIngs of around I 860 (see David Park Curry, James McNeill Whistler at the
Freer Gallery of Ar.t [New York and London, I984], p. 237, pI. 204). And certain other
paInted self~portralts, such as the Arrangement in Green: Portrait of the Painter (prob-
abl! I872) In Detroit and Self-Portraft (ca. I896-98) in the Hunterian in Glasgow in
,:hlch the sitter wears a monocle In hiS left eye (whereas Whistler actually wore it in his
nght eye), are also to the point.
3 I. Another painter in the Impressionist orbit whose work has been described in
terms of the implied presence of the body is Paul Cezanne; see Maurice Merleau-Ponty's
classIC (If problematIC) essay, "Cezanne's Doubt," Sense and Non-Sense, trans. Hubert L.
Dreyfus and Patri,~ia Allen Dr~yfus (Evanston, 111., I964), pp. 9-25. More recently, see
Norman Bryson, Intertextuahty and Visual Poetics," Critical Texts 4, no. 2 (I 987): I-6
(equally problematic, though on other grounds); and Stephen Bann, The True Vine: On
VIsual Representation and West~rn Tradition (Cambridge, I989), pp. 90-91. Signifi-
cantly, the one Self-PortraIt by Cezanne to show him actually at work on a canvas is mir-
ror reversed (I 88 5-87, in the Biihrle Collection, Zurich), while the orientation of his head
and upper body in numerous other self-portraits that don't depict his arms and hands
~trongly suggest.s mirror reversal. One other fact about Cezanne's practice is worth not-
Ing. In hiS 011 paIntIngs, which from the I 8 80S on contain extensive areas of hatching, the
hatchIng runs both from upper left to lower right and from upper right to lower left
(though m general th~ first "d!rection" predominates). In view of Cezanne's attempt in his
paIntIngs to dlfferen:Iate spatI~lly and otherwise between the multiple contiguous planes
IndICated by the IndIVIdual umts of hatching, this is hardly surprising. But in his looser-
textured and. less systematically organized drawings Cezanne almost invariably hatched
~rom up~er nght to ~ower left, In keepmg with the right-handed draftsmanly norm (see the
IllustratIOns In Adnen Chappuis, The Drawings of Paul Cezanne, 2 vols. [Greenwich,
Conn., I973], vol. 2).
. Two other painters associated with the Impressionist generation whose work reveals
dlstmctly bodily valences are Frederic Bazille and Gustave Caillebotte. The first was close
to Monet and Renoir during the I 860s but was killed in the Franco-Prussian War before
the emergence o~ Impressionism proper (Bazille is the tall figure standing in profile toward
t~e nght of Fantm's Atelier in the Batignolles). His art, like that of all the Impressionists,
lIes ou~slde the scope of this book, but toward the end of the I860s he painted a Self-
Portrat~ WIth Palette (I869-70?; fig. I99) that belongs with the works we have been
examInIng: (For that painting see Frederic Bazille: Prophet of Impressionism, exhib. cat.
[Montpelher: Musee Fabre, July 9-0ct. 4, I992; Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum
Nov. I3, I992-Jan. 24, I993; Memphis: The Dixon Gallery and Gardens, Feb. I4-Ap r:
25, I993], pp. 136-37, cat. no. 42. The painting is undated; the catalogue suggests that
the proposed date of I 867 may be t~o early, and I am following Dianne Pitman's sugges-
tion that a date. of I 869-7.0 IS plausible.) Once again the sitter has been represented mir-
ror reversed, With a brush In hiS left hand and a palette in his right. But Bazille's picture is
full of a sense of phYSical straIn that suggests by contrast just how unusual Fantin's self-
portraits are in facing off the two modes of realism as they do. That is, the Self-Portrait
Figure 199. Frederic Bazille, Self-Portrait with Palette, 1869-70?

Note to Page 397
with Palette implies that the canvas on which the sitter is working is just out of view to the
left (d. Fantin's Self-Portrait, Seated at Easel and Whistler's Artist in His Studio, in both of
which the implied or, in the Fantin, partly depicted canvas is to the right); he is standing
directly before it and has turned his head so as to study his image in a mirror that presum-
ably originally occupied our (the beholder's) position before the depicted scene (again, as
in the case of the Fantin and the Whistler). At the same time, the sitter's upper body is
turned somewhat in the opposite direction, and the result of that is to make us feel that
with just a bit more effort-a slightly further clockwise turn of the upper body-his right
arm (the one holding the palette) could in fact be aligned with the artist-model's right arm,
which perhaps means that despite the mirror reversal of left and right the image as a whole
feels more corporeal realist than ocular realist in orientation. (The unresolved tension this
implies is perhaps reflected in the sitter's facial expression.) Such a reading is strengthened
by the treatment of the large palette charged with paints, which virtually facing us as it
does invites being seen as a figure for the picture itself: although we see that the palette is
held by the sitter's right hand, we feel that that hand could or even should be wielding a
brush, in accord with the congruence-logic of corporeal realism (and of course it holds
several brushes). It's well known that the future Impressionists, Monet especially, were
close to Courbet in the mid-1860s, but Bazille's Self-Portrait with Palette provides new
evidence for their imaginative proximity to his art even as it adds its testimony to the prev-
alence of a dynamics of mirror reversal in "advanced" painting of the 1860s. See the
extended discussion of Bazille's engagement with issues of absorption, theatricality, pos-
ing, etc. in Dianne Williams Pitman, "The Art of Frederic Bazille: 1841-187°" (Ph.D.
diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1989).
As for Caillebotte, a somewhat younger figure who began to exhibit with the Impres-
sionists in 1876, he too is the painter of a mirror-reversed Self-Portrait (1879) and even
more than Pissarro, Cezanne, or Bazille he may be seen as deliberately striving to combine
the resolutely ocular vision of Impressionism with a return to both a thematics of intense
absorption and a Courbet-like evocation of effects of lived corporeality (as in Le De-
jeuner). The result is an art of immense interest, verging on self-contradiction. On Caille-
botte see e.g. the recent exhibition catalog by Anne Distel, Douglas W. Druick et aI.,
Gustave Caillebotte, 1848-1894 (Paris: Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Sept. 12,
1994-Jan. 9,1995; Chicago: The Art Institute, Feb. I 5-May 28,1995).
More broadly, Jonathan Crary in Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modern-
ity in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1990) has argued that starting in the
early nineteenth century an epistemic shift came increasingly to locate vision "within the
unstable physiology and temporality of the human body" (p. 70). Impressionist painting
does not stand apart from that development; rather its commitment, at least at the outset,
to what I have been calling an ocular realism marks a particular stage in painting's investi-
gation of the nature of human vision, an investigation that perhaps reaches its apogee of
refinement in the modern French tradition in Georges Seurat's Neo-Impressionist can-
vases of the second half of the 18 80S (see Crary, "Seurat's Modernity," in Ellen Wardwell
Lee et aI., Seurat at Gravelines: The Last Landscapes [Indianapolis: Indianapolis Mu-
seum of Art, Oct. 14-Nov. 25, 1990], pp. 61-65, as well as the pages on Seuratin Martha
Ward, Pissarro, Neo-Impressionism, and the Spaces of the Avant-Garde [Chicago and
London, 1995]). Cf. also Crary's article, "Unbinding Vision," October, no. 68 (spring
1994): 21 -44, in which Manet's late In the Conservatory (1879) is read in relation to the
comtemporary psycho-physiological problematic of "attention."
32. Mallarme, "Edouard Manet," Oeuvres completes, ed. Henri Mondor and G.
Jean-Aubry (Paris, Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, 1945), pp. 532-33. For the full text, see the
epigraphs to this book.
6ro Notes to Pages 398-407
33. One final point. At approximately the same moment, Manet painted his only
other work in this genre, the Self-Portrait with a Skullcap (I 878; fig. 200), which bears a
complex structural relation to its companion with respect to the issues in question. For
example: (I) In the Self-Portrait with a Skullcap Manet has not portrayed himself in the
act of painting-the sitter holds neither brush nor palette and his hands are the least-
finished portions of the picture-with the result that there is no sign within the picture
that the image is mirror reversed. (2) Also in that work the sitter, shown full-length, stands
considerably further back in the picture space than in the Self-Portrait with a Palette. The
two works taken together therefore associate both the portrayal of the act of painting and
the dispositif of mirror reversal with apparent nearness to the picture surface or indeed
with the actual, arm's-length encounter between artist-model and painting. (3) The dis-
tancing of the sitter in the Self-Portrait with a Skullcap is correlated with the action he
appears to be performing, namely looking hard at something roughly the same distance in
front of him. Within the hypothetical logic of the works we have been considering, that
can only be his image in a mirror. But the peculiarly intense, focused, above all critical
character of the sitter's gaze suggests that he is looking at the ebauche-like painting itself,
which if true would mean that the second self-portrait imagines not just displacing the
presumptive mirror by the painting (the structural basis of the mirror-reversed self-
portrait generally) but so to speak eclipsing or negating the former by the latter. Put
slightly differently, it's as if Manet in the Self-Portrait with a Skullcap sought to represent
an act of looking that belonged essentially to the enterprise of painting as distinct from the
artist-model's concentration on his own image in a mirror, an image, as we have seen, that
his generation invested with exemplary significance and that he himself memorialized in
the Self-Portrait with a Palette. And it's as if he discovered that that could only be done by
avoiding representing the act of painting itself and instead evoking the relatively dis-
tanced, impersonally judgmental gaze by which he as artist (as distinct from artist-model)
sought continually to assess his work in progress-a gaze, it should be stressed, no mirror
could have disclosed to him. (We don't know for certain which of the two canvases was
painted before the other; in my reading the Self-Portrait with a Skullcap presumes the
existence if not of the Self-Portrait with a Palette itself at any rate of the recent convention
of the mirror-reversed self-portrait. Incidentally, the manifestly unfinished state of the
"later" painting underscores the theme of a critical gaze by implying that the task of repre-
sentation is not yet completed.) (4) The deep structural opposition between the two works
is further marked by the difference in headgear between the stylish black bowler in the
Self-Portrait with a Palette and the unexpected skullcap in the Self-Portrait with a
Skullcap. In the latter work Manet is clearly chez lui, in the privacy of his studio, in con-
trast with the evident worldliness of his portrayal in the former one. And this too helps
thematize an act of looking that had its place precisely there.
Coda: Manet's Modernism

I. See Ernest Chesneau's remarks about the way French painting of different periods
depicted figures "simply facing the spectator, ... looking without seeing," in "Le Rea-
lisme et l'esprit fran<;ais dans I'art," in L'Art et les artistes modernes en France et en An-
gleterre (Paris, I 8 64), pp. 14- I 5, quoted and discussed in chap. I.
2. See e.g. Felix Feneon's strictures against the theatricality of Impressionist painting,
as discussed by Martha Ward, Pissarro, Neo-Impressionism, and the Spaces of the Avant-
Garde (Chicago and London, I99 5), chap. 2.
3. See Fried, "Art and Objecthood" (originally published in Artforum in I967), in
Notes to Pages 398-407 6rr
Figure 200. Edouard Manet, Self-Portrait with a Skull Cap, I878.

Minimal Art, ed. Gregory Battcock (New York, 1968), pp. II6-47· A large literature
takes issue with or otherwise comments on my reading of Minimalism. See e.g. Hal
Foster, "The Crux of Minimalism," in Individuals: A Selected History of Contemporary
Art, I945-I986, ed. Howard Singerman (New York, 1986), pp. 162-83; Stephen
Melville, "Notes on the Reemergence of Allegory, the Forgetting of Modernism, the Ne-
cessity of Rhetoric, and the Conditions of Publicity in Art and Criticism," October, no. 19
(winter 1981): 55-92; Rosalind Krauss, "Theories of Art after Minimalism and Pop," in
Discussions in Contemporary Culture, ed. Hal Foster, (Seattle, 1987), pp. 59-64; Thierry
de Duve, "Performance Here and Now: Minimal Art, a Plea for a New Genre of Theatre,"
Open Letter 5-6 (summer-fall 1983): 234-60; idem, "The Monochrome and the Blank
Canvas," in Reconstructing Modernism: Art in New York, Paris, and Montreal I945-
I9 64, ed. Serge Guilbaut (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1990), pp. 244-310; Charles
Harrison, Essays on Art & Language (Oxford and Cambridge, Mass., 1991), chap. 2,
"Conceptual Art and the Suppression of the Beholder"; and Georges Didi-Huberman, Ce
que nous voyons, ce qui nous regarde (Paris, 1992). My discussion of Manet's relation to
the Diderotian tradition is indebted to Stephen Melville, Philosophy beside Itself: On De-
construction and Modernism, Theory and History of Literature, vol. 27 (Minneapolis,
19 86 ), chap. I, "On Modernism." When I speak of painting not thereafter being indif-
ferent to issues of beholding, I have in mind a wide range of manifestations of that lack of
indifference, including (for example) the nonabsorptive but also nontheatrical relation to
the viewer that Yve-Alain Bois has described in connection with Matisse under the Ben-
jaminian rubric "distraction" ("On Matisse: The Blinding," October, no. 68 [spring
1994]: 81-82 and passim) and the interest ofrhe "Art-Language" theorists Michael
Baldwin, Charles Harrison, and Mel Ramsden in various strategies for making paintings
"not to be seen" ("On Conceptual Art and Painting and Speaking and Seeing: Three Cor-
rected Transcripts," Art-Language, n.s., no. I [June 1994]: 30-69). What is more prob-
lematic is the relation of the question of theatricality as I have developed it to the
Duchampian project as analyzed brilliantly by Thierry de Duve in various writings, most
recently "Critique of Pure Modernism," October, no. 70 (fall 1994): 61-97·
4. See the early reviews of Impressionist exhibitions by Burty, Chesneau, and Armand
Silvestre. "If one seeks the definition [of the new painting], one would find that it is above
all decorative," Silvestre wrote in 1874. "It's an effect of the impression that it pursues
exclusively, leaving the search for expression to those passionate about line [i.e. drawing].
It's the combination of those two results that constitutes complete works of art, and this
first point suffices to show the limitations of this interesting but narrowly conceived at-
tempt." He continued: "By what means now is the impression sought? Therein lies the
true merit of these artists, that by which they will have infinitely served contemporary art.
By completely elementary and accessible means" ("Chronique des Beaux-Arts," L'Opin-
ion nationale, Apr. 22, 1874). (Si l'on en cherchait la definition, on trouverait qu'elle est
surtout decorative. C'est un effet d'impression qU'elle poursuit uniquement, laissant la
recherche de I' expression aux passionnes de la ligne. C'est l'ensemble de ces deux resultats
qui constitue les oeuvres d'art completes, et ce premier point suffit a remettre a son rang
cette tentative interessante mais etroitement con<;:ue. Par quels moyens maintenant l'im-
pression est-elle cherchee? La est Ie vrai me rite de ces artistes et en quai ils auront infin-
ment servi a l'art contemporain. Par des moyens tout a fait elementaires et accessibles.) In
the same review Silvestre also wrote: "One must have, in effect, special eyes to be sensitive
to that accuracy in the relations of tones that is their honor and merit" (quoted in the
introduction). (II faut, en effet, des yeux speciaux pour etre sensibles a cette justesse dans
les relations des tons qui fait leur honneur et leur merite.)
Note to Page 408 61 3
Burty too remarked the same year that being "based on the swiftest possible rendering
of physical sensation, [Impressionism] considerably narrows the domain of painting. It
scarcely leaves room for any but decorative motives; it forbids itself the stirring represen-
tation of those complex situations in which the mind collects its forces, and takes posses-
sion by analysis of places, situations, sentiments. It is as a band of artists floating down a
rapid river, drinking in the intoxicating effects of the sun, the shade, the verdure, the fresh-
ness, the perfumes that wander over the water and the banks, and never casting anchor or
bringing their bark to land." But despite these limitations, Burty concedes, "there remains
... a singular illusion of light and freshness; the masterly harmonising of ground and
verdure with the blue sky and white clouds; shadows or reflections exquisitely fleeting"
("The Paris Exhibitions: Les Impressionnistes-Chintreuil," The Academy, May 30,
18 74).
For his part, Chesneau in 1874 considered that "never has the ungraspableness, the
fleetingness, the instanteousness of movement been seized and fixed in its prodigious flu-
idity as in that extraordinary, that marvelous ebauche that Manet [sic: Monet] has cata-
logued under the title Boulevard des Capucines." Such painting was not, Chesneau felt,
the last word in art nor even in the new painting. "It's necessary that it comes to transform
the esquisse into an oeuvre faite. But what a trumpet blast for those who have a subtle ear
and how far it carries into the future!" ("A cote du Salon: II Le Plein Air. Exposition du
boulevard des Capucines," Paris-Journal, May 7,1874) (jamais l'insaisissable, Ie fugitif,
l'instantane du mouvement n'a ete saisi et fixe dans sa prodigieuse fluidite, comme ill'est
dans cette extraordinaire, dans cette merveilleuse ebauche que M. Manet a cataloguee
sous Ie titre de Boulevard des Capucines . ... Evidemment, ce n'est pas la Ie dernier mot
de l'art, ni de cet art lui-meme. II faut qu'il en arrive a transformer l'esquisse en oeuvre
faite. Mais quel coup de clairon pour ceux qui ont I'oreille subtile et comme il porte loin
dans I'avenir!).
All three critics, in other words, expressed reservations about what they regarded as
the ultimate narrowness or "incompleteness" of the Impressionist project. But far more
important historically is that they were not at all confused by the new art; on the contrary,
they instantly understood and were able to describe the artists' intentions. As Paul Tucker
remarks of the critical response in 1874, "the Impressionists clearly were not misun-
derstood nor unappreciated" ("The First Impressionist Exhibition in Context," in
Charles S. Moffett et aI., The New Painting: Impressionism I874-I886, exhib. cat.
[Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, Jan. 17-Apr. 6, 1986; San Francisco: M. H.
De Young Memorial Museum, Apr. 19-July 6,1986], p. 108). Or as Richard R. Brettell
comments in an essay on the Impressionist exhibition of 1877 in the same catalogue,
"Whether the critic hated the painters or was in profound sympathy with their aims, he
tended to understand just what the movement was about" ("The 'First' Exhibition of Im-
pressionist Painters," p. 200). But neither Tucker nor Brettell emphasizes just how ex-
traordinary a fact this is, especially when contrasted with the critical response to Manet.
See also Steven Z. Levine, "Decor/Decorative/Decoration in Claude Monet's Art," Arts
Magazine 5 I (Feb. 1977): 136-39; idem, "The 'Instant' of Criticism and Monet's Critical
Instant," Arts Magazine 55 (Mar. 1981): 114-21; and idem, Monet and His Critics, Out-
standing Dissertations in the Fine Arts (New York and London, 1976). The complexities
and ambiguities of the concept of "impression" have been analyzed by Richard Shiff in
Cezanne and the End of Impressionism (Chicago and London, 1984).
Another interesting early text is Silvestre's preface to the collection of etchings of mod-
ern paintings published by Durand-Ruel in 1873 (a year before the first Impressionist ex-
hibition), where he remarked of recent work by Monet, Pissarro, and Sisley: "What
strikes, first of all, in looking at it is the immediate caress that the eye receives from it;-it
is harmonious before all" (Galerie Durand-Ruel: Recueil d' estampes gravees it l' eau-forte
[Paris, 1873],2 vols., 1:21). (Ce quifrappe, tout d'aboard, en la regardant, c'estla caresse
immediate qui l'oeil en receuille;-elle est harmonieuse avant tout.) It's as if the quoted
sentence captures the moment of transition from a problematic of strikingness to one of
harmony.
5. Some of those differences were noted in 1874 by Marc de Montifaud, who con-
trasted Manet's art with that of the younger painter Claude Monet. "[Monet's] opposi-
tions perhaps aren't as striking, but the tone is sounded with the same accuracy. Less
abrupt in contact than Manet's, his notes sing out against a bright and luminous back-
ground. Without pursuing the need of shocking the public in order to succeed in the fu-
ture, he won't, I think, make any concessions to it. If one of them doesn't worry much
about whether or not he is a plagiarist [a reference to Manet's use of previous art], if he
mocks composition, the other will know to meld disparate elements and to find the secret
of joining them in a sort of harmonious relation; the one always conserves a great rough-
ness of touch that is the excess of force, for which he is perhaps not to be blamed; but the
other will incline toward a certain naivete that will place him on a path where he will
encounter what Manet will never bump into: grace" ([Marie-Amelie Chatroule de Monti-
faud], "Le Salon de 1874," L'Artiste, May I, 1874, p. 308; quoted by Darragon 1989,
pp. 236-37). (Ses oppositions ne sont peut-etre pas aussi frappantes, mais Ie son est
plaque avec la meme justesse. Moins apres de contact que Manet, ses notes chantent dans
un fond clair et lumineux. Sans poursuivre la necessite d'effaroucher Ie public pour reussir
Ie lendemain, je ne crois pas qu'illui fasse de concession. Si l'un s'inquiete peu d'etre ou
non un plagiaire, s'il se moque de la composition, l'autre saura fondre entre eux des ele-
ments disparates, et trouver Ie secret de les rallier par une sorte de lien harmonieux; l'un
conserve toujours une grande rudesse de touche qui est l'exces dans la force, ce dont il ne
faut peut-erre pas Ie blamer; mais l'autre inclinera vers une certaine naivete qui pourra lui
faire rencontrer sur son chemin ce que Manet n'y coudoiera jamais: la grace.)
6. Clement Greenberg, "Modernist Painting," in The New Art: A Critical Anthology,
ed. Gregory Battcock (1966; rev. ed., New York, 1973), pp. 68-69. Another, very differ-
ent writer who makes interesting reading in this connection is the painter and art critic
Jacques-Emile Blanche, who in his elegant and subtle text of 1924 sought to minimize the
importance of Manet's "impressionist" adventure. Manet's touch and procedures,
Blanche wrote, remained the same throughout his career (Manet, p. 41). And whereas
Impressionism was at bottom" decorative" in orientation (p. 18), Manet's art was not that
at all (Chez Manet, rien de decoratif [po 10]). For Blanche, reacting against the Im-
pressionist reading of Manet's achievement, the latter's greatest works were his "mu-
seum" paintings of the 1860s, the Dejeuner and Olympia foremost among them. But
encountering Olympia in the Louvre he nevertheless was struck precisely by the "decora-
tive" dimension of Manet's realism, which gave the work a forward-looking quality that
far exceeded the painter's intentions-a claim that shows how difficult even Blanche
found it to keep Manet and Impressionism apart (p. 34): "Quand on apercoit de loin,
dans la salle des Etats, au Louvre, l'Olympia, parmi des ouvrages qui forment une tribuna
de la peinture moderne, cette toile s'isole des autres. La since rite ingenue de Manet, son
realisme est plus decoratif que les compositions de Delacroix. Cette toile classique et d'un
romantisme fou, ne resume-t-elle pas d'avance la plupart des recherches modernes? Son
auteur a fait ce qu'il ne savait point qu'il fit, ce qu'il n'aurait peut-etre pas voulu faire; etat
d'esprit devenu bien rare, peut-etre celui des plus authentiques genies?"
7. See Fried 1990, pp. 265-70. Cf. Greenberg'S early (1940) account of the respective
contributions of Courbet ("The first real avant-garde painter"), Manet, and the Impres-
sionists to the emergence of what he would later call Modernist painting in "Towards
a Newer Laocoon" (Clement Greenberg, The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol. I,
Perceptions and Judgments, 1939-1944, ed. John O'Brian [Chicago and London, 1986],
PP·29-3 0 ).
8. See Fried 1980, pp. 44-61, 66-70.
9. See Fried 1990, p. II.
10. See ibid., p. 227.
I I. See e.g. the articles on the Impressionist exhibition of 1874 as well as Levine's arti-
cle "Decor/Decorative/Decoration in Claude Monet's Art" and his Monet and His
Critics (above, n. 4).
12. Not that the notion of the morceau disappeared from criticism; but it no longer
invariably carried the same privative connotations as it did before. So for example Albert
Wolff could write in 1874 of a still life by Antoine Vollon: "All that one can say is that in
no other epoque has anyone painted a morceau of a more complete harmony and with a
more stunning mastery" ("Salon de 1874," Le Gaulois, May 3, 1874). (Tout ce qu'on
peut dire, c'est qu'a nulle autre epoque on n'a peint un morceau dans une plus complete
harmonie et avec une maestra plus etourdissante.) And a year later Armand Silvestre
could write of a similar work by the same painter: "This morceau of painting is perhaps
the most complete in the Salon and is admirable in all respects" ("Salon de 1875,"
L'Opinion nationale, June 14, 1875). (Ce morceau de peinture est peut-etre Ie plus com-
plet du Salon et de tous points admirable.) It's impossible to imagine the term morceau
invested with similar attributes of harmony and completeness a decade earlier, and it may
well have been the enormous contrast between the Impressionist picture with its "ocular"
bias, bright, close-valued color, and pursuit of "decorative" unity and Vollon's strongly
chiaroscuro and spectacularly "tactile" realist stilllifes that largely conferred upon the
latter their unwonted authority. Indeed Wolff's appeal to "harmony" is itself a sign of the
discursive shift I associate with Impressionism.
13. See Levine (as cited in n. 4) and idem, "Monet's Pairs," Arts Magazine 49 (June
1975): 72-75. On Monet's series see also Grace Seiberling, Monet's Series, Outstanding
Dissertations in the Fine Arts (New York, 1981); Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet in the '90S:
The Series Paintings (New Haven and London, 1989); and Steven Z. Levine, Monet, Nar-
cissus, and Self-Reflection: The Modernist Myth of the Self (Chicago and London, 1994).
On Pissarro's efforts in the 1880s and 1890S to find equivalents for the "completeness" of
the traditional tableau see Ward, Pissarro.
14. The new conditions of display and their significance are discussed by Ward in Pis-
sarro and, in greater detail, in her article "Impressionist Installations and Private Exhibi-
tions," Art Bulletin 73 (Dec. 1991): 599-622. Writing in 1876, Burty remarked on how
the rooms at Durand-Ruel in which the second Impressionist exhibition was being held
were spacious and well lighted, which he considered important "for the kind of painting
now exhibited there, which is characterised by a kind of decorative freedom, and demands
blank spaces between the respective frames" ("The Exhibition of the 'Intransigeants',"
The Academy, Apr. 15, 1876). Two years before Burty had written that the paintings in the
first Impressionist exhibition "depend upon elements of interest strictly esthetic, and not
social or human-lightness of colouring, boldness of masses, blunt naturalness of expres-
sion" ("The Paris Exhibitions"). The notion of the "strictly esthetic" is without precedent
in the art criticism of the I 860s, and reflects an altogether different set of pictorial priori-
ties from those I have associated with the generation of 1863.
15. No doubt the shift in question bore a close relation to the rise of what has come to
be called the "dealer-critic" system of the later nineteenth century (see Harrison C. and
Cynthia A. White, Canvases and Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting
World (New York, 1965), a system that involved, as Ward remarks in Pissarro, "the enter-
prise of attributing value through criticism." But the new, "esthetic" criticism was not
simply market inspired and market driven; rather, the uncanny accuracy of the earliest
commentaries on Impressionism suggests that their authors responded in the first in-
stance to crucial features of the new painting, whose interactions with the market would
themselves be far from simple (Ward is excellent on these).
16. Theodore Duret, "Edouard Manet," in Critique d'avant-garde (Paris, 1885),
pp. 125-26. (A leurs yeux, la qua lite intrinseque de la peinture en soi domine tout, dans
l'oeuvre d'un peintre, et Ie sujet, qui decidait a peu pres seul des preferences des autres,
n'est plus qu'un accessoire. Les connaisseurs sont generalement sans parti pris sur Ie style
des artistes et des ecoles. lis sont fort eclectiques. Tout ce qu'ils demandent a un tableau,
c'est d'etre peint, en prenant Ie mot dans toute son acception. Mais sur ce point ils sont
sans pitie. Atout l'Olympe, a to us les heros d'Homere et de Virgile, traites de la fa<;on dont
pro cede la moyenne des eleves de l'ecole de Rome, ils prefereront, sans hesiter, n'importe
quel chaudron du au pinceau d'un Chardin.)
17. Ibid., pp. 126-28. (Les connaisseurs, les hommes que leur gout, leurs fonctions
ou leur etat conduisent a s'occuper specialement de tableaux, ne jugeront un peintre qu'a
la suite d'un commerce prolonge avec ses oeuvres. Pour qu'un artiste soit definitivement
accepte comme peintre parmi les connaisseurs, il faut que ses toiles, placees a cote de celles
des grands, parmi ses devanciers, aient pu soutenir la comparaison. II faut que, dans les
collections, dans les musees, elles tiennent a cote de celles de maitres. Or, les tableaux de
Manet tiennent a cote de ceux de n'importe quel peintre. Aucune peinture n'est d'une
facture plus ferme et de tons plus justes que la sienne, aucune peinture n'est plus lumi-
neuse, plus transparente, ne possede plus d'air, dans les fonds, n'accuse plus de vie dans
les yeux et sur la physionomie. Mettez un Manet au milieu de Delacroix, de Corots, de
Courbets et vous l'y laisserez, comme a sa place naturelle, entre ses congeneres. Dans
to ute collection, dans to ute musee ou l'on voudra posseder des specimens de tous les mai-
tres fran<;ais et representer l'ecole moderne dans son entier developpement, Manet aura
forcement sa place marquee, car il a ete, autant que qui que ce soit, original et personnel,
et il a donne, avec un eclat qui ne sera jamais depasse, une note speciale de la peinture,
celle des tons clairs, du plein air, de la pleine lumiere.)
Cf. La Font de Saint-Yenne's praise, more than a century earlier, of the way in which a
small painting by Carle Van Loo held its own against other choice works in the collection
of a leading connoisseur: "I don't know anything more perfect by Van Loo than this
painting which is one of the principal ornaments of that beautiful cabinet, as refined as it is
abundant, assembled by one of the best connoisseurs of this sort of work. Van Loo's paint-
ing stands up vigorously face to face with those masterpieces by our greatest artists as-
sembled there" (Sentimens sur quelques ouvrages de peinture, sculpture et gravure, ecrits
aun particulier en Province [1754; rpt. Geneva, 1970], p. 29). (Je ne connois rien de plus
parfait du Sr. Vanloo que ce tableau qui fait un des principaux ornements de ce beau cabi-
net aussi epure qu'abondant & forme par un des plus excellens connoisseurs en ce genre.
II se soutient avec vigueur vis-a-vis des chef-d'oeuvres de nos plus grands maitres qui y
sont rassembles.)
18. On the basis of the same criterion Duret two years earlier argued for the Japanese
artist Hokusai's greatness as a draftsman. "In these conditions," he wrote, "we will find
that he is able to stand up to any European artist. His works, to use an expression of
the studio, hold up alongside those of the greatest masters" ("L'Art japonais: Les livres
Note to Page 415
illustres-Les albums imprimes-Hokousal," GBA, 2d ser., 26 [Aug. I, 1882]: 130).

(Dans ces conditions, nous trouverons qu'il peut aller de pair avec n'importe quel artiste
europeen. Ses oeuvres, pour me servir d'une expression d'atelier, tiennent a cote des plus
grands maitres.) Cf. Matisse: "[The Dead Torero] is one of Manet's most beautiful paint-
ings. I saw it in Philadelphia in the Widener collection, in the midst of a magnificent collec-
tion of works from all periods, among the Rembrandts and the Rubenses, and I marveled
at the magisterial way in which it equaled its neighbors" ("Edouard Manet vu par Henri
Matisse," interview with E. T[eriade], L'Intransigeant, Jan. 25, 1932). (Ce tableau est
l'un des plus beaux de Manet. Je l'ai vu a Philadelphie dans la collection Widener, au
milieu d'une magnifique collection d'oeuvres de toutes epoques, entre des Rembrandt et
des Rubens, et il m'a emerveille par la fa<;on magistrale avec laquelle il egalait ses voisins.)
For Greenberg, of course, Modernism is not a break with the past but rather "a 'dialec-
tical' turn that works to maintain or restore continuity: a most essential continuity: conti-
nuity with the highest esthetic standards of the past. It's not particular past styles,
manners, or modes that are to be maintained or restored, but standards, levels of quality.
And these levels are to be preserved in the same way in which they were achieved in the first
place: by constant renewal and innovation" ("Necessity of Formalism," New Literary
History 3 [autumn 1971]: 172).
Significantly, Zola claimed in 1867 that when the viewer embraced in a single gaze all
the works in Manet's one-man exhibition, "'you find that those diverse works hold to-
gether, that they complete one another, that they represent an enormous sum of analysis
and vigor'" ("Edouard Manet, etude biographique et critique," Ecrits sur i'art, p. 155).
(The "you" in question is a "skeptic" to whom Zola's remarks are ostensibly addressed.)
(Quand vous embrassez d'un regard to utes les toiles ala fois, vous trouvez que ces oeuvres
diverses se tiennent, se complhent, qu'elles representent une somme enorme d'analyse et
de vigueur.) A year earlier he had written: "I believe a masterly work is a whole that holds
together, an expression of one heart and one flesh" (" Mon Salon," Ecrits sur i'art, p. 134).
(Je crois qu'une oeuvre de maitre est un tout qui se tient, une expression d'un coeur et
d'une chair.) Cf. Champfleury's remarks about Manet's one-man exhibition in a letter to
ZolaofJune 7,1867: "I was struck most of all by the holding power of works conceived at
different times. From the first canvas to the last there was absolute cohesion, which [even]
for skeptics disproves all notion of [Manet's faces being merely] masks, about which so
much has been said" (cited in Emile Zola, Oeuvres completes, ed. Henri Mitterand, 15
vols. [Paris, 1966-69], 12 [1969]: 1057-58). (J'ai ete frappe surtout par la tenue des
oeuvres con<;ues a diverses epoques. De la premiere toile a la derniere, il y a cohesion abso-
lue, ce qui pour les sceptiques eloigne to ute idee de masque dont on a beaucoup parle.)
For his part, Mallarme in 1874 defended Manet's Hirondelles against the charge of
being not being sufficiently finished by saying: "What is a work 'not sufficiently finished'
when there exists among all its elements an accord by virtue of which it holds together and
possesses a charm easily broken by an added touch?" ("Le Jury de peinture pour 1874 et
M. Manet," Oeuvres completes, p. 698)-a formulation in line with contemporary dis-
cussions of the Impressionist's pursuit of "decorative unity." (Qu-est-ce qu'une oeuvre
"pas assez poussee" alors qu'il y a entre tous ses elements un accord par quoi elle se tient
et possede un charme facile a rompre par une touch ajoutee?)
19. The entire passage reads: "To understand Manet's genius, the nineteenth century
would have required ten years more than usual, for in Manet there is nothing but good
painting, and there is nothing that the nineteenth century dislikes as much as good paint-
ing. In Whistler there is an exquisite and inveigling sense of beauty; in Degas there is an
extraordinary acute criticism of life, and so the least brutal section of the public ended by
618 Notes to Page 416
pardoning Whistler his brush-work, and Degas his beautiful drawing. But in Manet there
is nothing but good painting, and it is therefore possible that he might have lived till he was
eighty without obtaining recognition. Death alone could accomplish the miracle of open-
ing the public's eyes to his merits. During his life the excuse given for the constant persecu-
tion waged against him by the 'authorities' was his excessive originality. But this was mere
subterfuge; what was really hated-what made him so unpopular-was the extraordin-
ary beauty of his handling. Whatever he painted became beautiful-his hand was dow-
ered with the gift of quality, and there his art began and ended. His painting of still life
never has been exceeded, and never will be. I remember a pear that used to hang in his
studio. Hals would have taken his hat off to it" (Modern Painting [London and New York,
1898J, pp. 29-30).
As a young man Moore had gone to Paris to study painting; there he met Manet (who
painted his portrait) and other advanced artists and writers, before returning to London
to begin his career as a writer. See his Confessions of a Young Man, ed. Susan Dick (188 9;
Montreal and London, 1972), esp. pp. 104-5.
20. Modern Painting, p. 33. Cf. Walter Darby Bannard on the contemporary abstract
painter Jules Olitski: "I think Olitski puts us to the test more than other painters. I say this
based on the modernist premise that excellence in art exists apart from style, depiction or
any quality which can be put into words .... A painting is a good painting by virtue of
how not what. It is a good painting because of the way the artist painted it. This is as true
for Olitski as it was for Vermeer. The reason either painting is a good painting arises en-
tirely from how it was painted .... Olitski is an extreme modernist, perhaps the most
highly evolved modernist we have, because his paintings so completely exemplify the
modernist concept that one can do anything at all with paint as long as the result is a good
painting" ("Jules Olitski at the New Gallery," exhib. cat. [Miami, Fla.: The New Gallery,
University of Miami, Feb. 25-Mar. 25, 1994], n.p.).
21. The best pages ever written on Manet's (later) technique are by Blanche in his
Manet (pp. 10-12, 15-16, and passim). For Blanche too Manet was "nothing but a
painter" (p. 27). (Rien que peintre, Manet etait un homme trop simple, trop peu concerte;
no us croyons meme qu'il etait inconscient de sa propre etrangete.) "Manet, who only
redid well-known old paintings," he wrote in the context of a comparison with Degas,
"then developed in his own manner the researches of the Impressionists, wanting to please
everyone, and without higher ambitions, an ordinary intelligence, if you wish (like the
simple Corot?), Manet dominated his epoch" (p. 56). Even allowing for a certain rhetori-
cal excess, this doesn't seem to fit the inventor of the Dejeuner sur l'herbe, Execution of
Maximilian, and Bar at the Folies-Bergere.
22. Cf. my statement in chapter I: "Whatever conventions of painting had changed,
however the essence of painting may have changed over the centuries ... the success or
failure as art of a new work ultimately depended (as it ultimately depends) on the ability of
that work to stand comparison with the art of the Old Masters." My reference to the
essence of painting having changed over time is meant to escape the "reductionist" essen-
tialism of Greenberg'S views as I had come to understand them (see Fried, "Shape as Form:
Frank Stella's New Paintings" [originally published in Artforum in 1966J, in New York
Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970, ed. Henry Geldzahler (New York, 1969), p. 422, n.
II; and idem, "Art and Objecthood," pp. 123-24, n. 4). The latter note includes the
statement: "Moreover, seeing something as a painting in the sense that one sees [a blankJ
tacked-up canvas as a painting, and being convinced that a particular work can stand
comparison with the painting of the past whose quality is not in doubt, are altogether
different experiences: it is, I want to say, as though unless something compels conviction
Note to Page 416
as to its quality it is no more than trivially or nominally a painting." (Again, the context
involved distinguishing my views from Greenberg's.) In other words, by 1966-67 I had
repudiated the notion of the "intrinsically pictorial" while insisting on the primacy of "es-
thetic" judgment in distinguishing between merely nominal paintings and paintings that
(to adapt a formulation in the same note) truly deserve the name. (In contrast, see my
reference to "problems intrinsic to painting" in the long footnote on Manet from Three
American Painters [1965], cited here in the introduction, n. 62.)
The issues in question are reconsidered by Thierry de Duve in "The Monochrome and
the Blank Canvas," a critique of Greenberg (whose writings he treats with exemplary
care) and of "Art and Objecthood." This is not the place for even a cursory discussion of
de Duve's analysis. But it is noteworthy that he accepts what he calls the Formalist crite-
rion of discovering via "esthetic" judgment whether a given work "stands up to a compar-
ison with the art of the past" even as he attempts to show that that criterion is satisfied by
Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, a work both Greenberg and I would tend to see as subvert-
ing the insistence upon "quality" whose historical origins I have been trying to specify.
Incidentally, de Duve believes that with the Salon des Refuses "the aesthetic judgment was
structurally cast into the binary form 'either/or,' substituting for the continuous scale of
'taste'" and that "the ubiquity of the paradigm of refusal (together with the very existence
of public salons) [were] largely responsible for the fact that the phenomenon of the avant-
garde was born in France" (p. 310, n. 97). My reading of the pertinent texts suggests,
however, that a criticism based on "the continuous scale of 'taste' " came into being only
in the wake of Impressionism, which is not to say that de Duve is wrong to associate the
rise of the avant-garde at least partly with a critical binarism that was strongly in evidence
throughout Manet's career. But Greenberg, for example, has insisted on continuousness
in statements such as the following: "Aesthetic evaluating means, much more often than
not, making distinctions of extent or degree, of more or less. Relatively seldom does it
mean a flat either-or, a yes or no, a guilty or not guilty. Aesthetic judging tends to mean
shading and grading, even measuring-though not with quantitative precision, but rather
in the sense of comparing (and there's no refining of aesthetic sensibility without exercises
in comparing)" ("Seminar One," Arts Magazine 48 [Nov. 1973J: 45). Moreover, it's im-
portant to recognize that the binary (or agonistic) form of esthetic judgment was a staple
of the anti theatrical tradition from the outset, for the simple reason that the question of a
given work's or artist's relation to the issue of anti theatricality tended not to produce sub-
tly qualified responses (d. the antithetical evaluations of Millet surveyed in chapter 3).
Indeed it was precisely the fact that the issue of anti theatricality conduced to an intensely
agonistic stance on the part of critics and painters toward much of the painting both of the
recent past and of their own time that largely accounts for the extraordinary efficacy of
that issue as the tradition's hidden "motor" (see e.g. Alfred Sensier's account of the young
Millet's repugnance toward the "theatrical" paintings of his first teacher, Paul Delaroche,
and of the modern French art then on view in the Luxembourg [La Vie et ['oeuvre de J. -F.
Millet (Paris, 188 I)J, pp. 53-54). The tradition itself, its development or evolution, was to
that extent the sum total of countless acts, not exactly of negation, but of opposition to
other art, in the name of an ideal that seemed to be exactly what that art traduced.

Michael Fried - Manet's Modernism or The Face of Painting in The 1860s-University of Chicago Press (1999)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Michael Fried - Manet's Modernism or The Face of Painting in The 1860s-University of Chicago Press (1999)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Michael Fried - Manet's Modernism or The Face of Painting in The 1860s-University of Chicago Press (1999)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

11 faut donc que je vous parle encore de vous.

11 faut que je m'applique a

Qu'un destin tragi que, omise la Mort filoutant, complice de tous, a

II etait plus grand que nous ne pensions.

Introduction: Manet before Impressionism I

I Manet's Sources, 1859-1869

PLATES (Following page 364)

1. Henri Fantin-Latour, Homage to Delacroix, 1864. Paris,

15· Edouard Manet, Races at Longchamps, watercolor, 1864.

Frontispiece. Henri Fantin-Latour, Portrait of Edouard Manet,

16. Comte de Caylus, engraving after Antoine Watteau, La Chasse

32· Alphonse Legros, Le Theatre de Polichinelle des Tuileries,

52· Unknown seventeenth-century master, Dead Warrior (known

Cap, etching, 1631. Cambridge, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard

88. Alphonse Legros, Portrait of the Artist's Father, 1856. Tours,

108. Henri Fantin-Latour, Study for The Toast! Homage

12 5. James McNeill Whistler, Vauxhall Bridge, etching, 1861.

144· Edouard Manet, Monk in Prayer, 1865. Boston, Museum of

162. Francisco Goya, The Third of May, 1814. Madrid, Museo

180. James McNeill Whistler, Becquet the Fiddler, drypoint,

19 8. Henri Fantin-Latour, Self-Portrait, Seated at Easel, 18 5 8 .

AFT ERe 0 M P LET I N G my previous book, Courbet's Realism, in

of modernism. Whatever else it seeks to do, my trilogy attempts to give an

and January I9 6 9; I wouldn't be surprised if the reader came to feel that

TH E F R ENe Hpainter Edouard Manet, by common agreement the piv-

Manet's paintings of the I860s: the obviously intended allusions, in

only to allude to such a development-which at that time I only partly

is, in the artistic and discursive community to which Manet belonged.

collections which was held in 1860 at Louis Martinet's gallery at 26 bou-

most supportive of Manet and his cogenerationists-Baudelaire, Thon':,

Sources" in their notes or bibliographies. 36 However, once it is recog-

ONE WAY of thinking of that network of issues is in relation to a concept

to a distinctive experience of modernity. Baudelaire's poems, prose

"Modernism" ... is used [in this book] in the customary, somewhat

Whereas Greenberg portrays the modernist artist as seeking a narrow cer-

modernist painting. The difference is that Clark refuses to hypostatize

Greenberg's" Modernist Painting" is pertinent to this discussion in an-

I N ADD I T ION to this introduction, the present book comprises five

of critics, I trace the lineaments of a fundamental shift in advanced picto-

ment of a sheerly optical illusionism, the pursuit of the impression), I

IF A SIN G L E question is guiding for our understanding of Manet's art

aspects of Manet's art in terms of supposed defects in his talent or temper-

Figure 2. Edouard Manet, La Peche, I86I-63.

Figure 3. Edouard Manet, Music in the Tuileries, 1862.

those comparisons. But this interpretation of Manet's involvement with

Figure 4. Diego Velasquez, The Drinkers (or Bacchus), 1628.

seems to depict, and have tended to characterize it as an immature work

quez,21 and Florisoone has claimed to see a connection between Manet's

disposition of the Le Nain. Both paintings are marked by an almost com-

Figure 5. Louis(?) Le Nain, La Halte du cavalier, ca. 1640.

Figure 6. Antoine Watteau, Gilles, 1717-19?

Figure 7. Louis(?) Le Nain, La Charrette (or Les Moissonneurs), 1641.

THE REFERENCE to the Gilles in the Old Musician begins to seem if

Figure 8. Edouard Manet, The Absinthe Drinker, 1858-59.

Figure 9. Antoine Watteau,

Figure 11. Antoine Watteau,

Figure 14. Antoine Watteau, L'Assemblee dans un pare, 1716-17.

Figure 15. Antoine Watteau, Le Rendez-vous de chasse, 1718.

no single Watteau which seems unmistakably to have left its mark in