In the Company of Others Manet’s Personal Opinions of Marriage Translated to the Canvas

By Jennifer E. Henel

Bachelor of Arts -Art History, May 2002, The College of William and Mary

A Thesis submitted to

The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts

May 17, 2009

Thesis directed by

Lilien F. Robinson Professor of Art History

© Copyright 2009 by Jennifer E. Henel All rights reserved

ii

Dedication

I wish to dedicate this thesis to my family: my parents, Steve, Jane & Brian, for their continual love and support. Thank you for getting me to where I am today! And thanks are especially deserving of my patient and loving husband, Christian- without whom this

thesis would not be possible. Thank you for the proofreading!

This thesis is dedicated to the memory of Philip Conisbee, who encouraged me to have

confidence in my own theories.

iii

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge my professor and advisor, Lilien F. Robinson, for her thorough proofreading, editing and guidance on this project, as well as my second reader, Professor

Barbara von Barghahn.

Additionally, I wish to acknowledge my supervisors Jennifer Cipriano, Kara Mullins,

Ann Robertson and professor and supervisor, Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., for their patience

during my scholarship. Thank you!

To Arthur - thank you for allowing me to continue my scholarship!

iv

Table of Contents

Dedication iii

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents v

List of Figures vi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Part I – Manet Externally

Chapter 2: Marriage & Parisian Society 4

Chapter 3: Adultery & Mistresses 11

Chapter 4: The Chase 19

Chapter 5: Marriage 21

Part II: Manet Internally

Chapter 6: Manet’s Family 26

Chapter 7: Manet’s Female Relationships 29

Chapter 8: Manet’s Fate 37

Chapter 9: Conclusion 40

Figures 42

Bibliography 52

v

List of Figures

1. Edouard Manet. Music in the Tuileries. 1862. oil on canvas. National Gallery, London

2. Auguste Renoir. Moulin de la Galette. 1876. oil on canvas. Musée d'Orsay, Paris

3. Edouard Manet. Baudelaire's Mistress, Reclining. 1862. oil on canvas, Szépmuvészeti

Múzeum, Budapest

4. Edouard Manet, Nana, 1877, oil on canvas, Kunsthalle Hamburg

5. Edouard Manet. The Masked Ball at the Opera. c.1873-1874. oil on canvas. National

Gallery of Art, Washington.

6. Edouard Manet. Chez le Père Lathuille. 1879. Oil on canvas. Musée des Beaux-Arts,

Tournai

7. Edouard Manet. In the Conservatory. 1879. oil on canvas. Nationalgalerie, Berlin

8. Edouard Manet. At the Beach. 1873. oil on canvas. Musée du Louvre, Paris

9. Edouard Manet. The Monet Family in their Garden at Argenteuil, 1874, oil on canvas,

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

10. Edouard Manet. Portrait of Monsieur and Madame Manet. 1860. oil on canvas.

Musée d'Orsay, Paris

11. Edouard Manet. Surprised Nymph. (Nymphe surprise). 1861. oil on canvas. Museo

Nacional de Bellas Artes, Buenos Aires

12. Rembrandt van Rijn. Bathsheba at Her Bath. 1654. oil on canvas. Musée du Louvre,

Paris

vi

13. Edouard Manet. Portrait of Eva Gonzales. 1870. oil on canvas, National Gallery,

London

14. Edouard Manet. Le Repose. 1870. Oil on canvas. RISD, Providence

15. Edouard Manet, Berthe Morisot with a Fan, 1872, oil on canvas, Musée d'Orsay

16. Edouard Manet. The Balcony. 1868-69. Oil on canvas. Musee d'Orsay, Paris

17. Edouard Manet. Reading. 1969. Oil on canvas. Musée d'Orsay, Paris

18. Edouard Manet. Madame Manet in the Conservatory. 1876. Oil on canvas.

Nasjonalgalleriet, Oslo

19. Edouard Manet. Mme. Manet at the Piano. 1868. Oil on canvas. Musée d'Orsay, Paris

20. Edgar Degas, Portrait of Monsieur and Madame Manet. 1869. Oil on canvas.

Municipal Museum of Art, Kitakyushu

vii

In the Company of Others: Manet’s Personal Opinions of Marriage Translated to the Canvas

Chapter 1: Introduction

Edouard Manet's search for truth in painting resulted in his reality brought to

canvas. Manet's paintings present figurative scenes with varying agendas and subject

matter. Although the primary consideration when viewing Manet’s work should be the

scene on the canvas, it is impossible to completely divorce the artist- especially his

personal motivations- from his art. In 1867, Émile Zola wrote that Manet painted "in a

way that is wholly naïve, yet wholly thought out… plac[ing] himself in front of nature

with naïveté."1 This naïveté may be better described as the artist’s personal truth in

painting- his own reality. As John House explains, “in looking at Manet's art, we have to

define the conventional cultural codes from which he sought to free himself; it was his

rejection and subversion of these which proved to his detractors that he could not paint,

and at the same time led his supporters to view his work as a truthful natural form of

painting."2 Nonetheless, however truthful Manet’s painting was, he never freed himself

entirely from those outside cultural conventions. One of those conventions which

confined Manet was the institution of marriage in bourgeois culture.

This paper seeks to explore Manet’s struggle to reconcile his personal search for

truth in his painting with his personal discontent with marriage. I propose this discontent

1Zola, as quoted in John House's essay, "Manet's Naïveté." in The Hidden Face of Manet, The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 128, No. 997, Apr., 1986. House notes that Baudelaire had defined "naïveté" as ''knowledge [of one's craft] giving the principal role to temperament.'" p. 2- E. Zola: "Edouard Manet,' Revue de XIX siècle , 1 January 1867, quoted in Mon Salon, Manet, Ecrits sur l'art, Paris, 1970;, pp. 95-96-101; C. Baudelaire, Salon de 1846 and "Le Peintre de la vie moderne." Le Figaro. 26, 29 November, 3 December 1863, quoted in Ecrits sur l'art, Paris 1971 I. pp. 144, 162, 250; II, p. 144. 2 House, "Manet's Naïveté," pp. 2-3. 1 with the institution of marriage led Manet to depict his married couples in a detached bourgeois manner,3 while his paintings of unmarried liaisons often project a level of

personal interaction between men and women. Through the early nineteenth century and

continuing through the 1860s, most Parisian families continued to adopt the

Prudhommian (or traditional) model of a male-led household with a female as the object

of her husband’s adornment. However, the Napoleonic laws established between 1801

and 1803 gave more relative equality to some women within their marriages.4 Despite this advance for women, Manet remained firmly planted in the misogynistic camp when it came to marriage. As a result, his paintings portray marriage not as a leveling playing field, but as an unspoken prison.5 Judging from these depictions, it appears that, for

Manet, marriage did not create a union between a man and a woman; rather, it forced

division between a man and a woman, causing them to lead highly individualized lives

under the guise of a joint household.

In this paper I assert that Manet’s paintings make manifest his silent attitudes

towards marriage. In his depictions of married couples, Manet’s use of a strong line of

division separating his figures, and his frequent placement of the male and female figures

on two different pictorial planes emphasizes their individuality, as well as the constraint

exerted upon them by the “bond” of marriage. In strong contrast, some of Manet’s

3 I mean to illustrate that Manet depicted life of the times; in bourgeois culture in France during the 1800s, married couples maintained separate spaces. See further in the paper for discussion on the roles of husband and wife in Parisian bourgeois society. 4 Louise Hicks. “Women and the Code Napoléon.” Research Subjects: 19th Century Society, The Napoleon Series (c.1995 – 2005). http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/society/c_women.html (accessed 12/3/2006). 5 This viewpoint of Manet does not accurately coincide with his interactions with female contemporaries such as fellow artist Eva Gonzalès, who studied under Manet during the same period as Manet’s increased professional interaction with Morisot. In fact, Manet supported his student’s work and demonstrated this by depicting her as an artist in a portrait he painted in 1870. 2 paintings of unmarried male and female interaction give an illusion of greater intimacy than those of their married counterparts. Ultimately, Manet failed to reconcile these divergent views, in his canvases or in his life. Observations of the artist's contemporaries on Manet's marriage and romantic liaisons also shed light on this struggle.

3

PART 1 - MANET EXTERNALLY

Chapter 2: Marriage & Parisian Society

Gender roles in nineteenth-century France underwent a great deal of change over

the course of the century. During the revolutions of the late eighteenth and early

nineteenth centuries, women had taken up arms along side men as the country sought

new government.6 Soon thereafter, the Napoleonic Code established between 1801 and

1804 encouraged greater male-female equality, but women were not afforded any

equality with men, in terms of economic, political or social rights.7 Later in the

nineteenth century, as Griselda Pollock notes "the economic and social conditions of the

existence of the bourgeoisie as a class [was] structurally founded upon inequality and difference in terms of the socio-economic categories and of gender."8 Priscilla Schwarz also notes the restrictions in the late nineteenth century under Napoléon III: "Where women in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century had greater involvement with handling the family's affairs, business, and finances and could venture out into public urban spaces, women in the middle of the century and later were increasingly confined to a private world evermore detached from the public."9

Marriage in Parisian bourgeois society during the reign of Napoléon III most

often involved arranged matches. Typically, bourgeois marriages took place "between

mature, established men and much younger women to create a socially balanced

6 See Pricilla A. Schwarz. Manet’s depictions of women in cafés : the ambiguity of reality in modern Parisian life. Photocopy. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1995.pp. 70, 75-76. 7 Hicks. 8 Griselda Pollock, Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism, and the Histories of Art. London: Routledge, 1988. p. 67. 9 Schwarz, p. 76. 4 relationship, rather than intellectually and emotionally equal match."10 The marriage

roles evolved from the traditional, Pierre Prudhomme perception of women maintaining

the household while the men were out to work. According to Schwarz,

"wealthy women were groomed to be wives and mothers, to be somewhat educated and accomplished but not learned and intellectually inclined… Women were expected to run peaceful and orderly homes, to be chaste, pious and, of primary importance, to be superior in their maternal duties. The home was a woman's world. For the middle and upper classes, in addition, a woman was to be clever and accomplished (to amuse and please her husband and members of her social circle), but discouraged from being creatively intelligent, original, and independent in her interests. To be of this character was to be a good wife, accepted and approved by one's husband and society."11

Michèle Plott echoes similar thoughts:

“once married, the Parisienne led a busy social life. She learned to dress fashionably and to enjoy the pleasures of the city, including frequent visits to the large department stores, the opera, and the theater. Of course she led a life that revolved around society and the home, rather than business or work of any kind. Her mornings were devoted to her toilette, to reading and answering letters, and to the organization of her household— monitoring and authorizing domestic expenditures, supervising to some extent her servants' work. Afternoons were reserved for … paying visits to friends and acquaintances, stopping in at her dressmaker, keeping appointments at the hairdresser, and shopping for small items. In the evenings, upper-middle-class women sometimes stayed at home and read after dinner; more often, they went out. They usually attended the theater, the opera, or dinner parties with their husbands.12 Leisure was, in effect, the work to

10 Schwarz, pp. 71-72. Schwarz reviews the rights of women in Parisian society, stating that most often, men controlled all business aspects of the relationship, and the women held no political rights. 11 Schwarz, pp. 73-74. The author notes Bonnie Smith's Ladies of the Leisure Class: The Bourgeoisies of Northern France of the Nineteenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), in which Smith discuses the lives of the bourgeois French women; also notes Michelle Perrot's work, From the Fires of the Revolution to the Great War (Vol. 4; Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1990). 12 Taken from “Octave Uzanne quoted in Anne Martin-Fugier, La bourgeoise: Femme au temps de Paul Bourget (Paris, 1983), 181–83; Berenson, Trial of Madame Caillaux, 139–40; Michelle Perrot, "Roles and Characters," and Anne Martin-Fugier, "Bourgeois Rituals," in From the Fires of the Revolution,190–92, 274–78. Earlier in the nineteenth century, middle-class wives in the industrial north of France took an 5

which these elite women devoted their time and energies throughout their adult lives.”13

It was considered inappropriate for a bourgeois wife to venture into public spaces

other than those deemed socially acceptable. If she did so venture, she risked being

considered a prostitute.14 Thus, the wife was at the mercy of not only her husband, but

society in general, both publicly and privately. However, there were changes being made

to the with respect to women appearing in public places, walking in the streets after the

'Haussmannization' of Paris. The city changed with a boom of industries, as well as communications. The streets widened, pushing the poorest citizens to the outskirts, and promoting the long boulevards as places to be seen in public. Baudelaire deemed this the arrival of "la modernité" to the city of Paris.15 As the grand boulevards coursed through

the city, the promenades of men and women also increased, as it was a way for the

bourgeoisie to observe one another, and for women, this included outings on such

boulevards alone or with a driver as they ran household errands. In contrast other areas

active role in their husbands' businesses; however, by the 1870s, even these women had retreated from active participation in business. See Smith, Ladies of the Leisure Class, esp. chap. 4.” Reprinted in Michèle Plott, “The Rules of the Game: Respectability, Sexuality, and the Femme Mondaine in Late- Nineteenth-Century Paris.” French Historical Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Society for French Historical Studies, Summer 2002). (accessed 12/3/2006), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/french_historical_studies/v025/25.3plott.html#FOOT18. p. 537. 13 Plott. pp. 536-537. 14 Schwarz, ft. 23 (ch. 2, pp.77) "As interpreted by Béraud in his urban genre scenes, a fashionable woman walking alone in the city would expect to be looked at and would inwardly enjoy supposedly flattering glances from bourgeois men. Refer also to Martin-Fugier, "Bourgeois Rituals," in Perrot, Fires of Revolution, 278, on how some could only attend the theater or opera alone if seated in a private box; otherwise she risked being regarded as a prostitute." 15 Ross King. The Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade that Gave the World Impressionism. (New York : Walker & Co., 2006). pp. 23-24; p. 300. 6 of the city were socially unacceptable for bourgeois women to be seen unaccompanied, lest she be considered common or worse- a prostitute.16

Plott’s observation also illustrates the limited interaction which took place

between married couples during the course of the typical day. This little interaction between a man and his wife was most often in a social environment- at the theater or a diner party, for example, where a wife was expected to act in a manner which validated that of her husband. The women kept pleasantries together and the men did the same.

Although they may have interacted within a group, very little occurred between a bourgeois husband and a bourgeois wife in public.

This traditional vision of marriage is evident in Manet’s 1862 painting, Music in the Tuileries (figure 1). The brighter colors of the feminine attire, mainly yellows and blues, contrast starkly with the heavier greens and blacks of the male clothing. The horizontal movement of the crowd is accentuated by the strong heavy verticals of the trees, which not only create a sense of depth and recessed space but mimic the tall strong male figures in the painting. Their verticality is accentuated further by the top hats with their bold, erect stature, in contrast to the women, who are defined by curved lines and a more diminutive seated poses. In the foreground on the left two men face forward, with slightly diagonal movement from the midground to the foreground. The seated women to their left turn their heads facing forward and do not engage in dialogue with the men, but rather with the viewer. The separate gender groups recall Plott’s example of male/female separation, as the men group together and the women group together. Manet uses a chair to separate the females seated in the foreground from the men. The division is

16 See notes from Plott, as well as Schwarz. 7 heightened by the veil one woman wears. Its visual diagonal directs attention to the right, or opposite the line of sight of the men. This limited dialogue between the genders is also evident on the left border of the painting, midway up and slightly recessed. The prominent gentleman faces in profile to the left, while the women, seated on a lower plane in the foreground direct their gazes in profile to the right. While it cannot be fully surmised what type of relationship exists between these individuals, the characters Manet chose to suggest a bourgeois scene rather than an actual depiction of reality; the women’s voluminous, body-concealing gowns suggest the demure demeanor of a wife and their intention not to invite the attention of male passersby. The men entering on the left are dressed in bourgeois ensembles, of dark jackets, lightly colored pants, top hats and canes

- typical of the middle class for such an event out of doors and in polite society.

Linda Nochlin notes that the Tuileries painting contains a self-portrait of Manet, located in the mostly-seated group of individuals on the right of the painting, while

Manet is shown standing.17 Manet also included his friends in the composition of this

painting, such as Charles Baudelaire in the group on the left.18 The insertion of himself into a bourgeois scene suggests Manet’s place in society- as a member of the bourgeoisie

and further may have served to encourage him to abide by the social standards of

separation between the sexes.

In contrast, Renoir’s Moulin de la Galette of 1874 (figure 2), which shares a

similar theme with Music in the Tuileries is dramatically different. Both scenes show a

gathering outdoors, with those gathered in the Tuileries for a concert and those in the

17 Linda Nochlin, “A Thoroughly Modern Masked Ball.” Art in America, vol. 72, no. 11 (November 1983), p. 195; Françoise Cachin, Manet. Paris: Chêne, 1990. p. 42. 18 Nochlin, p. 195. 8

Moulin de la Galette gathered for dancing.19 In Manet’s painting, the figures are

gathered to listen to music but interact in a much more reserved fashion; in fact, we do

not see any musicians playing. In contrast, Renoir’s figures interact and relate to one

another, sharing an overall greater sense of gaiety and carefree nature. Whereas the

chairs in Manet’s painting divide the men and women on the left of the painting, the

foreground of Renoir’s painting shows a woman leaning over the bench, her arm

breaking the plane as she leans towards the gentleman in the foreground. The figures on

the right in Renoir’s canvas display a rapport with one another and share the same planes

with the closeness of their bodies, while the dancing characters in the background display

a tenderness rarely seen in Manet’s depictions. In fact, the majority of the canvas

contains such paired couplings, as opposed to the divided subjects in Manet’s Tuileries.

The choice of these scenes by each artist is deliberate, and in my opinion, the choice of

Manet’s stoic scene speaks to his bourgeois perception of reality, as evidenced by the

detachment of his characters.

As Hajo Düching observes: “despite [the figures’] arrangement within the

composition, Manet’s figures seem isolated, removed from their context in life and

placed in an apparently unreal dreamworld…Manet was thus introducing a subject that

from now on was to provide the dominant note in the illustrations of his vie moderne: a

cool, unemotional description of Paris life that focused not only on individual scenes and

types but also the effects of ‘Haussmannization’: isolation and alienation.”20

19 Renoir's scene depicts both the middle class and lower middle class. 20 Hajo Düching, Edouard Manet: Images of Parisian Life. Munich, Germany / New York, New York: Prestel- Verlag, 1995. pp. 21-22. 9

The division of the genders in Manet's Tuileries hints at the restrictive norms governing the interaction of married couples in nineteenth century Paris.21 However, the

Napoleonic laws established in the early nineteenth century sought to enhance legal rights

for both men and women.22 While a woman no longer entered a marriage as property

under these laws, women still had a lesser level of control compared to that of their

husbands. Plott notes that financial dealings for women were limited to transactions for

material goods such as groceries, home furnishings, et cetera. Property ownership

required the husband’s permission. With respect to adultery, “the husband's adultery was

still no ground for divorce unless he brought his mistress home. However, the wife's

adultery could land her in jail for up to three months and was certainly a ground for

divorce. In this regard the husband had the same power as over a minor.”23

21 As mentioned earlier in the discussion on the Tuileries, we cannot be certain of the relationships between the men & women shown, but their behavior & dress suggests married couples and families gathered rather than singular individuals. 22 Hicks. 23 Ibid. 10

Chapter 3: Adultery & Mistresses

Adultery as a pastime fell under the realm of the male sphere.24 Even though men

inhabited the domestic (private realm in which they served as husbands and fathers), they

had easy access to a public domain which became, as Pollock writes, “a realm of freedom

and irresponsibility if not immorality,” because of men's financial and social ability to

pay for entertainment and pleasures. In contrast, Pollock explains that, for "'women, the

public spaces thus constructed were where one risked losing one's virtue, dirtying

oneself, going out in public and the idea of disgrace were closely allied. For the man

going out in public meant losing oneself in the crowd away from both demands of

respectability. Men colluded to protect this freedom.”25

Prior to the end of the nineteenth century, wives were socially precluded from

having any say over the extramarital activities of their husbands. Legalities did not affect

adultery so much as social ramifications. Keeping a mistress was an accepted practice in

the general population; many letters as well as literature from that period refer to

extramarital affairs. Further, women were socially prohibited from speaking about their

own extramarital indiscretions. As Plott states, “it was, in great part, the appearance of

impropriety that made familiarity with the wrong men, or in the wrong setting, dangerous

to a woman's reputation. Appearances had always been important in maintaining middle-

class respectability. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, Parisian society

24 Pollock notes the differences in different gender spheres, which allowed for the "division of public and private" as "powerfully operative in the construction of a specifically bourgeois way of life." She goes on to say that the separation of the sexes' activities "aids in the production of the gendered social activities by which the miscellaneous components of the bourgeoisie were helped to cohere as a class," p.68. 25 Schwarz, p. 77, citing Pollock, p. 69. Pollock notes that the "public sphere, defined as the world of productive labor, political decision, government, education, the law and public service, increasingly became exclusive to men. The private sphere was the world, home, wives, children and servants." 11 placed a far greater emphasis on preserving appearances than on actual virtue—and thus gave both men and women greater latitude in pursuing their desires, as long as they were able to observe the proprieties while doing so.”26 Schwarz stated that "men were rarely

punished for adultery - only if they had the concubine residing in their home. Women, in

severe contrast, suffered harsh retributions, including imprisonment, for adultery."27

Author Gustave Flaubert illustrated the effects of a female adulterous relationship in the

1857 novel, Madame Bovary, in which the lead character would-be bourgeois Emma

Bovary desires more than her country husband can give her. She pursues a few

adulterous relationships, ending with her inability to extricate herself from her errors, of

financial nature and infidelity; she ends up poisoning herself as she sees no way out.

Flaubert writes: “She hoped for a son; he would be strong and dark…and this idea of

having a male child was like an expected revenge for all her impotence in the past. A

man, at least, is free; he can explore all passions and all countries, overcome obstacles,

taste of the most distant pleasures. But a woman is always hampered. Being inert as well

as pliable, she has against her the weakness of the flesh and the inequity of the law. Like

the veil held to her hat by a ribbon, her will flutters in every breeze; she is always drawn

by some desire, restrained by some rule of conduct.”28 Flaubert’s voice on adultery for a

woman continues the same tone: “[Rodolphe] had heard such stuff so many times that her

26 As restated by Plott: “his marked a significant change from the postrevolutionary period; William Reddy's work suggests that early-nineteenth-century mores required a far more careful observance of the rules of society. See William M. Reddy, "Marriage, Honor, and the Public Sphere in Postrevolutionary France: Séparations de Corps, 1815–1848," Journal of Modern History 65 (1993): 437–38, 450–54; idem, The Invisible Code: Honor and Sentiment in Postrevolutionary France, 1814–1848 (Berkeley, Calif., 1997), 35–38 and chap. 3.” 27 Schwarz, p. 72. 28 Taken from Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, 1857 Part II, Ch. 3, accessed (translated) online 1/3/09, http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bovary/quotes.html. 12 words meant very little to him. Emma was just like any other mistress; and the charm of novelty, falling down slowly like a dress, exposed only the eternal monotony of passion, always the same forms and the same language. He did not distinguish, this man of such great expertise, the differences of sentiment beneath the sameness of their expressions.”29

Schwarz notes: "Where most 'socially respectable' women were restricted, therefore, to their domestic spheres, their marriages, and the 'world' designed for them, men had endless freedoms and choices."30 As the keeping of a mistress was a male

pastime, adultery's accepted practice brought to light the world of the demi-monde in

Paris, the role of the courtesan, mistress, and prostitute provided suitable subject matter

for Manet's paintings.

Manet's close friend and writer Charles Baudelaire had a celebrated mistress in

Jeanne Duval, with whom he kept a dedicated relationship until her death. Deemed by

Baudelaire to be the “mistress of mistresses” in his poem Le Balcon, Baudelaire had a

tumultuous relationship with the actress.31 Their relationship was one of constant

extremes, running from intense devotion to pure anger.32 Manet’s portrait of Jeanne

Duval in Baudelaire’s Mistress, Reclining (figure 3), depicts a reclined figure in a

voluminous dress, ankles exposed, with emphasis on her dark, curly hair and heavy

eyebrows. The painting was completed in 1862, three years after Duval suffered a stroke

(The stroke left Duval in need of care, which Baudelaire attempted in 1860 but gave up in

29 Flaubert, Part II, Ch. 9, (accessed 1/3/09), http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bovary/quotes.html. 30 Schwarz, p. 72. 31 Therese Dolan quoting Baudelaire’s Œvres completes I, ed. Claude Pinchoise, Paris, 1975, on p. 612 of “Skirting the Issue: Manet's Portrait of Baudelaire's Mistress, Reclining.” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Dec., 1997). 32 See Dolan’s article “Baudelaire’s Mistress,” p. 613. 13

1861).33 Despite the lack of physical contact between Baudelaire and Duval following her stroke, Duval continued to provide Baudelaire a muse, not in her post-stroke form,

but as the poet first recalled her in 1842, his "vénus noire."34 In Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs

du Mal published in 1857, he references his desire to kiss her body from her feet to her

“dark tresses” evidencing her influence on the poet. 35 Manet's portrait is not

conventionally flattering to Duval; she is not beautifully rendered.36 It is said that

Baudelaire was not happy with the painting, as it did not give enough due to Duval's

beauty.

Manet poses Duval in a reclining, suggestive pose as evidenced in the open

gesture of one hand on the chaise behind her, as well as her exposed ankles. Her body

recedes into the pictorial space, leading in the viewer with no division between the sitter

and the viewer. Dolan notes the duality of the heavily clothed body of Duval and the seductive nature of her exposed ankles: "there is a certain irony in the fact that women

covered themselves with more yards of material than at almost any other period of French

history during this era when the most provocative… nudes were displayed at the annual

Salons."37 Dolan goes on to state that the large crinoline that dominates the canvas acted

for Duval "like a spider in the center of her enormous web," one which had clearly

ensnared Baudelaire and in which he was happy to be caught. Dolan’s description of

Duval’s “web” goes a long way toward explaining Manet’s view of the master/mistress

33 Cachin, Manet, Paris: Chêne, 1990. 34 See Cachin, p. 34 and Dolan "Baudelaire", p. 611. 35 Charles Baudelaire “Untitled” from Les Fleurs du Mal, 1857 ed., Accessed electronically 1/3/2009, http://baudelaire.litteratura.com/fleurs_du_mal_1857.php, p. 46. Baudelaire references Duval repeatedly in his poetry, mentioning her distinct attribute of her black hair & piercing gaze. Other body references can also be attributed to Duval. 36 Dolan, "Baudelaire’s Mistress," p. 611. 37 Dolan, "Baudelaire’s Mistress," p. 618. 14 relationship; whereas Manet saw marriage as a restrictive arrangement, he saw alternative, non-marital relationships as liberating.

Another association between literature and muse exists in Manet’s painting of

1877: Nana (figure 4). Rejected from the salon of 1877, the painting's subject matter was taken first from Zola’s novel L’Assomoire (published in 1877) and later the same heroine in a self-titled novel of 1881. Zola’s character was a courtesan of bold character. In

Manet’s painting of Nana, she makes eye contact directly with her onlooker. Her suitor is at her back but on the same plane, with no division between the two, and he looks on.

Unlike the painting of Baudelaire’s mistress, Nana’s body is facing left, but her head is turned right, towards the viewer. This action closes her body off from the viewer, suggesting that Nana is in control of her body and therefore the relationship. Her control is further reinforced by her male suitor’s position behind her. His eyes are cast down- a submissive glance in contrast to her direct glance at the viewer. His legs are crossed, like

Duvall’s ankles in the painting of Baudelaire’s mistress, indicating a diminutive role to her dominance. In contrast to the Tuileries painting (see Figure 1), in which the tall standing male figures on the left contrast with the seated females to their left, the standing figure of Nana contrasts with a seated male to her left. Nana’s dominance aside, the fact that Manet chose to contextualize his painting with the presence of a male suitor (a

Parisian bourgeois as suggested by his frock coat and top hat) shows Manet’s desire to depict truth in painting and demonstrates the acceptance of courtesans in Parisian society.

Though his figures are facing different directions, they are on the same pictorial plane; the lack of physical barrier suggests no other barrier exists between the lovers, though it

15 is clear who is in control of the situation. Schwarz mentions that "the sexual lives of women were rigorously defined by men"— or, more specifically, a husband — therefore suggesting that Nana's control of her relationship with this man affords her more freedom than were she in a marriage, bowing specifically to one man. 38

Unlike Baudelaire and other bourgeois gentlemen of his era, Manet purportedly

had no mistresses, but there is no documentation to this fact. There is very little concrete evidence about Manet’s feelings regarding his romantic relationships other than his letters to Suzanne during the siege of Paris in 1870.39 Not all marriages of the day were

devoid of romantic interests or sexual fulfillment, as evidenced by journalist Gustave

Droz's 1864 book, Monsieur, Madame et Bébé. In publication for over twenty years, it

spoke to the need to "encourage love in marriage and discuss the need for wives to satisfy

their husbands' sexual desires and husbands to please their wives."40 The Droz book

clearly projects the need for intimacy between couples, and based on its public

popularity, it is likely that this suggestion was heeded by the general public; however,

Schwarz goes on to say that, "most marriages…were arranged so as to continue or attempt to elevate class position and family wealth of both parties."41 While little exists to confirm the details of Manet's own marriage, what is documented suggests that he had

a comfortable marriage, rather than a passionate one. Manet's paintings of male/female

38 Schwarz, p. 88, referencing James McMillan,Housewife of Harlot: THe Place of Women in French Society, 1870-1940. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981, Chapter 2, and Perrot, Fires of Revolution, pp. 150 and 160, and Alain Corbin, "Intimate Relations" in Perrot, 579-580. 39See Schwarz, p. 122. 40 Schwarz, p. 90, referencing Theodore Zeldin, Ambition, Love and Politics, (vol. 1) from France, 1848- 1945, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. pp. 297-298 and his citation of the nineteenth century author Abbé Grimaud. 41 Ibid. 16 interaction hint at the artist's desires for a mistress in his depictions of females in adulterous relationships, but his personal life projected his inability to act on such desires.

Manet also focused on portraying broad interaction between mistresses and their male companions on a number of occasions. For example, in his painting The Masked

Ball at the Opera, circa 1873-1874 (figure 5), Manet plays up the lighthearted interactions of the women, some of whom are prostitutes, and the formally dressed men.

In contrast to the earlier work, Music in the Tuileries, Manet’s Masked Ball connotes a freedom that, from Manet’s suggested perspective, marriage does not allow. The social context of this painting – the artists’ masked ball which occurred every year mi-carême

(mid-Lent festival) at the Opéra Garnier,42 promised its subjects the freedom to abandon

the constraints of their daily identities, including any existing marital vows. The woman

on the right converses with a gentleman, but with the security of a mask covering her

face. One woman is so brazen that she speaks to a man without the identity protection

that a mask offers, though she seems to be flirting in a salacious fashion. The physical

contact of this woman with an unidentified man suggests no barrier between the two,

affording the men the opportunity to experience untethered pleasure, which they would

not have experienced within the constrained relationship of marriage.

Alternatively, the presence of a mask or fan as a prop is significant as it was used

as a tool of flirtation and titillation. Much like the exposed ankles in Manet's painting of

Jeanne Duval and Berthe Morisot (discussed later), the mask is suggestive of that which

the male suitor cannot see. It conveys that element of tease which makes the female so

42 See Cachin, p. 108; and Nancy Schmitz "mi-carême. "The Canadian Encyclopedia. (accessed 1/4/09), http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005267. 17 desirable to her male pursuers. The masked woman in the foreground of the canvas, fully cloaked in black is pursued by a suitor over her shoulder, who seeks to catch her.

In the case of Manet's Masked Ball, the thrill of “the chase”- the unattainable woman- is rendered much more lively than its counterpart in Tuileries. Indeed, these masked parties offered freedom to behave as one wished, without the usual social limitations. Nochlin suggests this openly sexual consumerism was shocking, as “Moral

Order was the order of the day.” 43 Through this liberating context, Manet seems, for

once, able to show dialogues in progress between men and women, and what’s more, he

has included himself in the composition.44 Nochlin notes that he is the second figure

from the right as evidenced by the inclusion of his dance card with Manet’s own

signature.45 Nochlin also notes that many of the male characters in the painting were

based on Manet’s friends and fellow artists such as composer Emmmanuel Chabrier, and

his placement of himself among other artists of the day at such a ball, suggests that Manet

believed himself to be a part of the bourgeois and should therefore take advantage of such

acceptable bourgeois practices.

The inclusion of Manet's self-portrait in both multi-figure compositions of the

Tuileries and Masked Ball reflects the overarching self-vision of Manet. He is both the

married bourgeois husband, bowing to social protocol; he is also the carefree bourgeois

gentleman, in search of a 'pastime' with a romantic outlet. This dichotomy and self-

reflection finds repetition in Manet's oeuvre.

43 Nochlin, p. 197. 44 Sarah Carr-Gomm. Manet. Studio London: Editions Limited, 1992. p.106-107. and Nochlin, p. 195. 45 Nochlin, p. 195; Nochlin references Alain de Leiris, “Manet and El Greco: The ‘Opera Ball,’” Arts, Sept. 1980, p. 98. 18

Chapter 4: The Chase

Unlike the strong crossing diagonals present in the Tuileries, Manet provides no

division between the male and female forms in his Masked Ball. I allege that this is due

to the unbridled nature of an unwed relationship, as well as the thrill of the chase, both in

society and in Manet’s perception. This suggestion is also apparent in the context of a

painting from 1879, Chez le Père Lathuille (figure 6). In this work, a young couple is

seated adjacent to one another in a café. The baggage of marriage is not at all present,

and this piece depicts a more lighthearted interaction of a man wooing a woman. Like

Manet’s Masked Ball, the man and woman not only interact, but connect. As Bradley

Collins observes, “in an even more significant departure…, the figures’ glances meet – a

rare occurrence in Manet’s paintings from any period – and there is an intense,

unambiguous emotional engagement.”46 Take for example the painting of Nana (see

figure 4), in which the male and female do not share a glance, but rather the male glance

is directed at the floor while the confident Nana looks out. In contrast, the male in this

case meets the object of his desire by engaging her glance. Collins goes on to cite

Théodore Duret: “Manet had often been blamed for painting his figures in attitudes which

were said to be unintelligible because they suggested no very definite action. That charge

could not be brought against him here, for the lovers at Père Lathuille’s play their parts

with such a will that the content of the scene is obvious at first glance.”47 The position of

the two figures, combining their personal space and pictorial planes, suggest a carefree

46 Bradley Collins, “In the Conservatory and Chez le Père Lathuille” Art Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, Manet (Spring 1985), p. 65. 47Collins, pp. 65-66, citing Théodore Duret. Manet and the French Impressionists, trans. J.E. Crawford Flitch, London 1910, p. 92. 19 interaction - reminiscent of a work such as Manet’s Masked Ball, or of the couplings in

Renoir’s Moulin de la Galette.

Their coupling also impliedly depicts the popular attitude towards “The Chase,” or the act of pursuing another. I assert that the exercise of “The Chase is what drives the male’s interest in the early stages of courtship. The male actively seeks to control or dominate something- or in the case of “the chase”- someone. This desire to gain ownership over the female causes the male to put forth effort in pursuit of his goal. For him, the person he seeks is not important. Rather it is the end result of control over that person that he seeks. This concept of “the chase” was characteristic of Parisian courtship in the nineteenth century. For many nineteenth century Parisian men, the thrill was “the chase”, not the eventual success, or ownership, i.e., marriage. This distinction between the thrill of “the chase” and the banality of marriage can be seen in Manet’s paintings. If we consider the evidence of Manet's paintings of male/female interactions, it is evident that the male freely – and happily - pursues the female when necessary, such as in the

Masked Ball. However, when “the chase” has already been won, there is no need to pursue and win over a female counterpart, as in the Tuileries.

20

Chapter 5: Marriage

One such foil for Père Lathuille Collins describes is the 1879 painting In the

Conservatory (figure 7). Here, Manet presents a married couple- Monsieur and Madame

Jules Guillemet.48 This work is a prime example of the types of marital tension that

Manet produces in his paintings. Madame Guillemet is seated on a bench in the

foreground, facing diagonally left, while her husband is poised in the midground to

background. He breaks into her plane by leaning on the bench. However, he does not

fully intrude into her sphere in the foreground, and therefore his advance is blocked by a

strong horizontal line, provided by the bench on which Madame Guillemet sits. This

visual technique of using a strong, sharp line to physically separate his married couple

suggests that it is the marriage that separates them and prevents their intimacy. We are

reminded of their marriage by the wedding rings visible on each of the figures’ hands,49 which I believe Manet chose to highlight in order to show the division between man and wife. Mme. Guillemet’s high-buttoned dress, covered hands, and bonneted head close her off from her husband. Unlike the painting of Jeanne Duval (figure 3) or other mistresses and courtesans whose ankles and other body parts are exposed, the lack of exposure suggests that she is unavailable to her husband, delineating that she is not a part of the sexual commodity. The bench’s physical division of the couple is reinforced by the body language of Mme. Guillemet, who faces right, and by placing her left arm on the bench back opens herself in the direction away from M. Guillemet. Like Nana, her outward gaze is contrasted with the downward gaze of M. Guillemet. M. Guillemet’s

48“Manet’s close friends,” according to Collins, p. 59. 49 Collins, p. 59. 21 hands are also crossed like the male suitor’s legs in the earlier composition of Nana. His curved posture acts again in contrast to Mme. Guillemet’s erect torso, perhaps suggesting her control over the relationship and his inability to break her plane suggests that he accepts the situation as a typical bourgeois relationship.

Ironically, the setting of the conservatory - a falsely natural environment, otherwise known as a 'hot house' - was the backdrop of a novel by Émile Zola, La

Curée.50 In the novel, Zola uses the conservatory of the home- a typically private space of the upper middle class, in which any guest had to be invited in order to enter51 - as the

stage for an adulterous affair between Renée and Maxime.52 John House points out the

term "hothouse" as a synonym for "conservatory" serves Zola's story well, it is the

hothouse where the affair takes place. If the "hothouse" description is applied to Manet's

painting, the irony lies in the staid and frigid pose and body language of Manet's couple, hardly having a steamy affair.

As mentioned in Plott’s article, les femmes du monde ran their own daily affairs,

without much concern for their husbands’ business matters. Judging from Mme.

Guillemet’s posture and her gloved hands holding her parasol it is apparent that she is

about to depart, while Monsieur Guillemet appears apathetic to his wife’s eminent action.

Monsieur and Madame Guillemet portray examples of these separate spheres in their

50 I must thank John House for directing me to this novel, as well as credit him for this astute observation about the setting of In the Conservatory. 51The inclusion of the Conservatory scene reinforces not only the bourgeois standing of the Guillemets, but also Manet, who befriended the couple. 52 See La Curée by Zola (1871-1872). Referenced for synopsis & details from Sandy Petrey, "Stylistics and Society in La Curée." MLN, Vol. 89, No. 4, French Issue (May 1974), pp. 626-640. 22 home conservatory, where their staged interaction is witnessed by no one, and thus no real interaction occurs.

As the sitters’ friend, Manet had access to the couple during the painting of In the

Conservatory and was able to get to know the couple more intimately. Collins notes in his article that Manet rented studio space temporarily at the Guillemet’s home. Manet's rendering of the couple suggests that this is not a romantic relationship but one of bourgeois construction, evidenced by the way he staged the couple in their home and the mannerisms of his sitters.

Another work by Manet, At the Beach, from 1873 (figure 8), suggests yet again a staged relationship. In this vignette, Manet used his brother, Eugène and his own wife,

Suzanne, for this composition, but set them up as a couple and more specifically, a married couple. Taking cues from the covered dress and face veil worn by the female, we can surmise that she is the spouse of a bourgeois husband, as she wears a full voluminous dress covering her entire form like those in the Tuileries (figure 1) as well as a veil for her face. His dress is more relaxed, but his lack of interaction with her can be contrasted with that of the young couple in Père Lathuille, suggesting there is no need for him to engage her as she is already committed to him. She reads while her line of sight, an upward diagonal from the lower right -hand side to the upper left-hand side of the canvas, intersects with her ‘husband,’ seated on an opposite diagonal on a higher, mid- ground plane. His gaze continues from the lower left hand of the canvas to the upper right. In this depiction, the sand between the couple suggests the distance and detachment of the couple from one another. Although the female dominates the

23 foreground both physically and psychologically, the husband looks passively to the sea, which reflects less of the marital hierarchy as mentioned earlier, and gives greater weight to arguments made by Therese Dolan. She suggests that the increasing size of female skirts due to the use of the crinoline fabric and its supports in fashion, and in the style of

Eugènie (Napoléon III’s wife), symbolized women’s increasing assertion into the realm of public life.53 I believe that Manet represented this female dominance in many of his

paintings with varying devices (in this case, using the female’s skirt to assert her

dominance in the painting). In At the Beach, the gentleman is diminished by the stature

of the female figure and her voluminous skirt. Her fashion is far more pronounced than

his diminutive attire, and while she reads to herself (here, in fact a selfish act, and also

noting her ability to learn for herself), he yields to her desires by gazing out to the

horizon, seemingly in his own sphere as she remains in hers. His inaction, however, may

drive her action; in other words his lack of movement may indicate that she is merely

waiting for him to act or react (perhaps in this case, to depart the beach).

This example of a divided bourgeois marriage can also be seen in Manet's painting of

1874, The Monet Family in their Garden at Argenteuil (figure 9). Mme. Monet’s large

skirt forms a semicircle around her as she looks out at the viewer, while the Monet’s

child lies back on his mother’s lap as she reads under a tree. An open fan sits at her side,

but instead of the sexual function of the fan as in other paintings, the fan here acts merely

as a fan, ready to cool Mme. from the sun above. M. Monet operates in his own sphere,

gardening. This painting like At the Beach, does not project contention between husband

53 See Dolan's article, “Baudelaire's Mistress.” 24 and wife, but it does highlight the division of activities between the genders and place the female in a commanding position on the canvas.

To the left, M. Monet tends to his garden, his curved form in the background while Mme. Monet takes the mid and foregrounds with her voluminous dress. Marnie

Kessler notes that the contemporaries of Manet lampooned the crinoline to be a cage for a man. She compares the hard structure of the crinoline hoop to the metal bars of a cage.

The suggestion that the crinoline is not only seen as female pervasiveness in society as well as a prison for men, Manet’s depiction of physical barriers between married couples is a metaphoric extension of this sentiment. Further the notion that a man is ‘trapped’ by the crinoline suggests inequality once caught. The husband is less of the decision-maker; rather, he must follow the whims of the woman, in more ways than the purchase of house wares. While the voluminous dress worn by Mme. Monet in this painting does not connote the cage to the same extent of the crinoline worn by Eugènie Napoléon, Mme.

Manet's dress captures much of the canvas, echoing this suggestion of male entrapment in the female snare.

M. Monet's tending of the flowers coupled with her direct glance reflect the bourgeois family, with the husband on one plane, bending to work, while the female chooses to read. This painting is certainly not contentious; it does not suggest the strain of marriage as the painting In the Conservatory. However, it does reflect the truth of the separation of the sexes in marriage, a division not as easily seen in unmarried couples.

To fully understand the truth in Manet's paintings of men & women, his personal references must be considered.

25

PART II- MANET PERSONALLY

Chapter 6: Manet’s Family

The gender inequality in marital relationships depicted in Manet’s canvases is

reflective of the societal norms of nineteenth century Parisian life, as well as Manet’s

familial situation. He grew up the son of bourgeois parents, both of whom had

aristocratic backgrounds. His father was a lawyer and magistrate, while his mother was

from a diplomatic family and the goddaughter of a Napoleonic general, who went on to

become king of Sweden.54 Manet was raised in a proper bourgeois household in which

his parents maintained the traditions of bourgeois culture, both inside and outside the

home. It was against this backdrop that Manet created his first painting of a marital

relationship. The 1860 Portrait of Monsieur and Madame Manet (figure 10) shows his

bourgeois parents in the home. His mother leans slightly forward, her hand nestled into a

work basket of cloths, perhaps for mending, while his father sits rigidly in the

foreground, one arm resting on the arm of a chair, the other tucked in his jacket. A

traditional, early- nineteenth century hierarchical relationship clearly exists between these

two, for although Monsieur Manet is seated in the foreground while his wife stands, it is

important to note that she stands behind her husband. She is engaged in a domestic task,

while her husband is aloof and reflective. Though the figures’ staging is probably a

compositional device used by Manet to create a balanced canvas which recedes into

space, the downcast glance of Mme. Manet reflects subservience to the equally

disengaged M. Manet. The unspoken tension between the two figures translates to the

54 King, pp. 14-15. 26 viewer through their stiff postures and their disjointed glances. Several scholars note that the stroke which Manet’s father suffered due to complications of syphilis and subsequent paralysis led to M. Manet’s strained and stoic expression. While I believe that Manet rendered this painting as his parents appeared to him- as truthfully as possible- I think that underlying marital tension caused by M. Manet’s extramarital affairs gives greater credence to the staging and expressions, especially when we consider that Mme. Manet was aware of these extramarital affairs.55

These tense sentiments are artistically reinforced by Manet’s use of a dark color

scheme to highlight the two faces. The brush strokes are careful and deliberate- not at all

as free-form as is seen in his later works. The simplification, sharp definition, and lack of

chiaroscuro of each sitter produce abrupt contrast in both faces and personalities,

heightening the sense that they are individuals and not a pair. As Werner Hofmann

remarked, Manet’s men and women exist “imprisoned in their respective inner

monologues… even when people share the same spot, the same space… there is an

invisible barrier between them.”56

The “barrier” Hofmann cites is exactly what I suggest separates Manet’s men and

women in these martial depictions. As Manet said, “I cannot do anything without a

model. I do not know how to invent. So long as I tried to paint according to the lessons I

had learnt, I produced nothing worthwhile. If I amount to anything today, I put it down

55 Perhaps even with his future daughter-in-law and wife of Edouard Manet. No concrete evidence can confirm this, however. 56 Collins, p. 60, citing Werner Hoffman, “Glances,” unpublished lecture given at “Manet: A Symposium,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, October 22, 1983. 27 to precise interpretation and faithful analysis.”57 Thus, in his eye, Manet translates that which he sees in life (his truth) onto his canvas.

57 Quotation recorded by Émile Zola, “during the portrait sessions,” and re-quoted for L’Évément illustré, 10 May 1868. Reprinted in Manet by himself: Correspondence and Conversation, Paintings, pastels, prints, and drawings, Ed. by Juliet Wilson-Bareau, London: MacDonald & Co. Ltd., 1991, p. 45. 28

Chapter 7: Manet’s Female Relationships

If it is true that Manet believed he translated his own reality to canvas (his truth),

then Manet’s approach to his own marriage begs consideration. Manet’s relationship

with Suzanne Leenhoff began when she came to live with the Manet family to instruct

the Manet children in the piano. Dutch by birth, Suzanne was not much older than

Manet. During her time with the Manet family, Suzanne bore a son, purportedly

belonging to either Edouard or his father André. As to not draw improper attention in

polite Parisian society, in public, her son Léon Leenhoff was presented as the brother of

Suzanne.

Not much is known about Edouard’s courtship of Suzanne, but Suzanne did pose

for Manet’s allegorical 1861 work, La Nymphe Surprise (figure 11). In a departure from

Manet’s starkly contrasted, modeled and dark backgrounds, the coloration in this piece is

lively. Suzanne's fleshy sensuousness is enhanced by the rich red drapery and its

juxtaposition with her pale skin. Manet’s paint application is fluid, almost delicate. The

painterly qualities and the play of light of this work reveal Manet’s early fascination with

the work of Rembrandt, as he drew on the image of Bathsheba at Her Bath, 1654 (see

figure 12).58 In keeping with the story of David's first encounter with Bathsheba,

Rembrandt presents a seated nude being dressed by a servant. A married woman,

Bathsheba was so coveted by King David, that he committed adultery with her, sentenced

58 Nancy Locke also supports this argument of Manet's correlation with Rembrandt's Bathsheba theme in Manet and the Family Romance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. p. 82 29 her husband to death in battle, and ultimately fulfilled his own desires by marrying

Bathsheba.59

Though not nearly as dramatic, Manet’s choice of subject matter and model in La

Nymphe Surprise suggests a desire for something he would ultimately attain. However, it

also illustrates Manet’s taking full advantage of a woman who worked for his family.

Though Suzanne came from a good home in Holland, her upbringing could not rival his

bourgeois one. Therefore, his use of Suzanne as a model in this painting is multi-layered: first, Manet uses her as an object, thus placing her in the rank of his favored model,

Victorine Meurent. However, unlike the professional, paid model, Suzanne was asked to pose gratis. Thus Manet makes it known that she is to be regarded as an object and not a professional model, as bourgeois women only posed for commissioned portraits and would have been accompanied to the sittings by a chaperone such as a parent, spouse, et cetera. Secondly, this suggests that Manet intended her depiction as a sexual being, as he used her in an objectified position. Suzanne's action- holding herself away from the onlooker, suggests that she is sexually toying with the viewer, playing hard-to-get. In this way Manet is involved in “the chase”, as he himself is the viewer. The details of their courtship are not known, but this painting would suggest that like Bathsheba,

Suzanne was coveted by Manet, who, like David, objectified the woman shown.

The marriage of Suzanne to Edouard in 1863, following the death of Manet’s father, came as a surprise to many. Baudelaire stated, “Manet just gave me the most unexpected news. He is leaving tonight for Holland and will be bringing back his wife.

He nevertheless made certain excuses; it would appear that his wife is beautiful, very

59 Referenced from The Old Testament of The Bible, New Living Translation, 2 Samuel 11-12, v.1-25. 30 kind, and very artistic. So many treasures in one female person – isn’t that monstrous?”60

Here, Baudelaire’s sentiments should be considered for two reasons. First, they indicate that Manet married Leenhoff without much consult to his good friend, which may illustrate Manet’s feelings of awkwardness and defensiveness on the subject of marriage, or they may hint at his sense of privacy and division in his life.61 Second, Baudelaire's

statement reflects his support of the traditional hierarchical male/female relationship, in

which women could not posses both the qualities required of them as women and the

abilities associated with men.

Equality between the genders was hardly something which Manet espoused,

despite the changing times and the proliferation of females in the political, economic and

social realms. Suzanne held the role of running the household, while Manet worked as an

artist (the family breadwinner). Though it would suggest his progressive outlook,

Manet's artistic collaboration with women posed far more complex questions about the women with whom he worked. Both female artists with whom he painted were depicted in Manet's compositions. His portraits of them, especially as they contrast one another,

provide further insight into Manet's private views of women and relationships.

Manet first began working with Eva Gonzalès after their meeting in February

1869.62 She was just 20 years old, but after seeing her work in the studio of Charles

Chaplin, he agreed to take her in as his only student. Shortly after Gonzalès joined him

in his studio, Manet painted her as an artist in action in the painting Portrait of Eva

60 Quote originally printed in Charles Baudelaire, Corrspondance générale. Ed. Jacquest Crépet. Vol 4. (Paris: conard, 1948),p. 194; reprinted in Locke, p. 57. 61 I mean here to note the division between the external presentation of marriage and how Manet perceived marriage away from the public. There is not much evidence to tell us of Manet’s opinion of this division. 62 Cachin, p. 90 and Carr-Gomm, p. 36. 31

Gonzalès (figure 13). In this work, Gonzalès is shown in the act of painting, indicating her profession, a rarity in the depiction of women, even in an increasingly progressive

French society. Gonzalès wears a very full dress, not unlike that worn by Baudelaire's mistress (see figure 3). However, there is no titillating look at her ankle; instead the viewer sees only her bare arms stretched toward the active canvas. Rather than assuming a seductive pose, Gonzalès' figure faces left, and her left arm closes off her torso, keeping her personally guarded. The mere fact that Gonzalès is in action -professional action- indicates that Manet thought of her as an equal.

Manet's professional relationship with Gonzalès unnerved another fellow artist,

Berthe Morisot.63 Although Morisot was actively painting and exhibiting during the

same time as Manet and Gonzalès, she was never regarded or rendered by Manet in the

same way as was Gonzalès. In letters between Morisot and her sister, Edma, Morisot

hints at a jealousy over Gonzalès’ relationship with Manet. In August of 1869, Morisot

wrote her sister that Manet was taken with Mlle. Gonzales as she had ‘tenacity,

perseverance, she knows how to accomplish things and [Berthe is] capable of nothing.’64

Edma responded that Mlle. Gonzalès “had an irritating effect on her” and that she

“imagined that Manet took it well beyond his value that [Berthe] has as much talent as

[Mlle. Gonzalès].”65 As Kessler and others have suggested, Manet did not seem to be

able to accept Morisot as his artistic equal and depicted her as a sexual being as he did in

63 See Cachin, p. 90; also see Denis Rouart Ed. Correspondances de Berthe Morisot, Paris: Quatre Chemins-Éditart, 1950. 64 Morisot, p. 33, Translated by J. Henel 1/4/09. 65 Ibid. 32 his allegorical painting of Suzanne. Two paintings illustrate this contrast: Repose of 1870 and The Balcony of 1868-69.

In Repose (figure 14), Manet had already been married to Suzanne for seven years, while Morisot remained unmarried during the time of this painting (she later married Manet’s brother Eugène). Repose exposes Morisot as a sexual object with a soulful connection, conveyed by the careful attention Manet devoted to her eyes. It is here that we see how Manet felt about her, as there is no barrier between the viewer (and in this case, Manet meant it to be him) and the subject – Morisot, by herself. Morisot’s position on the sofa and lack of any physical barrier projects her into the space of the viewer, while her foot placed in the low foreground of the canvas leads the eye into the painting, up to meet her gaze but her upper body retreats. Morisot's body language suggests the tension between invitation in with her gaze and a retreat from contact with her torso.66 The gaze itself projects outward and connects with the viewer unabashedly,

and seductively. Similar to the painting of Jeanne Duval, the exposure of Berthe’s ankles

hints at a sexual tension as well, as does her serpentine pose on the sofa. Recalling

Plott’s mention of adultery viewed as acceptable for married women, so long as

appearances were kept, unmarried women like Morisot faced a greater risk of social

exclusion and disdain if found to be dangerously close to a romantic relationship. Thus,

Morisot’s pose for this painting is layered with intricacy, reflecting the complexity of

Manet’s relationship with her.

66 The tension also may underscore the conflicting feelings of Manet regarding Morisot, with what we may interpret as his sexual desire of her as a woman (the inviting gaze) but his inability to act on his feelings (the retreat of Morisot’s body into the painting). 33

The pose of Morisot in this painting is similar to the 1862 painting of Jeanne

Duval, implying adulterous overtones. Just as in the painting of Baudelaire’s Mistress, there is no physical barrier between the viewer and the subject. In fact, Repose's composition forces Morisot's figure to the foreground, making the viewer connection with her form unavoidable. However, in Manet’s treatment of Morisot, he suggests her demure nature. A prop present in each painting is a fan; in the painting of Duval, the fan is open, much like her pose with its obvious sexual innuendo. In the painting of Morisot, the fan in her right hand is closed, suggesting Morisot’s reserved nature. Manet’s rendering of Morisot projects her as cautious and complex, rather than an overly sexual object.

Manet used Morisot as a subject roughly eleven times over the course of his career, and often depicted her with a fan or veiled. Recalling earlier discussions about the seductive nature of the mask, in a number of paintings the veil or fan serves to paint

Morisot in a seductive light, just as the prostitutes of the Masked Ball. The 1872 painting

Berthe Morisot with a Fan (figure 15) pulls Morisot away from the foreground of the painting, but as in Repose, Manet exposes her ankle, a stark flesh tone in contrast with the dark black folds of her skirt. While Morisot's body acts as a diagonal, the blurry lines of the dress mask any divisive nature, and the flirtation is reinforced with the use of the fan, masking Morisot's face. Just as in the Masked Ball, the eclipsed face acts as enticement for the viewer.

Nancy Locke states that Manet's paintings of Morisot "[project] the self onto a portrayal of the Other's gaze at that self, and that projection becomes legible in the act of

34 viewing. The viewer comes to stand in the place of the self who sees himself / herself in the Other. The sitter's look in the mirror and that armature of the self which always remains somewhat foreign, somewhat Other. The representation of the model's gaze is, in fact, the gaze of the self as Other inviting the viewer to assume its otherness."67 In other words, Manet's observation as the viewer acts as a reflection of himself, of his own truth. If we assume this to be true, then based on the intensity with which he painted her,

Morisot could be considered Manet's Other half- a soul mate. Her deep black eyes project in a way that Suzanne's do not, nor do those equally dark eyes of Jeanne Duval.

Manet's search for truth in himself led him to observe Morisot more closely.

The piercing gaze of Morisot appears in an earlier 1869 painting of her: The

Balcony, (figure 16). Here, Manet presents Morisot in a far less suggestive pose, and here she is accompanied by three other individuals: two males and a female. I make mention of this painting here to suggest that once again, Manet has used the metal division of the balcony railing in a manner similar to the bench In The Conservatory, perhaps to suggest a relationship that he could never consummate with Morisot. But, unlike his cynicism of later paintings, Manet’s attentive rendering of Morisot, especially her facial features, hint at the depth of his feelings for her or seeing himself in the relationship, for although marriage could have occurred as they were of the same class, they had the unfortunate luck to meet in 1868, long after his marriage to Suzanne.68 As

67 Locke, p. 164-165. Locke delves into Freud regarding Narcissism, stating that it is more a state of projection in tof the something the self cannot be, and less of a recognition of the self in the Other. I agree with this idea, but I also extend this idea that Morisot was actually more of his half than Suzanne. In other words, Morisot provided an equal to Manet, which he could not recognize but rather simply project what he wanted in his other half. 68 King, p. 243 35 the barrier of the balcony suggests the physical love between Morisot and Manet was therefore unrequited, and seemingly the relationship that ensued became tantamount to the division of the husband and wife within a marriage.

In comparing renderings of Suzanne to Morisot, Carol Armstrong notes that

"Morisot is clearly the victor."69 She goes on to say that "there is an intimacy and

gentleness to the portrait of Suzanne that suggests a private knowledge and domestic

sympathy with her."70 Manet’s own marriage seems to have been full of care, but not

necessarily the same passion and intensity as evidenced by Manet’s portraits of Morisot,

or those of other couplings. The letters between Manet and Suzanne during the siege of

Paris and the Commune in the 1870s suggest that he was entirely devoted to his wife,

signing his letters, "je t'ambrasse de tout cœur" ("I embrace you with all my heart") and

"ton mari qui t'aime bien" (your husband who loves you very much").71 These are hardly

the sentiments of someone detesting the institution of marriage; yet his canvases of

"truth" portray no intimacy between married couples.

69 Carol Armstrong, Manet, Manette. New Haven / London: Yale University Press, 2002. p. 197 70 Ibid. Armstrong compares Repose to Reading. 71 Edouard Manet, Lettres du siège de Paris: précédees des lettres du voyage à Rio de Janeiro. Paris: Editions de l’Amateur, 1996, pp. 40-41 and p. 54. 36

Chapter 8: Manet’s Fate

In sharp contrast to the greater detail and attention Manet paid in both paintings of

Morisot and in the earlier painting of Suzanne, I return now to three of his later paintings

of Suzanne, which reference companionship and acceptance of marriage in Madame

Manet playing the Piano, Reading, and Madame Manet in the Conservatory.

In Manet's painting of Suzanne from 1869, entitled Reading (figure 17), Suzanne

faces left, wearing a white dress similar to that of Morisot in Repose. Her arms softly

round toward her, but the open gesture of her arms project a more comforting than

seductive invitation to the viewer. The soft light filters through the sheer curtain, illuminating Suzanne's round lines. Leon reads behind the sofa, facing towards the window, his hand on the back of the sofa. Armstrong notes that this painting in particular captures his "mastery" in his rendering of her dress, but Armstrong suggests that "Repose again does it one better, differentiating more narrowly between whites, all in the single

terrain of the skirt."72

Further, the rendering of Suzanne should be remarked for her gesture. Her lower

half projects to the left, while her torso is open to the viewer. Her rounded arms are open

but do not project the same sexuality like the open arms of Morisot in Repose, nor the

legs of Jeanne Duval in Baudelaire's Mistress. This painting of Suzanne conveys

neutrality- vanilla and plain in tone in comparison to the intense contrasts of light and

dark present in Repose. The scene of his wife seated in the comfort of their shared home

appears familiar to Manet, demonstrating the dichotomy of his own desires between the passion for Morisot and the comfort of his wife and bourgeois life.

72 Armstrong, p. 197. 37

In Madame Manet in the Conservatory from 1876 (figure 18), Suzanne is seated on a sofa, her round face flushed with color, her sheer dress full like that of Morisot, but her pose lacking any suggestiveness. Her torso faces to the right. Her arms are closed on the bench, rounded towards her figure like those in Reading, and again unlike Duval’s portrait in which her arms are spread open replicating the line of the skirt below.

Suzanne’s gaze is soft and downcast. The reprise of the conservatory setting brings back the strong black lines of the bench on which Mme. Manet sits, but as with the entirety of the canvas, the color is much softer. Cachin notes that Mme. Manet "does not have the piercing beauty of Mme. Guillemet but poses with kindness and simplicity, and with tenderness."73 The comparison drawn here by Cachin between Mme. Manet and Mme.

Guillemet (In the Conservatory) is worth noting: the tense nature of In the Conservatory

is heightend by the clean brushstrokes and dark contrast of the grey buttoned dress worn

by Mme. Guillemet. In this later painting of Suzanne, the softer brush strokes, rounder

figure and softer gaze suggest a peace not present in the Guillemet household. However,

Suzanne's placid eyes hold none of the intensity of the gaze of Morisot. It is as if Manet painted this as a reminder of what marriage was to the bourgeoisie: a home to call one's

own.

The painting Madame Manet playing the Piano (figure 19), was rendered in 1868,

at nearly the same time as The Balcony. Manet shows Suzanne in a far different state

than that of a sexual being. Like Madame Manet in the Conservatory and Reading, it is

lovingly painted. While Suzanne wears a soft expression in her face there is no

connection that Manet wishes to show between Suzanne and anyone else; thus, Suzanne’s

73 Cachin, p. 132. 38 line of vision travels parallel to the piano, and suggests a division between her and her husband (in this case, the viewer). In fact, her face is ambiguous: she seems to exhibit a content expression, but without much depth of feeling, a stark contrast to the striking look of Morisot’s piercing eyes in Repose. Thus, Manet likely found himself in a marriage divided, a marriage without the initial passion, so evidenced by untethered liaisons, be they extramarital or preceding marriage.

39

Chapter 9: Conclusion

Perhaps the most telling of Manet's personal sentiments towards marriage can be

seen in one painting rendered by Manet’s colleague, Edgar Degas (figure 19). In this work from 1869, Manet and Suzanne are both shown in a room, this time on the same plane, about mid ground on the canvas. Nancy Locke observes that this painting is not nearly as lovingly rendered as Manet’s painting of Suzanne: “Appearing in profile, her nose appears long, her face extremely full, her arms and hands chubby. This manner of portrayal is more consistent with the way Suzanne is described…” If, as most historians agree, Degas rendered his canvases as a reflection of truth, Manet’s outward facing body language and disengagement from listening to his wife play the piano speaks to the disjointed line that often appeared in Manet’s renderings of married couples, and thus is manifested in his own marriage. While Degas’ portrayal of Suzanne maintains a similar stature to that of Manet’s rendering of her in Mme Manet playing the Piano,, Manet

appears- like most depictions of him - off in his own world. According to dealer

Ambrose Vollard, when Manet reviewed the canvas in its completed state at Degas’ studio, he was so displeased with the painting that he took it from Degas and tore off the affronting image of his wife- about a third of the canvas.74

Perhaps Manet was interested in protecting the private nature of their marriage, or

he felt it did not reflect well on either himself or Suzanne. Or perhaps Manet was so

displeased because Degas had brought too much truth to the comforts of a marital relationship. After all, the palette incorporates soft hues of yellow to suggest warmth.

74 Jeffrey Meyers, “Degas and Manet: A Study in Friendship.” Apollo, February 2005. (accessed electronically, 12/3/2006). http://www.apollo- magazine.com/article.php?issue=back&month=2&year=2005&id=04. 40

Manet’s gesture could also be considered comfortable rather than aloof, suggesting that

Degas sought to show the intimacy of marriage. Or perhaps Manet tore the portion of

Suzanne off the canvas because he felt it did not do her justice. I would assert that it was a combination of these reasons that caused the painting to be received as it was by Manet, and I would also suggest that Degas shows exactly what their marriage had become: comfortable and dull, a far cry from the sexual and romantic desire of “the chase” held by other canvases.

Manet’s own marriage proves to be an example of Manet’s bourgeois sentiments of nineteenth century marriage in Paris. Had he lived to see the turn of the century and greater sexual liberation for women, perhaps he would have embraced what Plott cites as the “elimination of the sexual double standard.”75 “Manet…paints the elusiveness of the

relations of the figures to each other, of figures to objects, of figures to the spectator. The

illusion is exposed as the painter reveals the constructedness of painting itself, or so the

modernist account goes. The spectator is struck both by the power of the illusion and by

the raw edges of its unraveling.”76 Just as in the eyes of Manet, the illusion of marriage

as a union unravels on his canvases. His desire to paint truthfully rendered his attitudes

towards the male / female relationship upon the canvas for all to see. By a simple act of

stratifying his figures or separating them with a physical barrier, Manet manifests his own proclamation of truth- that romance knows no boundaries, but marriage is the end of romance.

75 Plott, p. 533. 76 Locke, p. 1. 41

FIGURES In the Company of Others: Manet’s Personal Opinions of Marriage Translated to the Canvas

Figure 1

Edouard Manet. Music in the Tuileries. 1862. oil on canvas. National Gallery, London

Figure 2

Auguste Renoir. Moulin de la Galette. 1876. oil on canvas. Musée d'Orsay, Paris

42

Figure 3

Edouard Manet. Baudelaire's Mistress, Reclining. 1862. oil on canvas, Szépmuvészeti Múzeum, Budapest

Figure 4

Edouard Manet, Nana, 1877, oil on canvas, Kunsthalle Hamburg

43

Figure 5

Edouard Manet. The Masked Ball at the Opera. c.1873-1874. oil on canvas. National Gallery of Art, Washington.

Figure 6

Edouard Manet. Chez le Père Lathuille. 1879. Oil on canvas. Musée des Beaux-Arts, Tournai 44

Figure 7

Edouard Manet. In the Conservatory. 1879. oil on canvas. Nationalgalerie, Berlin

Figure 8

Edouard Manet. At the Beach. 1873. oil on canvas. Musée du Louvre, Paris 45

Figure 9

Edouard Manet. The Monet Family in their Garden at Argenteuil, 1874, oil on canvas, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Figure 10

Edouard Manet. Portrait of Monsieur and Madame Manet. 1860. oil on canvas. Musée d'Orsay, Paris 46

Figure 11

Edouard Manet. Surprised Nymph. (Nymphe surprise). 1861. oil on canvas. Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Buenos Aires

Figure 12

Rembrandt van Rijn. Bathsheba at Her Bath. 1654. oil on canvas. Musée du Louvre, Paris 47

Figure 13

Edouard Manet. Portrait of Eva Gonzales. 1870. oil on canvas, National Gallery, London

Figure 14

Edouard Manet. Le Repose. 1870. Oil on canvas. RISD, Providence 48

Figure 15

Edouard Manet, Berthe Morisot with a Fan, 1872, oil on canvas, Musée d'Orsay

Figure 16

Edouard Manet. The Balcony. 1868-69. Oil on canvas. Musee d'Orsay, Paris

49

Figure 17

Edouard Manet. Reading. 1969. Oil on canvas. Musée d'Orsay, Paris

Figure 18

Edouard Manet. Madame Manet in the Conservatory. 1876. Oil on canvas. Nasjonalgalleriet, Oslo 50

Figure 19

Edouard Manet. Mme. Manet at the Piano. 1868. Oil on canvas. Musée d'Orsay, Paris

Figure 20

Edgar Degas, Portrait of Monsieur and Madame Manet. 1869. Oil on canvas. Municipal Museum of Art, Kitakyushu 51

Bibliography In the Company of Others: Manet’s Personal Opinions of Marriage Translated to the Canvas

Armstrong, Carol. Manet, Manette. New Haven / London: Yale University Press, 2002.

Baudelaire, Charles. “Untitled” from Les Fleurs du Mal, 1857 ed., http://baudelaire.litteratura.com/fleurs_du_mal_1857.php.

Cachin, Françoise. Manet. Paris: Chêne, 1990.

Carr-Gomm, Sarah. Manet. Studio London: Editions Limited, 1992.

Collins, Bradley. “In the Conservatory and Chez le Père Lathuille.” Art Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, Manet (Spring 1985). pp. 59-66.

Dolan, Therese. “The Empress's New Clothes: Fashion and Politics in Second Empire France.” Woman's Art Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Spring – Summer 1994), pp. 22-28

– “Manet’s Nina de Callias, Paris.” The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 142, No. 1171, Oct. 2000, pp. 652-654.

—“Review, Manet and the Family Romance and Manet, Manette.” Woman's Art Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring - Summer, 2004), pp. 39-44.

— “Skirting the Issue: Manet's Portrait of Baudelaire's Mistress, Reclining.” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 611-629

Düching, Hajo. Edouard Manet: Images of Parisian Life. Munich, Germany / New York, New York: Prestel- Verlag, 1995.

Flaubert, Gustave. Madame Bovary, 1857 ed., Accessed translated quotations: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bovary/quotes.html

Fried, Michael. Manet’s modernism, or, the face of painting in the 1860s. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Hamilton, George Heard. Manet and his critics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.

Hicks, Louise. “Women and the Code Napoléon.” Research Subjects: 19th Century Society, The Napoleon Series (c.1995 – 2005). http://www.napoleon- series.org/research/society/c_women.html.

52

House, John. “Manet’s Naïvité.” The Hidden Face of Manet Juliet Wilson Bareau, Ed. The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 128, No. 997, Apr., 1986.

King, Ross. The Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade that Gave the World Impressionism. New York: Walker & Co., 2006.

Kessler, Marni R. “Unmasking Manet’s Morisot.” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), pp. 473-489

Locke, Nancy. Manet and the Family Romance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Manet, Edouard. Lettres du siège de Paris: précédees des lettres du voyage à Rio de Janeiro. Paris: Editions de l’Amateur, 1996.

— Lettres illustrées. Paris: Bibliotèque de l’Image, 2002.

Meyers, Jeffrey. “Degas and Manet: A Study in Friendship.” Apollo, February 2005. http://www.apollo- magazine.com/article.php?issue=back&month=2&year=2005&id=04

Nochlin, Linda. “A Thoroughly Modern Masked Ball.” Art in America, vol. 72, no. 11 (November 1983). pp. 188-201.

Petrey, Sandy. "Stylistics and Society in La Curée." MLN, Vol. 89, No. 4, French Issue (May 1974), pp. 626-640.

Plott, Michèle. “The Rules of the Game: Respectability, Sexuality, and the Femme Mondiane in Late-Nineteenth Century Paris.” French Historical Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Society for French Historical Studies, Summer 2002). http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/french_historical_studies/v025/25.3plott.html#FOOT 18

Pollock, Griselda. Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism, and the Histories of Art. London: Routledge, 1988.

Rouart, Denis, Ed. Correspondence de Berthe Morisot, Paris: Quatre Chemins-Éditart, 1950.

Schwarz, Pricilla A. Manet’s depictions of women in cafés : the ambiguity of reality in modern Parisian life. Photocopy. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1995.

53

Schmitz, Nancy. "mi-carême." The Canadian Encyclopedia. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1A RTA0005267

Wilson-Bareau, Juliet, Ed. Manet by himself: Correspondence and Conversation, Paintings, pastels, prints, and drawings. London: MacDonald & Co. Ltd., 1991.

54