Jobarde, a Rediscovered Painting by Édouard Manet Milko den Leeuw Atelier for Restoration & Research of Paintings Contents Foreword 6 Introduction 8 The Object of Research 10 The Method 16 Art Historical Research 1. Written Sources 16 1.1 Bibliography of Édouard Manet 17 1.2 The Will of 30 September 1882 21 1.3 Inventaire Après Décès Édouard Manet 22 1.4 Retrospective Exhibition of 5-28 January 1884 23 1.5 The 1884 Hôtel Drouot Auction Catalogue 23 1.6 The Durand-Ruel Archive 23 2. Provenance 24 2.1 The Provenance of Jobarde 24 3. Image Research 30 3.1 Lochard’s Photographs 30 3.2 Preliminary Sketches 31 3.3 Sketchbooks 33 3.4 The Names, the Monogram, and the Colour Signature of Jobarde 34 3.4.1 The Names 34 3.4.2 The Monogram 38 3.4.3 The Colour Signature 44 4. Œuvre Research 46 4.1 Introduction 46 4.2 The Classification of Manet’s Work 48 4.3 Two Styles 50 4.4 Renoir 51 4.5 The Summer of 1873 52 4.6 Survey of the Year 1873 54 5. Context 56 5.1 Hispanism 56 5.2 The Prado 59 5.3 The Manet-Manette ‘Style’ 62 5.3.1 Internal Symmetry 62 5.3.2 Bilateral or External Symmetry 64 5.4 Image Comparison 65 5.5 The Superlative: Life! 70 5.6 The Title Jobarde 72 6. Evaluation Art Historical Research 74 Painting Technique Analysis 78 1. Pictorial Analysis 78 1.1 “The Daumier of his Time” 79 1.2 The Studio of Thomas Couture 81 2. Étude, Ébauche and Fini in Manet 84 3. Manet’s Brushes 88 4. The Development of Manet’s Painting Hand 92 5. Analysis of the Painting Technique in Jobarde 104 5.1 Composition and Perspective 105 5.2 Light and Colour 112 5.3 Paint Layer and Brushstroke 114 6. Pictorial Comparison of Jobarde with Manet’s Oeuvre 118 7. Visualization Analysis of the Painting Technique in Jobarde 120 7.1 UV-Fluorescence 122 7.2 False Colour Infrared 126 7.3 Infrared Reflectography 130 7.4 X-Ray 138 7.5 K-Edge 144 8. Pictorial Comparison of the Summer of 1873 150 9. Evaluation Painting Technique Analysis 152 Technical Material Analysis 156 1. Painting Materials 156 1.1 Maison Blanchet 157 1.2 Stretcher and Canvas 159 1.3 Manet’s Palette 160 1.3.1 Paint Cross-Sections 164 1.3.2 The Palette of Étude, Ébauche and Fini 165 2. Lead Isotopes 168 2.1 The Context of Lead Isotope Research 168 2.2 From Ore to Paint 170 2.3 From Lead Powder to Paint Tube 172 2.4 The Comparison of Isotopes in Jobarde and Le Bateau Goudronné 176 2.4.1 Protocal Isotope Research 176 3. Evaluation Technical Material Analysis 177 Conclusion 178 Annexes 182 Appendix A 182 Report of the analysis of the monogram Appendix B 196 Multispectral imaging at 480 dpi with 13 filters including additional infrared data Appendix C 212 Applied Physics 2006 Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 2005 218 Appendix D 226 The element research of Jobarde Report on scientific examination 278 Binder Analysis 280 Bibliography 282 Articles & Technical Studies 286 Index 288 Photograph Credits 297 Foreword In 2002, a painting was presented to the Atelier voor Restauratie & Research van Schilderijen (ARRS) with the request to investigate the authenticity of the work. The owner asked for this research because documentation on the painting was limited to a summary provenance of the object: just a few letters by painting experts. We decided to draw up a rigorous research plan. The first thing to do was to determine if we were dealing with a painting ‘from the period’. Once this had been confirmed, we decided how to proceed with our investigation into the maker of the painting. This book is the record of that ‘road to authentication.’ The goal of this publication, however, is not only to determine the authenticity of the painting as such, but also to document the many aspects that play a role in such an authentication. It is about interdisciplinary research. The small number of works on authentication that have been published are dominated either by the art historical or the technical approach. This publica- tion aims at breaking new ground by recording every aspect of the art historical, technical paint and material research. Several people have generously participated in the extensive research and this calls for a note of thanks for their willingness to share their knowledge and experience. Firstly we would like to thank the owners of the painting for their patience and support. Without their enthusiasm this project could not have been completed. We are indebted to Willem Russell for his particularly stimulating contribution to the method- ology of the process of authentication. The Technische Universiteit Delft played an important role by contributing brain- and manpower to parts of the technical analyses. The technical research conducted by Kris Krug was of particularly great significance for the conclusions of the authentication research. In this respect we also owe a debt of gratitude to the team lead by Alberto Bravin at the ESRF in Grenoble that gave us permission to use the medical beamline. We would like to thank the Department of Earth Sciences-FALW, Vrije Universiteit Amster- dam, for the preparation of polished oriented sections of paint chips. We owe a special debt of gratitude to Wynanda Koot. The Geotechnical Laboratory for Optical Microscopy, Electron Microscopy and Qualitative X-ray Analysis (EDS) was also very helpful. We would like to thank Alex den Ouden, Saskia Kars and Wim Lustenhouwer in particular. We would also like to thank Gareth R. Davies of the Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS) Laboratory for his contribution to our investigation. Our special thanks go out to Nicholas Eastaugh and Jilleen Nadolny. Our gratitude goes out to Pascal Cotte and Jean Penicaut of Lumière Technology for their contribution to the imaging of the painting. The archive research in Paris was very efficiently and thoroughly prepared by Eloise d’Argent. We would like to thank her and Monsieur Hermès and Madame Du Chantelle of the equestrian Museum Hermès in Paris. The museums that gave us permission to examine paintings by Édouard Manet were instru- mental in helping along our investigation. The American museums in particular were a para- gon of hospitality and openness. We thank Judith F. Dolkart and Marilyn Kushner at The Brooklyn Museum of Art in New York, Barbara Buckley at The Barnes Foundation in Merion, John Zarobell at the Phila- delphia Museum of Art and Inge Dupont at The Morgan Library in New York, Iris Schaefer, Caroline von Saint-George and KatYes Lewerentz at the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum in Cologne 6 FOREWORD and Clotilde Roth-Meyer in Paris, as well as Bernard and Maria Hahnloser from the Hahnloser Collection in Bern and Rudolf Jäggli at the Kunsthalle in Bern. Thanks to Bonham’s auction house in London. Thanks to Musée d’Orsay, Paris. Our special thanks go out to the handwriting expert H. Hardy for examination of the hand- writing at Manets’ letters. We would also like to thank the curators and owners of several private collections. Our special thanks go out to Paul Durand-Ruel who received us with great hospitality and granted us access to his family’s private archives. His encouragements to pursue our investi- gation were heartwarming. Our special thanks go out to Rudi Ekkart, Nanne Dekking and Betsy Wieseman for the criti- cal reading and positive advise. We would like to thank Solange de Boer and Hanny Opheij for their editorial work on this publication and Walter van der Star for the translation. The iconography was handled expertly by Maarten Helle. Design, layout and printing were done by DeltaHage. Finally we would like to thank the transport firm Art Handling Service that succeeded in shipping the painting all over the world on time and in perfect condition. “We are fully aware that we trespassed into fields that belong to other specialists but we trust that they will forgive us.” Milko den Leeuw FOREWORD 7 Introduction Modern authentication research can be divided into three research schools: art historical research, technical paint analysis and technical material analysis. The art historian focuses on historical and visual analysis. The painterly aspects are investigated by the painting conserva- tor. Material analysis is based on scientific research which is carried out in various laboratories under the supervision of a conservation scientist. The fact that these three schools have been brought in an authentication project is actually no more than a ‘natural’ consequence of the genesis of a painting. Initially, the concept, the manual work and the materials exist as separate entities and they are subsequently combined to produce the work of art. Yet collaboration between the three disciplines has not always been a matter of course. In the 19th century, it was common practice within the discipline of art history to settle questions of authentication on the basis of individual authority. For generations a minority of ‘art experts’ determined the authenticity of works of art. It wasn’t until the 1930s that there was a call for collaboration which would involve not only art historians, but also experts from different techni- cal disciplines. Some scientists put the theory into practice and formed a more diversified team. By now history has learned that authentication isn’t ‘research based on authority’ and that the stacks of certificates this usually produced were in fact an open invitation to forgery. In the 21st century the technical possibilities for authentication research have substantially grown, but this hasn’t made the task of the art historian any easier.