Manet's Use of Photography in the Creation of a Drawing

Author(s): Carl Chiarenza

Source: Master Drawings , Spring, 1969, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1969), pp. 38-45+91-92
Published by: Master Drawings Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1553005

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Master Drawings Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Master Drawings

This content downloaded from

141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOTES 9. Letter to the author, dated June 28, I968.
10. Since my article of 1963 (cf. note i), I have found
several precise details which relate to the biography
of Rosina Meli. She was the daughter of the apothe-
cary Giuseppe Meli and his wife Paola Bartolini
who lived on the Strada del Gambero in I809 (Stato
delle Anime for I809, S. Lorenzo in Lucina). The
marriage of Rosina and Alexandre Lethiere was
celebrated in the church of S. Lorenzo in Lucina on
November I , 1813 (registry of marriages of S.
Lorenzo in Lucina). Rosina died at Rome on August
5, I817 at the age of nineteen (registry of deaths of
S. Andrea delle Fratte, fol. 22, no. 274).
11. Henry Lapauze, Ingres, Paris, 19I I, p. 196. Count
Primoli is the well-known Napoleonist who for a
long time owned the celebrated Ingres portrait of
the family of Lucien Bonaparte.
12. Friedrich Noack, "Piazza di Spagna, eine kultur-
geschichtliche Skizze fur Romfreunde' Deutsche
Revue, December, 1905, p. 317 f.
13. Jacques Casanova de Seingalt, Histoire de ma vie,
6 volumes, Wiesbaden and Paris, 1960-62, passim.
14. Antonio Valeri, "Casanova a Roma, figurine e figure
romani del secolo XVIII' Rivista d'Italia, Rome,
February 15, 1899, pp. 325-3 .
Manet's Use of Photography
in the Creation of a Drawing
Carl Chiarenza
SHORTLY AFTER Manet's drawing, Jeanne, or Prin-
temps (P1. 27), came to the Fogg Art Museum in I943
as part of the Winthrop Bequest,' it was removed
from its frame and an image on the verso was dis-
covered (P1. 28).2 The image is a laterally reversed
photographic reproduction of Manet's painting Le
Printemps in the collection of Mrs. Harry Payne
Bingham, New York (Fig. I). In fact, the drawing is
in large part a tracing of this photograph.
The drawing itself is not impressive. Upon exami-
nation one finds the delineation of the figure some-
what hesitant, decidedly different from the handling
[38]
This content downloaded from
141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
of the brushstrokes which develop the background
and the pen lines which are used in much of the in-
terior of the figure. The background brushwork is
bold and free. The density of the wash is perfectly
combined with the glazed surface of the paper to
achieve the effect of light reflecting off, as well as
passing through, the leaves and flowery forms. This
part of the drawing is a masterful example of Manet's
late style and is evidence of the influence of Impres-
sionism, which had matured as a style by the time the
drawing was made. (The drawing is unsigned and
undated, but its authenticity and a date of I882 are
secure, as will be shown below.)
The outline of the scarf, on the other hand, and
the handling of the wash within the outline appear to
lack purpose. Neither the brushwork nor the variety
of tonality here suggests volume or texture; nor does
the area work as an abstract shape-though we might
expect precisely that from Manet. All of this might
be accounted for by the very mechanical nature of
tracing. But why would Manet want to trace a pho-
tographic image of one of his own paintings? And
why a photograph which is a laterally reversed image
of the painting? The reason given by Professor Alain
de Leiris in 1957, and repeated by many others since,
is that Manet made the drawing as an intermediate
step leading to an etching.3 The etching was not pub-
lished during Manet's lifetime, but appeared in the
Gazette des Beaux-Arts in 1902 (Fig. 2).4
Professor de Leiris' initial research and penetrating
observation revealed an important aspect of Manet's
work. He was probably the first historian to note a
direct relationship between Manet's own paintings,
drawings, prints and photographs. De Leiris' argu-
ment with regard to the tracing of Jeanne is put for-
ward in his forthcoming book.5 It is worthwhile to
examine that argument closely.
De Leiris suggests that Manet's procedure was
basically the following:6
1.
A photograph was made of the painting.
2. The photograph was printed in reverse.
3. The reverse side of the photographic print was
prepared with what appears to be a coat of glue
sizing to prevent blotting of the ink and to pro-
vide greater transparency.7
 NOTES

Fig. I EDOUARD MIANET. Le Printemps. Fig. 2 EDOUARD MANET. L

Harry Payne Bingham Collection, on loan to the Cambridge, Mass., Fogg
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

4. The photographic print was held up to

and (2) to reverse
a light the drawing on the plate so th
etching
source and traced with pen, brush andwould conform to the original. One sol
ink on
the back side. he proposes is to reduce the drawing by execut
second the
5. The image was transferred from intermediate
drawingone to the
todesired scale for the
the plate. (De Leiris says heetching,
has no whichabsolute
drawing could then be traced and re-
proof of exactly how this was versed
done, but he
by tracing sug-
on the plate. He says, however, that
the more
gests a likely procedure. He notes thatlikely
theprocedure
etch- would have been "the use
ing is much smaller than the of
drawing and
photography that
which would make both the reduc-
the figure faces in the same direction inprocess
tion and reversal both. effective and precise'.' In
other words,
Measurements made by this writer Manet would
indicate that have photographed the
the etching is a fifty per centfirst
reduction ofscale
drawing to the the of the desired etching and
drawing-or photograph-allowing slightly
then he would for
have made a reverse print of the new
the worn edges of the drawing.)
photograph, finally working directly on the plate
from the reversed and reduced photograph.
De Leiris sees Manet's problems at
De this
Leiris tells
stageus that
to"tracings"
be of Manet's paint-
(I) to reduce the drawing to the
ingssize of the
for transfer to theplate,
stone or plate were probably

[39]

This content downloaded from

141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOTE S
made from photographs of paintings in the majority
of cases and that this procedure had been developed,
in all likelihood, quite early in Manet's career. As he
says, this would have "eliminated the cramping ex-
perience of reproducing to scale an already complete
image' 8 as well as the reversal of the image which a
direct copy on the plate would inevitably produce.
Although De Leiris has no secure proof or documen-
tation, he convincingly cites the close resemblance of
many prints to the original paintings. He suggests a
test might be the comparison of the size of prints with
the size of photographs which were in Manet's pos-
session.9 In addition to a comparison of size, one
might also superimpose transparencies of the paint-
ings and prints. I have done this with several pairs
and have found the majority of images to be substan-
tially identical, especially in basic outlines. This sug-
gests very strongly the use of some optical reduction
process.
With regard to the Fogg drawing, which De Leiris
says is "the only one unquestionable proof of such a
use of the photograph by Manet,... in the execution
of the preparatory pen and wash drawing ... for the
etching Jeanne . . . derived from the painting of the
same subject' 10 De Leiris concludes that the etching
comes directly from the drawing. I would suggest an
alternative conclusion, that the etching comes direct-
ly from a photograph of the painting.
De Leiris emphasizes the fact that the drawing is
an independent image in its concept and execution
and that Manet used photography here purely as a
mechanical tool. "Manet himself,' he says, "must have
considered his drawing to possess an originality inde-
pendent from that of its source since he gave it to be
published as an illustration of the Salon of 1882 by
his friend A. Proust, in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts of
that year''11 For De Leiris, then, the etching is "fully
dependent" on the Fogg drawing for its interpretation
of the painting-a purely graphic intent-and not an
attempt to reproduce the color scheme or painterly
aspects of the original painting.12
The painting was executed in I88I (signed and
dated) and was exhibited in the Salon of 1882. The
figure faces in the same direction as it does in the
drawing and the etching (P1. 27 and Fig. 2). It is
reversed on the photograph (P1. 28) which, though
[40]
This content downloaded from
141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
weak, is without question made from the painting.
Again, one wonders why would any artist, intent
upon conserving time and reducing his load of tedious
work, use such a circuitous method? Why would he
print the photograph in reverse if he intended to
trace it from the opposite side, when this would only
make it necessary for him to re-reverse the resulting
drawing in order to make the etching? Why would
he not simply print the photograph the required size
following normal procedure and make one tracing
which would immediately give him a reversed and
reduced working image? Or, if he reverse-printed the
photograph, why make a drawing at all? Why not
work the plate directly from the reduced and reversed
photographic image?
These images were among the last of Manet's
works; we may assume, therefore, that he was prob-
ably not experimenting. On the contrary, we may
assume that Manet used a procedure that had been
well-developed through the years. De Leiris himself,
as we have noted, believes Manet began using pho-
tography to make the transition from paintings to
prints very early in his career. A reversed and reduced
photographic image of a painting is, as De Leiris im-
plies, perhaps the simplest and most direct way of
recreating the image on plate or stone, and Manet
certainly would have been aware of this. It is unrea-
sonable to assume that he would have taken extra
steps without some valid reason, yet no such reason
has been discovered. It goes without saying that
Manet could have had a photograph made to the
exact size of the desired etching just as easily as he
could have had made the larger one on the back of
the drawing.
Stylistically, the etching appears to be more closely
related to the photograph than to the drawing. The
contours and outlines of the etching are far less awk-
ward than those of the drawing. The solid color and
the contour of the scarf in the etching are typical of
Manet's solid color, abstract, flat surface shapes. The
whole etching is less mechanically rendered and more
spontaneous than the drawing, while at the same
time being a truer representation of the ideals implied
in the painting. The lights and darks correspond
more closely to the soft and somewhat muddled areas
of the photograph. See, for example, the umbrella,
and compare the lower left area of the etching and
drawing with the lower right area of the photograph.
All reveal a closer correspondence between photo-
graph (or painting) and etching than between draw-
ing and etching. Even the details-such as the leaves
at the top left of the etching-relate to those of the
photograph but not of the drawing. There is, further-
more, a closer relation between the sense of volume
in etching and photograph (or painting, about which
a contemporary critic remarked that he sensed the
heaving of the young coquette's bosom as she proudly
marched through Paris), than there is between etch-
ing and drawing.
The dimensions of the etching, as we have noted,
suggest a fifty per cent optical or mechanical reduc-
tion of the Fogg photograph (156 x 107 mm. as against
31 X 2II mm.), a fact which buttresses De Leiris'
theory that a second reduced photograph was made
(but from the photograph, not from the drawing as
he suggests). This may indeed be true, but it does not
follow that Manet planned to make the etching this
way. Once the Fogg photograph became available
and the painting began to be critically acclaimed in
the press, it is conceivable that, deciding to make an
etching of the popular image, he made or had made
another photograph to work from. Manet character-
istically made reproductions of his paintings that be-
came popular or noteworthy.
It is quite clear that the drawing was made after the
painting since it traces the painting's likeness. If it
was not made in preparation for the etching, why was
it made? I would suggest that the drawing was made
specifically for reproduction in the Gazette des Beaux-
Arts, where it appeared shortly after the painting was
put on exhibition at the Salon. It was at that time
that the critics began to indicate a favorable response
to Manet's work.
Circumstances regarding Manet's life and career at
the time these images were created reinforce this as-
sumption. The painting, as noted, was executed in
1881 and was entered along with the Bar aux Folies-
Bergere in the Salon of I882 where Manet was hors
concours for the first and last time. The model was
Jeanne de Marsy, who had posed for him as early as
i875.13 Le Printemps was one of two paintings com-
pleted in a projected series representing the four
This content downloaded from
141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
seasons. The other completed painting represents NOTES
Autumn, also a three-quarter length female figure in
profile; the model (Mery Laurent) faces in the same
direction.14
The painting of Jeanne was well received and "es-
caped the disparagement to which Manet's figures
were usually subjected.... He was not destined to
see the comparative degree of success which he had
obtained develop into final victory . . . death was
approaching. One day in autumn of 1879, seized with
acute pains and weakness of the limbs, he fell down
when leaving his studio. Paralysis of a nervous cen-
ter, ataxy, had set in, and the illness was pronounced
to be incurable... .' 1 As early as April, I880, he was
forbidden to climb stairs. He spent the summers of
I880-82 away from Paris. By the summer of I882 he
was barely able to move from his chair.16 He died
April 30, 1883.
An indication of the success of this painting is the
fact that it was reproduced as well as reviewed in sev-
eral art reviews of the day.17 The Fogg drawing was
reproduced in the June I, I882, issue of the Gazette
des Beaux-Arts as an illustration of the painting for
a review of the Salon by Antonin Proust (Fig. 3).
Though Proust was a lifelong friend of Manet, this
was the first time Proust spoke out in print for Manet
and the first time the Gazette des Beaux-Arts repro-
duced a Manet picture. Proust was very much taken
with the painting, for he bought it later the same
year;18 nevertheless his review praised Manet with
restraint. As Tabarant puts it, "Trente lignes, mais
combien reservees, genees, timides, ou ne se recon-
naissait pas la voix de l'ami"'19
Proust and Manet had been friends since their
youth. They entered Couture's studio together in
I850. Manet painted portraits of Proust c. 1856, I887,
and 1880; the latter was in the Salon of 1880.20 When
Gambetta became premier in November I88I, he
appointed Proust Minister of Fine Arts. The next
month Gambetta was forced to resign and therefore
Proust was obliged to follow. There was just enough
time, however, to fulfill one of Manet's lifelong ambi-
tions: on December 30, Manet became a chevalier of
the Legion of Honor.
It is not unreasonable to assume, given this back-
ground of close friendship, that Proust simply asked
[41]
NOTES
sume, I think, that he counted on them
lines and the shape and tonality of the
There is strong evidence that drawin
made specifically to reproduce the like
ing in a publication. Claude Monet is k
made at least one drawing after one o
specifically for reproduction. The V
made on the same finely striated scrat
oped for reproduction by photogravu
drawing by Monet of Two Men Fish
in I883 for reproduction in the Gaze
Arts21 for a review of an exhibit of
wThich included the painting.22
Perhaps the most compelling support
ment comes from the fact that Manet
a drawing specifically for reproduction
as early as I865. It wxas a drawing afte
Le Buveur d'eau, for reproduction in l'
Salon et dans les ateliers. We know fu
ing to Tabarant, that Manet photograp
ing himself, and then had it photogra
Godet, a photographer and friend. Ma
an etching of Le Buveur.23 Tabarant re
Ir.':,li 1,. I';irlsti. ,!i'.pr;s s.on ;il,ah-:l.t. - S:..n ,1 . Is.-'
that paintings were photographed mo
often by Manet himself, as well as by
raphers Godet and Lochard. In many o
Fig. 3 Reproduction of Fogg drawing (Plate 27) in
drawings and prints exist of the sa
Gazette des Beaux-Arts, June i, 1882.
Godet regularly visited the studio duri
period of Manet's career; Lochard ca
sionally. After 1878, Lochard becam
Manet for a drawing of the painting to photographer.25
studio be used for Manet was we
reproduction with his article, andpotentialities
to assume also, in photographic med
of the
light of Manet's failing health and
is his desiretracing
no other to con-on the back of a pho
tinue working on new ideas, that he would
knowledge, inhave
the Manet oeuvre. Un
taken this convenient, time- and energy-saving meth-
scattered (and perhaps lost) photograp
od to provide a drawing for the purpose.
and matched physically with the drawi
It must be remembered that most no paintings
definite conclusions
were can be reached
still reproduced by drawings or engravings at this
tent of Manet's use of photography in
time. A comparison of the originalings
drawing with the
and prints. The Fogg drawing ma
document.
reproduction in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts serves to
support the theory that the drawing was
One created
other for of Manet's drawing
aspect
this limited purpose. The reduced unusual
size and and
the seems
high- to point, also, to
that
contrast black and white line process Manet
used for (or one of his photograph
repro-
aware
duction have eliminated many of the of the possible
shortcomings of uses of photog
the original drawing. These effects were common and
painter-printmaker. An examination
Manet was certainly familiar with them;
and we can as-
photograph out of the frame rev

[42]

This content downloaded from

141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

surfaces of the paper are unusual. The drawing is on
the coated side of the paper and the photograph is
on the uncoated side. One would expect just the
opposite, for albumin paper was the most popular and
widely-used photographic printing paper during this
period. The coating on the drawing side seems to be
an albumin coating and, as indicated, this coating
was useful in achieving the light and airy quality of
the flowery forms in the background. This means,
however, that the back side of the photographic paper
was sensitized because the photographic image is in
the soft fiber of the paper rather than on the coated
side. Thus the photographic print resembles the Calo-
type prints which were popular from 1841 to I857,
but not in I882. All of this, in addition to the fact
that it is a reverse print, suggests that whoever made
the photographic print was quite knowledgeable con-
cerning photographic processes. Several specialized
photographic books from the period show that un-
usual methods were occasionally employed. One of
them is particularly relevant to the Fogg sheet. It was
written by two practitioners well-known to photog-
raphers, and was published in I88 .26 The following
excerpt is revealing: "Prints on plain paper are some-
times of use; for instance, they form an excellent basis
on which to colour. They are of course duller than an
albumenized print, since the image is formed more in
the body of the paper than on the surface.... If it be
required to obtain a print on plain paper in a hurry,
a wash of citric acid and water . . . may be brushed
over the back of ordinary albumenized paper, and
when dried, that side of the paper may be sensitized
and printed in the ordinary manner'.27
The reverse print could have been obtained simply
by printing through the reverse side of the negative.28
These observations are even more relevant when
we read in Tabarant that Manet actually painted a
watercolor over an 8 x Io inch photograph of his
painting, Le Chemin de fer, which, he said, looked
like a direct and free watercolor painting.29 Manet
certainly would not have used the coated side of an
albuminized paper as a base for a watercolor. The
coating would have repelled the water as it did so
effectively in the background of the Fogg drawing.
The use of photography in the creation of the Fogg
drawing as a shorthand method of obtaining an illus-
This content downloaded from
141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOTES
tration of his painting for reproduction is one of sev-
eral ways in which the medium played a role in the
art of Edouard Manet.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: I am indebted to Miss Agnes Mon-
gan for her suggestion that I explore the problem this
paper deals with and for her constant encouragement,
advice, and material aid in trying to locate documents
and information. My thanks also to Professors Alain de
Leiris and Heinrich Schwarz for advice and support, and
to Mrs. Marjorie B. Cohn of the Fogg Conservation De-
partment for hours of time in discussion and analysis of
the drawing/photograph. I am grateful to Mr. Richard
Corley of the Polaroid Corporation, Mr. Gerald McLeod,
Mr. Jurgen Kruse, and Mr. John R. Manhardt of the
Itek Corporation for their invaluable assistance in ana-
lyzing paper, coating, and specific photographic and
chemical processes.
1. The drawing was published in the Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, June, I882, p. 545. According to
Jamot-Wildenstein, Manet, i, Paris, 1932, p. 176,
"It is perhaps the one which passed in an anony-
mous sale, February i6, I907, in Paris, no. 133
(360 fr.)'" Jamot-Wildenstein also indicates a pos-
sible connection with no. 70 of the inventory after
the death of Manet, under the title Petite femme
rose (Jeanne) (estime 50 fr.).
The Fogg Museum file indicates a label reading:
"Dessin a la plume, no. 21013, Ed. Manet, Jeanne
qui passe. H-(number unclear)" It is conceivable
that the first number could have been originally
2IO133, and that the 133 of the 1907 sale refers to
the last three digits. It is also conceivable that the
latter unclear number was I33. Another label reads
"Galerie Tannhauser, Suzern Tardif & Co:'
The Fogg Museum acquisition number is
1943.872. The drawing measures 3II mm x 2II
mm (I2 /4x 8-5/I6 inches). It is on thin cream
wove paper of moderately good quality. It shows a
fine mechanical texture by transmitted light. It is
in good condition with the exception of a 2/4-inch
tear proceeding in horizontally from the left edge
about 21/4 inches below the upper edge. The upper
right corner has been torn and repaired also. The
side bearing the drawing is coated with a thin,
shiny, brittle, opaque white film over its entire sur-
face. It bears no brush marks or other surface irregu-
larities and does not appear to have been hand-
coated. Under magnification its surface shows a fine
cracklure. The side bearing the photographic image
appears to be uncoated; the paper fibres are plainly
visible. The drawing is in black ink applied with
[43]
NOTES
pen and brush. The photograph is in shades of
brown (sepia).
In some reproductions a stamp occurs on the
drawing (see plate LXIX in W. Georges, Le Dessin
Frangais de David a Cezanne, Paris, 1929). The
stamp was added by the makers of the reproduction
and has no connection with the original drawing.
2. The discovery was apparently made by Professor
Heinrich Schwarz. The exact date of the discovery
is unknown though it seems to have been shortly
after the drawing came to the Fogg Museum.
3. Alain de Leiris, "The Drawings of Edouard Manet,
A Factual and Stylistic Evaluation,' unpublished
dissertation, Harvard University, 1957, p. I9. See
also John Richardson, Edouard Manet: Paintings
and Drawings, London, 1958, p. 20; Van Deren
Coke, The Painter and the Photograph, Albuquer-
que, 1964, p. i o; Anna C. Hanson, Edouard Manet,
1832-1883 (exhibition catalog), Philadelphia and
Chicago, I966, pp. 73, 125, 175; and Jean C.
Harris, "The Graphic Work of Edouard Manet'
unpublished dissertation, Radcliffe College, Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1961, passim.
4. Gazette des Beaux-Arts, xxvII, I902, opp. p. 428.
The Fogg Museum owns one of the impressions.
5. In a letter to the author dated November I, I967,
Professor de Leiris said, "My analysis and interpre-
tation of Manet's procedure, relating to the drawing
Le Printemps still stand"' He also states that his
book is scheduled for publication in the Spring of
I968.
6. The procedure given is an outline of that given on
pp. 20-22 in the De Leiris dissertation.
7. Experiments made on the paper suggest that the
coating is not glue sizing and in any case does not
provide greater transparency but in fact provides
greater opacity. The coating is probably albumin,
the popular photographic coating of the period. Mr.
Jurgen Kruse of the Itek Corporation states, in a
letter to the author dated March 27, 1968 describ-
ing the results of a chemical analysis of a micro-
scopic sample of the drawing, that, "although the...
experiments were not conclusive, they did show that
the Manet print contained an easily hydrolysed
protein and that this protein appeared to be albumin
rather than gelatin:' The fact that the photographic
image is not on the coated side is explained below.
The prevention of blotting is caused by the coating
and thus accounts for the effective flowery forms
described above.
[44]
This content downloaded from
141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8. De Leiris, dissertation, p. I9.
9. De Leiris, letter; and dissertation, pp. 19-20.
10. De Leiris, dissertation, p. 20.
11. Ibid., pp. 23-24.
12. Ibid., pp. 37, 126-27.
13. George Heard Hamilton, Manet and his Critics,
New Haven, I954, p. 249.
14. In the museum at Nancy.
15. Theodore Duret (trans., J. E. C. Flitch), Manet,
New York, 1937, p. I09.
16. Hamilton, 1954, p. 249.
17. Louis Hourticq, et al, Edouard Manet, Philadelphia
and London, 1912, pp. 9I-92. Maurice du Segnier
in L'Artiste, published on the same date as Proust's
review in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts, said, "Since
we are speaking of living flowers, let me introduce
you to Jeanne by Edouard Manet. She is not a
woman, but is a bouquet, a truly visual perfume.
Manet's defenders are delirious, his detractors stupe-
fied, and Mlle. Jeanne strolls past them, proud and
coquettish, in profile, her eyes alight, her nose turned
up, her lips parted, with a winning air. A parasol,
long suede gloves, not quite twenty years of age,
and a full fine figure:' (Hamilton, 1954, p. 249.)
This is a rare review of a Manet painting in his life-
time and it came very late-too late in a life filled
with violent criticism and abuse by press and public,
as well as the Salon juries.
18. Jamot-Wildenstein, I, p. 103. The painting passed
from Proust to Faure ca. 1889-90 and then to Col.
Payne Bingham (Adolphe Tabarant, Manet et ses
oeuvres, Paris, 1947, p. 442).
19. Tabarant, I947, pp. 440-4I.
20. Ibid, pp. 24, 3 2-13, 374-75, 377-82.
21. Gazette des Beaux-Arts, xxvII, 883, p. 346.
22. E. Haverkamp-Begemann and others, Drawings
from the Clark Art Institute, Vol. I, The Catalogue
Raisonne, New Haven and London, I964, p. I 16,
no. 259. I am indebted to Professor Mark Roskill
for bringing this information to my attention. No
photograph appears to have been involved.
23. Tabarant, 1947, pp. 50-5 I.
24. Ibid, passim.
25. Barbara A. Hollemann, "Portrait de Courbet par
Manet,' Les Amis de Gustave Courbet, Bulletin no.
 28, 1961, p. 5. Fernand Lochard photographed all hardt concludes that Manet used method number NOTES

the paintings and drawings in Manet's studio at
the time of the artist's death and numbered each
one. These photographs are now in private hands
and have not been seen by the author.
26. H. P. Robinson and Capt. Abney, The Art and
Practice of Silver Printing, New York, I88I.
27. Ibid., p. 99. Most of the standard paper employed
was made in the little towns of Rives in France and
Saxe in Germany. (W. Jerome Harrison, A History
of Photography, London, 1888, p. 8 .)
28. Mr. John R. Manhardt of the Itek Corporation sug-
gests three ways of achieving the laterally reversed
print: i. Production of a direct-positive in the cam-
era by the process invented by Hippolyte Bayard in
France in 1839. 2. Photographing the image of the
painting as reflected by a mirror. 3. Printing the
camera negative backwards onto the paper. Man-
one because there is no evidence of anyone having
used method number two, and he feels the image is
too sharp to have been printed through the thick-
ness of a glass plate (the image being on top and
away from the paper when printed backwards)
(letter to the author dated March 22, 1968). As in-
dicated above I would suggest that the third method
was used, the primary reason being that Bayard's
method was never accepted and seems not to have
been used by many people other than Bayard him-
self, especially after I855. (See H. Gernsheim, The
History of Photography, London, 1955, pp. 74-77.)
I also feel that the Manet photograph is unsharp
enough to have been made by reversing a glass plate
or, as Manhardt himself suggests (in the letter), a
paper negative could have been used in place of
the glass.
29. Tabarant, 1947, p. 222.

[45]

This content downloaded from

141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 .-6?-;

.11

: I .

<-^
_- I

,.D

; 7

.-4

,'1;

L :

w i -\ 5
.1--

Plate 27 EDOUARD MANET.

Cambridge, Mass., Fogg Art Museum

This content downloaded from

141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 N&,
-,

rLv
* .4

AS" Tp .- f

gp^~~~~~)
*i: t
* 3.r
. A.

r~~~~r

';

.; :: i % i.t
9,

r <'
. I' r I
v

^.
HC L'. .^.:
s.:_*.. -r,--

.. e - V,

;* r? t- . ,

., -i'.
lpv: . - .r ~...i
L' s z.
A

,:. sr:
. I.

*.
i' - ! '
I '
. , r'
:

p .
"r .

I ;V
:e..

,. t
so

?*
(I I
r

f ,.

I. 't
N:,i
'pr

..:

*. ,

.fR% * ' ' ' " :4;':' . '.

%I.
lb t r* )I . . * - -' ..

t
,?
c
t

9 B

P . , ' ' .
. f: -
7; - ., .,..

c -?
la

.*- . *^E*

Plate 2 8 EDOUARD MANET. Le Printemps. (Verso of Plate 27.)

Cambridge, Mass., Fogg Art Museum. (38)

This content downloaded from

141.20.217.25 on Thu, 25 May 2023 10:23:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms