Skip to main content
Reading options

Eva Gonzales v1

Catalogue entry

Edouard Manet
NG3259 
Eva Gonzalès

,

,

Extracted from:
The National Gallery; with entries by Emma Capron, Dillian Gordon, Sarah Herring, Mary McMahon, Letizia Treves and Francesca Whitlum‐Cooper; with technical contributions by Paul Ackroyd, Rachel Billinge, Lynne Harrison, Catherine Higgitt, Helen Howard, Larry Keith, Marta Melchiorre, Britta New, David Peggie, Marika Spring and Hayley Tomlinson, Online Entries (London: The National Gallery, 2024).

© The National Gallery, London

Oil on canvas, 191.1 × 133.4 cm (visible painted area)

Signed on rolled print in lower right corner: Manet 1870

Technical Notes

Support

The large, fine‐weave canvas broadly corresponds to a commercially supplied French standard size figure 120 of 195 × 130 cm; the current visible painted area measured up to the brown paper tape covering the edges is 191.1 × 133.4 cm but incorporates what seem to be folded‐out tacking edges at the sides explaining the additional width. At the top the original paint extends beneath this tape, so that the image height is actually approximately 193.3 cm (the stretcher is 193.8 cm in height), closer to the standard figure 120 size, but still indicating the possibility of some slight trimming at the top.

There are the following labels on the back:

  • A Paul Cassirer label, Manet no. 5045.
  • A Durand‐Ruel label, badly torn, but with the number 5104 visible, handwritten in ink.1
  • Michell and Kimbel, forwarding, storage, packing, 31 Place du Marché‐St‐Honoré, Paris, ‘Manet’ hand‐written.2
Materials and Technique3

The canvas was probably commercially primed. It has a single white ground layer consisting of lead white and a tiny amount of chalk (calcium carbonate) as an impurity or extender.4 Infrared reflectography did not reveal any evidence of preliminary carbon‐based drawing or sketch lines, but X‐ray fluorescence scanning suggests Manet used a brownish paint to sketch out the design onto the canvas. This paint, containing earth pigments, cobalt blue and vermilion, corresponds closely to one of the ‘sauce’ recipes favoured by Manet’s former master Thomas Couture (1815–1879).5 This is evident from the flurry of lines visible in the XRF elemental distribution maps, which indicate numerous changes in the positioning of the hands, arms and palette as Manet developed the design on the canvas rather than in preliminary drawings (fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Detail of NG3259, mercury XRF map showing the flurry of lines (corresponding to the application of vermilion‐containing paint) beneath the sitter’s arms and hands. © The National Gallery, London

Although impossible to confirm in this case (the overlying paint layers are too thick), the evidence of unfinished paintings suggests that Manet would have proceeded to make some kind of ébauche (an underpainting in thin, muted colours) prior to application of the main paint layers.

Determining the pigments employed by Manet in the main paint layers is complicated by both his painting technique and his use of tube paints. He frequently made changes as he worked (see below), sometimes leading to complex layering of paint. He also employed a much greater range of pigments than those recommended by Couture (including black), in one known instance combining ten pigments for the creation of a single colour, far exceeding the maximum of three advised by his former master.6 It is evident from close examination of his brushstrokes that the paints have not always been fully mixed on the palette prior to application. The fact that Manet used tube paints adds another layer of complexity: tube paints at this period were often mixtures of more than one pigment to obtain a particular colour and commonly contained a variety of extenders.

Most of the paint samples taken were focused on understanding the status of the corners, which differ in character from the rest of the painting (see further below). For the main part of the painting, the pigments have been inferred mostly from the results of XRF scanning, supplemented by more limited detailed information from the few paint samples.7 Those that have been securely identified are similar to those reported in other works by the artist.8

Manet’s portrait of Eva Gonzalès is dominated by blue tones. Samples from the grey‐blue background reveal it is composed of multiple paint layers containing mixtures of lead white, cobalt blue, ivory black and a yellow ochre.9 XRF scanning also suggests the use of cobalt blue (which contains some nickel) for the blue decoration in the sitter’s hair, the blue vase in the painting on the easel and the scarf draped over the easel, as well as in the blue shadow along the left‐hand side of the sitter’s chest and blue touches on her dress. Cobalt blue is also used for the sky‐blue of the carpet,10 except in the bottom corners where samples indicate that the main blue pigments are cerulean blue with some ultramarine.11 Analysis of the binding medium in samples taken from both cobalt blue‐ and cerulean blue‐containing areas of the carpet confirms the use of walnut oil that had been heat‐bodied.12

The black pigment in the sash around the sitter’s waist seems to also be ivory black, with other pigments incorporated for subtle variations in colour, such as cobalt blue in the greyer strokes and possibly some earth pigments for the more brownish‐blacks. The same approach can be seen in the blacker parts of the sitter’s hair.13

The main green pigment is viridian, used for the foliage in the vase, the stem and leaves of the peony and the decoration on the carpet. There is some evidence for the localised use of a copper‐containing pigment, probably a copper‐arsenic green.14

The XRF element map for chromium suggests that in addition to the green pigment viridian, one or more yellow or orange‐coloured chromate pigments have been used. Based on other works by Manet, the use of chrome yellow or chrome orange (forms of lead chromate), zinc yellow (zinc chromate) or a yellow barium chromate might be expected. The XRF scanning reveals that barium is present in a number of areas, mainly in yellow, brown and green colours, but also a small amount in the flesh paint and in the pale blue of the carpet, but barium sulphate, a common extender in tube paints, is more likely to be present than yellow barium chromate since it was identified in some of the samples. In some of the yellowish or green areas of the carpet, the palette, parts of the picture frame and flower painting and the back of the chair in its initial position (see below), zinc was detected, which again could be from zinc yellow but could also indicate zinc white. A sample securely identified zinc white in the yellow paint probably applied by Manet in the bottom corners (partially covered by the cerulean blue‐containing layer), combined with Naples yellow and some yellow earth pigment.15 The dress is painted using lead white, which appears to be the main white pigment used throughout the painting.

A variety of earth pigments, including umber, has been used, both for some of the yellowish colours and the range of brown paints, and additionally in mixtures to create other colours.16 These brown paints sometimes include some vermilion, as in the sitter’s hair, the easel, the paintbrushes and the wooden base of the footstool. The flesh tones have been created from mixtures of lead white and vermilion, with vermilion and earth pigments employed to pick out the features. Vermilion has also been used in some of the pinkish tones in the footstool upholstery, carpet and the flowers in the vase and the pink parts of the pattern on the carpet, but the principal pigment in these areas is a somewhat faded red lake pigment containing tin, usually an indication of a particular type of cochineal lake or carmine.17

Conservation and Condition

The painting is generally in very good condition. There is an old tear in the area of the picture on the easel (visible in the X‐radiograph and XRF element maps). There is also a black splash mark in the area beneath the easel that is similarly thought to be early damage.18 The wrinkling and cracking in several areas relate to the artist’s technique, but all of them are stable. The painting was cleaned and restored by Norman Brommelle in 1955 with some minor work (surface cleaning, revarnishing and adjustment of retouchings) since then.

Already in Manet’s lifetime there were reports of apparent deterioration in the appearance of Olympia (1865; Musée d’Orsay, Paris, inv. RF 644), and Blanche recalls the ‘calming of the coloration’ that had occurred in four of Manet’s late works.19 In Eva Gonzalès it is clear that the red lake pigment in the footstool has faded (in a paint cross‐section the red paint layer is lighter in hue near the surface due to exposure to light) and other areas of the painting (for example, the flowers in the still‐life painting, Gonzalès’s flesh and the pink parts of the pattern on the carpet) may once have exhibited pinker tones. The scruffy, dark paint in the two lower corners – discussed below – must once have matched the adjacent original blue of the rug more closely, and the current appearance is most probably a result of the corner paint having subsequently darkened.

Process

Manet did not engage in the lengthy and complicated planning stages that were central to the academic approach to painting, a methodology which he came to view as formulaic, contrived and false. Rather, he sought to respond directly to what was in front of him. Manet equated spontaneity with sincerity, qualities that he prized highly and struggled constantly to achieve throughout his career. But this approach was high risk. Manet was frequently dissatisfied with his work and in the position of wishing to correct it.20 For example, according to Antonin Proust, Manet discarded ‘7 or 8’ canvases before he succeeded in capturing him ‘in one go’ for his 1880 portrait (Toledo Museum of Art, inv. 1925.108).21 If discarding the canvas was not an option, he was faced with the decision either to cover the offending area with more paint, or alternatively to rub or scrape the paint off, removing the mistake entirely. In his quest for spontaneity, especially for portraiture, he invariably chose the latter option, preferring to start afresh rather than end up with thick, overworked layers. Claude Monet, who spent time working with Manet in 1874, describes how Manet ‘made things very difficult for himself … He always wanted his painting to look as if done at the first attempt; but often, in the evening, he scraped down with his palette knife everything he had painted during the day.’22

The inevitable consequence of these regular scrapings is that Manet required his portrait subjects to consent to frequent and numerous sittings. Indeed, Manet described it as one of his greatest fears that his sitters might not oblige (and indeed, some wearied and gave up).23 Of those that persevered, the most extreme example is Emile Bellot, who is recorded as enduring a total of 80 sittings for Le Bon Bock (1873; Philadelphia Museum of Art, inv. 1963‐116‐9).24 In the case of Eva Gonzalès, Manet’s progress was documented in a series of letters written by Berthe Morisot to her sister, Edma Morisot.

On 13 August 1869 she wrote: Manet lectures me and holds up that eternal Mademoiselle Gonzalès as an example; she has poise, perseverance, she is able to carry an undertaking to a successful issue, whereas I am not capable of anything. In the meantime, he has begun her portrait over again for the twenty‐fifth time. She poses every day, and every night (in the evening) the head is washed out with soft soap. This will scarcely encourage anyone to pose for him!25

And on 10 September she wrote: We spent Thursday evening at Manet’s … all his admiration is concentrated on Mademoiselle Gonzalès, but her portrait does not progress; he says that he is at the fortieth sitting and that the head is again effaced. He is the first to laugh about it.26

Once the portrait was complete, Berthe Morisot wrote that it was the best thing Manet had ever painted but changed her mind upon seeing it at the Salon, calling it ‘washed out’ and concluding that ‘the head remains weak and is not pretty at all’.27

The portrait, and Manet’s difficulties, must have had some renown or even reputation beyond the Morisot/Manet circle. In a letter from landscape painter Antoine Guillemet to Emile Zola of 28 August 1869 he writes, ‘the full‐length portrait must be curious to see’.28

There are clear signs of scraping in the X‐radiograph (for example in the nose) (fig. 2), but evidence of an earlier version (or versions) of her face – which was rounder, with the curls on her forehead closer together – can also be seen and was not entirely scraped away. This suggests that at some point Manet must have resolved to work with what was there, even though it meant applying more paint on top. The paint in this area looks noticeably thick and overworked and Gonzalès’s face certainly does not look as if painted in one go. Finally, perhaps to counteract the heaviness of the paint layers and to create some sense of spontaneity, he seems to have applied a final, thin, sketchy layer over the whole of the face.

Fig. 2

Eva Gonzalès’s head in X‐radiograph. © The National Gallery, London

Although Manet clearly felt strongly about the need for the appearance of spontaneity in relation to faces (the part of his paintings he cared about most?), he seems to have been more relaxed about the issue in other areas of his compositions with numerous instances of revisions painted over existing forms. Olympia is a case in point: although the X‐radiograph shows much scraping around the head and feet, most of the considerable changes to the setting were painted on top of what was there before.29 The X‐radiograph of Eva Gonzalès (fig. 3) and the XRF element maps reveal a number of changes, including revisions to Gonzalès’s skirts and the introduction of a footstool. It is also clear that the easel was originally in a more oblique position (less tilted towards the viewer), and the position and angle of the chair have been altered too. The paint in these areas and around Gonzalès’s arms (the position of which Manet altered several times) consequently looks very thick and shows extensive drying cracks. Interestingly, however, the more one considers the final appearance of the easel, painting and chair, particularly their perspective and position in space, the less sense they make (something which contemporary viewers were quick to notice and make fun of). Manet seems not to have been overly concerned – in his backgrounds at least – with the faithful copying of nature or the creation of intelligible pictorial space, often apparently deliberately moving towards an increasingly illogical arrangement. The most glaring example is the deliberate undermining of intelligible spatial relationships in A Bar at the Folies‐Bergère (1882; The Courtauld, London, inv. P.1934.SC.234). Formal concerns centred around pattern and balance seem to have been far more important: Manet, like many of his contemporaries, appears to have been strongly influenced by Japanese prints.30 There is also evidence that Manet was always striving for simplification and clarity of design, suppressing fussy elements in his compositions.31 Presumably the sacrifice of the little pot of brushes – visible on the floor to the left of Gonzalès in the X‐radiograph, but later painted out – was made on these grounds (figs 4 and 5).

Fig. 3

X‐radiograph of the whole painting. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 4

Detail from the X‐radiograph showing a pot of brushes. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 5

Detail of NG3259 showing the area in fig. 4. © The National Gallery, London

The aspect of Manet’s execution most frequently commented upon in his own time was his lack of surface finish, his works regularly accused of looking sketchy and of having been too hastily dashed off. The truth, as those close to Manet knew, was quite the reverse: each of his paintings cost him an enormous amount of time and labour. In the case of Eva Gonzalès this labour was more apparent than Manet would have liked, with large swathes of the painting looking overworked rather than sketchy or hastily executed. Nonetheless, in contrast to highly finished academic paintings where barely a brush mark can be seen, Manet’s handling must have appeared comparatively broad and rough, especially in the dress and the carpet.

Manet’s rejection of the academic approach also included the avoidance of artificial studio lighting, insisting instead on natural lighting conditions. In practical terms this meant that his paintings were often significantly lighter in tone than those of his academic counterparts, with greatly reduced areas of shadow and very little evidence of half‐tones. For the public in 1870, unaccustomed to seeing paintings in this way, the portrait of Eva Gonzalès appeared ‘brutal and loud’.32

Framing

A print of the photograph of the painting by Anatole Godet from about 1872 was trimmed to a rectangle with rounded corners, presumably a representation of the original intended format.33 In another photograph taken at the 1884 Manet retrospective at the Ecole des Beaux‐Arts, Paris, the painting retains the same presentation although this is now achieved with inserts set into a rectangular frame to create the rounded corners (fig. 6). A further photograph of 1895, showing a room in the apartment of Eva Gonzalès’s widower Henri Guérard, with his wife Jeanne Guérard (Eva Gonzalès’s sister), appears to show the painting in the same frame, but with the inserts removed and the corners exposed and evidently painted up as they are now (fig. 7). This same frame surrounds the painting in the 1903 Vienna Secession and the 1905 Grafton Galleries exhibitions.34 It was swapped for the present, much more ornate one, presumably by Sir Hugh Lane, on the occasion of its purchase in 1906. The latter is the frame in which the painting appears in William Orpen’s Homage to Manet (fig. 8) (see below for discussion of the Orpen work).

Fig. 6

Anatole Godet, Photograph from the retrospective, Exposition des oeuvres d’Edouard Manet, Ecole nationale des Beaux‐Arts, Paris, 1884. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale. © Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris

Fig. 7

Photograph taken in Henri Guérard’s home, 1895, showing the portrait of Eva Gonzalès. Private collection, published by Sainsaulieu and De Mons 1990. © Image courtesy of the owner

Fig. 8

William Orpen, Homage to Manet, 1909. Oil on canvas, 162.9 × 130 cm. Manchester City Art Gallery, 1910.9. © Manchester Art Gallery / Bridgeman Images

From close examination of the painting it is possible to observe sweeping lines of paint beneath the surface roughly following the contours of the rounded corners (less prominent at top right), presumably Manet’s way of demarcating the limits of the composition and suggesting that this format was his original intention. The areas outside of the lines are brought to a much lower degree of finish than the main body of the painting, especially at the upper right. At the bottom right the rolled‐up print extends onto the bottom right corner, Manet probably painting it in its entirety to make it easier to get the overall form right, even if part of it was subsequently going to be covered up (fig. 9). In both of the bottom corners a roughly applied yellowish layer is evident beneath the blue of the carpet and also the rolled‐up print, the latter observation indicating that this yellow paint at least was applied by Manet.35

Fig. 9

Detail of NG3259 showing the bottom right corner. © The National Gallery, London

While there is nothing that would definitively exclude the corners from having been completed by Manet (but then covered by the initial framing),36 an unpublished manuscript by the French art critic Arsène Alexandre (1859–1937) suggests a more likely explanation. According to Alexandre, Guérard – then Eva Gonzalès’s widower – had ‘the strange fancy of returning to a rectangle this painting which had originally been painted by Manet for, and in, an oval frame. With his customary dexterity, he completed the four corners. It was exactly the continuation of tones, but when you look at it closely, the handling is not adequate, and the correction was perfectly superfluous, to put it mildly’.37

Subject38

The sitter of this portrait is the young artist Eva Gonzalès (1847–1883), whom Manet took as his first and only formal pupil in early 1869.39 At this time he was at the centre of avant‐garde circles in Paris, and in his commitment to subjects taken from modern life a figurehead for the Impressionist generation. But he never exhibited with the Impressionists, preferring instead to show at the annual Salon, where such paintings as Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe (1863; Musée d’Orsay, Paris, inv. RF 1668) and Olympia created scandals at the Salon des Refusés of 1863 and the Salon of 1865 respectively. After rejections at the Salon of 1866, including The Fifer (1866; Musée d’Orsay, Paris, inv. RF 1992), in 1867 he held his own exhibition in the grounds of the Exposition Universelle. So, as a potential teacher for a young artist, he was a somewhat notorious, possibly even risky, figure.

Eva Gonzalès was the daughter of Emmanuel Gonzalès (1815–1887), writer and dramatist of Spanish heritage (a self‐pronounced descendant of a Monacan family ennobled by Charles V), and Marie Céline Raguet (1823–1880), musician and singer. She and her younger sister Jeanne (1852–1924), also an artist, were born into a cultivated, bourgeois milieu with prominent writers and artists of the day attending their parents’ soireés.40 As was usual in such families, her own initial education, including that in drawing and music, was supervised by her mother. Outside the home, opportunities for women to study art were restricted at this period. Excluded from studying at the Ecole des Beaux‐Arts until 1897, their options included making private arrangements, or studying at a handful of studios that accepted women, generally at twice the cost of their male counterparts.41 Encouraged by her godfather Philippe Jourde, director of the magazine Le Siècle, and writer Théodore de Banville, she entered one of the most famous, that of Charles Chaplin, where she studied from 3 January 1866 until at least late 1867.42 Chaplin was both a renowned portraitist of women and an established decorative artist whose work enshrined eighteenth‐century subject matter and style, particularly his portrayals of women in light pastel colours and delicate brushwork.43 One of his most famous decorative schemes was the Salon des Fleurs in the Tuileries (now destroyed), featuring allegorical figures representing flowers.44 He opened his women‐only studio in 1853–4, attracting pupils from all over Europe and America, including Mary Cassatt. He offered classes from the life at the early hour of 7 am, which Gonzalès undoubtedly attended.45 She is said to have subsequently studied with Brion, presumably Gustave Brion (1824–1877).46 Later still, in February 1869, Alfred Stevens introduced her to Manet, and he accepted her as his pupil.47 Chaplin and Manet are not the opposites they might appear at first sight: while differing in his approach to colour and handling, Manet was as consummate a portrayer of women as Chaplin, indeed in the medium of pastel he explicitly aimed to equal, even surpass, the latter in this regard.48 Like Chaplin, he also had a taste for the eighteenth century, the implications of which for this portrait will be discussed in further detail.49

Gonzalès’s lessons with Manet were interrupted by the Franco‐Prussian War and Commune (1870–1). Gonzalès and her family moved temporarily to Dieppe, while Manet joined the National Guard in Paris. If it is not clear when they resumed sessions on her return to Paris, what is evident is that throughout the 1870s Manet made regular Sunday visits to her studio in her parents’ house at 11 place Bréda to give her advice. But by their untimely deaths just a few weeks apart in spring 1883 their relationship had developed from that of a teacher and pupil into an artistic dialogue on a more equal footing.50 Gonzalès had become an established artist who regularly exhibited at the Salon, generally to great acclaim, but like Manet not always without a struggle. Her Theatre Box at the Italiens (fig. 10), the subject of which was considered too radical for a woman to tackle, was initially rejected from the Salon of 1874 before being accepted in 1879.51 Now considered her undoubted masterpiece, its innovative treatment (in particular her female figure leaning assertively across the balcony, a pair of men’s binoculars in her hand) consolidated Gonzalès’s position in avant‐garde circles.52 She was also a skilful practitioner of pastel, a technique she learnt from Chaplin, regularly showing pastels at the Salon, including her very first in 1870, and her choice of canvas over paper as a support possibly inspired Manet’s own practice.53

Fig. 10

Eva Gonzalès, A Theatre Box at the Italiens, about 1874. Oil on canvas, 97.7 × 130 cm. Paris, Musée d’Orsay, don de Jean Guérard, 1927, RF 2643. Photo © RMN‐Grand Palais (Musée d’Orsay) / Hervé Lewandowski

Unlike the relentlessly brooding Morisot, whose struggles with her feelings particularly in relation to Gonzalès are conveyed in the letters quoted above, Gonzalès has not left correspondence or diaries detailing either her experiences or reactions. Thus, any record of Manet’s teaching methods (which were surely informal and to a large extent improvised) has not been passed down, apart from a description by the critic Philippe Burty of a lesson by Manet in which he laid out a still life of grapes, salmon and a knife on a white cloth, an arrangement reminiscent of his own still lifes of the 1860s, and instructed her to capture it quickly. Burty writes: when you look at the whole thing, you don’t try and count the scales on the salmon. Of course not. You see them as little silver pearls against grey and pink – isn’t that right? Look at the pink of this salmon, with the bone appearing white in the centre and then greys like shades of mother of pearl! And the grapes, now do you count each grape? Of course not. What strikes you is their clear amber colour, and the bloom which models the form by softening it. What you have to decide with the cloth is where the highlights come and then the planes which are not in direct light. Half‐tones are for the Magasin pittoresque engravers.54 Such a still life Gonzalès may have painted at this time has not survived.55 But a work that she did paint during this period, Portrait de femme, Etude, 1869–70, is inscribed ‘Study corrected by my master M. Edouard Manet’, indicating a teacher unafraid to revise his pupil’s work.56

The portrait itself was started in the summer of 1869, and the dress decided upon in advance. In June or July of that year Manet wrote to Emmanuel Gonzalès: If Mlle Gonzalès and you are still of the same mind, I would be very happy to start the portrait on Sunday at whatever time suits you. It seems more convenient to do it at home at 49 rue de St Pétersbourg, where there is a small room that I can use as a studio. If you agree, I shall send someone on Sunday morning to pick up Mademoiselle Gonzalès’ dress.57 Of white cotton, it is actually a bodice and skirt (commonly combined to imitate a dress), the former composed of a white corsage that finishes low on the back, overlaid with a transparent muslin formed into a square, low‐cut neck, trimmed with a ruffle of pleated fabric, and short puffed sleeves. The skirt is bordered with a fashionable flounce, the fullness of the skirt brought round to the front. At her waist is tied a black, possibly velvet, sash with fringed ends. White muslin dresses, with contrasting belts and transparent sleeves, were very fashionable in the 1860s, and much exploited in Manet’s work.58 In La Lecture (1848–83; Musée d’Orsay, Paris, inv. RF 1944 17), for example, Manet’s wife Suzanne Leenhoff wears an informal day dress, with black sash, featuring a solid white bodice with transparent over‐blouse crossed over at the front, with long sleeves and ruffled edges. The dress here, extremely informal, and to some degree puzzling, is neither clearly a day nor evening dress.59 The short sleeves would have been appropriate for evening wear, rather than daywear, perhaps for a dinner or evening soirée, but not a ball or the theatre, for which a much more formal gown would have been worn, often off the shoulder and sleeveless.60 It certainly contrasts with the white day dress depicted in Alfred Stevens’s 1879 portrait of Gonzalès at the piano, which has the same fashionable flounce at the hem, but with a high neck and long sleeves (fig. 11).

Fig. 11

Alfred Stevens, Eva Gonzalès at the Piano, 1879. Oil on panel, 54.9 × 45.4 cm. Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota, SN438. © akg‐images

Her hairstyle is similarly fashionable, with some hair piled up on top of her head, some tresses left flowing, and a couple of curls framing her forehead. The same hairstyle features in a pastel by Manet of possibly 1874 (for which see below) and in Morisot’s The Sisters (1869; National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, inv. 1952.9.2): a ‘coiffure à l’imperatrice’, popularised by Empress Eugénie.61

Gonzalès sits on a faux bamboo chair with a rattan seat. On the floor is a floral‐patterned pale blue carpet. Resting against her chair is a portfolio on its side, its handles in cream paint. In the bottom right corner a rolled‐up print bearing Manet’s signature lies next to a white peony. In her left hand she holds her palette, three brushes and a mahlstick, only one end visible and likely to be double‐ended. At least two of the brushes are square in shape (brushes with metal ferrules developed in the nineteenth century). A fourth, round in appearance and dipped in blue paint, is held out to the canvas, seemingly touching up the blue of the vase of the floral still life. Yet this still life is already finished, and placed in an ornate Louis XVI baguette frame, which is tied, for safety, to the easel with a diaphanous blue scarf.

This still life has been identified by Marianne Koos as a copy of an engraving after one of the foremost flower painters of the Ancien Régime, Jean‐Baptiste Monnoyer (1636–1699), published in Charles Blanc’s seminal compendium of European art, Histoire des Peintres de toutes les écoles (Ecole française, vol. 1, 1862), a copy of which was owned by Manet (fig. 12).62 The engraving reproduced not a painting, but an etching. This etching, Roses, Jasmine, Poppies, Larkspur, formed part of one of Monnoyer’s series of prints, nine large etchings (each measuring about 49 × 37.5 cm) entitled ‘Livre de plusieurs vaze de fleurs faicts d’après le naturel’, also known as ‘Vase Opaques’.63

Fig. 12

Guillaume Régamey after Jean‐Baptiste Monnoyer, 1862, Roses, Jasmine, Poppies, Larkspur. Engraving on paper. Published in Charles Blanc, Histoire des Peintres de toutes les écoles, Ecole Française, Paris 1862, vol. 1. © The National Gallery, London

Manet made extensive use of the engravings in Blanc’s books, notably in the 1860s.64 But such plundering was only one element of his wider practice in copying from artists of the past. Copying was considered an essential part of an artist’s training and registering as a copyist at the Musée du Louvre, as Manet did on 29 January 1850, was standard practice for artists and students.65 Manet’s commitment was such that he incorporated figures from his copies into a number of his own paintings. In fact, his dedication to subjects taken from modern life was equalled by his engagement with the art of the past, particularly early in his career, whether evoked or openly quoted in his work.66 Both Olympia and Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe were inspired by Renaissance works, the former by Titian’s Venus of Urbino (1538; Gallerie degli Uffizi, Florence, inv. 1890 no. 1437), which he had copied in Florence, the latter by Le Concert Champêtre (first quarter of the sixteenth century; Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. 71; MR 251), previously given to Giorgione, now to Titian. In this the central group is a direct quotation from Marcantonio Raimondi’s engraving after Raphael, The Judgement of Paris (1510–20), almost certainly based on the engraving published in Blanc. Manet’s quotations also involved incorporating prints as actual objects, such as the Japanese woodblock print by Utagawa Kuniyoshi, Lifesized Dolls in the Inner Temple of Asakusa (1853), on the wall behind Morisot in Repose (about 1871; Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, inv. 59.027). In Emile Zola (1868; Musée d’Orsay, Paris, inv. RF 2205) a trio of overlapping prints, including an etching after Diego Velázquez’s The Feast of Bacchus (1628–9; Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. P001170), and a photograph of Olympia, hangs above the writer’s desk.67 These prints are either works of art in their own right or reproductions after works by other artists. Nowhere else does he present a complete copy from Blanc (itself an engraving after an etching rather than a painting) transformed into an oil painting, a physical object in a frame. This particular quotation is also unusual in not involving figures, as most of his others do.

It seems probable that what sits on the easel is an actual object, but what exactly remains to be resolved, and it is only possible to present hypotheses. Three possibilities could be suggested: a copy by Manet, a copy by Gonzalès, or instead of a copy, one of Monnoyer’s actual etchings, framed to imitate an oil painting.68 Manet’s intense period of copying dates from the first half of the 1860s, and this could possibly represent an early painted copy after the Monnoyer that was hanging around his studio. A second, and perhaps more plausible suggestion, considering that Manet concentrated on figures in his copies, would be that it was a copy by Gonzalès herself.69 She could have made such a copy from Blanc during her time in Chaplin’s studio. Chaplin’s decorative floral schemes were typically designed in the tradition of Monnoyer, whose designs were ubiquitous in eighteenth‐ and nineteenth‐century decorative arts, from wallpaper and porcelain to textiles. Several anonymous nineteenth‐century copies survive for the Monnoyer engraving used by Manet, and Chaplin himself is known to have painted still lifes in his manner.70 Or, if the still life was painted by Gonzalès, was it possibly produced at the request of Manet, perhaps even as an occupation during the sittings? Making copies of engravings was a standard component of art education at the time, and a task set for beginners, although this took the form of a detailed drawing emulating the lines of the engraving, a task that Manet was perhaps parodying. A final suggestion is that what we see on the easel is one of the coloured versions of the actual etchings (of similar dimensions) rather than the engraving in Blanc’s book, and while painting the portrait Manet was also copying the etching, transforming it into an oil painting.

We cannot know the style any possible copy was painted in, but here the still life on the easel is the sketchiest part of the whole portrait. The drooping flowers are blowsy, the curving stems decorative rather than sturdy. In contrast to Monnoyer’s own paintings, the colours are pastelly rather than strong and clear. The most robust element of the whole still life is the blue vase, the very element Gonzalès is touching with her blue brush. But there is surely a reason for this particular handling, and Manet had no interest in emulating Monnoyer’s painting style. Instead, he has transformed an engraving after a seventeenth‐century etching (with all its precision) into a decorative rococo emblem, appropriate for a portrait that evoked, even encapsulated, the eighteenth century, as was recognised by the critic Philippe Burty when it was exhibited at the entrance to Gonzalès’s posthumous exhibition in 1885: ‘Manet painted her in the act of painting, as was done in the eighteenth century, to define spirit through gesture, status through setting, and habits through accessories.’71

In his piece Burty mentions in particular images of women at the easel. The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries had been a period when opportunities for women in terms of access both to education and exhibiting had been unusually high, resulting in an explosion of female self portraits in which the artists presented themselves in the act of painting (with men also increasingly depicting women artists in such a manner).72 Such images were both declarations of their new status and demonstrations of their power as artists.73 In a vast number of cases, despite the reality of actual practice, women portrayed themselves wearing beautiful dresses, often white, not only highlighting the nobility of fine art as opposed to the manual arts (which were distinctly dirtier), but also reinforcing their own status as successful painters. Many chose a robe en gaulle, a fashionable loose‐fitting muslin dress, or a classicising tunic dress.

Manet’s portrait of Eva Gonzalès itself has been compared in particular to self portraits by Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun (fig. 13) and Adélaïde Labille‐Guiard (fig. 14).74 In the latter, full‐length and decidedly grand‐manner example, exhibited at the Salon of 1785, Labille‐Guiard sits, palette in hand, resplendent in a shimmering blue silk dress that bespeaks her success. The former painted herself at work on a portrait of Queen Marie‐Antoinette for Florence’s Corridoio Vasariano, the prestigious gallery of self portraits connecting the Uffizi to the Palazzo Pitti, wearing a sober gown with an elaborate white lace collar, a sumptuous red silk sash at her waist. It is to this portrait (which was engraved several times, a vignette of which opens her biography in Blanc, and would have been known to Manet) that Gonzalès’s pose is particularly close, with her outstretched arm, the manner in which she holds her palette, and the fall of light on its rim reminiscent of the earlier work. A fundamental difference with this self portrait and indeed many others, where the artist turns to engage with the spectator, is that Gonzalès appears to be looking, in a somewhat unfocused manner, at some spot or object out of view.

Fig. 13

Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun, Self Portrait, 1790. Oil on canvas, 100 × 81cm. Florence, Gallerie degli Uffizi, 1890.n.1905. © akg‐images / Nimatallah

Fig. 14

Adélaïde Labille‐Guiard, Self Portrait with Two Pupils, Marie Gabrielle Capet (1761–1818) and Marie Marguerite Carreaux de Rosemond (died 1788), 1785. Oil on canvas, 210.8 × 151.1 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Gift of Julia A. Berwind, 1953, 53.225.5. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

The Vigée Le Brun and Labille‐Guiard self portraits and other such works are elaborate fictions. Painted with the help of mirrors, the artist sets up the pretence of working on the particular painting included in the work, when they are actually painting their own image, plus the work in progress. While most paintings inevitably result in the fixing of any movement, in these self portraits the artists have to freeze their own actions as an artist, showing their painting arm as static, held out to the canvas, when in fact it would have been continually moving up and down to take paint from the palette and apply it. With its format reflecting those of such self portraits, Manet’s portrait of Gonzalès could be viewed as a fiction of a fiction. Gonzalès is both painting and not painting. Despite the engaging suggestion that she might be painting a copy after Blanc, we can never be sure what she was doing during her interminable sittings. She is really sitting too far back to be working on what is on the easel, and the still life is in any case already finished. Although she was probably holding her outstretched arm still, as noted above it caused Manet difficulties. His reworking can be compared to the very visible multiple positions of the artist’s arm in Morisot’s depiction of her niece and only pupil, Paule Gobillard Painting (1887; Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris, inv. 6,500), in which the sitter was almost certainly at work during the sittings. Regardless of, or perhaps because of, all the revisions, Manet’s portrayal is to some extent lifeless, Gonzalès’s outstretched arm lacking vigour. This can be contrasted with real self portraits: to some extent with the Vigée Le Brun, and even more with such a work as Marguerite Gérard’s Artist painting a Portrait of a Musician (before 1803; The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, inv. ГЭ‐1129), where her exposed arm (inspired by classical dress, bare arms were deemed appropriate for both day and evening at the time of Gérard’s painting) raised to the canvas is powerful and purposeful.75 But whether Gonzalès was painting or not, there was still plenty of paint around, including on her held‐out brush, so Manet probably worked on the dress separately, which was customary practice in portraiture, to save it from the danger of falling paint.

Such a convention of depicting an artist (or indeed yourself) at their easel continued to be exploited at this period; the now little‐known artist Frédéric Thorin also exhibited Jeune femme à son chevalet at the Salon of 1870.76 But the late nineteenth century witnessed a crucial development in such portrayals. Perhaps in an attempt to distance themselves from fashion plates in journals, where palettes and easels were included as accessories, many women artists started to portray themselves in smocks and aprons, highlighting their skill and expertise by means of appropriate professional dress.77 And men could follow suit: in contrast to Manet’s portrayal, Henri Fantin‐Latour, in his Study: Portrait of Sarah Budgett (1883; Musée des Beaux‐Arts de Tournai, inv. 208), depicted his sitter dressed in her protective apron, seated in front of her blank canvas (his choice for her subject of a vase of daffodils, if predictable, probably derives in part from his own practice as a prolific flower painter). Similarly, Gonzalès’s own portrayal of her sister, La jeune élève, portrays her in an apron, at work on a painting that we cannot see.78

Eva Gonzalès can also be compared to La Pittura, the Art of Painting personified by a woman, which first appeared in the sixteenth century, popularised by Cesare Ripa’s Iconologia.79 Any self portrait by a woman showing herself in the act of painting had the potential to be interpreted as such a personification, and Vigée Le Brun’s first self portrait of 1774 was titled La Peinture.80 But in depicting themselves as active practitioners such late eighteenth‐century women were also confronting this symbolism.81

In self portraits or paintings depicting artists, what they chose to portray on their easel was undoubtedly significant. In presenting herself painting the queen, Vigée Le Brun was highlighting both her skills and success as a portraitist.82 But aside from this possible copy, Gonzalès had painted no flower piece by this time, so by presenting a subject that had nothing to do with her own work, and was moreover finished, Manet broke with this convention. Apart from its appropriately eighteenth‐century flavour, what should be made of the choice of the floral still life for the picture on the easel? Restrictions in education for women, touched upon above, also influenced attitudes to their working professionally (which included making copies on commission), and even genres they were able to tackle. Grand subjects such as history and mythology were generally viewed as the preserve of men. At the other end of the scale there was a long tradition of flowers being considered as suitable subjects for women to engage in, with what critics called their modest gifts and delicate touch. In his 1860 article examining the role women should play in the arts, art historian Léon Lagrange wrote of their preferred genres (meaning those he felt appropriate), among which, ‘flowers, emanators of grace and freshness, with which only women can wrestle with freshness and grace’.83

So, could viewers only have seen the flower still life with respect to women’s painting at the time? In fact, when Manet’s portrait was exhibited at the Salon of 1870, while no one recognised that it was a copy after Monnoyer, one critic saw it in terms of Manet himself, writing that Gonzalès was ‘in the process of making a little Manet’.84 They would have been thinking of Manet’s still lifes of the 1860s, in particular A Vase of Peonies on a Small Pedestal (1864; Musée d’Orsay, Paris, inv. RF 1669), featuring a fallen peony of which the white peony thrown at the hem of her dress, a counterpoint to the flatly decorative still life, is an echo (fig. 15). This flower, which is even more strongly reminiscent of that in Branch of White Peonies and Secateurs (fig. 16), can be seen as Manet’s signature, a self‐reference, and certainly more of a ‘little Manet’ than the still life, which could perhaps be termed instead ‘a little Chaplin’, a nod to Gonzalès’s former teacher, who, it is to be remembered, made a speciality of flower still lifes painted in an eighteenth‐century manner.85 It is also important to note that in his portraits Manet often associated women with flowers, nowhere more so than in his portrait of Jeanne Demarsy, Spring (1881; J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv. 2014.62), who was described as ‘a living flower’ by Maurice Du Seigneur at the Salon of 1882.86 Yet again, Manet sets the real against the decorative or imitation. In this portrait Demarsy wears a flowered dress and a bonnet trimmed with artificial blooms, and she is set against and almost blends into a backdrop of dense foliage and flowers.

Fig. 15

Detail of NG3259 showing the white peony at the hem of the dress. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 16

Edouard Manet, Branch of White Peonies and Secateurs, 1864. Oil on canvas, 30.5 × 46.5 cm. Paris, Musée d’Orsay, legs du comte Isaac de Camondo, 1911, RF 1995. Photo © RMN‐Grand Palais (Musée d'Orsay) / Hervé Lewandowski

But apart from this one critic who seemed to imply that Gonzalès was making a copy of, or at the very least evoking, her teacher’s work, no one made any explicit comment on her ‘painting’ flowers, suggesting that it was considered perfectly natural for a woman to be painting such a subject. And such a disregard also ignored what she herself exhibited at this, her first Salon (in 1870), all figure pieces, for which she received unanimous (yet cautionary) praise, including The Bugler (1869–70), which was bought by the state at her father’s request.87 An exception perhaps was artist and critic Zacharie Astruc’s review of the women exhibitors at the Salon, containing in his evaluation of Gonzalès what was possibly an oblique reference to Manet’s choice of flowers. Writing generally, he acknowledged women’s restricted opportunities and how they were forced into the private studios, citing Chaplin’s in particular. As with Lagrange he singled out their ‘particular delicacies’ and ‘different aptitudes’ (ideal for flower painting), but in the case of Gonzalès herself, labelled her work as masculine, writing that if she carried on as she had started she would be called ‘Monsieur Eva’, that is, she was good because she naturally painted like a man, rather than as a woman trying to imitate a man.88

During this period Manet was himself sitting to Fantin‐Latour for his A Studio in the Batignolles (1870; Musée d’Orsay, Paris, inv. RF 729) also exhibited at the Salon of 1870. Seated next to Astruc, whose portrait he is painting, Manet is shown surrounded by an admiring cohort of progressive painters and writers, including Emile Zola, Pierre‐Auguste Renoir, Frédéric Bazille and Claude Monet.89 It has been suggested that Manet’s portrait of Gonzalès can be seen as the feminine counterpart to Fantin’s Studio.90 Perhaps Manet, mindful that neither Gonzalès nor Morisot were included in Fantin’s painting despite their association with the avant‐garde, devised his own homage to his talented pupil. In his monumental portrait he combined elements from the self portraiture and grand‐manner style of Vigée Le Brun and Labille‐Guillard. He presented his pupil as the artist she was, yet chose to portray her ‘painting’ a flower piece. In her beautiful dress, positioned with real flowers on one side and painted blooms on the other, Gonzalès could be said to occupy a space somewhere between a professional artist and a society beauty, a portrayal which has led to both feminist critiques of the portrait and a dilution of Gonzalès as a serious painter.91 But the representation is complex, and in depicting her seated in front of a finished and framed still life that had nothing to do with her own practice at the time, was Manet instead addressing his own practice of copying from the past? And was the decorous portrayal aiming to dilute the ambitions of a woman painter, which remained problematic at this period? Yet, even if mannered, or indeed artificial, the portrait remains a remarkable testament to an artist who was already forging her own path.

Manet’s portrait was fully finished on 12 March 1870, just before the final submission date of 20 March.92 It was one of two paintings exhibited by Manet in 1870, the other being Music Lesson (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, inv. 69.1123), both of which Morisot mentioned seeing in the studio (Manet’s?) the day before the Salon opened.93 Contrary to the reception of Gonzalès’s own works, it earned the ire of the critics, with Théodore Duret almost a lone voice with his evaluation of its natural pose and figure full of movement.94 As for others, she was compared to ‘a waxen doll propped on a living body’, bearing a ‘chalky physiognomy’ and with ‘a nose like a parrot’s beak’.95 Even Gonzalès herself was considered complicit in the outrage, with Armand Lapointe writing to her father on 2 June 1870: ‘What strange complacency, when one is young and beautiful, to allow one’s portrait to be painted by Manet! Oh, Miss Gonzalès is very guilty!’96

Manet subsequently presented the portrait to Gonzalès. It is not known whether the likeness pleased either her or her family, with the only reference to any reaction being a statement from art historian Claude Roger‐Marx, to the effect that the family did not appear to think highly enough of it to provide a frame.97 When the Belgian critic Camille Lemonnier visited Gonzalès’s studio in 1874, he observed that it was placed on an easel at the back.98

After her premature death from an embolism following childbirth in 1883, the painting was inherited by her husband, the engraver and friend of Manet, Henri Guérard, whom she had married in 1879.99 It was displayed prominently at the beginning of her posthumous exhibition at the Salons de la Vie Moderne in 1885, the critic Ernest Franquelin noting that it was placed on an easel rather than being hung, and that to the right was The Bugler, as a pendant (and photographs of the exhibition in the Bibliothèque nationale show The Bugler placed on a low easel similar to the one pictured in Eva Gonzalès in Manet’s Studio, fig. 17).100 Franquelin further mentions that flowers had been placed on the easel itself, and that they too were fading in the sadness at her loss. Her untimely death lent even more poignancy to renewed criticism of Manet’s likeness prompted by its exhibition, with Charles Bigot commenting on her pallid arms and face and her eyes without expression, and only Octave Mirbeau calling it ‘superb’.101

Fig. 17

Edouard Manet, Eva Gonzalès in Manet’s Studio, 1869/70. Oil on canvas, 56 × 46 cm. Private collection. © Historic Images / Alamy Stock Photo

Other Likenesses

At the same period Manet also painted a much smaller, much less formal image of Eva Gonzalès in his own studio (fig. 17).102 Seen from the back, she is dressed in a grey day dress tied with a black sash very similar to that depicted in the full‐length portrait. Perched on the table next to her is Manet’s wife’s son, Léon Leenhoff, dressed as a matador, and adopting a pose from Manet’s Toreadors (1862–3; Hill‐Stead Museum, Farmington).103 Directly to her right is Manet’s portrait of Lola de Valence (1862; Musée d’Orsay, Paris, inv. RF 1991), a star of a Spanish ballet troupe that visited Paris in 1862. While Gonzalès is holding a palette in her left hand, it is not certain whether she is working on one of her own paintings, or has paused to contemplate a work by Manet, again apparently complete, framed and placed on a wheeled easel. In his manuscript register of Manet’s works Leenhoff identifies the painting as her own, The Bugler.104 Its dimensions mirror those of the painting, and Manet has included a horn at lower left. It has also been suggested that she could be contemplating what may be an early version of The Balcony, with its ironwork hinted at the left.105 This picture is unlocated, and without seeing it in the flesh it is very hard to decipher what exactly is being depicted, particularly as, unlike the others shown, the painting in front of Gonzalès has a bloomy surface rather like the floral screen set just behind. It could be that there is a figure seen from the back, swathed in a cloak, black hair surmounted with a black hat. One extremely tentative suggestion is that it is not a real picture, but also a quotation from Toreadors, the bullfighter on the left who is saluting a statue of the Virgin before the fight, situated next to the seated figure on which Manet based Leenhoff. Gonzalès is thus posed between the two, enshrined, not in flowers, but in her Spanish heritage.

During the same period as painting the portrait Manet made an etching of Gonzalès in profile (fig. 18).106 A few years later, around the time Gonzalès was painting her Theatre Box at the Italiens (see fig. 10, above), he made a study for a painting, never realised, A Couple in a Theatre Box (pastel on canvas, 57 × 71cm), in which the head of the woman is traditionally identified as a portrait of Eva Gonzalès, seated alongside Léon Leenhoff.107 Related to this is a further pastel, Eva Gonzalès (fig. 19), which while generally dated to about 1879, is probably another study for the unrealised composition.108

Fig. 18

Edouard Manet, Eva Gonzalès, 1870. Etching on paper, 24 × 16.1 cm. Published in Marcel Guérin, L’Oeuvre gravé de Manet, Paris 1944, no. 57. London, The Courtauld (Samuel Courtauld Trust), G.1934.SC.190.27. © The Courtauld / Bridgeman Images

Fig. 19

Edouard Manet, Eva Gonzalès, possibly 1874. Pastel on brown paper, 42 × 34 cm. Private collection (Christie’s, Paris, 23 May 2007, lot 100), published by Rouart and Wildenstein 1975, vol. 2, no. 16. Photo © Christie’s Images / Bridgeman Images

Later still, Manet sketched her features (in profile) along with those of her husband Henri Guérard, in a letter of 27 September 1880 written from Bellevue, where he was taking the waters at the spa (fig. 20). On the verso he added a stem of morning glory, a flower used as a symbol of friendship.109 In this letter Manet asks about a self portrait that she has never sent: ‘I was hoping for a sketch both of you and by you, dear Madame Eva, and won’t let you forget it.’ This is not surprising. Throughout her career Gonzalès preferred to use her sister’s features and only a few portraits have been tentatively identified as self portraits.110 One of these, of about 1873–4, which features a ‘tube à dessin’ (tube for carrying drawings), has been cited as an example of where she mixed her own features with those of her sister, painting her eyes and chin in the oval of Jeanne’s face.111 It was included in her 1885 posthumous exhibition as Portrait de Mlle EG (no. 33), of which Octave de Parisis asked whether it was through an absurd modesty that she had spoiled her own admirable face.112 In the 1932 exhibition of her work at Galerie Marcel Bernheim her son Jean‐Raymond Guérard titled it Portrait de Jeanne Gonzalès.

Just as Eva Gonzalès used her sister Jeanne as a constant model throughout her life, Jeanne Gonzalès also drew and painted her elder sister, for example in a portrait of about 1870.113 In about 1880 she painted her in Dieppe.114 The profile in this painting is similar to that in a work, stamped Eva Gonzalès, which has also been tentatively cited as a self portrait of about 1875.115

Fig. 20

Edouard Manet, Letter from Manet to Eva Gonzalès, Bellevue, 27 September 1880 (recto). Watercolour and ink on paper, 20.3 × 12.7 cm. Paris, Anisabelle Berès‐Montanari collection. © Galerie Berès

In 1879 Alfred Stevens painted the aforementioned portrait of Gonzalès seated at the piano (see fig. 11, above). Norbert Goeneutte depicted her a number of times, of which two portraits of her in profile are known.116 See also Henri Guérard’s Tête de Femme, Eva Gonzalès, after Norbert Goeneutte.117 Finally, there are listed in Guérard’s inventory portraits of both Eva Gonzalès and her mother Madame Gonzalès by Eugène Quesnet (1815–1899), now untraced.118

Orpen, Homage to Manet

After borrowing the painting for exhibitions in Dublin and Belfast, the Irish collector, dealer and philanthropist Hugh Lane bought it from Durand‐Ruel for the Municipal Gallery of Modern Art in Dublin (now the Hugh Lane Gallery).119 Along with other paintings he stored it in his house in South Bolton Gardens, London. One of its rooms was being used as a studio by William Orpen, who incorporated it into his conversation piece, Homage to Manet (see fig. 8, above).120 A group of men sit or stand around a table, above which the portrait hangs prominently. At the left sits the Irish artist and writer George Moore, who had got to know Manet personally and been painted by him during his sojourn in Paris. Moore is reading aloud from his 1904 lecture, Reminiscences of the Impressionist Painters, published in 1906, to Wilson Steer, Henry Tonks, Dugald Sutherland MacColl, Walter Sickert and Lane himself. It is an acknowledgement both of the esteem with which Manet was held by progressive artists in Britain and Ireland, and of the importance of the portrait for Lane’s project. Moore had spoken at length about the portrait in his lecture, and in particular asserted that, given the choice between The Itinerant Musician (The Old Musician, 1862; National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, inv. 1963.10.162), also borrowed by Lane from Durand‐Ruel for the exhibition, and Eva Gonzalès, he would choose the latter: ‘I have been asked which of the two pictures hanging in this room it would be better to buy for the Gallery of Modern Art, “The Itinerant Musician” or the portrait of Mademoiselle Gonzalès … The portrait is an article of faith. It says: “Be not ashamed of anything, but to be ashamed”. Never did Manet paint more unashamedly. There are Manets that I like more, but the portrait of Mademoiselle Gonzalès is what Dublin needs.’121

Provenance

Given to Eva Gonzalès by Edouard Manet; after her death in 1883 the painting passed to her husband Henri Guérard; in Guérard’s Inventaire après décès of 5 April 1897, par Anne Charles Champetier de Ribes, notaire à Paris: the portrait is listed in the salon next to the atelier on the second floor, ‘Portrait of Eva Gonzalès’ by Manet;122 after his death in 1897 the painting passed to his widow, Jeanne Guérard‐Gonzalès (1852–1924), Gonzalès’s sister, whom Guérard had married after her death;123 with Gaston‐Alexandre Camentron (1862–1919), from whom bought by Paul Durand‐Ruel in 1899; acquired from Durand‐Ruel by Hugh Lane in 1906: according to Thomas Bodkin, Lane was short of money at this time and exchanged the pictures by Manet for others by Nicolas Lancret and Thomas Gainsborough; Sir Hugh Lane Bequest, 1917; at the Tate Gallery, 1919, from where transferred, 1950.

Exhibitions

Paris 1870 (1852); Paris 1884 (56); Paris 1885 (not numbered); Paris 1900a (no catalogue);124 Paris 1900b (443); Munich 1901 (1118a, ex‐catalogue); Berlin 1901 (not numbered);125 probably Berlin 1902 (no catalogue);126 Vienna 1903 (31); Weimar 1904 (9), lent by Durand‐Ruel;127 Dresden 1904, lent by Durand‐Ruel (marked with an asterisk as for sale); Dublin 1904, lent by Durand‐Ruel to the Royal Hibernian Academy (4);128 London 1905 (101); Paris 1905 (8); Belfast 1906 (69); on loan to the Municipal Gallery, Dublin, 1908–13 (122); London 1917 (not numbered); London 1954 (10); long‐term loan to the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, Dublin, 17 January 1961–26 January 1966 ; long‐term loan to the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, 19 January 1971–25 November 1975 ; London 1977 (not numbered); long‐term loan to the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, Dublin, 15 October 1979–12 July 1983 ; London 1983 (24); long‐term loan to the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, Dublin, 12 October 1983–16 September 1991 ; Dublin 1991 (4); long‐term loan to the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, Dublin, 13 November 1991–21 November 1999 ; Weimar 1999 (32); long‐term loan to the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, Dublin (Dublin City Gallery The Hugh Lane), 16 November 1999–1 November 2005 ; Paris and Baltimore 2000–1 (30; Musée d’Orsay only); long‐term loan to the National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, 9 June 2004–27 March 2006 ; Dublin 2008 (not numbered); long‐term loan to the Hugh Lane Gallery, Dublin, 31 December 2012–20 October 2019 ; Toledo and London 2012–13 (21); Paris, London and Philadelphia 2014–15 (26); Dublin and London 2022–3 (not numbered).

Literature

Anon. 1870a; Anon. 1870b; Baignières 1870; Bertrand 1870, p. 319; Bleu‐de‐ciel 1870; Castagnary 1870; Chaumelin 1870; Debitte 1870; De Pontmartin 1870; Duret 1870; Fournel 1870; Gachet 1870; Klein 1870; Lafenestre 1870; Laurent‐Pichat 1870; Merson 1870; Pichat 1870; Stani 1870; Térigny 1870; Wolff 1870, p. 2; Lemonnier 1874; Bazire 1884, pp. 63–4, 76–7, 82; Burty 1885; Bigot 1885; Escoffier 1885; Franquelin 1885; Gauchez 1885; Gautier 1885; Javel 1885; Mirbeau 1885; Von Ostini 1901; Boll 1901; Rosenhagen 1901, cited in Echte, Feilchenfeldt and Cordioli 2011, pp. 62–3; Vollmar 1901, cited in Echte, Feilchenfeldt and Cordioli 2011, pp. 65–6; Von Tschudi 1902; Duret 1902, no. 129; Servaes 1903, p. 2; Anon. 1905; Duret 1906, pp. 105–7; Moore 1906, pp. 18–20, 28, 30; Moreau‐Nélaton 1906, no. 127; Harrison 1908, p. 25, no. 122; Meier‐Graefe 1912, pl. 89; Proust 1913, pp. 56, 134, 155, 165; Philips 1917; Duret 1919, no. 56; Moreau‐Nélaton 1926, vol. 1, pp. 112–13; Flament 1928, pp. 280–3; Huyghe 1929; Tabarant 1931, pp. 14, 206–7, no. 157; Bayle 1932a, pp. 110, 112–13; Bayle 1932b; Bodkin 1932/1956, pl. XLI (1932 edn), pl. XLII (1956 edn); Colin 1932, pp. 36–7; Jamot, Wildenstein and Bataille 1932, vol. 1, p. 139, no. 174; Venturi 1939, vol. 2, p. 192; Jedlicka 1941, pp. 108, 110, 112, 213, 215–16, 234–5, 303–4, 307; Tabarant 1947, pp. 158–9, 163, 171–2, 177–8, 507–8; Bouret 1950; Roger‐Marx 1950; Rouart 1950, pp. 32–40; Hamilton 1954, pp. 140–7, 208, 264; Sandblad 1954, p. 65; Plesters 1956, p. 116; Yeats 1961, p. 242; Davies and Gould 1970, pp. 89–91; Bazin 1972, pp. 8, 45; Rouart and Wildenstein 1975, vol. 1, p. 142, no. 154; Baligand 1978, pp. 196–9 ; Wilson 1983, pp. 41–3; Adler 1986, p. 141; Rouart 1986, pp. 40–52; Darragon 1989, pp. 178–82; Sainsaulieu and De Mons 1990, p. 12; Wilson‐Bareau 1991, p. 52; House et al. 1994, pp. 228–30; Tinterow and Loyrette 1994, pp. 158–9; Brombert 1996, pp. 241–2; Körner 1996, pp. 138–40; Mauner and Loyrette 2000, p. 103, no. 30; Garb 2001; Wilson‐Bareau 2001; Armstrong 2002, pp. 184–93; Mena Marqués et al. 2003, p. 338; Wilson‐Bareau 2003, p. 250; Garb 2007, pp. 58–94; Lehmbeck 2007, pp. 89ff.; Rubin 2010, pp. 161–2, 166, 324; Koos 2015; Koos 2017, pp. 44–9; Beeny 2019, p. 103; Herring et al. 2022; Kramer 2023, pp. 188–96.

Notes

1 According to both the Paul Cassirer Archive, Zurich, and the Durand‐Ruel Archives, Paris, the Durand‐Ruel transport list for 5104 states that the painting came to Cassirer on 12 December 1901 and was returned on 4 June 1902. The authors are very grateful to Petra Cordioli, Paul Cassirer Archive, Zurich, and Flavie Durand‐Ruel, Durand‐Ruel Archives, Paris. The authors also thank Andreas Narzt for his assistance in this. See notes 125 and 126 below for further discussion. (Back to text.)

2 Michell and Kimbel was the transport agent for the paintings coming from Paris, from Durand‐Ruel, for the Vienna Secession. In December 1902 it provided the President of the Secession with an office at its premises at 31 Place du Marché‐St‐Honoré. The label could equally relate to the painting’s return to Paris after the exhibition’s closure. (Back to text.)

3 See also Tomlinson and Higgitt 2022, pp. 76–89. (Back to text.)

4 Confirmed by SEM‐EDX analysis of paint cross‐sections: see the 2023 National Gallery Scientific Department Report on Examination of Paint Samples, prepared by Marika Spring. (Back to text.)

5 Couture details some of the pigments – ivory black, bitumen, brun rouge (a brownish‐red iron oxide) and cobalt blue – and mixtures of these that can be used for the ‘sauce’: Couture 1867, pp. 32–3. (Back to text.)

7 The samples (taken in 2021) were examined with optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X‐ray analysis and Fourier transform infrared microscopy. Interpreting the XRF element distribution maps obtained in terms of exact pigments or pigment combinations is challenging and the technique provides only a partial picture as not all pigments can be identified using this method. It is therefore very likely that a wider range of pigments and extenders is present than is reported here. (Back to text.)

9 SEM‐EDX analysis of a paint cross‐section confirmed lead white, cobalt blue (cobalt stannate: cobalt, aluminium and a small amount of nickel associated with the cobalt ore detected), ivory black (calcium, phosphorus and a significant amount of magnesium detected) and a strongly coloured yellow earth (rich in iron with a small amount of silicon and aluminium). Extenders in the form of barium sulphate and calcium carbonate are also present. (Back to text.)

10 SEM‐EDX analysis of a sample from the sky‐blue of the carpet confirmed lead white and cobalt blue (cobalt stannate: cobalt, aluminium and a small amount of nickel associated with the cobalt ore detected). The XRF maps suggest that in some areas there may be some earth pigment and chromium‐containing pigments (possibly viridian and/or chrome yellow) in addition. (Back to text.)

11 SEM‐EDX analysis of a sample from the blue paint layer in the bottom right corner confirmed cerulean blue (cobalt, tin and magnesium detected) mixed with a little lead white, ultramarine and an orange‐red ochre. The XRF maps indicate cerulean blue is also used in parts of the blue scarf in the top left‐hand corner (which is otherwise painted using cobalt blue combined with other pigments). (Back to text.)

12 The analysis of both samples using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry gave broadly similar results indicating a heat‐bodied walnut oil binder. A trace of pine resin was also detected in both samples, but this probably represents varnish contamination. See the 2021 National Gallery Scientific Department Report on Analysis of Paint Medium, prepared by David Peggie. (Back to text.)

13 Many of the paints that appear very dark or black on the painting and in the infrared reflectograms are rich in calcium based on the XRF results; it was not possible to confirm the co‐presence of phosphorus, but nevertheless ivory black is most probably present, given its use has been confirmed in the background paint from analysis of samples. (Back to text.)

14 Spectra extracted from the XRF datacube from regions rich in copper suggest that there is some arsenic, probably indicating the use of emerald green or Scheele’s green. (Back to text.)

15 This specific combination of pigments – Naples yellow, iron earth and zinc white – recurs in several paintings by Manet suggesting they are components of a tube paint rather than a mixture made by him. The paint on the corners is probably original since it seems to run under parts of the scroll at the bottom right. A paint similar to the yellowish paint layer in the corners has perhaps been used in parts of the carpet such as in the area below the footstool. There is also some zinc‐containing retouching in certain locations. (Back to text.)

16 The use of earth pigments and umber can be postulated based on the iron and manganese XRF maps. Prussian blue may also have been used and contains some iron, but generally at levels too low to detect using XRF scanning. (Back to text.)

17 SEM‐EDX analysis of the sample confirmed a significant tin content with only a little aluminium, usually indicating a cochineal lake or carmine precipitated with tin (in the footstool upholstery it is mixed with a little vermilion and cobalt blue); the tin XRF map located this same pigment in the other pink areas (noting that the areas containing cerulean blue are also evident in this map). For other occurrences in Manet and other paintings of the period, see Kirby, Spring and Higgitt 2007, pp. 69–87. (Back to text.)

18 The treatment report by Norman S. Brommelle dated 4 February 1955 (National Gallery Conservation Dossier, p. 20) notes the damage from a tear in the area of the picture on the easel, stating that ‘it is claimed to have been overpainted by Manet because the paint resisted solvents and is stylistically satisfactory’, but the veracity of this statement cannot be established. The same report notes the black splash where ‘black paint had apparently been thrown at this area and had run down’, which it was claimed was overpainted in part by Manet, again on the basis of resistance to solvents, although other parts were soluble and therefore clearly retouched by a later restorer. (Back to text.)

19 Blanche 1919, pp. 140–1. On Olympia, see d’Armoux Bertall 1876. (Back to text.)

20 On this, see Coffin Hanson 1977, part 3, chapter 3; Stuckey 1983, pp. 163–4; Ormond and Patterson 2019, p. 149. (Back to text.)

21 Proust 1913, p. 100. (Back to text.)

22 Monet quoted in Mortier 1927, pp. 49–50. (Back to text.)

23 Proust 1913, pp. 90–1. (Back to text.)

24 Bazire 1884, p. 82. (Back to text.)

25 Rouart 1950, pp. 33–4; Rouart 1986, p. 44. (Back to text.)

26 Rouart 1950, p. 35; Rouart 1986, p. 45. (Back to text.)

27 Rouart 1950, p. 35; Rouart 1986, p. 52. (Back to text.)

28 See Baligand 1978, pp. 196–7, who identifies the painting referred to as the portrait of Eva Gonzalès. (Back to text.)

29 For a detailed description of the changes to Olympia, see Wilson‐Bareau 1986, pp. 44–5. (Back to text.)

30 For a discussion of the influence of Japanese art on Manet’s work, particularly his approach to perspective, see Coffin Hanson 1977, chapter 5, ‘Japanese Art’, pp. 185–92. (Back to text.)

31 Juliet Wilson‐Bareau discusses examples of this based on evidence from X‐radiographs of numerous paintings. See Wilson‐Bareau 1986, p. 25. (Back to text.)

32 Duret 1906, pp. 105–7. (Back to text.)

33 For the photograph taken by Anatole Godet, see the example in the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles (inv. 84.XM.360.31). (Back to text.)

34 For the photograph of the installation including the Manet, see Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Bildarchiv, Vienna (inv. PK 2539, 167). The authors are grateful for the help from Ava Kaartinen. A photograph of the 1905 exhibition, including the Manet portrait, was taken by Bedford Lemere & Co., see Musée d’Orsay, Paris. (Back to text.)

35 Sample analysis showed that the yellow paint is composed of Naples yellow, some yellow earth pigment and zinc white (see note 15, above). XRF scanning suggests some zinc is also present in the top right corner and a 2021 sample from this area seems to show vestiges of a yellow layer beneath the dark paint, although it is clearly not as extensive as in the bottom corners since it is not apparent in the sample from another area on the same corner described in Plesters 1956, pp. 110–55 (esp. p. 116) as consisting of a single dark blue‐grey paint layer directly on top of the white ground. (Back to text.)

36 The main blue pigments in the blue at the bottom corners are cerulean blue and ultramarine, while cobalt blue was used in the adjacent blue carpet on the main part of the painting. The paints are therefore considerably different in composition, but as Manet used all of these pigments during his career, identification of these pigments in the corners does not help address when, and by whom, the corners were added. The brown paint in the top corners is also different in composition to that of the adjacent areas in the main part of the painting, containing complex mixtures that incorporate black, earth pigment, a little Naples yellow and ultramarine, while in the greys and grey‐browns of the main part cobalt blue is present together with some barium sulphate extender that is absent in the corners. (Back to text.)

37 Arsène Alexandre, Quarante années de vie artistique, manuscript, n.d., p. 60 (Bibliothèque de l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art, collections Bibliothèque centrale des musées nationaux, BCMN Ms 0632, inv. LA73954). We are indebted to Sylvie Patry for alerting us to this reference to the framing of Eva Gonzalès in the Alexandre manuscript. (Back to text.)

38 The authors are indebted to Emma Capron, Acting Curator of Early Netherlandish and German Painting, and Leah Lehmbeck for their advice and comments on this entry. They are also indebted to Juliet Wilson‐Bareau for initial conversations in front of the painting, and her generous sharing of her Manet expertise. (Back to text.)

39 While a number of artists ran teaching studios, for example Alfred Stevens, whose studio catered almost exclusively for women, Manet did not, nor did he take any private pupils apart from Gonzalès. (Back to text.)

40 For Gonzalès see, for example, Maraszak 2016; Sainsaulieu and De Mons 1990; Carol Jane Grant, Eva Gonzalès(1849–1883): An Examination of the Artist’s Style and Subject Matter, PhD thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus 1994. (Back to text.)

41 This was the case, for example, at the Académie Julian in Paris, the most famous studio for women. See Weisberg and Becker 1999. For opportunities for women at this time, see Herring 2022, pp. 10–31. For their fight to be accepted by the Ecole des Beaux‐Arts, see Garb 1994; Sauer 1990. (Back to text.)

42 There exist studio receipts for payments to the atelier for 1866 up until April 1867. A letter from her father to Chaplin of 27 November 1867 explains that she is in Dieppe and not planning to return to the studio for some time. Fritz Lugt Collection, Paris, 2008‐I‐261. (Back to text.)

43 Emile Zola refers to Chaplin in his novel La Curée (1872) with reference to the dressing room of Madame Saccard, wife of the financial adventurer, described as pink and white like naked flesh. The ceiling is draped in pink silk, apart from a pale blue section where Chaplin himself painted a Cupid. Emile Zola, The Kill, trans. Brian Nelson, Oxford 2004, pp. 151–2. (Back to text.)

44 For Chaplin see, for example, Masson 1888; Vento 1888, pp. 109 ff.; Morant 1989. (Back to text.)

45 See, for example, The Chignon, 1865–70. Oil on canvas, 51 × 40.5 cm. Sainsaulieu and De Mons 1990, no. 14, Private collection. See British artist Louise Jopling, also a pupil, for the life class: Jopling‐Rowe 1925, p. 5. (Back to text.)

46 Tabarant 1947, p. 158. See also Bayle 1932b. (Back to text.)

47 Tabarant 1947, p. 158. (Back to text.)

48 Blanche 1919, p. 137; Blanche 1932, p. 254. (Back to text.)

49 The respect was mutual. In praising the work of student Louise Abbéma, Chaplin compared it to Manet, ‘That is, something of beauty’. See Cordeil 2021, p. 100. On Manet and the eighteenth century, see Beeny 2019. (Back to text.)

50 For an exploration of this relationship, see Capron 2022, pp. 52–75. (Back to text.)

52 See Capron 2022, pp. 61–5. (Back to text.)

53 On pastel, see ibid. , p. 73; Beeny 2019, pp. 102–3 and Beeny in Allan, Beeny and Groom 2019, p. 284. (Back to text.)

54 Burty 1885, quoted in Roger‐Marx 1950, n.p., translated in Wilson‐Bareau 1991, p. 52. (Back to text.)

55 Two early examples dating from her time before Manet are: Still Life with Fruit and Flowers. Oil on canvas, 80 × 65 cm. Sotheby’s, London, 1 July 1981, lot 160, and Carnations in a Pot, about 1865. Watercolour on paper, 21.6 × 11.5 cm. Salon de Dessin 1996, Galerie H. et A. Berès, Paris. Neither work is in Sainsaulieu and De Mons 1990. (Back to text.)

56 Oil on canvas, 55 ×45.9 cm. Private collection. Sainsaulieu and De Mons 1990, no. 16. Manet also famously corrected Morisot’s The Mother and Sister of the Artist (1869–70; National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, inv. 1963.10.186), as described by Morisot in her letters, Rouart 1950, pp. 36–7; Rouart 1986, p. 48. (Back to text.)

58 See De Young 2012, p. 115. (Back to text.)

59 The authors are grateful to the following people for their expert advice: Catherine Join‐Diéterle (former Director, Palais Galliera, Paris), Laurent Cotta (Head of Graphic Arts Department, Palais Galliera, Paris) and Aileen Ribeiro (Professor Emerita, The Courtauld, London). (Back to text.)

60 Bare arms were also associated very much with working women at this period, as in Zola’s Le Ventre de Paris (1873) where Mme Lecœur is described, bare arms plunged into the butter she is making (Gallimard edn, Paris 1964, p. 330). Edgar Degas’s images of laundresses invariably depict them in short‐sleeved or sleeveless blouses. (Back to text.)

61 See Lehmbeck 2007, p. 134. (Back to text.)

63 See Robert‐Dumesnil 1838, p. 234, no. 15 (3). (Back to text.)

64 See Reff 1970. (Back to text.)

65 He registered a second time as an artist on 1 July 1859. See Reff 1964, p. 556. He also registered at the Cabinet des Estampes in Paris on 26 November 1858, although there are no records of what he copied, or of whether he went there in subsequent years. (Back to text.)

66 On Manet’s relationship with the art of the past, see Fried 1969; Reff 1969. (Back to text.)

68 Unfortunately, neither a copy by Manet nor one by Gonzalès is known to exist. A search through the boxes in Louvre Documentation (Department of Paintings) did not reveal any painted copies of this particular etching that could possibly be from their hands. (Back to text.)

69 Gonzalès had also registered as a copyist at the Louvre on 16 January 1866. (Back to text.)

70 For example, an unfinished anonymous French watercolour in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Vase of Flowers, nineteenth century; inv. 27.70.1) and a watercolour attributed to Jean‐François Bony recently on the art market (Hôtel des Ventes Anticthermal, Nancy, 19 March 2021, lot 115). See also Chaplin, Coupe de Fleurs. Gouache, 71.5 × 54 cm. Sale, Francis Briest, 14 November 1990, lot 66. (Back to text.)

74 Michel Florisoone calls the portrait a pastiche of Labille‐Guiard’s self portrait with two pupils (Florisoone 1947, p. XVII). Kathy Adler also compares it to Labille‐Guiard (Adler 1986, p. 141), Beth Brombert to Vigée Le Brun (Brombert 1996, pp. 241–2) and Emily Beeny to Vigée Le Brun (and Labille‐Guiard) (Beeny 2019, p. 103). Albert Flament writes that Vigée Le Brun herself would not have disapproved (Flament 1928, pp. 280–3). (Back to text.)

75 Blumenfeld 2019, no. 128P, as Le Modèle. (Back to text.)

76 Between 1860 and 1900 women exhibited more than 100 self portraits (three at the Salon of 1870). See Yeldham 1984, vol. 1, p. 239. In addition, at this period 30 portraits of named female artists were exhibited (p. 240). (Back to text.)

77 See Havemann 2008, p. 282; Bakker and Smit 2020, pp. 48–9, 122. Fashionable women shown painting had also been commonplace in such journals as Journal des Dames at the beginning of the nineteenth century. See Sofio 2018, p. 271. (Back to text.)

78 Sainsaulieu and De Mons 1990, no. 43: about 1871–2; Museo Soumaya, Mexico City, 504. (Back to text.)

79 See Garb 2007, pp. 96–9; Wilson‐Bareau 2001, p. 36. (Back to text.)

80 Baillio 1982, p. 20. (Back to text.)

81 Bonnet 2002, p. 142. (Back to text.)

82 In an autograph replica she replaced the queen with the features of her own daughter, Julie. (1791, 99 × 81 cm; National Trust Collections, Ickworth House, inv. NT 851782). (Back to text.)

83 Lagrange 1860, p. 39. (Back to text.)

84 Anon. 1870a, p. 6. (Back to text.)

85 See Herring and Capron 2022, p. 50; Rubin 2010, p. 162. (Back to text.)

86 Du Seigneur 1882, quoted and discussed in Alsdorf 2019, p. 137. See also Lehmbeck 2007, p. 68, which makes the point that there was no equivalent in Manet’s portrayals of women to his portraits of Zola and Astruc: intellectual pursuits were not offered to women. (Back to text.)

87 It is now in the Musée Gaston Rapin, Villeneuve‐sur‐Lot. The other two works were La Passante (about 1869–70) and a pastel, Portrait de mademoiselle J.‐G. (1869–70) (both Private collection). Sainsaulieu and De Mons 1990, nos 18, 19 and 20. Reforms to the 1870 Salon, including an expanded jury, had resulted in it being far larger than usual, with 1,200 more works than at the Salon of 1869, and featuring a far larger showing by women artists. Gonzalès listed herself as a pupil of Charles Chaplin, who was on the jury. See Roos 1996, pp. 130 ff. Jules Castagnary welcomed her promising debut yet warned her not to follow what were for him Manet’s flaws, an absence of half‐tones, a weakness in anatomy and a dark palette. Castagnary 1870. (Back to text.)

88 Astruc 1870, p. 2. See Flescher 1977; Flescher 2021, pp. 24–35. (Back to text.)

89 For the painting, see Alsdorf 2012, chapter 2; Dalon 2016, pp. 112–15. In a study for the painting in the Musée d’Orsay, Paris (inv. RF 3637), a figure seated at a table covered in a red cloth has been tentatively identified as a woman, perhaps one of the two. See Waller 2007, p. 254. (Back to text.)

90 Roos 1996, p. 139. (Back to text.)

91 See, for example, Tamar Garb who wrote that Manet presented Gonzalès as a ‘wealthy amateur and beautiful dabbler’ rather than a serious artist. Garb 1994, pp. 243–6; Garb 2007, pp. 59–99. (Back to text.)

92 Tabarant 1947, p. 172. (Back to text.)

93 Rouart 1950, p. 40; Rouart 1986, p. 52. (Back to text.)

94 Duret 1870, quoted in Bazire 1884, pp. 63–4. For the portrait’s critical reception, see Garb 2007, pp. 59–99; Hamilton 1954, pp. 140–9. (Back to text.)

96 Fritz Lugt Collection, Fondation Custodia, Paris, 1998‐A.232. (Back to text.)

97 ‘The Gonzalès family attached so little importance to this grand portrait (which measures 2 metres high by 1 metre 35) that they refused to provide the costs for a frame’. Roger‐Marx 1950, n.p. In any case, Manet would have provided a frame for its exhibition at the Salon. (Back to text.)

98 Lemonnier 1874. He also commented on the portrait’s lack of success in capturing her likeness. He further mentioned an ink drawing of ‘Le Bon Bock’ (Manet’s portrait of Emile Bellot, Le Bon Bock, 1873; Philadelphia Museum of Art, inv. 1963‐116‐9) hanging above the piano. A photograph of the Philadelphia painting, inscribed by Manet to Eva Gonzalès, was sold at Interencheres, 18 March 2022, lot 186. The authors are grateful to Jennifer Thompson, The Gloria and Jack Drosdick Curator of European Painting and Sculpture and Curator of the John G. Johnson Collection at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, for bringing this to their attention. (Back to text.)

99 Guérard made an etching of the Manet portrait, Bertin no. 702, 16 × 12 cm, impression photomécanique. A drawing by him after the painting is illustrated in Ferronays 1885, p. 60. (Back to text.)

100 Franquelin 1885, p. 2. Judith Gautier writes that it was displayed in the first room. Gautier 1885, p. 92. (Back to text.)

102 Rouart and Wildenstein 1975, vol. 1, no. 153. (Back to text.)

103 The pose is taken from a lithograph by Achille Devéria of a work by José Domingues Bécquet. See De Caso 1968. See also Locke 2001, p. 128. (Back to text.)

104 Léon Leenhoff, ‘Portrait d’Eva Gonzalès, peignant dans l’atelier de la rue Guyot 81. Mlle Eva Gonzalès peint son clairon et Leenhoff en costume d’espagnol …’, Manuscript Register, no. 65, Bibliothèque nationale, Cabinet des Estampes, Paris, YB3 4649 Rés. (Back to text.)

105 Wilson‐Bareau 2003, p. 490, no. 138. (Back to text.)

106 Guérin 1944, no. 57; Harris 1990, no. 68. A drawing for the etching was published by Bazire 1884, p. 77. Rouart and Wildenstein 1975, vol. 2, p. 144, no. 386. (Back to text.)

107 Private collection. Rouart and Wildenstein 1975, vol. 2, p. 8, no. 17. In the inventory of her widower Henri Guérard, this pastel was in the ‘petit salon’ on the second floor of his flat, described as ‘un tableau … (La Loge) (étude)’, suggesting that Manet had given the study to Gonzalès herself. For the inventory, see note 122, below. (Back to text.)

108 Private collection. Rouart and Wildenstein 1975, vol. 2, p. 8, no. 16. See Capron 2022, p. 61. Emma Capron acknowledges Juliet Wilson‐Bareau for her thoughts about the dating of the pastel head and for connecting it with A Couple in a Theatre Box. (Back to text.)

109 Capron 2022, p. 74. For the illustrated letters, see Cachin 1985; Armstrong 2019. (Back to text.)

110 See, for example, a portrait of about 1880, oil on panel, 24 × 17 cm. With Jean‐François Heim, Basel. Exhibited as a self portrait in Havemann 2008, p. 214. (Back to text.)

111 Oil on canvas, 56 × 46.5 cm (private collection). See Maraszak 2016, p. 76; Sainsaulieu and De Mons, no. 57. (Back to text.)

112 De Parisis 1885, p. 132, cited by Maraszak 2016, p. 76. (Back to text.)

113 Portrait of Eva, charcoal heightened with white chalk. Illustrated in Garb 2007, p. 77, as Peter Gottmer Collection, Amsterdam. (Back to text.)

114 Eva Gonzalès Dieppe, oil on canvas 46.1 × 38.1 cm, Christie’s, New York, 14 November 2017, lot 378. (Back to text.)

115 Oil on canvas, 21 × 13 cm. See Delafond 1993, no. 36. It was sold at Ader, Paris, 7 December 2010, as Femme en rose de profil. (Back to text.)

116 Portrait of Eva Gonzalès, oil on panel, 25 × 19.5 cm, Cornette de Saint Cyr, 2 June 1995, lot 6, and Portrait présumé d’Eva Gonzalès de profile, Sotheby’s, Paris, 19 June 2007, lot 239. (Back to text.)

117 Drypoint, 8 × 12.3 cm, Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Oeuvre d’Henri Guérard, vol. 15. See Bertin 1975, no. 564. (Back to text.)

118 See note 122 below for inventory. (Back to text.)

119 For a discussion of the importance of the painting to Hugh Lane’s collection, see Baker 2022. (Back to text.)

120 The painting underwent a number of changes. See particularly McConkey 2002, pp. 207ff; Arnold 1981, pp. 227 ff. (Back to text.)

121 Moore 1906, pp. 18–20. The portrait in its entirety also appears as an illustration in an open book in a work by the Dutch still‐life painter Marie van Regteren Altena (1868–1958),  A Still Life with Flowers and Illustrated Books. Oil on canvas, 65 × 75 cm, Christie’s, Amsterdam, 3 September 2002, lot 350. (Back to text.)

122 Inventaire après décès de M. Guérard, Minutes de Anne Charles Champetier de Ribes, Archives Nationales, Paris, MC/ET/XLI/1341. The authors are grateful to Marie‐Caroline Sainsaulieu for alerting them to the existence of this inventory. (Back to text.)

123 Handwritten testament d’Henri Guérard, dated 22 October 1894, Minutes de Anne Charles Champetier de Ribes, Archives Nationales, Paris, MC/ET/XLI/1341. (Back to text.)

124 See Dougan Cole 1900. No further references to this exhibition have been traced, nor a catalogue. In her review Blanche Dougan Cole describes a number of what were presumably early Monets, of which one is probably The Jetty at Le Havre, 1868, Wildenstein no. 109, which is noted as being with Durand‐Ruel in 1901, and in the 3rd Berlin Secession exhibition in 1901, no. 182. Sale, Christie’s, New York, 12 May 1993, lot 15. (Back to text.)

125 According to the Durand‐Ruel transport lists cited in note 1 above, the painting did not arrive in time for the start of this exhibition, which opened on 28 November. An anonymous review of 11 December in the Deutsche Reichsanzeiger (cited in Echte, Feilchenfeldt and Cordioli 2011, p. 56) notes the ‘splendid portrait of the Spanish painter Eva Gonzalès by Edouard Manet’. This might however, be referring to Manet’s pastel portrait of Gonzalès (fig. 19), which Durand‐Ruel had sent to Cassirer on 8 December 1901. The authors are very grateful to Flavie Durand‐Ruel and Paul Durand‐Ruel for sharing the information regarding the pastel from the Durand‐Ruel Archives, and also to Andreas Narzt for alerting them to the anonymous review. (Back to text.)

126 It is likely that the painting was included, at least briefly in this exhibition, before it returned to Durand‐Ruel on 4 June 1902 (see note 1, above). Wilhelm Bernatzik, President of the Vienna Secession, admired ‘the famous painting of Gonzalès’ during a visit to Berlin, assumed to be in May 1902. See ‘Visit and Arrangements with Cassirer’, no date, but assumed to be in May, Bernatzik no. 1127b, Vienna Secession Archive. There was no catalogue for the exhibition but it did include works by Manet, as evidenced by an advertisement placed in the catalogue for the 5th Exhibition of the Berlin Secession. For Bernatzik’s visit, see Kramer 2023, pp. 188–96. In a letter of 13 October 1902 from Paul Cassirer to Paul Durand‐Ruel he asks to reserve the painting for the Vienna Secession, and whether the painting is free at that period. In his reply of 22 October 1902 Durand‐Ruel agrees that it will be part of the shipping, unless by that time it had been sold. See Narzt 2007, pp. 214–32. See also Kramer 2001. In a letter dated 12 September Bernatzik suggests travelling to Berlin in October to make a final selection. Cassirer was given an advance list of those works desired but unfortunately this list has not been located. See also Huemer 2013, pp. 112–13. The authors are very grateful for the assistance of Andreas Narzt and Kolja Kramer in the matter of the Cassirer exhibitions and Bernatzik’s visit. (Back to text.)

127 See Joyeux‐Prunel 2004, pp. 146–8. Béatrice Joyeux‐Prunel discusses how Durand‐Ruel lowered his prices for his pictures, probably to encourage German collectors to buy Impressionist works. A list of the paintings lent by Durand‐Ruel is illustrated in Schuster and Pehle 1988, opposite p. 127. (Back to text.)

128 Collection of National Library of Ireland, Dublin. The receipt dated 24 October 1904 with a value of 100,000 francs from Durand‐Ruel was annotated with a note that the painting would be sent immediately after the closure of the exhibition. (Back to text.)

List of archive references cited

  • Paris, Archives Nationales, Minutes de Anne Charles Champetier de Ribes, MC/ET/XLI/1341: testament d’Henri Guérard, 22 October 1894
  • Paris, Archives Nationales, Minutes de Anne Charles Champetier de Ribes, MC/ET/XLI/1341: inventaire après décès de M. Guérard, 5 April 1897
  • Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art, Bibliothèque centrale des musées nationaux, BCMN Ms 0632, inv. LA73954: Arsène Alexandre, ‘Quarante années de vie artistique’
  • Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes, YB3 4649 Rés: Léon Leenhoff, Manuscript Register
  • Paris, Durand‐Ruel Archives: Durand‐Ruel transport list for Durand‐Ruel no. 5104
  • Paris, Fondation Custodia, Fritz Lugt Collection, 1998-A.232: Armand Lapointe, letter to Emmanuel Gonzalès, 2 June 1870
  • Paris, Fondation Custodia, Fritz Lugt Collection, 2008‐I‐261: Emmanuel Gonzalès, letter to Charles Chaplin, 27 November 1867
  • Vienna, Vienna Secession Archive, Bernatzik no. 1127b: ‘Visit and Arrangements with Cassirer’
  • Zurich, Paul Cassirer Archive: Durand‐Ruel transport list for Durand‐Ruel no. 5104

List of references cited

Adler 1986
AdlerKathyManetOxford 1986
Allan, Beeny and Groom 2019
AllanScottEmily A. Beeny and Gloria Groom, eds, Manet and Modern Beauty (exh. cat. Art Institute of Chicago; J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles), Los Angeles 2019
Alsdorf 2012
AlsdorfBridgetFellow Men: Fantin‐Latour and the Problem of the Group in Nineteenth‐Century French PaintingPrinceton 2012
Alsdorf 2019
AlsdorfBridget, ‘Manet’s Fleurs du mal’, in Manet and Modern Beauty, eds Scott AllanEmily A. Beeny and Gloria GroomLos Angeles 2019, 129–45
Amato et al. 2018
AmatoSilvia RitaAviva BurnstockMaureen CrossKoen JanssensFrancesca RosiLaura CartechiniRaffaella FontanaAlice Dal FovoMarco PaolantoniChiara GraziaAldo RomaniAnne MichelinChristine AndraudAurélie Tournié and Joris Dik, ‘Interpreting Technical Evidence from Spectral Imaging of Paintings by Edouard Manet in the Courtauld Gallery’, X‐Ray Spectrometry, 2018, 484282–92
Anon. 1870a
Anon., ‘Le Salon de 1870. Notes d’un frotteur’, Le courrier des deux mondes, 8 May 1870, 6
Anon. 1870b
Anon., ‘Salon de 1870’, Paris‐caprice, 21 May 1870, 128747
Anon. 1905
Anon., ‘French Art at the Grafton Galleries’, The Times, 17 January 1905
Armstrong 2002
ArmstrongCarolManet ManetteNew Haven and London 2002
Armstrong 2019
ArmstrongCarol, ‘Manet’s Little Nothings’, in Manet and Modern Beauty, eds Scott AllanEmily A. Beeny and Gloria Groom (exh. cat. Art Institute of Chicago; J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles), Los Angeles 2019, 113–27
Arnold 1981
ArnoldBruceOrpen: Mirror to an AgeLondon 1981
Astruc 1870
AstrucZacherie, ‘Décaméron féminin’, L’Echo des beaux‐arts, 1870, 91–3
Baignières 1870
BaignièresArthur, ‘L’Exposition officielle de 1870’, Revue contemporaine, 1870, 75507
Baillio 1982
BaillioJoseph, ‘Quelques peintures reattribuées à Vigée Le Brun’, Gazette des Beaux‐Arts, 1982, 11913–26
Baker 2022
BakerHannah, ‘The Irish Afterlife of Eva Gonzalès’, in Discover Manet and Eva GonzalèsSarah HerringEmma CapronCatherine HiggittHayley Tomlinson and Hannah Baker (exh. cat. National Gallery, London), London 2022, 90-101
Bakker and Smit 2020
BakkerNienke and Lisa Smit, eds, In the Picture: Portraying the Artist (exh. cat. Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam), Bussum 2020
Baligand 1978
BaligandRenée, ed., ‘Lettres inédits d’Antoine Guillemet à Emile Zola (1866–1870)’, Les Cahiers naturalistes, 1978, 52173–205
Bayle 1932a
BaylePaule, ed., ‘Eva Gonzalès’, La Renaissance de l’Art français et des industries de luxe, June 1932, 110–115
Bayle 1932b
BaylePauleExposition retrospective Eva Gonzalès (1850–1883) (exh. cat. Galerie Marcel Bernheim, Paris), Paris 1932
Bazin 1972
BazinGermainEdouard ManetMilan 1972
Bazire 1884
BazireEdmondManetParis 1884
Beeny 2019
BeenyEmily A., ‘Manet and the Eighteenth Century’, in Manet and Modern Beauty, eds Scott AllanEmily A. Beeny and Gloria Groom (exh. cat. Art Institute of Chicago; J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles), Los Angeles 2019, 89–111
Bertin 1975
BertinClaudie, ‘Henri Guérard (1846–1897), l’oeuvre gravé’, Mémoire de l’Ecole du LouvreParis 1975
Bertrand 1870
BertrandKarl, ‘Salon de 1870: peinture, 1 June 1870’, L’Artiste, April–June 1870, 293–320
Bigot 1885
BigotCharles, ‘L’Exposition de Madame Eva Gonzalès’, Le XIXe siècle, 24 January 1885, n.p.
Blanche 1919
BlancheJacques‐EmilePropos de peintre. De David à DegasParis 1919
Blanche 1932
BlancheJacques‐Emile, ‘Les pastels de Manet’, Formes, 1932, 24254–5
Bleu‐de‐ciel 1870
Bleu‐de‐ciel, ‘Le Salon de 1870’, Le Vélocipède illustré, 22 May 1870, 1072
Blumenfeld 2019
BlumenfeldCaroleMarguérite Gérard: 1761–1837Montreuil 2019
Bodkin 1932/1956
BodkinThomasSir Hugh Lane and his PicturesLondon 1932 (Dublin 1956)
Boll 1901
BollKarl, ‘Die VIII Internationale Kunstausstellung im Glaspalast. VI Frankreich’, Allgemeine Zeitung, 14 September 1901, 2
Bomford et al. 1990
BomfordDavidJohn LeightonJo Kirby and Ashok RoyImpressionism: Art in the Making (exh. cat. National Gallery, London), London 1990
Bomford and Roy 1983
BomfordDavid and Ashok Roy, ‘Manet’s “The Waitress”: An Investigation into its Origin and Development’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 1983, 73–19
Bonnet 2002
BonnetMarie‐Josèphe, ‘Femmes peintres à leur travail: de l’autoportrait comme manifeste politique (XVIIIe–XIXe siècles)’, Revue d’Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine, July–September 2002, 493140–67
Bouret 1950
BouretJean, ‘Eva Gonzalès, muse inspirée de Manet’, Arts, 3 March 1950
Brombert 1996
BrombertBeth ArcherEdouard Manet: Rebel in a Frock CoatLondon 1996
Burty 1885
BurtyPhilippe, ‘Eva Gonzalès’, La République française, 8 January 1885, 3 (reprinted as the preface to the catalogue, Exposition Eva Gonzalès (Salons de la Vie Moderne), Paris 1885)
Cachin 1985
CachinFrançoiseManet, lettres à Isabelle, Méry et autres damesGeneva 1985
Capron 2022
CapronEmma, ‘Manet/Gonzalès’, in Discover Manet and Eva GonzalèsSarah HerringEmma CapronCatherine HiggittHayley Tomlinson and Hannah Baker (exh. cat. National Gallery, London), London 2022, 52–75
Castagnary 1870
CastagnaryJules, ‘Le Salon de 1870’, Le Siècle, 26 May 1870, 1
Chaumelin 1870
ChaumelinMarius, ‘Salon de 1870, II, Les Horreurs de Monsieur Manet’, La Presse, 21 May 1870, [3]
Coffin Hanson 1977
Coffin HansonAnneManet and the Modern TraditionNew Haven and London 1977
Colin 1932
ColinPaulEdouard ManetParis 1932
Cordeil 2021
CordeilTristan, ‘Louise Abbéma. Itinéraire d’une femme peintre et mondaine’ (Master’s thesis), https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-00952015, accessed 19 February 2021, Pau, Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, 2013
Couture 1867
CoutureThomasMéthode et entretiens d’atelierParis 1867
Dalon 2016
DalonLaure, ed., Fantin‐Latour, à fleur de peau (exh. cat. Musée du Luxembourg, Paris; Musée de Grenoble), Paris 2016
d’Armoux Bertall 1876
d’Armoux BertallCharles Albert, ‘L’Exposition de M. Manet’, Paris‐Journal, 30 April 1876
Darragon 1989
DarragonEricManetParis 1989
Davies and Gould 1970
DaviesMartinrevised by Cecil GouldNational Gallery Catalogues: French School Early 19th Century, Impressionists, Post‐Impressionists, etc.London 1970
De Caso 1968
De CasoJacques, ‘Une source d’hispanisme de Manet’, Bulletin de la Société d’Etudes pour la Connaissance d’Edouard Manet, 2 January 1968, 10–13
De Parisis 1885
De ParisisOctave, ‘Eva Gonzalès: exposition de ses tableaux dans les salons de la Vie Moderne’, L’Artiste, 1885, 1131–4
De Pontmartin 1870
De PontmartinArmand, ‘Le Salon de 1870’, L’Univers illustré, 7 May 1870, 298
De Young 2012
De YoungJustine, ‘Fashion and Intimate Portraits’, in Impressionism, Fashion and Modernity, ed. Gloria Groom (exh. cat. Musée d’Orsay, Paris; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Art Institute of Chicago), New Haven and London 2012, 107–23
Debitte 1870
Debitte, ‘Le Salon de 1870’, Le Sicambre, 29 May 1870, 122
Delafond 1993
DelafondMarianneLes Femmes Impressionistes. Mary Cassatt, Eva Gonzalès, Berthe Morisot (exh. cat. Musée Marmottan, Paris), Paris 1993
Dougan Cole 1900
Dougan ColeBlanche, ‘Foreign Notes’, The Collector and Art Critic, 1 February 1900, 27124
Du Seigneur 1882
Du SeigneurMaurice, ‘L’art et les artistes au Salon de 1882’, L’Artiste, July 1882, 13–52
Duret 1870
DuretThéodore, ‘Salon de 1870’, L’Electeur libre, 9 June 1870, 92
Duret 1902
DuretThéodoreHistoire de Edouard Manet et de son oeuvreParis 1902
Duret 1906
DuretThéodoreHistoire de Edouard Manet et de son oeuvreParis 1906
Duret 1919
DuretThéodoreHistoire de Edouard Manet et de son oeuvreParis 1919
Echte, Feilchenfeldt and Cordioli 2011
EchteBernhardWalter Feilchenfeldt and Petra CordioliMan steht da und stauntDie Ausstellungen Kunstsalon Paul CassirerBand II, 1901–1905Wädenswil 2011
Escoffier 1885
EscoffierHenri, ‘Lettres, sciences et arts’, Le Petit Journal, 17 January 1885, 2
Ferronays 1885
FerronaysPaul, ‘L’Exposition d’Eva Gonzalès’, La Vie Moderne, 24 January 1885, 60–3
Flament 1928
FlamentAlbertLa Vie de ManetParis 1928
Flescher 1977
FlescherSharon, ‘Women Artists at the Paris Salon of 1870. An Avant‐garde View’, Arts Magazine, 1977, 52399–101
Flescher 2021
FlescherSharon, ‘Concentric Circles. Astruc, Manet and la jeunesse’, in Manet and Astruc: Friendship and Inspiration, ed. Dorothee Hansen (exh cat. Kunsthalle, Bremen), Munich 2021, 24–35
Florisoone 1947
FlorisooneMichelManetMonaco 1947
Fournel 1870
FournelVictor, ‘Le Salon de 1870’, La Gazette de France, 8 June 1870, n.p.
Franquelin 1885
FranquelinErnest, ‘Mlle Eva Gonzalès. Les Salons de la Vie Moderne. Course à travers une Exposition’, Journal des artistes, 7 February 1885, 2
Fried 1969
FriedMichael, ‘Manet’s Sources’, Artforum, 8 September 1969, 28–82
Gachet 1870
GachetPaul‐Ferdinand (writing under the pseudonym of de Mezin, Blanche), ‘Promenades en long et en large au salon de 1870…’, Journal Le Vélocipède illustréParis 1870, 21–2
Garb 1994
GarbTamarSisters of the Brush: Women’s Artistic Culture in Late Nineteenth‐Century ParisNew Haven and London 1994
Garb 2001
GarbTamar, ‘Framing Femininity in Manet’s Portrait of Mlle E.G.’, in Self and History. A Tribute to Linda Nochlin, ed. Aruna D’SouzaLondon 2001, 76–89
Garb 2007
GarbTamarThe Painted Face: Portraits of Women in France, 1814–1914New Haven and London 2007
Gauchez 1885
GauchezLéon, ‘Madame Eva Gonzalès’, Courrier de l’art, 30 January 1885, 52–3
Gautier 1885
GautierJudith, ‘L’Exposition des Oeuvres de Mme Eva Gonzales’, La Femme dans la Famille et dans la Société, 1885, 19
Grant 1998
GrantCarol Jane, ‘Eva Gonzalès (1849–1883): An Examination of the Artist’s Style and Subject Matter’ (PhD thesis), Columbus, Ohio State University, 1994
Groom and Westerby 2017
GroomG. and G. Westerby, eds, Manet Paintings and Works on Paper at the Art Institute of Chicagohttp://www.artic.edu/digital-publications/4, accessed 23 November 2023, 2017
Guérin 1944
GuérinMarcelL’Oeuvre gravé de ManetParis 1944
Hamilton 1954
HamiltonGeorge HeardManet and his CriticsNew Haven and London 1954
Harris 1990
HarrisJean C.Edouard Manet, the Graphic Work: A Catalogue Raisonné, ed. Joel M. SmithSan Francisco 1990
Harrison 1908
HarrisonSarah CeciliaMunicipal Gallery of Modern Art. Illustrated Catalogue with Biographical and Critical NotesDublin 1908
Havemann 2008
HavemannAnna, ‘A Call to Arms: Women Artists’ Struggle for Professional Recognition in the Nineteenth‐Century Art World’, in Women Impressionists, eds Ingrid Pfeiffer and Max Hollein (exh. cat. Schirn Kunsthalle, Frankfurt; Fine Arts Museum, San Francisco), Frankfurt 2008, 280–7
Herring 2022
HerringSarah, ‘Women Artists in the Nineteenth Century: Practice and Representation’, in Discover Manet and Eva GonzalèsSarah HerringEmma CapronCatherine HiggittHayley Tomlinson and Hannah Baker (exh. cat. National Gallery, London), London 2022, 10–31
Herring and Capron 2022
HerringSarah and Emma Capron, ‘Eva Gonzalès: Manet, Gender and Portraiture’, in Discover Manet and Eva GonzalèsSarah HerringEmma CapronCatherine HiggittHayley Tomlinson and Hannah Baker (exh. cat. National Gallery, London), London 2022, 32–51
Herring et al. 2022
HerringSarahEmma CapronCatherine HiggittHayley Tomlinson and Hannah BakerDiscover Manet and Eva Gonzalès (exh. cat. National Gallery, London), London 2022
Higonnet 2012
HigonnetAnne, ‘Manet and the Multiple’, Grey Room, 2012, 48102–16
House et al. 1994
HouseJohnet al.Impressionism for England. Samuel Courtauld as Patron and Collector (exh. cat. Courtauld Institute Galleries, London), London 1994
Huemer 2013
HuemerChristian, ‘Paris‐Vienna: Modern Art Markets and the Transmission of Culture, 1873–1937’ (PhD thesis), https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/7734/1/Huemer_Paris_Vienna_2013.pdf, accessed 26 May 2022, City University New York, 2013
Huyghe 1929
HuygheRené, ‘L’Art français moderne et les Musées anglais’, Beaux‐Arts, 15 October 1929, 8
Jamot, Wildenstein and Bataille 1932
JamotPaul (‘Violette’, aka Alice de Laincel), ‘Wildenstein, Georges, avec la collaboration de Bataille, Marie‐Louise’, in Manet2 volsParis 1932, n.p.
Javel 1885
F.J. [Firmin Javel], ‘Éva Gonzalès’, L’Evénement, 13 January 1885, 2
Jedlicka 1941
JedlickaGotthardEdouard ManetZurich 1941
Jopling‐Rowe 1925
Jopling‐RoweLouiseTwenty Years of my Life, 1867–1887London 1925
Joyeux‐Prunel 2004
Joyeux‐PrunelBéatrice, ‘Paris‐Weimar‐Berlin: le “pivot merveilleux?”’, in Paris – Weimar. Weimar – Paris. Kunst‐ und Kulturtransfer um 1900. Transfers artistiques et culturels autour de 1900, ed. Alexandre KostkaTübingen 2004, 131–58
Kirby, Spring and Higgitt 2007
KirbyJoMarika Spring and Catherine Higgitt, ‘The Technology of Eighteenth‐ and Nineteenth‐Century Red Lake Pigments’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 2007, 2869–95
Klein 1870
KleinG., in Le Rideau, 14 May 1870, 2
Koos 2015
KoosMarianne, ‘Sur/face: Manet malt Mlle E.G.’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 2015, 75239–75
Koos 2017
KoosMarianne, ‘Manet and the Reception of Chardin in Nineteenth‐Century French Painting’, in Praised and Ridiculed. French Painting 1820–1880 (exh. cat. Kunsthaus, Zurich), Munich 2017, 44–55
Körner 1996
KörnerHansEdouard Manet. Dandy, Flaneur, MalerMunich 1996
Kramer 2001
KramerKolja, ‘Eine Dreiecksbeziehung für den französischen Impressionismus. Die Impressionisten-Ausstellung 1903 in der Wiener Secession / An Eternal Triangle for French Impressionism. The 1903 Impressionist Exhibition in the Viennese Secession’, Belvedere. Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, 2001, 248–65 & 101–12
Kramer 2023
KramerKoljaFrançois‐Rupert Carabin & die Wiener Secession – Die Rolle des Delegierten der Wiener Secession bei der Ankunft des französischen Impressionismus und der französischen Avantgarde in Wien um 1900Hamburg 2023
Lacas 2021
LacasMartine, ed., Peintres Femmes, 1780–1830. Naissance d’un Combat (exh. cat. Musée du Luxembourg, Paris), Paris 2021
Lafenestre 1870
LafenestreGeorges, ‘Salon de 1870’, Le Moniteur universel, 3 May 1870, 647
Lagrange 1860
LagrangeLéon, ‘Du rang des femmes dans les arts’, Gazette des Beaux‐Arts, 1860, 830–43
Laurent‐Pichat 1870
Laurent‐PichatLéon, ‘Salon de 1870. Premier article’, Le Réveil, 13 May 1870, [2]
Lehmbeck 2007
LehmbeckLeah, ‘Edouard Manet’s Portraits of Women’ (PhD thesis), Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 2007
Lemonnier 1874
LemonnierCamille C.L., ‘Une Intransigeante. “Mlle Eva Gonzalès”’, L’Art Universel, 18 June 1874, 141–2
Locke 2001
LockeNancyManet and the Family RomancePrinceton 2001
Maraszak 2016
MaraszakJulie, ‘Sociabliltés familales, intellectuelles et artistiques autour d’une femme artiste au XIXe siècle: Eva Gonzalès’ (PhD thesis), http://www.theses.fr/2016DIJOL026, accessed 3 November 2020, Université de Bourgogne‐Franche‐Comté, 2016
Masson 1888
MassonFrédéricCharles Chaplin et son oeuvreParis 1888
Mauner and Loyrette 2000
MaunerGeorge L. and Henri Loyrette, eds, Manet: les natures mortes (exh. cat. Musée d’Orsay, Paris; Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore), Paris and New York 2000
McConkey 2002
McConkeyKennethMemory and Desire: Painting in Britain and Ireland at the Turn of the Twentieth CenturyAldershot 2002
Meier‐Graefe 1912
Meier‐GraefeJuliusEdouard ManetMunich 1912
Mena Marqués et al. 2003
Mena MarquésManuela B.et al.Manet en el Prado (exh. cat. Museo nacional del Prado, Madrid), Madrid 2003
Merson 1870
MersonOlivier, in Le Monde Illustré, 21 May 1870, 331
Mirbeau 1885
MirbeauOctave, ‘Notes sur l’art – Eva Gonzalès’, La France, 17 January 1885, 2
Moore 1906
MooreGeorgeReminiscences of the Impressionist PaintersDublin 1906
Morant 1989
MorantValerie E., ‘Charles Joshue Chaplin, an Anglo‐French Artist, 1825–1891’, Gazette des Beaux‐Arts, 1989, 143–52
Moreau‐Nélaton 1906
Moreau‐NélatonÉtienneManuscrit de l’oeuvre d’Edouard Manet, peinture et pastelsParis, Département des Estampes, Bibliothèque Nationale, [1906], n.p.
Moreau‐Nélaton 1926
Moreau‐NélatonÉtienneManet raconté par lui‐même2 volsParis 1926
Mortier 1927
MortierEdouardduc de Trévise, ‘Le Pèlerinage de Giverny’, Revue de l’art ancien et moderne, 1927, 49–50
Narzt 2007
NarztAndreas, ‘Der Briefwechsel Paul Durand‐Ruel mit Wilhelm Bernatzik und Paul Cassirer’, in Wien‐Paris: Van Gogh, Cézanne und Österreichs Moderne 1880–1960, ed. Agnes Husslein‐Arco (exh. cat. Belvedere, Vienna), Vienna 2007, 214–32
Ormond and Patterson 2019
OrmondDeviCatherine Schmidt Pattersonwith Douglas MacLennan and Nathan Daly, ‘The Making of a Parisienne: Manet’s Methods and Materials’, in Manet and Modern Beauty, eds Scott AllanEmily A. Beeny and Gloria Groom (exh. cat. Art Institute of Chicago; J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles), Los Angeles 2019, 147–59
Philips 1917
PhilipsClaudeSir, ‘National Gallery: II – Sir Hugh Lane’s Pictures’, Daily Telegraph, 10 February 1917, 7
Pichat 1870
PichatOlivier, ‘Salon de 1870’, Le Gaulois, 21 May 1870, [3]
Plesters 1956
PlestersJoyce, ‘Cross‐sections and Chemical Analysis of Paint Samples’, Studies in Conservation, 1956, 23110–55
Proust 1913
ProustAntoninEdouard Manet. SouvenirsParis 1913
Reff 1964
ReffTheodore, ‘Copyists in the Louvre 1840–1870’, Art Bulletin, 1964, 46552–9
Reff 1969
ReffTheodore, ‘On Manet’s Sources’, Artforum, 1969, 840–8
Reff 1970
ReffTheodore, ‘Manet and Blanc’s Histoire des Peintres’, The Burlington Magazine, 1970, 112456–8
Robert‐Dumesnil 1838
Robert‐DumesnilAlexandre‐Pierre‐FrançoisLe Peintre‐Graveur‐français. Catalogue raisonné des estampes gravées par les peintres et les dessinateurs de l’école française11 vols (1835–71)Paris 1838, vol. 3part 1
Roger‐Marx 1950
Roger‐MarxClaudeEva GonzalèsParis 1950
Roos 1996
RoosJane MayoEarly Impressionism and the French State (1866–1874)Cambridge 1996
Rosenhagen 1901
RosenhagenHans, ‘Ausstellung bei Paul Cassirer’, Der Tag, 14 December 1901, 557[n.p.]
Rouart 1950
RouartDenis, ed., Correspondance de Berthe Morisot avec sa famille et ses amis: Manet, Puvis de Chavannes, Degas, Monet, Renoir et MallarméParis 1950
Rouart 1986
RouartDenis, ed., The Correspondence of Berthe Morisot with Her Family and Her Friends: Manet, Puvis de Chavannes, Degas, Monet, Renoir and Mallarmétrans. Betty W. HubbardLondon 1986
Rouart and Wildenstein 1975
RouartDenis and Daniel WildensteinEdouard Manet. Catalogue raisonné2 volsLausanne and Paris 1975
Rubin 2010
RubinJames HenryManet: Initial M, Hand and EyeParis and London 2010
Sainsaulieu and De Mons 1990
SainsaulieuMarie‐Caroline and Jacques de MonsEva Gonzalès 1849–1883. Étude critique et catalogue raisonnéParis 1990
Sandblad 1954
SandbladNils GöstaManet: Three Studies in Artistic ConceptionLund 1954
Sauer 1990
SauerMarinaL’Entrée des femmes à l’Ecole des Beaux‐Arts 1880–1923Paris 1990
Schuster and Pehle 1988
SchusterGerhard and Margot PehleHarry Graf Kessler. Tagebuch eines Weltmannes. Eine Ausstellung des Deutschen Literaturarchivs im Schiller‐Nationalmuseum, Marbach am Neckar (exh. cat. Schiller‐Nationalmuseum, Marbach am Neckar), Marbach am Neckar 1988
Servaes 1903
ServaesFranz, ‘Secession’, Neue Freie Presse, 22 January 1903, 1–3
Sofio 2018
SofioSéverine, ‘Portrait de l’Artiste à son Chevalet. La pratique de l’autoportrait par les artistes femmes at hommes dans le dernier tiers du XVIIIe siècle’, in Autoportraits, autofictions de femmes à l’époque moderne. Savoirs et fabrique d’identité, ed. Caroline TrototParis 2018, 256–74
Stani 1870
StaniA., ‘Salon de 1870. (Deuxième article)’, Le Pays: Journal de l’Empire, 7 May 1870, n.p.
Stuckey 1983
StuckeyCharles F., ‘Manet Revised: Whodunit?’, Art in America, November 1983, 71no. 1071 & 158–77 & 239–41
Tabarant 1931
TabarantAdolpheManet. Histoire catalographiqueParis 1931
Tabarant 1947
TabarantAdolpheManet et ses OeuvresParis 1947
Térigny 1870
Térigny, in Revue Internationale de l’art et de la curiosité, 15 May 1870, 427–8
Tinterow and Loyrette 1994
TinterowGary and Henri LoyretteOrigins of Impressionism (exh. cat. Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), New York 1994
Tomlinson and Higgitt 2022
TomlinsonHayley and Catherine Higgitt, ‘Painting Sincerely: Manet’s Technique and Materials’, in Discover Manet and Eva GonzalèsSarah HerringEmma CapronCatherine HiggittHayley Tomlinson and Hannah Baker (exh. cat. National Gallery, London), London 2022, 76–89
Vento 1888
VentoClaude (‘Violette’, aka Alice de Laincel), ‘Charles Chaplin’, in Les Peintres de la femmeParis 1888, 109–66
Venturi 1939
VenturiLionelLes Archives de l’Impressionisme2 volsParis 1939
Vollmar 1901
VollmarHans, ‘Die jetzige Ausstellung die Cassirer’, Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 17 December 1901, 295[n.p.]
Von Ostini 1901
Von OstiniFritz, ‘VIII Internationale Kunstausstellung im Glaspalast. Das Ausland, I’, Münchner neueste Nachrichten Wirtschaftsblatt, 12 September 1901, 4221
Von Tschudi 1902
Von TschudiHugoManetBerlin 1902, 34
Waller 2007
WallerSusan, ‘Realist Quandaries: Posing Professional and Proprietary Models in the 1860s’, Art Bulletin, 2007, 892239–65
Weisberg and Becker 19998
WeisbergGabriel P. and Jane R. Becker, eds, Overcoming All Obstacles: The Women of the Académie Julian (exh. cat. Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown; Dahesh Museum, New York; Dixon Gallery and Gardens, Memphis), New Brunswick 1999
Wilson 1983
WilsonMichaelManet at Work. An Exhibition to Mark the Centenary of the Death of Edouard Manet 1832–1883 (exh cat. National Gallery, London), London 1983
Wilson‐Bareau 1986
Wilson‐BareauJulietThe Hidden Face of Manet: An Investigation of the Artist’s Working Processes (exh. cat. Courtauld Institute Galleries, London), London 1986
Wilson‐Bareau 1991
Wilson‐BareauJuliet, ed., Manet by Himself: Correspondence and Conversation, Paintings, Pastels, Prints and DrawingsLondon 1991
Wilson‐Bareau 2001
Wilson‐BareauJuliet, ‘Edouard Manet y las Señoritas Artistas Berthe Morisot y Eva Gonzalès’, in Mujeres Impresionistas. La otra miradaXavier BrayJuliet Wilson‐Bareau and Bill Scott (exh. cat. Museo de Bellas Artes, Bilbao), Bilbao 2001, 31–9
Wilson‐Bareau 2003
Wilson‐BareauJuliet, ‘Manet and Spain’, in Manet/Velásquez. The French Taste for Spanish PaintingGary Tinterow and Geneviève Lacambre (exh. cat. Musée d’Orsay, Paris; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), English edn, New York and New Haven 2003, 203–57 (French edn, 171–215)
Wolff 1870
WolffAlbert, ‘Salon de 1870’, Le Figaro, 13 May 1870, 1–2
Yeats 1961
YeatsWilliam ButlerEssays and IntroductionsLondon 1961
Yeldham 1984
YeldhamCharlotteWomen Artists in Nineteenth‐Century France and England2 volsNew York and London 1984
Zola 1964
ZolaLe Ventre de ParisParis, Gallimard, 1964 (1873)
Zola 2004
ZolaEmileThe Killtrans. Brian NelsonOxford 2004, 151-2

List of exhibitions cited

Belfast 1906
Belfast, Municipal Gallery, First Exhibition of Modern Paintings in the Municipal Gallery, Belfast, April–May 1906, 1906
Berlin 1901
Berlin, Galerie Paul Cassirer, Kunstausstellung Paul Cassirer. II Winterausstellung: Collektivausstellung Louis Corinth, H.E. Linde‐Walther, U. Hübner, Emil Orlik. Werke von Ed. Manet, E. Vuillard, November–December 1901
Berlin 1902
Berlin, Galerie Paul Cassirer, Sommer‐Ausstellung, May–October 1902
Dresden 1904
Dresden, Ausstellungspalast, Retrospektive Abteilung, Grosse Kunstausstellung, May–October 1904
Dublin 1904
Dublin, Royal Hibernian Academy, Pictures Presented to the City of Dublin to Form the Nucleus of a Gallery of Modern Art, also Pictures Lent by the Executors of the Late Mr J. Staats Forbes and Others, Winter 1904
Dublin 1908–13
Dublin, Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, long‐term loan, 1908–13
Dublin 1961–6
Dublin, Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, long‐term loan, 17 January 1961–26 January 1966
Dublin 1971–5
Dublin, Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, long‐term loan, 19 January 1971–25 November 1975
Dublin 1979–83
Dublin, Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, long‐term loan, 15 October 1979–12 July 1983
Dublin 1983–91
Dublin, Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, long‐term loan, 12 October 1983–16 September 1991
Dublin 1991
Dublin, Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, Irish Art and Modernism: The European Connection, 19 September–10 November 1991
Dublin 1991–9
Dublin, Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, long‐term loan, 13 November 1991–21 November 1999
Dublin 1999–2005
Dublin, Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art (Dublin City Gallery The Hugh Lane), long‐term loan, 16 November 1999–1 November 2005
Dublin 2004–6
Dublin, National Gallery of Ireland, long‐term loan, 9 June 2004–27 March 2006
Dublin 2008
Dublin, Dublin City Gallery The Hugh Lane, Hugh Lane, 100 Years, 2008
Dublin 2012–19
Dublin, Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, long‐term loan, 31 December 2012–20 October 2019
Dublin and London 2022–3
Dublin, The Hugh Lane Gallery; London, The National Gallery, Eva Gonzalès is What Dublin Needs (Dublin); Discover Manet & Eva Gonzalès (London), 1 June–18 September 2022; 21 October 2022–15 January 2023
London, Grafton Galleries 1895
London, Grafton Galleries, Fair Children, 1895
London 1905
London, Grafton Galleries, 8 Grafton Street, A Selection from the Pictures by Boudin, Manet, Pissarro, Cézanne, Monet, Renoir, Degas, Morisot, Sisley, January–February 1905; exhibited by Messrs Durand-Ruel and Sons, of Paris
London 1917
London, National Gallery, Loan Exhibition of the Sir Hugh Lane Collection, 1917
London 1954
London, Tate Gallery, Paintings from the Louvre: Manet and his Circle, 24 April–7 June 1954
London, National Gallery, The Artist’s Eye: Sir Anthony Caro, 1–24 July 1977
London 1983
London, National Gallery, Manet at Work, 10 August–9 October 1983
Munich 1901
Munich, Königlichen Glaspalast, Internationale Kunstausstellung, June–October 1901
Paris 1870
Paris, Palais des Champs Elysées, Salon, 1870
Paris 1884
Paris, Ecole nationale des Beaux‐Arts, Exposition des oeuvres d’Edouard Manet, January 1884
Paris, Salons de La Vie Moderne 1885
Paris, Salons de La Vie Moderne, Eva Gonzalès retrospective, January 1885
Paris 1900a
Paris, Durand‐Ruel’s gallery in rue Laffitte, Paintings by Manet and Monet, January 1900
Paris 1900b
Paris, Grand Palais, Exposition Universelle, Exposition Centennale de l’Art Français, April–November 1900
Paris 1905
Paris, Grand Palais des Champs Elysées, Salon d’Automne, October–November 1905
Paris and Baltimore 2000–1
Paris, Musée d’Orsay; Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, Manet: The Still‐life Paintings, 9 October 2000–7 January 2001; 30 January–22 April 2001
Paris, London and Philadelphia 2014–15
Paris, Musée du Luxembourg; London, The National Gallery; Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Paul Durand‐Ruel: Le Pari de l’Impressionnisme, 9 October 2014–8 February 2015; 4 March–31 May 2015; 18 June–13 September 2015; London edition entitled Inventing Impressionism: Paul Durand‐Ruel and the Modern Art Market; Philadelphia edition entitled Discovering the Impressionists: Paul Durand‐Ruel and the New Painting
Toledo and London 2012–13
Toledo, Toledo Museum of Art; London, Royal Academy of Arts, Manet: Portraying Life, 7 October 2012–1 January 2013; 26 January–14 April 2013
Vienna 1903
Vienna, Vienna Secession, Kunstausstellung der Vereinigung Bildender Künstler Österreichs, Entwicklung des Impressionismus in Malerei u. Plastik, January–February 1903
Weimar 1904
Weimar, Grossherzogliches Museum für Kunst und Kunstgewerbe, Monet, Manet, Renoir und Cézanne, March 1904; exhibition organised by Harry Kessler
Weimar 1999
Weimar, Schloßmuseum, Aufstieg und Fall der Moderne, 9 May–1 August 1999

About this version

Version 1, generated from files NG_2024__16.xml dated 30/08/2024 and database__16.xml dated 20/09/2024 using stylesheet 16_teiToHtml_externalDb.xsl dated 30/07/2024. Document created from design‐ready Word document and prepared for digital publication.

Cite this entry

Permalink (this version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/01AA-000B-0000-0000
Permalink (latest version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/
Chicago style
Herring, Sarah, Hayley Tomlinson, Catherine Higgitt and Marika Spring. "NG3259, Eva Gonzalès". Version 1, September 20, 2024. https://data.ng.ac.uk/01AA-000B-0000-0000.
Harvard style
Herring, Sarah, Tomlinson, Hayley, Higgitt, Catherine and Spring, Marika (2024) NG3259, Eva Gonzalès. Version 1. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/01AA-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 11 November 2024).
MHRA style
Herring, Sarah, Hayley Tomlinson, Catherine Higgitt and Marika Spring, NG3259, Eva Gonzalès, version 1 (2024) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/01AA-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 11 November 2024]