--. “r“ 4

 

{I
:-
3
a

u
.5

 

 

 

8;}; _

a
I

65"

.. "I...

2'14'7/

..
4;.1'3‘! - $1.23..

_ .7 ‘
‘ ‘ A ‘ , 2 _ . ' :‘ A
.555. .- .N ' ' ' , a ' . , z - , r'" - +933 TENT" 7
35-5 x? . v n V ‘ ‘ i: I ' "’ ‘ r Aflgthg‘fi’fiéfi
V . a . r , 44‘}. '3?!“ 14:24"

 

 

m
2
Qow)’
5/27 at? to a

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE CHANGING IMAGES OF MADAME APOLLONIE SABATIER:

EMBLEMS OF SEXUALITE. EGALITE. FIDELITE, AND
FRATERNITE

presented by

Heather Marie Hoyle

has been accepted towards furfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in History of Art
Arts Department of Art and Art
History

 

 

fie it

] @ajonPficjessor’s Signature

FM 0‘ r 202‘!
U
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

- —4-.‘.‘A—

P

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

1 oliii‘zfuft ZUU/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIFlC/Datoouopss-sz

THE CHANGING IMAGES OF MADAME APOLLONIE SABATIER: EMBLEMS OF
SEXUALITE, EGALITE, F IDELITE, AND F RATERNITE

By

Heather Marie Hoyle

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Art and Art History

2004

ABSTRACT

THE CHANGING IMAGE’S or MADAME APOLLONIE SABATIER: EMBLEMS OF
SEXUALITE, BGALITE, FIDELITE, AND FRATERNITE

By

Heather Marie Hoyle

The nineteenth-century courtesan Madame Apollonie Sabatier was portrayed
numerous times in artworks by Auguste Blanchard, Vincent Vidal, J can-Baptiste
Clésinger, Antoine Barye, Charles Jalabert, Gustave Ricard, Ernest Meissonier, and
Gustave Courbet. Images of Sabatier changed over time according to her station in life.
During her career as an artist’s model, images of Sabatier are dedicated to her beauty and
sexuality. The intent behind her portrayals shifted after she became the mistress of Alfred
Mosselman. By this time, she was a famous courtesan whose images were icons of
sexuality and desirability. The depictions change yet again afier she became a salon
hostess. These portraits are not dedicated to the visually pleasing Apollonie Sabatier, but
to a venerated leader of the Parisian art world. The apex of this homage is Madame
Sabatier’s appearance in Courbet’s The Artist ’s Studio: A real allegory of a seven-year

phase in my artistic and moral life.

Copyright by
HEATHER MARIE HOYLE
2004

To my parents Jon and Jan Hoyle
and to my grandmother Eleanor Hoyle
who gave me the gifi of education and the love of learning,
and also to Larry Zimmerman

who listened to my “art historical rants.”

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Professor Phylis Floyd for her indispensable advice and support
over the course of my graduate experience and especially during thesis production. I
would also like to thank Professor Estelle Lingo, Professor Stuart Lingo and Professor
Anning J ing for their encouragement and guidance. 1 would like to express my sincere
thanks to all of the wonderfirl people in the Department of Art and Art History who made
my graduate experience challenging and rewarding, and also to the College of Arts and
Letters for awarding me the College of Arts and Letters Graduate Merit Fellowship. In
addition, I want to thank Valerie Hill, Meghan Musolff, Jennifer Roberts, and Nicole

Bahl for their friendship and “support group” dinners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ vii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1: , ’

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF AGLAE-JOSEPHINE SAVATIER ............................ 4
CHAPTER 2:

LA PARISIENNE MODEL: HOMAGE TO BEAUTY ....................................... 11
CHAPTER 3: HOMAGE TO SEXUAL PROWESS, CELEBRITY, AND
AFFILIATION: THE STROKING OF THE MASCULINE EGO ........................... 15
CHAPTER 4: ,

HOMAGE TO LA PRESIDENTE: COURTESAN EXTRAORDINAIRE ................ 23
CHAPTER 5:

COURBET’S HOMAGE TO A SALON HOSTESS AND ART SUPPORTER SANS
SEXUAL ASSOCIATIONS ...................................................................... 35
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 50
APPENDIX: FIGURES ........................................................................... 64
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 97

vi

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

LIST OF FIGURES

Madame Apollonie Sabatier
Self-Portrait, c. 1861, 1875
Private Collection

Vincent Vidal

Portrait of Madame Sabatier, c. 1842-43
Watercolor

Musée de Compiégne

J can-Marc Nattier

Marie Adelaide of France as Flora, 1742
Oil on canvas, 95.5 x 128.5 cm

Uffizi Gallery, Florence

Claude Vignon

Flora, c. 17303

Oil on canvas, 89.4 x 76.5 cm
Residenzgalerie, Salzburg

Titian

Flora, ca. 1515

Oil on canvas, 79.6 x 63.5 cm
Uffizi Gallery, Florence

Rosalba Carriera

Flora, c. 17303

Pastel on paper, 47 x 32.5 cm
Uffizi Gallery, Florence

Jean-Baptiste Clésinger

Réve d ’Amour, Salon of 1844
Plaster

Louvre, Paris

vii

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Jean-Baptiste Clésinger

La F emme pique'e par un serpent, Salon Of 1847
Also known as: La Volupté

Marble

Musée d’Orsay, Paris

Jean-Baptiste Clésinger

Bust of Madame Sabatier, Salon of 1847
Marble

Musée d’Orsay, Paris

Jean-Baptiste Clésinger
Bacchante couchée, 1847
Marble

Petit Palais, Paris

Eugene Delacroix

Louis d ’Orle'ans Showing His Mistress, 1825-26
Oil on canvas

Collection Thyssen—Bornemisza, Madrid, Spain

Antoine Barye

Portrait of Madame Sabatier
Pencil on paper

Private Collection

Charles Jalabert

Portrait of Madame Sabatier, c. 1847,48-1860
Also known as: Réverie

Pencil on paper

Private Collection

Sir Joshua Reynolds
Mrs. Bower, 1755-57
Untraced

Rosalba Carriera

Young Lady with a Parrot, c. 1730
Pastel, 59.8 x 50 cm

Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago

Gustave Courbet

Woman with a Parrot, 1866

Oil on canvas, 129.5 x 195.6 cm

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City

viii

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 24

Figure 25

Eugene Delacroix

Woman with a Parrot, 1827
Oil on canvas

Musée des Beaux-arts, Lyons

Edouard Manet

Woman with a Parrot, 1866

Oil on canvas, 185 x 132 cm

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City

Gustave Ricard

Portrait of Madame Sabatier, Salon of 1851
Also known as: Dame au petit chien

Oil on canvas

Private Collection

Rembrandt

Woman with 0 Lap Dog, c. 1662
Oil on canvas, 80.5 x 64 cm

Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto

Sir Joshua Reynolds
Caroline, Duchess of Marlborough, 1759-62
Trustees of the Bedford Estates at Woburn Abbey

Titian

Eleonora Gonzaga della Rovere
Canvas, 114 x 103 cm

Uflizi Gallery, Florence

Ernest Meissonier

Portrait of Madame Sabatier, c. 1853
Oil

Private Collection

Ernest Meissonier

Portrait of Madame Sabatier, c. 1853
Oil

Private Collection

Ernest Meissonier

Portrait of Madame Sabatier, c. 1853
Private Collection

ix

Figure 26

Figure 27

Figure 28

Figure 29

Figure 30

Figure 31

Figure 32

Figure 33

Ernest Meissonier

“In the Shade of 0 Grave Sings a Young Poet, " 1852
Panel, 18.4 x 21.7 cm

The Wallace Collection, London

Gustave Courbet

The Painter ’s Studio: A real allegory summing up seven years of my
artistic life, 1855

Oil on canvas, 3.59 x 5.98 m

Musée d’Orsay, Paris

Henri Valentin

Intérieur d ’un atelier d ’artiste au XIXe siécle, 1849
Engraving

Private Collection

Gustave Courbet

Portrait of Francois Sabatier, c. 1857
Drawing

Musée F abre, Montpellier

Alfred de Dreux
Portrait of Alfred Mosselman, 1848
Musée du Petit Palais, Paris

Alfred de Dreux
Portrait of Alfred Mosselman, 1837

Gustave Ricard
Portrait of Caroline Ungher-Sabatier, 1865
Musée F abre, Montpellier

Quillenbois
Caricature Of “T he Artist ’s Studio”
L ’Illustration, July 21, 1855

INTRODUCTION

While the majority of nineteenth-century courtesans bejeweled themselves in
diamonds, emeralds and rubies, Madame Apollonie Sabatier bedecked her drawing room
in painters, musicians, writers and poets. Each Sunday at her home in Bréda, she held a
salon attracting such famous and infamous figures as Théophile Gautier, Charles
Baudelaire, Ernest F eydeau, Gustave Flaubert, the Goncourt brothers, Hector Berlioz,
Eugene Delacroix, Maxirne Du Camp and Ernest Reyer to name a few. At these
intellectual gatherings, Gautier declared that she should be called “La Présidente,” an
esteemed moniker. In addition, she herself was also a Salon submitting artist, another
detail that would have certainly added to the mutual feelings of fraternity and empathy at
her salon.

Artists were fascinated by this beguiling courtesan. Auguste Blanchard, Vincent
Vidal, Jean-Baptiste Cle'singer, Antoine Barye, Charles Jalabert, Gustave Ricard, Ernest
Meissonier, and Gustave Courbet captured her visage via sculpture and painting. The
portrayal of courtesans in art is not unusual; however, the number of portraits is
noteworthy. Thus as an art historian, I have to inquire why Madame Sabatier was such a

popular subject. Is it a result of the male artist’s fascination with an attractive woman?

The answer to this query is yes and no. The early works of Sabatier are dedicated to her
beauty and sexuality. She served as an artist’s model posing so that artists could capture
her exquisite features. In these early images, Apollonie was indiscernible from the
thousands of other ambitious models desiring to elevate themselves. Like all models, she
was only a face and a body to be depicted. Her portrayals changed after she became the
mistress of Alfred Mosselrnan. By this time, she had become a famous courtesan whose
image became an icon of sexuality and desirability. Once she is established in her salon,
the depictions change yet again. The title La Pre'sidente demonstrates that her salon circle
heeded her with respect that went beyond social politeness. This elevation is clearly seen
in Sabatier’s later portraits. These portraits are not dedicated to the visually pleasing
Apollonie Sabatier, but to La Présidente: a woman with superior intelligence and a
venerated position in the Parisian artistic world.

The apex of this homage is Madame Sabatier’s appearance in Courbet’s The
Artist’s Studio: A real allegory of a seven-year phase in my artistic and moral life (1855).
The Artist ’s Studio is Courbet’s visual manifesto declaring his artistic, social and political
ideologies. For some time, Courbet scholars have debated the identity of the figures
represented in the painting; more specific to my thesis, the identity of the couple on the
right-hand side. Some scholars have identified the couple in front of Baudelaire as
Madame and Monsieur Francois Sabatier: art collectors, friends of Courbet, and
ideological counterparts. However, I will demonstrate that this is Madame Apollonie
Sabatier, and not Madame Francois Sabatier.l Although many art historians have
identified this woman as Apollonie Sabatier, they have not interpreted her presence in

relation to the ideologies depicted in the painting aside from her role as an art collector.

As a result of the La Présidente’s presence in Courbet’s The Artist ’s Studio, she
serves as an example of social change, which was Slowly beginning to germinate at this
time in France. However, this social change did not develop in mainstream society, but
on the periphery. The social circles, which La Présidente inhabited, challenged societal
norms. The writers, poets and artists were not always a part of conventional society; their
ideas were silenced and controlled through censorship. In La Présidente’s drawing room,
the ideas of the artistic world could bloom as a result of Sabatier’s cultivation. The
images of Sabatier record a progression from a young model seen as “just another pretty

face,” to famous courtesan, to esteemed leader of the artistic world.

CHAPTER 1

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF AGLAE-JOSEPHINE SAVATIER

Aglaé-Joséphine Savatier was born on April 7, 1822 in Mézieres, France. Her
mother was Lea-Marguerite Martin, a seamstress for the family of Victome Harmand
d’Abancourt. Mademoiselle Martin was seduced by the Victome and a pregnancy and
birth of a daughter resulted. This was unfortunate for the Victome as he was already
married and had elaborate political ambitions. The Victome convinced Andre Savatier, an
officer in the 47th Infantry Regiment, to recognize the child as his own. The child was
baptized soon after her birth as Aglaé-Joséphine. The Savatier family moved to Paris
when she was three years Old, a momentous move that would transform her. Aglaé-
Joséphine’s cultural alteration took place in her early teens; the principal of the
pensionnat noticed that she had an enchanting singing voice and admitted her into the
school for voice lessons at a reduced tuition.2

During her life, Aglaé-Joséphine Savatier changed her name to mark momentous
events in her life. She claimed throughout her life that her parents named her “Apollonie”

at the time of her birth, but the registrar refused this “pagan” name because it was not a

saint’s name. Once she was on her own, she discarded the cumbersome Aglaé-Joséphine
Savatier in lieu of Madame Apollonie Sabatier to sound more regal.3

Like so many artists, Alfred Mosselman, a Belgian ex-diplomat and industrialist,
also took notice of Apollonie. According to various accounts, Mosselman met Apollonie
in 1841 although the exact details of the meeting differ. Billy iterates that Mosselman
saw Apollonie singing at a concert and was enthralled by her beauty. He vowed at that
very moment that she would become his mistress.4 In his version, Le'on Séché believes
the pair met at the HOtel Pimodan. Mossehnan was looking out the window at his friend
Boissard’s apartment and caught the eye of Apollonie walking back from the pool with
friends. The gentlemen invited the ladies up and eventually in 1846 Mosselman and
Apollonie became lovers.5 Thus began Apollonie’s life as a courtesan.

Mosselman was very indulgent with his new mistress. Instead of giving her furs
and jewels, he lavished on her gifts of the artwork of Boucher, Rosalba Carriera, Karel du
J ardin, Barye, F alconet, Célestin Nanteuil to name a few. He installed her in an apartment
on rue Frochot in the Bréda quarter of Paris at the foot of Montmarte. This area of Paris
was known at this time as “New Athens”: home to artists, bohemians, the avant garde and
courtesans.

In 1846, Alfred Mosselman invited several of his artistic friends over to
Apollonie’s for Sunday dinner. It was such a success that the group decided to meet every
Sunday to dine and to discuss a wide variety of topics from the mundane to the most
theoretical. From that moment until Apollonie moved from rue Frochot such luminaries
as art critic and poet The’ophile Gautier, artists Charles Jalabert, Ernest Meissonier,

Gustave Ricard, Eugene Delacroix, musician Ernest Reyer, composer Hector Berlioz,

writer Maxime Du Camp and Gustave Flaubert and poet Charles Baudelaire often
attended the salon.6 During the salon, Apollonie would pass around a notebook, album
amicorum as Thierry Savatier deems it, to her fi'iends as a creative outlet. Gautier,

J alabert and Ricard would sketch and Reyer would write poems on its many pages.
According to Ziegler, a total of three notebooks were produced at the salon.7
Unfortunately much of their contents have been lost.

The attendees of Apollonie Sabatier’s salon perceived her differently from other
women. According to Andre Billy, men only admitted women into their salons who could
speak with authority; otherwise men preferred that they didn’t attend.8 Therefore it was
an honor that these men decided to hold their salon at Apollonie’s home. According to
the gentlemen that attended, Apollonie was able to generate lively conversation
concerning a wide variety of topics including those that involved extensive knowledge
and depth. Commentaries from Apollonie’s salon attendees provide interesting insight
into how they perceived her; the accolades are endless. Ernest Meissonier once wrote:
“Elle [Apollonie] avait le grand talent de grouper autour d’elle des hommes éminents et
de constituer un salon OI‘I l’On venait avec un plaisir extreme. Mature admirablement
organise’e, apte a tout. . .”9 The’ophile Gautier writes:

Elle se montre supérieure aux autres femmes parce qu’elle
est mieux faite que plupart d’entre elles, ensuite parce que,
contrairement aux habitudes des personnes de son sexe, elle
n’exige pas qu’on lui fasse 1a cour et permet aux hommes

de parler devant elle des chose les plus sérieuses et les plus
abstraites. '0

Maxime Du Camp wrote in the introduction to Emaux et came'es, a book of poetry by
Gautier, that Apollonie had an “intelligence rare,”'1 and while speaking of Apollonie’s

salon, Ernest Feydeau writes: “Nous y vivions en bons camarades, comme si nous avions

tous été du meme sexe.”12 There is a consensus that Apollonie Sabatier was intelligent
and considered by the salon attendees to be on equal ground with them. According to
Charles Bemheimer, men in the nineteenth century characterized intelligent females with
either masculine or androgynous characteristics.13 It’s Obvious in the quotation by

F eydeau that this is how they characterized Apollonie. Further proof of this is shown in
the title that was bestowed upon Apollonie; Gautier declared that she should be named
“La Présidente” of the salon.14 The rest of the gentlemen attending the salon followed
Gautier’s led and so renamed Apollonie. Her new title was proof of the men’s respect for
her. They are playing tribute to Apollonie’s aptitude and showing their admiration of her
exceptional qualities via the honorary title typically reserved for men.

La Présidente’s intelligence was not the only element that helped her transcend
the negative characteristics commonly associated with women in the nineteenth century.
Her station in life as a courtesan is the main factor that put her at the same level as her
male counterparts. Simone de Beauvoir wrote that a courtesan’s life is “a Situation almost
equivalent to that of a man. . .free in behavior and conversation.” She went on to say that
courtesans also have “the rarest intellectual liberty.”l5 In an anecdote to further this point,
the courtesan Esther Guirnond was asked her profession by passport Officials at a border.
She told the official that she was “a woman of independent means.” The official asked for
clarification and she replied that she was a courtesan.16 Susan Griffin in her book entitled
The Book of the Courtesans explains that in the world of sexual commerce there is a
hierarchy much like the class divisions in society. Courtesans are at the highest class in

the hierarchy and were more independent than their lower class sisters.l7

As a result of Madame Sabatier’s position as a courtesan, she was afforded
opportunities that were not always available to women of bourgeois society, one of which
was embarking on a career as an artist. Sabatier was taught by her artist friend Ernest
Meissonier. Meissonier once wrote: “Man should educate woman, and form her nature
from the very onset. Every creature changes and modifies according to the care bestowed
on it.” '8 Apollonie did change as a result of Meissonier’s artistic education. She
developed into an artist with a career that carried economic potential.

Mossehnan ended his relationship with Sabatier in the early 1860s. While this
event ended an era, it became the agent that forced her to focus on her career as an artist.
The life of a courtesan afforded Sabatier a great deal of independence; however after the
cessation of her relationship with Mosselman, she was truly free. Although she could not
afford the extravagances that she had become accustomed to, she had the priceless
Opportunity to forge her own path as an artist. Instead of supporting herself by modeling,
she endeavored to earn a living via painting and repairing miniatures.l9 This detail
provides an interesting glimpse into Sabatier’s psyche. She saw the male artists at her
salon earn a living through art, and probably reasoned that she could do it also; it seems
that she didn’t view herself differently from her male counterparts.

The freedom Sabatier drew fi'om her life as a courtesan becomes quite clear when
she is compared to other female artists of the nineteenth century. Rozsika Parker and
Griselda Pollock in their book 01d Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology write: “Such
occupation [artistic production] might be pursued in the strict seclusion of the home to
which custom and public sentiment consigned the fair student.”20 According to Parker

and Pollock, women artists from proper families did not have the freedom to practice

their art as men did due to cultural restrictions concerning the proper roles of women. An
excellent case study of cultural restrictions in respect to female artists can be seen in a
brief study of the Morisot sisters. As young unmarried women, the Morisots trained as
artists. In their training, the sisters showed great promise as painters and this worried their
teacher Guichard. He wrote their mother a letter describing his trepidation. “Your
daughters have such inclinations that my teaching will not give them merely the talent of
pleasing; they will become painters. Do you know what this means? In your
environment. .. this will be a revolution, if not a catastrophe.”21 The Morisot sisters came
from a haute-bourgeois family, in which young women were expected to marry and have
children and not embark on artistic careers. When Edme Morisot was married, she was
forced to quit painting, and her sister Berthe remained unmarried for some time due to
her commitment to her painting career. Both women expressed their distaste with these
cultural limitations. In a series of letters to one another, Edme described her longings to
paint and Berthe expresses her desires to be loved by a man.22 Neither sister felt entirely
happy or complete with the decisions forced upon them by societal norms. However as
we have seen with Sabatier, she did not suffer from these limitations. As a result of her
independence via her life as a courtesan she was outside such restrictions. She was not
expected to marry or raise a family as the Morisot Sisters were. She was free to pursue her
painting. Her compatriots and society in general did not view her as a mainstream
nineteenth-century woman; therefore she was not restricted as one would be.

La Présidente did become an accomplished miniature painter and successfully
entered her work into two Salons.23 In the Salon of 1861 , she exhibited four miniatures:

Portrait de Mlle Marie L, Portrait de Jeanne F, Portrait de A. F. and Portrait de l’auteur

(Figure 1).24 She also exhibited three miniatures at the Salon des Refuses in 1863 along
with such infamous artists as Pissarro, F antin-Latour, Manet, Whistler and
Bracquemond.25 The Salon des Refuses was also held in 1864, but Sabatier did not
exhibit because she was accepted into the official Salon. There she showcased two

1.26 Both Gautier and Maxirne Du Camp celebrated her work in these

miniatures in Oi
exhibitions. Sabatier pursued her artistic endeavors into her twilight years; she had a
studio at her home in Neuilly where she died.27 Her teacher Meissonier was successful in

his endeavor; he helped nurture Sabatier into an artist which eventually brought her

critical recognition.

10

CHAPTER 2

LA PARISIENNE MODEL: HOMAGE TO BEAUTY

Aglaé-Joséphine was one among thousands of young, ambitious women in Paris
desiring a better life. Whether this life consisted of riches, fame, glory, status, or cultural
enlightenment is certainly individualistic, but one attribute remained clear: some of these
women would do almost anything to achieve their goals. These unmarried women were
dubbed “les parisiennes.” In his article entitled “In republican Paris” Theodore Child
gives the definition for the parisienne type. He defines:

These women made a study of elegance and a profession of
beautiful appearance more complete and more intelligent,
perhaps, than any of the daughters of Eve who preceded
them on the face of the earth... The secret of this chic lies
partly in the particular genius of the parisienne, and partly
in unfailing application, and in the striving after absolute

elegance and fullness of pleasurable life in conditions of
material beauty.28

Parisiennes aspired to be clothed in the most stylish attire and to live in elegant
accommodations, and according to Child this type used her intelligence and cunning to

ascertain this lifestyle. Reading between the lines we know that these parisiennes often

11

used sexuality to obtain their ambitions and satisfy their tastes for luxury from wealthy
men.

Many men would take notice of Aglaé-Joséphine’s parisienne ambition and
beauty. As she matured, it was quickly noted by many how beautiful she was especially
by artists. Jean Ziegler claims that Aglaé-Joséphine was an artist’s model for such artists
as Vidal, Jules Dupré and Rousseau.” Moss counteracts Ziegler’s argument by stating
that Aglaé—Joséphine did model, but cautions she cannot be included among the lists of
professional models; she only occasionally posed.30

Aglaé-Joséphine began posing early in her teens. When She was only fifteen or
sixteen, Auguste Blanchard and Charles J alabert, two students from Delaroche’s atelier,
collaborated to paint her image wearing a Bressane dress (untraced).31 This painting
marks her emergence into the world of the arts. Billy provides his readers with a lucid
depiction of this painting.32 It depicts the young Aglaé-Joséphine dressed in a beautiful
black and red Bressane dress that she wore at a carnival ball. The parisienne and the dress
created a sensation at this particular event, which was only the beginning Of the
sensations that she would create throughout her life. It is clear by Billy’s description of
the image that this painting was dedicated solely to her aesthetic strengths.

Like Blanchard and Jalabert, Vincent Vidal also painted an image of Aglaé-
Josephine that celebrates her beauty in watercolor (Figure 2). 33 In a fanciful composition
painted in either 1842 or 1843, he depicts her in a dressing robe cinched at the waist. A
vine of roses is wound around her body like a floral serpent. Her hands are placed behind

her head while she gazes at the viewer in a dreamy expression.34

12

Without much information or visual evidence concerning the corpus of Vidal’s
artworks, it is difficult to conjecture the intent and meaning of this watercolor. Was it a
study meant for a larger composition or was it simply an image of a pretty young
woman? According to the scant biographical information on Vidal, he mainly worked in
pastel and pencil producing portraiture of young women.35 A review by the critic Albert
de la Fizeliére helps to shed some light on this enigmatic painter and his image of Aglaé-
Josephine. In his glowing review, Fizeliere states that Vidal in the nineteenth-century
holds the same title as Watteau did in the eighteenth century: painter of reality. Like
Watteau, Vidal takes nature as a model. Fizeliere also goes on to say that Vidal is a
modern painter who understands the parisienne type. The only women, in Fizeliere’s
opinion, that should be allowed on the ark if there is another great ilood.36

Most likely one of these “parisienne types” that Fizeliere would allow on the ark
is Aglaé-Joséphine. Vidal’s painting certainly pays tribute to Aglaé-Joséphine’s beauty
and womanhood; flowers are the very essence of femininity. It also suggests intimacy
with the viewer, the artist or both. Aglaé-Joséphine is wearing a low-cut dressing gown
with her arms raised above her upward-tilted head. Her eyes are directly looking at the
viewer with seductive glint. The attire and body position alludes to the idea of things only
seen in private by lovers. The flowers also allude to the sexuality of the subject. As noted
by Patricia Monaghan in the book The Book of Goddesses and Heroines, flowers are the
sexual organs of plant.37 They entice insects to sip their nectar and spread pollen to other
plants. Likewise the flowers in Vidal’s image of Aglaé-Joséphine are enticing to
gentlemen viewers; they accentuate the curvaceousness of the young woman depicted.

The flowers are also analogous to Aglaé-Joséphine, and parisiennes in general, they dress

13

and act in an appealing manner to attract men in order to gain just as a flowers attract
pollinators.

In traditional painting, flowers often symbolize Flora, the Roman goddess of
flowers and fertility.38 She is also associated with the “flowering of all nature.”39 In the
watercolor, Vidal drapes a floral swag around Aglaé-Jose'phine’s body. In this, he could
be alluding to the blossoming of her womanhood and thus sexuality; in a sense this does
mark her as “available” to a would-be lover. Several similarities exist between Vidal’s
image of Aglaé-Joséphine and other depictions of Flora especially those by Jean-Marc
Nattier (Figure 3), Claude Vignon (Figure 4), Titian (Figure 5) and Rosalba Carriera
(Figure 6). Like Vidal’s portrayal, the Floras by these artists look at if they have been
captured in an intimate moment. They are all wearing diaphanous or revealing gowns. In
addition, their femininity, sexuality and fertility are emphasized through their attire or
lack thereof, facial expressions and the presence of flowers. These Floras have flowered
into womanhood just as Aglaé-Joséphine does in Vidal’s portrayal.

Regardless of how in-depth an interpretation one chooses, Vidal’s image of
Aglaé-Joséphine highlights her physicality and attractiveness. In her pro-salon years, and
even after, men shouted praises of her beauty and charisma. Vidal’s painting does not
deviate from this norm. Vidal, Blanchard and Jalabert ask the young parisienne Aglaé-
Josephine to model not because they are celebrating her intelligence, but because she is

beautiful, sexually available, and alluring to a male audience in life and on canvas.

14

CHAPTER 3

HOMAGE TO SEXUAL PROWESS, CELEBRITY, AND AFFILIATION: THE

STROKING OF THE MASCULINE EGO

Early images of Apollonie Sabatier celebrate her as a beautiful parisienne model.
After she becomes involved with Alfred Mosselman, images of her undergo a shift.
While the images from this period still celebrate her beauty and sexuality, they are also a
tribute to the fact that her sexuality officially revolves around one man: Mosselman. As
we will soon see, he spends a great deal of capital in his patronage of Clésinger to
showcase this relationship. The images from this time also honor Apollonie Sabatier’s
new found celebrity status. NO longer is she just another model among thousands, she has
an identity easily recognizable. TO Parisians of the nineteenth century, Apollonie
Sabatier’s image becomes an icon of beauty, sexuality, affiliation with Mosselman, and
as we will see with Barye’s sketch of Sabatier’s associations with Mosselrnan’s circle.

During this period, Apollonie Sabatier enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle.
Mosselman furnished her with an apartment decorated with exquisite antiques and

artwork. However, the amenities Mosselman provided came with strings attached; he

15

wanted to declare to the world that “the” Apollonie Sabatier was his mistress. Mosselman
asked the sculptor Auguste Clésinger to cast Apollonie nude.40 Clésinger himself had
solicited Mosselman’s patronage by inviting him, among other established art collectors,
to his studio."1 Apparently Mosselman was quite pleased with what he saw.

Initially Apollonie was against having a cast made of her image, which could be
very grueling and somewhat uncomfortable. Apollonie told Edmond Richard, her last
lover, that she thought the casting process was “morally and physically degrading.”42 She
finally agreed to pose, and in the Salon of 1844 Clésinger exhibited Réve d ’Amour
(Figure 7). It received a second place medal. Despite its success at the Salon, Mosselman
was not satisfied with this sculpture; he wanted a marble statue of his lover lying down.
In addition, only the body of Réve d ’Amour was Apollonie’s, the head was not hers but a
product of the artist’s imagination.43

In the Salon of 1847, Clésinger exhibited another version of Apollonie in order to
fulfill Mosselman’s request. The sculpture was entitled F emme piquée par un serpent
(Figure 8).44 Clésinger depicts Apollonie attired in a loose toga lying on a bed of flora
and fauna. She is writhing in “pain” from the bite of a snake that is wound around her
wrist like a bracelet. It also received a second place medal. The snake and the title were
added at the last moment to ensure the Salon jury would see it as a classical piece.
However, the critics saw past his addition. The public and the critics were shocked at its
blatant display Of sexuality for the woman was not writhing in pain but pleasure. One
critic said the sculpture was “more sensual more pure.”45 Planehe retorted that

Clésinger’s work could not be commended because he only made a life cast. Clésinger’s

16

career was plagued with critical comments such as these concerning the blatant sexuality
of his artwork and accusations that he made casts instead of sculpture.46

Clésinger also submitted a bust (Figure 9) of Apollonie at the Salon of 1847. It
‘ was made to emulate Roman busts and depicted Apollonie draped in a toga bedecked
with roses and a medallion; the left breast is exposed.47 This sculpture functions in a
similar manner to F emme piquée par un serpent. The classical allusions are added in an
attempt to gloss over the sexual overtones Mosselman desired.

In retaliation to Planche’s smarting comment about his ethical work practices,
Clésinger began working on Bacchante couchée (Figure 10). A common practice in the
Second Empire was to look back at other art movements, one of these being the Rococo,
for inspiration. Bacchante depictions were popular during the Rococo era, thus was the '
impetus of Clésinger’s sculpture. Many critics failed to see the difference between this
submission and his last.48 Gautier wrote that F emme piquée and Bacchante couchée are
sister pieces in the fact that they are related but they are not the same thing.49 Despite
some critical disclaim, Clésinger received a first place medal as well as the Legion of
Honor as a result.50

Billy writes that Mosselrnan’s request for Apollonie to pose was that of a vain
lover desiring to showcase his mistress in an attempt to brag, rather than a genuine lover
who truly cherishes her.51 Billy’s thoughts are valid. TO showcase a lover nude four times
does not demonstrate that Mosselman wished to immortalize and esteem his lover, but to
Showcase her physical beauty. This is shown in Mosselman’s discontent with Réve
d ’Amour. How could he brag about his lover if the sculpture did not have her face? The

sculpture must be recognizable. Clésinger’s statues of Apollonie are analogous to

17

Delacroix’s Louis d ’Orléans Showing His Mistress (Figure l 1). In this painting, the
benefactor lifts a sheet covering his nude mistress so that his gentlemen could see her
nakedness. Like Louis d’Orléans, Mosselman is lifting the “sheet” so that his male
counterparts could see his appealing mistress. Not only is he highlighting his mistress,
but also his own virility. It is as if he is saying “look at the type of woman I can attract”
and in the case of Femme piquée “look at what pleasure I can elicit.” Marie Lather writes
in Bodies of Art: French Literary Realism and the Artist ’s Model that the nude female
model upheld the heterosexuality of the artist.52 In the case of Mosselman, Apollonie’s
nudity upheld his heterosexuality.

In addition to demonstrating his heterosexuality and dominance over his mistress,
he was also showcasing the fact that he had a famous woman as his lover. The identity of
the woman depicted by this sculptor was not a secret, even though her name was only
attached to the bust. By the time of exhibition, Madame Apollonie Sabatier’s identity as a
courtesan was well-known. Chopin gives evidence of this in a letter addressed to his
family. He writes:

La statue que Clésinger a exposée dernierement représente
une femme nue dans une attitude plus qu’indécente. . .Elle a
tout simplement été commandée par Mosselman. . .et

repre'sente sa maitresse. . .a lui et a bien l’autres, car c’est
une femme entretenue tres connue a Paris. . .53

In a tongue and cheek manner, Chopin expresses that Apollonie’s fame in widespread
and somewhat infamous. Undoubtedly Mosselman is trying to elevate his status by
highlighting he was the masculine protector of a famous woman.

This situation also is Mosselman’s attempt to exercise his control over his

mistress. Courtesans have a great deal of independence compared to their bourgeois

18

peers. Their benefactors gave them homes and financial security. They also gave them
the gift of time; their male lovers had work and families to also look after. As a result,
courtesans had a great deal of time to do as they wish. Perhaps Mossehnan sensed
Apollonie’s threatening independence and wanted to remind her that ultimately her
freedom was due him. In Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, Rozsika Parker and
Griselda Pollock write that the nude was subordinated by the male gaze.S4 Later, she
argues that the female nude verifies the male’s dominance over the female. Clésinger’s
nudes of Apollonie symbolize Mosselrnan’s so-called dominance or control over her; he
controls when she sees him, her finances and the quality of her lifestyle; ironically the
very things that also give her freedom.

Images of Sabatier by Blanchard, Jalabert and Vidal function in a similar mode to
those of Clésinger. Their depictions stress the beauty of her body and visage rather than
portray an individual with intellect and creative power. Clésinger’s portraits are purely a
veneration of her sexuality. Just as Vidal’s portrait suggests a certain sexual flowering or
availability, Clésinger’s artworks also fulfill this function. In an article cited by Billy, one
critic compares the female subjects of Pradier, also a sculptor, and Clésinger. The critic
writes: “. . .il sufit d’établir la nuance qui se'pare les nudités de M. Clésinger des nudités
de M. Pradier. Les femmes de M. Pradier sont simplement nues, celles de M. Clésinger
sont toujours déshabillées.”55 Another critic continues this criticism by stating that
Clésinger’s nudes undress “apres souper.”56 These critics are insinuating that Clésinger’s
nudes are involved in some sort of sexual liaison. According to Susan Griffin, the term
“déshabillées,” while literally meaning “Imdressed” also refers to courtesans.57 Even

attempts at adding classical allusions in F emme piquée par un serpent and in the bust do

19

not cover Clésinger’s and Mosselrnan’s true intentions. Clésinger’s nudes are not
exercises in the veristic portrayal of nature or tributes to classical sculpture, but
representations of available women or as Chopin would probably clarify one woman:
Apollonie Sabatier.

Clésinger’s sculptures of Apollonie Sabatier are iconic of her fame and
Mosselrnan’s sexual prowess, likewise Barye’s sketch of Sabatier is iconic of her
sexuality (Figure 12). The drawing depicts Apollonie in a provocative frock with a
plunging neckline.58 Barye’s sketch is also symbolic of Mosselman’s influence in
Sabatier’s life. He introduced her to men of great talent and was the driving force behind
the establishment of her salon. Little is known about Apollonie’s and Mosselrnan’s
associations with Barye, but a dedication from Barye to Gautier on the sketch provides
insight.59 In addition, the associations behind this sketch also mark a divergence in the
images of Apollonie Sabatier. As a result of her salon, the images of Sabatier ultimately
become less about her sexuality and more about celebrating her role as salon leader.

The dedication itself brings about a query: why would Barye draw a seductive
portrait of Apollonie for Gautier and not Mosselman?"0 A likely explanation for the
drawing and dedication centers on the relationship between Gautier and Apollonie. AS
stated before, Apollonie and Gautier were close friends. From Gautier’s letter to Sabatier,
we see that her Sunday salons were one of the highlights of his week. Several letters
exist, which detail an interesting relationship. Their correspondence has become famous
over time, and was published together under the title Oeuvres Erotiques Poésies
Libertines Lettres d La Présidente. Many of these letters were sexually explicit, but the

idea behind them is clear; Gautier was very free around Apollonie. As readers, we could

20

take these letters in two manners: Gautier was obviously sexually attracted to Apollonie
and since she was a courtesan and he felt flee to express his desires or secondly,
Apollonie was viewed as just another “one of the boys.” It was not unusual for men to
have bawdy canter with one another, and many of Apollonie’s salon attendees considered
her on par with men or simply as a man. Barye’s sketch of Apollonie probably serves as a
synthesis between the above interpretations; it serves as a sexual icon for Gautier, but
also as a reminder of her extraordinary qualities in relation to other women of her time.

The friendship between Apollonie and Gautier is well documented; however the
links between Gautier, Apollonie and Barye are harder to prove due to scant
documentation. Savatier proposes that Apollonie met Barye through Gautier around the
year 1843. One thing is certain; Gautier praised Barye’s artwork several times in his
reviews. Gautier wrote that Barye’s art pieces were near that of the famous Greek
sculptor Phidias.61 He also compared Barye’s work to Michelangelo. He writes: “11 a
facon fiere, énergique et rude, qui en fait comme le Michel-Ange de la Menagerie.”62
With reviews linking Barye to the grand sculptural traditions Of the Greece and
Renaissance Italy, no wonder Barye dedicated a drawing to Gautier.

Sabatier’s art collection also brings her relationship with Barye into focus.
According to Billy, Sabatier’s chimney was accented by bronzes made by Barye.63 These
may have been acquired from some of the many catalogues of Barye’s work, which were
popular in this period. In addition, many of the pieces produced by Barye were of the
Romantic style. They were very eclectic combining nature and the exotic styles of the

Etruscan, Roman, Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo and Islamic cultures. According to

21

Billy’s description of Sabatier’s decor, this style would have appealed to Sabatier’s
decorating tastes.

Apollonie Sabatier was indeed extraordinary. As seen with the sculptures
produced by Clésinger, Sabatier was venerated as the famous mistress of a boastful lover.
Although Barye’s Sketch was obviously created very quickly, it is significant in the
overall development of Sabatier’s images. Barye’s sketch still celebrates her physical
attributes, but it also marks a divergence away from Clésingeresque portrayals and
foreshadows depictions of a woman honored because of her salon associations, as a

leader of the artistic world, and as an art collector.

22

CHAPTER 4

HOMAGE TO LA PRESIDENTE: COURTESAN EXTRAORDINAIRE

Early images of Apollonie Sabatier by Blanchard/Jalabert, Vidal, Clésinger and
Barye depict her as an Object of beauty and as a seductive woman. In the same period,
once she was established within her salon community, these suggestive depictions give
way to portraits that celebrate her intelligence and position within the artistic world.
Charles-Francois Jalabert is an example of an artist that captures the progression of La
Présidente’s representation from the early celebrations of beauty to later images that
highlight a courtesan’s intellectual assets.64 Like J alabert, Gustave Ricard and Ernest
Meissonier also created porn-alts of Apollonie Sabatier that diverge from her previous
images imbued with sexual connotations in lieu of portrayals that celebrate her role as La
Présidente within the artistic community.

Billy mentions that J alabert collaborated with Auguste Blanchard on one of the
first images of Apollonie Sabatier. Unfortunately this image either does not exist or
remains unidentified. According to Jourdan, J alabert may have painted her twice in his

mature career. However the first mention of Sabatier may not actually be Sabatier

23

because the sitter is mentioned only as “Madame S.”‘55 Although it seems quite likely that
it is Apollonie Sabatier, Jalabert and Sabatier were good friends and he attended her salon
Often.66

The second depiction of Sabatier, however, is identifiable (Figure 13). In a pencil
sketch Jalabert portrays Sabatier reclined on a divan. A mandolin is placed to her right
and on her arm rests a parakeet which she is nuzzling. To her left is a chair on which an
open book was placed. According to Jourdan this piece was originally called Reverie. In
the upper left-hand side of the drawing, Jalabert dedicates the drawing to Sabatier. He
wrote: “a M A.S. Ch. J.” This inscription makes the sitter of the portrait indisputably
Madame Apollonie Sabatier. There is no evidence that this sketch was the planning stage
for a painting. Perhaps it was done at one of the Sunday salons or maybe even in the
notebook that was passed around each week. In his article “A Propos du Portrait de
Madame Sabatier par Charles Jalabert,” Thierry-Richard Savatier, a relative of Sabatier,
writes that the drawing was made when she lived at rue F rochot.67 She lived there from
1847-48 to 1860, so it is possible that the drawing was done at the salon.

Billy and Savatier write that Sabatier and Jalabert were good friends and
neighbors.‘58 Therefore the fact that J alabert dedicated the drawing to Sabatier determines
that the piece should be read within the parameters of their fiiendship. She was not just
another model posed in a stock setting, but a fiiend. In a sense, this drawing is evidence
about his thoughts and views concerning his famous fiiend. The meaning of the objects
should be read according to what they meant in her life because this work was for her. In

this sketch, Jalabert is building on a long tradition of portraiture that depicts the sitter

24

with objects associated with her character or personality. These objects give the viewer
insight into the sitter’s life, personality and activities.

In addition to reading these “symbols” in relation to Sabatier, we must also be
careful to read these Objects of identification in relation to traditional meaningsé9 The
opened book represents Sabatier’s cultivation and intelligence. Ernest Hebert, an artist
and frequent visitor to La Présidente’s salon, often loaned her books such as Dickens and
Balzac, to name a few, to read.70 As a result she was just as well read as her male
companions. The instrument to Sabatier’s right is a mandolin. According to Savatier,
while she lived at rue Frochot she took mandolin lessons and as we learned earlier, she
also took singing lessons in her teens.7l Therefore the representation of the musical
instrument symbolizes her musical and cultural cultivation.

The parakeet is an interesting inclusion that is symbolically steeped with past,
contemporary, and personal meaning as there is a plethora of parakeet symbolism.72
Surprisingly, parrots have held an esteemed role within the lineage of artistic depictions
appearing in still lifes, religious works and portraits. One of Jalabert’s influences,
Reynolds, painted a portrait of a woman with a parakeet peeking at her clothes entitled
Mrs. Bower (Figure 14). The parrot, and other exotic creatures like parakeets, also
appeared in several Rococo paintings. An example of this is Rosalba Carriera’s Young
Lady with a Parrot (Figure 15).73 Carriera depicts a turquoise parrot peeking at the breast
of his mistress who is clothed in a revealing dress the same color as the bird. In the
Jalabert painting, the artist placed Sabatier within the tradition of Reynold’s Mrs. Bower

and perhaps drew upon Sabatier’s taste for the Rococo via Carriera’s painting. Sabatier

25

owned a large Rococo art collection including the works of Rosalba Carriera, Boucher,
Falconet and Chardin.

Jalabert’s contemporaries also included parrots in their artwork (Figures 16-18).
The parakeets in these works speak to the sexuality of the women depicted obviously
seen in the paintings of Courbet (Figure 16) and Delacroix (Figure 17), which seem to
harken back to the blatant sexuality of Clésinger’s portrayals of Sabatier. The message Of
sexual availability in Manet’s Woman with a Parrot (Figure 18) is understated compared
to Courbet’s and Delacroix’s women; however Manet uses still life symbolism to convey
a subtler allusion to sexuality. Although Sabatier is a courtesan, I don’t think Jalabert is
being that blatant or forthright as his contemporaries especially Delacroix and Courbet or
even as much as his predecessor Carriera.

Jalabert’s inclusion of the book and the mandolin speak to other attributes Of his
sitter, her role as an esteemed cultural figure through her salon. Thus, such depictions of
Sabatier move away from her sexuality to celebrations Of her social status among the
literati. However, it must be realized that Apollonie Sabatier would never have attained
her position as La Présidente if it weren’t for her position as a courtesan. Therefore the
inclusion of the parakeet should be read accordingly.

Brigitte Le Juez and Olivier Le Bihan, clarify the symbolism of the parakeet
apropos to Sabatier. Le Juez explains that parakeets are traditionally associated with
women and that the bird is analogous to beauty. She adds that just as birds are trapped
within a cage, women are restrained by societal restrictions.74 Le Bihan writes that
parakeets are also signs of luxury.75 Savatier mentions that his famous relative Sabatier

loved parakeets and kept them at her rue F rochot apartment.76 Thus J alabert’s portrayal of

26

Apollonie with the parakeet can be read on several levels that synthesize many different
meanings. Most obviously, the parakeet is a beloved pet, represented by the fact that
Sabatier is nuzzling her precious bird. Parakeets are exotic birds and were expensive in
this period, thus the depiction of the bird is symbolic of her benefactor’s wealth. The
parakeet is also analogous to Sabatier herself and her life situation. She is beautiful and
showy but despite the independence afforded to her by her benefactor relative to other
women, she is like a “parakeet” to Mossehnan. She is a beautiful “kept” creature
dependent on Mosselrnan’s attention and money for survival; in addition, she’s also and a
Sign of wealth and elitism to Mosselman. The keeping of a courtesan was immensely
popular pastime for the rich elite. Griffin tells us that even homosexuals kept courtesans,
Obviously not as sexual companions but as icons of status.77 Just as the parakeet is a Sign
of luxury to Sabatier, so is Sabatier to Mosselman.

Delaroche once told Jalabert to paint beautiful women for they were rare creatures.
It appears Jalabert may have followed this advice with the portrayal of Madame Sabatier.
La Présidente is “rare” in the fact that she is considered beautiful but also because she is
cultivated. While we still can interpret references to Sabatier’s status as a courtesan in
Jalabert’s drawing, especially in the inclusion of the parakeet, it is not as overtly
sexualized as Clésinger’s nudes or the scantily clad portraits of Vidal and Barye.
Courtesan references are toned down so that her other noteworthy attributes can begin to
take center stage.

There are also references to Sabatier’s growing respectability within the artistic
community in Ricard’s portrait entitled Dame au petit chien (Figure 19).78 Allusions to

Apollonie Sabatier’s status as a courtesan are understated in order to stress her role as

27

leader of the Parisian cultural world. Instead of continuing to portray Sabatier primarily
as an icon of beauty and sexuality, Ricard places her within a portraiture tradition that
emphasizes loyalty and faithfulness via the traditional symbolism of the dog.79

It’s important to understand Ricard and Sabatier’s background as fiiends in order
to interpret and demonstrate the portrait’s progression away fi'om sexual connotation.
Ricard and Sabatier met each other sometime around the year 1847. Ricard, like the
others, also became a regular at her Sunday salon. Several letters survive in which Ricard
addresses Sabatier with great tenderness. He address her as “chere arnie” and signs the
letters with such phrases as “Votre, d’invariable affection” and “Je salue en déposant un
baiser ou deux sur vos petites mains.” Unlike Gautier, Ricard does not write to Sabatier
in a licentious manner, but addresses her with honor and respect. His letters also serve as
evidence that he saw Sabatier as an artistic equal. It is obvious that he was a great admirer
of Sabatier and she of him. As they would often converse about his art in their
correspondence, and Apollonie often asked to see his work and owned several of his
paintings including her own portrait and that depicting a red-headed girl.80

As a result of their fiiendship and mutual respect, Ricard does not highlight
Sabatier’s role as a courtesan, but instead places her within a portrait tradition commonly
associated with venerated women. Throughout the history of art, there has been a long
tradition of this sort of portrayal: a portrait of a woman with a dog. Reynolds, Rembrandt
and Titian, Ricard’s own predecessors, include this sort of portrait in their oeuvre.81 In
Woman with a Lap Dog (Figure 20), Rembrandt portrays a bejeweled woman with a tiny
dog on her lap. Reynolds in Caroline, Duchess of Marlborough (Figure 21) continues the

tradition in his portrayal of a Duchess holding a small dog, and in Portrait of Eleonora

28

Gonzaga della Rovere (Figure 22), Titian depicts a female member of a famous
Renaissance family with a small dog to her right. Even in La Présidente’s own artistic
circle this type of portrait existed. Ernest Hebert painted a portrait of his wife Mme.
He'bert (nee Mlle. Uckerrnann) with a dog on her lap.82

According to George Ferguson in Signs and Symbols in Christian Art, dogs
symbolize “vvatchfulness,” “fidelity,” “faithfulness in marriage,” and they are often
depicted on the lap or at the feet of a married woman.83 While the personal symbolism of
the dogs have been lost over time, one thing remains clear; the dogs in the paintings by
Titian, Reynolds and Rembrandt uphold the loyalty of their female owners. Like
Jalabert’s parakeet, we can also attribute several layers of meaning to Ricard’s inclusion
of the dog. La Présidente had a heart for both artists and animals and in addition to
owning parakeets, She also owned the dog depicted in Ricard’s portrait.84 Although La
Présidente was never technically married, she was faithful to her fiiends and in her
support of the arts.

One could say that inclusion of the dog referred to her vocation as a courtesan, by
stating that the dog symbolized her fidelity to her lover. In the article entitled “Gustave
Courbet: All the World’s a Studio,” Alex Seltzer writes that the dog depicted on La
Présidente’s lap was the breed of choice for courtesans in the nineteenth-century. Seltzer
writes: “This dog, a King Charles spaniel, is a reference to Sabatier’s amorous activities
and is found also in her lap in a portrait by Ricard.”85 Later, he includes a quotation by
the nineteenth-century commentator Alphonse Karr concerning the spaniel’s popularity

with courtesans. Karr wrote: “The tax on dogs might become a tax on prostitution. One

29

encounters in Paris. . .small carriages. . .containing a courtesan and a King-Charles. The
King-Charles seems to have become an insignia. . .for the prostitutes.”86

Seltzer’s assertion is valid; nineteenth—century viewers may have read Rieard’s
inclusion of the dog as a reference to her vocation as a courtesan based on their
knowledge of contemporary iconography. However, based on their friendship and
Jalabert’s involvement with Sabatier’s salon, I don’t think he intended to make this the
overarching theme of the portrait. Instead, Ricard is continuing a portraiture tradition that
stresses fidelity, which has been ongoing at least since the Renaissance. Further proof of
the portrait’s close ties to the tradition can be seen in the critics’ reaction to Ricard’s
portrait of La Présidente. One critic wrote: “Des qu’il connut l’école vénitienne. Ricard
se sentit de cette famille, il se mit passionnément a l’oeuvre, et dut a cette influence ses
premiers success. N’est-il pas en effet tout plein de Venise. . .n’est-ce pas la un souvenir
du Titien?”87 Even nineteenth-century critics recognized the lineage of the portrait and
connecting it to past via the comparison to Titian and the Venetian school.

Ricard’s portrait of Sabatier is not solely representative of her previous role as a
sexual icon, but primarily a sign of respect and goodwill fiom a lifelong fiiend. Even
from pure visual analysis, we can ascertain that La Présidente is clothed rather
conservatively in comparison to her earlier depictions. The nudity in Clésinger’s
sculptures and the sultry boudoir attire of Vidal and Barye are replaced by a demure
Venetian dress. Ricard once said that he loved to paint those who understand his painting
and he loved to paint the people that he understood.88 Ricard’s warm letters to Sabatier,

his attendance at Sabatier’s salon and her portrait based on a tradition of representing

respected women are evidence that this quotation can most likely be applied to Sabatier.

30

As an artist she understands the production of art and also its history, and as a result of
her Salon and fiiendship with Ricard, she certainly had the knowledge to understand the
parameters of his art. Ricard paints her portrait because she understands his art and as
result of her Salon, he understands her. Thus her portrait is not dedicated only to her
beauty, but to her growing eminence as La Présidente.

AS we have seen, Sabatier’s depicters are leaving behind overtly sexually charged
depictions in lieu of images that highlight her intelligence and role as a salon leader. This
situation is especially exemplary with the artist Ernest Meissonier.89 Madame Sabatier
was a popular subject in the oeuvre of Meissonier. Her appearance is noteworthy
considering the lack of women in his overall oeuvre and her central placement within his
painting “In the Shade of a Grove Sings a Young Poet. ” In addition, due to his personal
ideologies concerning women and propriety in general, his depictions of Sabatier are not
focused on her sexuality.

Meissonier and Sabatier met through Mosselman and they became good fiiends.
Meissonier soon became a regular at her Sunday dinners. 90 Over the course of his career,
the artist produced nine images (Figures 23, 24, and 25) of Sabatier, in various stages of
production, which was unusual considering the genders and the topics he painted in his
overall oeuvre. Meissonier admittedly painted few women in his artworks; they figured
rarely into his genre scenes and depictions of military maneuvers, and if he did include
women, they usually were depicted as servants. He was once asked why he didn’t paint
many women. He answered: “I have neither desire nor aptitude for the tenderness of the
brush.”9| He did not feel that he had the ability to depict women with the delicacy that

they deserved. His distaste of painting women could have also derived from an incident

31

with a wealthy American woman who commissioned him to paint her portrait.92 In the
finished product, he believed that he had created the very likeness of the woman. When
she saw the portrait, she was horrified by it. In turn, Meissonier was outraged at the
audacity of the woman’s frankness.

The shear number of Meissonier’s images of Sabatier attests to his sentiments for
her. The artist also wrote that for a successful portrait, the painter must know and love the
Sitter.93 His fond feelings for his fiiend Apollonie cancel out his hesitancy to portray
women.

His high sentiments toward Sabatier can be seen in his painting “In the Shade of a
Grove Sings a Young Poet” (Figure 26), which he submitted to the Salon of 1853.9‘1 This
was painted in his garden at his home in Poissy, and depicts a group of men and women
attired in sixteenth-century costume, relaxing and listening to a poet sing in the
countryside.95 Meissonier and Sabatier’s circle often went on country outings to escape
Parisian city life.96 In this painting Meissonier captures a moment similar to or perhaps
even painted at one of these outings. Madame Sabatier is the standing figure dressed in
pink next to the tree, and she is the only figure that makes direct eye contact with the
viewer/artist. The other figures are completely enthralled with the singing poet or each
other. Sabatier’s gaze brings the viewer/artist into the scene, therefore it is not
exclusionary but you/he are/is also a part of the performance. While the other figures in
the composition look as if they are a part of some dreamy afternoon like those in a féte
galante painting or an Impressionist open-air landscape, Sabatier brings the event into
focus. For the reality of the painting is not embedded in the past as some sort of idyllic

romp, but in the present.97 Sabatier links to the world outside of the canvas; a world the

32

artist and Sabatier inhabit. The act of painting places the artist outside of the action, but
because of Sabatier we know that Meissonier has been included in scenes such as these at
La Présidente’s salon and at the country outings. Meissonier dedicated this painting to
Sabatier. On the back of the painting there are two phrases: “Questa donna/ la piu amata.”
Wendy L. Joyce translates these phrases as “This woman/ the best loved.” From this
epitaph, it is clear that the painting was meant to revolve around Sabatier. 98

As we have seen, Meissonier saw Sabatier as an extraordinary individual derived
from her personal characteristics not necessarily her role as a courtesan; he was able to
see her outside of her lifestyle. Meissonier’s images of Sabatier are not as sexualized as
those of Vidal, Barye and Clésinger. Meissonier deliberately avoided overt depictions of
sexuality; his artwork only contains respectable values and virtues.99 Hungerford adds
that when Meissonier was commissioned to illustrate a book with less than honorable
contents, he still avoided explicit material in his artwork. Perhaps his artistic intentions
derived from his formative years with the Saint-Sirnonian Curmer, but regardless of its
impetus it seems out of character to suddenly express sexuality with his portrayals of
Sabatier. Meissonier was quite lucid and finite in his ideas concerning his artistic
practices. It is unlikely that he would deviate from his convictions.loo

Final evidence that Meissonier is celebrating Sabatier’s status as La Présidente
rather than her position as a courtesan lies in his ideologies concerning the education of
women. Many of Meissonier’s ideas revolved around the concept of raising the status of
women. Meissonier once wrote: “Man should educate woman, and form her nature from
the very onset. Every creature changes and modifies according to the care bestowed on

it.”'°' Meissonier employed his educational ideas by teaching Sabatier how to paint; he

33

even shared his own studio with her.‘02 It is clear from the quotation that I included in the
section concerning Madame Sabatier’s salon that he views her as worthy of education; he

calls her “souriante et intelligente,”103

and perhaps these sentiments are expressed in his
portrait of Sabatier with an open book on her lap (Figure 23). As mentioned before she
was an avid reader, which in turn opened her mind to a plethora of ideas and thoughts
that surely made Sabatier an ideal emblem of cultivation in Meissonier’s point of view.

Although Meissonier is aware that Sabatier is a courtesan, he does not choose to
portray her in this guise. Instead he celebrates her intelligence, creativity, and exceptional
abilities as a salon leader. Likewise J alabert and Ricard pay homage to a woman who
defies cultural norms concerning women in the nineteenth-century. At this point in her
life, images of Sabatier are less about her actions in the bedroom, but her actions in a

salon filled with artists and drinkers. While Jalabert, Ricard and Meissonier begin this

separation, ultimately Courbet will enact the final dissociation.

34

CHAPTER 5

COURBET’S HOMAGE TO A SALON HOSTESS AND ART SUPPORTER

SANS SEXUAL ASSOCIATIONS

Gustave Courbet’s The Painter’s Studio: A real allegory summing up seven years
of my artistic life (Figure 27) represents Apollonie Sabatier’s visual divergence away
from being solely celebrated for her beauty, sexuality, and status as a courtesan. As we
shall soon see, this painting instead focuses on her role as a society woman, salon hostess,
muse to Baudelaire, and as a synthesis of socialist utopian ideologies. However, a great
deal of debate surrounds the interpretation and the identification of the figures, including
Apollonie Sabatier and the obscured gentlemen to her left.

The conundrum concerning this painting began with the artist himself. Courbet, in
a letter to fellow painter Francais writes: “You say you’d like to know what the theme of
my picture is? It’s so complicated to explain that I’d rather let you guess when you see
it... It’s all rather mysterious. It’s anybody’s guess!”104 The Artist’s Studio is analogous to

a visual riddle and Courbet leaves few clues behind in the form of letters and a manifesto

35

to decipher the meaning, thus there are numerous interpretations of The Artist’s Studio’s
meaning.

The Artist’s Studio depicts Courbet in the middle of his atelier and as the focal
point of the composition. He is painting a landscape with a nude model to his right. He is
also surrounded by two groups of people, one on his left and one on his right. The group
on the left has been commonly interpreted as those who do not support his art, or the
avant garde in general, and the group on the right is those individuals who encourage his
avant garde art. Many art historians have identified the figure draped in a shawl
accompanied with a gentleman as Apollonie Sabatier. Beyond this simple explanation,
the intended allegorical meaning of the massive artwork is widely debated.

One of the many interpretations revolves around Courbet’s negative reaction to an
illustration. In his article “Gustave Courbet: All the World’s Studio,” Alex Seltzer
believes The Artist ’s Studio was a response to two illustrations with accompanying text
published by Magasin pittoresque. The first depicted the tranquil atelier of a Renaissance
painter. The second, an illustration by Valentin (Figure 28), portrays the chaotic atelier of
a modern painter. ‘05 The accompanying text states that the modern painter had no soul
and that their work is devoid of depth. Critics accused Courbet of commonplace
depictions, socialism and the dedication to ugliness. According to Seltzer, this article
could have applied to Courbet, and he may have taken it personally.

Support for this interpretation arises fiom several similarities between the two
works including a semi-circle composition, the canvas turned toward the wall, the pet, the

skull and the hat. Just as figures in Courbet’s painting can be identified, so can the figures

36

in Valentin’s. Auguste Clésinger, Boissard, Gautier playing the guitar, and Apollonie
Sabatier located next to the artist are included in Valentin’s illustration.

According to Seltzer, the presence of Sabatier‘is the key link between Valentin’s
illustration and The Artist ’s Studio. Sabatier is depicted as the muse to the arts in
Valentin’s drawing, which parallels her position in life as muse to bohemians as
evidenced by her Sunday salon. The Magasin pittoresque wrote that salons like
Sabatier’s were responsible for the decadence of art that created chaotic scenes as
depicted by Valentin. Seltzer theorizes that Courbet includes Sabatier as a reaction
against the illustrations; he wants to disprove the negative accusations created by these
publications. Sabatier’s presence in Courbet’s The Artist’s Studio is his attempt to
disclaim that salons such as hers have a negative effect on contemporary art.106

Although Seltzer is certain that the woman in the shawl is Apollonie Sabatier, this
identification is debated in art historical circles. Other art historians believe the couple is
Francois Sabatier and his wife Caroline Sabatier.107 Francois Sabatier was a wealthy
Fourierist art patron who was a friend of Courbet’s. Benedict Nicolson argues that the
couple is the F. Sabatiers because of their friendship with Courbet and also because they
were neighbors Of Courbet’s patron Bruyas.108 Nicolson identifies the man as F. Sabatier
in The Artist ’s Studio via another portrait of him by Courbet (Figure 29); however, it is
difficult to identify the male figure based on portraits because the only portion of the
man’s face that is depicted is his profile with side burns and heard. Facial hair was very
popular during this time period. Identifying a man as either F. Sabatier or even as
Mossehnan is difficult since facial hair was the trend and no other distinguishing

characteristics are given.109

37

Klaus Herding argues that the couple is probably Apollonie Sabatier and her lover
Mosselman.l '0 Helene Toussaint also thinks that the Courbet’s couple is A. Sabatier and
Mosselman and provides the most detailed argument to verify this identification. She
proves this theory via portrait identifications by comparing the portrait of Sabatier
painted by Ricard (Figure 19), her bust by Clésinger (Figure 9), and two portraits by de
Dreux of Mosselman (Figures 30 and 31) to identify the pair. It is undeniable that the
portraits by Ricard and Clésinger look exactly like the woman in Courbet’s The Artist’s
Studio. It is harder to identify the male figure because very little of his face is shown. It is
logical that if Courbet meant the woman to be A. Sabatier then the man would be
Mosselman. Further evidence to support the identity of the woman can be found in
Ricard’s portrait of Caroline Sabatier (Figure 32)."1 Caroline’s face is much thinner than
Apollonie’s and the facial characteristics are completely different than the elegantly
dressed woman in The Artist ’s Studio.

Toussaint also argues that the Quillenbois caricature (Figure 33) of The Artist ’3
Studio is also proof that the woman is A. Sabatier. In Quillenbois’s cartoon, the woman is
smoking a cigar. Toussaint believes it is unlikely that the cartoonist would show a society
lady such as Caroline Sabatier engaged in such a lowly activity. He would depict a
courtesan smoking. However, Toussaint mentions that the one problematic item
concerning the identification of the woman as A. Sabatier is that it seems She was never
directly involved with Courbet. The only link between the two is the Valentin cartoon.
She agrees with Seltzer in the fact that this is probably the link between them.

Both sides of the argument provide excellent evidence for each. Courbet himself

gives little evidence of their identity. In a letter to Champfleury, he writes: “Beside you,

38

still further forward, is a society woman, dressed to the nines, with her husband.”1 '2 In

my opinion, just because Courbet says the couple is married does not necessarily mean

that it is Francois and Caroline instead of Apollonie and Alfred. The Goncourts

mistakenly wrote in their journal that Apollonie was a “widow of independent means.”l ‘3
They were mistaken; she was never married but took on the title “Madame.” Just as the
Goncourts erred, Courbet could have also taken Mossehnan as Apollonie’s husband. As
far as the individuals in bohemia were concerned Apollonie and Mosselman were married
in a sense.

Courbet’s comment that the female figure is “a society woman, dressed to the
nines” brings up an interesting point concerning the identity of women in nineteenth-
century culture. The attire of courtesans provided a great deal of frustration for those
individuals that sought a method to categorize and stereotype them. Both courtesans and
society women went to the same dressmakers and department stores. It was virtually
impossible to tell the difference.114 Likewise, it is almost impossible to distinguish the
background of the society woman depicted in The Artist’s Studio via her clothing. Both
society women and courtesans had the capital to purchase the exquisite Indian shawl
represented.

In addition, if the couple does represent Francois and Caroline Sabatier, why
would Courbet put Caroline in front? Francois was the wealthy art patron and had the

F curierist connections with Courbet not Caroline. It would make more sense that

Apollonie would be placed in front Of Mosselman. As a result of her connections and her

salon, she was in the forefront of the artistic world not Mosselman.

39

The authors supporting the identification of Apollonie Sabatier fail to mention
that Courbet and A. Sabatier have an indirect link through Charles Baudelaire. ' '5 Courbet
and Baudelaire were friends and the Baudelaire often attended Sabatier’s salon. Sabatier
and Baudelaire met at the H6tel Pimodan, and he was invited her to salon in 1852. In fact,
during the time that Courbet was painting The Artist’s Studio, Baudelaire was infatuated
with Sabatier. From 1852 to 1857, he wrote several anonymous poems and letters to her.
These poems: “Tout Entiere,” “Le F larnbeau Vivant,” “Que Diras-Tu Ce Soir,” “A Celle
Qui Est Trop Gaie,” “Réversibilité,” “Confession,” “L’Aube Spirituelle” “Harmonie du
Soir,” “Le Flacon,” and after their relationship ended “Semper Eadem” were later
included in his book Les F Ieurs du Mal, which also included poems inspired by Jeanne
Duval, his mulatto mistress.l '6 Baudelaire created a dichotomy between the two women
by depicting Sabatier as his Venus Blanche and Duval as his Venus Noire. After the
publication of Les F Ieurs du Mal, Baudelaire’s identity was no longer unknown. A.
Sabatier was incredibly flattered by the revelation and offered herself to Baudelaire. That
was the very moment that Baudelaire’s idolization of Sabatier ended. She was no longer
the unobtainable Venus Blanche but a mortal woman. Sabatier was heartbroken when
Baudelaire rejected her. Baudelaire told her it was because of her relationship with
Mosselman; Sabatier blamed his wavering sentiments on his relationship with Jeanne
Duval. The likelier blame can be placed on Baudelaire himself and his misogynistic
views. His Intimate Journals are replete these sentiments. He wrote: “There are only two
places where one pays for the right to spend: women and public latrines.” On another
day, he wrote: “Woman is natural, that is to say abominable. Thus she is always

vulgar...” In another statement that is apropos to the situation with Sabatier, he wrote:

40

“there are certain women who are like the red ribbon of the Legion of Honor. They are no
longer desired because they have been contaminated by certain men.”l '7
In his book Courbet: The Artist ’s Studio of the Painter, Benedict Nicolson

mentions that Courbet had painted Jeanne Duval next to Baudelaire preening herself in a
mirror. Baudelaire asked Courbet to remove Duval; he consented and painted over her. 1 '8

At this time Duval’s and Baudelaire’s relationship was rocky and he had turned his
attentions to the actress Marie Brunard and A. Sabatier. Did Combet know about
Baudelaire’s obsession with A. Sabatier? Did he know that his friend was writing her
anonymously? In this vein, I would respond yes and hypothesize that Sabatier is depicted
for several reasons: as a society woman, salon leader as evidenced via The Artist ’s
Studio’s links with Valentin’s illustration, and as Baudelaire’s muse. It is likely that
Courbet knew about Baudelaire’s fascination with Sabatier. Despite the anonymous
nature of the poems, Sabatier’s circle knew the identity of the author, easily recognizing
their style. Perhaps Baudelaire divulged to Courbet his fascination with Sabatier.

The original presence of Duval suggests that the woman in front of Baudelaire
may be A. Sabatier, and it may also demonstrate that Courbet was playing on this love
triangle. This situation can be proven compositionally as well. At Baudelaire’s request,
Courbet did paint Duval out of the painting, however her image has bled through and the
ghost of her figure can be seen today. Duval is preening herself in front of mirror with her
back to the main activities of composition, the body of A. Sabatier is angled toward
Courbet and blocking our view of Mosselman, and Baudelaire is Sitting behind Sabatier

reading a book. The positions of both women and Baudelaire form an exact triangle with

a person stationed at each tip. Courbet literally placed them in a triangle analogous to the

41

love triangle Baudelaire created in real life. Duval’s and Sabatier’s positions are the
inverse of one another; Sabatier looks out at the proceedings of the painting and Duval
admires her image in the mirror oblivious of what is occurring. This situation is
reinforced by the presence of the mirror and it reminds us that the women in fact are
dichotomies of one another. Sabatier is highly involved in the art world, kindhearted and
intelligent, while Duval openly distained Baudelaire’s poetic pursuits and according to
accounts was mean spirited and dim-witted.119 Sabatier is the Venus Blanche and Duval
is Venus Noire. The locations of the women in comparison to Baudelaire also inspire
thoughts of Sabatier’s and Duval’s roles as his muses for the poetry in Les F leurs du Mal.
He is reading a book and Sabatier, especially, and Duval are positioned as if she were in a
thought bubble conjured by his musings. Almost humorously, Mosselman’s back is to the
Sabatier-Baudelaire-Duval action, oblivious in the painting and in real life.

The identification of A. Sabatier in Courbet’s The Artist’s Studio calls for an
elucidation of interpretation in reference to her. AS a result of Courbet’s enigmatic
comments concerning the meaning Of The Artist ’s Studio, I don’t think there is one
definitive interpretation, but many levels of meaning. Courbet intentionally meant for his
painting to be a conundrum. As he said: “It’s anybody’s guess!” An interesting angle that
has not been discussed is A. Sabatier’s meaning beyond her role as a society figure and
muse. What does her presence mean in relation to the whole of the composition? Seltzer
has approached this topic by stating that she serves as “keystone” linking Valentin’s
illustration to The Artist ’s Studio. Yet, I believe her role goes beyond this when the

consideration of the social ideologies: especially Fourierism and Saint-Simonianism are

42

taken beyond the initial levels of interpretation as done by Klaus Herding, Linda Nochlin,
and James Rubin.120

The utopian socialist ideology Fourierism was conceived by Francois-Marie-
Charles Fourier who was born in Besancon, France on April 7, 1772. His ideology was
based on ideas derived from the Enlightenment and revolved around the pursuit of
discovering social laws that would be analogous to physical laws.121 Fourier admired Sir
Isaac Newton who discovered the law of gravity. Fourier reasoned that just as Newton
discovered physical laws that governed matter, likewise he could find similar social laws
that would bring abOut the utopian state he called “Harmony.” Fourier argued that the
main force that stood against the establishment of Harmony was civilization, which
served as a formidable foe to his plans and only produced wretchedness. He proposed the
founding of a community or as he called it a “phalanx” in which people would live
harmoniously, mutually working together at activities of their choosing. There would be
no crime in the phalanx and it would be located in the countryside. As a side note, this
may be one reason Courbet chose to paint a landscape in The Artist ’s Studio over a nude
as the presence of the nude model would suggest. Fourierists applauded the creation of
landscape painting.

Fourier also had advanced opinions concerning the role of women in his phalanx.
He wrote: “[T]he new institution [civilization] gave man control over woman, relegating
her to the position of obedient servant and houseworker.”122 Fourier was opposed to the
idea of man’s dominance over woman. He advocated the fi'eedom of women and
according to Riasanovsky, Fourier was the first to use the term “feminism.” As a result

Fourier attracted many female followers. He also promoted the idea of equal education

43

for all. It is not had to surmise that Meissonier’s ideas concerning female education were
derived from socialist ideas such as Fourierism.
Fourier also had very progressive ideas concerning the role of the artist in society.

He declared that the artist should act as a prophet or avant garde to show the flaws of
society and to also showcase the potential society has to create Harmony. A Fourierist
critic writes:

Show me marriage with its Shocking anomalies. . .its

appalling tortures of servitude and perpetual bondage...

Show me the corruption that takes place in political life, at

the cost of individual happiness, which it claims to satisfy

while increasing its price and undermining its quality. . .in a

word, show me our society, however ugly or beautiful it

might appear to your eyes, and then, without suspecting it,

your art with naturally take on meaning, faith and
Purpose.123

Show reality in order to highlight the truth to bring about change for the better! This
quote almost sounds like Courbet’s Realist Manifesto. He writes: “To know in order to be
capable, that was my idea. To be able to translate the customs, the ideas, the appearance
Of my epoch according to my own appreciation of it, to be not only a painter, but a man,
in a word, to create living art, that is my goal?”24

Saint-Simonianism was also a utopian socialist ideology similar to Fourierism that
was established by Henri Saint-Simon (1760-1825). Saint-Simon proposed a classless
society that would be run by scientists and industrialists not by the clergy, military or
nobility as was the case in contemporary and past civilizations.125 In addition, he
advocated women’s rights, and later, he added that artists should also have a key role in

his utopia as tools of indoctrination.

44

The role of women played a central part in the ideologies of Saint-Simon.'26 Like
Fourier, he also advocated the education Of women and gender equality. While many
cultural commentators of the time such as Parent-Duchatelet gave precedence to chaste
women, Saint-Simon proposed that this equality should benefit all women. Instead of
marginalizing prostitutes and castigating them, they wanted to incorporate them back into
society. 127 For centuries, society as well as Christianity preached the concept that women
were inferior to men. Christian leaders had led their flocks astray by teaching that God
was male. According to Saint-Simon, God was androgynous and that not just man was
created in God’s image, but also women. Proponents even believed that a female messiah
would be found in the Bosporus. Although this female messiah was never found, Saint-
Simonianism attracted a large female following ready to assist his followers in the pursuit
of equality and the Golden Age.

Like Fourier, Saint-Simon also declared the artist should act as a “vanguar ”; art
should serve as a tool to promote social change. The vast amount of mediums: visual,
theatrical, and musical would increase the chances of their propagandistic sentiments
reaching the public. Eventually, according to proponents of Saint-Simonianism, artists
would bring about a Golden Age Similar to Fourier’s concept of Harmony. Saint-Simon
wrote:

In this great enterprise, men of imagination will lead the
way; they will proclaim the future Of mankind, they will
transport the Golden Age from the past to enrich future
generations; they will enthuse society for the enhancement
of its well-being, by offering a rich picture of new
prosperity and showing that every member of society will
soon share in those pleasures which have hitherto been
restricted to a very limited class; they will Sing of

civilization’s benefits and exploit every aspect of the arts—
eloquence, poetry, painting, music—to achieve their goal:

45

in a word, they will develop the poetic aspect of the new
system. ’28

Artists would help usher in a Golden Age in a nonviolent priestly fashion. Saint-Simon
proposed that artists should indoctrinate the public, analogous to the way a priest teaches
his flock Catholic dogma, with topics expressing modernity and its injustices.

Saint-Sirnonians actively pursued and tried to recruit artists to begin the process
of beneficial indoctrination via art. They tried to appeal to artists by highlighting the
precarious nature of the art market, the unyielding severity of the Salon, and the lack of
state support. They painted a future in which artists would not be bothered by the above
issues and where they would be free to paint according to their desires. Unfortunately this
artistic utopia did not attract many artists for while the future they proposed sounded
tempting, the reality was the art environment of the present, in which they had to survive
within. The typical artist that agreed to join the Saint-Sirnonian cause had already failed
in the current art market and had nothing to lose.

The followers of Saint-Simon essayed to establish a new artistic center in Egypt
and asked artists holding studios to spread the news of the new artistic epicenter to their
students. Teachers such as Barye and Cogniet, the teacher of both Ricard and Meissonier,
agreed to do so but never followed through with their promise. Just as the search for
female messiah remained fruitless, so did the Egyptian art center. Few students were
willing to completely reject the current art market and even fewer students were willing
to reject the century’s Old tradition of viewing Italy as the center of art. Dozens of
students as recipients of the Prix de Rome migrated there every year to absorb the genius

of the Renaissance masters; few considered going to Egypt instead.

46

It is not difficult to understand why the ideologies of Fourierism and Saint-
Sirnonianism appealed to Courbet who was often snubbed by the Salon jury and the state.
Both ideologies recruit and elevate the artist to a place of power and give them a
beneficial role of change. Both propose the use of realistic art to promote values that
point out society’s downfalls and highlight ways to bring about Harmony. The Artist ’s
Studio is a perfect example of the work that Fourier and Saint-Simon desired for their
artistic followers to paint. On the left side, Courbet depicts the people that are either the
cause or the victims of injustice and on the right, he depicts the individuals that have
assisted him on the path to or will instigate Harmony. Courbet centers himself in The
Artist ’s Studio, but he is also depicting himself at the leader of the avant garde displaying
his special blend of syncretic socialist ideals and acting as the instigator of social change
via art.

While many features of The Artist’s Studio can be interpreted within the
frameworks of Fourierism and Saint-Simonianism, I am mainly concerned with those that
apply to A. Sabatier. She serves several purposes in this composition such as society
figure, symbolic link with Valentin’s illustration, and muse. In addition to these roles, she
also serves as a synthesis of F ourierist and Saint-Sirnonian ideologies concerning women.
Sabatier was well-known in the artistic community of Paris, Courbet would have known
about this extraordinary woman from his associates and her appearance in numerous
artworks. While Paris is a huge metropolis, artistic circles were close knit; news of
Sabatier’s exploits was familiar to all. If we look at Sabatier’s placement within the
composition, she appears in front of an important figure: Mosselman and included among

important men in Courbet’s world such as Bruyas, Gautier and Baudelaire. Obviously,

47

Courbet as evidenced fiom this placement did not hold chauvinistic prejudices. It’s likely
that he was building on the feministic ideologies of Fourierism and Saint-Simonianism.
AS mentioned in the discussion concerning Saint-Simon, he proposed to “dc-marginalize”
prostitutes. In a sense, Courbet has done this with Sabatier. While she is not a part of the
lower echelons of the “sex for hire” trade, her position as a courtesan still associates her
with this occupation. Courbet has placed Sabatier as the mirror image of Duval, a vulgar
woman who is the epitome of a lower class prostitute. Sabatier is an example of what
potential lies in those that have been initially ostracized and condoned by society; they
can be useful in the eyes of socialist utopians perhaps by doing something such as
organizing a salon. She’s providing artists with a venue to unite for the sake of art and
hopefully for the betterment of society. By identifying her as a society woman, Courbet is
erasing her sexual associations. While Sabatier elevated herself in real life fi‘om part-time
model to artist and salon leader, Courbet has done so in his art. Gone are the suggestive
attire and visual allusions; She is not depicted as the nude model next to Courbet as he
could have done, but as the luxuriously dressed socialite looking toward Courbet as if she
is overseeing the future of art.

We could take the synthesis further with respect to Sabatier’s role as an artist.
While Sabatier did not submit her work into the Salon until the 18603, Meissonier began
teaching her in the 18403. Savatier even hypothesizes that she entered the Salon de la
Société des Arts before the year 1847.129 It is possible that Courbet knew of her artistic
endeavors. Therefore we can add another layer to the Fourier/Saint-Simon theory. While
Sabatier did not produce art that may have appealed to socialist tastes, her only known

work is miniature portraiture, she represents a paradigm for what women should strive for

48

in the minds of socialist utopians. For unlike Duval, she looks to the future as manifested
by Courbet and his artwork, not to egotism. She looks outside of herself and serves as an
emblem of support. In a sense, the right side of The Artist ’s Studio is analogous to
Sabatier’s salon. There too she stood as a muse, fellow artist, independent thinker, and art
supporter among men who equated her as an equal, and who followed their own unique

paths within the Parisian art world.

49

CONCLUSION

La Présidente’s salon eventually dissolved in the early 18608. Sabatier and
Mosselman ended their relationship and the salon attendees went their separate ways as
well. Sabatier herself moved from her apartment on rue Frochot to a humbler edifice
elsewhere. Yet the memory of the salon and Sabatier herself did not fade so easily. She
died on December 31, 1889, and up until her death, she was continually sought after by
Baudelaire followers. Generations marveled at men that surrounded her during her
lifetime. In the history of art, she serves as a right bookend on centuries’ worth of artists
following the canon and as a left bookend to the decades’ worth of artists such as Courbet
acting as avant garde innovators.

In the portraits of Madame Sabatier, there seems to be a cycle of disrobing and
dressing, literally and metaphorically. Sabatier’s first portrait by Blanchard and Jalabert
was a tribute to a beautiful young parisienne model who was noticed at a ball because of
a striking dress. In Vidal’s painting of Sabatier, we begin to see a celebration of what’s
under the dress; he depicts her in a thin dressing gown. Here, Vidal explores her sexual
appeal almost as if she is a “pin-up” girl fiom the first half of the nineteenth century. He

highlights her femininity and availability as a parisienne for the wanton male viewer.

50

Clésinger continues the “disrobing” in his sculptures Of Sabatier. Like Vidal, he is
showcasing Sabatier’s sexually attractive attributes, but not as a free commodity but as
the mistress of Alfied Mosselman. Her benefactor commissions Clésinger to showcase
his famous lover to the world and advertise her body in order to boost his masculine ego
and sexual prowess. Barye’s depiction of Sabatier differs little fi'om those mentioned
above. Yet because of her relationship with Gautier, the man who proclaimed her “La
Présidente,” the symbolism behind it differs slightly from previous depictions. While the
pencil portrait does pay homage to her bodily attributes, it also demonstrates her
progressive relationship with her salon attendees. She was a sex symbol to these men
because she was attractive, but she was also “just one of the boys.” She was free to say
anything around them, regardless of how bawdy or inappropriate it was. Barye’s portrait
symbolizes the fact that Sabatier’s position as a courtesan “buys” her freedom and
liberation fiom societal expectations placed on women. The salon attendees’ sisters and
mothers could not act this way, but Sabatier could.

Madame Sabatier’s portraits by Jalabert, Ricard, Meissonier and Courbet literally
clothe La Présidente again. However, symbolically they are also disrobing her, but not to
expose her sexuality but to unveil her new found status as a salon leader and artist. In
J alabert’s second known depiction of Sabatier, he depicts her with her beloved parakeet,
mandolin and reading material. Through analysis, we begin to see the depth in which
Sabatier is depicted. These items symbolize Sabatier’s ascent from object to a human
being with talent, depth and intellect as a result of her position as a courtesan. In Ricard’s
portrait of Sabatier, we do not see a scantily clad young woman, but a woman placed

within the long lineage of female portraiture, which celebrates the respect felt by the

51

artist toward the sitter. Similarly, Meissonier also showcases Sabatier’s role within their
artistic society. In “In the Shade of a Grove Sings a Young Poet, ” he depicts Sabatier as
the link between the viewer and the action in the painting. She is the only figure in the
composition that makes eye contact; therefore She is engaging the viewer to participate
just as she encouraged the members of her salon to discuss their ideas and concepts.
Meissonier further exemplifies his respect for Sabatier by teaching her how to paint; a
profession that will later become her career. With Meissonier, we begin to see how
socialist ideologies that advocate equality in education shape some of the artists’
ideologies in Paris.

Courbet’s The Artist’s Studio serves as a sort of apex in the portraits of Sabatier.
Here, she is fully clothed yet completely “naked” of her courtesan associations. She
serves as an example of a multi-faceted woman. Courbet only identifies her as a married
society woman. As Seltzer discussed in his article, the appearance of Sabatier in The
Artist ’s Studio served as link between Courbet’s painting with Valentin’s illustration.
Courbet transforms her role from a symbol of what is wrong with modern salons to what
is right with them. He is trumpeting salons such as Sabatier’s that give artists the platform
to express and organize their ideas. She is also depicted as a muse to Baudelaire on and
off canvas. Sabatier stands as a synthesis of F ourierism and Saint-Simonianism; she is a
woman who has gained equality among her male salon attendees, an upper-level
courtesan who has been disassociated from these associations and become a valid
member of society, and as fellow artist. Courbet “exposes” her true identity free of sexual

associations.

52

The Goncourt brothers once wrote that “[w]omen have never done anything
remarkable except by sleeping with many men, absorbing their moral fiber... I believe
that one would never find a virtuous woman who has a sous’ worth of intelligence, a
virgin has never produced anything.”130 While ignoring the misogynist intent Of this
quotation, it is a true statement in relation to the nineteenth century. It isn’t likely that

Madame Sabatier would have gained her respectable role in artistic society as a sexual

na’l‘veté. As a result of her role as a courtesan, she was able to live outside the boundaries

and restrictions placed on women in nineteenth-century France. Life as a courtesan gave

her freedom to mingle with bohemians, speak her mind and embark on a career as an

artist. As Esther Guirnond once said about herself, La Présidente is certainly “a woman of

independent means.”

 

' Madame Apollonie Sabatier is not related to Monsieur and Madame Francois Sabatier.

2 For information on Aglaé-Joséphine Savatier’s early life, see Billy, Les Présidente et Ses Amis and
Savatier, F emme Trap Gate: Biographie d ’un Amour de Baudelaire.

3 Billy, p. 17.

‘ Ibid, p. 20.

5 Séché, “La Présidente.” Mercure de France, p. 220, and Ziegler, “Baudelairiana, Madame Sabatier,
Quelques Notes Biographiques.” Bulletin du Bibliophile, p. 373.

6 For information on the salon and the notebook, see Billy and Savatier.

7 Ziegler, p. 377.

8 For information on Apollonie’s salon, see Billy, p. 79.

9 Ibid., p. 80.

'0 Savatier, p. 75, and Feydeau, Théophile Gautier, p. 154.

53

 

" Ziegler, p. 365.

'2 Feydeau, p. 167.

'3 Bemheimer, Figures of!!! Repute, p. 132.

“ For information on Gautier’s naming Apollonie “La Présidente,” see Billy, p. 78, and Ziegler, p. 375.

‘5 Quoted by Griffin, The Book of the C ourtesans, p. 5.

'6 Richardson, The Courtesans: The Demi-Monde in l9-th Century France, p. 41.

‘7 Griff’m, p. l, and 7-9.

1: Gréard, Meissonier and His Life and His Arts. (Lady Mary Loyd and Florence Simmonds, trans), p. 125.
Billy, p. 100.

2° Parker and Pollock, Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, p. 12.

2' Quoted by Parker and Pollock, p. 43.

22 For information on the Morisot sisters, see Parker and Pollock, pp. 43, and 99.

23 Savatier and Richardson both mention that Sabatier exhibited at the Salon de la Société des Arts, but it

cannot be confirmed because the event’s catalogue is incomplete. Savatier believes if she did exhibit with

the group it would have been before 1847. See Savatier, p. 75, and Richardson, p. 151.

2’ The sitter in Portrait of Mlle Jeanne S. is Sabatier’s niece. The identity of Mlle Marie L. is unknown.

25 The Salon des Refuses of 1863 was held to showcase works that were rejected for the official Salon. The

government sponsored the Salon des Refuses to allow the public to judge why these artworks were rejected

for themselves. For information on the Salon des Refuses, see Boime, “The Salon des Refuses and the

Evolution of Modern Art.” Art Quarterly, 4, pp. 412, and 416, Billy, p. 222, and Wildenstein, “Le Salon

des Refuses de 1863 Catalogue et Documents.” Gazette des Bearer-Arts, 66, p. 144.

2" For information concerning Sabatier at the Salons of 1861 and 1864, please see Auvray, Dictionnaire

Général des Artistes de L ’Bcole F rancaise, p. 444.

27 Billy, p. 251.

28 Quoted by Herbert, Impressionism: Art, Leisure, & Parisian Society, p. 186.

2" Ziegler, p. 371. While there is visual proof that Aglaé-Joséphine did model for Vidal, there is no such

proof for Dupré or Rousseau.

0 Lathers, Bodies of Art: French Literary Realism and the Artist’s Model, p. 125. Moss’s argument is
more logical than Ziegler’s. As mentioned earlier, after Mossehnan left Sabatier, she redeemed herself from
poverty via her art not modeling. If Aglaé-Joséphine was a professional model, it would make sense that
she would turn to this vocation in her time of need. However, she did not.

3' Andre Billy claims that both artists were students of Delaroche. Auguste Blanchard is an elusive figure in
nineteenth-century art world. Much of his work and biography have been lost. I found two Auguste
Blanchards that are likely candidates for the artist that recorded Sabatier’s entrance into the art world.

The first figure, Auguste Thomas Marie Blanchard III, is most likely the artist mentioned by Billy. He
was born in Paris in 1819 into a family of artists. According to Jean Laran, Blanchard was taught by his
father and received no outside training. However, according to Billy, Delaroche taught the Blanchard that
depicted Sabatier. Louis Auvray provides a possible explanation to this discrepancy. He states that
Blanchard began attending the Ecole des Beaux-Arts on March 31, 1836. This date fits in perfectly with the
date of Sabatier’s portrait and the dates that Delaroche taught at the Ecole

After A. Blanchard completed his paternal and Ecole training, Blanchard became an engraver. His
portrait of the architect Jean Nicolas Huyot, after Michel-Martin Drolling, is considered by critics to be his
first plate of importance. His artistic prowess drew the attention of the print publishers: Adolphe Goupil
and Ernest Gambart. Many of the artists in which Goupil commissioned were students of Delaroche, and
according to Whiteley, he worked closely with both the artist and his students. Goupil haunted Delaroche’s
studio, searching for artistic talent. Perhaps this is where Goupil met Blanchard. He commissioned many
engravings from Blanchard including Head of Christ and The Angel Gabriel after the paintings of
Delaroche. Gambart, a publisher with a wider reputation in London, also commissioned several works fi'om
Blanchard.

He debuted at the Salon with a piece entitled Spartacus after a painting by Domenichino. Blanchard
entered and was accepted into the Salon several times. He also exhibited his work in 1864, the same year
that Aglaé-Joséphine showcased her work at the Salon. This situation makes one wonder if Blanchard ever
fathomed that the beauty he painted posing in a Bressane dress would exhibit her work in the same
hallowed balls as he did.

54

 

During his career, he won many accolades for his artistic output. At nineteen, he competed for the Prix
de Rome and won second prize, and in 1857, he won first prize. He also won La Croix. He was also made a
member of the Institute, a position which served as the apex to many artistic careers.

Blanchard died in 1898. Like his grandfather and father before him, he also gave his children an
artistic legacy; his sons became artists. See Laran, Inventaire de Fonds Francais, p. 487, Auvray, p. 96,
Whiteley, “Goupil, Delaroche and the Print Trade,” Van Gogh Museum Journal, 74-81, and Billy, pp. 18-
19.

The second candidate for the position of Apollonie’s portrayer is Theodore-Auguste Blanchard." Little
remains of the second Blanchard’s career other than that fact that he was a nineteenth-century painter born
in Paris. The only known remnant of his career is a landscape consisting of a river bordered by a giant tree
in the Musée Narbonne. There is no date of birth recorded for this painter. This situation makes it difficult
to definitely state which Blanchard portrayed Aglaé-Joséphine. Therefore I remain irresolute in my opinion
concerning which Blanchard rightfully deserves the title of Apollonie’s first portrayer. Benezit, Sculpteurs,
Dessinateurs et Graveurs, p. 690.

32 For a detailed description of Aglaé-Joséphine’s first portrait, see Billy, p. 19.
33 There are two Vincent Vidals in the nineteenth-century art world. The Vincent Vidal cited above is not
the Vincent Vidal that is often considered a follower of Edgar Degas.

Sabatier’s portrayer was born on January 20, 181 1 in Carcassone. Vidal moved to Paris to study in the
atelier of Delaroche and entered the Ecole on October 2, 1837. See Benezit, p. 537.

3’ Thierry Savatier suggests that Aglaé-Joséphine and Vidal met circa 1841 or 1842 via Blanchard.
Questions arise concerning the nature of their relationship. Were Aglaé-Joséphine and Vidal platonic
fi'iends, was she his model, or was she his lover? According to the Goncourt brothers, Aglaé-Joséphine
“...a servi aux fantaisies de Vidal,” but whether this was idol gossip or fact is unknown. In the nineteenth-
century, there is often a blurring between the lines of lover and model; it was not unusual for artists to have
trysts with their models. See Savatier, p. 26, and Goncourts, Mérnoires de la Vie Littéraire, vols. 1-2, p. 117.
35 E. Bénézit claims that his portraits are reminiscent of eighteenth-century portraiture especially that of
Cosway. Vidal also painted the upper echelons of society such as Empress Eugenie (Salon of 1857) and
literary figures such as Alexandre Dumas (Salon of 1857). He also ventured into the French countryside to
paint peasants and the beautiful landscape of Brittany. See Benezit, p. 537.

6 F izeliere, Le Salon en Miniature, p. 46.
37 Monaghan, The Book of Goddesses and Heroines, p.123.
3‘ Ibid., p. 123.
39 Ibid., p. 123.

40 Clésinger was born in Besancon on October 20, 1814. He was baptized as Jean Baptiste Clésinger, but
he was commonly known as Auguste. Clésinger’s father, Georges-Philippe Clésinger, was a professor of
drawing and sculpture at the local école des beaux-arts. He taught his son the basics and in the spring of
1832 traveled with the boy to Italy. In Italy, A. Clésinger became the student of the neo-classical sculptor
Bertel Thorwaldsen and the architect Gaspare Salvi. Clésinger preferred the romantic sculpture found in
Paris rather than the severe works of his teachers. He always considered himself a romantic sculptor long
after the movement had past.

One of the most notorious attributes of Clésinger was his personality. According to biographers he was
egotistical, reckless, impulsive and hotheaded. Estignard compares his temperament to that of the
Renaissance sculptor Cellini who is infamous for his artistic ego and grandiose claims. Clésinger was also
very arrogant concerning his artistic output. He called the works of contemporary sculptors “mediocre.” He
also desired immense fame. In order to ensure salon acceptance and patronage, he invited many influential
people including Mosselman to his salon. When he told a friend of his scheme, he tells him “j’arrive,
j’arrive.” Despite his “arrival,” Clésinger completed few commissions. Perhaps it was always a battle
between his ego and careless nature. See Estignard, Auguste Clésinger: Sa Vie et Ses Oeuvres, p. 48,
Hargrove, “Carrier-Belleuse, Clésinger, and Dalou: French Nineteenth- Century Sculptors.” Minneapolis
Institute of Art Bulletin, 61, 28-43, Lami, Dictionnaire des Sculpteurs de l’écolefi'ancais au dix- neuviéme
siécle, Billy, and Pingeot, “Auguste (Jean-Baptiste) Clésinger.” The Grove Dictionary of Art Online.

41 Estignard, p. 48.
‘2 Billy, p. 52-53, and Ziegler, p. 373.
‘3 See Estignard and Billy for information on Réve d'Amour.

55

 

4‘ F emrne piquée par un serpent is also popularly known as La Volupté.

’5 Billy, p. 57.

‘6 For information on F emme piquée see Estignard, Mainardi, “French Sculpture, English Morals:
Clésinger’s Bacchante at the Crystal Palace, 1851.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 102, 215-220, Billy, and Lami,
Dictionnaire des Sculpteurs de l’écolefrancais au dix-neuviéme siécle.

‘7 The bust later became a part of Sabatier’s art collection. It is now owned by the Musée d’Orsay. See
Billy and Estignard for information on the bust.

’8 Clésinger made many variations of the three Apollonie pieces later in his career. Revisions were made of
F emme piquée in 1873 and 1874, the later were made in terra cotta. According to Mainardi, the later
revisions were not of Apollonie, but of another model. After Apollonie’s death, her sister had Clésinger’s
molds of Apollonie destroyed. See Estignard, Billy, p.67 and Mainardi.

‘9 Billy, p. 72.

5° The sculpture was purchased by Prince Demidoff, who was also the patron of Ricard, for 15,000 francs.
Bacchante couchée was chosen for exhibition at the Great Exhibition of Works and Industry of All Nations
in London. Mainardi states that at these events, submissions from guest countries were commonly given
awards out of politeness. This was not the situation with Clésinger’s submission. The English jury believed
it demonstrated excellent sculpting skills, but it was perverted and immoral. Information on Bacchante
couchée can be found in Estignard, Mainardi, Lami and Billy. For information on the Clésinger’s
appearance in London, see Mainardi.

5 Billy, p. 52-3.

’2 Lathers, p. 23.

’3 Ziegler, p. 371.

5" For information on Parker’s theories concerning the male gaze and the male’s dominance over the female
nude, see Parker and Pollock, p. 116.

’5 Billy, pp. 70-71.

5‘ Ibid., p. 71.

’7 Griffin, p. 253.

58 Barye was born on September 24, 1796 in Paris. His father was a goldsmith from Lyon named Pierre
Barye. Barye learned his father’s trade and it was apparent early on that Barye was artistically inclined. At
thirteen he began working for Fourrier, an engraver who supplied all the metal accessories for the military
and made repousée work for Napoleon.

In 1816, he entered the atelier of Bosio, a neo-classical sculpture, to learn the essentials of sculpture.
He also entered the atelier of Gros. From 1818 to 1823, Barye was enrolled at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts but
quit after several attempts for the Prix de Rome remained fruitless. His failure was disheartening to the
aspiring sculptor, and as a result be abandoned his artistic pursuits via academia.

Barye returned to the crafts under the employment of a goldsmith named Fauconnier. However, his
artistic endeavors were not completely squelched; he still pursued his artistic training although this time it
was under his own tutelage. He became a voracious reader of art theory, archaeology and animal anatomy.
He also learned anatomy firsthand at the Jardin des Plantes, which was a center that included a menagerie,
herbarium, museum of natural history, library, lecture rooms and labs. He studied animals at all stages of
dissection to learn about their structures from the inside out. Each time an animal perished, the keeper sent
a messenger to Barye so that he could study the animal’s structure. For eight years, Barye would share his
time between the Jardin and Fauconnier’s workshop. An incident that demonstrates Barye’s successful
education at the Jardin occurred while he was working for the goldsmith. A customer commissioned a soup
tureen embellished with stags. Barye made the tureen, but it was returned because the Stags were too
realistic. The patron wanted Stags that were nobler than the actual animals.

In 1827, Barye entered the Salon successfully, and in 1831 he had his first major success at the Salon.
He exhibited the Martyrdom of St. Sebastien and Tiger Devouring a Crocodile. The animal piece was
successful and became the basis of his career; his depiction of animals became his calling card. It received
a second place medal and was given positive reviews by critics. Charles Blane wrote: “For centuries
ferocious animals had only been treated conventionally. The idea of studying them at the menagerie had
never occurred to anyone.” With this Salon success, he left the employment of F auconnier.

In the Salon of 1833, be exhibited another animal piece entitled Lion Crushing a Serpent. This
sculpture helped establish an important family of patrons for Barye, which according to Benge was his

56

 

intent. The symbolism of the piece appealed to Louis-Philippe. Lions represent courage, strength, fortitude
and most importantly kingly leadership. The French royals also associated Barye’s lion with Leo the
astrological sign of July; a month which was very important to them in the fact that they came to power in
the July Revolution of 1830. They took Barye’s piece to symbolize their triumph over the old government
as represented by the snake. As a result, Barye received numerous commissions from the royal family.
Unfortunately in 1848 the monarchy was forced to leave France and Barye lost a great deal of financial
support.

The royal family encouraged Barye to exhibit at the Salon. However the Salon jury, who once was
supportive of his work, turned against him. Many factors that were key elements in his work began to work
against him. The jury and sculpture critics held certain values concerning sculpture, or what they perceived
as “truths,” as to what sculpture should be. Barye’s works violated several of these values including their
size, subject matter and production techniques. His sculptures were relatively small; the jury typically
preferred life size or monumental sculptures. Barye’s critics sardonically called his work paperweights.
Barye had a passion for depicting animals in his sculptures; however the jury did not view his preference as
suitable subject matter. They preferred sculpture portraying leaders, mythology, biblical characters, etc.
Animals were low on the hierarchy of suitable sculpture topics. The major issue that was argued in
reference to Barye’s work was the craft verses art debate. His critics saw his work as craft not as art. Many
of the production procedures he used were learned in his apprenticeships with metal engravers and
goldsmiths. Ironically these were the very elements of his works that increased their veristic appearance.
His counterparts typically stylized features of animals, whereas Barye used finishing techniques that
allowed him to depict every fine detail of the animals, but because he used craft techniques, the jury saw
his work as craft not art. As a result of these issues, Barye could not exhibit at the Salon. See Benge, Grove
Dictionary of Art Online, Smith, Barbizon Days, Benge, Antoine-Louis Barye: Sculptor of Romantic
Realism, Loffredo, “Des Recherches Communes de Barye et de Delacroix au Laboratoire d’Anatomie
Comparée du Museum d’HistOire Naturelle.” Bulletin de la Société de l ’Histoire de I ’Art Francois,
Loffredo, “Des Recherches Communes de Barye et de Delacroix au Laboratoire d’Anatomie Comparée du
Museum d’Histoire Naturelle” Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de l’Art F rancais,
and Pivar, The Barye Bronzes.

’9 Savatier mentions that the sketch is dedicated to Gautier, p. 35.

60 There are some similarities between the females depicted in Barye’s work and Apollonie such Amazon
Costume de 1830 and Angélique et Roger, Montés sur L ’Hippogriffe to name a few examples. While
women in Barye’s work are similar in appearance to Apollonie, there is no documentation concerning
Apollonie officially posing for Barye.

6‘ Smith, p. 217.

62 Benge, p. l.

63 Sabatier also owned works by Barye at her death. Billy, p.44, and 259.

64 Jalabert was born on January 1, 1819 in Nimes, France. Jalabert began the rudiments of his artistic
training there under the tutelage of Alexandre Colin at the Ecole de Dessin. Jalabert’s father was a store
owner and wanted his son to be one as well not an artist He sent him to Paris to learn his trade. However,
this attempt did not thwart Jalabert’s artistic aspirations for the shopkeeper loved art also and tolerated
Jalabert studying it in his free time.

After one year in Paris, Jalabert decided to devote the entirety of his life to art. Despite his father’s
negative opinion, Jalabert followed his dreams and enrolled into an atelier run by Delaroche. Delaroche
noticed his talent and recommended him for enrollment into the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. On October 9, 1839
Jalabert became a student at the Ecole.

If Jalabert ever felt like his biological father did not support him in the arts, Delaroche certainly
filled this void. Out of the plethora of students enrolled in Delaroche’s atelier, Jalabert was one that he took
Imder his wing. While Delaroche served as a teacher, he also served as a fiend and confidant. This
relationship did not end at the cessation of his artistic training, but continued until Delaroche’s death on
November 4, 1856.

The extent of admiration felt by Jalabert toward Delaroche can be seen in his trip to Italy. Soon after
Delaroche’s atelier disbanded, he journeyed to Italy to study the masters. Jalabert’s attempts to win the
coveted Prix de Rome had failed, yet he was determined to follow his master to Italy. At his own expense
he traveled there and soon located his artistic mentor to seek his advice and mentoring. From 1843 to 1846,

57

 

Jalabert lived in Italy studying Italian life and the great masters. J alabert rented a studio where he painted
future Salon submissions. One of these submissions painted in Rome is Virgile, Horace et Varius chez
Mécéne. Jalabert entered this painting into the Salon of 1847 and it won a third class medal. It was
purchased for 5,000 francs for the Royal Museum in Luxembourg.

Jalabert also spent a great deal of his artistic life devoted to the creation of portraits. Contemporary
critics said these portraits exuded the soul of the sitter. These portrayals obviously exuded something
special, women begged Jalabert to paint their portraits; he had to tin-n several down because of the demand.
Jalabert was commissioned to portray the rich, famous state celebrities and figures of history such as
George Washington’s mother. The celebrity of his portraits is most clearly shown through the
commissions offered by the Orleans family exiled in England. Jalabert traveled to England three times to
sketch the family whom he stayed with and socialized with during his stays. See Bemardy, “Charles
Jalabert, Peinture Nimois.” Mémoires de l'Académie de Nimes, 59, 87-105, Joru’dan, Charles-Francois
Jalabert (1819-1901), Billy, and Reinaud, Charles Jalabert: L ’Homme, Artiste, D ’Aprés Sa
Correspondance.

65 The whereabouts of this portrait is unknown.

66 Jalabert even had nicknames for Sabatier. In his letters addressed to her, he would call her Lili and Nini.
Savatier, “A Propos du Portrait de Madame Sabatier par Charles J alabert,” Bulletin Baudelairien, Winter
1981, p. 6-7.

”Ibid, p. 6-8.

‘8 Billy, p. 169, and Savatier, p. 41.

Jalabert lived in an eclectic artistic environment. The Realists, Barbizons and Impressionists served as
the avant-garde pushing and changing the limits of traditional art. However, in this environment there were
also painters like Jalabert who maintained traditional subject matter and artistic practices. Jalabert being an
artist of the tradition would purposely avoid incorporating contemporary meaning into his work and openly
distained the avant-garde. See Jourdan, pp. 15-16.
7° Billy, p. 165.

7' Savatier, p. 203.

72 For clarification purposes, parakeets and parrots are two different names for the same type of bird.

73 For information on parakeets and the Rococo, see Sani, “Rosalba Carriera’s Young Lady with a Parrot.”
Museum Studies, 17, 74-87.

74 Le Juez, “La F emme au Perroquet: Un Portrait de la F emme au XIX Siecle.” French Studies Bulletin, p.
l l.

7‘ Le Bihan, “Le Bestiaire Symbolique des Peintures.” L ’Estampille, L ’Objet D ’Art, 254, p. 58.

7° Savatier, p. 203.

’7 Griffin, p. 4.

78 Gustave Ricard was born in Marseille on September I, 1823. As a young man, Ricard moved to Paris
and entered the atelier of Léon Cogniet. After his training, Ricard traveled to Italy to study Correggio and
Titian, to England to study the portrait masters, and then made a tour of Holland, Belgium and France.
During his journeys, Ricard intently studied the masters and essayed to decipher their processes and
techniques. This study became almost empirical and if not, certainly diligent. He spent six months copying
Correggio’s l'Antiope. He was soon noted for his conscientiousness. Many commentators remarked that
Ricard’s copies were amazingly close to the originals: a significant feat for someone so young. Ricard
exhibited his copies at the Cercle Artistique.

Ricard was not content, to devote the entirety of his life to copies; with the intense studying of the
masters, he had a goal in mind. He learned from the masters’ techniques and processes as evidenced by
their paintings. He incorporated these lessons into his own work, but to fuse their techniques with his ideas
not to copy them. His work became a synthesis of old and new.

Ricard enacted this syncretistic technique in his atelier on rue Duperré, which he kept until his death.
His main genre was portraiture, but he also did a few still lifes. Ricard had explicit ideas about how a
portrait should look. He despised the portraits that accurately portrayed the visage of the sitter, but failed to
express their inner person or soul. He endeavored to produce a portrait that did both. Some of his portrait
subjects include his sisters, F eydeau, Chenavard-the artist who inspired Meissonier to paint genre scenes,
Albert Goupil, and himself to name a few. See Cantinelli, “Gustave Ricard.” Gazette des Beaux—Arts, i, 83-
103, Bres, Gustave Ricard et Son Oeuvre A Marseille, Davenport, “Gustave Ricard.” The Grove

58

 

Dictionary of Art Online, Flat, “Un Grand Portraitiste Francais Gustave Ricard.” Revue Bleue, 50, 680-
682, and Musset, Notice sur la vie de Gustave Ricard, Suivie du Catalogue de ses Oeuvres Exposées d
l’Ecole des Beaux-arts.
79 Ricard’s biographers disagree as to which date he entered the portrait of Madame Sabatier into the Salon.
Bres states that he entered the portrait into the Salon of 1852, while Cantinelli writes it was exhibited at the
Salon of 1850. Gautier and Billy wrote that Ricard entered her portrait into the Salon of 1851. I would give
the greatest credibility to Gautier because he wrote an article for La Presse entitled “Salon of 1850-51” in
which he discussed Ricard’s portrait of Sabatier. Since the article was written before 1852, Bres is incorrect
in his dating of the painting. Dame au petit chien won a second place medal in the Salon of 1851. It also
won an honorable mention at the Universal Exposition.
8° For information concerning the friendship between Sabatier and Ricard, see Billy, pp. 84—85, 152-156,
and 235-23 7.
8' Since Ricard made a point of reinterpreting the masters, it is also important to look to his influences for
these portrayals to establish his portrait of Sabatier within the tradition.
82 The image is unavailable to reproduce for reference purposes.
’3 Ferguson, Signs and Symbols in Christian Art, p. 9-10.
:4 The dog was given to her by her fiiend Alfred Tattet. For information on La Présidente’s dog, see Billy,
p. 153, Savatier, p. 71 , and Judith Gautier, Le Second Rang du Collier, p. 182.

5 Seltzer, “Gustave Courbet: All the World’s a Studio.” Artforum, September 1977, p. 47.
3‘ Ibid., p. 47.
87 Savatier, p. 240.
88 “J ’aime a peindre ceux qui comprennent ma peinture...J’aime a peindre les gens que je comprends.”
(gnoted in Cantinelli, “Gustave Ricard.” Gazette des Bearer-Arts, i, 1903, p. 100.
8 Ernest Meissonier was born in Lyon, France on February 21, 1815. He was artistically influenced at an
early age by his mother Jeanne Berger Meissonier. However, Meissonier senior was a wholesaler dealer of
textile dyes and wanted his son to follow in his footsteps into the business world.

Meissonier knew the profession preferred by his father did not suite his temperament; he finally
decided to make his feelings known to his father. Meissonier asked his father for 300 francs to fund his
artistic aspirations and promised that he would not hear fi'om him until he was successful in his endeavors.
Meissonier senior agreed to this arrangement on the condition that his son locates a master in one week.
Finally at the end of the week, a family fi'iend introduced Meissonier to Leon Cogniet. Meissonier’s time in
this atelier was short; he spent five months there, and he only saw his master twice.

Despite Cogniet’s inattentiveness, Meissonier managed to find success on his own. His Flemish
Burghers was accepted into the Salon of 1834 and was subsequently purchased by the Société des Amis des
Arts for 100 fiancs. His proud father gave him a studio but reduced his allowance due to his recent
marriage. As a result, Meissonier was desperately in need of an additional income. A friend introduced him
to Curmer, a publisher who revolutionized a process that made illustrated books more accessible to a larger
audience. Curmer was a Saint-Simonian that desired to provide the public with books that countered
individualism, egoism and self-interest. Like Courbet, Curmer also advocated the idea of a “social
workshop;” a place where craftsmen mutually create a product that conveys a message beneficial to society
as a whole. Curmer was skeptical about Meissonier’s skills, but despite his doubts he hired the artist to do
some illustrations. Soon Curmer’s reservations faded as Meissonier proved to be an asset to the publisher’s
company. Curmer soon became his pupil’s mentor, emphasizing to Meissonier the importance of veracity
in his artwork. Meissonier employed his love of study, derived from his school days, and spent endless
hours at research institutions investigating every minute detail in his compositions. He also learned
marketing skills from Curmer, a fact that is quite evident throughout the course of his career. Meissonier
worked full time as a book illustrator until the 18405 with his final project ending in 1858. His tenure with
Curmer acted as a springboard to his career. In addition to the various lessons learned from his mentor,
many of Meissonier’s first Salon submissions were based on illustrations commissioned by Curmer.

While Meissonier’s career as a book illustrator was rewarding, its main aim was to pay the bills; his
true aspirations lay in the world of painting. Like Blanchard, Jalabert and Ricard, Meissonier also began
painting traditional subject matter. An encounter with his fi'iend Chenavard, a fellow painter, changed
Meissonier’s painting forever. Chenavard told Meissonier that Raphael already painted these subjects well,
why should you bother? Via this statement, Chenavard gave Meissonier an epiphany. From this moment

59

 

on, Meissonier discarded his endeavors to create traditional subject matter and began a career as genre
painter. See Gréard, Hungerford, Ernest Meissonier: Master in His Genre, and Gotlieb, The Plight of
Emulation: Ernest Meissonier and French Salon Painting.
9° For information on Meissonier and his fi'iendship with Sabatier, see Billy and Hungerford.
9' Gréard, p. 82.
92 Billy, p.145.
9” Gréard, p. 80.
9‘ The title is based on a poem dedicated to Meissonier by his friend Charles Reynaud. “Reynaud” is also
Spelled “Regnault.”
9 lnforrnation concerning this painting can be found in Ingarnell’s Wallace Collection Catalogues and
gungerford and Refl‘, Retrospective Exhibitions of Ernest Meissonier, p. 70.

Billy, p. 39.
97 Meissonier viewed modernity as boring; modern mannerisms and culture were banal and not as grand as
the past in his point of view. This is the reason Meissonier never painted his subjects in contemporary dress,
but in attire of the past. See Hungerford, p. 74.
98 For information on Meissonier’s dedication to Sabatier, see Nolan, Dictionary of Artist ’s Models, p. 480.
99 According to Hungerford, his artwork does not contain sexuality or flirtatious. For information
concerning Meissonier’s lack of sexuality in his work, see Hungerford, pp. 8, 17, and 76.
'00 However, one could argue that regardless of Meissonier’s artistic ideologies and intentions, any
recognizable image of Sabatier would be and could be seen as sexualized due to her notoriety. Despite
Meissonier’s intentions, it is almost impossible for the viewer to alleviate this association in regards to
Sabatier and with any appealing woman in general. Despite evidence of visual appeal, Meissonier’s
intentions were not sexualized as previous images of Sabatier were.
‘°' Gréard, p. 125.
'02 Rounding, p. 165.
'03 Savatier, p. 73.
‘04 Herding, Courbet to Venture Independence, p. 47.
"’5 Seltzer doubts Valentin knew the illustration would be attached to this article.
'06 Although Billy never mentions Courbet in his biography, it is likely that he knew about her from either
Baudelaire or because of her celebrity.
‘07 Apollonie and Caroline Sabatier are often confused with one another partly due to the fact that they both
sang at one point or another.
'08 Nicolson, Courbet: The Studio of the Painter, p. 39.
“’9 Linda Nochlin also argues that the couple is the F. Sabatiers due to their common Fourier connections
with Courbet. James Rubin also theorizes that the art collectors may be this couple.
”0 Herding also wrote that Seltzer said Sabatier was a frequent visitor at Courbet’s atelier; however this has
been mistranslated. Seltzer said that Sabatier was a frequent visitor at Boissard’s.
111 The identity of Ricard’s Sitter as Caroline Sabatier is identified by Ziegler, “Baudelairiana, Madame
Sabatier, Quelques Notes Biographiques.” Bulletin du Bibliophile, under “Bibliographic Sommaire sur
Mme Sabatier.”
“2 Toussaint, p. 254.
“3 Goncourts, The Goncourt Journals: 1851-1870. (Lewis Galantiere, trans), p. 359.
114 For information concerning coutlu'e habits of courtesans and society women and the attempts to
marginal prostitutes, see Bemheimer, Figures of III Repute.
”5 For information concerning Sabatier and Baudelaire, see Porché, Charles Baudelaire. (John Mavin,
trans), Billy, Starkie, Baudelaire, Moss, Baudelaire et Sabatier, Pichois, Baudelaire. (Graham Robb,
trans.) and Baudelaire, The Flowers of Evil and Correspondance.
”6 Francois Porché paints a very negative picture of Jeanne Duval’s behavior. He wrote that she poisoned
Baudelaire’s cat in spite. He also adds that she did not share in Baudelaire’s love of poetry or conversation
and if she thought it would bring her more money, she would throw his manuscripts into the fire verses
seeing them published. See p. 133.
”7 For these quotations, see Baudelaire, Intimate Journals, pp. 38, 55, 70.
”8 Nicolson, p. 20.
"9 Porché, Charles Baudelaire, (John Mavin, trans), p. 133.

60

 

120 Klaus Herding believes the painting is a political message. Helene Toussaint identifies the “poacher” on

the left Side as Napoleon III. Herding agrees with this identification and builds on Toussaint’s theory.
According to Herding, Courbet created an analogy between his life as manifested through the painting and
Napoleon III’S time as a ruler manifested by the Paris World Fair.

The Artist ’s Studio was painted with the intention of exhibiting it at the World Fair. This exhibition, in
his mind, would put him on par with Ingres and Delacroix, who were venerated by the French. However a
conversation with Nieuwerkerke, President of the admission jury, changed his intentions. Nieuwerkerke
told Courbet he would be allowed to exhibit his work, if he toned down the controversial content. He went
on to tell Courbet that his submissions would be evaluated by two judges: one artist and one governmental
official. Courbet declared that he was the only one worthy to judge his work, and thus vowed to organize
his own exhibition that would rival the World Fair.

Courbet certainly had an agenda with the creation of The Artist ’s Studio; likewise Napoleon III had an
agenda with the hosting of the fair. He wanted to Showcase the glories of his empire, thus celebrating
himself. This event was also designed to promote peace, an ironic goal since Napoleon III was waging war
on several fronts. Just as Courbet’s painting is an allegory celebrating the last seven years of his life, the
fair also marked the seventh anniversary of Napoleon III’S rule.

According to Herding, Courbet is playing on the tradition of artists’ representing their studios and
receiving important officials interested in their artwork. Traditionally artists created these scenes to validate
their work and give due respect to the patrons and/or officials that admired it. However, Courbet switches
this premise, and instead of giving Napoleon III the place of honor, Courbet places him in the role of a
common man and elevates himself by placing his self-portrait in the center. Courbet once said “I am the
foremost man in France...” and “The world comes to my door to be painted...” These quotations certainly
set up the analogy between the World Fair and the painting. Napoleon III considers himself to be the
“foremost man in France” and through the World Fair, the world literally comes to his door.

Herding writes that Napoleon III is supposedly calling for peace, but Courbet actually is. Courbet, as
the intermediary, is calling for everyone to “get along” by depicting all segments of society. Art, instead of
the World Fair, becomes the medium in which to “mediate” or call for peace. Courbet views art as a means
to save society based on a compilation of ideas from socialists such as Fourier, Saint-Simon, and Proudhon.
A critic in 1855 said that the World Fair will act as a caesura between two societies: one that is ending and
one that is beginning.

In her article entitled “The Invention of the Avant-Garde: France, 1830-80,” Linda Nochlin builds on
Herding’s ideas concerning the relationship between Courbet and socialist ideologies. Herding writes that
Courbet used art as “mediator” to call for peace. Art/artists with social functions were a common sentiment
during this time among avant garde artists and philosophers such as Henri Saint-Simon and Fourierists.
Saint-Simon declared that the goal of an artist was to serve as the avant-garde and to spread new ideas via
artistic media. According to Saint-Simon, the artist should serve a “priestly” function within society,
disbursing beneficial information that could potentially change society for the better. The Fourierist
Laverdant also stated that art Should be an expression of society and should also be an “initiator” to visually
dispense the need to change and improve humanity.

Nochlin argues that The Artist ’3 Studio is a Fourierist allegory and provides as evidence Courbet’s
F ourierist associations to prove her theory. When Courbet moved from nrral France to Paris, he stated that
he was a F ourierist. In addition, Courbet was friends with Francois Sabatier, a wealthy patron of the arts
who also lived by this ideology. In the summer of 1854, Courbet stayed with Sabatier at his home in Tour
de F arges. There Courbet drew a portrait of Monsieur Sabatier.

During Courbet’s time with Sabatier, Nochlin hypothesizes that Courbet saw his Sketch entitled The
Last Evening of Slavery by Papety. The Sketch is a Fourierist allegory that visually demonstrates that
scholars will bring an end to Slavery. According to Fourier this would be called the “Hour of Harmony,”
which is the last stage in the evolution of society. Nochlin theorizes that Courbet’s The Artist 's Studio is
based on this sketch and like Papety’s work is also based on Fourierist ideas.

Nochlin sees many Fourierist allusions in The Artist’s Studio. One of these is the association between
“Capital, Labor and Talent”; the idea that art is comparative to other trades and is not the result of some
sort of genius but of labor, which results in a sort of renewal. “Capital” is expressed via the inclusion of
Courbet’s likeminded patron Bruyas and other art collectors. Nochlin also sees Fourier’s idea that there are
interactions between the natural, physical, psychological and social realms in Courbet’s painting. In

61

 

addition Courbet includes Fourier’s idea that there are four “affective passions,” which are “friendship,”
“love,” “ambition,” and “family feeling.” She thinks that perhaps the nude represents “love” and the small
boy watching Courbet paint symbolizes “ambition.” These four affective passions correspond to
“childhood,” “adolescence,” “maturity,” and “old age.” These include two pivot ages which are between
Sixteen and thirty-five, and thirty-Six and forty-five. Nochlin mentions that Courbet was thirty-six when the
painting was exhibited. As a result of his central location in the composition, he also acts as the pivot point
in the painting.

Her last point concerning Courbet and Fourier centers on the boy drawing on the floor to Courbet’s
right. Fourier studied the behavior of children and found that they have five dispositions. He named one of
these dispositions “la singerie” or “imitation.” Fourier said that children mimic the actions of adults and
they should give children small tools so that they can imitate their elders. Nochlin states that the little boy
drawing is a visual representation of Fourier’s “la singerie.” The little boy is aping the artist.

James Rubin, in his book entitled Realism and Social Vision in Courbet and Proudhon, also writes that
The Artist’s Studio is based on socialist ideologies. Unlike Nochlin, he believes this painting is based on
Proudhon’s theories not F ourier’s. (Although it sometimes seems that the water gets very muddy in an
attempt to differentiate between the various ideologies.) Courbet and Proudhon were fiiends and they were
both influenced by a wide variety of social philosophers including Saint-Simon, Fourier, Blane, Comte,
Thoré, Cabet, Considerant and Leroux. Proudhon was an anarchist that promoted the idea of individualism,
contrary to Fourier. He also advocated certain ideas about work and working environments. Proudhon felt
that men should work voluntarily in specialized fields according to their tastes and skills. In addition,
workers would collaborate to create a product or an end goal. Proudhon viewed work as noble endeavor in
contrast to the then common Christian interpretation of work as punishment for original sin.

According to Rubin, Courbet was also influenced by his patron Bruyas who commissioned The Artist ’s
Studio. AS a consequence of Courbet’s conversation with Nieuwerkerke, the artist did not receive state
patronage, which put him in a situation where he had the luxury of finding his own patron with mutual
goals and ideas. Bruyas also had his own socialist ideologies that were a fusion of Saint-Simonianism and
Fourierism. He thought that art should teach morals and represent the natural world not based on the
academic representations, but as it is. Bruyas wrote a book in which he stated art is the solution to social
problems. These ideals are the same that art historian Herding felt Courbet sought. As a result, the
relationship between Courbet and Bruyas was mutually beneficial, resulting in The Artist ’s Studio.

While Rubin argues that The Artist ’s Studio mainly expresses the ideologies of Proudhon, he
contradicts himself in pointing out that many of Courbet’s ideologies differ from Proudhon and are actually
derived fiom other thinkers. In The Artist ’s Studio, Courbet depicts himself as the artist-craftsman. As
mentioned before he is not the inspired genius of the tradition, but just another worker at the top of the
social hierarchy. This can be seen from his central placement in the composition. The idea of the worker-
artist actually stems from Charnpfleury not Proudhon. Courbet’s placement at the center of the painting
also reflects Proudhon’s idea that man evolves and that the artist is at the apex of this evolution. According
to Rubin, Courbet eventually moved away from the ideologies of Proudhon to those of other social
thinkers. I think Rubin himself proves that The Artist ’s Studio is a fusion of socialistic thinking from
several sources not just Proudhon. See Herding, Courbet to Venture Independence. (John William Gabriel,
trans), “The Invention of the Avant-Garde: France, 1830-80.” Art News Annual, 34,11-19, Rubin, Realism
and Social Vision in C ourbet and Proudhon, and Toussaint, “The Painter’s Studio: A Real Allegory
Summing Up Seven Years of My Artistic Life.” Gustave Courbet 1819-1877, 251-280.

'2‘ For information concerning Fourierism, see Riasanovsky, The Teaching of Charles F ourier, McWilliam,
Dreams of Happiness, and McMillan, France and Women 1789-1914.

122 Riasanovsky, p. 144.

'23 McWilliam, pp. 195-196.

'2‘ Quoted in Rubin, p. 80.

'25 For information concerning Saint-Simonianism, see McWilliam, Taylor, Henri Saint-Simon (I 760-

I 825), and McMillan.

‘26 For Saint-Simon’s ideas concerning women, see McMillan, and Parkhurst, The Saint Simonians Mill
and Carlyle: A Preface to Modern Thought, and Bemheimer.

127Parent-Duchatelet linked prostitutes with excrement, and viewed them as contagions of French society.
To Parent-Duchatelet and society in general, prostitutes were representative of infection especially syphilis.
As symbols of this horrible venereal disease, these women were characterized as deviant, shadowy figures;

62

 

they existed in the peripheries of society. Parent-Duchfitelet advised that prostitutes be separated from
society and regulated, so that the contagion could be controlled. As a result of this separation, prostitutes
would no longer be a part of society but divided from it. According to Parent-Duchételet as soon as a
woman decided to become a prostitute, She has Signed away her rights as a citizen; she is no longer a part
of society. The unregistered prostitutes were the biggest threat to society, but the courtesans were also
viewed as problematic. These women purposely and willfully erased their lower class roots and emulated
the customs of the elite. Like their lower class sisters, Parent-Duchatelet also viewed these refined women
as outside of society. Regardless of class, all prostitutes had the power to crumble societal hierarchies
either through contagion or through infiltration. For more information, see Bemheimer.

'23 Quoted by McWilliam, p. 44.

'29 See footnote number 23.

'30 Goncourt, Paris and the Arts, 1851-1896: From the Goncourt Journal. (George J. Becker and Edith
Philips, trans), p. 62.

63

APPENDICES

 

Figure l: Madame Apollonie Sabatier, Self-Portrait, c. 1861, 1875, Private Collection

65

 

Figure 2: Vincent Vidal, Portrait of Madame Sabatier, 0. 1842-43,
Watercolor, Musée de Compiégne

66

 

67

Jean-Marc Nattier, Portrait of Marie Adelaide of France as Flora, 0. 1842—43, Watercolor, Uffizi Gallery, Florence

Figure 3

 

Figure 4: Claude Vignon, Flora, c. 1730s, Oil on canvas, 89.4 x 76.5 cm,
Residenzgalerie, Salzburg

68

 

 

is

3 _ 'im‘.’

Figure 5: Titian, Flora, c. 1515, Oil on canvas, 79.6 x 63.5 cm, Uffizi Gallery,
Florence

“if" u

69

mtg 6.5304 5:me

 

a

3w _ mo :oRm $3233 .3 Sag .uowfimm—U Swingewfl. K flaw:—

70

£333; 34 ”me 8522 82

a

53: mo :ofim

a

385m :3 Eu. @wa mEEuk ea

0

 

aha xenon
BwEmw—U 053nm

$32 .0332
-52. ”a Bani

 

71

 

Figure 9: J can-Baptiste Clésinger, Bust of Madame Sabatier, Salon of 1847, Marble,
Musée d’Orsay, Paris

72

Cam £88m Sum 6332 .53: $3928 823.83% qomcmmflu Bmfimmémon ”A: 2:»:—
m- a e \

 

73

 

,1,

Figure 11: Eugene Delacroix, Louis d ’Orléans Showing His Mistress, 1825-26,
Oil on canvas, Collection Thyssen-Bomemisza, Madrid, Spain

74

 

 

l on paper,

i

Penc

it of Madame Sabatier,

Portra

ine Barye,
lon

Anto

Figure 12

te Collect‘

rlva

P

75

guano ea modem cause an 563 82 .8” Sagan .o .

 

hangar

uEaaeEKQ

eowoo=oo 033$

“Shack

I. an

"2 onion..—

76

 

Figure 14: Sir Joshua Reynolds, Mrs. Bower, 1755-57, Untraced

77

 

1::

‘ .. ,., A..-

.i- a“

Figure 15: Rosalba Carriera, Young Lady with a Parrot, c. 1730, Pastel, 59.8 x 50
cm, Art Institute of Chicago: Chicago

78

be. .80 9mg x was .3250 no :0

a

£0 one, 262 .5. a 83%: eazoaeboz
09: 42.8% a 5.3» .359: £3500 “$830 a: 9.53%

 

79

95.3 .mte-§mom mow owns: .3280 :o :0 KS: quick e S?» Essex: £68200 oammsm u: 93w:—

 

80

 

Figure 18: Edouard Manet, Woman with a Parrot, 1866, Oil on canvas, 185 x 132
cm, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City

81

 

Figure 19: Gustave Ricard, Portrait of Madame Sabatier, Salon of 1851, Also known as:
Dame au petit chien, Oil on canvas, Private Collection

82

 

Figure 20: Rembrandt, Woman with a Lap Dog, c. 1662, Oil on canvas, 80.5 x 64 cm,
Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto

83

El

 

Figure 21: Sir Joshua Reynolds, Caroline, Duchess of Marlborough, 1759-62, Trustees
of the Bedford Estates at Woburn Abbey

84

 

Figure 22: Titian, Eleonora Gonzaga della Rovere, Canvas, 114 x 103 cm, Uflizi Gallery,
Florence

85

 

Figure 23: Ernest Meissonier, Portrait of Madame Sabatier, c. 1853,
Oil, Private Collection

86

 

l'nl‘ll‘uil (16. MM“ 5:11;:1111'1'

17:11.11: 7.1711111311155

Figure 24: Ernest Meissonier, Portrait of Madame Sabatier, c. 1853,
Oil, Private Collection

87

\

ea

e.

'tt'

, ”4*“va ,.

'2'
.

 

Figure-25: Ernest Meissonier, Portrait of Madame Sabatier, c. 1853,
Private Collection,

88

 

a .a't» " é"? . - —~--r‘

Figure 26: Ernest Meissonier, “In the Shade of a Grove Sings a Young Poet, ”
1852, Panel, 18.4 x 21.7 cm, The Wallace Collection, London

89

AS

Ln .

 

mien $3.5.w 03:2 .8 mad x and .3230 :o =0 .33 wk: “5.83
\o “Souk :95“. Q: M5555. 8832: New; V ”SEEM. a. SEER 2R 33500 33me EN Bang

90

5:8on 033$ .mfiifiwcm 63: .3qu oak an 2298. a 3:23 :3. a $9385 dado—Sr use: ”an 953%

'Wll'

.“1

n
m
..n

 

91

 

Figure 29: Gustave Courbet, Portrait of Francois Sabatier, c. 1857,
Drawing, Musée Fabre, Montpellier

92

a

mug £3 30¢ a. 82: $3: $53.82 B$3a Efié £35 8 Ba? an 25:.

 

93

5: $5382 BKNSE §E£ £35 2. Ba? an 2%;

 

94

 

,,-~__.._ , ‘9'

Figure 32: Gustave Ricard, Portrait of Caroline Ungher-Sabatier, 1865,
Musée Fabre, Montpellier,

95

 

m9: .8 33 .§.=§§E. q .. seem a. 3% 2F. .8 058Eo .aonngfio ”mm 2%:

.39: 1.; 2 522.2732...— ./.._:._:...:._:~. .3 .235? 3:: u: 33:32.3

 

 

 

 

96

BIBLIOGRAPHY

97

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Auvray, Louis. (1882). Dictionnaire Général des Artistes de L ’E’cole F rancaise. Paris:
Librairie Renouard.

Baudelaire, Charles. (1961). The Flowers of Evil. (Francis Duke, trans.) Charlottesville,
VA: University of Virginia Press.

Baudelaire, Charles. (1973). Correspondance: Janvier 1832-Février 1860. Paris:
Gallimard.

Baudelaire, Charles. (1973). Correspondance: Mars [860- Mars 1866. Paris: Gallimard.

Baudelaire, Charles. (1983). Initimate Journals. (Christopher Isherwood, trans.) San
Francisco: City Lights Books.

Benezit, E. (1948). Dictionnaire des Peintures, Sculpteurs, Dessinateurs et Graveurs.
Paris: Librairie Grfind.

Benge, Glenn F. “Antoine-Louis Barye.” The Grove Dictionary of Art Online, ed. L.
Macy (Accessed December 2, 2003) http://www.groveart.com.

Benge, Glenn F. (1984). Antoine-Louis Barye: Sculptor of Romantic Realism. University
Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Bemardy, A. (1974-76). “Charles Jalabert, Peinture Nimois.” Mémoires de l’Académie
de Nimes, 59, 87-105.

Bemheimer, Charles. (1989). Figures of III Repute. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Biedermann, Hans. (1992). Dictionary of Symbolism. New York: Facts On File.

Bihan, Olivier Le. (1992). “Le Bestiaire Symbolique des Peintures.” L ’Estampille,
L ’Objet D ’Art, 254, 48-59.

98

 

Billy, André. (1945). La Présidente et Ses Amis. Paris: Flammarion.

Boime, Albert. (1971). The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century.
London: Phaidon.

Boime, Albert. (1969). “The Salon des RCfilSéS and the Evolution of Modern Art.” Art
Quarterly, 4, 411-426.

Brés, Louis. (1873). Gustave Ricard et Son Oeuvre A Marseille. Paris: Librairie
Renouard.

Brown, Christopher. (1980). Rembrandt. London: Granada.
Cantinelli, R. (1903). “Gustave Ricard.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, i, 83-103.

Davenport, Nancy. “Gustave Ricard.” The Grove Dictionary of Art Online, ed. L. Macy
(Accessed June 21 , 2003) http://www.groveart.com.

Estignard, A. (1899). Auguste Clésinger: Sa Vie et Ses Oeuvres. Paris: Librairie H.

Floury.
Falk, Bernard. (1951). “Old Q. ’s ” Daughter: The History of a Strange Family. London:
Hutchinson & CO.

Ferguson, George. (1954). Signs and Symbols in Christian Art. New York City: Oxford
University Press.

Feydeau, Ernest. (1874). Théophile Gautier Souvenirs Intimes. Paris: E. Plon et Cie.

Fizeliére, Albert de la. (1861). AZ Ou Le Salon en Miniature. Paris: Poulet-Malassis et
de Broise.

Flat, Paul. (1912). “Un Grand Portraitiste Francais Gustave Ricard.” Revue Bleue, 50,
680-682.

Gautier, Judith. (1994). Le Collier Des Jours. Paris: Christian Pirot.
Gautier, Judith. (1909). Le Second Rang du Collier. Paris: Librairie Félix Juven.

Gautier, Théophile. (1855). Les Beaux-arts en Europe, ii, 8-9..

Gautier, Théophile. (1903). Enamels and Cameos and Other Poems. (Agnes Lee, trans.)
Boston: The C. C. Brainard Publishing Co.

Gautier, Théophile. (1947). Emaux et Camées. Lille: Librairie Giard.

Gautier, Théophile. (1953). Oeuvres Erotiques Poésies Libertines Lettres a La
Présidente. Paris: Arcanes.

99

Gautier, Théophile. (April 8, 1851). “Salon de 1850-51.” La Presse, 2.

Goncourt, Edmond de. and Goncourt, Jules de. (1937). The Goncourt Journals: 1851-
1870. (Lewis Galantiére, trans.) Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran &
Company, Inc.

- Goncourt, Edmond de. and Goncourt, Jules de. (1956). Journal Mémoires de la Vie
Littéraire (V 01. 1-2). Monaco: F asquelle and Flammarion.

Goncourt, Edmond de. and Goncourt, Jules de. (1962). Pages fiorn the Goncourt Journal.

(Robert Baldick, trans.) London: Oxford University Press.

Goncourt, Edmond de. and Goncourt, Jules de. (1971). Paris and the Arts, [851-1896;
From the Goncourt Journal. (George J. Becker and Edith Philips, trans.) Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.

Gotlieb, Marc J. (1996). The Plight of Emulation: Ernest Meissonier and French Salon
Painting. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gre'ard, Vallery CO. (1897). Meissonier and His Life and His Arts. (Lady Mary Loyd
and Florence Simmonds, trans.) New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son.

Griffin, Susan. (2001). The Book of the Courtesans. New York: Broadway Books.

Hargrove, June. (1974). “Carrier-Belleuse, Clésinger, and Dalou: French Nineteenth-
Century Sculptors.” Minneapolis Institute of Art Bulletin, 61, 28-43.

Hauptrnan, William. (1985). “Delaroche’s and Gleyre’s Teaching Ateliers and Their
Group Portraits.” Studies in the History of Art, 18, 79-119.

Hebert, Robert L. (1988). Impressionism: Art, Leisure, & Parisian Society. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.

Herding, Klaus. (1991). Courbet to Venture Independence. (John William Gabriel,
trans.) New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hofman, W. and Herding, Klaus. (Ed.) (1978). Courbet und Deutschland. Kbln: Du
Mont.

Hungerford, Constance Cain. (1999). Ernest Meissonier: Master in His Genre.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

lngamells, John. (1986). The Wallace Collection Catalogue of Pictures. London: The
Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

J iminez, Jill Berk. (Ed.) (2001). Dictionary of Artists ’ Models. Chicago: Fitzroy
Dearbom.

100

Johnson, Lee. (2002). The Paintings of Eugene Delacroix: A Critical Catalogue. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Johnston, William R. “Charles Jalabert.” The Grove Dictionary of Art Online, ed. L.
Macy (Accessed September 3, 2003) http://www.groveart.com.

Jourdan, A. (1981). Charles-Francois Jalabert (181 9-1 901). Nimes: Musée des Beaux-
Arts.

Juez, Brigitte Le. (1993). “La F emme au Perroquet: Un Portrait de la Femme au XIX
Siecle.” French Studies Bulletin, 10-12.

La Réunion des Musées Nationaux. (1969). Baudelaire. Paris: Musée du Petit-Palais.

Lami, Stanislas. (1914-21). Dictionnaire des Sculpteurs de l’écolefiancais au dix-
neuviéme siécle. Paris: E. Champion.

Laran, Jean. (1937). Inventaire du Fonds Francois Aprés I800 (Beauquesne-Bocquet).
Paris: Bibliothéque Nationale.

Larroumet, Gustave. (1895). Meissonier: Etude suivie d ’une biographe par P. Burty.
Paris: Librairie d’Art.

Lathers, Marie. (2001). Bodies of Art: French Literary Realism and the Artist ’s Model.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Leoussi, Athena S.E. “Auguste Blanchard III.” The Grove Dictionary of Art Online, ed.
L. Macy (Accessed August 27, 2003) http://www.groveart.com.

Loffredo, Francois-Raphaél. (1982). “Des Recherches Communes de Barye et de
Delacroix au Laboratoire d’Anatomie Comparée du Museum d’Histoire
Naturelle.” Bulletin de la Société de I’Histoire de I’Art Francois, 147-157.

Maas, Jeremy. (1975). Gambart: Prince of the Victorian Art World. London: Barrie &
Jenkins. '

Mainardi, Patricia. (1983). “French Sculpture, English Morals: Clésinger’s Bacchante at
the Crystal Palace, 1851.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 102, 215-220.

Mannings, David. (2000). Sir Joshua Reynolds: A Complete Catalogue of His Paintings.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

McMillan, James H. (2000). France and Women 1 789-1914. London: Routledge.

McWilliam, Neil. (1993). Dreams of Happiness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

Mermaz, Louis. (1967). Madame Sabatier: Apollonie au pays des libertins. Lausanne:
Editions Rencontre.

10]

Monaghan, Patricia. (1990). The Book of Goddesses and Heroines. St. Paul, MN:
Llewellyn Publications.

Moss, Armand. (1975). Baudelaire et Sabatier. Paris: A.G. Nizet.

Musset, Paul de. (1873). Notice sur la vie de Gustave Ricard Suivie du Catalogue de ses
Oeuvres Exposées a I’Ecole des Beaux-arts. Paris: Imprimerie Gauthier-Villars.

Nicolle, M. (1907). “Le Portrait de Mme de Calonne.” Rev. A. Anc. & Mod, xxi, 37-40.

Nicolson, Benedict. (1973). Courbet: The Studio of the Painter. New York: The Viking
Press.

Nochlin, Linda. (1968). “The Invention of the Avant-Garde: France, 1830-80.” Art News
Annual, 34, 11-19.

Pankhurst, Richard K.P. (1957). The Saint Simonians Mill and Carlyle: A Preface to
Modern Thought. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.

Parker, R. and Pollock, G. (1981). Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Pedrocco, Filippo. (2001). Titian. New York: Rizzoli International Publications.
Pellegrin, Jean. (1984). “D’Une Présidente L’Autre.” Bulletin Baudelairien, 18-19.
Pichois, Claude. (1989). Baudelaire. (Graham Robb, trans.) London: Hamish Hamilton.

Pingeot, Anne. “Auguste (Jean-Baptiste) Clésinger.” The Grove Dictionary of Art
Online, ed. L. Macy (Accessed June 21 , 2003) http://www.groveart.com.

Pivar, Stuart. (1974). The Barye Bronzes. Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’ Club.

Porché, Francois. (1928). Charles Baudelaire. (John Mavin, trans.) London: Wishart &
Company.

Reff, Theodore. (1981). Retrospective Exhibitions of Ernest Meissonier. New York:
Garland Publishing, Inc.

Reinaud, Emile. (1903). Charles Jalabert: L ’Homme, Artiste, D ’Aprés Sa
Correspondance. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie.

Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. (1969). The Teaching of Charles Fourier. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.

Ricatte, Robert. (Ed.) (1956). Edmond et Jules de Goncourt: Journal Mémoires de la Vie
Littéraire. Monaco: L’Imprimerie Nationale.

102

Richardson, Joanna. (1967). The Courtesans: The Demi-Monde in I9-th Century France.
London: Phoenix Press.

Richardson, Joanna. (1994). Baudelaire. London: John Murray.

Rounding, Virginia. (2003). Grandes Horizontales: The Lives and Legends of Marie
Duplessis, Cora Pearl, La Pai'va and La Présidente. London: Bloomsbury.

Rubin, James Henry. (1980). Realism and Social Vision in Courbet and Proudhon.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sani, Bemardina. (1991). “Rosalba Carriera’s Young Lady with a Parrot.” Museum
Studies, 17, 74-87.

Savatier, Thierry. (2003). Une F emme Trop Gaie: Biographie d ’un Amour de Baudelaire.
Paris: CNRS Editions.

Savatier, Thierry-Richard. (1981). “A Propos du Portrait de Mme Sabatier par Charles
Jalabert.” Bulletin Baudelairien, Winter, 6-8.

Schifanelli, Marcia R. (1988). “Barye’s Decorative Arts.” Antoine-Louis Barye: The
Corcoran Collection, 57-60.

Séché, Léon. (1910). “La Presidente.” Mercure de France, 218-233.
Seltzer, Alex. (1974). “Gustave Courbet: All the World’s Studio.” Artforum, 44-50.

Smith, Charles Sprague. (1969). Barbizon Days. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries
Press.

Starkie, Enid. (1958). Baudelaire. New York: New Directions Books.

Taylor, Keith. (1975). Henri Saint-Simon (1 760-1825). New York: Holmes and Meier
Publishers, INC.

Thieme, Ulrich. And Becker, Felix. (1910). Allgemeines Lexikon Der Bildenden Kunstler
(Bida-Brevoort). Leipzig: Verlag Von Wilhelm Engelmann.

Toussaint, Helene. (1978). “The Painter’s Studio: A Real Allegory Summing Up Seven
Years of My Artistic Life.” Gustave Courbet 1819-1877, 251-280.

The Wallace Collection. (1928). Pictures and Drawings: Text with Historical Notes and
Illustrations. London: HMSO.

The Wallace Collection. (1979). Summary Illustrated Catalogue of Pictures. London:
The Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

Whiteley, Linda. (2000). “Goupil, Delaroche and the Print Trade.” Van Gogh Museum
Journal, 74-81.

103

 

Wildenstein, Daniel. (1965). “Le Salon des Refuses de 1863 Catalogue et Documents.”
Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 66, 125-152.

Ziegler, Jean. (1975). “Baudelairiana, Alfied Mosselman et Mme Sabatier.” Bulletin du
Bibliophile, 267-273.

Ziegler, Jean. (1977). “Baudelairiana, Madame Sabatier, Quelques Notes
Biographiques.” Bulletin du Bibliophile, 365-3 82.

104