Download - Fantin’s Failed Toast to Truth - Princeton University GRJ3 Article... · a multilayered trope: the mirror in Truth’s hand. Wielded both as a triumphant attribute for the figure

53

GettyResearchJournal,no.3(2011):53–70©2011BridgetAlsdorf

Letmebeginbydescribingapicturethatnolongerexists.Thepaintingislargeandfullof

figures,anambitioussubmissiontotheParisSalonof1865.Thesettingisstrange:there

areindicationsofanartist’sstudioorsomeotherausterebourgeoisinterior,butone

thatopensontoblueskyandwarmlightintheupperbackground,stagingaphantasma-

goricinterplaybetweeninteriorandexteriorrealms.Agroupofeighttotenartistsand

writersaregatheredinthisspace,clusteredaroundanudefemalefigurehoveringover

themasifjustdescendedfromtheheavensinaburstofcottonyclouds.Archingabove

thenude’shead,alabelinclearblocklettersidentifiesheras“VERITE,”spellingoutthe

chastenobilityofhernudityinaroomfullofmen.Itisnotclearwhetherthemenshare

thenude’ssunlitenvironment,andthisspatialambiguityisjustoneaspectofthebroader

clashof“purefantasy”and“reality”thatmakesthepictureperplexing.1Arrangedaround

atablecoveredinawhitetableclothandadornedwithanelaboratefloralbouquet,the

menholdglassesofbluewine,apopulardrinkamongtherevolutionariesof1848.They

proposeatoasttoTruth,theirmuse,who—despitetheluminousaurapaintedaround

her—looksmorelikeastudiomodelthanasupernaturaldeity.Herhairisastrident

orange-red,andshefacestheviewerwithamirrorinonehand.Themenaredressedin

darksuits,withtheexceptionofJamesMcNeillWhistler,wholooksoutfromthecenter

foregroundinarichlypatternedJapaneserobe.Twostandingmenintophatsflankthe

compositiononeitherside,oneofthemturninghisbacktotheviewer.Thepainting’s

creator,HenriFantin-Latour,isseatedinthelowerleftforeground;hisbodyturnstoward

Truthashegesturestoherwithhisrighthandwhilehisheadcranesbackoverhisright

shouldertoaddresstheviewer.Thestill-lifepainterAntoineVollonisfeaturedamongthe

group,gazinginourdirectionthroughheavylids,hisexpressionthoughtfulandsensitive,

whileÉdouardManetstandsnexttoTruth,afigurenotunliketheoneinhispainting

Olympia(1863–65),exhibitedatthesameSalon.Theremainingfigureslikelyincludethe

critic,painter,andsculptorZacharieAstruc,engraverandpainterFélixBracquemond,

thepainterLouisCordier,thenovelistandcriticEdmondDuranty,andthepainterand

lithographerArmandGautier,allofwhomassociatedthemselveswiththemovement

knownasrealism.

ThisisthemostelaboratedescriptionofThe Toast! Homage to Truth(1865)that

canbereconstructedfromitsremains,giventhatFantindestroyedthepaintinginafit

Fantin’s Failed Toast to TruthBridgetAlsdorf

54 get t y r ese a rch jou r na l , no. 3 (2011)

offrustrationsoonaftertheSalonended.2Itisaspeculativedescription,ofcourse,but

itsmainoutlinesarereliableenoughtosuggestatrulyremarkableandunusualpainting.

Allthatremainsofthepicturearethreeportraitfragmentstheartistelectedtosave:the

portraitofVollon,theportraitofWhistler,andFantin’sself-portrait(figs.1a–c).3Asa

result,scholarshavedevotedlittleattentiontothepaintingandthelargerprojectitrep-

resents,despitethemanysourcesofavailableevidencesurroundingitsdevelopmentand

criticalreception.4Thepaintingwasnotwellreceived,bycriticsorthegeneralpublic,

andthethirty-five(mostlyscathing)criticalreviewsitgarneredareessentialnotonlyto

ourabilitytoreconstructitsappearancebutalsotoourunderstandingofitsperceived

failureasagroupportraitandartisticmanifesto.Evenmoreilluminatingarethethirty-

oddpreparatorydrawingspreservedintheMuséeduLouvre,5andapreviouslyunknown

pen-and-inksketchinthecollectionoftheGettyResearchInstitutethatIbelievetobe

theclearestrepresentationofthefinalcomposition.Thesedrawingsdetailthelongand

meanderinggenesisofthismostambitiousanddisastrousofFantin’sgroupportraits,

revealingtheprofoundchallengesthegenreposedtoartistsofhishistoricalandsocial

situation.Inparticular,thedrawingsrepresentarangeofeffortsatexpressinganotion

ofartistictruth,anotionthatwasatonceindividual(Fantin’sown)andcollective(sup-

portedbyaselectgroup).

ThehistoryofThe Toast!’sdevelopment,failure,andultimatedestructionexem-

plifies several key problems surrounding group portraiture in its mid-nineteenth-

centurymoment.Withthiswork,Fantincontinuedtoinvestigatethetenserelationship

betweenindividualityandcollectivity,self-portraitureandgroupportraiture,alreadyat

workinhisfirstgroupportrait,theHomage to Delacroix of1864(fig.2).Inthisambitious,

manifesto-likestatementfortheSalonof1864,FantinreconceivedtheDutchmodel

ofgroupportraitureasadeclarationofartisticidentity,bothhisownandthatofhis

fellows.6Theconflictwasbetweentheartist’spersonalambitionandhisdesireforan

association—withagroupofcolleaguesandwithDelacroix—thatwouldnurtureand

givegreatermeaningtohisindividualenterprise.ButThe Toast!raisedthestakesofthis

projectsignificantlybybeingmoreexplicitly,andmoreoutlandishly,arepresentationof

Fantin’spersonalphilosophyofart.Thechallengewasthereforenotonlytofindawayto

integrateselfandgroup,tointerminglethemwithoutunderminingeitherone,butalso

tomakethisdelicaterelationshipcontributeto,andsomehowcommenton,theartist’s

visionoftruth.

Fantin’stentativesolutionwastoexploretheindividual-groupproblemthrough

amultilayeredtrope:themirrorinTruth’shand.Wieldedbothasatriumphantattribute

forthefigureandasacompositionaldevicethroughwhichtheartistcouldmeditateon

thenatureofportraiture,Truth’smirrorbecamethework’scentralmetaphor,alens

throughwhichtheindividualcouldcometotermswithhisownimageaswellashisplace

withinalargersocietyofartists.Indrawingafterdrawing,theconfrontationbetweenone

ormoremembersofFantin’sgroupandthemirrorofTruthprovidesthecomposition’s

centraldrama.Asareflective,representationaldeviceinaccessibletotheviewer’sgaze,it

AlsdorfFantin’sFailedToasttoTruth 55

Figs. 1a – c. Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836 – 1904).FragmentsofThe Toast! Homage to Truth,1865,

oiloncanvas.

a.Self-Portrait,36×32cm(141⁄4×125⁄8in.).Privatecollection.PhotocourtesyBrame&Lorenceau,Paris

b.James McNeill Whistler, 47×37cm(185⁄8×145⁄8in.).Washington,D.C.,FreerGalleryofArt,Smithson-

ianInstitution,GiftofCharlesLangFreer(f1906.276a-b).Photo:FreerGalleryofArt

c.Portrait of Antoine Vollon,30.2×18cm(12×71⁄8in.).Paris,Muséed’Orsay(rf1974–17).Photo:Réunion

desMuséesNationaux/ArtResource,NY


actsasanothermetaphoricalportraitsurfaceinwhichindividualfacesamongthegroup

mightbereflected,butwithinaframethatisprivateandprivileged,unseenbythose

outsidethepainting’sinnerworld.Themultiplevariationsonthisthemethroughout

themanysketchesleadinguptothefinalworkshowthatFantinstruggledtorepresent

theideaofanartist’sindividual—butalsocollective—relationshiptoartistictruth.This

balancingactgeneratedendlesscompositionalchallengesashetriedtodevelopalivelier,

moreinteractivemodelofgroupportraiturethantheonehehadexhibitedin1864.

Inthefirstgroupofdrawings,beguninMay1864,Truthholdsouthermirrortoa

largegroup,asiftheattributewereasymboloftriumph(figs.3,4).7Pressedtogetherat

herfeet,heraudienceclamorsbelowlikeacrowdatarally.Infigure3,oneofthemholds

upastandardwiththeword“VERITE,”whichfacesTruth’smirrorintheupperhalfof

thecompositionasifansweringit—reflectingthemirror’smeaningwhilealsolabeling

thepicture’ssubject.ButwhatismostnotableabouttheseearlydrawingsisthatTruth

presentshermirrortoamobofpeopleinanopen,perhapsoutdoor,setting.8Fantinorigi-

nallyconceivedtheworkasamasshomage,envisioningTruthasapublicleaderableto

manipulatethecrowdwithhermirror-wand.

Laterdrawings,fromNovember1864toearlyJanuary1865,abandonthepublic

settingfortheinteriorspaceofthestudioandalsoshiftfromacollectivetoamoreindi-

vidualizedaudienceforTruth.Inthissecondphaseofsketches,Fantinexperimented

withaone-on-oneencounterbetweenTruthandasinglefigureinthegroup,withother

Fig. 2. Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836 – 1904).Homage to Delacroix,1864,oiloncanvas,160×250cm

(63×981⁄2in.).Paris,Muséed’Orsay(rf1664).Photo:RéuniondesMuséesNationaux/ArtResource,NY


Fig. 3. Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836 – 1904).StudyforThe Toast! Homage to Truth,n.d.(probably

May1865),graphiteandpierrenoireonpaper,14.3×23.1cm(55⁄8×91⁄8in.).Paris,DépartementdesArts

Graphiques,MuséeduLouvre(rf12647).Photo:RéuniondesMuséesNationaux/ArtResource,NY

Fig. 4. Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836 – 1904).StudyforThe Toast! Homage to Truth,30May1864/

5December1864,leadpencilandgraphiteonpaper,21.4×29.8cm(81⁄2×113⁄4in.).Paris,Départe-

mentdesArtsGraphiques,MuséeduLouvre(rf12486).Photo:RéuniondesMuséesNationaux/Art

Resource,NY


figureslookingon(figs.5,6).9TheprivilegedfigurefacingTruthandhermirrorisalmost

invariablyapainter,holdingabrushandpaletteand/orstandingataneasel,andoften

resemblesFantin.Moreimportantthantheissueofidentification,though,isthewaythe

scenariosarecomposedsothatitisunclearwhetherthepainteristransfixedbythenude

(andhenceTruth)orbyhisownimagereflectedbackathiminthemirror—or,indeed,by

aheadycombinationofboth.Asviewers,wecannotseethemirror’sreflectivesideand

thereforecannotknowifthepainterisenthralledbyTruthorself,andthisveryambiguity

posesthepossibilitythatthetwomightbeunderstoodasoneandthesame,orthatFantin

meanttoprovokereflectiononjustthispoint.Thethemeofspecularity,orreflexivity,

hasmultiplelayersofsignificancehere,suggestingthatvisualartistsareforcedtolook

atthemselvesratherthan—oratleastatthesametimeas—thereality(thetruth)theyare

strivingtorepresent,asiftherealistprojectmustnecessarilyfallbackon,anddrawits

strengthfrom,thetaskofself-portraiture.ThisconceptionofrealismcomplicatesÉmile

Zola’sfamousdefinitionofartas“afragmentofnatureseenthroughatemperament.”10

Zola’sphrasesuggeststhatrealismisaseamlessconvergenceoftwoentitiesthatare

otherwisesplit,orevenopposed—nature(Zola’snotionoftruth)andtemperament(his

notionofself ).WhatFantin’sconceitsuggests,takingtheideafurther,isthatrealism

requirestheartisttolookattruthandalsoathimself—thatself-portraiture,andthus

self-analysis,subtendanyhonestdepictionofthings—andthatthetwosights,selfand

truth,areoftendifficulttoresolve.Byexperimentingwithisolatedself-reflectionwithin

acollectivecomposition,Fantin’sstudiesforThe Toast!revealhowthisself-truthconflict

wasdeeplyimbricatedintheself-groupconflictthatdrovehisgroupportraits.Fantin’s

struggletodefinehisversionofrealismanditsrelationshiptotruthwasinseparablefrom

hisstruggletodefinehisrelationshiptohisartisticpeers.

Ontheonehand,thissecondgroupofdrawingsseemstoresistnotionsofcol-

lectivitybyusingTruth’shand-mirrorasavisualdeviceofexclusiveenlightenmentand

privilege.(MovingTruthintoanartist’sstudioalreadymakesthepointthataccesstoher

isrestricted.)Ontheotherhand,themirrorisasubtlesolutionforimplementinghier-

archyinagroupportraitwithoutseparatingout,elevating,orenlarginganyparticular

figure,thuspreservinganoverallsenseofdemocraticunity.IfFantinhadwantedtopaint

awhollyself-centeredgroupportrait,hecouldhavehewedmorecloselytohismodel:

GustaveCourbet’sThe Painter’s Studio: A Real Allegory Summing Up a Phase of Seven Years

of My Moral and Artistic Life(1855),exhibitedintheartist’sself-mountedone-manshow

adecadebefore.11Theambitious,first-persontoneofthiswork’slengthytitlepervades

itspictorialstructure,whichcentersonCourbethimselfpaintingathiseaselwithanude

model—a“realallegory”fortruth—peeringoverhisshoulder.UnlikeCourbet,who

madehimselftheisolatedcenterpieceofthegroupgatheredinhisstudio,Fantinpushed

hisself-portraittothemarginandabandonedtheone-on-oneencounterbetweenpainter

andTruthsothatTruthcouldaddressamorepublic,collectiveaudience.Fantinalso

chosetoemphasizethecommunalactoftoastinginsteadofartistsobservinganddraw-

ingprivateinspirationfromTruth.12


Fig. 5. Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836 – 1904).Studyfor The Toast!Homage to Truth,5December

1864,charcoalandcrayononpaper,29.9×37.8cm(117⁄8×15in.).Paris,DépartementdesArtsGraphiques,

MuséeduLouvre(rf12397,fol.5r).Photo:RéuniondesMuséesNationaux/ArtResource,NY

Fig. 6. Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836 – 1904).Studyfor The Toast!Homage to Truth,8January1865,

charcoalandcrayononpaper,29.9×37.8cm(117⁄8×15in.).Paris,DépartementdesArtsGraphiques,Mu-

séeduLouvre(rf12415,fol.17v).Photo:RéuniondesMuséesNationaux/ArtResource,NY


ThelastmajorshiftinthedevelopmentofThe Toast!appearsinthecrucialdraw-

ingof16January1865(fig.7),where,forthefirsttime,Truthturnstofacetheviewer.

AfterpagesandpagesofsketchesinwhichTruthcouldbeseenonlyfrombehind,Fantin

decidedtoshiftthenudedead-centerandpositionherbodytothefront,holdingupher

mirrorinherlefthandandlookingoutinanopenaddresstotheaudience.Atright,a

figureinatophatisdepictedfrombehind,asistheseatedfigureatthetableinthelower

leftcorner;butthefrontalityofTruth’snudebodycommandingthecomposition’scenter

emphaticallyeliminatesanysenseofthegroupasanenclosedinnercircle.Themirrorof

Truthisfinallyvisible,andnowincludesthepublicoutsidetheframeinitsphilosophi-

calmeditation.

What was behind this change? Was Fantin challenging his audience through

Truth’saddress,daringthemtofacehermirror?Whydidheabandontheingenious

tropeofTruthselectingandcommuningwithparticularartistsamongthegroup—their

exchangehiddenfromview—foryetanotherfrontalgroupportrait?Simpleclarityand

comprehensibilitywereprobablypartofhisreasoning:figure7(likethepainting)issym-

metrical,withthefiguresmoreorlessevenlydistributedoneitherside,andhierarchyis

establishedbymoretraditionalmeansofplacementandpose,withFantinrelegatedto

theouterleftmargin(theseatedfigure’struncatedprofileattheedgeisunmistakably

his).However,thesechangesmayalsohavebeeninspiredbyadesireforamorecon-

frontationalandpublicimage(noticehowthesettinghaschangedfromtheintimate

Fig. 7. Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836 – 1904).StudyforThe Toast! Homage to Truth,16January

1865,charcoalandcrayononpaper,29.9×37.8cm(117⁄8×15in.).Paris,DépartementdesArtsGraphiques,

MuséeduLouvre(rf12419,fol.19v).Photo:RéuniondesMuséesNationaux/ArtResource,NY


studioofthepreviousdrawingstoamoreclassical,civicarchitecturalspace);andFan-

tinseemstohavehadsecondthoughtsaboutTruth’smirrorprivilegingasingleartist

amongthegroup,especiallyifhewerethatartist.Hisnoteinthemarginforapossible

title,“ToTruth,ourideal!”(A la Vérité, notre idéal!),suggeststhissketchwasaneffortto

showamorecollectivetoasttoTruth,anidealsharedbythemendepictedintheportrait

andperhapsalsobythepublicthatitwasintendedtoaddress.Fromthispointforward,

theencounterbetweentheartistandthemirrorofTruthistriangulatedtoincludethe

spectator,raisingthequestionofartistictruthfromanotherdirection:Asviewers,isour

truthanimpartialreality?Orisitwhatweseeofourselves—whatwealreadyknow,an

accumulationofwhatwehaveseenbeforeinpreviouspicturesandpersonalexperiences?

Thedrawingof16Januarywasnotthefinalrevision.Apen-and-inkdrawing

sketchedintoaletterFantinprobablywroteinearlyFebruary1865representsamore

advancedstateofthecomposition(fig.8),likelymadeafterthepaintingwasunder

way.Theletterisseverelycropped,makingtheremainingfragmentsoftextverydif-

ficulttodecipherintosentences,butitsprovenanceinBritishcollectionssuggestsit

mayhavebeenoneofthemanylettersFantinaddressedtoEdwinEdwardsorWhistler

whileThe Toast!wasinprogress.13AnotherpossiblerecipientistheGermanpainterOtto

Scholderer,aclosefriendofFantinwithwhomhekeptupalivelyandlengthycorrespon-

dencefrom1858until1901.Scholderer’slettertoFantinfromFrankfurtdated14February

1865confirmsthathehadrecentlyreceivedatleastthreesketchesofthecompositionin

progress,thelatestofwhichhedescribesintermscloselymatchingtheGettydrawing:an

imageofafemalenudesurroundedbymeninblackinscribedwiththeword“VERITÉ.”14

IftheGettydocumentwassenttoScholderer,thenthisisthedrawingthatprovokedan

uncommoncritiquefromFantin’smosttrustedfriend:Scholdererfoundtherepresen-

tationofTruthheavy-handed,especiallywithherprominent“Verité”label,andwarned

Fantinthathewas“goingtoofar,”thatthepicturemightactuallydoharmtothevery

friendsandcolleaguesitmeanttosupport.15

Untilnow,thebestapproximationofthefinalcompositionwasasmalloilsketch,

probablydonearoundthesametime.However,apoorblack-and-whitereproductionof

thisesquisseisallthatremains,16andtheGettydrawingismuchmoreinformativebecause

itissocrisplydrawninpen.Thedrawingisverysimilartotheoilsketchinalmostevery

compositionalrespect,anditalsohewscloselytoFantin’shelpfuldescriptionofthe

finalcomposition(orwhatheplannedasthefinalcompositionwhenhebeganpainting,

anyway)inhislettertoEdwardson3February.17Truthappearsamidanestofcloudsset

againstadarkbackground,herleftarmrestingonacloudandherrighthandholdinga

smallroundmirror.Shenolongerraisesthemirroraloft;insteadsheholdsitrathermore

modestlynearherknee,atthecomposition’sapproximatecenter.Comparedwiththe

drawingof16January,thecompositionissimplified,withdarknessandcloudsreplacing

thepreviousdrawing’sarchitecturaldetails.Inthisrevision,theinteriorspaceisonce

againintimate,narrow,andambiguous,andthefocusmorefullyonthegroupofmen

surroundingTruth’stable.


Fig. 8. Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836 – 1904).SketchforThe Toast! Homage to Truth, ca.late

January–earlyFebruary1865,inkonpaper,12×8.1cm(43⁄4×33⁄16in.).LosAngeles,GettyResearch

Institute(850433)


TheGettysketchalsoconfirmsFantin’sfinaladjustmenttohisplacementinthe

painting:inthedrawingof16January(seefig.7),heappearsatfarleft,justoutsidethe

perimeterofthemenseatedorstandingaroundthetable.Alistoftennamesappearsin

theleftmarginofthedrawing,identifyingtenoftheelevenfiguresappearing,including

Truth.Fantin’snameisnotamongthem.Thisandhisextremelymarginalplacement

suggesthefeltambivalentaboutincludinghisportraitatall.18ButintheGettydrawing,

asinthelostoilsketch,hereassertshispresence,movinghimselfuptothetabletoshare

theforegroundwithWhistler.Seatedatthelowerleftcornerofthetablewithhisbackto

theviewer,hereachesouthisarmandpointshisfingertowardTruthwhileatthesame

timelookingoverhisshoulder.Hisgestureismeanttoinstructhisviewerswheretolook,

butonlyafterfilteringtheirattentionthroughhim.Whenseeninlightofhisdescription

ofthepaintingintheletterof3February,theartist’splacementisrevealing,foritrein-

statesasubtlehierarchyamongthegatheredmen—ahierarchythatplacesthepainter

himselfatthepeakofimportance,evenifheisnotinthecentralormostimmediately

visibleposition:

Infrontofthetable,standing,handonhiship,aglassinhand,Whistlerdressed

en japonais;me,the number one,turningaroundandshowingTruth,thenaround

us,peoplewithglassesinhand,raisingatoasttoTruth!TheydrinktoTruth

theiridealandbyoneofthoselicensespermittedtopaintingwhichareoneof

itscharms,theirIdeal,thesubjectoftheirtoastappearsforhewholooksatthe

picture.Itispurefantasymixedwithreality.19

Accordingtothisdescription,Fantin’sconceptionofthepaintingasagroupportrait

andasarepresentationof“truth”hadfundamentallychanged.Afterattemptingmany

other,moreabsorptivecompositionsinwhichthefigureofTruthcouldbeseenonlyfrom

behind—andinwhich,asaresult,theprecisenatureofherencounterwiththeartists

aroundherwasinaccessibletotheviewer,lostintheinvisiblesurfaceofhermirror—Fan-

tindecidedtoopenupthepaintingtohispublic,addressingviewersdirectlywithamore

frontalcomposition.Andunliketheearliersketches,hereFantinportrayshimselfneither

asthecentralfigureoftheprivilegedartistnorasamarginalfigurerelegatedtothepaint-

ing’soutermostedge.Instead,hehasfoundacompromisesolutioninwhichWhistler

andTruthtakecenterstage20butFantin’sleadinggestureandpointedlyoutwardglance

stillsecurehisplaceasthe“numberone”artistintheimage.Hehasthehonorofreveal-

ingTruth: itishewhoallowsustoseeher,andhisassertionthat“thesubject...appears

forhewholooksatthepicture”makesclearhowmuchhevaluedthisposition.According

tohisconception,theopencompositionheeventuallychosemeantthatonlythosewho

viewthepaintingfromtheoutside—onlythoseoccupyinghispositionastheartiststand-

ingbeforetheimageandfacingin—couldseeTruthinallherglory.WhatFantinseemsto

havewantedwasanimageoftruththatwasbothcollectiveandallhisown.

Itisimportantthattheartist’spositioninsidethepaintingreflectshisstanceout-

sideitaswell,asthe“painter-beholder”(toborrowMichaelFried’snow-classicterm)


whoseinside-outsidestatusactsasourrelay,drawingusintothepaintingandencour-

agingustoseeitthrough his eyes.21Indeed,intheclosestapproximationswehaveofthe

painting,FantinistheonlyfigureacknowledgingTruth’spresence.Infact,heistheonly

onewhoseemsawarethatsheisthere.InalettertoEdwardswrittenon15February

1865,wellafterhehadbegunthepainting,Fantinmakesthisideaexplicit:“Youareright,

Iamtheonlyonewhowillseeher....BanquodidnotfrightenMacbethsomuchasTruth

frightensme.”22Forhim,The Toast!wasultimatelyabouthisrelationshiptoTruth,not

theaudience’s,andthisrelationshipwasananxiousone,astheMacbethremarkreveals.

ThenotionthathewouldbethesolememberofthegroupabletoseeTruthindicatesthat

theideabehindhiscollectivehomageultimatelywasegocentric.DespiteFantin’sanxiety

abouthisplacementinthegroup,soevidentintheprogressionofdrawings,anddespite

hiseffortstocouchhismetaphorsofindividuationinacompositionpremisedoncollec-

tiveunity,astatementlikethissuggeststhatthegroupheselectedwassummonedasa

supportingcastforhisownself-portrait.Thisistheaspectofthepaintingthatirritated

thecritics.Theycalledthework“acrisisofpride,”lamenting“theseapotheosesofone’s

ownpersonality,thesebeer-mugparadiseswheretheartistclaimstheroleofGodand

Father,withhislittlefriendsasapostles.”23

ThecriticalonslaughtagainstThe Toast!struckarawnerveinFantin,asareal-

istandasapainterofportraitsandgroupsinthe1860s.Aconceptionofrealismthat

placedselfandself-reflectionatthecenterofthings,asthesedrawingsandthedestroyed

paintingdidtovaryingextents,wasatoddswithgroupportraiture,seenascollaborative

andcollective,notnarcissisticinnature.24Itwasalsoatoddswithrealism’sownclaimto

depictthe“real”and“true”materialworld.ThedrawingsforThe Toast!meditateonsome

ofrealism’scentralissues:Areselfandtruthreconcilable?Aretheyone?Istheartist’ssub-

jectivity,hispersonalvisionorstyle,aproblemforrealism,anartisticphilosophyclaiming

toofferdirecttranscriptionofvisualexperienceontothecanvas?Orissubjectivitythe

veryessenceofanartist’simageofthe“real”?Theseareclassicquestionsaboutrealism,

amovementnotoriouslydifficulttodefine.TheyarealsoquestionsatthecoreofFantin’s

oeuvre,splitvirtuallydownthemiddlebetweenlyrical,Wagnerianfantasiespaintedfrom

imaginationandportraitsandstilllifesinwhicheveryanatomicalandbotanicaldetailis

transcribedfromlifewithmeticulouscare.Finally,theyarequestionsthatmadegroup

portraitureallbutimpossibleforanartistwhotookthemsoseriously.Intheend,Fantin’s

personalandcollectivehomagetotruthwassofraughtwithawkwardness,uncertainty,

andchangesofmind,soinvestedwithuntenableallegoricalclaimstorealist“truth,”that

itcouldnotholdtogether.AlthoughitisnotsurprisingthatFantinsavedtheportraits

ofhimselfandWhistler,theleadingartistsinhispicture(whyhesavedVollonismore

ofamystery),25thefactthatthepaintingendedupasthreeseparate,individualpor-

traits—currentlyheldinthreedifferentcollections,noless—poignantlyepitomizesits

failure:afailuretoembodytheparadoxicalideaofaprivilegedyetshareabletruth.


BridgetAlsdorf is an assistant professor in the Department of Art and Archaeology at Princeton

University.

Notes MysincerethankstoT.J.Clark,AnneWagner,DarcyGrimaldoGrigsby,andtheanonymous

reviewersfortheirhelpfulcritiquesandsuggestions.Researchforthisarticlewouldnothavebeenpos-

siblewithoutthegenerosityoftheDépartementdesArtsGraphiques,MuséeduLouvre,andthedepart-

mentofSpecialCollections,GettyResearchInstitute.Alltranslationsaremyown.

1. “C’estdelaphantaisiepuremêléederéalité....”HenriFantin-LatourtoEdwinEdwards,

3February1865,Copies de lettres de Fantin à ses parents et amis, par Victoria Fantin-Latour,Bibliothèque

MunicipaledeGrenoble,R.8867Réserve(hereaftercitedasBMG),fascicule2,63. 2. MydescriptionisdrawnfromFantin’sannotatedpreparatorysketchesintheDépartement

desArtsGraphiques,MuséeduLouvre,Paris(rf12393,12395,12397–12403,12405–12408,12410–12412,

12415–12417,12418–12420,12425,12467,12485–12486,12568,12647–12648,12801),hiscorrespondence

(especiallythelettercitedabove),andvariousSalonreviewsdescribingthefinalpicture,including:Félix

Deriège,“Beaux-Arts:Salonde1865,”Le siècle (2June1865):1:“Derrièreeux,unejeunefilled’unblond

ardentestdebout,appuyéesurunfauteuil.C’estlaVéritétellequ’ellesortitunbeaujourdesonpuits.”

LouisLeroy,“Salonde1865IV,”Le charivari (13May1865):2:“LeToast représentecinqousixjeunesgens

vusàmi-corps,tenanttousunverreàlamain.Aufond,dansunelumièreduBengale,laVéritésedresse

triomphalement.”FrancisAubert,“Salonde1865:IIILesJeunes,”Le pays 135(15May1865):3:“cesgens-

là,rangésautourd’unetablesurlaquelleonamisunenappeblanchepourlasolennité,boiventuncoup

debleuàlavéritéquiapparaîtsouslaformed’unepetitecanaillelaideetbête....Aufondlecielbleu(il

paraîtquelatableestenpleinvent),etc.,letoutdegrandeurnaturelle.”Ch.Bataille,“LeSalonde1865,”

L’univers illustré441(14June1865):374:“Lesthuriférairesboiventdubleu-authentique,lavéritél’exige,

maisilssontlugubressousleursaccoutrements.Parmilesenfantsdechœurterribles,jedistingueZacha-

rieAstruc,uncritiquetrèsparadoxalettrès-primesautier;M.AmandGautier,lepeintreénergiquedes

Folles de la Salpetrière . . . ;puisM.Whisthler[sic],lespirituelelumineurdelafameuseChinoise. Latêtefine

deM.Whisthler[sic]jaillit,ironiqueetrailleuse,d’unerobejaponaisetraitéeavecungrandrespectdes

étoffes.”A.deBullemont,“Salonde1865:Lapeintured’histoire,”Les beaux-arts (15June1865):353–54:

“AinsiM.FantinvoudraitnouspersuaderquelaVéritéc’estcettegrossefillerousseauxchairsflasques,

auxyeuxgris,etquelevraic’estlevinbleuqu’onboitauxbarrières,danscesverrescommuns....Parmis

lesbuveurs,citonsMM.Manet,Whistler,CordieretGautier.”A.-J.duPays,“Salonde1865(quatrième

article),”L’illustration 1164(17June1865):384:“laVériténue,dansuneauréoledelumière....Letitredu

tableauLe Toast etlegestedel’artistequiindiquedudoigtlaVérité(àquitoutlemondetourneledos)ne

rendentpaslascènetrèsintelligible....Lepeintresemblen’avoirpaseugrandeconfiancedanslaclarté

desonsujet,car,au-dessusdel’apparitionlumineusedecettefiguredefemmenue,ilaécritengroscar-

actères:VERITE.”AmédéeCantaloube,“ChroniqueduSalonde1865,”Illustrateur des dames et des demoi-

selles(18June1865):195–96:“Lepeintreresteraitalorsseulenfacedesacréation.”LouisAuvray,“Salon

de1865,”Revue artistique et littéraire (15July1865):26:“cesprétendusréalistesbuvantdupetitbleuàla

santédelaVérité,quiestlàtoutenue....Parmislesréalistesquifigurentsurcettetoile,buvantunlitreen

l’honneurd’uneVéritérousse,onnousasignaléM.Fantin,l’auteurdecettepeinture:iloccupelecentre

delatoile,assis,ledosaupublic,etlatêtetournéeverslespectateur.Puis,M.Manet,jeunehommeblond,

vudeface,leverreàlamain;etsurlepremierplan,M.Whistlerestencostumechinois....Cettecomposi-

tionoffreencorelesportraitsdequatreàcinqueréalistes,entreautresceuxdeMM.CordieretGauthier

[sic],etdedeuxautresvusdedos.”GonzaguePrivat,Place aux jeunes! causeries critiques sur le Salon de

1865: Peinture, sculpture, gravure, architecture (Paris:F.Cournol,1865),62–63:“LeportraitdeM.Whistler,

vêtud’unerobenoirbaignéedefantastiquesarabasques,estunmorceaudepeinturecommel’onenfait

peu.”Some,althoughnotall,ofthesereviewsareavailableintheAlbum de Coupures de Presse: Critiques sur


l’œuvre de Fantin-Latour,vol.1,BibliothèqueNationaledeFrance,Paris,Est.Yb3-2746-8.Thealbumwas

assembledbytheartist’swife,VictoriaDubourgFantin-Latour,whomayhaveintentionallyomittedsome

ofthenegativereviews.

3. TheportraitofVollonisinthecollectionoftheMuséed’Orsay,Paris,andtheportraitof

WhistlerisintheFreerGalleryofArt,SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.Thecurrentlocation

oftheportraitofFantinisunknown.AccordingtotheGalerieBrame&Lorenceau,Paris,itwasacquired

fromtheH.E.TenCatecollectioninHollandin1958byaDr.S.LeonardSimpsonofLondon.Itsmost

recentlydocumentedlocationisinaprivatecollectioninJapan.

4. TheliteratureonThe Toast! islimited,butimportantworkhasbeendone.AtushiMiura’s

chapter“Le Toast — hommage à la vérité(1865)deFantin-Latour:Deuxièmemanifestemalaccepté,”inhis

unpublisheddissertation,“Lareprésentationdel’artisteautourdeManetetFantin-Latour” (PhDdiss.,

UniversitédeLilleIII,1996),59–91,triestoreconstructthepaintingthroughtheSalonreviews,afewof

whichIdiscoveredthankstohisthoroughresearch,andalsoinvestigatestheissueofTruth’salleged“vul-

garity.”LéonceBénédite’sarticle,“Histoired’untableau:‘LeToast’,parFantin-Latour,”La revue de l’art17

(10February1905):121–36,concentratesprimarilyonthepreparatorydrawings,describingtheevolution

ofthecompositionthroughitsvariousstages,andisthereforeofgreatuseonlytosomeoneunabletoview

thedrawings.HisconclusionisthatThe Toast!wasaturningpointinFantin’soeuvre,afterwhichwecan

seeadistinctdivisioninhispracticebetweenrealistandallegorical/fantasticalsubjects.DouglasDruick’s

catalogentriesonsevenofthepreparatorydrawingsandthepaintedfragmentdepictingVollonprovide

averygoodoverviewoftheprojectanditsfailure,highlightingseveraloftheproblemsFantinconfronted

whileworkingonit,includingTruth’ssimilaritytoastudiomodelandthechallengeofreconcilingrealist

portraitureandallegory.DouglasDruickandMichelHoog,Fantin-Latour (Ottawa:NationalGalleryof

Canada, 1983),181–92.Finally,MichaelFriedanalyzesseveralofthepreparatorydrawingsinhischapter

“TheGenerationof1863”inManet’s Modernism, or, The Face of Painting in the 1860s (Chicago:University

ofChicagoPress,1996),203–12,wherehisfocusisonthe“dividedstructureofdenial ofanddirect address

tothebeholder”(196)characterizedbyFantin’spaintinginthe1860singeneralandembodiedinthe

sketchesforThe Toast! inparticular.Fried’saccounthasinformedmyreading,althoughIapproachthe

problemofthework’srelationshiptoitsviewers,andtheroleoftheartistinthepicture,indifferentways.

ForrecentcommentaryonFantin’sgroupportraiture,seeVincentPomarède,“Friends’Gatherings,”in

Henri Fantin-Latour (1836 – 1904), exh.cat.(Lisbon:FundaçãoCalousteGulbenkian,2009),240–44,and

PierreVaisse,“Fantin-Latour:Lesportraitscollectifs,”inFantin-Latour, de la réalité au rêve (Lausanne:

Fondationdel’Hermitage,2007),43–47.

5. ThethirtysketchbooksheetsintheMuséeduLouvrelistedabove(seenote2)includethe

drawingsdirectlyrelatedtothecompositionofThe Toast! Homage to Truth. Severalotherdrawingsdat-

ingfromthesecondhalfof1864andthefirsthalfof1865canalsobeconsideredstudiesforThe Toast!,

althoughtheydonotfeaturetheallegoricalfigureofTruth:rf12394,12404,12409,12413–12414,12519,

12637,and12650–12651intheMuséeduLouvre,Paris;andInv.b1445a-bintheMuséedesBeaux-Arts,

Lyon.ThisisbecauseFantinwasalsoconsideringpaintinganhomagetoBaudelairetitledUn Anniver-

saire,includingagroupofartistsandwritersraisingatoasttothedeceasedpoet’simage.Thisideawas

abandonedforthe1865SalonbuteventuallymigratedintoFantin’sstudiesforhisfourthgroupportrait

ofpoets,Corner of a Table, exhibitedattheSalonof1872.FormoreontheunrealizedBaudelairepicture,

seeLuceAbélès,Fantin-Latour: Coin de table, Verlaine, Rimbaud et les Vilains Bonshommes (Paris:Éditions

delaRéuniondesMuséesNationaux,1987),13–16,49,andmy“TheArtofAssociation:Fantin-Latourand

theModernGroupPortrait”(PhDdiss.,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,2008),267–75.

6. Foranin-depthanalysisofthispaintingandtheFrenchreinventionofDutchgroupportrai-

ture,seemychapter“TheSelfinGroupPortraiture”inArt of Association,37–105,forwhichAloisRiegl’s

“DasholländischeGruppenporträt,”Jahrbuch des allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses22(1902):71–278,translated


byEvelynM.KainandDavidBrittasThe Group Portraiture of Holland(LosAngeles:GettyResearchInsti-

tute,1999),isbothinspirationandfoil.

7. Besidesthetwodrawingsillustratedhere,sketchbooksheetrf12485,MuséeduLouvre,Paris,

includestwosimilardrawingsshowingTruthstandingaboveacrowd.Theinscriptiononfigure3confirms

Fantin’sinterestinaswarmingcrowdofartistsgatheredaroundTruth:“destêtesportraitssepressanten

foule/peintressculpteurs/musicienssavantslittérateurs/beaucoupfoule.”

8. Theallegoricalnudewithherarmheldhigh,thestandard,andtherowdymassareallechoes

ofEugèneDelacroix’sLiberty Guiding the People (1830;Paris,MuséeduLouvre),depoliticizedtobecome

anarcaneartisticmanifesto.

9. Besidesthetwoillustratedhere,thefollowingsketchesrepresentanencounterbetween

Truthandone,two,orthreeparticularartistsamongthegroup:rf12393,12398,12399,12400,12401,

12402,12403(rectoandverso),12405,12406,12408,12410–12412,and12416–12417,MuséeduLouvre,

Paris.Truth’smirrorisnotalwaysdirectedatthepainter.Sometimesshesimplyfaceshim,aimingher

mirrorelsewhere,whilehestaresupather,transfixedbyherimage(e.g.,rf12399and12401).Thisseems

tomefurtherevidencethattherelationshipbetweenartisticTruthandtheartist’sself(-image)wasone

Fantinstruggledwithinvariousways.

10. “Uneœuvred’artestuncoindelacréationvuàtraversuntempérament.”ÉmileZola,

“ProudhonetCourbet,”inidem,Mes Haines: Causeries littéraires et artistiques (Paris:Charpentier,1923),25.

11. Morethananyotherpaintingofthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcentury,The Toast! Homage to

TruthinvokedCourbet’slegacyandtheprofoundimpactofThe Painter’s Studio.Therelationshipbetween

theworks iscomplexanddeservesconsiderablediscussion,forwhichIhavenospacehere.(Seemy“Art

ofAssociation,” 106–67.)Sufficeittosaythattheelaboratemise-en-scèneofCourbet’senormousself-

portraitwithinagroupportraitprovokedwidespreadreflection,andquiteabitofconfusion,aboutthe

relationshipbetweenthepainterandsocietyatlarge.Atthesametime,itsperplexingsubtitledeclaredits

ambitiontoreconcileallegoryandrealism,thenconsideredtobeatoppositepolesofthestylisticspec-

trum,andtodosointhechargedsymbolicspaceoftheartist’sstudio.Fantin’sToast tookupthesame

impossiblechallengeswithlesssuccessfulresults,raisingdoubtsaboutrealism’sunderlyingaimsand

collectiveidentity.FormoreonCourbet’spainting,seetheextensivebibliographyinthecatalogentryby

LaurencedesCarsinGustave Courbet (NewYork:MetropolitanMuseumofArt,2008),220.

12. AnevencloserandmorerecentmodelforThe Toast! mayhavebeenCourbet’splannedsub-

missiontotheSalonof1864,The Source of Hippocrene, irreparablydamagedinastudioaccidentbeforeit

couldbeshown. ThepaintingrepresentedanudeParisianmodelinamythicallandscapearoundwhom

gatheredseveralcontemporarypoets,includingCharlesBaudelaire,ThéophileGautier,andAlphonse

Lamartine,drinkingfromtheHippocrene’swatersforinspiration.Afarceoftheapotheosisgenre,the

workwasintendedtocondemn“poetry’shatredofrealism”andviceversa:themodernnudewasshown

spittingintothefountain,poisoningitsParnassianwatersandallwhodrankthem.Itispossiblethat

Fantin’sToastwaspartiallyinspiredbyCourbet’scanvas—hecouldeasilyhavebeenawareofthepaint-

ingbeforeitwasdestroyed,ashefollowedCourbet’sactivitiescloselyatthetime—buthisgatheringof

artistswasmorereverentialtohisrealistallegoryofTruth.FormoreonThe Source of Hippocrene,seePaul

Galvez,“PaintingattheOrigin,”inLooking at Landscapes: Courbet and Modernism, Papers from a Symposium

Held at the J. Paul Getty Museum on March 18, 2006 (LosAngeles:J.PaulGettyMuseum,2007),www.getty

.edu/museum/symposia/courbet_modernism.html,8–11.Courbetdiscussesthepaintinginlettersto

JulesCastagnary(18January1864)andUrbainCuenot(6April1866)inLetters of Gustave Courbet, ed.and

trans.Petraten-DoesschateChu(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1992).

13. TheletterwiththedrawingwaspurchasedbytheGettyResearchInstituteatauctionfrom

Christie’s,London,in1986.ThepreviousownerwasaMrs.E.M.GordonofBiddlesdenPark,Brackley,

Northamptonshire,England,andhercollectionwasformerlypartofthearchiveofSmith,Elder&Co.,


aLondonpublisher.AletterfromEdwinEdwardssentfromCornwalldatedFebruary1865suggeststhat

EdwardshadrecentlyreceivedadrawingofThe Toast!fromFantin, sincehisknowledgeofthecomposi-

tionexceedsFantin’sdetaileddescriptionofitinanotherletterof3February.(HenriFantin-Latourto

EdwinEdwards,BMG,fascicule2,63,and EdwinEdwardstoHenriFantin-Latour,February1865,private

collection,Paris.)Tomyknowledge,thedrawingtowhichEdwardsrefersisneitherintheLouvrenor

withtherestofEdwards’scorrespondence,andthereforecouldbetheGettydocument.Whistlerlikewise

indicateshereceivedasketchofthepaintingfromFantinaroundthesametime,buthedoesnotdescribe

it.(JamesMcNeillWhistlertoHenriFantin-Latour,February/March1865,LibraryofCongress,Pennell-

WhistlerCollection,PWC1/33/21.)

14. OttoScholderertoHenriFantin-Latour,Frankfurt,14February1865:

Votreesquissem’adonnébienàréfléchir,jetrouvequ’elleestsuperbeàpeindre,tousces

portraitsennoirautourdelafemmenuesontsuperbesàpeindre,seulement,jenesuispas

d’accordaveclesujet,c’est-à-dire,quevousvoulezfairedevotretableauuntableaudesujeten

écrivantàlettreslenomdelavérité,quantàcelavotreesquissequevousm’avezenvoyéel’autre

jourm’aplumieux,c’étaitplusclaircommesujetcelas’expliquaitdesoi-même,aussiletoast,

l’autreesquisse,celaétaitclair.Maintenantjeneveuxpasdirequeladernièreesquisse(celle

quevousvenezm’envoyer)n’estpasaussijolieàpeindrequelesautres,maisjevousdisfran-

chement,jenesuispaspourunsujetquiabesoindel’explication,lapeinturedoits’expliquer

elle-même,maintenantquandvousvoulezlepeindresansymettrelenomdelavérité,jesuis

parfaitementdevotreavis;lecatalogueoulenomàlettresc’estlamêmechoseàlafin.Pourquoi

n’avez-vouspasfaitundesdeuxautresesquisses,surtoutl’autredéfinitiondelavéritéaurait

faitungrandeffet,était-cepluslongàfaire?

ScholdererandFantin’scorrespondenceissoontobepublishedasMathildeArnoux,ThomasGaehtgens,

andAnneTempelaere-Panzani, eds.,La correspondance d’Henri Fantin-Latour et Otto Scholderer(Paris:

Centreallemanddel’histoiredel’art,2011).MysincerethankstoMathildeArnouxforallowingmeto

reviewthiscollectionofletterspriortopublication,andtoSylvieBrameforgivingmeaccesstothecor-

respondencein2005.SeealsoMathildeArnoux,“LaleçondeCourbet:Àproposdelacorrespondance

entreHenriFantin-LatouretOttoScholderer,”inCourbet à neuf ! Actes du colloque international organisé par

le musée d’Orsay et le Centre allemand d’histoire de l’art à Paris, les 6 et 7 décembre 2007, eds.MathildeArnoux

etal.(Paris:Maisondessciencesdel’homme,2010),281–98.MyguessisthatFantinsentsketchesofThe

Toast!toseveralofhisfriendssolicitingfeedback,andthatEdwards,Whistler,andScholdererallreceived

adrawingsimilartotheoneintheGettycollection.Anyoneofthemcouldhavebeentherecipientofthis

particularsketch,butthefactthatFantin’scorrespondencetoEdwardshasbeencarefullydocumented

(BMG,fasc.2)andthatnoneofitmatchesthesentencefragmentsvisiblearoundtheGettydrawingleads

metobelievethatthisillustratedletterwasaddressedtoWhistlerorScholderer.Fantin’scorrespondence

toScholdererpriorto1871haslongbeenlost.SomeofFantin’sletterstoWhistlerarepreservedinthe

BirniePhilipCollection,GlasgowUniversityLibrary,butnonefromtheperiod1864to1865.

15. “Quantauservicequevousvoulezrendreànoustous,jenepeuxenjugersicelaseraunen

vérité,peut-êtrevousallezdéjàunpeutroploin.”OttoScholderertoHenriFantin-Latour,14February

1865;publishedinMathildeArnoux,ThomasGaehtgens,andAnneTempelaere-Panzani,eds.,La cor-

respondance d’Henri Fantin-Latour et Otto Scholderer(Paris:Centreallemanddel’histoiredel’art,2011).

Scholderer’swarningturnedouttobetrue.AfterthedisastrousreceptionofThe Toast!,Fantinwrote:

“moi,jesuisdétestédespeintres....[O]nditquejesoutiensManet,pourluiêtrenuisible....”Henri

Fantin-LatourtoEdwinEdwards,26June1865,BMG,fasc.2,89.

16. TheoilsketchisreproducedinFried,Manet’s Modernism, 210.Itisunclearwhenitwaslost,

butdefinitelyafterBénédite’sarticleof1905,sincehementionsthe“redveil”floatingbehindTruthinhis

descriptionofit.Bénédite,“Histoired’untableau,”131.


17. HenriFantin-LatourtoEdwinEdwards,3February1865,BMG,fasc.2,63:

Voilaladisposition:Dansunfondsombreunnuageéclatantdescend,ils’ouvreetaumilieu

apparaitlaVérité,unebrillantedejeunesse,d’unbraselles’appuiesurcenuage,del’autretient

unmiroir,unpeudedraperieblanchecachelapartieinférieureducorps.Dessouselle,qui

coupelafigureunetableavecdesfleurs,fruits,verres,bouteilles,instrumentsdemusique,pal-

ette,attributsdesartsetdessciences.Devantlatable,debout,lamainsurlahanche,unverreà

lamain,Whistlerenjaponais,moilen°1merétournantetmontrantlaVérité,puisautour,des

gens,leverreàlamain,quiportentuntoastàlaVérité!IlsboiventàlaVéritéleuridéaletpar

unedeceslicensespermisesàlapeintureetquisontundesescharmes,leurIdéal,lesujetde

leurtoastapparaîtpourceluiquiregardeletableau.C’estdelaphantaisiepuremêléederéalité;

moninventionestseulementvenuedececi:Jecherchaisunmotifpourmettredansunetoile,le

plusdechosesagréablesàpeindre.Etbienilyalà,lafemmenue,latablecouvertedefruits,de

fleursetc.Touslesportraitsautour,autantdetêtes,dontonpourraitfairedeschefs-d’œuvres,

labellerobedeWhistler.Ladispositionvousparaîtrabiensimple,ehbien,celam’aprisun

tempsénorme,etlesessaisdetoutesortecelanepeutsedire.Jepeuxvousledire,c’estlapre-

mièrefoisquejesuiscontentdecequej’aitrouvé.

18. Fantin’stentativeself-placementbegscomparisontoÉdouardManet’sself-portraitatthe

farleftmarginofMusic in the Tuileries Gardens (1862),apicturethatFantinknewwellandforwhichhe

probablyposed.ForsynthesesoftheresearchonthispaintingandFantin’spossibleinvolvement,seeNils

GöstaSandblad,“LaMusiqueauxTuileries,”inManet: Three Studies in Artistic Conception, trans.Walter

Nash(Lund:NewSocietyofLetters,1954),17–68,andFrançoiseCachinetal.,Manet 1832 – 1883 (New

York:Abrams,1983),122–26.

19. HenriFantin-LatourtoEdwinEdwards,3February1865,BMG,fasc.2,63.

20. Fantin’suncertaintysurroundingtheplacementofeachfigurewasmademoreanxiousbythe

pressureofpersonalrelationshipsandhisownvanityorambitionvis-à-visthegroup.Hisexplanationfor

placingWhistlerinthecentralforegroundwhilepaintingtherestofhiscolleaguesclusteredbehindthe

tableoneithersideofTruthrevealsthedelicateinterpersonalimplicationsofthecomposition,aswellas

thecombinationofself-interestandthedesiretopleaseothersthatwasbehinditsarrangement:“Whis-

tlerdevantlatable,ceciestunecourtisanerieassezexcusable.Ilesttrèscontentordinairementd’être

enavant,ilm’atoujoursétésiutile,j’aiétésipeuaimabledurantmonséjourchezlui,puiscetterobejap-

onaise,seraaupremierplan,bienjolieàpeindre....puisencoreWhistlerestsiconnuici!PuissaJaponaise

auSalon,toutcelam’adonnécepremierplan.”HenriFantin-LatourtoEdwinEdwards,15February1865,

BMG,fasc.2,66.

21. FriedmakesasimilarpointinhisanalysisofseveralofthedrawingsforThe Toast!,interpreting

thetwofiguresintophats—describedbycriticsasdepictedfromtherearinthefinalversion—as“emis-

sariesfromthespacein front of thepicture.”ForFried,thesefiguresareinconflictwith“theotherwise

mainlyfrontalstructureoftheworkasawhole,”establishinga“doublerelationtotheviewer”thathe

interpretsastransitionalbetweenCourbet’sabsorptiverealismandManet’s“facing”modernism.Fried,

Manet’s Modernism, 198–222.IagreewithFriedthatFantin’svariouswaysofengagingorexcludinghis

viewers(andthisincludesviewersinside hisworksaswell,asinThe Toast!)constituteoneofhisgroup

portraits’mostcompellingfeatures,andwanttoopenthisproblemfurthertoconsiderwhatIbelievedrove

Fantin’sindecisionmorethanhissplitallegiancestoCourbetandManet:theproblematicrelationship

betweenselfandgroup,individualismandcollectivity,inapersonalmanifestointendedfortheParisSalon.

22. “Vousavezraison,iln’yaquemoi,quilaverrai....BanquonefitpastantpeuràMacbeth,que

laVéritépourmoi.”HenriFantin-LatourtoEdwinEdwards,15February1865,BMG,fasc.2,68.

23. “M. Fantin-La-Tour traverse ( je veux l’espérer) une crise singulière, assez fréquente

chezlesnaturesartistes:lacrisedel’orgueil.”ErnestChesneau,“Beaux-Arts:Salonde1865:III.Les


Excentriques—M.M.Manet.—Fantin-Latour.—Whistler.—Lambron.—Biry.—J.Tissot.—Courbet,”

Feuilleton le constitutionnel (16May1865):n.p.[1–2].“Cesapothéosesdesaproprepersonnalité,cesparadis

delachope,oùl’artistetientlerôledeDieulePère,etlespetitscamaradesfigurantlesapôtres,nesont

peut-êtrepasuneassisebienrassurantepourunereligionnouvelle.”Ch.Bataille,“LeSalonde1865,”

L’univers illustré441(14June1865):374.

24. LikeCourbet,Manet,andEdgarDegas,Fantinwasagreatadmirerofseventeenth-century

Dutchgroupportraits,muchinvogueinmid-nineteenth-centuryFrance.CriticslikeThéophileThoréand

HippolyteTainehailedDutchgroupportraitsasimagesofegalitariandemocracyandcollectiveharmony;

Rembrandtinparticularwasseentoembodypro-republicansentimentsdeartoFrenchartistsandwrit-

ers.SeeThéophileThoré(pseud.WilliamBürger),Musées de la Hollande: I. Amsterdam et La Haye, études

sur l’école hollandaise, vol.1(Paris:JulesRenouard,1858),andHippolyteTaine,Philosophie de l’art dans les

Pays-Bas (Paris:G.Baillière,1869).FormoreonRembrandt’sreputationinnineteenth-centuryFrance,see

AlisonMcQueen,“PoliticizingRembrandt:AnExemplarforNewAestheticValues,Realism,andRepubli-

canism,”inidem,The Rise of the Cult of Rembrandt: Reinventing an Old Master in Nineteenth-Century France

(Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniv.Press,2003),109–21.ForapioneeringstudyoftheinfluenceofDutch

groupportraitureonFrenchpainting,seePetraten-DoesschateChu,French Realism and the Dutch Masters:

The Influence of Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting on the Development of French Painting between 1830 and

1870(Utrecht:HaentjensDekker&Gumbert,1974),49–61.

25. VollonappearsnowhereinFantin’scorrespondence.Thenatureoftheirrelationshipis

unknown.