Manet's Lost Infanta

Author(s): Albert Boime and Alexander Kossolapov

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn Winter, 2003), pp. 407-418
Published by: The American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3179864 .
Accessed: 14/08/2012 14:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

The American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Institute for Conservation.

http://www.jstor.org

MANET'S LOST INFANTA

ALBERT BOIME AND ALEXANDER KOSSOLAPOV

scientific examination of the

ABSTRACT-The
privately owned painting (fragment/copy after
Velizquez's InfantaMaria Margaritafromthe Louvre
collection) has been completed. Based on documented historical evidence, stylisticand chemical
analysis of paints, and individual technical features
revealedby x-rayradiographyand infrared
photography (IR), the painting has been attributedto the
French painterEdouard Manet and dated fromthe
beginningof the 1860s.
TITRE-L'Infante perdue de Manet. RESUME-L'examen scientifique d'une peinture d'une
collection particulire a ete effectu&.Il s'agit d'un
fragment/copiede l'oeuvre de V6lasquez intitul~e
Maria Margaritadans la collection du Louvre.
l'Infante
A l'aide de documents historiques, d'analyses
stylistiques et chimiques de la peinture, et des
caract&ristiques
techniques rv~kles par les rayonsX
'
et la photographie l'infra-rouge,la peinture a ete
attribueeau peintrefranCais
Edouard Manet et dat&e
du debut des annees 1860.
TITULO-La
infanta perdida de Manet.
ha completado el examen
RESUMEN-Se
cientificodel cuadro pertenecientea un coleccionista
privado (fragmento/copiade InfantaMaria Margarita
de Velisquez de la colecci6n privada del Louvre).
Sobre la base de evidencia hist6ricadocumentada,del
anilisis quimico y estilisticode la pinturay los rasgos
tecnicos individualesreveladospor radiografias(rayos
X) y fotografiasinfrarrojas(IR), el cuadro ha sido
atribuidoal pintorfrancesEdouard Manet y fechado
en el comienzo de los afios 1860.
Manet.
Infanta perdida de
exame cientifico da pintura de
propriedade particular(fragmento/c6piada obra de
Velasquez InfantaMaria Margarita,da coleCdo do
Museu do Louvre) foi concluido. Com base nas
evidencias hist6ricas documentadas, na anilise
estilisticae quimica da pintura e nas caracteristicas
t&cnicasindividuais reveladas atraves de radiografia
TITULO-A

RESUMO-O

com raio-X e fotografia

infra-vermelha
(IR), a tela foi
atribuidaao pintorfrancesEdouard Manet e datada
do inicio dos anos 1860.

1. INTRODUCTION
The subject of this study is an oil painting,46.0 x
38.1 cm (fig. 1, see page 442), a fragmentaryand
unsigned copy of Velizquez's familiarInfantaMaria
Margarita(fig. 2, see page 442), which has been
widely admired since its arrival in the Louvre in
1816. The provenance of this painting is obscure
prior to 1967, when an American lawyer briefly
working in Amsterdambought it and three other
paintings from a small basement gallery on the
Rozengracht.The owner of the galleryinitiallyidentified the Infantapainting as a Diego Velizquez
(1599-1660) in the"certificate"givento itspurchaser
at the time. He claimed to have discoveredit years
ago in Paris with its background"fullypainted over"
(Brainerd 1988, 73). He subsequentlyremoved the
overpainting.
In 1968-70 various professionalsto whom this
Infantawas shown unanimously recognized it as a
copy after Velizquez, dating to approximately
1850-70.The chiefconservatorof theArt Instituteof
for example (Brainerd1988),
Chicago, AlfredJakstas,
concluded from a lengthy examination, with no
techniques other than x-rays,binocular microscope,
and visual analysis,thatit could be dated unequivoAnotherconsercallyto "thirdquarter,19th century."
vation report, dated May 1970, found it was
"probably painted in 19th century" and otherwise
describedits condition as follows:
Unframed, unsigned oil painting on fabric
depicting a copy of a Young Girl's Portraitby
Velizquez, size 181/2"x 15" stretchedon a fivepiece stretcherwith a horizontal crosspiece..
There is a great deal of debris lodged between
the rear of the canvas and the bottom stretcher
.
canvas is dry
piece (cobwebs, lint etc.) . .The
and brittle.There are holes in the canvas which
had been crudely"repaired" and are located as
JAIC 42 (2003):407-418

408
ALBERT

BOIME

AND ALEXANDER

KOSSOLAPOV

thelawyerdisplayed
the
tencythatwas undeniable,
of
to
a
knowlnumber
painting
professional
persons
such
edgeableon Frenchartoftheperiod.Inevitably,
in
of
the
to
the
left
the
cheek
studies
turned
toward
Revival
H1 1"
Spanish
period
just
girl's
W41/2"
overthe hairline.
This had been extensively
(1845-1865) and to one of its main exponents,
EdouardManet(1832-1883).On June18,1970,one
paintedand crudelypatchedon the rearwith
in the
1/2"
hole
of the recognizedEdouardManethistorians
diameter
material
and
glue.
paper-like
with
UnitedStates,
then
Christie's
at H14" W11".... Thereareabouthalfa dozen
Richardson,
John
ofthe
paintmarks(5 white1 red) in the upperright in NewYorkandhavingseenthephotographs
Manet
Professor
blue
with
another
and
white
and
similar
expert,
George
light
Infanta
point
quadrant
These
wrotea letterto theownerstating
HeardHamilton,
marksalongthe top edge of the picture.
atlength... thevariousphotoseem to be originalpaintthough.(Quoted in
that"after
examining
Brainerd1988,94)
graphsofyourManet..., we bothfeelit wouldbe
ofitsbeingan authenthepossibility
It may be concludedfromthe conservators' rashto dismiss
of thepainting ticearlywork"(quotedin Brainerd1988,95). Other
reportsthatthestateof preservation
hadidensomeofwhomRichardson
thatthe
Manetexperts,
wasrather
poorand,whatis moresignificant,
and in a shorttimeit
were thenconsulted,
tified,
repairswerewell in
paintstainsand unprofessional
thatabout1860 Manethadin fact
of the ownerof the
becameapparent
line withthe earlierstatement
thathad been lostor
On the back of the horizontal executeda copyof theInfanta
Amsterdam
gallery.
stretcher'scrosspiece the word "Bertram" (or
long ago. One possibleclaimant
thoughtdestroyed
instru- forthelostworkadvancedbyJacquesMatheyhad
witha brushlike
"Bertran")is handwritten
can scarcelybe takenas an
ment.This inscription
long been challengedfor its flaccidqualitiesand
fortwomainreasons:
ofauthorship
indication
was placedoutsidecontention
(fig.3).
consequently
to
wereuniformly
theemissionspectrum
First,
receptive
analysis
(byBernard Whilethearthistorians
of thepresent
Hauserof Spectro-Chemical
ResearchLaboratories, at leastthepossibility
painting's
being
in it
to Manet,yearspassedand interest
attributed
Chicago,laboratoryno. 23548, of November20,
when
Anne
Coffin
Hanson
until
differs
from
subsided,
1977,
material
1970)showsthattheinscription
in herseminalwork,Manetand
The lattercontains includedthepainting
anyblackon the paintingitself.
itas theproductofan
the
Modern
does
not.
This
while
the
former
Tradition,
lead,
identifying
finding
might
unknownartistbut nonetheless
be takenas a good indicationof its not beingoil
"probablythe best
the
for
lost
Manet
contestant"
ink
of
but
rather
a
color,
(Hanson 1977, 156
1988).
(Brainerd
type
the
and
two
artists
there
are
Second,
fig.99).
bearing
just
who areknownin thesecondhalf
nameBertram(n)
a French 2. ART HISTORICAL VIEW
Abel Bertram,
of the nineteenth
century:
in
and
born
1871
artist
(1871-1954), Pablo
landscape
Maria Beltrany Tintore,a lesser-known
late-19th- Perhapsno othermodernFrenchpainterhas been
as Edouard
to as muchintensive
for
his
known
artist
scrutiny
mostly
religious submitted
Spanish
century
scenesin the Cathedralof Salamanca,who studied Manet.Everyconceivable
aspectofhislifeandwork
hisworks seemsto have been exhaustively
underHenriGervexin Parisandexhibited
explored,leaving
in Madridin 1892 and whosenamewas sometimes littlefreshgroundforeithertheaspiringscholaror
Yet despitetheardent
seasonedveteranto cultivate.
1909;Saur 1995).
spelled"Bertan"(Thieme-Becker
be associated devotionofscholarandcriticto Manetandhiswork
can reasonably
Neitherof thoseartists
thereremainconspicuous
to modernity,
otherthanas a priorowner as a pathway
withthepresentInfanta
or handler.
gaps in the record,especiallyconcerninghis early
to modernizecanonicalmodels.It is inconin his attempt
to vindicate efforts
rebuffed
Persistently
setout to challenge
to Velizquezby a datinginconsis- testablethatManetdeliberately
the relationship
follows:1/2"diameter
hole at H5" W2" extenin
the
matefront,
sivelyoverpainted
paper-like
rial glued on the back. 1/2" diameterhole at

JAIC42 (2003):407-418

409
MANET'S LOST INFANTA

spurious claim of the notorious forger, Eric

Hebborn, thathis teacher,W.A.Cuthbertson,painted
thiscopy fromLas Meninasin the Prado; in Las Meninas the Infantafaces in the opposite directionand

attributed
to Manet),
Fig. 3. EdouardManet (previously
oil on canvason woodenboard,
Marie-Marguerite,
L'Infante
33 x 24.8 cm,privatecollection,
Paris

the Old Masters on their own turfand remained

committedto measuringhis effortsagainstthe various traditionsthroughouthis career.He systematically made copies of drawings,reproductions,and
originalpaintingsof the canonical masters,and recent
researchhas uncoverednumerousnew sourcesforhis
work duringhis visitto Italyin 1857 (Meller 2002).
What is crucial in these findingsis the disclosureof
Manet's processof appropriatinga usable past forhis
personal projects;thus,tracinghis sources is tantamount to uncovering fresh material about the
contentof his originalproductions(Fried 1996).
Perhaps one of the most vexing lacunae in
Manet's oeuvre has been the presumed physical
absence of the copy that we know he made of
Velazquez's notorious InfantaMaria Margaritaand for
which he registeredin the Louvre to copy in the
period 1859-1860. (We may immediatelydismissthe

wears a different
costume! [Hebborn 1991, 45-47]).
Althoughthe paintingunderdiscussionwas an excellent contenderforthe missingpictureand had been
proposed by Andrew Brainerd for several years,its
lack of provenanceand signaturehad cast a dubious
pall over its origins.The oil study set forwardby
Brainerd as the lost Manet was firstpublished by
Anne Coffin Hanson in 1977 in her pathbreaking
where the copy was
Manet and theModernTradition,
considereda likely"contestant"forwork long known
to have existedbut neverlocated and presumedlost
or destroyed(Hanson 1977).Although she added that
it was impossiblein the presentstateof knowledge to
firmlyidentifythe picture and so consigned it to
unknownauthorship,
she arguedthatof all the copies
afterthe popular image that had surfacedover the
years,this was the one example that came closest to
approximatingthe methods and colors as well as the
freshness
and vivacityof Manet's technique and style.
The hesitationof Hanson and othersto assignan
unequivocal attributionwas understandable,given
the absence of provenance and signature,two exis-

tentialconditionsthe want of which naturallyrender

any work problematic.Since Hanson published the
painting, however, the work has been rigorously
submittedto state-of-the-art
scientificanalysis.The
resultsof thisscrupulousexaminationratifywhat the
heart has known all along, and at long last we can
statewith a comfortabledegree of certaintythatthe
outcome of the application of the latest scientific
methods to this picture has eradicated whatever
reservationsspecialistsmay have feltover the years
absentthe two conditionsnoted above.Althoughart
historiansand art expertsseem to be nervous about
relyingtoo heavilyon the applicationof conservation
science for authentication,in a case of this sort
conservationscience should be seen as the inevitable
and necessary adjunct to sound connoisseurship.
Regrettably,
manyartexpertsstillmistrustthe methods of the scientist,but it is our firmbelief that not
only is this gulf not unbridgeable,in future this
collaborationwill be the norm. It has alwaysbeen a
JAIC 42 (2003):407-418

410

ALBERT BOIME AND ALEXANDER KOSSOLAPOV

whereprovenance
andsignagiventhatin a situation
theconvergence
ofagreement
on the
tureareabsent,
of
as
to
and
both
art
part
expert
style physical
appearance (what has been called the work'sinternal
scientist
as to technical
evidence)and conservation
andphysical
external
evidence)estab(the
properties
lishesauthenticity.
We believe thatnow we have
reachedthislevel of assurancein the case of the
Maria Margarita-thanks
to the combined
Itnfanta
talentsand impeccabletechnicalanalysesofWalter
McCroneand one oftheauthorsofthisarticle.
a numberof Manetspecialists
enterPreviously,
of thissketch/copy's
tainedthe possibility
beinga
Manetsimplyon thebasisofsurface
and
appearances
thehistorical
record.Indeed,on thebasisofinternal
and physical
structureevidence-style,
paintlayer,
therehasneverbeenanysolidargument
mustered
by
the criticsand historians
againsta Manetidentificationin the case of the Infanta,
and now thatall the
scientific
datahavebeenassembled
andanalyzed,
the
seemsto us indisputable.
Thereis no need
attribution
to rehashthe abundanthistoricaldata of Manet's
debtto theSpanishmasterso amplydocuprofound
mentedin all the monographs.
Duringhis tripto
1865,he wroteofhisadmiration
Spainin September
forVelizquezin rapturous
terms,the meresightof
of hismostcherwhoseworkseemeda fulfillment
ishedidealsof painting.
We knowthathe registered
to copyattheLouvreonJuly1,1859,andtwocopies
toVelizquezbelongto that
afterpaintings
attributed
Reunion
the
Thirteen
Cavaliers,
of
period:
usuallydated
and
the
Maria
1859-1860,
Infanta
Margarita,
reportwith Edgar Degas's
edly executed concurrently
ofthesameworkin 1859
(1834-1917)reproduction
of the
1964;
(Reff
portrait
Boggs 1958).Vekizquez's
in
has
located
the
Salon
Maria
been
Infhnta
Margarita
CarreoftheLouvreMuseumin Parissince1816,and
it became an object of greatinterestduringthe
SecondEmpireat theheightoftheSpanishRevival.
thisconnection
Manetdid not failto acknowledge
withVelizquez'sportraitin his most provocative
of 1863;he
Salon displayoftheperiod,the Olympia
fromtheheadofthe
thepinkflower
slylytransferred
innocentInfanta
to theheadofhisbrazencourtesan
hisvisualassociations
withthepastand
to complicate
parodicchallengeto tradition.
JAIC 42 (2003):407-418

Manet's emulationof Velizquez has recently

of a majorexhibition,
been made the centerpiece
The
French
Taste
Manet/
forSpanish
Painting,
Veldzquez:
organizedin 2002 at theMuseed'Orsayin Parisand
shownat theMetropolitan
MuseumofArt,March
2003.
The
show
featured
through
June
Velizquezand
Manetsidebyside,demonstrating
thefullmeasureof
the impactof theSpanishmasteron Manet'sdevelHere theviewerhad theopportuopingsensibility.
thatManet'stasteforquizzical
nityto witness
directly
visualsurprise
fullyexploited
Velizquez'sparadoxical
2002).
imagery(Schjeldahl
Manet'sparaphrase
of the Infanta
uses a smaller
portionof the actualworkin the Louvre,turning
what is essentially
a three-quarters
lengthof the
bustthaticonicallycentersthe
figureintoa portrait
in boththe drawnand
object.What is remarkable
paintedcopiesof hisearlyphaseis histendencyto
reducetheactualtorsosoftheoriginals
to primarily
head and shoulders-typical
of his masterThomas
Couture'sdrawingstyle-and to centralizethem
(Meller2002).Manet'sPortrait
(Cabinetdes
ofRoudier
Musee du Louvre,Paris)of 1860,forexamdessins,
ple,showinghead and shouldersonlyof the sitter,
couldeasilypassforthemaster's
work(Boime1980).
of Coutureon hisdiscipleis
The residualinfluence
perfectlyunderstandable
given Manet's relatively
recentdeparture
fromthe studiowherehe spent
almost six years (1850-56). Couture's recipes,
on Manet,who
leftan indelibleimpression
however,
continuedthis practicethroughoutmost of his
as seenin a seriesof quickstudiesof females
career,
in the early1880s (RouartandWildenstein
1975).
Some ofthemoststartling
examplesofthisapproach
are thedrawnportraits
of GustaveCourbet,Claude
Monet,andEdgarAllanPoe,andtheetchedportrait
in profileof CharlesBaudelaire(ca. 1862-65),all of
whichdramatically
attestto thistendency(Rouart
andWildenstein
1975,vol.1,nos.20,55).
In the case of the Infanta,
Manet'sskillful
cropfigureto his favorite
ping adaptedan off-center
mode.AndrewBrainerdhas analyzedthis
centering
and symmetry
centrality
tendencyto compositional
in Manet'searlyportraiture
and copyingpracticein
whathe describesas the"ManetMatrix"(Brainerd
1988,41). Althoughin both his watercolor
(fig.4)

411

MANET'S LOST INFANTA

and etching (fig.5) of the Infanta,presumablydone

after the painted copy, Manet has more or less
included the entirefigure(withsome slightvariations
in the positioningof the Infanta),in these cases he is
strivingfor reproductiveaccuracy ratherthan para-

phrasingfor study purposes.The sketch/copyof a

type typicalof studio practicein the period aimed at
a shorthand penetration of a master's conceptual
grasp of a subject and often assumed a fragmentary
appearance (Boime 1971). In the case of the watercolor and etching,Manet was strivingforcompletion
probablyforpurposes of reproductiveillustrationor
some type of documentation.
Michael Wilson first called attention to the
singularprocessof scrapingin Manet's methods,and
since the publicationof his study,otherscholarshave
noted this propensityof the artistfor scrapingand
rescrapingdown to the ground (Wilson 1983; Bareau
1986).The oil copy of the Infantais no exception,and
transmittedlight photography reveals this salient
characteristicof Manet's method in several places.
These material traits substantiate the chemical
evidence as analyzed by McCrone (Brainerd 1988),
whose findingson the pigmentsin two established

ca. 1861,
Fig.4. EdouardManet,L'Infante
Marie-Marguerite,
watercolor
on paper,withleadwhite,31 x 27 cm,location
unknown

early Manet paintings-The Spanish Ballet of 1862

(Phillips Collection, Washington,D.C.) and Woman
PouringWater(OrdrupgaardCollection,Copenhagen)
of ca. 1858-60-demonstrated unique optical and
chemical propertiescommon to all threeand verified
that the lead white of the two control samples and
thatof the Infantaprobablyoriginatedfromthe same
production lot. This findingmeans that Manet and
the painter of the Infantaused the same pigments
fromthe same supplieror suppliersin approximately
the same time period. McCrone estimatedthe probabilityof coincidence in traceelementconcentration
at one chance per billion.Accordingto McCrone, the
lead white in the The SpanishBallet and the Infanta
could not "be more similariftheyhad been squeezed
fromthe same tube of paint" (Brainerd 1988, 174).
McCrone furtherfound that the agreement of
pigmentcomposition in all three examples provides
strongsupportin favorof datingthe Infantanear the
middle of the 19th century.Finally,the scrupulousxray radiographyand special photographic analysis,
detailed below, further confirm the validity of
McCrone's findings (Brainerd 1988) in revealing
aspects of methods-preparatory painted contours,

Fig.5. EdouardManet,L'Infante
Marie-Marguerite,
etching,
1861,23 x 19 cm,NationalGalleryof Art,Washington,
D.C., 1951.10.341
JAIC 42 (2003):407-418

412

ALBERT BOIME AND ALEXANDER KOSSOLAPOV

the scraping
downto thedarkerunderpainting
(the
the
ebauche), modelingbrushstrokes,
heavilyimpastoedlightareas,abruptpassagesfromlightto dark-all of which,we
typicalof otherManet paintings,
venture
to
to
of
add,againpoint thehallmarks
may
hismaster,
ThomasCouture.

torysketchingmay be tracedon an enlargedphotograph of the face (fig.6, see page 442) in those areas
not built up with pigment during the subsequent
modeling.Such areasmaybe seen,forexample,in her
upper lip below the leftnostriland in the cornersof
her mouth.These minusculeareas,of course,do not
provide us enough informationon the sketching
3. NONDESTRUCTIVE TECHNICAL
method itselfbut are indicativeof itspractice.
2. On the finishedsketchan underpainting(i.e.,
EXAMINATION
the lay-in of three-dimensionalobjects) begins in
It is worthemphasizing
fromtheverybeginning
that darker colors containing less lead white and ends
as soon as thepainting
wasdatedandlocatedin Paris with an almostpure white on the brightestparts.The
can be straightor curvy,short
for modeling brushstrokes
by McCrone'sreport,the fieldof contenders
reduced. or elongated,as theyfollow the anatomicallyconvex
authorshipof the work was drastically
werestandard
studiopractice and concave partsof the face.This same manner of
Although
sketch/copies
at the time,the exampleunderconsideration
still underpaintingis clearlyseen in the Infanta(see fig.6,
Therewereonlya
traits
ofexecution.
page 442), where the darkerunderpaintingshows up
displays
singular
handful
ofartists
that in severalareas.A comparisonof the brushstrokes
of
who,by1860-62,haddeveloped
inwhichthelifanta
manner
wasexecuted, the Infantawith those of two other Manet paintings
"advanced"
and evenmeresurfaceobservation
revealsthe color
(the boy's face in The Old Musician [ca. 1862,
schemeof the Infanta
to be an exact matchwith National Gallery of Art] and the forehead of The
Dead Toreador[ca. 1862, National Gallery of Art]),
Manet's contemporaneouspalette.We will not
but
discloses brushstrokesof the same type definitely
along thisline of reasoning,
proceed,however,
to a purelytechnical
confineourselves
of
presentin all (fig.7) that verifyManet's "handwritcomparison
andstyle(asestablished ing" on the Infanta.
Manet'sproduction
techniques
ofhispaint3. Manet typicallyapplied his paint in a viscous,
bothby our own scientific
examination
around1860andbytheexisting
literature, semidryimpasto.The tracesof the brushin the hair
ingscreated
MichaelWilson'slandmark are usually seen in longer lead-white strokes,while
includingin particular
the short ones generously used on smaller light
methodsandprocedures
ofthe
studyofthetechnical
artist
who paintedthisInfanta
[Wilson1983]).
spots/areasare less clearly resolved.These shorter
1.The artist's
was
done
on
outline
sketch
strokes,densely set down, explain why many light
original
the white groundof the canvas,paintedin some
regions on radiographshave jagged, torn edges.The
darkercolor with scarcelyany lead white,and
light,elevatedregionsare modeled extremelyroughly,
as
dark
the
hair,eyes, almost sculpted rather than painted.Visually such
(e.g.,
appearing
fragments
look
the
etc.
also
on
mouth,
pitchy
x-rayradi- areas,typicalforManet,maybe easilytracedon figure
Mooreau
6 in the Infanta's
leftcheek,underherlowerlip,on the
unfinished
of
The
portrait George
ographs).
left
New
of
her
under her righteye,and so on.
Museum
of
chin,
1878,
Art,
part
Metropolitan
Cafi (ca.
in
4.
The
idea
of followingthe naturallight
outlines
made
this
such
sketched
York)presents
very
distributionwas alien to the artist.Manet, in princikindof paint:"thelinesof the head are brown,the
coat and hat are blue-black"(Wilson 1983, 8).
ple, did not care about the smooth transitionof light
Manet's sketchingprocess,however,is revealed to shadow; the thick,bright-whitebrushstrokesare
neitheron his finishedpaintingsby x-rays,as the
abruptlyjuxtaposed with the darkerparts as if he
sketchoutlinesdo not containenoughlead white, ignoresthe very existenceof intermediatehalftones,

as thematerial
usedfor
norbyinfrared
photography,
is deficient
in carbonblack.
sketching
thepresenceofpreparaOn theInfanta,
however,

JAIC 42 (2003):407-418

which do not figurein his paletteat all (Boime 1971;

Wilson 1983). As a result of this technique, the
boundarybetween dark (hair,background)and light

413

MANET'S LOST INFANTA

1. Infanta

2. Dead Toreador

3.OldMusician

on threeManetpaintings:
TheDead Toreador,
ca. 1862,NationalGallery,
Fig.7. Modelingbrushstrokes
1942.9.40,
L'Infante,
and TheOld Musician,
1963.10.162.
ca. 1862,NationalGallery,

(face,otherlighterparts)is very sharp,and any

smoothtransition
is absentboth on regularphotoand
thosesharpboundgraphs radiographs.
Probably
aries(herereferring
to lightcontrast,
notto theform
or widthoftheboundary
lineitself)
wereextremely
to
who
important Manet,
quiteintentionally
pushed
hisbrightest
to theblackborders.
And
lightprecisely
it is worthobserving
thatthelightfollowsthedark,
not to the contrary,
as theprincipleof thepainting
on
the
white
in thicktechnique
groundprogresses
nessfromdarker
the
to
ones
layers
lighter (seeabove),
i.e.,thelightsare paintedlast.In thisway,thelight
areas normallyare everywhere
elevated
physically
above the darkexceptin the inevitable
pentimenti
thehighcontrasting
border
(see below).And,finally,
betweenthelightanddarkareas,withtheabsenceof
tones,producesa veryspecificeffect
natural-looking
on theradiographs:
all thefacesappearlikemasks.
In our investigation
we carefully
studiedthe
of
of
majority existingx-rayradiographs the early
Manetpaintings.
In thisarticle,
we chosefor
however,
technicalcomparison
severalrepresentative
examples
takenfromthepaintings
datingca. 1862 (fig.8): The
Old Musician(National Gallery,
The
Washington),
Dead Toreador
La
Femme
(NationalGallery),
a la
Collection,Copenhagen),The
Crdche(Ordrupgaard
Ballet
Spanish
(PhillipsCollection),Le Bon Bock,
Museum
of Art), Portrait
(Philadelphia
of a Man
Kr6ller-Miiller,
Otterlo,Holland).
(Rijksmuseum,
The radiograph
ofa singleManetcopywas available
to us,the Self-Portrait
(1854,Musee des
ofTintoretto
Beaux Arts,Dijon), a paintingcrucial for our
we have not received
purpose,but unfortunately
to
it.
permission reproduce

We have included the radiographof the Infanta's

face in the series to show a comparison thatto us is
self-evident:the Infantais wearing the same sort of
"mask" that everybody else wears in the Manet
What is especiallyinterestingin
paintingsillustrated.
this example is that the Infanta'smask is formedby
the borderlinebetween her forehead and her hair,
despite her hair's not being black but of a lighter
color. This featureindicates that the forehead was
joined to the black/darkerhair during the underpaintingstage,while in the finishingstage the hairdo
was impastoed in light.In other words,it indicates
that the artistfollowed a manner quite identical to
that shown in the other Manet paintingspictured.
we may also look at the much later
Significantly,
to demon(1879) paintingof Mlle. IsabelleLemonnier
strate that Manet did not abandon his "masking"
habit for many years following the period under
discussion.
5. Probablythe most important,patentlyobservable characteristicof Manet's alla primapainting in
thickimpasto(thistechnique impliesthatthe volume
and coloring were sought simultaneouslyby the
artist)was his strangeneed to scrape away what he
saw as unnecessarypaint in orderto revealthe more
appropriatedarkercolor beneath it. Michael Wilson,
who follows,in his turn,the criticsTheodore Duret
and George Moore, has ably noted this peculiar
feature:"As he applied washes of color to his painted

drawing, Manet would continuously revise the

contours of his image.Where the paint was thickly
laid on he would often scrape it away to allow the
groundto show through....When he was dissatisfied
he would scrape away and repaint over and over
JAIC 42 (2003):407-418

414

ALBERT BOIME AND ALEXANDER KOSSOLAPOV

seriesofx-rayradiographs
oftheearly(ca. 1862)Manetpaintings.
Leftto right,
Fig.8.The comparative
toprow:Le Bon

La Femmea la Crache,OrdrupgaardCollection,
Bock, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1963-116-009; The Dead Toreador;

Otterlo,Holland,KM 100.854;bottomrow:
Copenhagen,282WH; Portrait
ofa Man,Rijksmuseum,
Kr6ller-Miiller,
1879, Philadelphia Museum of Fine Art, 1978-1-21; The Old Musician,two details
L'Infante;Mlle. IsabelleLemonnier,

again"(Wilson1983,9). And wellbeyondwhatone

the envious
mightevenimaginefromtheserecitals,
observation
of Manet'ssister-in-law,
BertheMorisot
ofhisattachment
(1841-1895),tellsusthemagnitude
to thisunusualprocess:
"Atthemomentallhisadmirationis concentrated
on Mile Gonzales,but the
makesno progress.
He tellsme thathe is at
portrait
the fortieth
sittingand the head has again been
scrapedoff"(Wilson1983,10).
In linewiththisprocess,
we wouldbe inclinedto
add one relatedobservation,
thattheoverwhelming
majorityof Manet'sworks,exceptinghis copies,
revealon x-rayradiographs
totalor local compositionalchanges.Even on his copies,however,
as we
have seen,Manet at leastrevisedthe contours.
To
lineofinquiry,
we must
proceedalongthisimportant
commenton certaintechnicalaspectsof this
briefly
scraping
process.
The resultof the scrapingof whitelead-rich
painton thecontours
maynotbe seenwellon x-ray
ifthe scraping
did notproducenoticeradiographs
able defects
in thelead-richgroundofthepainting.
Whatwe maybe able to see on theradiographs
are
JAIC42 (2003):407-418

just a few morejagged edges on the bordersbetween

darkand lightregions,the effectof which can be well
disguised by the technical featuredescribed above
(3). The transmittedlight photographs (TLPH)
and/or reflectedinfraredphotographs,however,can
indeed revealthe scrapingratherwell in cases where
the underpaintingdone with a darker paint on a
white background has been scraped away.As few
specialistsare familiarin practice with these techniques, it may be helpfulto explain verybrieflythe
differencebetween x-rayradiographsand TLPH.
For x-ray,the main absorbingpigmentin paintings is lead white.As a result,what we see on a radi-

ograph is the lead-whitepresence,or its distribution,

in the painting.For TLPH, the main absorbingpaints
are those that contain carbon black (burnt bone,
charcoal, or soot). When TLPH is made in the

infraredregion (at wavelengthgreaterthan 1.6-1.8

[tm), it revealspredominantlythe presence of carbon
black; when it is made in visual light,it revealsthe
distributionof all darker,light-absorbingpigments.
Lead white,for example,does not absorb lightwell;
its"hidingpower" is based on the effectivescattering

415

MANET'S LOST INFANTA

oflight(due to thebig difference

in refractive
index
black)on a painting,
revealing,
by theway,eventhe
or underdrawing
hidden
valueforlead carbonateand bindingmedium),but
carbonblackunderpainting
noton itsabsorption.
Thusthispigment(ifit is pure
underthe upperpaintlayers.
Thus,on the reflected
and ifitslayeris nottoo thick)lookswhitein trans- infrared photographs,free carbon-containing
are rendered
mittedlight.The sameis trueforanyartist's
white pigments(visually
lookingdark/black)
blackas theywouldbe in thecommonvisualrange
pigmentandforwhitegroundlayersalso.
due to
Reflectedinfrared
butwithmuchhighercontrast
work,in princi- photographs,
photographs
of all othertypesof pigments
to commonreflected
ple,similarly
lightphotography, verysmallabsorption
thecoefficients lookingwhite(nonabsorbing).
spectrum
exceptthatin theinfrared
Ifwe bearin mindthatManetconsistently
used
of reflection/absorption
forartistic
pigmentsdiffer
inthe
coefficients
white/light
verymuchfromthecorresponding
groundson his paintingsand thathis
in the near infrared, individual
of hisown
mannerincludedthescraping
visual range.In particular,
absorptionof a majorityof pigmentsis negligible, painteven down intothe ground(i.e.,at timeshe
carbonblackunderpainting
unlikethevisualregion(to whichmainabsorption scrapedawaythedarker,
to viewthe
bands of such pigmentsbelong,providingtheir as well),thereareexcellentopportunities
In
bothin TLPH and in reflected
infrared.
colors),and the reflectedinfrared scraping
corresponding
does notdiscloseabsorption TLPH thescrapings
maylook likewhitelineswith
photography
practically
as the
at all forall pigmentswithjust one exceptionjagged contourson the darkerbackground,
carbonblack-the pigmentfor which absorption lightpassingthroughsuchscrapingis less absorbed
backnonscraped
stayshigh,almostthesameas itis in thevisualrange. comparedwiththe neighboring,
alsolook white
it
thescrapings
As forthe artists'
reflection/scattering,
ground.In theinfrared
pigments'
withthe increaseof the
becausethewell-reflecting
fallsapproximately
groundis "seen"through
linearly
In bothcases,scrapedlinesmaybe situthescrapings.
and as theirabsorption
wavelength,
stayslow,paint
the
ated alongthe bordersof lightand shadowzones,
(lessreflective)
layersbecome moretransparent
havebeen"revised."
chosenforphotogra- wherethecontours
allegedly
longertheinfrared
wavelength
certainspecific
techAs we havethusestablished
The carbonblack-based
phy.
pigments,
though,
pracwe
ticallydo notchangetheirveryhighlightabsorption nologicalcriteriaforthe revealingof scraping,
In figure
in thenearinfrared,
and consequently
theirlevelof
9,taken
maynowapplythemto theInfanta.
low.Due to sucheffects,
reflected in reflected
thescraping
remains
infrared,
(thebroad,lighterreflectivity
withjaggededges)can be definitely
can helpto tracethedistribu- lookingscratch
infrared
photographs
carbon traced.
The paintwasscrapeddownto thegroundof
tionofcarbonblack(orpigments
containing
Fig. 9. Edouard Manet, L'Infante
detail of photoMarie-Marguerite,
graphtakenin infrared.

JAIC42 (2003):407-418

416

ALBERT BOIME AND ALEXANDER

KOSSOLAPOV

the paintingjust above the head, on the borderof the

hairdo and the dark surroundingbackground,where
the contours of the head were revised.The scraping
is also revealedin figure10,takenin transmitted
light.
That photograph reveals scraping not only on the
border (e.g., see the white line between the forehead
and the hair),but also on the leftpart of the cheek,
where the white was scrapedto be replacedwith the
now existingpink color seen on the same place in
figure6 (see page 442).
At the same time,it is necessaryto discusscertain
differencesthat the Infantapresents on the radiographsin the comparativeseries shown in figure8.

The differenceis that the painting on the Infanta's

face is somehow less full-bodied,the lead-whitelayer
thinnerand less"sculptured"than in the otherexamples. For this reason one cannot clearly see the
here,and, as a result,the face
modeling brushstrokes

detailof
Marie-Marguerite,
Fig.10.EdouardManet,L'Infante
transmitted
lightphoto.

looks less spotty,painted less "aggressively"than the

other faceson the x-rayradiographs.
Significantcompositional changes are absent as
well.To be scrupulous,we mustnote thatthe modeling is performedwith a thinnerbrushthan was used,
for example, on The Old Musician.We believe that
such differences
may be explained when we recollect
thatthe paintingunder examinationis indeed a copy,

and that the copying process may, by definition,

LAS
............

Fig. 11. Edouard Manet, L'InfanteMarie-

.......... ......
...
...
.....
........
...
.........

.........
..id

JAIC42 (2003):407-418

of the lowerpartof
Marguerite,
radiograph
thepainting.

417

MANET'S LOST INFANTA

partially
suppressanypainter'screativeapproachto
the task.At the same time,everycopyistnormally
to secondary
suchas dress
details,
payslessattention
look
at
and accessories.
a
close
Indeed,
figure11,the
of
the
reveals
a muchfreer
dress,
Infanta's
radiograph
more
than
seenin the
Manet,
recognizably
approach,
of
the
in
8.
face
radiograph
figure

Regis Lapassin(CenterforResearchand Conservaas well the

tionof FrenchMuseums).
We appreciate
andsupportofAndrewBrainerd,
assistance
Esq.,Dr.
WalterMcCrone,and Dr. LeonardReiffel.It has
thekindand effective
been through
helpof all these
and
that
this
work
has been
institutions
persons
accomplished.

4. CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

We introduced
thereaderto a painting
whoseartist
used both the same colors and combinationsof
colors,evenpaintstakenfromthesamefactory
stock,
as thoseconsistently
usedby Manetca. 1860.It is a
thatvisiblyconforms
to thelargevarietyof
painting
criteriabroadlyknownto characterize
theworking
and
cultural
affinities
of
this
down
artist,
techniques
to thestrange
of
his
individual
manner.
peculiarities
recorddocumentsManet'sexecution
The historical
of an oil copy of theVelizquez Infanta
duringthis
the
period.Have we thensucceededin establishing
ofthepainting?
authenticity
It seemsimpossibleto us to ascribeto coincidence thisvarietyof astonishing
The
congruities.
scientific
examination
describedin thisstudyreports
arrivedat withgreatcaution.
We
findings
objectively
believeitaddsconfirmation
to theconvincing
factual
aggregateof textualmaterialalreadyknownabout
thispainting.
Our answerto thatquestionofauthenis consequently,
ticity
yes,thisis theworkofEdouard
doubt.
Manet,wellbeyondanyreasonable

An invesBareau,J.W.1986. Thehidden
faceofManet:
the
London:
artist's
tigation
of
working
processes.
BurlingtonMagazine.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their deep gratitudeto
colleagueswho supplied or made availablethe
andx-raydocuments
usedin thisstudy,
photograph
or who spenttheirtimein veryhelpfuldiscussions.
In particular
we owe specialacknowledgment
toAnn
and
Conisbee
(National
Hoeningswald
Philip
HenrikBjerre(Dansk
Galleryof Art,Washington),
Museum),Christopher
Riopelle (NationalGallery,
London),MarkTuckerand BethPrice (Philadelphia
Museum of Art),AlbertKostenevitch,
Alexander
Babin, A. Sizov, Lilia Viazmenskaia(Hermitage
andJean-Pierre
Mohenand
Museum,St.Petersburg),

BoggsJ. S. 1958. Degas notebooksat the BibliothequeNationaleII: GroupB (1858-1861).BurlingtonMagazine100 (June):196-205.

andFrench
inthe
Boime,A. 1971.TheAcademy
painting
nineteenth
London:PhaidonPress.
century.
andtheeclectic
vision.
Boime,A. 1980. ThomasCouture
New HavenandLondon:YaleUniversity
Press.
A. 1988.TheInfanta
andthelostManet.
adventure
Brainerd,
Indiana:
ReichlPress.
LongBeach,Michigan
City,
Fried,M. 1996.Manet'smodernism.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
tradition.
New
Hanson,A. 1977.Manetandthemodern
Haven:YaleUniversity
Press.
Theforging
Hebborn,E. 1991.Drawnto trouble:
ofan
artist.Frome,England,and London: Mainstream
Publishing
Projects.
Meller,P 2002. Manet in Italy.Burlington
Magazine
144 (February):68-110.
46
Reff,T.1964.Copyistsin theLouvre.ArtBulletin
(December):552-59.
1975.Edouard
Manet:
Rouart,D., andD.Wildenstein
Lausanneand Paris:La BiblioCatalogueraisonne.
thequedesArts.
JAIC 42 (2003):407-418

418

ALBERT BOIME AND ALEXANDER KOSSOLAPOV

- Lexikon,
vol.
Saur,K. G. 1995.Allgemeines
Kinstler
10.Munich-Leipzig:
K. G. Saur.141.

Institute, and in 1991-95

special Mellon
fellow/seniorresearch fellow/scientistat the Los
Angeles County Museum of Art Conservation
P
2002.
The
lesson:
Manet's
Schjeldahl,
Spanish
gift Center. In 1998-99, he held a position as senior
fromVelizquez. New Yorker,
November18:102-3.
fellowat the Center forAdvanced Studyin theVisual
taste
The
Manet/
painting, Arts (CASVA), National Galleryof Art,Washington,
Veldzquez: French forSpanish
ed. G.Tinterowand G. Lacambre.
NewYork:Metro- D.C. Since 1996 he has held the principalscientific
politanMuseumofArt;New Haven:YaleUniversity museum position in Russia, as head of the scientific
Press,2003.
departmentof the State HermitageMuseum.

1909.Allgemeines
Thieme-Becker.
Lexikonderbilden- Received forreviewon September6, 2002. Revised
denKiinstler,
vol.3. Leipzig:E. A. Seemann.512-13.
manuscriptreceivedFebruary25, 2003. Accepted
Wilson,M. 1983. Manetat work.London:National
Gallery.

FURTHER

READING

MatheyJ. 1963. Graphismede Manet.Vol. 2, Peintures

Paris: E De Nobele.
reapparues.
Moreau-Nelaton, E. 1926. Manetraconte
par lui-meme.
Paris:H. Laurens.
Reff, T. 1976. Manet: Olympia. New York: Viking
Press.
Sandblad, N. 1954. Manet: Three studies in artistic
Lund, Sweden: C.W. K. Gleerup.
conception.
ALBERT BOIME earned his Ph.D. in art history
fromColumbia Universityin 1968. He specializesin
the study of modern art and has made notable
contributionsto the understandingof artinstruction
in the 19th century.He is currentlyworking on a
multivolumeSocialHistoryofModernArt,the firsttwo
volumes of which have been publishedby University
of Chicago Press.
ALEXANDER J. KOSSOLAPOV earned his M.S.
in physicsat Leningrad University,Russia, in 1970,
and his Ph.D. in physics/engineeringin 1980. In
1972-90 he was the head of the Laboratory for
Scientific Examination of Works of Art in the
Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. In 1990 he was
senior research fellow in the Getty Conservation

JAIC 42 (2003):407-418

forpublicationApril 23, 2003.

442

MANET'S LOST INFANTA

ALBERT BOIME AND ALEXANDER KOSSOLAPOV
(colorplates,p. 442; see articlepp.407-418)
Fig. 1. Edouard Manet, L'InfanteMarie46 x
ca. 1859-1862,oil on canvas,
Marguerite,
38.1 cm,privatecollection,
UnitedStates

detail(face)
Marie-Marguerite,
Fig.6.EdouardManet,L'Infante
Fig. 2. Diego Velizquez, InfantaMaria Margarita,ca. 1653, oil on
canvas,70 x 59 cm, Musee du Louvre, 941

JAIC42 (2003):441-456