This article was downloaded by: [Columbia University]On: 08 December 2014, At: 07:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Kentucky Foreign LanguageQuarterlyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vzfq20

Diderot and the Goncourts asCritics of Eighteenth-CenturyFrench ArtMary Lane Charles aa Earlham CollegePublished online: 09 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Mary Lane Charles (1964) Diderot and the Goncourts as Critics ofEighteenth-Century French Art, Kentucky Foreign Language Quarterly, 11:3, 119-125,DOI: 10.1080/00230332.1964.9926192

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00230332.1964.9926192

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

04 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

DIDEROT AND THE GONCOURTS AS CRITICS OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH ART

By Mary Lane CHARLES,

Earlham College

IDEROT’S series of Salons, which describe most of the Paris art salons D from 1759 to 1781, were written for Grimm’s literary correspondence to various German princes and were not intended for publication during his lifetime. In 1795, eleven years after his death, the S&n of 1765 was published, and three years later the Salon of 1767 appeared. During the first half of the nineteenth century the Salons of 1759 and 1761 and parts of the S&ns of 1763 and 1769 were brought out, and in 1857 the ReviLe de Paris printed the remaining Salons.

The Goncourt’s thorough acquaintance with these Sabns is shown by frequent quotations from them in their Art du dix-hu.itGme siGcZe, a series of articles on eighteenth-century painters which they published from 1859 to 18GS. Each article consists of a biography, a list of the artist’s production, descriptions of his important works, and criticism of his work as a whole, with innumerable references to eighteenth-century writings and archives, and many unpublished documents. The first edition was illustrated with examples of each artist’s work engraved by the Gon- courts themselves.

As collectors of eighteenth-century art, they deplored the ignorance and neglect of this period on the part of their contemporaries, who refused to pay more than a pittance for these masterpieces. Even Watteau’s “Embarquement pour CythBre,” which had been relegated to a classroom

119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

04 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

in the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, was ridiculed hy students who threw h e a d - balls at it. The Goncourts predicted that within one hundred years (that is, by 1 9 a ) Watteau would be recognized as a first-rate painter, that La Tour would be considered one of the most skilful draftsmen that ever existed, and that it would no longer take courage to acclaim the greatness of Chardin.

Pointing out that Chardin was recognized during his lifetime and that Diderot merely confirmed the general admiration for this artist’s paintings, the Goncourts approve of Diderot’s lyrisnte and quote his praise: “C‘est le grand coloriste . . . le grand magicien. . . . C‘est le sublime du technique.. . . C’est la nature mCme.”1 Diderot’s first reaction to Char- din, in his Salon of 1759, was appreciation of his realism: “C’est toujours la nature et la viritd. Vous prendriez les bouteilles par le goulot si vous aviez soif; les p6ches et les raisins Cveillent l’apphtit et appden t la main.”2 Four years later, when he had acquired a better knowledge of technique, Diderot exclaimed :

0 Chardin! ce n’est pas du blanc, du rouge, du noir que tu broies sur ta palette; c’est la substance mime des objets, c’est l’air et la 1umih-e que tu prends i la pointe de ton pinceau et que tu at- taches sur la toile. On n’entend rien i cette magie. Ce sont des couches ipaisses de couleur appliquCes les unes sur les autres et dont I’effet transpire de dessous en dessus. D’autres fois, on dirait que c’est une vapeur qu’on a soufflde sur :a toile; ailleurs une Ccume ICg2re qu’on y a jetk.3

Echoing the word m g i e the Goncourts praise Chardin’s still lifes in similar terms, although they express their admiration with a richer vocabulary and with more varied nuances of expressibn :

Le brillant, I’dclair du gobelet n’est fait que par quelques touches de blanc dgratignks de piite &he; dam les ombres, il y a de tous les tons, de toutes les colorations, des fildes d’un bleu presque violet, des coukes de rouge qui sont le reflet des cerises contre le gobelet, du brun rouge et comme estomp6 dans des ombres d‘etain, des

1 Goncourt, Arc ah diz-WGrne siicle (Paris, 1881-21, I, 142. 2 Diderot, Oeuvres compGtes, ed. par Asshsat et Tourneux (Paris, 1875-77),

3 Ibid., X, 195. x, 98. -.

120

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

04 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

piqihes de jaune rouge, jouant dans des touches de bleu de Prusse, un rappel continu de toutes les couleurs ambiantes glissant sur le metal poli du gobelet.4

While Diderot admires “une harmonie a u deli de laquelle on ne songe pas i dCsirer,”5 the Goncourts pay tribute to: “Paix des choses, accord, harmonie, lumicre calme, c’est le secret et la force de Chardin, sa grim, sa familiere et rare @ie.”6 In their biography of Chardin the Goncourts stress his kindness, referring to Diderot’s account of Chardin’s plea for la douceur in judging the work of even mediocre artists.

An important difference in viewpoint between Diderot and the Gon- courts is evident in their discussion of Boucher and Greuze. The Gon- courts consider Diderot’s contempt for Boucher and his attuques furieuses quite unjustified, and believe that his judgment of Boucher was vitiated by Diderot’s preoccupation with moral values and utilitarian considerations. They accuse Diderot of setting himself up as an apostle of ‘Tart utile et profitable i l’hurnanit6. I1 professait que la vocation du beau n’htait pas seuleraent d’Gtre le beau mais encore $&re le bien.”’ These critics, who maintain the validity of l’art pour ,!‘art in their criticism, scorn Diderot’s concern with the moral effect of art. They are pleased that Diderot once so far forgot his antipathy for Boucher as to admit: “Person- ne n’entend comme Boucher l’art de la lumicre et des ombres,”a Assert- ing that Boucher no more deserved the s&viri& cruelles of Diderot than the wild enthusiasm of the public, they conclude: “Boucher est simple- ment un peintre original et grandement dou6, auquel il a manqu6 une qualit6 supkieure, le signe de race des grands peintres: la distinction.. . . La vulgarit6 Clhgante, voilh la signature de Boucher.”g In this article on Boucher the Goncourts express their opinion of Diderot as a critic:

Ce n’est pas un juge infaillible que Diderot: il y a bien des bouta- des dans son goiit. Le g6nie du merveilleux Ccrivain c’est la pas- sion; et sa critique mdme, avec ses Clans, ses dbbordements magni- fiques, ses tableaux qui vivent, ses flots d‘idCes et de couleur, ses

4 Art, I, 106. 5 Oeuvres, XI, 409. 6 Art, I, 125.

8 Ibid., I, 237. 7 ibid., I, 238.

9 lbid., I, 238-39.

121’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

04 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

improvisations, ses apostrophes, son iloquence parlie qui cause et qui exalte, sa critique, n’est que passion; l’emportement d’un grand instinet le soutient toujours; la mesure d’un sentiment juste lui fait. souvent dCfaut.10

They feel that the prejudices of his artist friends may often have unduly influenced Diderot’s opinions.

It is to be expected that they deplore Diderot’s infatuation with the art of Greuze, and they accuse Diderot of “inventing” Greuze by encour- aging him to moralize in art and to depict sentimental scenes similar to those in the “P&e de famille” and the “Fils naturel.” They belittle Greuze’s dream of inspiring ,?’amour du bien, la lmine du vim, which led him to become the founder of “la d6plorable Ccole de la peinture l i t 6 raire et de I’art moralisateur.”ll Pointing out that even Diderot had to admit that Greuze was not a great artist, they remark that Diderot considered Greuze’s wife responsible for the failure of her husband to reach the heights of artistic achievement. Diderot devotes pages to enthusiastic descriptions of Greuze’s paintings, recounting the subjects in detail and embroidering them with imaginary situations and conver- sations. In his well-known description of “L’Accordie de village,” negIect- ing technical considerations, Diderot relishes the sentimental narrative inspired by the scene. The Goncourts ridicule the public’s acclaim and judge the picture severely as to technique: “Le public fermait les yeux sur I’inharmonie des couleurs, le disaccord des tons, le dksagrhment des nuances, sur le papillotage des IumiGres, sur toutes les taches et les insuffisances d’exdcu tion du chef-d’oeuvre.”l*

In discussing La Tour the Goncourts refer to Diderot’s accounts of conversations with La Tour concerning his art, and repeat anecdotes told by Diderot about La Tour, who was as original in his actions and remarks as in his artistic work. Diderot admires La Tour’s portraits for their resemblance, saying : “C’est la nature 1ni?me.”~3 Although he calls la Tour “grand mgicien,” he makes some reservations: “Ce n’est pas de la poesie: ce n’est que de la peinture. . . . I1 a le genie du technique; c’est un machiniste merveilleux.”12 Quoting these expressions, the Gon-

10 Ibid., I, 237. 11 Ibid., 11, 24. 12 Ibid., 11, 17. 13 ‘Oeuvres, XI, 151. 14 Idem.

122

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

04 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

courts criticize Diderot’s lack of judgment and express the highest praise of La Tour’s sensitivity to the character of his models, which he conveys’ with such skill that La Tour is a “confesseur d’humanit6. Ses visages pensent, parlent, s’avouent, se livrent.”15 In La Tour’s delicate, penetrat- ing portraits of women they recognize “une femme des Con/essions de Rousseau ou 1’hCroine d’un conte passionni de Diderot.”l6

The engraver Cochin did not deserve the high esteem of his contem- poraries, according to the Goncourts, and they accuse Diderot of yielding to the general enthusiasm in calling Cochin “le premier dessinateur frangais,” Criticizing Cochin’s penchant for allegory, they continue : “A tout moment, avec Diderot, il s’enflamme sur des tableaux emblimati- ques, des symbolismes d’urnes, de Mort foulCe aux pieds, de Temps B la faux bride.”17 In fact, in the Salon of 1765 Diderot calls Cochin grand dessinateur, autrefois graveur de premier ordre,”lE and he qual-

ifies praise of Cochin’s “Frontispice pour l’Encyclop6die’’ by criticizing the lack of perspective in this illustration. In the Salon of 1767 Diderot complains of Cochin’s abuse of allegory:

(6

Autre vice de ces compositions, c’est qu’il y a trop d‘idies, trop de p&ie, de l’allCgorie fourrCe partout, ghant tout, brouillant tout, une obscurit; presque B 1’Cpreuve des 16gendes. Je ne m’y ferai jamais. Jamais je ne cesserai de regarder l’allhgorie comme la ressource d’une t6te stCrile, faible, incapable de tirer parti de la rCalit6, et appelant l’hihroglyphe B son secours; d’oa il r2sulte un galimatias de personnes vraies et d’3tres imaginaires qui me choque, compositions dignes des temps gothiques et non des n8tres.lg

For the Goncourts, Cochin’s real talent lay in his graceful and witty depiction of eighteenth-century court life.

To set before his readers all the details of Fragonard’s “Sacrifice of CallirhG” Diderot described it in the guise of a dream. This was the first picture displayed by Fragonard at a salon, and it was generally acclaimed. However, the high expectations it aroused were not realized

15 Art, I, 361. 16 Ibid., I, 362. 17 Art, 11, 354. 18 Oeuvres, X, 448. 19 Ibid., XI, 363.

123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

04 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

by his contribution to the following salon, a ceiling decoration entitled “Groups of Children in the Sky.” The Goncourts quote with approval Diderot’s condemnation, “belle omelette, bien douillette, bien jaune et bien brii16e.”20 They are charmed by Fragonard’s graceful, ardent scenes of eighteenth-century gallantry which they call “une vision f6erique.. . . Pour dkcrire le grand tableau de Fragonard, Diderot a imagin6 de le r6ver. I1 ne pouvait mieux faire: Fragonard est le Miitre du songe.”*l Their Journal entry for December 7, 1859, soon after they had begun research for their book on eighteenth-century art, compares Diderot and Fragonard :

Je m’imagine Fragonard sorti du mtme moule que Diderot. Chez tous deux m6me feu, mtme verve. Une page de Fragonard, c’est une peinture de Diderot [sic]. Mtme ton polissonnant et emu; tableaux de famille, attendrissement de la nature, libert6 d’un conte libre. Tous deux se jouant de la forme prCcise, absolue, de la pens6e ou de la ligne. Diderot, parleur sublime plus grand qu’icri- vain ; Fragonard, plus dessinateur que peintre. Hommes du premier mouvement, de la pens6e jet6e toute vive et naissante aux jeux ou A l’id6e.Z2

Diderot’s criticism is necessarily fragmentary, as his comments OR each artist were made picture by picture, year by year, with an oc- casional summing up of the artist’s work at a given point, whereas the Goncourts composed a single article on the complete work of each artist. As Diderot was writing for distant correspondents, unable to view the pictures, his descriptions are usually longer than those of the Gon- courts, who could refer their readers to art in the Louvre or other col- lections. Diderot delighted in re-arranging a picture, telling how he would have treated the subject, and his Salons abound in digressions. The Goncourts concentrated on the life and work of each artist, ofterr illuminating their interpretation of the work by references to circum- stances of the artist’s life or surroundings. Diderot turned his hand to painting and modeling so as to understand the problems of artistic produc- tion, but he was not an accomplished artist, as were the Goncourts. As the years passed, Diderot’s active, inquiring mind developed new

20 h t , 111, 262. 31 Ibid., III, 309. m Goncourt, IbrrJnal, ed. par Ricatte (Monaco, 1956), 111, 175.

124

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

04 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

viewpoints, so that variation in his judgments, even of the same artist, is often caused by evolution in his own esthetic theories. The Goncourts applied the same criteria to all the artists whom they discussed. Along with questions of technique, Diderot was preoccupied with moral and philosophical considerations. For the Goncourts, technique and the ac- curate rendering of life and nature were all-important.

A paper presented at the Seventeenth University of Kentucky

Foreign Language Conference Lexington, Kentucky

1964l

125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

04 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014