Seurat's Paintings and DrawingsSeurat et son œuvre by C. M. de HaukeReview by: William I. HomerThe Burlington Magazine, Vol. 105, No. 723 (Jun., 1963), pp. 282-284Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/873967 .

Accessed: 21/12/2014 01:26

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Burlington Magazine.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 21 Dec 2014 01:26:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE LITERATURE OF ART

. . . or casually dropping in at the Cotton Market'. But having gone this far in this direction, which seems consistent with developing Impressionism, 'he changed in the next period [I874-84] to more selective and subjective interpretations of human beings'. It was then that he painted pictures like the Place de la Concorde (Vicomte Lepic and his Daughters) in which the physical characteristics of each individual were exaggerated almost to the point of caricature and the figures were shown as expressive silhouettes in a lively and arresting pattern; a treat- ment which has some similarities to

.Japanese prints, caricature,

photography, and performances on the stage. The individuals now tended to emerge and dominate their environment. By 1884- 94 indifferent health and increasing pessimism were reflected in paintings from which most of the vitality and animation of both the sitter and the formal means seemed gone and where the mood was one of apathy and futility, combined with pity. His style broadened and he was not as interested as before in focusing upon the particular aspects of a human being. This reached its extreme development in the late portraits of 1894-1905, painted when he had become almost blind, and when, with most of his old friends either dead or estranged, he was overcome by feelings of futility and loneliness. These are sad and bitter, but also compassionate works, which have hitherto been somewhat underrated.

What is perhaps particularly interesting about Dr Boggs's study - and I must say that I am in agreement with her analysis so briefly summarized here - is the very searching way she has demonstrated Degas's extraordinarily perceptive eye for indi- vidual characteristics and fobr the tensions which sometimes exist between friends or between the members of a family circle. We know that he had the reputation of being an excellent mimic; the angle of a head, the way a woman held her hands or put on her gloves could all be made to reveal a temperament. Even as early as I858-62, when he painted The Bellelli Family, he seemed at pains to underline the reserve which existed between the wife and her husband, and in 1869 he set himself to make 'portraits of people in familiar and typical attitudes and especially give the same choice of expression to the face that one gives to the body'. Sometimes, as in the triple portrait of Jeantaud, Linet and Laini, of 1871, he simply juxtaposed and contrasted different types of individuals all coming from the same well-to-do bourgeois milieu; in other pictures he was perhaps chiefly concerned with the relationship between them, such as that between father and child or - a particularly poignant example - that of affection combined with embarrassed reserve existing between guardian and child. To a considerable extent these pictures speak for themselves, but there is no doubt that our understanding of them is enriched by the kind of biographical information about the sitters that Dr Boggs provides. At the same time this helps to recreate Degas's social environment and therefore tells us a great deal about him that is difficult to ascertain from other sources. On the whole the impression which he makes is increasingly human and sympathetic. Although Dr Boggs is not the only person to have studied Degas's family and social circle - the re- searches of John Rewald should be mentioned, for instance, and Riccardo Raimondi's Degas e la sua Famiglia in Napoli, 1793-1917 - she has added a considerable amount of new material of her own and has brought everything together in a highly skilful fashion.

The book, which is very well illustrated (though by no means all the portraits are reproduced), is completed by a selected bibliography, a comparative chart of Lemoisne's and the author's dating of portraits by Degas, and a biographical dictionary of the sitters. Among other changes, the Tate's portrait is iden- tified, on the basis of a photograph, as Elena Montejasi-Cicerale instead of her sister Camilla, and L.3i8 is tentatively identified as Mathilde Musson Bell.

Seurat's Paintings and Drawings BY WILLIAM I. HOMER

THE appearance of C. M. de Hauke's catalogue of Seurat's paintings and drawings* is an event long awaited in the art world. In preparation since the early thirties, it was finally issued in the autumn of 1962. The publication in 1959 of another catalogue of Seurat's paintings and their preliminary drawings' does not seem to have deterred M. de Hauke, whose patient labours have resulted in a sumptuously produced monument to Seurat's art. In compiling this catalogue he had at his disposal valuable documents and photographs inherited from Fdlix F6neon, who, conscious as early as 1886 of his role as historian of the Neo-Impressionist movement, quietly dedicated himself to collecting significant data about his friend's life and work. De Hauke, in turn, enjoyed F6neon's collaboration in preparing the catalogue until the latter's death in 1944. Subsequently, de Hauke continued the task, brought entries up to date, and published the work in a handsome, if expensive, form. It is in two volumes, one for the paintings and the other for the drawings. Volume I is perhaps less impressive than Volume II only because we have become familiar with most of the paintings through the Dorra/ Rewald catalogue. De Hauke's volume of drawings, however, is a revelation. Of 500 examples that he illustrates, almost half were heretofore unpublished.

Most of Volume I is taken up by the catalogue of 2 14 paintings, but preceding it are an introduction, two brief biographies of Feneon, a group of previously unpublished letters and documents (by Seurat, F6neon, Emile Seurat, and Madeleine Knobloch), a resumi of Seurat's biography, and an anthology of writings about the artist and his work. As a visual postscript to the catalogue, de Hauke arranged photographs of the preparatory paintings and drawings around each of Seurat's six major canvases, thus facili- tating a comparison of the preliminary studies to each other and to the completed paintings. Following these pages are facsimile reproductions of almost unobtainable exhibition catalogues; photographs of Seurat shows at Paul Rosenberg (1936), Knoedler ( 1949), and the Art Institute of Chicago (1958); and illustrations of pictures erroneously attributed to Seurat. Volume II follows a similar pattern: excerpts from writings about the drawings; the catalogue; addenda and errata; an index of owners; and an index of authors cited in the catalogue entries.

Let it be said at the outset that, in spite of some errors, de Hauke's catalogue is an extremely valuable record of Seurat's work. The plates are clear and show considerable detail; the cross-indexing works efficiently; and the typography is a pleasure to behold (an exception: the position of the illustrations on any given page is often out of phase with the texts). In the catalogue entries de Hauke attempted to provide a complete account of bibliographical references, appearances in exhibitions, data on public sales, and the provenance of the works. More important, he has shed new light on the evolution of Seurat's style, particu- larly during his formative period, by reproducing a large number of previously unpublished drawings. And he catalogued three paintings (Nos.45, 67, and 73) above and beyond those recorded by Dorra and Rewald. Newly published documents that appear in Volume I will also prove valuable to students of late nineteenth- century painting. Here we may witness some of the disagreements and misunderstandings over the priority of Seurat's invention of Neo-Impressionism - or peinture optique, as he liked to call it. Especially interesting are his letters to Findon of 20th and 24th June 1890, which provide important data about his development in 1884-6. Moreover, in the letter of 2oth June 1890 Seurat * Seurat et son

ouvre. By C. M. de Hauke. Vol. I: xlix+307 pp. (296 figs.); Vol. II: xv+333 pp. (498 figs.) Paris (Griind). 1 HENRI DORRA and JOHN REWALD: Seurat, Paris [1959].

282

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 21 Dec 2014 01:26:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE LITERATURE OF ART

identified the sources upon which he drew in nineteenth-century painting and theory, and this material will undoubtedly be useful to those concerned with the genesis of his artistic thought.2 Specialists, too, will be glad to see the inventaire posthume of the artist's studio. Of somewhat lesser importance, but still useful, are the facsimile reproductions of pages from the rare exhibition catalogues of the Salon des Ind6pendants and Les XX, as well as those of Seurat's early one-man shows.

It is not surprising that a number of omissions and errors should have occurred in such a monumental compendium of pictorial and factual material. Fortunately, some of these are trivial.3 But others require comment, considering that this catalogue, like the Dorra/Rewald volume, will inevitably serve for years as a stan- dard reference work. The following remarks, then, are offered by way of constructive criticism. First, in the matter of identifying studies for some of Seurat's major paintings, I do not agree with de Hauke's designation of No.592 as a preparatory drawing for Une Baignade. This sheet reveals the artist's earlier angular style of draughtsmanship and lacks the subtlety of tonal gradation that prevails in the other Baignade drawings; also, it is not related to a specific figure in the finished canvas. The same criticism, apropos of La Grande jatte, holds for No. 16. As Dorra and Rewald have suggested, this panel was probably not a study, but an in- dependent work executed after the painting was completed. Equally perplexing is de Hauke's designation of what must have been a group of independent drawings as preparatory studies for La Parade. Although their subject-matter is more or less related to that of the painting, Nos.668 and 670-8 come from a variety of periods in Seurat's career and cannot be linked legitimately with specific motifs in the canvas. And I am puzzled by his remarks accompanying No.662. Although he correctly associates this sheet with one of the spectators in La Parade, it is also called a preparatory drawing for Les Poseuses, to which it bears very little relationship.

De Hauke does not identify many of the paintings, sculptures, and drawings after which a number of Seurat's student drawings were made. Some of these are from classical statuary, and their sources, as far as they are known, have been traced and listed in the appendix to this review by my colleague, Prof. R. Ross Holloway. I have been able to identify a number of Seurat's

copies after post-antique examples, and they have been recorded in the note below.4

While de Hauke's bibliographical references and pedigrees give the impression of being remarkably complete, there are some omissions.5 Also, I would like to call attention to the following oversights. De Hauke assigned the date of c. 1883 to No.73, which Seurat actually dated '84'. Several drawings, notably Nos.686, 689, and 69o, are listed as non signi in spite of the fact that they are signed. And No.621, Vol.II, is reproduced upside down (it is shown right side up on p.!2oi, Vol.I).

With some important exceptions, de Hauke's and Dorra/ Rewald's dates for Seurat's paintings do not differ by more than one year. However, the criticism that I made of the Dorra/ Rewald volume6 also holds for de Hauke's catalogue. In following his chronology for the paintings, we experience neither stylistic continuity nor logical growth; thus the task of analysing and evaluating Seurat's early development still awaits its master.

2 Some of Seurat's references in this letter call for explanation. The book by CHARLES BLANC that he read in college was the Grammaire des arts du dessin, Paris [1867], which included a summary of Chevreul's theories and an analysis of Delacroix's views about colour. Seurat also indicated that he read BLANC'S study of Delacroix in Volume XVI of the Gazette des Beaux-Arts; this was a two-part article published in the issues of January and February 1864, later reprinted in Artistes de mon temps, Paris [1876]. He also acknowledged his famili- arity with some of Corot's ideas, as set forth in a lettre intime of 28th (or 27th) October 1875; this was published by REWALD in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts, xxxix [April 1952], p.284. And he became acquainted with some of Thomas Couture's precepts on the finesse of colour, 'dpoque de son [Couture's] exposition'. This probably refers to the large Couture exhibition held in Paris in November I88o, but we cannot be certain which of his writings Seurat knew (it was probably his well-known Mdthode et entretiens d'atelier, Paris [1868]). Seurat also referred to DAVID SUTTER'S articles in L'Art [February and March i88o]; these are entitled 'Les Ph~nomenes de la vision' and were published in six instal- ments (8th January; Ist, 8th, 22nd, 29th February; 14th March). Finally, he pointed out that his attention had been called to Rood by 'une article de Philippe Gille, Figaro 1881'. The article in question was a brief book review of the American physicist OGDEN N. ROOD's Thiorie scientifique des couleurs, Paris [i881] that appeared in Le Figaro [26th January 1881]. (According to an unpublished letter to F&n6on, Seurat changed his palette, presumably by progressively abandoning earth colours between 1882 and 1884, as a result of reading Rood's book.) 3 On p.xv, Vol.i, de Hauke listed among monographs on Seurat drawings a book by R. L. HERBERT, Phaidon Press [1962]. No such book had appeared at the time of writing. Mr Herbert informs me that his Seurat's Drawings is scheduled for publication this year by the Shorewood Publishers, Inc. Omitted are two early catalogues in which Seurat's work was listed: those of the Salon of 1883 and of the first Salon des Ind6pendants (1884). On p.xxiv bis, Vol.I, the reference to pp.197-20o applies to CHEVREUL's De la loi du contraste simultane' des couleurs, Paris [18391.

4 216. From a copy of a Michelangelo drawing Profile with Fantastic Head-Dress, Uffizi, Florence (the original Michelangelo drawing is in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford). 224, 225. From Poussin's The Seven Sacraments: Ordination, Collection the Earl of Ellesmere (the figures are reversed in Seurat's copies, presumably because they were taken from an engraving). 226. From Raphael's drawing Study of a Child, Albertina, Vienna. 232. From Ingres' preparatory drawing of St Raphael for a cartoon for one of the windows in the Chapel at Dreux. (Reproduced in E. GATTEAUX: Collection de z2o dessins, croquis, et peintures de M. Ingres, Paris [n.d.], pl.26.) 236. From a preparatory drawing for Ingres' Antiochus et Stratonice (Giraudon photo 13146 bis). 239. Correctly identified in the catalogue as a copy of a drawing by Ingres representing Astrie; the drawing Seurat copied is a preliminary study for L'Age d'or. (Reproduced in E. GATTEAUX, op. cit., pl.17.) 250. From the figure of Virgil in Ingres' Virgile lisant l"Endide' devant Auguste, Musie des Augustins, Toulouse (probably after the engraving by Pradier). 257. From the drapery of the figure of Moliere (or a study for it) in Ingres' drawing Hombre dMifil (cf. L'Apothlose d'Homkre). 259. From a sculpture (or cast thereof) of St Martha, School of Troyes, c.1510o. 263. Top row, centre: from the head of the infant Christ in Perugino's Madonna with St Joseph and St Catherine, Louvre, Paris. Top row, right: from the head of the Madonna in Giovanni Bellini's Madonna and Child with St Peter and St Sebastian, Louvre, Paris. Bottom row, left: from Pontormo's Portrait of an Engraver of Precious Stones, Louvre, Paris. Bottom row, right: from Titian's Portrait of Francis I, Louvre, Paris. 286. From Puget's Milon de Crotone, Louvre, Paris. 305. From Ghiberti's Gates of Paradise, Florence, Baptistry, Moses panel, soldier in the foreground, left (presumably from a cast). 309. From an Ingres preparatory drawing for Romulus vainqueur d'Acron,

Musie Bonnat, Bayonne. 313. From an Ingres preparatory drawing for La Source, formerly Haro Collec- tion, Paris. (Reproduced in j. MATHEY: Ingres dessins, Paris [n.d.], No.52.) 316. From a Titian school [Palma il Giovane?], Head of an Old Man, Brera, Milan (the image is reversed in Seurat's copy, presumably because it was taken from an engraving). 329. The sketch of the figure at the left is from Michelangelo's drawing Two Nudes, Academy, Venice; the two sketches of arms in the centre are from Michelangelo's drawing Dead Christ, Louvre, Paris; the two sketches of legs at the right are from the figure at the left in Michelangelo's drawing, Two Nude Men, Albertina, Vienna.

I believe the following are also copies, rather than from nature: Nos.243, 287, 288, 3o6, 317. 5 No.I8 was exhibited at Galerie Charpentier, Paris, summer 1957 ('Cent chefs-d'aeuvre de l'art frangais', 1750-1950). No.35, add R. HERBERT, Tale University Art Gallery Bulletin, xxv [October 19591, p.22-9. No. 7 , add H. DORRA, Gazette des Beaux-Arts, LI [January 1958], PP.43, 44. No.317 is currently on the New York art market (Hammer Galleries). No.595, add R. HERBERT, THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, CII [August I96O], p.37o. No.662, add International Studio, xcI [September 1928], p.I9. No.667, add j. REWALD: Post- Impressionism, New York [1956], 430. No. 681, add j. REWALD: Post-Impression- ism, p.I I I. It should be noted that No.73 was in the N. B. Woolworth Sale, Parke-Bernet Galleries, N.Y., 31st October 1962, and that No.93 has been bequeathed to the Art Institute of Chicago. The following paintings are neither catalogued nor illustrated as fakes: Pont sur la Seine, No.14, Seurat Paintings and Drawings, 19th April-7th May 1949, Knoedler Galleries, N.Y.; Esquisse pour 'La Grande Jatte', JACQUES DE LAPRADE: Seurat, Paris [1951], p.42; Croqueton pour 'La Grande Jatte', ibid., p.43. De Hauke also chose to omit refer- ences to the Dorra/Rewald catalogue. 6 The Art Bulletin, XLII [September I960], p.229.

283

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 21 Dec 2014 01:26:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE LITERATURE OF ART

Instances where de Hauke's and Dorra/Rewald's dating differs by more than a year call for comment here. One of the most problematic canvases in Seurat's xuvre is Sous-bois (de H. No.14 [1882]; D/R No.8 [I88O(?)]). Was this an isolated experiment in pointillism dating from the beginning of the artist's career ? Or is it an early canvas that was later repainted in a pointillist tech- nique? In Benedict Nicolson's opinion,' which I share, it is probably the latter. The underpainting is composed of sombre earth colours, which we know Seurat did not use after 1884; but subsequent layers of pigment were applied in a pointillist manner characteristic of his technique of 1886-7. (The final colour scheme is dominated by greens, tans, and oranges; it was not 'done in dots of a single colour' as Rewald has stated.8) As to La Vespasienne (de H. No.40 [c. 1882]; D/R No.140 [c. 1885]), I agree with Dorra/Rewald's dating. In brushwork and colour, this panel resembles the croquetons of 1884-5 for La Grande Jatte.

After these examples, one encounters a group of paintings (de H. Nos.98-1o3, 105) which de Hauke dates c. 1884 and which Dorra and Rewald date c.1882.

Paysage rose, de H. No.98 [c.I884]; D/R No.43 [c.1882]. I agree with de Hauke's dating. This panel is comparable to the early oil studies for La Grande Jatte.

Picheur, de H. No.99 [c.1884]; [Balayeur] D/R No.53 [c.1882]. This panel reveals close stylistic affinities with a group of paintings de Hauke and Dorra/ Rewald have dated in 1882 (de H. Nos.3o-3, 38, 39).

Casseur de pierre a la brouette, Le Raincy, de H. No. oo [c.1884]; D/R No.49 [c. 1882]. This painting is not quite as advanced in style as Paysan la houe (de H. No.103), mentioned below. It appears to be contemporary with the earlier oil studies (1883) for Une Baignade.

Le Jardinier, de H. No.xox [c. 1884]; D/R No.48 [c.x882]. This small panel is probably contemporary with Une Baignade (1883-4), but appears to be slightly more advanced than Paysan a la houe (de H. No.103).

Le Tas de pierres, de H. No.Io2 [c.18841 ; D/R No.22 [c.x882]. By virtue of its agitated brushwork, which is rarely found in Seurat's

oauvre after the Baignade

croquetons (1883), this painting probably should be dated about 1882. Paysan a la houe, de H. No.10o3 [c.18841]; D/R No.42 [c.1882]. The use of

divided colour in parts of the panel, a rather mechanical balayd stroke, reliance on earth colours, and the appearance of blue shadows on the figure place this work close to Une Baignade (1883-4). (The painting seems to have darkened considerably.)

Angle d'une maison (Mur rose dans la verdure), de H. No.o05 [c.1884]; D/R No. 35 [c. 1882]. By virtue of the uniform balaye brushwork and emphasis on simple geometric forms, this panel probably dates from late 1884 or 1885. It is similar in approach to some of the later croquetons for La Grande Jatte.

Finally, I believe de Hauke has erred in placing Une Pirissoire (de H. No.174) as late as c. 1887. Dorra/Rewald's date of c. 1884 is much more reasonable for this exquisite quasi-Impressionist panel, which belongs in the company of the loosely-painted early croquetons for La Grande Jatte.9

It appears, too, that the chronology of the drawings still requires considerable study. Those Seurat executed in school and in the army present no serious problems, but after I880 we en- counter a number of inconsistencies in de Hauke's dating. This may be due, in large part, to his tendency to rely rather heavily on affinities in subject-matter in arranging the drawings in chronological order. The following revisions, therefore, are tentatively proposed (my dates are approximate): Nos.677, 678, z88o or i88i; Nos.566, 614, 676, i88I; No.524, 1881-2; Nos.592, 606, '882; Nos.457, 608, 645, 648, 652, 654, 666, 671, 1883; Nos. 646, 655, 1883-4; No.499, 1883 or 1884.

Another reviewer has pointed out that de Hauke omitted five paintings catalogued by Dorra and Rewald (Nos. II, 84 bis, 161, 194, and 197 bis), the implication being that these are not

genuine works by Seurat.10 In this matter, I am inclined to accept the attributions of the latter authors. Although there is some confusion about its correct title, there appears to be no compelling reason to doubt the authenticity of D/R No.i6i, a well-known seascape in the Whitney Collection.

All things considered, de Hauke's catalogue was well worth waiting for. This is because he made every effort to compile a definitive, enduring record of Seurat's ceuvre - indeed, one almost feels that the publication was conceived in the spirit of honmmage to the artist. It certainly surpasses the Dorra/Rewald volume in the quality of its plates and in typography. And because de Hauke catalogued Seurat's independent drawings, in addition to pre- paratory sheets, it is a more complete work. However, the almost total absence of critical commentaries (the inclusion of which made the Dorra/Rewald book so useful) may trouble some art historians. Be that as it may, de Hauke's catalogue is an extremely valuable repository of visual and factual information concerning Seurat's

oeuvre. It is, in fact, an ideal point of departure for the

comprehensive scholarly study of the artist and his work which still remains to be written.11

APPENDIX Seurat's Copies after Antique Sculpture (by R. Ross Holloway) In the following notes Guide stands for E. COCHE DE LA FERTE: La sculpture grecque et romaine au Musde du Louvre, guide du visiteur, 3rd ed., Paris [1955]; MONTZ for E. MONTZ: Guide de l'lAcole Nationale des Beaux-Arts, Paris [1889]; and REINACH for S. REINACH: Ripertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, 6 vols., Paris [1897-1930]. 235. Torso of the Aphrodite of Cnidus; Paris, Louvre, No.2184, Guide, p.29;

cast in the Pcole des Beaux-Arts, REINACH 2, p.805, No.3. 238, 258. Torso of the satyr from the Hellenistic group known as The Invitation

to the Dance; I do not know this torso; closest parallel is Journal of Hellenic Studies, 28 [1908], p.io, No. o, pl.6.

240. Male torso, probably from a cast in the Pcole des Beaux-Arts described by MONTZ, p.Io2, as 'torse d'homme avec un bout de draperie sur l'dpaule gauche'. Miintz says the original was in the Villa Medici in Rome, but it is not mentioned by CAGIANO DE AZEVEDO: Le antichita di Villa Medici, Rome

[I95I]. 242. Torso of the Esquiline Venus type; Paris, Louvre, No.3438, Guide, p.26. 244, 245, 308. Ares Borghese; Paris, Louvre, No.866, Guide, pp.27 and 28;

cast in the ecole des Beaux-Arts, MONTZ, p.97. 246. Head of the Doryphorus of Polycleitus; probably from a cast of the

bronze herm in Naples, National Museum, No.854 (4885), Guida (Ruesch), p.212; H. VON BRUNN and F. BRUCKMANN: Denkmiler griechischer und ramischer Sculptur, Munich [1888-1947], p1.339.

247. Torso of the Tibur-Mantua Apollo type; Florence, Boboli Gardens; cast in the Pcole des Beaux-Arts, REINACH 2, pl.787, No.2. I do not know the

originals of the two female heads on this sheet. 247. bis. Head of Athene; probably after the Minerva au collier, Paris, Louvre,

No.91, Guide, p.Io; cast in the Pcole des Beaux-Arts, MUNTZ, p.o101

(erroneously printed 'Vdnus au collier'). Seurat has omitted much of the decoration of the helmet.

248. Apollo Lyceus of Praxiteles; Florence, Uffizi, G. A. MANSUELLI: Galleria

degli Uffizi, Le Sculture, i, Rome [1958], cat. No.46. 249, 294, 295, 298. Male figure, variant of the Omphalos Apollo type; Florence,

Uffizi, ibid., cat. No.4. 251. Bust of the Emperor Vitellius (pseudo-antique); Paris, Louvre, F. DE

CLARAC: Musle de sculpture, Paris [I86I], pl.IIo7, No.72.

253, 254. Artemis of Gabii; Paris, Louvre, No.529, Guide, p.30; cast in the icole des Beaux-Arts, MUNTZ, p.IOO.

292, 303. Discobolus; Rome, Vatican, No.6I5, w. AMELUNG and G. LIPPOLD: Die Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums, ri, part 2, Berlin [1956], p.79; cast in the ]cole des Beaux-Arts, MUNTz, p.97.

296. Satyr; Rome, Capitoline Museum, H. s. JONES, ed.; A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculpture Preserved in the Municipal Collections ofRome, I, Oxford [I 912], P.350, No.Io. The state of the drawing does not permit one to be certain whether it was done after this statue or some other example of the type.

29ag7. Male figure, No.xv-29; Athens, Parthenon Frieze, west side (presumably from a cast).

299, 300, 30o.

Satyr carrying faun; Madrid, Prado, A. BLANCO: Museo del Prado, catdlogo de la escultura, Madrid [I957], No.29-E; cast in the ?cole des Beaux-Arts, MONTZ, p.99.

302. Pan; Paris, Louvre, No.594; REINACH I, p1.296, No.1670. 7 THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, LXXIX [November 1941], p. 146, n.29. I suspect that Seurat later repainted portions of No.75- 8 JOHN REWALD: Georges Seurat, New York [1943], p.8. 9 De Hauke considers No.165 to have been done at Honfleur (1886) while Dorra and Rewald associate the picture (their No.144) with the Grandcamp group (1885). On the basis of style, the earlier date seems more appropriate.

10 'From Seurat's Studio', unsigned review in The Times Literary Supplement [I5th March 1963], p.I84. 11 I am indebted to Prof. Mark Roskill and Prof. Robert Rosenblum for their critical readings of the typescript of this review.

284

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 21 Dec 2014 01:26:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions