Monday, 12 May 1879

I am pretty, happy, and gay. We go to the Salon with de Daillens, and then we talk of everything, for we encountered Béraud the painter — whom we had intrigued at the Ball — and who walked right past us without suspecting a thing. Meanwhile my ladies strolled on their own and saw the great Popaul on the Champs-Élysées. We all meet up back at home, and Dina, de Daillens, and I go to buy paintbrushes for me, talking all the while of Multedo and his excellent character.
Dina maintains that one could make of him a true and devoted friend. I am almost inclined to agree, while citing Popaul’s friendship as an example — a friendship that Dina always distrusted to excess, whereas I took that distrust for mere affectation. How could I have doubted the great Paul? Never perhaps has a purer union been dreamed of than the union that... I had hoped to establish between him and me. He did not understand.
It was only seeing him marry that gave me other ideas; it was his marriage alone that caused this change in my thinking... not even a change... but I simply thought that... since things were to be thus, it would be better that it were me. I know I express myself badly. I could not explain to you the wild confidence, the esteem, the respect, the submission, and the immense sympathy that this man inspired in me. Was it love?
I do not know exactly. He was a... nurse, a great protector, an angel, a being apart; I would have rested in his arms, told him a heap of stories, gone to dress in his room and sleep in his bed... relegating him, naturally, to the carpet or the chaise longue. I would have felt neither fear nor modesty... he was only another self that I would have had as a constant witness to what I love and what amuses me in myself. When I say constant witness, I mean no more than the ordinary intercourse of friends. He did not understand this, and Dina mocks his chivalrous airs because she does not admit of such feelings. No matter — I know now that he is a great fool, and I adore him... oh! in a certain way. He is now nothing more than a subordinate.
Breslau’s painting is a large, handsome canvas taken up by a large, handsome armchair of gilded leather, in which her friend Maria sits in a dark, muted green dress, with something blue-grey at the throat; one hand holds a portrait and a flower, the other a bundle of letters that she has just untied from a red ribbon. A simple arrangement, a familiar subject. Admirable drawing and a great harmony of tones, whose effect is almost charming. I do not know whether I am about to say something outrageous, but you know very well that we have no great artist. There is Bastien-Lepage, who strays into subjects without charm or interest.
The others? It is all knowledge, habit, convention, the school; a great deal of convention, an enormous amount of convention.
Nothing true, nothing that vibrates, that sings, that seizes you, that sends a shiver through you, that makes you weep. I do not speak of sculpture; I have never seen enough of it to speak of it. When one sees the atrocious glitter and flicker of the genre pictures and the horrible pretentious mediocrities, the ordinary or good portraits, one comes close to being sickened. For today the only good things I found were Bonnat’s portrait of Victor Hugo — but Bonnat has already given all he had; there is nothing more to expect from him — and then, and perhaps even first of all, Breslau’s canvas.
Amélie’s canvases — a study of old Fusco, painted at the same time as I made my first painting at the atelier. An ordinary study. And an execrable portrait of a very common-looking gentleman. The armchair in Breslau’s painting is poorly drawn; the woman looks as if she is clinging to it because it seems to lean towards the viewer. A pity. I mention Bonnat because he has truth in his work, and Breslau because I find that all her quiet tones sing. I cannot accept that Lefèbvre gives every one of his women the same toes — it irritates and infuriates me.