Rosa Bonheur the Amazon? Equestrianism, female masculinity, and The Horse Fair (1852–1855)

Abstract

In 1853, Rosa Bonheur first exhibited what would become her most widely celebrated work: The Horse Fair. Although the work’s modern setting and animal-focused subject matter do not obviously characterize it as an instance of classical reception, the artist claimed that it was inspired by the Parthenon frieze. A significant amount of feminist and queer scholarship has been dedicated to Rosa Bonheur’s life, career, and art practices, all of which reveal the complex ways in which the artist negotiated the gender norms of 19th-century France. These ranged from her decision never to marry, instead living in households with two women, to her officially sanctioned practice of cross-dressing when conducting art studies in public. In view of all these things, one of the most remarkable elements of The Horse Fair is the very probable inclusion of the artist’s self-portrait, clad in masculine clothing and riding with legs astride her mount. Taking seriously Bonheur’s Parthenonian quotation, how should her self-portrait within the male-dominated arena of the horse market be understood? The author argues that, by classical analogy, Bonheur may be regarded as a gender-bending Amazon of a sort that was radically distinct from the scores of so-called “amazones” promenading about Paris. A comparative consideration of contemporary visualizations of the Amazonian rider trope suggests that Bonheur appropriates and, as it were, refashions this modish, gendered imagery to make a bold statement of women’s equality with men.

Keywords:

• Amazons
• horseback riding
• 19th-century France
• Rosa Bonheur
• classical reception

Acknowledgment

I wish to thank Walter Penrose, Jr. and Sarah Breitenfeld for organizing a Lambda Classical Caucus session on feminist and queer receptions of the Amazon in the post-classical era for the 2022 Society for Classical Studies Annual Meeting, in which the first version of this paper was presented.

I am additionally appreciative of Walter Penrose for editing a special issue of the journal on this topic and of the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and encouraging feedback. Any errors that remain are, of course, my own.

Disclosure of Interest Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 For an incisive discussion of the relationship between the reception of Bonheur’s painting by its diverse publics and prevailing ideological constructions of horses and horsemanship (esp. in England), see Chadwick (1993).

2 Most remarks on any classicizing aspect are limited to brief statements. For example, Gretchen van Slyke notes the Parthenonian influence behind the work at the outset of her introduction to the English edition of her translation of Klumpke (1997, p. xi); but no further commentary is dedicated to this specific point. The same can be said of Boime (1981, p. 397), Chadwick (1993, p. 89); Ashton and Hare (1981, p. 82); Miller (2022, p. 99); and Brouard (2022, p. 34).

3 For the many studies which Bonheur produced in the process of developing The Horse Fair, see Pons (2019).

4 Despite Bonheur’s characteristic aversion to heady, philosophical discussions, she was clearly widely read, on which see Stanton (1910, pp. 370–371): “In all that concerned her art, she devoured information” (Alexandre Jacob).

5 On Bonheur’s lesbian identity: Boime (1981, pp. 385–386) and Saslow (1992). On the artist’s habit of cross-dressing: van Slyke (1998, with bibliography). On same-sex friendship, intimacy, and love among women in the 19th century (United States), see Smith-Rosenberg (1985, pp. 53–76); particularly relevant is the author’s exploration of female–female relationships against the backdrop of social expectations of sex roles in the context of the family (thus exchanging psychosexual approaches for a socio-cultural one).

6 There is considerable disagreement among scholars concerning the degree to which the politics embodied by Bonheur’s personal life and her artwork were consistent with one another. Several scholars, including Boime, Nochlin, and Chadwick argue for a publicly facing conservatism and private liberalism: “It is as if she required a traditional aesthetic and a conservative political viewpoint to support her unorthodox lifestyle,” in the words of Boime (1981, p. 387). Saslow is the most vocal and persuasive advocate for the socio-political alignment of her art and life. A middle reading is also possible: that Bonheur’s paintings permitted people to see into them what they wished and perhaps this was part of the artist’s international critical acclaim and wide commercial success as an animalière.

7 For Bonheur’s study of Géricault in the context of producing The Horse Fair, see Ashton and Hare (1981, pp. 83–88) and Miller (2022, pp. 102–104).

8 The Louvre has just one further fragment from the Parthenon frieze, an isolated head of a rider from the north side of the building (so-called Tête Coulonche), but this object did not enter the collection until 1916. The discussion in Klumpke (1997, pp. 152–153) indicates that Bonheur’s first trip across the channel did not occur until 1855, after The Horse Fair had been completed and the painting went on tour to several venues in England and Scotland. One might wonder if Bonheur took the opportunity to see the Parthenon marbles in the British Museum during her time in London. However, as far as I am aware, there is no known documentation of such a museum visit. That said, neither she nor her then partner and traveling companion Natalie Micas knew English. They therefore relied on their London-based dealer Ernest Gambart, “who suggested and planned the expedition, and who piloted them throughout the various excursions in England and Scotland”: Stanton (1910, p. 124). If any further information about Bonheur’s travels exists, it probably awaits discovery in the artist’s unpublished archives.

9 Another of her biographers, Stanton (1910, pp. 130, 142), informs the reader that Bonheur became acquainted with the work of Landseer by purchasing reproductive prints (engravings) of his paintings.

10 Bonheur conveys the importance of studying artwork in museums and galleries, especially those of Old Masters in the Louvre, at several points in Klumpke’s biography (1997, pp. 31, 55, 77, 109–110). See too Stanton (1910, pp. 375–376). Brouard (2022) has recently directed needed scholarly attention to the artist’s inspiration by masterpieces of European painting and sculpture (though here with a focus on Flemish, Dutch, and Italian works from the Renaissance and later).

11 Indeed, plaster casts and figurines were among the objects that Bonheur’s father gave her to study: Klumpke (1997, pp. 109, 111–112); according to Roger-Milès (1900, vol. 1, p. 23), Bonheur was also sent to the Louvre to copy select plaster casts.

12 Such a distribution of plaster casts is exemplified by copies of two of Bonheur’s apparent inspirations, West frieze Blocks X and VIII, which were manufactured by the Musée Royal (i.e. the Louvre) and purchased in 1821 for the University of Bonn’s newly established Akademisches Kunstmuseum (inv. nos. 26/28h and 26/28k). Cf. Himmelmann and Sinn (1981, p. 24 nos. 26/28h and 26/28k, with pls. 6a-b and 7a).

13 Bonheur’s collections of books and art are still being catalogued. At the moment, there is no record of her having owned plaster casts of the frieze or printed reproductions. Between 1820 and 1857, the Louvre exhibited plaster casts of celebrated Classical Greek sculptures in a dedicated public gallery commonly known as the “musée de Plastique.” This gallery still awaits an in-depth study. In the 1970s, the Louvre’s casts were joined with those from the École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-arts and the Sorbonne, thereby forming the Gypsothèque du Louvre, now on display in the Petite Écurie du Roi in Versailles. The Parthenon frieze is located in gallery A4. Cf. Martinez (2016) and Le Breton (2021). The École des Beaux Arts did not begin admitting women until the final years of Bonheur’s life.

14 Several of Bonheur’s sketchbooks were put up at auction following her death. One of these books (lot no. 1839) evidently contained sketches that Bonheur made in the Louvre in 1837: Roger-Milès (1900, vol. 2, p. 177). I have not been able to locate the whereabouts of this sketchbook, so its precise contents are unknown.

15 See above n. 5.

16 Cf. the description of the artist in Klumpke (1997, p. 8). Klumpke describes the artist’s countenance thus: “Over a high, broad forehead with a contemplative furrow between the eyebrows, her black eyes still had the extraordinary sparkle of youth. She had a small nose with finely chiseled nostrils. Her thin upper lip had a pretty curve; the fleshier lower one was amazingly mobile and betrayed her many moods and feelings. Her face was framed by a mane of magnificent silvery gray hair whose silky, abundant curls fell to the nape of her neck and circled that venerable head like a halo.”

17 In recounting Bonheur’s discussion of the contexts in which she conducted studies, Klumpke (1997, pp. 204–205) quotes the artist saying, “Women’s clothes were quite simply always in the way”; and “I’ve often felt proud to have dared to break with traditions that would have made me drag skirts everywhere, making it impossible for me to do certain kinds of work.”

18 Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. no. F 385.

19 For example: Klumpke (1997, pp. 20, 45, 162 and 202, 165, and 188) for, respectively, Helen of Troy (Homer’s Iliad?), Titans (Hesiod’s Theogony?), Aristophanes’ Birds, Ulysses and the Cyclops (Homer’s Odyssey?), and the androgynes of Plato’s Symposium.

20 For instance, a marble relief medallion entitled Tête de Bacchante, which constituted her Salon debut in 1857: Salon, 1857, p. 402, no. 3129.

21 Bordeaux, Musée des Beaux-Arts, inv. no. Bx E 946. The painter Achille-Fould is the daughter of Princess Stirbey by her previous marriage to Gustave Eugène Fould and is thus additional evidence not only of Bonheur’s association with this family, but also of her interest in supporting fellow women artists. See Stanton (1910, pp. 249–251).

22 On the wide circulation of the Titeux Dancer in reproduction in various media and its fame in the latter half of the 19th century, see Papet (2003) and Rionnet (2003, pp. 54–59).

23 Perhaps the most famous amazone in all of Europe was Elisabeth, Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary, nicknamed Sisi, an accomplished equestrian who combined elegance and athleticism. See Freifeld (2007, p. 150) and Sinclair (1998), passim (on her passion for riding).

24 David (2002) and Weil (1999) (what is called the “democratization of horse culture” on p. 5). The latter is incorporated as a chapter in Weil (2020, pp. 103–130).

25 On fashion as an essential feature of the modern life, cf. the seminal 1863 essay by poet, essayist, and art critic Baudelaire (1964) ([originally composed around 1860 and published in three installments in the Figaro in late 1863], pp. 1–40).

26 Oslo, Nasjonalmuseet, inv. no. NG.M.01293.

27 On de Dreux’s oeuvre, see the authoritative text by Renauld (2008).

28 David (2002) (with bibliography). For instance, while the costume was adapted to permit women to engage in equitation, the skirted portion still made women dependent on another to mount and dismount the horse.

29 On the cult of True Womanhood, see, inter alia, Woolf (1990).

30 The other two classes of equestriennes are the “femme du monde” and “La Lorette” (as full-time prostitutes were called in the decades prior to the Second Empire).

31 Michel Pons, personal correspondence, 23 February 2022. My exchange with Pons was limited to the questions about Bonheur’s collection of books and artworks and purchase records associated with them. Among the Rosa Bonheur Letters and Sketchbook, 1847–1899 at the Getty Research Institute (850837), is a letter to the artist’s dealer Tedesco, dated 30 December 1888, in which the artist refers to the purchase of a watercolor by de Dreux (= lot no. 1951, À la chasse, from the estate sale?). I have not located any purchase records for de Dreux’s oil paintings.

32 Chadwick (1993, p. 99) is notable for considering de Dreux’s impact on Bonheur; she is mainly concerned with de Dreux’s equation of female equitation with fashionable display and sex(uality). Still more could be said about how Bonheur’s self-representation compares to de Dreux’s amazones.

33 Marcus Aurelius: Rome, Musei Capitolini, inv. no. MC3247. Queen Victoria: Tunis, UK Government Art Collection, inv. no. 4988. Napoleon: Rueil-Malmaison, Château de Malmaison.

34 Boime (1982, p. 97, 1981, p. 391) argues that this breed’s origins in the conservative region of Normandy invested the painting with patriotic, imperial connotations. Saslow (1992, esp. pp. 195–202) argues the opposite case: that these horses featured in contemporary debates over the proper treatment of animals by humans and functioned by extension as a symbol of the emerging movement for women’s rights (with the common issue of domestication at stake). While purebreds, the Percheron were bred for drafting, not riding, so they did not have the same connotations of aristocratic display as other breeds would: Chadwick (1993, p. 93). Once again, these interpretations need not have been mutually exclusive, since nothing in the composition insists upon a singular social or political viewpoint.

35 Though, as Boime notes (1981, pp. 385–387, 392–393), Bonheur’s relationship with Nathalie Micas mirrored the conventional division of labor among heterosexual spouses, with Bonheur playing the role of husband/breadwinner and Micas the wife/homemaker. In addition, at the height of her professional success, Bonheur grew increasingly hostile toward the institution of marriage and especially its deleterious impact on women’s personal ambitions. Such positions were probably influenced by her upbringing within the radical sect of Saint-Simonism, which eschewed traditional gender roles and advocated for women’s equality with men. Cf. Stanton (1910, pp. 23, 40, 61–66, 78, 269, 374) and Klumpke (1997, pp. 10, 12, 21, 79, 89, 93–103, 114, 130–131, 136–137, 188, 194, 196–197, 202, 204–208, 239–240, 244).

36 Klumpke (1997, p. 123), from which the above date is taken. The account given in Stanton (1910, p. 23) is at variance, suggesting that Margot was purchased around 1855, in order to enable Bonheur to travel efficiently between the city and her newly acquired studio at Chevilly. The earlier date is here preferred due to its autobiographical nature and context within a chronologically ordered narrative.

37 Stanton (1910, pp. 23–24). In Klumpke (1997, p. 123), Rosa Bonheur notes that she “suited her up with a man’s saddle and, sitting her back like Don Quixote on his Rosinante, I gradually broadened the circle of my travels.”

38 Stanton (1910, pp. 24–25; 363–366). For Bonheur’s fondness of smoking tobacco, “another masculine trait in her character,” see pp. 366–367.

39 Bonheur is quoted in Klumpke (1997, p. 22): “Animals do have souls, don’t you think?” She also, at times, speaks in a way that might be considered post-humanism avant la lettre. For example her rejoinder “Aren’t people animals?” (Klumpke, 1997, p. 69). See also Klumpke (1997, p. 203).

40 For the relevance of debates over the treatment of horses to that of women, see Dorré (2002).

41 This lifelong commitment reaches its climax in her final, unfinished painting, The Duel, which centers on a battle between two stallions (the Godolphin Arabian and Hobgoblin) for the “hand” of the mare Roxanna.

42 Paris, Musée d’Orsay, inv. no. RF 64.

43 Cf. Pludermacher (2022, p. 90), who describes the yoking apparatus as “l’emprise discrète” (discreet influence or hold).

44 The reading offered above is complemented by the reading in Weil (2020, p. 121). For a discussion of the women’s association with nature, see Ortner (1974).

45 Cf. Chadwick (1993), esp. the concluding remark on p. 107: “Images of horses and women consistently reinforced, or challenged, a dominant social order in which both were assumed to be subservient to man’s will. At the same time, the exercise of power relations necessary to the maintenance of social order was not absolute or fixed. Continuous challenges had to be internalized and reformulated within its discourses, and metaphor played a critical role within these spaces.”

46 Without explicitly picking up on the Parthenonian dimension of the painting, multiple French critics nevertheless spoke to the grandness, careful research, and uncommon artistry of the painting, by which Bonheur elevated herself to the much-esteemed level of history painting. It is worth recalling that history painting traditionally focused on stories and themes from the Bible and Classical antiquity that had a purportedly universal, edifying value. See Delécluze (1853, p. 1); and de Viel-Castel (1853, p. 585).

47 Anonymous (1857, p. 6, emphasis mine). Also printed under the same title in The London Evening Standard (August 27, 1857), p. 5.

48 This connection was already keenly observed by Saslow (1992, p. 199).

49 On Romaine Brooks and her portraiture see Benstock (1986, esp. 304–306 for the artist’s portraits), Gubar (1981), and Chadwick (2000, esp. 28–35).

50 See, for example, Brooks’ self-portrait in the Smithsonian American Art Museum (inv. no. 1966.49.1), in which the artist appears with short-cropped hair and wearing a riding cap and suit of contours—that is, the sex—of her body.

51 The nickname was bestowed upon Barney by friend and celebrated writer Rémy de Gourmont, who later recreated their intellectual exchanges as a series of 32 letters addressed to “The Amazon” (Lettres à l’Amazone). The letters were initially published in the (symbolist) literary review Mercure de France between January 1912 and October 1913 and later collated into a book. See Rodriguez (2003, pp. 195–196, 200–202).

52 See, inter alia, Jay (1988).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Notes on contributors

Michael Anthony Fowler

Michael Anthony Fowler is Assistant Professor of Art History in the Department of Art and Design at East Tennessee State University. He completed a Ph.D. in Art History and Archaeology at Columbia University in 2019, specializing in ancient Greece and West Asia. In his research and scholarship, Fowler focuses on topics related to material religion, iconography, gender, violence, and classical reception.