Paris in Ruins: Love, War, and the Birth of Impressionism

Berthe Marie Pauline Morisot (1841-1895) was a leading Impressionist artist and one of the two primary figures in Paris in Ruins. Berthe was renowned in her day for her artistic talent, groundbreaking techniques, and feminine subject matter. Smee focuses on Berthe’s transformation, and challenges, from roughly 1869 to her death with a particular focus on the “Terrible Year” of 1870-1871. He is forthright about his admiration for her as a subject.

Berthe adhered to most of the expectations of her wealthy bourgeois social class while preserving her frankness. She was “alive to every social nuance, and fearless in her judgments” (38). Despite her sociability, she could be aloof and distant; Smee notes “she was stimulated by a bit of tumult and gossip, but she recoiled from open conflict” (18). She was chiefly driven by her love for, and dedication to, painting. Smee focuses on a key moment on March 23rd, 1871, where she declares to her sister Edma that she intends to dedicate her life to painting. He emphasizes how revolutionary of a choice this was for a woman of her class, who was expected to marry and dedicate herself to domestic life.

Smee characterizes Berthe’s emotional life before the birth of her daughter, Julie, as revolving around two figures: Her sister, Edma, and Édouard Manet. Berthe was exceptionally close to her sister and Smee states Berthe “mourned” when Edma married and moved away. Edma was the only person with whom Berthe felt comfortable being open and vulnerable. Her relationship with Édouard was much more complex. As Smee notes, “Berthe’s complicated feelings for Édouard were layered over insecurities about her painting” (89). 

This complex interrelationship between her artistic and romantic aspirations could be difficult for Berthe. She was devasted, for example, when Édouard presumptuously made changes to one of her paintings. She would also grow melancholy when Édouard, despite being married to Suzanne, pursued young women other than herself, such as Eva Gonzales. Their relationship was likely never consummated despite the “love” Smee discerns in Édouard’s portraits of Berthe. As Smee notes, her marriage to Édouard’s brother Eugène in 1874 is an ongoing source of debate and controversy: Did she marry for love, or to remain close to Édouard? Smee argues that elements of both possibilities may be true.

Following the events of the Terrible Year and Berthe’s re-establishment of herself as a painter in Paris, Berthe gained confidence in her abilities. Her decision to join the Société Anonyme exhibition in 1874 over objections from others in her bourgeois set, including Édouard, is an example of her growing independence. It is also in keeping with what Smee describes as her “quiet sympathy for the Communards” (296), as the Impressionist movement was generally aligned with left-wing politics. Berthe’s talent for depicting intimate domestic scenes of women and children, light brushstrokes, and use of light as seen in works like The Cradle, makes her one of the most renowned painters of the Impressionist movement.

Édouard Manet (1832-1883) is a renowned painter who led the way for the transition from Realism to Impressionism. His life, his relationship with Berthe Morisot, and his association with other artistic figures of his time is a focus of Paris in Ruins. Édouard was a complex, mercurial figure with a large ego, love for women, and a passion for bending the conventional rules of artwork of the time. He was a lifelong republican and patriot, although he disagreed with the more radical aspects of the Paris Commune. As with Berthe, Smee paints an admiring portrait of Édouard.

Édouard is introduced in the text amongst his circle of “young painters and writers, most of them republicans” (15) who frequent the Café Guerbois in the working-class neighborhood of Montmartre. Smee comments that “Manet was intoxicating company” and “was marvelous to look at it” (15). He notes that despite Manet’s apparent charm and confidence, “beneath Manet’s alluringly complex surface lurked doubt, shame, and passion” (15). Édouard was dedicated to, and seen as the leader of, his circle of artists; he considered painters like Frédéric Bazille his “acolyte[s].” Later in life, he used this prominent position to attempt to reform the Salon system from the inside, rather than try to abolish it or build from the outside, like Bazille and later Berthe would do.

Smee largely focuses on Berthe’s feelings about her relationship with Édouard rather than on Édouard’s feelings about Berthe. This is possibly due to a paucity of sources about Édouard’s more intimate feelings because Édouard was married to his former piano instructor, the Dutchwoman Suzanne Leenhoff, from 1863, and therefore could not openly pursue women outside his marriage. However, Smee does cite examples of Édouard’s interest in, and concern for, Berthe. For instance, he describes Édouard’s visit to the Morisot family during the difficult January of 1871 during the siege of Paris. Smee states that “Édouard immediately worried […] Berthe appeared particularly gaunt and anxious. He wished he could do something for her” (169). Smee also notes that Édouard had encouraged Berthe to return to Paris following the Commune. 

He likewise describes how the pair spent a lot of unchaperoned time together upon her return. Smee uses his observations of Édouard’s series of portraits of Berthe and the close dialogue of their works to conclude that Édouard “loved” her. He argues that Berthe’s decision to marry Édouard’s brother, Eugène, was a “compromise” that was “brokered” to resolve the “unsustainable” situation they had found themselves in, as they could not be together (309). Despite their close relationship for many years, as Berthe matured as a person and as an artist, she became more independent from Édouard.