At the 1863 Salon des Refusés—a special exhibition for works rejected by Paris’s official Salon—Édouard Manet’s Déjeuner sur l’herbe provoked intense controversy. Many critics labeled its female nude indecent, wondering why Manet would dare to represent a non-mythological woman casually picnicking alongside two fully clothed men. Some were scandalized by what they called the model’s gaze, which meets her viewer’s, while others condemned the way Manet wielded his paint, viewing the rawness of his strokes as sign that the work was unfinished and crude in execution.
Some, including the writers Charles Baudelaire and Émile Zola, immediately rose to Manet’s defense, celebrating the painting as modern icon it is now considered to be today. But what if history took a different path, and Manet and his model Victorine Meurent were dragged to court for offense to public morality and decency? The Musée d’Orsay in Paris brought that scenario to life last week as part of its Orsay Live program, which is designed for audiences aged 18 to 25.
The mock trial, held last Thursday evening in the museum’s auditorium, brought together students from the Fédération française de Débat et d’Éloquence, three lawyers—including one acting as prosecutor—and a sitting judge. The idea for the event came from Sylvain Amic, the former president of the Musée d’Orsay and the Musée de l’Orangerie, who died last August.
“We wanted to partner with the Fondation des Femmes to address major social issues, particularly feminism,” said deputy director Virginie Donzeaud, who had been working on the project with him since last February. “There is something about a mock trial that is both engaging and appealing to younger audiences.”
Other cultural institutions, including Versailles and Marseille’s Mucem, have also experimented with the format, but the Musée d’Orsay was determined to respect the rules of an actual trial. “It’s not a performative lecture,” Donzeaud said. “There are real lawyers, pleading for and against the defendants,” in addition to students performing as witnesses.
“The idea of a mock trial is both interesting and enriching, as it allows art and law—two worlds that seem to be opposed at first glance—to enter into dialogue,” Julie de Lassus Saint Génies, a lawyer who is an expert on intellectual property and attended the event, said in an interview. Those worlds are “only seemingly opposed, however, because disputes over freedom of expression and, by extension, artistic creation have always been numerous.”
A detail of Déjeuner sur l’herbe.
Mondadori via Getty Images
Carla Tomé, head of cultural programming at the Musée d’Orsay, said the toughest part of conceiving the event wasn’t respecting the law and art history. “There were mostly girls who wanted to participate at first,” she noted. “Having only women portray a majority of men would have been a bit too much.” To help solve the problem, the museum ended up writing parts that brought to life figures such as Suzanne Leenhoff, Manet’s partner, so that Victorine was no longer the only female speaker of the trial.
The role of Manet, however, did end up being assumed by a female student: Maria-Inès Le Loarer Doniz. “I will give you a more sensitive and less confident Manet than one might expect,” she told ARTnews a few hours before stepping on stage. She explained that she listened to podcasts about Manet and read many of his early letters to understand his journey and his motivations. “We don’t really know much about his character, so my approach is very personal. Beyond Manet himself, I am embodying what it means to create—whether centuries ago or today.”
Her text, along with others, was reviewed by Manet specialist and curator Isolde Pludermacher to ensure historical and artistic accuracy. While Manet’s and Baudelaire’s speeches turned out perfectly on point, Zola’s intervention required more caution. Zola did not write J’accuse (an open letter defending Captain Alfred Dreyfus against the corruption and antisemitism of the French military and government) until 1898, more than 25 years after the Déjeuner sur l’herbe scandal. This meant that the trial couldn’t totally rely upon the letter as insight into how Zola spoke—his tone and style were likely very different in 1863. And yet, the student starring as Zola took the liberty of slipping that one “J’accuse” into his speech, which was just enough to make the audience laugh.
The trial as a whole was far from lacking in humor. The prosecutor also alluded to J’accuse by repeating “Je récuse” (“I challenge”) in his opening statement. He jokingly referred to Manet as the “first Instagrammer and clickbait artist,” accused him of “Manet-pulation,” and even compared him to a “Sarkozy offspring”—Jean Sarkozy (President Nicolas Sarkozy’s son), who, like Manet, had dropped out of law school.
The Musée d’Orsay mock trial involved real lawyers.
Courtesy Musée d'Orsay
Judge Valérie Dervieux repeatedly interjected with asides, highlighting the irony of a woman judging another woman: “When you think about it, it will be several years before a woman can become a magistrate.” She also quipped, “Applaud, or I’ll have the room cleared.” The audience rose respectfully both to welcome her and when she briefly withdrew to deliberate. “In this way, the mock trial gave a fairly faithful idea of a real trial and allowed individual personalities to stand out,” said de Lassus Saint Génies.
The museum adhered to the traditional order of the court proceedings. “As in a real criminal trial, the defense attorneys spoke last,” said de Lassus Saint Génies. However, the expected hearing of witnesses and their cross-examination did not occur, in order to allow participants to deliver their historically accurate speeches and be judged on their oratory skills. De Lassus Saint Génies added: “Personally, I would have appreciated an alternation between speeches and interrogations, which would have added theatricality to the trial and, in my view, would not have hindered eloquence.”
Just like in an actual trial, a variety of perspectives were presented. Victorine Meurent asserted her right to nudity and, more broadly, to women’s emancipation. Her lawyer, played by Louise Bériot, argued the absence of any material offense: while the face in the painting may indeed be that of her client, the body may not be hers after all. Zola and Courbet vigorously contested artistic harassment and censorship. “The question of the limits of artistic freedom was very skillfully raised by my colleague [Florent Loyseau] who, qua Attorney General, offered a hilarious analysis of Manet’s alleged paternal complex,” de Lassus Saint Génies said.
In the end, while Dervieux was deliberating, the student acting as Charles Baudelaire won the public’s vote for the most convincing speech. “If an offense is clearly established, a judge cannot disregard a law that does not suit them. It is, however, in the sentencing that they can express disapproval or understanding, which is exactly what the President did,” said de Lassus Saint Génies. “After declaring the offense of public outrage proven, she instructed Manet to conduct himself by continuing to paint!”
