45- The anonymous review published in Le Temps, for example, bears out what Cardon sus- Edouard- pected. Even though the female figure was found consistent with other Salon nudes, the critic Theophile judged the painting immoral, because "here, the accessories have spoiled everthing. The nude Blanchard, is beautiful enough in itself to do without the spiciness that makes it suddenly indecent; near The Buffoon, the bed a stack of petticoats is piled, coiffed ironically by a black top hat; the cane is not far 1878, oil on away. Here is the anecdote that leaves a dirty stain, the goad to filthy laughter. That unfortunate canvas, hat, a garter mislaid amidst the skirts: here are the trappings of vaudeville in the middle of a Musee 1U serious drama." d'Orsay, Roger Ballu, writing in La Gazette des Beaux-Arts, also objected to the ways in which the Paris. trivial and coarse baggage of a contemporary sexual episode jarred an otherwise standard Salon melodrama. The work was immoral in spite of its fine visual qualities, because it showed the "morning after an orgy of love." I would like to be able to admire without reservation this body of such delicate tone, of such fresh color in the midst of the whiteness of bed clothes: but, alas! the whiteness is that of an undone and ruffled bed, with falling sheets: all the hideous equipment of debauchery. The details are painted with a frank touch and a truth of color of incontest- able merit, but do you know what these details are? A rose satin garter, a starched petti- coat, fallen in the disorder on the floor; a man's hat, brutal and insolent, that sprawls on top of the dress precipitously thrown and rolled up in this armchair! Oh! to be young, to have the honor of being an artist, to sense one's own talent and make such a work! To make use of sacred art to excite wanton and lustful instincts, that is a profanation, and I 86 112 say this from the bottom of my heart.