.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Jules César
Details
JEAN-AUGUSTE-DOMINIQUE INGRES (MONTAUBAN 1780-1867 PARIS)
Jules César
signé et daté ‘J. Ingres / 1864’ (en bas, à droite)
porte l'étiquette de la collection de l’Empereur Napoléon III (L.1955) (au revers du châssis)
huile sur toile marouflée sur carton
26,4 x 22 cm (10 3⁄5 x 8 5⁄8 in.)(4)
on y joint :
- Esquisse du portrait de Jules César inséré dans une structure architecturée
graphite sur deux feuilles de papier calque vernissé
signé ‘Ingres’ (en bas, à droite) et inscrit avec des indications techniques
30,5 x 27,5 cm (12 x 10 7⁄8 in.)
- Esquisse du portrait de Jules César en buste
graphite
signé ‘Ingres’ (en bas, à droite) et titré ‘C.J. CESAR’ (en bas, au centre, dans un cartouche)
36,9 x 24,9 cm (14 ½ x 9 ¾ in.)
- Lettre d’Ingres destinée à Franceschini Pietri (1835-1915) datée du 16 juin 1865, lui mentionnant qu’il lui offre les deux esquisses susmentionnées
Jules César
signé et daté ‘J. Ingres / 1864’ (en bas, à droite)
porte l'étiquette de la collection de l’Empereur Napoléon III (L.1955) (au revers du châssis)
huile sur toile marouflée sur carton
26,4 x 22 cm (10 3⁄5 x 8 5⁄8 in.)(4)
on y joint :
- Esquisse du portrait de Jules César inséré dans une structure architecturée
graphite sur deux feuilles de papier calque vernissé
signé ‘Ingres’ (en bas, à droite) et inscrit avec des indications techniques
30,5 x 27,5 cm (12 x 10 7⁄8 in.)
- Esquisse du portrait de Jules César en buste
graphite
signé ‘Ingres’ (en bas, à droite) et titré ‘C.J. CESAR’ (en bas, au centre, dans un cartouche)
36,9 x 24,9 cm (14 ½ x 9 ¾ in.)
- Lettre d’Ingres destinée à Franceschini Pietri (1835-1915) datée du 16 juin 1865, lui mentionnant qu’il lui offre les deux esquisses susmentionnées
Provenance
Tableau de Jules César :
Commandé par Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte dit Napoléon III (1808-1873), Empereur des Français, au cours de l’hiver 1861-1862 par l’intermédiaire du comte Alexandre Colonna Walewski (1810-1868) pour servir de modèle au frontispice gravé de son Histoire de Jules César (Imprimerie Impériale, Paris, 1865, I [la gravure sera finalement placée entre les pp. 214 et 215]),
Exécuté par l’artiste lors de l’été et l’automne 1862 (selon D. Ternois, 2016, II, op. cit., p. 948, sous la note 2 [il avait d’abord été question d’un dessin comme modèle pour la gravure]),
Payé 5,000 F [selon le rapport du ministre à l'empereur du 15 avril 1865, Archives nationales, *O5 31 n°1685] par le ministre de la Maison de l'empereur sur le budget des dépenses imprévues [Archives nationales, O5 2293, ord. n°630 - selon C. Granger, 2005, voir infra]) puis conservé dans le cabinet de travail de l’Empereur au Palais des Tuileries, Paris (selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra) ;
Puis transporté avec le reste de la collection impériale au Palais du Louvre, le 25 octobre 1870 ‘en vue de la conservation des tableaux et sous réserve de la question de propriété’ (Archives du musée du Louvre, p. 12 : “Tableaux du Palais des Tuileries transportés au Musée du Louvre, les 25 octobre 1870 et 3 mai 1871 et appartenant au Domaine Privé”, p. 4, n°410 - selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra) ;
Puis mis en dépôt au Musée du Luxembourg (selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra) ;
Puis restitué à son épouse, Eugénie de Montijo (1826-1920), par exécution d’un jugement du tribunal de la Seine concernant la liquidation de la Liste Civile de l’Empereur Napoléon III, le 7 avril 1880 (Archives du Musée du Louvre, Z.15a - selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra et C. Granger, 2005, voir infra) ;
Puis par descendance à Louis Bonaparte (1914-1997), Prangins, Suisse ;
Acquis auprès de celui-ci par l’intermédiaire de Mr. Lamy par Doña Graziella Patiño de Ortiz Linares (1900-1980) et Son Excellence Don Jorge Ortiz Linares (1894-1965) ;
Puis par descendance.
Esquisse du portrait de Jules César inséré dans une structure architecturée :
Vente anonyme, hôtel des ventes mobilières, Bayonne, 28 mars 1981, (Me Carayol), lot 76 ;
Acquis au cours de celle-ci par George Ortiz (1927-2013) ;
Puis par descendance.
Esquisse du portrait de Jules César en buste :
Vente anonyme, hôtel des ventes mobilières, Bayonne, 28 mars 1981, (Me Carayol), lot 76.
Acquis au cours de celle-ci par George Ortiz (1927-2013) ;
Puis par descendance.
Commandé par Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte dit Napoléon III (1808-1873), Empereur des Français, au cours de l’hiver 1861-1862 par l’intermédiaire du comte Alexandre Colonna Walewski (1810-1868) pour servir de modèle au frontispice gravé de son Histoire de Jules César (Imprimerie Impériale, Paris, 1865, I [la gravure sera finalement placée entre les pp. 214 et 215]),
Exécuté par l’artiste lors de l’été et l’automne 1862 (selon D. Ternois, 2016, II, op. cit., p. 948, sous la note 2 [il avait d’abord été question d’un dessin comme modèle pour la gravure]),
Payé 5,000 F [selon le rapport du ministre à l'empereur du 15 avril 1865, Archives nationales, *O5 31 n°1685] par le ministre de la Maison de l'empereur sur le budget des dépenses imprévues [Archives nationales, O5 2293, ord. n°630 - selon C. Granger, 2005, voir infra]) puis conservé dans le cabinet de travail de l’Empereur au Palais des Tuileries, Paris (selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra) ;
Puis transporté avec le reste de la collection impériale au Palais du Louvre, le 25 octobre 1870 ‘en vue de la conservation des tableaux et sous réserve de la question de propriété’ (Archives du musée du Louvre, p. 12 : “Tableaux du Palais des Tuileries transportés au Musée du Louvre, les 25 octobre 1870 et 3 mai 1871 et appartenant au Domaine Privé”, p. 4, n°410 - selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra) ;
Puis mis en dépôt au Musée du Luxembourg (selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra) ;
Puis restitué à son épouse, Eugénie de Montijo (1826-1920), par exécution d’un jugement du tribunal de la Seine concernant la liquidation de la Liste Civile de l’Empereur Napoléon III, le 7 avril 1880 (Archives du Musée du Louvre, Z.15a - selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra et C. Granger, 2005, voir infra) ;
Puis par descendance à Louis Bonaparte (1914-1997), Prangins, Suisse ;
Acquis auprès de celui-ci par l’intermédiaire de Mr. Lamy par Doña Graziella Patiño de Ortiz Linares (1900-1980) et Son Excellence Don Jorge Ortiz Linares (1894-1965) ;
Puis par descendance.
Esquisse du portrait de Jules César inséré dans une structure architecturée :
Vente anonyme, hôtel des ventes mobilières, Bayonne, 28 mars 1981, (Me Carayol), lot 76 ;
Acquis au cours de celle-ci par George Ortiz (1927-2013) ;
Puis par descendance.
Esquisse du portrait de Jules César en buste :
Vente anonyme, hôtel des ventes mobilières, Bayonne, 28 mars 1981, (Me Carayol), lot 76.
Acquis au cours de celle-ci par George Ortiz (1927-2013) ;
Puis par descendance.
Literature
Tableau de Jules César :
J.-A.-D. Ingres, Cahier X (musée Ingres, Montauban), p. 27 (selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra).
H. Delaborde, Ingres. Sa vie, ses travaux, sa doctrine, Paris, 1870, p. 241, n°87 (comme erronément peint en grisaille).
C. Blanc, Ingres. Sa vie et ses ouvrages, Paris, 1870, p. 234 (comme erronément peint en 1865).
P. de Chennevières, 'Souvenirs d'un directeur des Beaux-Arts. L’Empereur et l’Impératrice', L’Artiste. Revue de Paris. Histoire de l’art contemporain, 1884, 54e année, I, p. 15 (comme erronément peint en grisaille) (réédition Souvenirs d'un Directeur des Beaux-Arts, Paris, 1979, II, p. 10).
H. Lapauze, Ingres. Sa vie et son oeuvre (1780-1867), Paris, 1911, pp. 539-540 (comme erronément peint en grisaille), reproduit par la gravure p. 542.
G. Wildenstein, Ingres, New York, 1954, p. 230, n°311 (comme une grisaille, non localisé), reproduit par la gravure p. 223, fig. 174.
N. Schlenoff, Ingres. Ses sources littéraires, Paris, 1956, p. 278 et pp. 298-299.
F. Camesasca, Tout l’oeuvre peint d’Ingres, Paris, 1971, p. 117, n°167 (comme une grisaille, non localisé), reproduit par la gravure p. 117 (réédition E. Radius, L’Opera completa di Ingres, Milan, 1968, p. 117, n°166 [comme une grisaille, non localisé], reproduit par la gravure).
D. Ternois, Ingres, Marseille, 1980, p. 187, n°342 (comme non localisé), reproduit par la gravure.
N. Fiertag, ‘La redécouverte de “Jules César” par Ingres’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, décembre 1982, 49, pp. 3-13, reproduit en noir et blanc pp. 4-5, figs. 1-3 et en couleurs sur la couverture.
G. Vigne, Dessins d'Ingres. Catalogue raisonné des dessins du musée de Montauban, Paris, 1995, p. 432, reproduit en noir et blanc p. 434.
F. Maison, ‘Acquisitions’, Revue du Louvre. La revue des musées de France, février 2000, 1, p. 98, sous le n°42.
H. Chew, C. Granger, ‘Archéologie et peinture sous Napoléon III : le Siège d’une ville par les Romains par Gustave Brion’, Revue du Louvre. La revue des musées de France, avril 2003, 2, p. 75 et p. 78, sous la note 42.
C. Granger, L'empereur et les arts. La liste civile de Napoléon III, coll. Mémoires et documents de l'école des Chartes, Paris, 2005, 79, p. 12, pp. 188-189, p. 209, p. 394, p. 453 et pp. 549-550.
D. Ternois (éd.), Ingres. Lettres 1841-1867. De L’Âge d’or à Homère déifié, Paris, 2016, I, p. 51 et p. 130 ; II, p. 922, p. 948 (lettre 824. Ingres au ministre d’État [Alexandre Colonna, comte Walewski], Paris, 2 juillet 1862), sous la note 2, p. 949 (lettre 825. Ingres à Armand Cambon, [Paris], 13 juillet 1862), sous la note 1, p. 963 (lettre 834. Ingres à [Adolf von Stürler], Meung, 11 septembre 1862), sous la note 2, p. 964 (lettre 835. Ingres à un ami érudit, Meung, 11 septembre 1862), p. 966 (lettre 836. Delphine Ingres à Édouard Gatteaux, Meung, 15 septembre 1862), p. 968 (lettre 837. Ingres et Delphine Ingres à Édouard Gatteaux, Meung, dimanche [après le 15 septembre 1862]), p. 968, sous la note 2 (il est désormais question d’une peinture comme modèle pour la gravure du frontispice et non plus d’un dessin), p. 975 (lettre 840. Ingres et Delphine Ingres à Charlotte Marcotte, Meung, 3 novembre 1862), sous la note 3, p. 980, p. 1027 (lettre 875. Ingres et Delphine Ingres à Franceschini Pietri, [Paris ou Meung, 1862 ou 1864]), sous les notes 1 et 2, p. 1028, p. 1030, p. 1031, sous la note 1 et p. 1188.
Esquisse du portrait de Jules César inséré dans une structure architecturée :
N. Fiertag, ‘La redécouverte de “Jules César” par Ingres’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, décembre 1982, 49, p. 7, reproduit en noir et blanc fig. 5.
Lettre d’Ingres destinée à Franceschini Pietri :
N. Fiertag, ‘La redécouverte de “Jules César” par Ingres’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, décembre 1982, 49, p. 8, reproduit en noir et blanc fig. 5bis.
J.-A.-D. Ingres, Cahier X (musée Ingres, Montauban), p. 27 (selon N. Fiertag, 1982, voir infra).
H. Delaborde, Ingres. Sa vie, ses travaux, sa doctrine, Paris, 1870, p. 241, n°87 (comme erronément peint en grisaille).
C. Blanc, Ingres. Sa vie et ses ouvrages, Paris, 1870, p. 234 (comme erronément peint en 1865).
P. de Chennevières, 'Souvenirs d'un directeur des Beaux-Arts. L’Empereur et l’Impératrice', L’Artiste. Revue de Paris. Histoire de l’art contemporain, 1884, 54e année, I, p. 15 (comme erronément peint en grisaille) (réédition Souvenirs d'un Directeur des Beaux-Arts, Paris, 1979, II, p. 10).
H. Lapauze, Ingres. Sa vie et son oeuvre (1780-1867), Paris, 1911, pp. 539-540 (comme erronément peint en grisaille), reproduit par la gravure p. 542.
G. Wildenstein, Ingres, New York, 1954, p. 230, n°311 (comme une grisaille, non localisé), reproduit par la gravure p. 223, fig. 174.
N. Schlenoff, Ingres. Ses sources littéraires, Paris, 1956, p. 278 et pp. 298-299.
F. Camesasca, Tout l’oeuvre peint d’Ingres, Paris, 1971, p. 117, n°167 (comme une grisaille, non localisé), reproduit par la gravure p. 117 (réédition E. Radius, L’Opera completa di Ingres, Milan, 1968, p. 117, n°166 [comme une grisaille, non localisé], reproduit par la gravure).
D. Ternois, Ingres, Marseille, 1980, p. 187, n°342 (comme non localisé), reproduit par la gravure.
N. Fiertag, ‘La redécouverte de “Jules César” par Ingres’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, décembre 1982, 49, pp. 3-13, reproduit en noir et blanc pp. 4-5, figs. 1-3 et en couleurs sur la couverture.
G. Vigne, Dessins d'Ingres. Catalogue raisonné des dessins du musée de Montauban, Paris, 1995, p. 432, reproduit en noir et blanc p. 434.
F. Maison, ‘Acquisitions’, Revue du Louvre. La revue des musées de France, février 2000, 1, p. 98, sous le n°42.
H. Chew, C. Granger, ‘Archéologie et peinture sous Napoléon III : le Siège d’une ville par les Romains par Gustave Brion’, Revue du Louvre. La revue des musées de France, avril 2003, 2, p. 75 et p. 78, sous la note 42.
C. Granger, L'empereur et les arts. La liste civile de Napoléon III, coll. Mémoires et documents de l'école des Chartes, Paris, 2005, 79, p. 12, pp. 188-189, p. 209, p. 394, p. 453 et pp. 549-550.
D. Ternois (éd.), Ingres. Lettres 1841-1867. De L’Âge d’or à Homère déifié, Paris, 2016, I, p. 51 et p. 130 ; II, p. 922, p. 948 (lettre 824. Ingres au ministre d’État [Alexandre Colonna, comte Walewski], Paris, 2 juillet 1862), sous la note 2, p. 949 (lettre 825. Ingres à Armand Cambon, [Paris], 13 juillet 1862), sous la note 1, p. 963 (lettre 834. Ingres à [Adolf von Stürler], Meung, 11 septembre 1862), sous la note 2, p. 964 (lettre 835. Ingres à un ami érudit, Meung, 11 septembre 1862), p. 966 (lettre 836. Delphine Ingres à Édouard Gatteaux, Meung, 15 septembre 1862), p. 968 (lettre 837. Ingres et Delphine Ingres à Édouard Gatteaux, Meung, dimanche [après le 15 septembre 1862]), p. 968, sous la note 2 (il est désormais question d’une peinture comme modèle pour la gravure du frontispice et non plus d’un dessin), p. 975 (lettre 840. Ingres et Delphine Ingres à Charlotte Marcotte, Meung, 3 novembre 1862), sous la note 3, p. 980, p. 1027 (lettre 875. Ingres et Delphine Ingres à Franceschini Pietri, [Paris ou Meung, 1862 ou 1864]), sous les notes 1 et 2, p. 1028, p. 1030, p. 1031, sous la note 1 et p. 1188.
Esquisse du portrait de Jules César inséré dans une structure architecturée :
N. Fiertag, ‘La redécouverte de “Jules César” par Ingres’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, décembre 1982, 49, p. 7, reproduit en noir et blanc fig. 5.
Lettre d’Ingres destinée à Franceschini Pietri :
N. Fiertag, ‘La redécouverte de “Jules César” par Ingres’, Bulletin du Musée Ingres, décembre 1982, 49, p. 8, reproduit en noir et blanc fig. 5bis.
Engraved
Tableau de Jules César :
Gravé sous deux tailles par Louis-Adolphe Salmon (1811-1895) d’après Ingres, en 1865 (selon H. Delaborde, 1870, voir infra).
Gravé sous deux tailles par Louis-Adolphe Salmon (1811-1895) d’après Ingres, en 1865 (selon H. Delaborde, 1870, voir infra).
Further Details
JEAN-AUGUSTE-DOMINIQUE INGRES (1780-1867), JULIUS CESAR, OIL ON CANVAS, LAID DOWN ON CARD, SIGNED AND DATED, TOGETHER WITH TWO SKETCHES OF JULIUS CESAR ON PAPER, BOTH SIGNED, AND AN AUTOGRAPH LETTER FROM THE ARTIST TO FRANCESCHINI PIETRI
This powerful and charismatic work, depicting Julius Caesar, signed by Ingres (1780-1867) and dated 1864, was the subject of a dedicated publication by Niels Fiertag in the Bulletin of the Musée Ingres in December 1982, representing at that time a significant rediscovery (see N. Fiertag, 'The Rediscovery of ‘Julius Caesar’ by Ingres,' Bulletin du Musée Ingres, December 1982, 49, supra). The painting belongs to a very particular moment in the artist’s career, and within the political and cultural history of the Second Empire under Napoleon III (1808-1873). Far from being a simple image of ancient history, it is a deeply considered work, at the intersection of artistic research, political commission; it is a meditation on power and its representation.
The work is an imperial commission, directly linked to a highly personal project of Emperor Napoleon III: Caesar was intended to serve as the frontispiece for the book the Emperor wrote and would publish, his History of Julius Caesar. The importance of such a commission for Ingres was fundamental. In 1864, the artist was at the very end of his life and enjoyed immense recognition. He was a major figure in French painting, a respected academician, and the guardian of a classical tradition inherited from Raphael (1483-1520). Receiving an imperial commission at that stage was not merely an honour, it was an ultimate consecration. It meant that his art, grounded in the rigor of drawing and the nobility of subject matter, was perceived as the visual language best suited to embody the authority and historical continuity of the regime. For Ingres, this commission also represented a rare intellectual opportunity: to confront a historical figure whose image was both omnipresent and hegemonic. Julius Caesar was not a neutral character; he was a political symbol, a founding myth of imperial power under the Second Empire, who represented an idea of continuity from the prestige of antiquity through to the First Empire of Napoleon I (1769-1821), Napoleon III’s uncle.
This dimension explains the intensity of the preparatory work undertaken by Ingres, which is very well documented. He produced numerous drawings in an what might be considered a 'quest' for the 'true' face of Caesar. This was not merely a matter of copying ancient busts or coins; it was about reconstructing a truth that was almost as psychological as it was archaeological. A letter written by Ingres in Meung-sur-Loire on 15 October, 1862, addressed to his close friend Gatteaux (1788-1881), is revealing: in it he confesses that he “decidedly prefers painting to drawing” this portrait (N. Fiertag, 1982, op. cit., p. 6). This may seem paradoxical for an artist often presented as the champion of drawing, but it demonstrates how strongly he viewed painting as the medium for embodying his subject, presenting life, presence. Where drawing analyses, painting gives flesh. In this context, it is also interesting to note his working process: infrared imaging of the painting clearly shows that Ingres continued to alter the posture and attributes, evolving his composition even at the stage of the finished work (see fig. 1).
It is precisely in this transition that the evolution of Caesar’s image takes place. Over the course of his studies, Ingres moved away from rigid, hieratic, almost frozen representations of ancient power. Traditionally, Caesar was depicted as a marble-like figure: distant, idealized, inaccessible. Here, however, something changes. As Niels Fiertag notes, the gaze, the posture, and the relative softness of the features introduce a form of humanity. Power is no longer merely an abstraction or a function; it becomes an embodied state, marked by inner tensions. This humanisation is essential: it allows the viewer to recognize in Caesar not only a leader, but a man.
This shift is far from insignificant in the context of the Second Empire. The commission formed part of Napoleon III’s project to write a History of Julius Caesar, published in 1865. This historiographical undertaking was itself a political gesture. By identifying with Caesar, Napoleon III sought to inscribe his own reign within a prestigious historical continuity. Caesar became a reflection of all he desired to be: conqueror, reformer, founder of a new order. Consequently, the image produced by Ingres did not concern antiquity alone; it spoke to the present. To humanize Caesar was also to humanise the contemporary Emperor, making him more approachable and comprehensible without diminishing his grandeur.
Here we reach the central question of the power of images within an official commission. An image is never neutral, especially when commissioned by authority. It constructs a narrative, directs the viewer’s gaze, and shapes memory. In this specific case, the portrait of Caesar functioned as an image of legitimation. It was not simply about representing a great man of the past, but about producing an exemplary figure, a model of sovereignty. The image was profoundly political, acting as a symbolic link between Roman antiquity and imperial France. More than that, it evoked the permanence of Napoleon III’s Second Empire as a natural and established continuation of the First Empire of Napoleon I.
This symbolism rests on several complementary dimensions. First, there is power: Caesar was a conqueror, a strategist, a man of action. The evocation of these qualities reinforces the idea of strong and effective authority. Yet this power is tempered by the humanity Ingres gives him. The face is not harsh; it is thoughtful, almost melancholic. This introduces psychological depth, making power more acceptable, less tyrannical. Then there is the question of permanence. By representing Caesar, Ingres participates in constructing a visual memory of 'great men.' The image becomes a tool of transmission, fixing a certain idea of the hero for future generations.
Finally, this work invites reflection on the very role of art in political construction. The painter is not a mere executor; he is an interpreter. Ingres did not simply fulfil the imperial commission, he transformed it. By introducing humanity into the figure of Caesar, he nuanced the official discourse. His image reminds us that power, even in its most absolute form, remains human: fragile and embodied. This tension between idealisation and truth lies at the heart of his art, at the core of Ingres’s creative vision, an artist fascinated by the perfection of image, line, and essence. Through this commission, Ingres assumed the status of an official artist bearing witness to his time, a transmitter of history.
Thus, this small painting far exceeds its modest size. It condenses major stakes: the institutional crowning of a great master of painting, the cultural politics of the Second Empire, the relationship between History and Power, and the capacity of images to shape our perception of historical figures. Through Caesar, a broader reflection unfolds on the nature of power and its representation, poised between grandeur and humanity, myth and reality.
Note on the Provenance
The present painting was originally kept in Napoleon III's private study in the Palais des Tuileries in Paris. Following the fall of the Empire, the portrait was transferred, together with the rest of the Imperial collection, first to the Palais du Louvre and subsequently to the Musée du Luxembourg. It was only some ten years later that the work returned to the family of the deposed Emperor, when the execution of a judgment concerning the liquidation of the Civil List of Emperor Napoleon III awarded the painting to the former Empress, Eugénie de Montijo (1826-1920).
The portrait painted by Ingres was thereafter preserved by the descendants of the Imperial couple within the privacy of Prangins Castle, then the property of the Bonaparte family. Situated on the shores of Lake Geneva, between Nyon and Gland, the estate became a place of refuge for the Imperial family following the fall of Napoleon I in 1814-1815. Joseph Bonaparte (1768-1844), the elder brother of Napoleon Bonaparte and former King of Spain, had acquired the estate in 1814. Although his residence there was brief, as he was expelled from Switzerland in 1815, the property remained occupied by members of the family until 1827, when it was sold. Nevertheless, the descendants retained a deep attachment to the estate, prompting Napoléon-Jérôme Bonaparte (1822-1891), known as the Prince Napoléon, to repurchase part of the property in 1859. He undertook extensive renovations and commissioned the construction of the Villa de Prangins. Once again, the fall of Napoleon III profoundly affected the family's life there, and in 1870 the Prince Napoléon was obliged to divide the estate. He nevertheless retained a portion of the property, which was remodelled and thereafter housed several works from the former Imperial collection, including the present painting. From that time onward, it became a place of inheritance, remembrance, and family continuity for the Bonaparte heirs. Louis Bonaparte (1914-1997), grandson of Napoléon-Jérôme Bonaparte, spent the final years of his life there. It was only after the Second World War that the portrait left its family setting, when Louis Bonaparte sold it to Graziella Patiño de Ortiz Linares and His Excellency Don Jorge Ortiz Linares.
Note on the Accompanying Drawings and Letter
Two graphite drawings by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, sold together with this painted portrait, provide a remarkable insight into the artist's creative process. The first, executed on tracing paper, depicts a bust of Julius Caesar set within an architectural framework evocative of an ancient temple. It represents an initial study for the frontispiece of the Histoire de Jules César, written by Napoleon III in 1864 (see fig. 2).The second drawing is directly preparatory to the finished painted version of the portrait of Julius Caesar presented here. Additional preparatory graphite studies for the figure of Caesar are preserved in the Musée Ingres in Montauban (G. Vigne, 1995, op. cit., nos. 2444-2451).The autograph letter by the artist accompanying the two drawings is addressed to Franceschini Pietri (1834-1915), one of Emperor Napoleon III's closest collaborators. In it, Ingres states that he is presenting him with the sketches for the portrait of Caesar "as a keepsake" ("en souvenir").
This powerful and charismatic work, depicting Julius Caesar, signed by Ingres (1780-1867) and dated 1864, was the subject of a dedicated publication by Niels Fiertag in the Bulletin of the Musée Ingres in December 1982, representing at that time a significant rediscovery (see N. Fiertag, 'The Rediscovery of ‘Julius Caesar’ by Ingres,' Bulletin du Musée Ingres, December 1982, 49, supra). The painting belongs to a very particular moment in the artist’s career, and within the political and cultural history of the Second Empire under Napoleon III (1808-1873). Far from being a simple image of ancient history, it is a deeply considered work, at the intersection of artistic research, political commission; it is a meditation on power and its representation.
The work is an imperial commission, directly linked to a highly personal project of Emperor Napoleon III: Caesar was intended to serve as the frontispiece for the book the Emperor wrote and would publish, his History of Julius Caesar. The importance of such a commission for Ingres was fundamental. In 1864, the artist was at the very end of his life and enjoyed immense recognition. He was a major figure in French painting, a respected academician, and the guardian of a classical tradition inherited from Raphael (1483-1520). Receiving an imperial commission at that stage was not merely an honour, it was an ultimate consecration. It meant that his art, grounded in the rigor of drawing and the nobility of subject matter, was perceived as the visual language best suited to embody the authority and historical continuity of the regime. For Ingres, this commission also represented a rare intellectual opportunity: to confront a historical figure whose image was both omnipresent and hegemonic. Julius Caesar was not a neutral character; he was a political symbol, a founding myth of imperial power under the Second Empire, who represented an idea of continuity from the prestige of antiquity through to the First Empire of Napoleon I (1769-1821), Napoleon III’s uncle.
This dimension explains the intensity of the preparatory work undertaken by Ingres, which is very well documented. He produced numerous drawings in an what might be considered a 'quest' for the 'true' face of Caesar. This was not merely a matter of copying ancient busts or coins; it was about reconstructing a truth that was almost as psychological as it was archaeological. A letter written by Ingres in Meung-sur-Loire on 15 October, 1862, addressed to his close friend Gatteaux (1788-1881), is revealing: in it he confesses that he “decidedly prefers painting to drawing” this portrait (N. Fiertag, 1982, op. cit., p. 6). This may seem paradoxical for an artist often presented as the champion of drawing, but it demonstrates how strongly he viewed painting as the medium for embodying his subject, presenting life, presence. Where drawing analyses, painting gives flesh. In this context, it is also interesting to note his working process: infrared imaging of the painting clearly shows that Ingres continued to alter the posture and attributes, evolving his composition even at the stage of the finished work (see fig. 1).
It is precisely in this transition that the evolution of Caesar’s image takes place. Over the course of his studies, Ingres moved away from rigid, hieratic, almost frozen representations of ancient power. Traditionally, Caesar was depicted as a marble-like figure: distant, idealized, inaccessible. Here, however, something changes. As Niels Fiertag notes, the gaze, the posture, and the relative softness of the features introduce a form of humanity. Power is no longer merely an abstraction or a function; it becomes an embodied state, marked by inner tensions. This humanisation is essential: it allows the viewer to recognize in Caesar not only a leader, but a man.
This shift is far from insignificant in the context of the Second Empire. The commission formed part of Napoleon III’s project to write a History of Julius Caesar, published in 1865. This historiographical undertaking was itself a political gesture. By identifying with Caesar, Napoleon III sought to inscribe his own reign within a prestigious historical continuity. Caesar became a reflection of all he desired to be: conqueror, reformer, founder of a new order. Consequently, the image produced by Ingres did not concern antiquity alone; it spoke to the present. To humanize Caesar was also to humanise the contemporary Emperor, making him more approachable and comprehensible without diminishing his grandeur.
Here we reach the central question of the power of images within an official commission. An image is never neutral, especially when commissioned by authority. It constructs a narrative, directs the viewer’s gaze, and shapes memory. In this specific case, the portrait of Caesar functioned as an image of legitimation. It was not simply about representing a great man of the past, but about producing an exemplary figure, a model of sovereignty. The image was profoundly political, acting as a symbolic link between Roman antiquity and imperial France. More than that, it evoked the permanence of Napoleon III’s Second Empire as a natural and established continuation of the First Empire of Napoleon I.
This symbolism rests on several complementary dimensions. First, there is power: Caesar was a conqueror, a strategist, a man of action. The evocation of these qualities reinforces the idea of strong and effective authority. Yet this power is tempered by the humanity Ingres gives him. The face is not harsh; it is thoughtful, almost melancholic. This introduces psychological depth, making power more acceptable, less tyrannical. Then there is the question of permanence. By representing Caesar, Ingres participates in constructing a visual memory of 'great men.' The image becomes a tool of transmission, fixing a certain idea of the hero for future generations.
Finally, this work invites reflection on the very role of art in political construction. The painter is not a mere executor; he is an interpreter. Ingres did not simply fulfil the imperial commission, he transformed it. By introducing humanity into the figure of Caesar, he nuanced the official discourse. His image reminds us that power, even in its most absolute form, remains human: fragile and embodied. This tension between idealisation and truth lies at the heart of his art, at the core of Ingres’s creative vision, an artist fascinated by the perfection of image, line, and essence. Through this commission, Ingres assumed the status of an official artist bearing witness to his time, a transmitter of history.
Thus, this small painting far exceeds its modest size. It condenses major stakes: the institutional crowning of a great master of painting, the cultural politics of the Second Empire, the relationship between History and Power, and the capacity of images to shape our perception of historical figures. Through Caesar, a broader reflection unfolds on the nature of power and its representation, poised between grandeur and humanity, myth and reality.
Note on the Provenance
The present painting was originally kept in Napoleon III's private study in the Palais des Tuileries in Paris. Following the fall of the Empire, the portrait was transferred, together with the rest of the Imperial collection, first to the Palais du Louvre and subsequently to the Musée du Luxembourg. It was only some ten years later that the work returned to the family of the deposed Emperor, when the execution of a judgment concerning the liquidation of the Civil List of Emperor Napoleon III awarded the painting to the former Empress, Eugénie de Montijo (1826-1920).
The portrait painted by Ingres was thereafter preserved by the descendants of the Imperial couple within the privacy of Prangins Castle, then the property of the Bonaparte family. Situated on the shores of Lake Geneva, between Nyon and Gland, the estate became a place of refuge for the Imperial family following the fall of Napoleon I in 1814-1815. Joseph Bonaparte (1768-1844), the elder brother of Napoleon Bonaparte and former King of Spain, had acquired the estate in 1814. Although his residence there was brief, as he was expelled from Switzerland in 1815, the property remained occupied by members of the family until 1827, when it was sold. Nevertheless, the descendants retained a deep attachment to the estate, prompting Napoléon-Jérôme Bonaparte (1822-1891), known as the Prince Napoléon, to repurchase part of the property in 1859. He undertook extensive renovations and commissioned the construction of the Villa de Prangins. Once again, the fall of Napoleon III profoundly affected the family's life there, and in 1870 the Prince Napoléon was obliged to divide the estate. He nevertheless retained a portion of the property, which was remodelled and thereafter housed several works from the former Imperial collection, including the present painting. From that time onward, it became a place of inheritance, remembrance, and family continuity for the Bonaparte heirs. Louis Bonaparte (1914-1997), grandson of Napoléon-Jérôme Bonaparte, spent the final years of his life there. It was only after the Second World War that the portrait left its family setting, when Louis Bonaparte sold it to Graziella Patiño de Ortiz Linares and His Excellency Don Jorge Ortiz Linares.
Note on the Accompanying Drawings and Letter
Two graphite drawings by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, sold together with this painted portrait, provide a remarkable insight into the artist's creative process. The first, executed on tracing paper, depicts a bust of Julius Caesar set within an architectural framework evocative of an ancient temple. It represents an initial study for the frontispiece of the Histoire de Jules César, written by Napoleon III in 1864 (see fig. 2).The second drawing is directly preparatory to the finished painted version of the portrait of Julius Caesar presented here. Additional preparatory graphite studies for the figure of Caesar are preserved in the Musée Ingres in Montauban (G. Vigne, 1995, op. cit., nos. 2444-2451).The autograph letter by the artist accompanying the two drawings is addressed to Franceschini Pietri (1834-1915), one of Emperor Napoleon III's closest collaborators. In it, Ingres states that he is presenting him with the sketches for the portrait of Caesar "as a keepsake" ("en souvenir").
Brought to you by
Paul Gallois
Head of European Furniture, EMEA