Monsters in the Fog: Industry and the Railroad in Manet, Monet, and Caillebotte’s Paintings of the Gare Saint-Lazare and Point de l’Europe

The Impressionists are celebrated as the painters of modern life, yet scholars have assumed

that they embraced all aspects of modernization equally. The current narrative of modern art fails to

recognize the industrial activity that was a frequent if less prominent theme in Impressionism. When

scholars avoid this subset of Impressionist paintings they fail to recognize that the Impressionists

did not present modernity evenly, nor did they present modernity in its entirety. Furthermore, it is

insufficient to simply categorize when aspects of modern life were painted, rather it is necessary to

turn the question back on itself and address how objects and settings were painted, what was

emphasized, what was deemphasized and what was avoided altogether.

The railroad was largely absent from French painting before 1870s when the Impressionists,

including Monet, Manet, and Caillebotte painted it. While these works have been discussed within

the clichés of Impressionism, scholars have barely delved into the extensive contemporary reception.

Manet’s The Railway, 1872-1874 (Fig. 1) was shown at the Salon of 1874, were it created a – what was

by then typical – scandal, while Monet’s six paintings (Fig. 2 - Fig. 7) of the Gare Saint-Lazare and

Caillebotte’s Le Pont de l’Europe (Fig. 8) were all shown at the Third Impressionist Exhibition of 1877.

While the works received some positive responses, the reviews were predominantly negative. The

most common responses were uncertainty, perplexed curiosity, and above all avoidance.

Methodologically this paper follows much recent scholarship of nineteenth century art, by

focusing on how the social context and artistic production are connected. The critical responses will

analyzed as responses to the paintings, but also as expressions (often contradictory) of contemporary

thought and societal values.1 In this capacity the artists, paintings, reviews, and reviewers, have been

addressed with the goal of, quoting T.J. Clark from “On Social Art History,” to find the “points at

which the rational monotone of the critic breaks, fails, falters… the phenomena of obsessive

repetition, repeated irrelevance, and anger suddenly discharged.” 2 This quote and, by extension, my

work bares the mark of deconstructivism, particularly in the close analysis and effort to read the art

and text against itself to identify the embedded values, judgments, prejudices, and suppositions.

Nearly three quarters of Monet’s twelve views of the Gare Saint-Lazare show the train yards,

yet the four interior views of the station received greater attention from both contemporary critics

and subsequent scholars.3 However, his paintings of the yards at the Gare Saint-Lazare were not his

only large-scale paintings of trains or yards, which he also showed in The Railway Station at Argenteuil,

1872 (Fig. 9). In The Railway Station at Argenteuil Monet omitted the rail workers, which Clark argued

was symptomatic of the Impressionists’ focus on leisure culture and reticence to show the working-

class labor that had produced modern society.4 Here though, I must take issue with Clark. First, The

Railway Station at Argenteuil and the paintings of the yards at the Gare Saint-Lazare are full of trains,

steam and rails; there is no doubt that the industry and machines depicted are performing work.

Second, while the workers are absent and only implied in The Railway Station at Argenteuil, in some of

Monet’s paintings of the Gare Saint-Lazare (Figs. 3-W.439, 5-W.442, and 7-W.448) there are

numerous workers.5

Intriguingly, Manet may have also painted a worker in the final version of The Railway. While

unclear, there may be a worker immediately to the right of the girl’s bow. Unfortunately, the

painterly character of the work coupled with the miniscule size of the figure, makes it difficult to

state with certainty if Manet showed a worker. Manet’s preparatory sketch showed two figures (Fig.

10). However, if he did include the figure of a worker in the final work, he reduced the number of

workers, from two to one, diminished the size of the shacks behind them in the yards, and decreased

the worker to an indistinct smudge of paint. The contrast in size between the extremely small worker

and the main figures is an evocative testament to the paintings main subject.

Caillebotte also painted workers, identifiable in their distinctive blue smocks, in Le Pont de

l’Europe and On the Europe Bridge (Fig. 11). While Caillebotte painted workers in both images, he

showed them ideling on the Pont de l’Europe rather than down in the train yards. In both works the

bridge keeps the yards at a distance, separating them not only from the workers but also the viewer.

In Caillebotte’s paintings, unlike Monet’s, none of the workers actually do any work. The yards

below seem inactive, with a small trains and a slight puff of smoke. Still, even if diminished, work,

labor, and industry are addressed and are not hidden as Clark described.

The contemporary reviews of the Third Impressionist Exhibition avoided discussing the

workers that Monet and Caillebotte showed. However, a number of reviews alluded to work by

focusing, often at length, on Monet’s ability to convey the noise and activity of the station in paint.

One example is the review that appeared in L’Homme libre by an unknown reviewer ‘Jacques’:

Monsieur Monet loves this station, he represented [it] several times with less success - truly amazing. The brush makes, not only the movement, color, activity, but the noise is unbelievable; this station is full of noise, squeaks, whistles, which are distinguishable through the heavy blue and gray smoke. It is a pictorial symphony.6

Emile Zola, as ‘La Sémaphore de Marseille,” echoed this defense of the Gare Saint-Lazare works:

Claude Monet is the most pronounced personality of the group. He has shown this year superb train [station] interiors. We hear the rumble of trains that rush, we see excesses of smoke that roll within the large sheds. Today there is painting in such beautifully wide modern frameworks. Our artists have to find the poetry of the stations, as their fathers have found in the forests and rivers.7

Some of the negative reviews also mentioned the noise that Monet’s paintings conveyed. One

example is a portion of text that appeared in reviews by Georges Lafenester and Pierre Véron. The

reviews assert that Monet “wanted to produce [the] Impression of the noise of machine’s arrival or

departure on travelers.”8 The three reviews, both positive and negative, refer to the noise produced

by mechanized activity that typified the station, and which Monet visually communicated. Echoing

what Clark had – I believe incorrectly – said about the Impressionist, the reviewers were willing to

discuss work, but they were unwilling to discuss the workers shown.

Beyond the workers each artist showed, how they painted the yards themselves is also

important. In Le Pont de l’Europe Caillebotte widened the painting to show the cloud of steam

without blocking the adjacent Haussmannized apartments. Two preparatory sketches have narrower

dimensions that seemingly could not accommodate both elements while allowing an unobstructed

view of the yards of the Gare Saint-Lazare below. In On the Europe Bridge Caillebotte altered the

perspective, tilting the ground up, and making the rail lines more visible through the gaps in the Pont

de l'Europe’s structure. Caillebotte also carefully positioned the train lines in the railroad yard so that

in addition to the rail lines, easily identifiable roofs of the station and the Garnier Opera, are all

visible in the background.

While Caillebotte used distortions to show the railroad in his paintings of the Pont de

l'Europe in The Railway Manet did the opposite. Manet quite literally covered the majority of the

yards with a large cloud of steam produced by an unseen train. The allusions to train in the

background are particularly curious, since while the location, 58 rue de Rome, looked down on a

portion of the Gare Saint-Lazare’s yards, Manet could not see the other aspects including the Pont

de l'Europe on the far right. 9 Wilson-Bareau has convincingly argued that the background of The

Railway shows the exterior of Manet’s new studio on the left side of the painting.10 Like the Pont de

l'Europe this would not have been visible from 58 rue de Rome, leading Wilson-Bareau to conclude

that the background consists of three disparate elements: the piers of the Pont de l’Europe, the

exterior of Manet’s new studio, and the steam produced by a passing train. While it is necessary to

add, the shack in the yards (with the potential, if uncertain depiction of the worker), to this list, the

larger point that Manet could not have possibly seen all three elements stands. Furthermore, Wilson-

Bareau’s conclusion that Manet juxtaposed these distinct elements to reconstruct his personal

engagement with the Europe district seems particularly apt. Consequently all the elements, including

the steam, were deliberate choices, any of which could have been omitted.

While Monet, Manet and Caillebotte all depicted the yards of the Gare Saint-Lazare in some

capacity, this was not true of all of the artists who painted the site. Jean Béraud painted The Place and

Pont de l'Europe (Fig. 12) at the same time as Monet and Caillebotte, yet unlike them, Béraud used an

exceedingly low vantage point and high horizon line to block the train yards from view. These odd

choices functioned to almost completely obstruct the view of the large station, sheds and the tracks

that literally passed under the site. Béraud did show the Garnier Opera, which is in almost the exact

spot in Béraud’s painting and Caillebotte’s On the Europe Bridge. However, despite the nearly identical

vantage points, where Caillebotte distorted perspective to bring the yards more fully into view

Béraud used perspective to render the yards invisible.

In “Modernism, Postmodernism, and Steam,” Clark discusses the significance of smoke and

steam in the nineteenth century. He argues that steam was not only understood as the driving force

of modernity, but that for modernists such as Manet, the other Impressionists, and their twentieth-

century successors, steam was an apt and accessible analogy for the characteristics of modernity;

shifting, forward moving, dispersing and powerful.11 Clark thus reads Manet’s steam as a capital M

Modernist depiction of and reaction to modernity. The steam made the machine world possible and

to Clark was an image of power.12

Clark’s interpretation is borne out in the critical responses to The Railway, which focused on

the steam and its modern connotations, presaging the later responses to Monet’s Gare Saint-Lazare

paintings. 13 Armand Silvestre expressed a frequent sentiment, criticizing The Railway’s subject matter

that he described as “severely censured.”14 Duvergler de Heuranne writing in the Revue des duex

mondes, was similarly confused stating he was unable to tell if it was a portrait or subject painting, and

concluded, “[Manet] belongs to a school which failing to recognize beauty and unable to feel it, has

made a new ideal of triviality.”15 Some reviews defended The Railway such as the progressive

responses of Mallarmé (writing one his first reviews of the Salon) and Castagnary, but positive

reviews like these were anomalies. Despite the scandal, there were an abnormally low number of

reviews compared to Manet’s previous and later salon submissions, many of which were just as

controversial.16 Despite the notoriety of the work the paucity of reviews, like the latter response to

Monet, suggests that many critics simply avoided discussing the painting altogether.

Despite the prominence of steam in Caillebotte and Manet’s paintings, it was in Monet’s

paintings of the Gare Saint-Lazare, and even more in the critical reaction to them, that steam truly

took center stage. Monet’s twelve paintings of the Gare Saint-Lazare are full of a wide variety of

depictions of steam, and thus it is not surprising that the steam was the most frequently mentioned

element in the critical responses, yet in all but a few instances, the steam is the only thing mentioned.

Where many authors had avoided even discussing The Railway in 1874, in 1877 the reviewers were

much less likely to totally avoid discussing the Gare Saint-Lazare. Of the more than forty reviews of

the Third Impressionist Exhibition that mention specific paintings, nearly thirty mention at least one

of the paintings of Gare Saint-Lazare (often referring to the whole the group rather than to specific

works). Monet’s paintings of the Gare Saint-Lazare were mentioned at a frequency that was only

rivaled – and not surpassed – by Caillebotte’s Paris Street Rainy Day and Renoir’s Moulin de la Galette,

the two most popular and critically well-regarded pieces of the show.

Still critical attention was not always a positive thing, and predictably the majority reviews

that mentioned Monet or his paintings of the Gare Saint-Lazare were quite critical. In both the

positive and negative response reviewers frequently evoke the steam to close down discussion of the

painting. A. Descubes writing in the Gazette des lettres, des sciences et des arts states, in a particularly

negative review of both Monet and the entire exhibition, wrote, “[Monet] wanted to show us the

different aspects of the Gare Saint-Lazare, [including the] arrival and departure of trains.

Unfortunately the thick smoke escaping from the canvas has prevented us from seeing the six

paintings of this study.”17 Likewise, Louis Lerory, the critic who first christened the Impressionists,

mocked Monet’s painting of the Gare Saint-Lazare to avoid discussing the subject matter as “a

railway station. I think, with smoke so furiously twisted, it seems to insult the philistine that looks at

it smiling.”18 Similarly Léon de Lora writing in La Gaulois described the works as “filled with black

smoke, pink, gray, violet, [that makes them] ineffable and illegible.”19 As did Geogres Maillard, who

roundly dismissed the entire exhibition as, “dementia, the basis of the horrible and the miserable;

They look like they were painted, with eyes closed, by madmen, randomly mixing the most violent

colors on pallets of tinplate. This is the negation of all that is allowed in painting.”20 Maillard

however does offer one of the most complete descriptions:

These Impressionists ... have a special sympathy for the locomotives and the vapor they launch. You find in this room for laughter eight to ten paintings, all of which show a special fondness for this kind of mechanical studies. The rails, lanterns, switchers, wagons, above all, always these flakes, these mists, clouds of white steam, are so thick they sometimes hide everything.21

Maillard’s extensive description, though, is the exception that proves the rule; he degrades the

paintings as mechanical studies, rather than proper paintings and lists the elements not to provide an

accurate description for the reader but rather as a survey of the mechanical elements present. These

paintings are not to be appreciated but laughed at. In the end he reverts to the same tactic employed

by the other reviewers; dismissing the works as illegible due to the thick clouds of steam.

The degree that Descubes, de Lora, Leory and Maillard used the steam to obfuscate the

actual subject matter is made apparent by comparing their reviews to the description of the steam

and the site in more positive reviews. G. Rivière’s review “Les Intansigeants et les Impressionnistes:

Souvenirs du Salon libre de 1877" published in L’Ariste in November, 1877. Rivière states:

M. Monet, with his train stations, strikes an original note of the exposition at the rue Lepeletier. One of these paintings represents the arrival of a train under the Pont de l’Europe. [probably W.4.42 (Fig. 5)]. Another shows a locomotive heating up for departure, the air is charged with steam, acres of fumes released by the burning coal. Another painting contains only the disc [of a signal], the train just passed and the smoke swirls on the rails in big heavy clouds [W.445 (Fig. 6) or W.448 (Fig. 7)].22

Rivière’s reviews were undoubtedly among the most partisan and pro-Impressionist, (he was the

editor for the short lived journal L’Impressionniste). However, many of the same arguments were

expressed in Frédéric Chevalier’s review, which also appeared in L’Artiste on May 1:

Among many railway stations, the eminently modern topic at the highest point concern for M. Monet, one must notice a Gare Saint-Lazare bearing the number 117, and another painting without number, [W.445 (Fig. 6) or W.448 (Fig. 7)] and with the threatening and fierce disc of a signal, that dominates the foreground. Despite the overly heavy vapors that invade these landscapes, the frenzied statement has a striking effect, because the color is bright and true, and that drawing is caressed as little as possible, and distributes values by large masses in the exact place they should occupy.23

The descriptions of the subject matter by Rivière and Chevalier are rare in their willingness to

address the train yards, something almost no other reviewers choose to mention. Beyond offering

positive reviews, they also did not use the steam to deflect discussion, but rather discussed the steam

as part of the painting’s subject matter.

Following the prejudices of the original reviewers, contemporary scholarly understanding has

continued to avoid the actual subject matter of the Impressionists’ paintings of the Gare Saint-

Lazare. Modernist painters are traditionally understood as embracing modernity not through modern

subjects but through an attention to form, the flatness of the canvas, and the interaction of the fields

of color.24 While Modernist critics and scholars have frequently evoked flatness to praise avant-

garde painting, flatness was also invoked by contemporary conservative critics, Pierre Véron and

Georges Lafenester referred to Interior View of the Gare Saint-Lazare, the Auteuil Line, (W.438 Fig. 2) as

a map twice, first calling it, “a very pretty map in the middle of which one can distinguish a

locomotive,” and again in a concluding barb stating: “As the names of towns, rivers, mountains and

the train tracks have indicated, the work qualifies for inclusion in the Conservatory of arts-and-crafts,

or the repository of maps and plans.”25

Even positive reviewers such as Rivière and Huysman who actually engaged the subject

matter still have trouble coming to grips with the modernity Monet painted. Rivière resorts to

fantastic comparisons to describe Monet’s paintings of the train, which becomes a fantastic beast

while the workers became pygmies. Rivière states:

In one of the biggest pictures {100}[W.439 (Fig. 3)] the train has just arrived, the locomotive is about to depart. Like a furious and impatient beast, energized rather than fatigued by the long haul it has just provided, it shakes its mane of smoke, which presses up to the glass roof of the great hall. All around the monster, men crawl over the tracks, like pygmies at the feet of a giant. … Near this picture, another of the same size {102} [W.438 (Fig. 2)] shows the arrival of a train in the sunlight. It is a joyous and lively canvas: people rush to step down from the wagons. The smoke drifts forward in order to rise up higher and through the skylight the sun casts its gilding on the sandy tracks bed and machines. In some paintings, the fast, irresistible trains, wrapped in airy rings of smoke, are engulfed in the embarkation hall. In others, great locomotives stand immobile in their various waiting places.

The fantastic allusions in Rivière’s description are the counterpoint to the obfuscation and

conflation of the negative reviews.

The reticence to show, discuss, and include industry as a subject is not exclusive to

nineteenth-century French society but rather has carried forward to contemporary scholars of

nineteenth-century art history. Turning specifically to the Gare Saint-Lazare scholars have

diminished the industrial aspects of the Gare Saint-Lazare in two ways. First scholars have largely

omitted the exterior views despite the fact that eight of the twelve paintings are exteriors. Ten of

twelve works have approximately the same dimensions, 60 x 80 cm, (Interior View of the Gare Saint-

Lazare, the Auteuil Line (W.438 Fig. 2) and Arrival of the Train (W.439 Fig. 3) are both slightly larger at

75 x 100 cm and 82 x101cm respectively), suggesting that none of the works were minor or

preparatory works.26 Therefore despite the attention scholars have given to the interiors there is no

reason to believe they were more important. Nor is there any verifiable evidence that Monet

exhibited more of the interiors. The reviews of the Third Impressionist Exhibition by contemporary

critics identified three of the interiors by name but also identified at least three of the exteriors.27

Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that Monet showed at least an equal number of interior and

exterior views, and if anything showed more exteriors views than interiors. This is further supported

by the ensuing exhibition history. During Monet’s life time one exterior, Le Pont de Europe, Gare

Saint-Lazare (W.442 Fig. 5) and one interior, Arrival of the Normandy Train, Gare Saint-Lazare (W.440

Fig. 4), were consistently shown more than the other paintings of the Gare Saint-Lazare.

The second way scholars have consistently dismissed the industrial aspects of the paintings is

by referring to the works as a series. Monet is famous for his series paintings, The Haystacks, Belle-Isle,

Rouen Cathedral, and, of course, the Water lilies. However, compared to these works, the paintings of

the Gare Saint-Lazare are not a series. While Monet painted the Gare Saint-Lazare paintings in quick

succession he did not paint from the same vantage point - even in the four seemingly similar

interiors, which show a variety of views from different points in the station. The Gare Saint-Lazare

paintings are an rather ensemble, not a series, “more an exploration of the bustling railroad station

than a methodological examination of it.”28 Nonetheless, contemporary scholars, echoing the bias of

Monet’s own critics, have focused on the effect of light and atmosphere both because of the

importance within Impressionism, but also at the expense of discussing the subject matter.

Until the last few decades, scholarship on the Impressionists has repeated the

shortsightedness of the original critics of Impressionism and confined discussion to the effects of

light and atmosphere and given insufficient attention to the uneven and varied acceptance of

modernity. While Monet’s, Manet’s, and Caillebotte’s paintings of the Gare Saint-Lazare have been

used to illustrate the rise of industry in the nineteenth century outside the discipline, within art

history they are still discussed in generic terms – concerned primarily with light, atmosphere, and in

the case of Monet, as one of the first instances of his interest in painting series. These views are

problematic, not only because they are not specific but even more because they block discussion of

the significance of the industrial subject matter.

Figures:

Fig. 1 - Manet - The Railway, 1873, oil on canvas, 36.6 x 44 in, (93 x112 cm), National Gallery of Art (U.S.)

Fig. 2 - Monet - Interior View of the Gare Saint-Lazare, the Auteuil Line, 1877, 29.5 x 40.9 in. (75 x 104 cm), Musée d’Orsay (W.438)

Fig. 3 - Monet - Arrival of a train, 1877, oil on canvas, 32.3 x 39.7 in. (82 x 101 cm), Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums (W.439)

Fig. 4 - Monet - Arrival of the Normandy Train, Gare Saint-Lazare, 1877, oil on canvas, 23.4 x 31.5 in. (59.6 x 80.2 cm), Art Institute of Chicago (W.440)

Fig. 5 - Monet - Le Pont de l'Europe (Gare Saint-Lazare), 1877, oil on canvas, 25.2 x 31.5 in. (64 x 80 cm), Musée Marmottan – Claude Monet (W.442)

Fig. 6 - Monet - Gare Saint-Lazare, Trucks and a Signal in Front of the Station Roofs, 1877, oil on canvas, 23.6 x 31.4 in. (60 x 80 cm), private collection, Japan (W.445)

Fig. 7 - Monet - Gare Saint-Lazare, View Toward the Normandy Line, with Track Signals, 1877, oil on canvas, 25.8 x 32.1 in. (65.5 x 81.5 cm), Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum Hanover (W.448)

Fig. 8 - Caillebotte - Le Pont de l'Europe, 1876, oil on canvas, 49.2 x 71.3 in. (125 cm x 181 cm), Genève, musée du Petit Palais

Fig. 9 - Monet – The Railway Station at Argenteuil, 1872, oil on canvas, 18.7 x 27.9 in, Val-d'Oise (France). Conseil general

Fig. 10 - Manet - “The Pont de l'Europe and Rue St. Petersburg,” 1872, preparatory works for The Railroad, graphite on pages from a sketchbook, Jean-Claude Romand collection

Fig. 11 - Caillebotte - On the Europe Bridge, 1876-77, oil on canvas, 41-5/8 x 51-1/2 in. (105.7 x 130.8 cm), Kimball Art Museum

Fig. 12 – Jean Béraud - The Place and Pont de l'Europe, c. 1876-1878, oil on canvas, 7.2 x 29 in. (18.3 x 73.7 cm), Private Collection

1 Ruth Berson, The New Painting Impressionism 1874-1886, Volume 1: Reviews, Vol. 1 (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1996).; Ruth Berson, The New Painting Impressionism 1874-1886, Volume I: Exhibited Works, (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1996). 2 T.J. Clark, "On the Social History of Art," in Image of the People: Gustav Courbet and the Second French Republic, 1848-1851 (Greenwich: New York Graphic Society, c1973), 12. 3 F. Léonce Reynaud, Traité d’Architecture, 3rd Edition, Vol. 2, 2 vols. (Paris: Libraire des Corps Impériaux des Ponts ed Chaussées et des Mines, 1870), 420-25. 4 T.J. Clark, Painting of Modern LIfe: The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 189-190.

5 For the sake of readability, I have included full titles were applicable, but have generally referred to the works by the catalogue numbers and my own figure numbers to ease identification. Daniel Wildenstien, Claude Monet : biographie et catalogue raisonné, 4 vols. (Paris: Lausanne). 6 Jacques, "Menus propos: Salon impressionniste," L'Homme libre, April 1877: 2 in Berson, The New Painting Impressionism 1874-1886, Volume I: Reviews, 154-156. 7 Le Sémaphore de Marseille, April 1877: 1, in Berson, 190-92. 8 Pierre Véron, "Les Impressionistes," La Petit Press, 8 1877: 2, in Berson, 174-175. 9 Wilson-Bareau identified the setting as the garden of Alphonse Hirsch at 58, rue de Rome . His daughter was the model for the young girl. Juliet Wilson-Bareau, Manet, Monet, and the Gare Saint-Lazare (New Haven: Yale University Press, c1998), 2, 47. 10 Ibid, 2. 11 Clark, The Painter of Modern Life, 158. 12 Ibid, 160. 13 Wilson-Bareau, 55. 14 George Heard Hamiltion, Manet and his critics. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), 180. 15 Ibid, 179 16 Hamilton, 180. Wilson-Bareau. 49-55. 17 “ A. Descbubes, "L'Exposition des impressionnistes," Gazette des lettres, des sciences et des artes, April 1877: 185-188, in Berson, 143-44. 18“ Louis Leory, "Exposition des impressionnistes," Le Charivari, April 1877: 2, in Berson, 159-160. 19 De Lora, 162.; Louis Leroy, "Le Public à l'exposition des impressionistes," Le Charivari, April 1877: 82-83, in Berson, 160-61. 20 Georges Maillard, ""Chronique: Les Impressinnistes," Le Pays, April 1877: 2-3, in Berson, 164. 21 Maillard, 2 in Berson, 164. 22 G. Rivière, "Les Intransigeants et les impressionnistes: Souvenirs du salon libre de 1877," L'Artiste, November 1877: 298-302, in Berson, 186. 23 Frédéric Chevalier, "Les Impressionnistes," L'Ariste, May 1877: 329-333 in Berson, 137-41. 24 T.J. Clark, "“Modernism, Postmodernism, and Steam,”," October (The MIT Press), Spring 2002: 162. 25 Lafenstre, 2 in Berson 169.; Véron, 2 in Berson, 174. 26 Wildenstein gives the Gare Saint-Lazare paintings (numbered 438-449) titles, dimensions, exhibition history, and provenance. Wildenstein, 177-182. 27 The catalogue of the Third Impressionist Exhibition lists seven of the Gare Saint-Lazare works: “97 – Arrivée du train de Normandie gare St-Lazare,” “98 – Le pont de Rome (gare St-Lazare),” “100-La gare St.Lazare, arrivée d’un train,” “102 – Vue intérieure de la gare St-Lazare,” and three works 117-118 all titled “Intérieur de la gare St-Lazare, a Paris.” Contemporary reviews referred to four of the works (numbers 97 (W.440), 100 (W.439), 102 (W.438), and 117(unidentified)) by catalogue number, one work 98 (W.442) by its distinctive title, and a sixth work, The Signal (W.448) is mentioned as appearing hors catalogue. Berson, 76-77 28 Paul Hayes Tucker, "Monet and the Challanges to Impressionism in the 1880," in Critical Readings in Impressionism & Post-Impressionism, ed. Mary Tompkins Lewis, 226-49 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 238.