Van Gogh Museum Journal 2000

[p. 82]

fig. 1
Dornac, Paul Durand-Ruel, c. 1910, Paris, Document Archives Durand-Ruel (all rights reserved)

[p. 83]

Paul Durand-Ruel's marketing practices
Caroline Durand-Ruel Godfroy

Paul Durand-Ruel's (fig. 1) career as an art dealer spans the years 1850 to 1922 and covers not only the whole of Europe, but also the United States. It would thus be impossible to contribute something new on this matter in the short space of this essay. I would therefore like to focus instead on my great-grandfather's marketing practices, practices that were entirely new in a business that was itself in its infancy.

It was in 1830 that Paul Durand-Ruel's father, Jean-Marie Durand, who ran a stationery and art supply shop with the help of his wife, Marie-Ferdinande Ruel, added art dealing to his activities. In fact, this branch of business did not exist independently at the time, not being considered lucrative enough. Instead, it was practised in conjunction with other, more important and far more remunerative trades, for example in luxury goods, bronzes or artist's materials. Moreover, in this period people were interested mainly in the works of the Old Masters, and admittance to the Salon was the only way for contemporary painters to become known. They were forced to adapt to what was fashionable and follow the rules of neo-classicism, which was still much in favour. Consequently, men like Durand, who championed the Barbizon School and the followers of Prud'hon, were an enormous help to less popular painters, even if they did not, in fact, buy many works of art. Without this support, these artists would have lived very precarious lives. They would have had to rely on their friends, a few ardent but only modestly wealthy amateurs, and dealers who were not organised enough to be real middlemen and truly promote their works.

In 1843 Jean-Marie Durand published his two-volume Galerie Durand-Ruel: specimen les plus brillants de l'école moderne, most likely as a form of advertising. It gave an overview of his stock, which mostly comprised works by the so-called School of 1830. In order to foster the kind of painting he really liked, Durand bought works by fashionable artists such as Cabanel or Bonnat, and sold them for a profit. He was then able to buy pictures by the Barbizon School with the money made by selling these ‘official’ artists. This, however, cannot yet be considered a proper commercial policy, and it was only with Paul Durand-Ruel that commercial techniques were actually implemented. Some of these techniques are still applicable today.

Paul Durand-Ruel, who had assisted his father from the age of 18, found himself head of the family gallery at the age of 34, following Jean-Marie's death in 1865. He was well travelled, had created extensive business networks in France and abroad, and had seen a large number of paintings. He enjoyed a good reputation and, as a writer for Les Beaux-Arts noted in 1863, he seemed ‘to be blessed with both tact and honour.’¹ Above all, he was passionate about his career. He believed a real art dealer should also be an ‘enlightened amateur, prepared if need be to put his artistic convictions before his immediate interests, and preferring to fight speculators rather than joining in their deeds.’² It is interesting to note that even at this early stage he was already pursuing a policy of promoting artists he admired - much as he would later with the impressionists. From the time he took over the gallery, he sought to gain exclusive rights to the works of certain painters, such as Bougereau, who entrusted him with all his pictures for a number of years. If this proved impossible, he instead made massive purchases, for example from Corot, Courbet, Daumier and Rousseau. He bought not only directly from these artists, but also from collectors and at auctions. In this way he succeeded, as he said himself, in ‘giving the pictures by our favourites a value previously unknown.’³

1 See the notice in Beaux Arts (5 April 1863): ‘Monsieur Durand-Ruel nous paraît réunir toutes les conditions de tact et d'honorabilité.’

2 See François Daulte, ‘Le marchand des impressionistes’ L'Oeil 66 (June 1960), p. 75: ‘“Un véritable marchand de tableaux doit être en même temps un amateur éclairé, prêt à sacrifier au besoin son intérêt apparent du jour à ses convictions artistiques, et préférant lutter contre les spéculateurs que s'associer à leurs agissements.”’

3 Paul Durand-Ruel, ‘Mémoires,’ in Lionello Venturi (ed.), Les archives de l'impressionisme, 2 vols., Paris & New York 1939, vol. 2, p. 165: ‘[...] à faire prendre aux oeuvres de nos artistes préférés une valeur inconnue jusque-là.’

[p. 84]

fig. 2
The Galerie Durand-Ruel at 16, Rue Laffitte, during the Renoir retrospective in the autumn of 1920, Paris, Document Archives Durand-Ruel

But my great-grandfather had one shortcoming. Although his purchasing policy bore fruit, he was too often taken with beautiful things. He let himself be carried away by pictures that were beyond his means, buying not only works by the School of 1830, but also by more ‘commercial’ artists and the Old Masters. He soon realised, however, that this was a mistake and acknowledged that ‘in order to maintain prices, you must never be in a hurry to sell and, on the contrary, always be prepared to support the works that interest you at auctions.’⁴ This meant that he always needed a large financial reserve and an accordingly selective and cautious purchasing policy.

Paul Durand-Ruel also quickly came to the conclusion that in order to champion his favourite artists a specialised periodical was necessary, and he began publishing the Revue Internationale de l'Art et de la Curiosité in 1869. This, however, proved to a disappointing and expensive venture.

By 1869, then, the guiding principles of Paul Durand-Ruel's commercial policy were already established: exclusive or mass purchases, price bolstering and the publication of a periodical. All he needed now was a venue for mounting prestigious exhibitions, which he searched for eagerly. He found the perfect location that same year: a passage between 16, Rue Laffitte and 11, Rue Le Peletier, which needed six months of extensive renovation to suit his taste (fig. 2). The exhibition rooms were very large, and although it was possible to organise fine exhibitions in them, the dealer realised too late that every object appears smaller in a big room, and that consequently the asking prices seemed higher than if they had been shown in smaller premises. Later, with more experience, he strongly advised against high walls, and recommended that paintings be hung as low as possible. He also noted that pictures shown in large galleries were seldom sold; the works most likely to be purchased were those taken out of the storerooms.⁵ In addition, he pointed out that a few

4 Ibid., p. 166: ‘Pour maintenir les prix il faut n'être jamais preseé de vendre et être toujours prêt, au contraire, à soutenir dans les ventes publiques les oeures auxquelles s'intéresse.’

5 Paris, Archives Durand-Ruel, letter from Joseph Durand-Ruel to Mr Robinson, 5 March 1904.

[p. 85]

inferior paintings could serve to enhance the hanging, adding that this was a tactic every dealer employed. He suggested likewise that the works in the gallery window should be changed regularly and on a fixed day of the week.⁶ Despite all their shortcomings, however, the Rue Laffitte premises were later to become famous. They were home to all the impressionist exhibitions organised by my family until 1923, when the gallery was demolished due to the widening of the Boulevard Haussmann.

Our archives are more complete from the period when Durand-Ruel began his dealings with impressionists, and enable us to better understand the so-called ‘contract of exclusivity’ between the artists and the dealer. In fact, it was not a contract at all, but only a gentleman's agreement based on the word of both parties. In return for the right to sell their work, Durand-Ruel not only promoted their pictures, but also gave them as much financial and moral support as he possibly could, saving them from all worries. Maxime Maufra, although not always on good terms with him, nonetheless claimed ‘He was a father figure for the artists’; the dealer, for his part, regarded his protégés as ‘[...] grown-up children [...].’⁷ In addition to giving them a regular allowance in exchange for their works he also settled all kinds of bills - for canvas, paint, insurance, rent, and other supplies, even if his account book was not necessarily in the painter's favour. Later, when the works of the School of 1830 and the impressionists became scarcer and more sought after, Durand-Ruel's policy was to buy only beautiful canvases and not to bother with second-rate works, even if they were by great artists and could be had at a bargain.⁸ On the other hand, if the buying price appeared too high for him - as, for example, with Monet's works - he did not hesitate to come to an agreement and share the purchase with other dealers.

In his manuscript, entitled ‘Propos de peintre,’ Maufra describes how Paul Durand-Ruel would judge and scrutinise each picture. The dealer maintained that if a work was good, it would look good from all angles, and that once it had acquired a patina it ought to be pleasing not only to the eye but also to touch. A work of excellence was one in which the qualities of the artist were immediately recognisable. If they were not, it was bad.

How many paintings did Paul Durand-Ruel purchase during his lifetime? Unfortunately, we know nothing until after 25 August 1891; before this the archives are confusing and incomplete. But from this date to 2 February 1922, the day of the dealer's death, the Paris gallery registered 11,900 purchases, and New York 4,717 - although most of the latter were bought by Durand-Ruel Paris and sold to the American branch. This makes an average of about 390 pictures a year for Paris and 154 for New York.

It is difficult to analyse the changes in the purchase prices of the impressionists because, until 1890, there are no photographs of the works and their measurements are rarely mentioned. However, according to our ledgers, in 1874 Durand-Ruel paid 200-300 francs each for their canvases. In 1884 Monet received between 900 and 1,200 francs for the pieces he had just brought back from the Italian Riviera, while Pissarro was given only 400-500 francs for his paintings. In 1893 the gap between the two artists widened further, with Durand-Ruel buying Monet's works at prices ranging from 3,000-6,000 francs, while the value of Pissarro's seems never to have exceeded 2,500. The asking price, however, was far higher, and varied from twice to six times the buying price, depending on the quality and beauty of the picture. At first glance, the difference between the two may seem excessive, but one has to keep in mind the risk the dealer took in supporting artists whose reputation had still to be established. The capital investment, storage, maintenance, promotion, exhibition and insurance of a work of art all needed to be considered when fixing the asking price. Finally - in the interest of both dealer and artist - the price could not be too low, as this would in effect have devalued the artist's work. As far as we know, none of Durand-Ruel's artists ever complained about the margin, which they could easily have known, needing only to go to the gallery and ask for this information. Further-

6 Paris, Archives Durand-Ruel, letter from Durand-Ruel Paris to Durand-Ruel New York, 24 June 1913. Durand-Ruel also expressed his ideas about museums. He believed they should have several rooms of different sizes, the larger ones being reserved for the biggest canvases, as smaller ones are best seen in smaller premises. He also advised that the lighting should be oblique if it was not possible to illuminate the works from above; see the letter to Mr Robinson, cit. (note 4).

7 Paris, private collection, Maxime Maufra, ‘Propos de peintre,’ unpublished manuscript, n.p.

8 Paris, Archives Durand-Ruel, letter from Paul Durand-Ruel to Paul Cassirer, 16 December 1903.

[p. 86]

more, the asking price is not always the selling price, which is often lower, if, that is, the painting could be sold at all.

Indeed, promoting artists could be a source of terrible problems, as Paul Durand-Ruel knew only too well; he recounts in his memoirs how he had ‘[...] made this harsh experience while working furiously on [his] two all-absorbing campaigns: the first to have the works of the beautiful School of 1830 assessed at their true value [...],’ adding: ‘[...] my second campaign, in favour of those who were later called impressionists, proved even more costly; it brought me dreadful worries and great losses [...].’⁹

Paul Durand-Ruel's sales policy towards museums was both generous and wise: on the one hand, he was aware of the difficulties faced by directors, who had to win the approval of a committee. On the other, having one of his paintings hung in a museum was excellent publicity. He wrote: ‘[...] We have always considered museum curators to be very special clients, and we are always willing to sell to them at a very small profit, and sometimes without gain. That way we hope to create new clients among museum-goers; museums are our best advertisement [...].’¹⁰ In spite of the exceptional terms he offered and the impressionists' increasing success, particularly after 1900, it is astounding to note that of the thousands of their works to pass through our gallery, less than 100 were purchased by museums during Durand-Ruel's lifetime.

In this regard Durand-Ruel did much for painters such as Moret, Loiseau and d'Espagnat, whom he referred to as ‘his youngsters’ and who were associated with the gallery from about 1893. Noticing that their works received mixed reviews, he readily donated several to American museums: the Art Institute of Chicago, for example, received a work by Maufra on 13 December 1905, entitled Douarnenez in sunshine.

The dealer used other means to promote his artists, exhibitions in particular. From 1870, the date of the first catalogue we have, to the day of my great-grandfather's death, the Paris gallery organised 197 exhibitions and the New York branch 129. This of course does not include the shows for which the catalogues have not survived, or those

fig. 3
The Durand-Ruel Gallery at 315 Fifth Avenue in New York, 1889-94, Paris, Document Archives Durand-Ruel (all rights reserved)

for which no publication was produced. In addition, there were the 11 exhibitions of the Society of French Artists organised at the London branch between 1870 and 1875, and those at the Brussels branch (4, Rue du Persil) between 1873 and 1875. These two galleries were forced to close due to Durand-Ruel's financial problems, but they were the first venues outside France to show impressionist works, hung among a selection of more traditional paintings. Durand-Ruel also conceived of the idea of the one-man exhibition as part of his sales policy. In 1878 he dedicated a show to Daumier, who had been scorned by the official art establishment, and in 1883 Boudin, Monet, Pissarro, Renoir and Sisley each had their own shows, marking the beginning of a trend. In this way, the dealer could enhance the works of a single artist and offer a large selection to potential buyers.

Paul Durand-Ruel was not content with organising exhibitions in his own galleries. The impressionists' works had provoked an uproar in France, forcing the dealer to use

9 Durand-Ruel, op. cit. (note 3), p. 162: ‘[...] en avoir fait la rude expérience quand je me suis acharné à entreprendre mes deux intéressantes campagnes: la première avait pour but de faire apprécier à leur vraie valeur les oeuvres de la belle Ecole de 1830. [...] Ma seconde campagne en faveur de ceux que l'on a appelés les Impressionnistes m'a coûté encore plus cher, puisqu'elle m'a causé d'affreux tourments et de grandes pertes.’

10 Paris, Archives Durand-Ruel, letter from Paul Durand-Ruel to Paul Cassirer, 5 January 1910: ‘Nous considérons toujours les directeurs de musées comme des clients tout à fait spéciaux, et nous sommes toujours disposés à leur vendre avec un trsès faible bé néfice, quelquefois même sans aucun gain. Nous espérons ainsi nous créer des clients nouveaux parmi les visiteurs des musées qui nous procurent la meilleure des réclames.’

[p. 87]

his large network to try and make them known abroad, in order to find a solution to his financial problems. He entered the foreign market in 1883, sending some impressionist canvases to Fritz Gurlitt in Berlin, to Dowdeswell & Dowdeswell in London, and to Boston, where they were shown at the International Exhibition of Art and Industry. The dealer soon achieved considerable success in the United States, opening a branch of the gallery in New York in 1887 (fig. 3); later he even considered establishing one in Chicago. In Europe, however, Germany was the place where the impressionists found most of their amateurs, and from 1899 onwards Durand-Ruel had the Berlin dealer Paul Cassirer as his representative, with the exclusive right to handle his paintings for the whole of the country.

Great Britain and the Netherlands, on the other hand, were only interested in Old Masters and the School of 1830. Evidence for this can be found in the dealings between Durand-Ruel and his Dutch colleague Elbert Jan van Wisselingh. The latter owned two galleries, one in the Netherlands - first in The Hague and then in Amsterdam and one in London. The men had a courteous business relationship in the years 1885 to 1911. Although Van Wisselingh had bought a pastel by Manet (Tête defemme, present location unknown) as early as 1885, this was an exception to the rule. Later, in 1899, Durand-Ruel purchased from him a Manet pastel bearing the same title. Could this have been the same picture, which Van Wisselingh had failed to sell?¹¹ If so, it is certainly confirms that the impressionists were not in favour in Great Britain. Van Wisselingh's other purchases were mainly works by Boudin, Corot and Daumier, but also by Puvis de Chavannes. The most important of these was a work by Troyon in 1904; entitled La vallée de la Touques (present location unknown), it had been exhibited at the Salon of 1885 and was held by every artist to be one of the painter's masterpieces. Van Wisselingh bought it for the considerable sum of 180,000 francs; it is interesting to note that Durand-Ruel bought back the Manet, together with a Monet, for only 2,020.95 francs. His other purchases from his colleague were only of a few insignificant works.

Unfortunately, as for Boussod, Valadon & Cie. - and Theo van Gogh - we know very little about his contacts with my great-grandfather. Since they both lived in Paris, there was no need for written correspondence, and most of the sales and purchases between the galleries in the years 1885 to 1891 concerned paintings of the School of 1830: works by Millet, Marilhat, Dupré and Michel. The only impressionist paintings Theo bought from Durand-Ruel (on 9 April 1888) were a Pissarro, Vue de Pontoise, and three Monets - Dégel à Argenteuil, Voiliers à Argenteuil and Falaises.¹²

Sometimes Durand-Ruel's promotion of their works did not meet with the approval of the artists themselves. One can remember Monet not wanting his canvases sent to the ‘Yankees.’ However, from the moment the dealer bought a picture, he was its owner and it was thus up to him alone to decide how best to make it known.

Since Durand-Ruel was not always able to show paintings from his stock or commissions, he frequently rented his premises out to individual painters or artists' groups. This helped make the gallery more profitable. It was also a means of attracting a different audience and thus potential new customers. In 1892, for example, the dealer leased the Société des Parisiens de Paris part of his location, consisting of ‘an entrance at 11, Rue Peletier, two adjoining rooms, each of them lit by a glass lantern, and a following section of gallery, separated by a low partition from the other half of the room [...],’ which remained at Durand-Ruel's disposal.¹³ The cost of the rent was settled at 3,000 francs per fortnight. Durand-Ruel was not responsible for certain expenses, such as the cost of invitations, publicity and decoration, but agreed to open the rented rooms during three or four evenings a week and to pay the lighting and heating of the galleries, which were usually open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. from Monday to Saturday.

In 1892, the galleries were still lit by gas, and it was only in 1900 that this was replaced by electricity. There were, however, other innovations: in 1892 use of the typewriter became more common, and in 1896 a telephone was

11 The Durand-Ruel Archives do not contain a photograph of the pastel sold to Van Wisselingh; it is therefore impossible to identify it with any certainty. The second one, bought by Durand-Ruel, was RW8, vol. 2 (present location unknown).

12 Since the paintings were not photographed at the time, it is impossible to identify either Pissarro's Vue or Monet's Falaises. The latter's Thaw in Argenteuil is probably W255 (USA, private collection) and Monet's Boats at Argenteuil is likely W372 (USA, Mrs Norbert Natanson).

13 Paris, Archives Durand-Ruel, letter from Paul Durand-Ruel to Monsieur Desbrosses, 8 December 1892: ‘[...] d'une entrée rue Le Peletier, de deux salles adjacentes éclairées chacune par une lanterne vitrée et d'une portion de galerie faisant suite, séparée par une cloison basse d'une autre demi-salle qui reste à ma disposition.’

[p. 88]

fig. 4
The grand salon of Paul Durand-Ruel's flat at 35, Rue de Rome, Paris, Document Archives Durand-Ruel

installed. But the most important of these modernisations was the introduction of another new technique, which was to play a crucial role in the art dealing business and would prove to be an essential tool: photography. This process, which was becoming increasingly widespread, would later make it possible to identify with near certainty the paintings that went through Durand-Ruel's hands. And it would help prevent confusion between paintings by an artist with the same title and measurement, which happened frequently. From 1890 Durand-Ruel had all the important works that came to the gallery photographed, and this practice was applied to other pictures as well beginning in 1896.

These photographs made the sale of paintings much easier as well: for example, a customer who for some reason could not come to see a picture could nevertheless get a first impression from a black and white reproduction. In this way, he could decide if it was worth his while to examine it in person. On the one hand, the process saved the dealer from having to ship works unnecessarily, and, on the other, it could help prevent possible disappointment on the part of the customer.

Photography was also infinitely invaluable in another major aspect of art dealing: the expertise. For a long time, Paul Durand-Ruel had understood the importance of connoisseurship, and had been an expert at an auction in as early as 1863. As we read in Les Beaux-Arts: ‘Mr Durand-Ruel has seen a great number of good modern paintings go through his father's gallery: therefore they are no newcomers to him. This is a real issue in avoiding erroneous attributions or deceitful copies.’¹⁴ During his lifetime, the dealer not only took part in most of the sales of modern and impressionist paintings, he also continually sought to enrich his photographic archive. These archives are a priceless resource, which show the works as they were when at his gallery. Joseph Durand-Ruel, for example, would later have the thousands of lots of the Degas studio sales photographed, in order to prevent forgers from completing the pastels and pictures the artist had left unfinished. Furthermore, paintings might be destroyed or disappear, and these photographs would remain the only records. This was the case with several paintings from the Gerstenberg Collection, recently rediscovered in Russia. Photographs are thus an

14 Beaux Arts, cit. (note 1): ‘[Durand-Ruel] a vu passer dans la galerie de son père une grande partie des bons tableaux modernes; ils ne sont pas pour lui des nouveaux venus. Cette question est fort importante lorsqu'il s'agit de fausses attributions ou de copies trompeuses.’

[p. 89]

important aide-mémoire and help provide the expertise with the necessary guarantees.

Photography is an excellent means of advertising as well. Of course, Durand-Ruel regularly placed text-based ads, but he also sold proofs of his photographs, the quality of which was as good, if not better, than today. There was no longer any need for the books of engravings Paul Durand-Ruel's father had published in 1843, or the one he himself had intended to bring out in 1873, which would have shown 300 paintings from his stock. From now on writers and journalists could instead distribute the images of the paintings supported by the gallery throughout their publications, which of course contributed to making them better known and admired.

Another means of advertising was publications. Durand-Ruel had already tried his hand at this with the Revue Internationale de l'Art et de la Curiosité. He began another review in 1890, L'Art dans les Deux Mondes, but this new effort, like the first one, was to be short lived. In 1892 he published a book by the critic Georges Lecomte, entitled L'art impressioniste, d'après la collection privée de Monsieur Durand-Ruel,¹⁵ which described in highly complimentary terms the collection of paintings hanging on the walls of Durand-Ruel's flat at 35, Rue de Rome (fig. 4). This fabulous collection had evolved over the years, and Paul Durand-Ruel often said he owed its development to the amateurs - or perhaps the lack thereof - as he eventually took home the paintings found to be too original and therefore left unsold. This is how many of the impressionists' most beautiful canvases - beginning with Renoir's Déjeuner des canotiers (Washington, DC, Phillips Collection) - came to our family. Anxious to make his favourite painters more widely known, Durand-Ruel also opened his collection to the public. Beginning 1898 callers could come every day from 2 p.m., provided they gave a day's notice. But in 1901 - no doubt due to their success and its affect on family life - visits were restricted to Tuesdays from 2 to 4 p.m., when museums were closed. By now the collection consisted of 400 canvases, chosen from among the most beautiful of the impressionist school. None of these paintings were for sale, except when the dealer was made an offer so much higher than the value of the painting that he could not refuse. This has been a short, and certainly incomplete, overview of the way Paul Durand-Ruel dealt in art. He used every means that seemed worthwhile to promote first the School of 1830, then the impressionists and, finally, from 1893, post-impressionists such as André, d'Espagnat, Loiseau, Durenne, Maufra and Moret. He rightly believed that a dealer was more useful to a painter when he took care of him from the very beginning, when his talent was still undiscovered and undiscussed, with all the risks entailed, rather than merely taking him on when his reputation was already established. He succeeded, as Arsène Alexandre once wrote, ‘through decision, tenacity [and] a good feeling for beautiful things (justum ac tenacem) in influencing the taste of his time in a way similar to the influence exercised by independent and farsighted critics.’¹⁶

His practices, however - which were quite new and perfectly adapted to the promotion of art - would never have been as effective had Paul Durand-Ruel not had confidence in the artists he championed. In a somewhat unexpected way, he was thus able to fulfil his two childhood dreams: that of being in the army and that of becoming a missionary; after all, he had had to fight tough battles and have faith and persistence in order to make his painters known.

An extract from an article published soon after the dealer's death in 1922 will end this brief examination: ‘He died at the age of 91, taking with him the vision of the masterpieces he had collected. He was not a dry businessman: he loved fine artists, beautiful works of art, he knew how to find them. He was, in an honest and modest way, the great worker of a noble task.’¹⁷ The journalist also added that Durand-Ruel belonged to another era, and indeed fauvism and cubism had created the same uproar as impressionism 50 years before. But Paul Durand-Ruel had shown the way to art dealers, and had established the bases of the art dealing business.

15 Georges Lecomte, L'art impressionniste, d'après la collection privée de Monsieur Durand-Ruel, Paris 1892.

16 Arsène Alexandre, ‘Durand-Ruel, portrait et histoire d'un marchand,’ Pan (November 1911), p. 18: ‘[...] par sa décision, par sa tenacité, son juste sens des belles choses (justum ac tenacem) exerce sur le goût de son époque une influence parallèle à celle de la critique désintéressée et clairvoyante.’

17 Gaston-Ch. Richard, ‘Feu M. Durand-Ruel,’ Petit Paris (9 February 1922): ‘Il est mort à quatre-vingt-onze ans, les yeux pleins des chefs-d'oeuvre qu'il avait réunis. Il ne fut point un sec businessman: il aimait les beaux artistes, les belles oeuvres, il savait les découvrir. Il fut, sans bluff et sans criarde réclame, le bon ouvrier d'une noble tâche.’