Which painting?
The Met’s 1875 version
Cabanel painted more than one Birth of Venus. The work shown here is the Met’s replica of 1875, commissioned by a New Yorker, John Wolfe. The museum distinguishes it from the earlier painting in the Musée d’Orsay, which was shown at the Salon of 1863 and entered Napoleon III’s collection. [1][2]
The French Ministry of Culture identifies the Orsay painting as RF 273, while the Met records its own canvas as 94.24.1. [2][1] Use those collection details when matching a photograph to a date. The same artist and title do not make two canvases the same object.
A different Birth of Venus is Botticelli’s painting at the Uffizi, dated about 1485. The museum describes Venus standing on a scallop shell as she arrives on land. [5] Cabanel’s reclining figure belongs to a much later composition. [1][5]
Look closely
Face and flying figures
Look closely
The face beneath the arm
Follow the shadow of the bent arm across the face. Then return to the whole painting and trace the extended arm towards the right edge.
The face is partly sheltered by the forearm, while the other arm stretches across a wider band of light. Look at how the fingers, hair and foam meet near the right edge. The small changes in direction interrupt the long line of the reclining body.
The Met describes the composition through academic ideals, including graceful modelling, silky brushwork and perfected form. [1] Try that description against the detail. Compare the smooth transitions across the skin with the more broken marks in the waves.
Above the waves
How do the figures hover?
Follow the central flying figures from their hands to their wings. Return to the whole image to see how the group spans the sky above Venus.
The figures turn in different directions. Notice the overlap of limbs and the small blue wings beside the darker-haired figures. Then look at the reclining body below them. The restless shapes above make its long horizontal arrangement more apparent.
In its account of the 1863 original, Grand Palais Rmn describes the little Amours above Venus as reinforcing the mythological setting. [3] That is an interpretation of Cabanel’s earlier painting. The Met calls its own work a replica of that composition. [1]
How does the pose address you? Return to the face beneath the arm, then look at the flying figures again.
Keep the canvases apart
The original and its replicas
The Met’s picture was commissioned in 1875, twelve years after the Salon success of the Orsay original. [1] The Ministry of Culture records the Orsay canvas as 130 × 225; Grand Palais Rmn gives those dimensions in centimetres. [2][3] The Met gives its replica as 106 × 182.6 cm. [1] Their different dimensions help identify them without relying on the title alone.
The Paris painting
Cabanel, about 1863. Musée d’Orsay, RF 273. Oil on canvas, 130 × 225 cm. [2][3] Not shown here. Open the official collection record alongside this page to compare the object details.
Botticelli’s Birth of Venus
Sandro Botticelli, about 1485. Uffizi Galleries. Tempera on canvas, 172.5 × 278.5 cm, inventory 1890 no. 878. [5] Not shown here. The Uffizi describes Venus standing on a scallop shell as she arrives on land, blown there by the winds. [5] Compare the standing figure with Cabanel’s reclining one; the shared title does not mean a shared arrangement.
The Dahesh replica made for reproduction
Alexandre Cabanel and Adolphe Jourdan, about 1864. Dahesh Museum of Art, 2002.37. Oil on canvas, 33½ × 53½ inches. [6] Not shown here. The Dahesh Museum describes its reduced replica as a model for an engraving and records Cabanel retouching and signing it. [6] This version connects a painted replica with the business of reproducing an image.
Success did not mean agreement
The Met’s account says that Cabanel’s first version caused a sensation in 1863 and was bought by Napoleon III. [1] Ross King’s The Judgment of Paris describes a divided critical response to that original, recording objections to its sensuality alongside praise for its ideal beauty. [4]
King also records a defence of the painting by Claude Vignon, the pen name of Noémie Cadiot. [4] Her support belongs to the debate as much as the hostile reviews. The painting’s institutional success should not stand in for what every critic thought.
Grand Palais Rmn contrasts Cabanel’s idealised nude with Manet’s Olympia, which caused a new scandal in 1865. [3] That comparison can sharpen our attention to the pose and the handling of paint, without moving the Met’s 1875 canvas into the 1863 Salon.
Return to the face under the arm after reading the criticism. Does the partial shelter make the figure seem distant, or does it make you look more closely? Your response need not reproduce the judgement of a nineteenth-century critic.
See this version
The Birth of Venus at the Met
The Met records its painting as a gift of John Wolfe in 1893, accession 94.24.1. [1] Its website listed the work on view at The Met Fifth Avenue in Gallery 811 when checked 7 October 2026. [1] Check the current record before planning a visit.
Common questions
-
Why was Cabanel’s 1863 original successful?
-
Where can I see the Met’s version?
The Met holds the 1875 painting as accession 94.24.1. Its website listed it on view in Gallery 811 at The Met Fifth Avenue when checked 7 October 2026; check the current record before visiting. [1]