This cabinet photograph was probably taken for sale and distribution at the time controversy raged over Chloe’s presence in the National Gallery of Victoria.

Photographic print on cabinet card

The correspondence began when a reader wrote complaining that;

"…the indecent picture of a naked woman called by a classical name, which hangs in the north-east corner of the gallery, should at once be removed, Would any of the gentlemen trustees permit a nude picture of their daughter or sister to be hung there; and if not, why anyone else’s daughter? …Until it is admissible for a woman to expose herself naked to the public a painted representation should not be exposed. A photograph of that picture with the name of some notorious courtesan attached , would render the seller of it liable to legal penalties. … For whose delectation is it hung there? It may safely be said not for female visitors, and therefore it must be for the males, young and old, and only those of vicious proclivities."

John Russell (7 May, 1883)

This sparked a series of responses in defence of the painting including an impassioned letter from a number of young art students including Fredrick McCubbin (1855-1917) who became one of the best-known members of the Heidelberg School (8 May 1883).

A correspondent who called himself 'Francis Flute' wrote "I can only say that I wish our gallery possessed more such specimens…" (9 May 1883).

Arthur Anderson who wrote of "...this inoffensive 'Chloe'…."

Matron argues that "Most people allow that Chloe can not be admired by a brother and sister together, nor by a father and daughter…" (12th May).

"Objections to figures in the nude arise from morbid and carnal ideas" argues Arthur Anderson and accuses Matron of greatly underrating the capacity of the working men of these colonies (14th May).

"...Would anyone say the general public, old and young, should have access to anatomical preperations, illustrations, & c. ?" says John P. Peppercorn who objects to Chloe and “the modern French” school in general (15 May, 1883).

This draws another letter from Arthur Anderson who defends Chloe and "the modern French" school (16th May).

An Art Critic defends Chloe and recalls that “the nude question” was resolved some years before when the painting was awarded a gold medal at the International Exhibition.

“Designer” defends Chloe, and Victorians’ ability to appreciate art. “A Mother” feels her “cheeks tingling with shame” in the presence of Chloe (18th May).

Matron replies to Mr Anderson and Medicus (19 May) with the observation "Strong meat is not fit for babes ....".

Arthur Anderson defends the people of Melbourne “Sir the masses of people in this colony are not babes in any sense; they are the cream of their class and profession in every calling..." (21 May).

The controversy raged on with another letter from Mr Peppercorn (23rd May), who attacks the French school of painting and asks "is it advisable to exhibit to the gaze of the general public works in the nude...in a style repugnant to british taste?"

'A Father' responds to Matron - "I look upon Chloe as eminently an expression of chastity, and more, of virginity, in it highest and best sense, a psychic virginity.

I have viewed this counterfeit presentment of female loveliness some scores of times alone, and in company with wives, daughters, matrons, maids and with men of all sorts and conditions, and varying degrees of morals, and never detected any idea of impurity in connexion with it." (24th May).

Letter from “A lover of art who is also a woman" (25 May).

The editors contribute to the debate asking rhetorically "What is to be done with this shameless minx of a Chloe…?" (26 May).

After two further letters from women correspondents, the Editor has the last word "This question has now been quite sufficiently discussed, and the correspondence must cease" (28th May).

On the 29th it is announced that the painting has been removed from the Gallery and returned to its owner (29 May 1883).

Varying responses to 'Chloe' as depicted by the Illustrated Australasian News (June 13, 1883).

Print : wood engraving and article