
‘The Polynesians loved him': the astonishing revelations that cast Paul Gauguin in a new light
In 2019, the National Gallery held an exhibition of Paul Gauguin's portraits that provoked uproar. Was Gauguin not a French colonialist who spread syphilis to underage girls throughout the islands of the South Seas? The London show was caught in the crosshairs of cancel culture and there were calls for his paintings to be burned.
I have always loved Gauguin's pictures. Having just written I Am Dynamite!, a biography of controversial philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and feeling a strong sympathy with #MeToo, I couldn't live in the dishonest and hypocritical position of loving the paintings and hating the man. I embarked on research.
My purpose was simply to discover the facts so I could measure my feelings against the truth. But my research turned up so many new sides to the story that this private project turned into a book, which I titled Wild Thing, as that is what Gauguin called himself. His first seven years were spent in Peru, but they ended when he was brought back to France to go to school. He hated it: fitting in was never Gauguin's forte. He put up his fists and snarled: 'I am a wild thing from Peru.' Schoolmates quailed.
Did he have syphilis? Gauguin, who died in 1903 at the age of 54, spent his last three years on the tiny island of Hiva Oa in French Polynesia. In 2000, its mayor decided to restore his hut on its original site in time for the centenary of the artist's death. Excavations discovered a glass jar containing four human teeth. Examined by the Human Genome Project in Cambridge, they proved to be Gauguin's. Further tests were carried out for cadmium, mercury and arsenic – standard treatments for syphilis at the time. No trace was found. This was written up in the scientific journal Anthropology in 2018.
But I wanted to know more. Syphilis was widespread in the islands in Gauguin's time. I discovered that his doctor in Tahiti, the largest of the French Polynesian islands, knew the disease well and concluded that the painter did not have syphilis, but rather eczema and erysipelas, aggravated by infected bites of the Simulium buissoni fly. The two doctors who later treated him on Hiva Oa were of the same opinion.
Next, the question of underage girls. The age of consent in France and the colonies was 13. This was not untypical of the world at the time. In the US, it varied between 10 and 12. As I finished the book in 2023, Japan raised the age from 13 to 16. These facts horrify and disgust me. However, within the context of the time, Gauguin's Polynesian lovers were without exception 'of age'. Revolting as it is, he was doing nothing illegal or even unusual for that time.
Gauguin had three serious relationships. Tehamana, the best known partner, had been supposed to be 13 but a recently discovered birth certificate shows her to have been 15. Within these relationships, Gauguin followed local custom. Sexually experienced girls were offered by their families. No money changed hands. After a couple of weeks, the girl went home to her family for a period, to decide if she then wanted to go back to her new husband. Tehamana returned to Gauguin. There was no coercion. She, like Gauguin's later lovers, was free to come and go, to return home for good if she liked, and to take other lovers.
There was no financial advantage in staying: Gauguin in his beach hut was no richer than the average villager. When he went back to Paris for a couple of years to sell his paintings, Tehamana remarried. On his return, she went to live with him for a couple of weeks for old times' sake. It argues affection.
Wild Thing is the first full biography of Gauguin for 30 years. It has been shortlisted for the Baillie Gifford prize and won the Duff Cooper award. I feel particularly proud to be on the longlist of the Women's prize for nonfiction, too. Let's face it, given Gauguin's historic reputation, it would have been much easier for them to leave it off.
The book is based on the discovery of much new information: not only the teeth and Tehamana's birth certificate, but also a crucial new literary source that emerged as I started writing. In 2020, the manuscript of Gauguin's most important written work – Avant et Après, or Before and After – reappeared. Missing for a century, it contains 200 handwritten pages of Gauguin's thoughts on life, art, religion and everything. Then, a year later, the Catalogue Raisonné was completed. This is like the official bible of the artist, gathering every bit of information on all the verified works.
I discovered a great-great-granddaughter, too, with family stories, papers and letters. Gauguin had a Danish wife and a son who lived in Norway. There are letters in both languages and a lengthy untranslated family memoir by the son. Norwegian is my mother tongue and I can read Danish, too. One of the most surprising things I discovered was Gauguin's strong belief in equality between the sexes. His grandmother, Flora Tristan, was a fierce fighter for women's rights and much admired by Karl Marx. Gauguin cherished her published writings. He actively encouraged the women in his circle, including his wife, to find fulfilment through independence.
This sheds new light on Gauguin's complex relationship with Tehamana, who appears in several paintings. Tehamana Has Many Parents, completed in 1893, is a portrait of an individual, but also a portrait of a culture in flux. Tehamana wears a missionary dress but carries a Polynesian fan. On a wall behind her, a line of mysterious hieroglyphs reference the ancient island culture, much of which was destroyed by missionaries. Below them stands Hina, the Polynesian goddess of the moon and creation. Gauguin shows Tehamana as a synthesis of many cultures and many bloodlines, as Gauguin believed we all are.
But Manao Tupapau, or Spirit of the Dead Watching, is the picture that has done greatest damage to Gauguin's reputation. I can easily see why. The 1892 painting, showing Tehamana naked and face down on a bed, can be seen as misogynistic, exploitative and colonialist. But there are other ways of viewing it, which suggest a more sympathetic, caring Gauguin.
For Tehamana, as for most Polynesians, Christianity was a veneer – she believed in tupapau, malign spirits who stole your spirit in the dark. For that reason, she always kept an oil lamp burning in their hut. One evening, the lamp had gone out and Gauguin found her terrified by the dark. He embodies her fear in the figure of the old woman, symbolising the tupapau, standing at the foot of the bed for our benefit. But what he wanted to capture, he said, was Tehamana's terror of the unseen.
When Gauguin sent the picture back to his wife, Mette, to exhibit and sell in Denmark, she was not offended by it. Rather, she thought it 'wonderful'. Mette herself was also frightened of the dark, always keeping a lamp burning.
Gauguin believed in cultural synthesis, which today is often condemned as cultural appropriation. He saw the human race as a great synthesis of race, creed and colour. One of the first pictures he painted in Tahiti was Ia Orana Maria, or Hail Mary. This 1891 work depicts a Polynesian Mary carrying the Polynesian Christ Child on her shoulder. Exhibited in Paris, the picture caused a scandal. A non-white holy family! It was not until 1951 that a papal encyclical made it permissible to represent such a thing.
Horrified by Tahiti's oppressive and exploitative French colonial regime, Gauguin took up political journalism. He wrote articles for a local newspaper and later started his own paper exposing the corruption and injustice of French officials. He also wrote to the government in Paris pleading for fairer taxation and treatment. Tahiti's governor brought a libel suit against him but there wasn't a chance Gauguin would get justice in the corrupt French colonial court, so he fled 500 miles to Hiva Oa, also a French colony. On arrival, he was surprised to be mobbed like a celebrity – not, he discovered, for his painting, but for his journalism.
Hiva Oa was run by Bishop Martin, a fearsome puritan who had forbidden nudity, polyandry, the sacred art of tattooing, and any performance of the erotic Upa Upa dance. Bishop Martin compelled all Indigenous children to attend French Catholic boarding school until the age of 14. They were taught the French curriculum and allowed to speak only French, the aim being to erase the Polynesian language, culture, family structure and national identity in one generation.
The children's families were distraught. But Gauguin discovered a minor French law stating that only children living within two miles of a school need attend it. Mass relocation to the countryside ensued. Language, culture and family unity survived on the island and Gauguin became more popular than ever. He was asked to exchange names. When you did this, it was believed, you exchanged souls and had all your property in common, including wives. It was the greatest honour you could confer, the equivalent of becoming a blood brother.
On Hiva Oa, Gauguin continued to petition Paris for fairer treatment of Indigenous people and to act as their lawyer in the local court. The Polynesians loved him, the French hated him. The governor reported back to Paris that Gauguin was 'a defender of native vices. A subverter of the rule of law and a dangerous anarchist.'
He was a marked man. When he accused a gendarme on a nearby island of accepting bribes, the governor responded with a charge of libel. The case was heard by the local French magistrate and Gauguin was found guilty, fined 500 francs and sentenced to three months in prison. Barely a year later, the case would be re-examined and Gauguin's accusations found to be correct. But by that time, the artist was dead.
Wild Thing was driven by all the new material that began appearing in 2019, which coincided with the reopening of the debate about Gauguin's troubling reputation. It seemed important to re-examine his life: not to condemn, not to excuse, but simply to shed new light on the man and the myth.
Wild Thing: A Life of Paul Gauguin, by Sue Prideaux is published by Faber, price £30
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How do you exhibit living deities?
The most-watched TV programme in human history isn't the Moon landings, and it isn't M*A*S*H; chances are it's Ramayan, a magnificently cheesy 1980s adaptation of India's national epic. The show has a status in India that's hard to overstate. Something like 80 per cent of the entire population watched its original run; in rural areas entire villages would crowd around a single television hooked up to a car battery. When the show ended, omitting the 'Uttara Kanda', the fairly controversial last book of the original poem, street sweepers across the country went on strike, demanding the government fund more episodes. The government caved. But while every country has its pieces of cult media, in India the cult is literal. Some viewers would take a ritual bath before tuning in. Others would decorate their TV sets with garlands of flowers, or light oil lamps in front of the screen and perform aarti, a devotional rite in which a flame is waved in circles in front of an image of a god. And why not? There was an image of a god on the screen. He might have been played by an actor in a plastic crown, but Ramayan was a representation of Lord Ram. Abrahamic faiths can be quite iffy about this kind of thing. At my maniacally Orthodox Jewish primary school, I was told in no uncertain terms about all the terrible punishments God periodically imposed on those of his followers who tried to make images of Him. At one point, in an art lesson, we were told to draw a picture of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments; one boy who made the mistake of depicting Yahweh as an enormous stick figure had to watch his effort being ripped up in front of the entire class. Christianity has traditionally been more relaxed, but it has its own long history of recurring iconoclasms: Byzantine monks burning images of Christ; black-clad Puritans bursting into English churches to smash all the stained glass. In America, Catholic churches might have deposited heaving busloads of their parishioners outside suburban cineplexes to see The Passion of the Christ, but nobody got on their knees and started worshipping the screen. You could venerate an image of the crucifixion in a church, but Raphael's version in the National Gallery is only a work of art. As it happens, Indian religions used to be fairly similar. The earliest form of Hinduism was the Vedic religion that existed from around 1500 to 300 BC, and which was, as far as we know, firmly aniconic. If they did make any images of their gods, we haven't found them. What we do know, from the writings they left behind, is that their worship was focused around a sacrificial fire. The oldest collection of Hindu texts, the Rig Veda (c.1500-1000 BC), consist of hymns to be sung in front of these fires and extremely detailed descriptions of the sacrifices to be thrown into the flames. From there, the fire-god Agni would share out the sacrifice with the rest of the pantheon. Mostly, Agni was given gifts of ghee, grains and soma. Sometimes there were animal sacrifices. It might have never been actually carried out, but there's one more, the Purushamedha sacrifice, in which you offer the gods human flesh. It's likely that the Hindu tradition of devotional images came about in response to Buddhism, but Buddhism was also, originally, very strict about images. This makes sense, given early Buddhism's focus on nothingness and impermanence. During his life, the Buddha didn't call himself 'me' or 'I', since the self doesn't exist, but Tathagata, which means something like 'the one who has thus gone'. For the first few centuries of the religion, there was a strong taboo on any direct representation of the Buddha as a man. The preferred way to show him in stone carvings was as an absence. You could symbolise the Buddha with the image of an empty crown, or a riderless horse. The most popular image was the Buddhapada, a pair of footprints: the hollow left by something that no longer exists. The familiar smiling, seated figure didn't emerge until more than 500 years after Siddhartha Gautama achieved enlightenment. It's as if we had started depicting Henry VIII in 2025. The preferred way to show the Buddha in stone carvings was as an absence The situation is very different today. Hinduism still has room for interesting abstract forms, like the phallic lingam that represents the god Shiva, but most Indian religions are intensely visual religions. When Hindus visit a temple, they won't usually say they're going for puja (prayer), but for darshan, which means 'vision'. The most important element in worship is to look at the image of the god. But it goes both ways: there's darshan dena and darshan lena, giving and receiving sight. You look at the god, the god looks at you. The murti or idols in Hindu temples often have large, brightly painted eyes. The representation does not have to be exact, but the idea is that any image of a deity will be inhabited by that deity. Sometimes small street-corner shrines in India will consist of a small, roughly carved disc, or even just a corn husk, watching you with painted eyes as you pass. This makes exhibiting some of these objects difficult: how are you supposed to display a historical artefact that is also a living deity? At the British Museum, Ancient India: living traditions tries hard to accommodate their dual status. There's a room dedicated to each of three major Indian religions, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, and along with some of the treasures of the British Museum's archives there's also a short video in which a modern-day British practitioner explains their worship. Some of these treasures really are extraordinary. A tiny gold reliquary that contains the first-ever figurative representation of the Buddha ( 1st century). There's a magnificently fluid Ganesh, carved out of volcanic stone a thousand years ago (see below). Stranger are the fierce, grimacing yakshas, teeming nature-spirits that might have evolved into the more stately Hindu gods. But there's also a plasticky Ganesh statue from 2007 owned by an events company called Om Creatives Ltd, and a photo of the god being paraded on the banks of the Mersey in 2014. Many of the figures of gods and sages are displayed on wide plinths, giving visitors space to leave an offering in front of the murti if they want. When I went, none of the visitors had done so. The museum is its own kind of religion, with its own rituals. Statue of Ganesh, made in Java from volcanic stone, 1000–1200. © THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM But if we're considering these works as part of a living religion, and not just objects from the past, it's striking that India's second-largest religion doesn't appear anywhere in the exhibition. Islam has been an Indian faith for more than a thousand years, and in that time plenty of uniquely Indian traditions have emerged. There are Sufi shrines, dargahs, that are also sacred to Hindu deities, where strange new forms of syncretic worship have taken shape over the centuries. Islam tends to be strongly aniconic, but then so does Sikhism, another autochthonous Indian faith that doesn't get a look-in here. Part of the problem is that the curators are a little too eager to make a clear identification between the religions of two millennia ago and their practitioners today. There is no straight line between them; religions, like everything else in the world, constantly change. These objects might have meaning for modern-day Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, but the people who actually made them are gone. Maybe my favourite object in the exhibit was a tiny first-century copper statuette of a four-armed goddess found in the Deccan, central India. She has flowers in her hair and a girdle around her hips, but we no longer know her name. Whatever cult worshipped her is now extinct. But maybe her presence is still in there, looking out at the new kind of devotee that shuffles around the museum, seeing and being seen.


Scottish Sun
8 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Sir Andy Murray tells Grand Slams to ‘do better' as Coco Gauff reveals real size of French Open trophy she gets to keep
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SIR ANDY MURRAY sent a message to tennis chiefs to do better after Coco Gauff revealed how much smaller her actual French Open trophy really is. Gauff, 21, won Roland-Garros on Saturday by beating Aryna Sabalenka 6-7 6-2 6-4 in Paris to become the first American to win the crown since Serena Williams 10 years ago. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 5 Sir Andy Murray sent a message to tennis chiefs after Coco Gauff's French Open triumph 5 Gauff won Roland-Garros after beating Aryna Sabalaneka in a historic victory 5 Gauff then revealed how much smaller her actual trophy is 5 Murray urged tennis chiefs to do better after watching Gauff's video 5 Gauff's trophy is just a bit bigger than a small Perrier bottle The World's No2 passionately celebrated with the esteemed honour in front of the French crowd after winning her 10th career title, but that wasn't the trophy she was going home with. The tennis star posted a video of herself in her private jet revealing her actual trophy... and how much smaller it really is. Gauff said on TikTok while gesturing to a picture of her posing with the larger replica: 'This is the trophy that you guys see, the one that we take pictures with, do press with and all that. 'But, actually, we don't get to take this home. This stays with the tournament." Gauff then showed the much smaller trophy and added: 'This is the one we take home. It's like a mini replica of the trophy,. It's… Really small.' The Florida native then left fans aghast when she placed the trophy next to a tiny Perrier bottle, which was just a bit smaller than the esteemed title. Gauff continued: 'That's how small it is. But, you know, it's the memories that matter the most.' That left Murray, 38, shocked as he took to social media to address the situation. CASINO SPECIAL - BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS The former World's No1 shared a clip of late night talkshow host Jimmy Fallon praising Gauff on his Instagram story. Murray added the following post: "Surely the tennis majors can do a better job with the replica trophies!? They are tiny." Aryna Sabalenka shows her disappointment after defeat to Coco Gauff The British legend knows all there is about the French Open trophy as he won it himself back in 2016.


New Statesman
8 hours ago
- New Statesman
Swiping left on Mr Darcy
Illustration by Kristian Hammerstad Is it still possible to make a great romcom? Perhaps not in a contemporary setting. Jane Austen Wrecked My Life, a new, low-budget French film and the debut feature of its scriptwriter and director Laura Piani, illuminatingly tests the proposition to destruction. No first-rate romcoms have appeared for years, at least compared to their heyday in the Long Nineties. Four Weddings and a Funeral appeared in 1994, Notting Hill in 1999, Bridget Jones's Diary in 2001. In the US, Nora Ephron's classic trilogy, When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail, ran from 1989 to 1998. As for the romcoms of Jane Austen herself, both Emma Thompson's brilliant adaptation of Sense and Sensibility and the spiffy updating of Emma, Clueless, were released in 1995. Thirty years ago, the fundamental premise of the romcom still made sense, more or less. The historical inflections of Austen's world, in which questions of class and inheritance are inescapable and, for a woman, the chance of marriage everything, had long gone – but versions of these plots could still be made to matter. 'You don't think people are still concerned with marriage, money, romance, finding a partner?' demanded Emma Thompson back then. They were, of course, and they still are – but it's that last phrase that's the killer. In Austen's novels, and in romcoms generally, there were few opportunities to meet eligible partners: pretty much all encounters were meet-cutes, that staple of the genre. Random fortune, the great question of who bumps into whom, remained important until… when? The first online dating app, started in 1995 too. Grindr, Tinder, Hinge, Bumble and the rest have only been around 15 years or less. But in that time, they have stuffed the romcom, obliterating its key intrigue. Jane Austen Wrecked My Life tries to revive the genre but ends up proving it passé. Agathe (tall, gawky, glorious Camille Rutherford), single, in her thirties, works in the Shakespeare & Co bookshop in Paris, while trying to write novels herself. She is scarred by the death of her parents in a car crash six years previously. A pal at the bookshop, Félix (Pablo Pauly), himself a proficient dating app-user, often stays over. But Agathe hasn't had sex with anyone for two years. 'What are you waiting for? Mark Darcy?' Félix asks her. 'I'm not into Uber sex, I don't do digital, I don't want to 'like' guys,' Agathe retorts. She's more a Jane Austen fan, diagnosing herself as Anne Elliot in Persuasion, 'an old maid who has wilted like a flower in need of water', while Félix is Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park, 'a liar and seducer'. In short, she is not living in the right century, she confesses. Happily, thanks to Félix's support, she wins a fortnight's stay at a writer's retreat, the Jane Austen Writers' Residency, run by the author's descendants in a grand English country house (think Chawton but swisher). Meeting her off the ferry is Oliver (Charlie Anson), Austen's handsome, haughty great-great-great-grand nephew, a Darcy indeed (in this first meeting, Anson blatantly channels Hugh Grant, but later eases up on the homage). Agathe, sick with nerves, vomits on his shoes and slags him off on the phone in his earshot, not realising he understands every word. Nevertheless, maybe he's the one? But her amorous friend Félix rolls up unexpectedly too, in a typically British black cab. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Jane Austen Wrecked My Life indulgently grants Agathe the full Jane Austen experience: not just the stately home and magnificent park but a full dress, candlelit regency ball, corsets and lace in her ultimate seduction. Almost no attempt is made at credibility. Having seen so many British films delusively infatuated with French life, I've often longed for the reverse, and here it is. All the English people spontaneously speak excellent French. There's a marvellous night out in a local pub with ukulele-karaoke and darts. The countryside is spectacular. When Oliver's vintage sports car breaks down, he tells Agathe it is 20 miles to the nearest village. Actually, Jane Austen a gâché ma vie was filmed entirely in France, mainly at Château d'Hazeville in the Île-de-France, and it looks totally, gorgeously Gallic, down to the wallpaper and the window catches. It's a charming production, with its repeated use of Schubert and its lovely closing cameo, and Rutherford is enchanting. The moral, that Agathe must discover herself as a writer first before finding romantic fulfilment, is impeccable if banal. But what it shows most, perhaps quite inadvertently, is the lengths we must now go to in a bid to recover the very possibility of credible romcom. Swipe left, I'm afraid. 'Jane Austen Wrecked My Life' is in cinemas on 13 June [See also: We are all Mrs Dalloway now] Related