He literally never mentions her.
But I and others would argue that Rodin stole techniques and inspiration from Camille Claudel. She was never in her lifetime recognized as a great artist (or at the least, Rodin's equal), even though it was clear to him and many others that she as an incredible talent.
French art society routinely rejected her work and refused to give her commissions.
The narrative is that after their 10 year tryst she "went mad" and was committed to an institute where she died, which might sound like a familiar historical narrative to you, especially about talented women during this time period.
Articles like this wash women in history out of the conversation and are gross. They find the bits of history they want to celebrate and ignore the harder truths that led to a fascinating (but tragic) creative process.
Sources for all the "yeah but source" people:
There are attempts to bring some balance though. There was a flawed but wonderful exhibition in Detroit in 2006 which showed their work side-by-side. Aside from a power cut in the middle of our visit this was an astonishing demonstration of how much she influenced his work. (Although the power cut did allow some fun projecting huge shadows from the sculptures onto the walls using our phone torches). http://www.economist.com/node/5354447
If you enjoy sculpture, or are even passingly interested, it's very much worth your while to make a journey for any exhibitions within striking distance.
Camille Claudel was intricately part of Rodin's success and artistic breakthroughs
Nonsense. His strongest work had nothing to do with her, and was conceived, commissioned, and started before he had ever met her.
But I and others would argue that Rodin stole techniques and inspiration from Camille Claudel
This is so patently false and salacious that it's infuriating. Citations please. Rodin's technique was revolutionary, original, and is now firmly grounded in the cannon - what are your qualifications to make this judgement? Can you please cite these historians or provide some sort of literature?
She was never in her lifetime recognized as a great artist (or at the least, Rodin's equal)
Because she was not a great artist, nor his equal. Her works are fine, but they are utterly derivative of his. One cursory glance at any of her pieces proves this, and of course the critics of her time, and those after, have all made this same observation.