Spain, may be found in the Appendix to Sir Edmund Head’s Hand-Book of
the History of the Spanish and French schools of Painting. On the 13th
of June, 1844, a Royal ordinance was issued, establishing a Central
Commission “de Monumentos Historicos y Artisticos del Reino,” with local
or provincial commissions, to act in concert with the former body. The
chief object of the Commission was, to report upon the condition of
works of art, antiquities, libraries, etc., contained in the numerous
convents and monasteries, which had been suppressed, and what measures
had been adopted for their preservation. The members of the Commission
were divided into three sections, one for libraries and archives,
another for painting and sculpture, and a third for architecture and
archæology.
The first annual report of the Central Commission to the Secretary of
State for the Home Department is printed in pamphlet form, and embraces
the proceedings of the Commission from July 1st, 1844, to July 1st,
1845.
“Nothing can be more melancholy than the picture of Spain drawn by
this Commission. They tell us that the most valuable contents of
the conventual libraries had been thrown away or mutilated, and
that thousands of volumes had been sold as waste paper for three or
four reals the arroba, and had been exported to enrich foreign
libraries. A hope had been entertained of forming collections in
each province, of pictures and other works of art; the Commission
was soon undeceived as to the possibility of effecting this. Baron
Taylor and a host of foreign dealers had in some provinces carried
off all they could lay their hands upon; in others the
Commissioners tell us, ‘Many of the most esteemed works of art, the
glory and ornament of the most sumptuous churches, had perished in
their application to the vilest uses; in others scarcely any record
was preserved of what had been in existence at the time of the
dissolution of the monasteries, and no inventory or catalogue of
any kind had been made.’ Our only consolation perhaps is that these
books and works of art will be better appreciated in other
countries, and we may derive comfort from the views expressed by
Madame Hahn-Hahn.[A]
“It is clear that in such a state of things the plunder and
destruction of pictures must have been enormous. In the summary of
the proceedings of the Commission with reference to pictures,
which I shall proceed to give, the reader will see that all sorts
of obstacles to any claim of the central government were raised by
the local authorities; such a course was sometimes no doubt the
result of genuine Spanish obstinacy, strong in local attachments,
and hating all interference; but it too often probably originated
in the desire to conceal peculation and robbery on the part of the
alcalde, or the parish priest, or the sacristan, or the porter of a
suppressed convent. Let us remember that in all probability no one
of these functionaries ever received the salary which was due to
him, and that the unfortunate monks turned out of their convents
had neither interest nor duty in protecting what had ceased to be
theirs. If they did not (as it may be hoped) themselves carry off
what they could, they would abandon it to the first plunderer.
Added to which, the habitual feeling of every Spaniard is, that
what belongs to the government is fair game, and may be stolen with
a safe conscience.
“When all this is considered, it will not appear surprising that
bribery and robbery should have stripped the deserted convents, and
scattered the memorials of Spanish art and literature. It is
greatly to be feared too that the ignorance of the local
commissioners will cause many an interesting picture of early date
to be thrown on one side as barbarous and rude, and that few such
valuable records as the altar of the time of Don Jayme el
Conquistador, mentioned as rescued at Valencia, will be preserved
at all; indifferent second-rate copies, or imitations of the
Italian and Flemish masters, will probably pass current as the
staple article in most of the provincial museums, even where such
institutions are finally formed. At any rate, as a picture of the
state of Spain with reference to the Fine Arts, and as a sort of
guide to tourists, it may be useful to give, in alphabetical order,
as they are enumerated in the report, an abstract of the general
result as to the number of paintings got together in each
province.”
Here follows the result of the labors of the Commission in forty-eight
provinces, alphabetically arranged, presenting a sorry picture indeed.
Only a few of them can be given here, which may be taken as specimens of
the whole:
“_Almeria._--Here the existence of any local collection was denied,
but accidentally a catalogue was discovered containing a list of
one hundred and ninety-six pictures, which had been got together in
1837, and had apparently disappeared.
“_Burgos._--The Commissioners say, ‘On seeing the small number of
works of art in the province of Burgos, and after examining
carefully the communication of the “Gefe Político,” dated in April,
1844, together with the inventory which accompanied it, containing
only sixty-nine pictures and thirteen coins, deposited in the
Literary Institution of the capital of the province, we could not
refrain from signifying our surprise at finding so poor a museum in
a province which was at one time one of the richest in Spain in
monasteries.’
“_Cáceres._--Here again the Central Commission could get no account
of the works of art which were known to have existed, more
especially in the magnificent Hieronymite Monastery of Guadalupe,
near Logrosan. The Provincial Commission, acting on the authority
of that in Madrid, proceeded to ascertain what still remained
within the walls of the convent, when they were resisted by the
‘_Ayuntamiento_’ of the town of Guadalupe, who pretended that all
that was in the church and convent belonged to the parish, and not
to the state.
“_Cadiz._--Those who first collected the pictures took care to
catalogue them without giving the subjects or the sizes, and mixed
up together paintings and prints, so that it was impossible to say
what had been stolen. The report goes on to say that the sale of
certain pictures was not less irregular and culpable in itself,
than the lawfulness of the manner in which the produce of the sale
was applied appeared doubtful. The Local Commission of Arts and
Sciences thought it prudent to abstain from criminal proceedings
against any one; but the pictures yet remaining were in such a
state of decay that to protect themselves they caused a _procès
verbal_ to be drawn up, setting forth their condition.
“_Cuenca._--All sorts of plunder had gone on here, as elsewhere,
but the Local Commissioners seem to have exerted themselves to
rescue and place in safety what could yet be secured. The head of
the Priory of Santiago de Uclés resisted them. The number of
pictures collected is not given.
“_Gerona._--In August, 1842, the ‘Gefe Político’ reported the
existence of certain pictures, as he said, of little merit; but,
bad or good, they seem to have disappeared by 1845.
“_Granada._--Here a museum was formed in 1839, and in 1842 a
catalogue of eight hundred and eighty-four pieces of sculpture and
painting was transmitted to the Secretary of State. By January,
1844, it would appear that some, probably many, of them had been
stolen, and the report does not tell us how many remained.
“_Guadalajara._--It appears that out of four hundred and thirty
pictures, a few only were considered to be originals of any value,
and were attributed to Ribera, Zurbaran, Carreño, el Greco, and
others, for the most part Spanish masters. Twenty-five were
completely ruined.
“_Guipuzcoa._--The civil war in this province has been the cause
and the pretext for the disappearance of many works of art.
‘Since,’ says the report, ‘whilst many have been destroyed on the
one hand, on the other the state of affairs has thrown a shield
over those who have profited by the confusion, and have unjustly
appropriated the property of the state.’
“_Jaen._--The Local Commission of Jaen in the course of nine months
got together five hundred and twenty-three pictures, of which they
reported two hundred and eighty-five as worthless, and placed two
hundred and thirty-eight in the old Jesuit convent. The names of
Murillo, Zurbaran, Alonso Cano, Castillo, Orrente, Melgar, Juan de
Sevilla, Guzman, Coello, Titian, el Greco, and Albano, appear in
the catalogue.
“_Leon._--‘The necessity,’ says the report, ‘of quartering troops
in the various convents of this province, and the scandalous tricks
which we know to have been played with the works of art in the
same, are the causes why the catalogue, which was framed in
September of last year, appeared so imperfect and so scanty, since
the number of objects was reduced to sixty-one pictures and three
pieces of sculpture, deposited in the convent of the so-called
“Monjas Catalinas.”’ No more favorable account seems to have been
received at the time the report was drawn up.
“_Lérida._--Here too the civil war is said to have caused the
disappearance of most of the pictures in the convents; only
eighteen of any merit had been collected in April, 1844, but some
more were known to exist in the Seo de Urgel, where the local
authorities however refused to give them up to the government. The
Commission had not been able to obtain an accurate account even of
the eighteen.
“_Malaga._--A miserable return of six pieces sculpture and four
pictures was all that could be obtained by the Central Commission,
and they attribute this result to ‘the natural indolence and purely
mercantile spirit of that district.’ Probably the facility for
exportation had a good deal to do with the disappearance of the
various works of art which the report affirms to have been once
collected and deposited in various public buildings.”
DON DIEGO VELASQUEZ.
This great painter, justly esteemed the Head of the Spanish school, was
born at Seville in 1594. He pursued almost every branch of painting,
except the marine, and excelled almost equally in all.--Philip IV.
conferred on him extraordinary honors, appointed him his principal
painter, and ordained that none but the modern Apelles should paint his
likeness. When Rubens visited Madrid in 1627, to discharge the duties of
his embassy, he formed an intimate and lasting friendship with
Velasquez, which continued through life. “There is something in the
history of this painter,” says Mrs. Jameson, “which fills the
imagination like a gorgeous romance. In the very sound of his name, _Don
Diego Rodriguez Velasquez de Silva_--there is something mouth-filling
and magnificent. When we read of his fine chivalrous qualities, his
noble birth, his riches, his palaces, his orders of knighthood, and what
is most rare, the warm, real, steady friendship of a king, and added to
this a long life, crowned with genius, felicity, and fame, it seems
almost beyond the lot of humanity. I know of nothing to be compared with
it but the history of Rubens, his friend and cotemporary, whom he
resembled in character and fortune, and in that union of rare talents
with practical good sense which ensures success in life.” For a full
life of this painter, see Spooner’s Dictionary of Painters, Engravers,
Sculptors, and Architects.
VELASQUEZ HONORED BY THE KING OF SPAIN.
Philip IV. relaxed the rigor of Spanish etiquette in favor of Velasquez,
as Charles V. had done with Titian. He had his studio in the royal
palace, and the King kept a private key, by means of which he had access
to it whenever he pleased. Almost every day Philip used to visit the
artist, and would sit and watch him while at work. When Velasquez
produced his celebrated picture of the Infanta Margarita surrounded by
her maids of honor, with a portrait of himself, standing near at his
easel, the King conferred upon him a very unusual honor. After the
picture had been greatly admired, Philip remarked, “There is one thing
wanting,” and taking the palette and pencils, he drew in with his own
hand upon the breast of Velasquez’s portrait, the much coveted Cross of
Santiago! The nobles resented this profanation of a decoration hitherto
only given to high birth; but all difficulties were removed by a _papal
dispensation and a grant of Hidalguia_. Velasquez’s portraits baffle
description or praise--they produce complete illusion, and must be seen
to be known. He depicted the _minds_ of men; they live, breathe, and
seem about to walk out of their frames. The freshness, individuality,
and identity of every person are quite startling; nor can we doubt the
anecdote related of Philip IV., who, mistaking for the original the
portrait of Admiral Pareja in a dark corner of Velasquez’s room,
exclaimed, as he had been ordered to sea, “What! still here? Did I not
send thee off? How is it that thou art not gone?” But seeing the figure
did not salute him, the King discovered his mistake. While Velasquez
sojourned in Rome, he painted the portrait of Innocent X., which is now
the gem of the Doria collection, and in which, says Lanzi, “he renewed
the wonders which are recounted of those of Leo X. by Raffaelle, and
Paul III. by Titian; for this picture so entirely deceived the eye as to
be taken for the Pope himself.”
VELASQUEZ’S SLAVE.
Juan de Pareja was the slave of Don Diego Velasquez. Palomino and
others, say he was born in Mexico, of a Spanish father and an Indian
mother; but Bermudez says he was born at Seville. From being employed in
his master’s studio to attend on him, grind his colors, clean his
palette, brushes, &c., he imbibed a passion for painting, and sought
every opportunity to practice during his master’s absence. He spent
whole nights in drawing and endeavoring to imitate him, for he durst not
let him know of his aspiring dreams. At length he had made such
proficiency, that he resolved to lay his case before the King, Philip
IV., who was not only an excellent judge, but a true lover, of art. It
was the King’s custom to resort frequently to the apartments of
Velasquez, and to order those pictures which were placed with the
painted side to the wall, to be turned to his view. Pareja placed one of
his own productions in that position, which the King’s curiosity caused
to be turned, when the slave fell on his knees and besought the monarch
to obtain his pardon from his master, for having presumed to practice
painting without his approbation. Philip, agreeably surprised at his
address, and well pleased with the work, bid Pareja to rest contented.
He interceded in his behalf, and Velasquez not only forgave him, but
emancipated him from servitude; yet such was his attachment and
gratitude to his master, that he would never leave him till his death,
and afterwards continued to serve his daughter with the same fidelity.
He is said to have painted portraits so much in the style of Velasquez,
that they could not easily be distinguished from his works. He also
painted some historical works, as the Calling of St. Matthew, at
Aranjuez; the Baptism of Christ, at Toledo, and some Saints at Madrid.
LUIS TRISTAN.
This eminent Spanish painter was born near Toledo, according to
Palomino, in 1594, though Bermudez says in 1586. He was a pupil of El
Greco, whom he surpassed in design and purity of taste. His instructor,
far from being jealous of his talents, was the first to applaud his
works, and to commend him to the public. He executed many admirable
works for the churches and public edifices at Toledo and Madrid. It is
no mean proof of his ability, that Velasquez professed himself his
admirer, and quitting the precepts of Pacheco, he formed his style from
the works of Tristan.
TRISTAN AND EL GRECO.
Tristan was the favorite pupil of El Greco, to whom his master made over
many commissions, which he was unable to execute himself. In this manner
he was employed to paint the Last Supper, for the Hieronymite monastery
of La Sisla. The monks liked the picture; but they thought the price
which the artist asked for it, of two hundred ducats, excessive. They
therefore sent for El Greco to value it; but when this master saw his
pupil’s work, he raised his stick and ran at him, calling him a
scoundrel and a disgrace to his profession. The monks restrained the
angry painter, and soothed him by saying that the young man did not know
what he asked, and no doubt would submit to the opinion of his master.
“In good truth,” returned El Greco, “he does not know what he has asked;
and if he does not get _five hundred_ ducats for the picture, I desire
it may be rolled up and sent to my house.” The Hieronymites were
compelled to pay the larger sum!
ALONSO CANO.
This eminent Spanish painter, sculptor, and architect, was born at
Granada, according to Bermudez, in 1601. He early showed a passion for
the fine arts, and exhibited extraordinary talents. He excelled in all
the three sister arts, particularly in painting. There are many
excellent works by Cano in the churches and public edifices at Cordova,
Madrid, Granada, and Seville, which rank him among the greatest Spanish
painters. As a sculptor, he manifested great abilities, and executed
many fine works, which excited universal admiration. He also gained
considerable reputation as an architect, and was appointed architect and
painter to the king.
CANO’S LIBERALITY.
Cano executed many works for the churches and convents gratuitously.
When he was young, he painted many pictures for the public places of
Seville, which were regarded as astonishing performances. For these he
would receive no remuneration, declaring that he considered them
unfinished and deficient, and that he wrought for practice and
improvement.
CANO’S ECCENTRICITIES.
Palomino relates several characteristic anecdotes of Cano. An Auditor of
the Chancery of Granada bore especial devotion to St. Anthony of Padua,
and wished for an image of that saint from the hands of Cano. When the
figure was finished, the judge liked it much. He inquired what money the
artist expected for it: the answer was, one hundred doubloons. The
amateur was astonished, and asked, “How many days he might have spent
upon it?” Cano replied, “Some five-and-twenty days.” “Well,” said the
Auditor, “that comes to four doubloons per day.” “Your lordship reckons
wrong,” said Cano, “for I have spent fifty years in learning to execute
it in twenty-five days.” “That is all very well, but I have spent my
patrimony and my youth in studying at the University, and in a higher
profession; now here I am, Auditor in Granada, and if I get a doubloon a
day, it is as much as I do.” Cano had scarce patience to hear him out.
“A higher profession, indeed!” he exclaimed; “the king can make judges
out of the dust of the earth, but it is reserved for God alone to make
an Alonso Cano.” Saying this, he took up the figure and dashed it to
pieces on the pavement; whereupon the Auditor escaped as fast as he
could, not feeling sure that Cano’s fury would confine itself to the
statue.
CANO’S HATRED OF THE JEWS.
Another characteristic of Cano, was his insuperable repugnance for any
persons tainted with Judaism. It appears that in Granada the unhappy
persons of that nation who were _penitenciados_ (i.e. who had been
subjected to penance by the Inquisition) were in the habit of getting
what they could to support themselves, by selling linen and other
articles about the streets; they wore of course the _sambenito_, or
habit prescribed by the Inquisition as the mark of their penance. If
Cano met one of these men in the street, he would cross to the other
side, or get out of his way into the passage of a house. Occasionally,
however, in turning a corner, or by mere accident, one of these persons
would sometimes brush the garment of the artist, who then instantly sent
his servant home for another, whether cloak or doublet, and gave the
_polluted_ one to his attendant. The servant, however, did not dare to
wear what he had thus acquired, or his master would have turned him out
of the house forthwith--he could only sell it. It is added that the
manifest profit which the servant derived from his master’s scruples,
made the people doubt whether in all cases the Jew had really brushed
against the artist, or whether the servant had himself twitched the
cloak as the Jew passed. At any rate the servant has been heard to
remonstrate, and urge that “it was the slightest touch in the world,
sir--it cannot matter.” “Not matter?--you scoundrel, in such things as
these, everything matters;” and the valet got the cloak.
On one occasion, Cano’s housekeeper, with an excess of audacity, had
actually brought one of these _penitenciados_ into the house, and was
buying some linen of him; a dispute about the price caused high words,
and the master came, hearing a disturbance. What could he do? he could
not defile himself by laying hands on the miscreant, who got away while
the wrathful artist was looking for some weapon that he could use
without touching him. But the housekeeper had to fly to a neighbor’s;
and it was only after many entreaties, and performing a rigorous
quarantine, that she was received back again.
CANO’S RULING PASSION STRONG IN DEATH.
His passion for art, and his eccentric notions respecting the Jews, were
strongly manifested in his last sickness. He lived in the parish of the
city which contained the prison of the Inquisition. The priest of the
parish visited him upon his death-bed, and proposed to administer the
sacraments to him after confession, when the artist quietly asked him
whether he was in the habit of administering it to the Jews on whom
penance was imposed by the Inquisition. The priest replying in the
affirmative, Cano said, “Senor Licenciado, go your way, and do not
trouble yourself to call again; for the priest who administers the
sacraments to the Jews shall not administer them to me.” Accordingly he
sent for the priest of the parish of St. Andrew. This last, however,
gave offence in another form; he put into the artist’s hands a crucifix
of indifferent execution, when Cano desired him to take it away. The
priest was so shocked at this, that he thought him possessed, and was at
the point of exorcising him. “My son,” he said, “what dost thou mean?
this is the Lord who redeemed thee, and who must save thee.”--“I know
that well,” replied Cano, “but do you want to provoke me with that
wretched thing, so as to give me over to the devil? let me have a
simple cross, for with that I can reverence Christ in faith; I can
worship him as he is in himself, and as I contemplate him in my own
mind.” This was accordingly done, so that the artist was no longer
troubled by an indifferent specimen of sculpture.
RIBALTA’S MARRIAGE.
Francisco Ribalta, an eminent Spanish painter, studied first in
Valencia, where he fell in love with the daughter of his instructor. The
father refused his consent to the marriage; but the daughter promised to
wait for her lover while he studied in Italy. Ribalta accordingly went
thither and devoted himself to his art, studying particularly the works
of Raffaelle and the Caracci, and returned, after a considerable time,
to his native country. Quickened by love, he had attained a high degree
of excellence. On arriving at the city of Valencia, he went to the house
of his beloved, who meanwhile had proved faithful; and her father being
away from home, he finished the sketch of a picture in his studio, in
his mistress’ presence, and left it to produce its effect upon the
hitherto inflexible parent. The latter, on returning, asked his daughter
who had been there, adding, with a look at the picture, “This is the man
to whom I would marry thee, and not to that dauber, Ribalta.” The
marriage of course took place, immediately; and the fame of Ribalta soon
procured him abundant employment.
APARICIO, CANOVA, AND THORWALDSEN.
Aparicio, a Spanish painter who died in 1838, possessed little merit,
but great vanity. Among other works, he painted the Ransoming of 1700
slaves at Algiers, which occurred in 1768, by order of Charles III. When
the picture was exhibited at Rome, Canova, who knew the man, told
Aparicio, “This is the finest thing in the world, and you are the first
of painters.” Soon after, Thorwaldsen came in and ventured a critique,
whereupon the Don indignantly quoted Canova. “Sir, he has been laughing
at you,” said the honest Dane, to whom Aparicio never spoke again.
BARTOLOME ESTEBAN MURILLO.