unsubjective; that he had no master and was contemptuous of all rules.
Originality and independence could go no further, and it may be admitted
that he was intolerant of outside influence. But the spark of genius
must be fanned into flame by the magnetic influence of example, and
while Goya studied nature with a passionate and jealous devotion, he
glories in the debt he owes to Rembrandt and Velazquez. ‘I have had
three masters,’ he wrote to a literary friend, ‘Nature, Velazquez, and
Rembrandt.’ Some have tried to recognise in him a disciple of Tiepolo,
and his study of the aquafortis engravings of the Venetian may well have
suggested his adoption of that so long neglected method of engraving,
but as we should expect, he preserved an independent attitude of mind
and developed a manner quite different from that of Tiepolo. There is no
evidence, in his engravings, of any admiration for Tiepolo’s style, but
his admiration of Rembrandt was as sincere as was his devotion to
Velazquez. Gautier finds that Goya’s work reminds one of Velazquez and
Rembrandt, ‘as a son reminds you of his ancestors, without any servile
imitation--or rather, more by certain congeniality of taste than by any
formal wish.’ ‘Goya’s love for the old masters,’ says Lafond, ‘is the
best proof one can give of his sincerity. He did not think of inventing
new processes; conscious that the same language is capable of a variety
of expressions, he was content to master the technique of the past and
to borrow from it all that best suited his individuality.’ But what he
borrowed he moulded and modified to suit his own purposes; translating
it into a language which was his own and in the process enlarging it
with new and further life.
In 1779 Goya presented to the King his plates after the pictures of
Velazquez. This series, which consisted of the portraits of Philip III.,
Philip IV., Margaret of Austria, Isabella of Bourbon, Prince Baltasar
Carlos, the Count-Duke of Olivarez, and other etchings, are faithful
though not inspired copies of the master. Goya wrote to Zapater that he
had had the honour of being received by his Majesty and family when he
submitted the plates for their inspection, and he adds, ‘I could not
have wished them to be more pleased than they showed themselves to be on
seeing them.’
Herr Valerian von Loga, who has an intimate acquaintance with and
profound knowledge of Goya’s etchings and lithographs, has just
published in Berlin a series of thirty-two reproductions of the rarest
examples of the painter’s work in these media. The explanatory notes
which accompany the plates are of great interest both to the student and
the collector. This writer assumes that José del Castillo, who worked
with Goya for the tapestry factory of Santa Bárbara, urged him to devote
some of his restless activity to the etching needle. He holds that in
his earlier attempts, and particularly in ‘The Flight into Egypt,’ the
technique reminds one of Tiepolo. This etching is the work of an
apprentice hand, and while it is not devoid of charm, it runs on bad
lines. Goya’s acquaintance with the fundamental rules of etching was so
imperfect that, in the first prints of his ‘St. Francisco de Paula,’ the
inscription C. A. R. J. appears turned the wrong way. It is the opinion
of Herr Valerian von Loga that in almost all the plates executed at this
period there is a certain emptiness and unsteadiness of drawing, while
the unsuccessful handling of light and shade betrays the work of the
beginner, but ‘what is new and original, and above all, characteristic
of Goya, is the manner in which the whole is worked out according to
the painter’s mode of working. We see the artist taking pains, not to
give form to the things themselves, but to their appearance. On this
account outlines are omitted and contours left open, and there are no
regularly-growing, flowing lines, while parallel and crossing strokes
are rare. The dark surfaces are composed of a great number of short,
chopped-off strokes; the entire workmanship is nervous and undecided. It
is clear here that the ability of the artist was far behind the
good-will, and at times too his inspiration was insufficient.’
In his copies of Velazquez Goya appears to have been the first to
introduce into Spain Le Prince’s ten-year-old process of aquatinta, a
process which in later times he developed to the highest perfection. In
1779 he brought out an etching from one of his own designs for the
tapestry factory. His work so pleased the Prince of the Asturias, for
whom it was executed, that the painter is credited with an intention of
publishing all his Santa Bárbara pictures as etchings. But his growing
popularity as a portrait painter now claimed his activities for more
remunerative work, and for more than ten years he laid aside the etching
needle in favour of the brush.
We learn from a memorial preserved in the Palace Archives that the
graciousness of his reception, the success of his tapestry designs, and
the admiration that Charles III. had expressed for his two religious
studies of ‘Christ Crucified’ and of ‘St. Francis,’ emboldened the
artist to proffer himself for the position of Court Painter. This honour
was denied, but he was elected a member of the Académia de San Fernando.
On January 24, 1781, Goya left Madrid for Zaragoza to assist in the
redecoration of the Church del Pilar under the direction of his
brother-in-law, Francisco Bayeu. The dissensions which arose out of this
commission between Bayeu and Goya, and between Goya and the Building
Committee, were bitter and prolonged. It is not likely that the
biographers of Goya, without the facts of the dispute to guide them to a
correct conclusion, would display much sympathy with a conventional,
mediocre painter like Bayeu, or so nebulous a body as an archbishop’s
chapter, and Zapater and Cruzada have revealed their hero in the light
of a persecuted, long-suffering martyr. The vanity and envy of Bayeu and
the wilful obstinacy of the Building Committee in their support of the
older artist they hold to have been at the bottom of the matter. But
the Conde de la Viñaza has exhumed the hard facts in the archives of the
Pilar Cathedral, and from these it is now clear that the indomitable
independence of Goya’s nature and his impetuous intolerance of all
restriction have not been taken sufficiently into account by his
biographers.
From the documents which Viñaza has brought to light we learn that the
frescoes which Bayeu completed in the Pilar Church, in 1776, gave so
much satisfaction to the authorities that they agreed to the artist’s
terms for painting the round vaults and cupolas of the church. Four
years later, when the Building Committee were getting impatient for the
work to be put in hand, they granted Bayeu permission to engage his
brother Ramon and his brother-in-law Goya to assist in the execution of
the designs which he had already prepared. On October 5, 1780, Ramon
Bayeu and Goya presented these designs for the vaults. The Committee
found that they were ‘inspired by the greatest taste’ and decided to
proceed at once with the work. It may be assumed that Francisco Bayeu
arrived shortly after to supervise the operations of his assistants, and
it was not long before the disagreements between Goya and his
brother-in-law commenced. On December 14 Bayeu complained that Goya
would not be subject to correction in the manner of his painting, and he
asked the Committee that he might be relieved of his responsibility in
the direction of the work, in so far as Goya was concerned. We read that
‘the Committee, taking into account that Goya had come to paint, owing
in a great measure to the pressure and eulogy of Bayeu in his letters,
agreed that the Building Director (Canon Allué) should see Goya and his
painting frequently, and mention any defects he might notice and impress
upon him how grateful he ought to be for the good offices of D.
Francisco Bayeu in engaging him as his assistant.’
Although it is evident that Goya was already in revolt against the
supervision which he had accepted as a condition of his employment, the
trouble was temporarily overborne. From this we may conclude that the
good Allué did not insist too much upon the gratitude which Goya owed to
his brother-in-law. By February Goya had completed the painting of the
dome, and he then submitted his studies for the four triangles formed by
the arches supporting it. It would appear that the public had expressed
their dissatisfaction with Goya’s compositions in the dome, and the
Committee complained that not only were these new designs marked by
similar defects of ‘drapery, colouring, and idea,’ but one of the
figures represented came short of the standard of chastity that was
required in pictures of this kind. The Committee, ‘fearing to expose
themselves to fresh censure and an accusation of negligence and want of
care, put this matter, by reason of the confidence he had won from the
Committee and from the whole chapter, under the direction and in the
hands of D. Francisco Bayeu, hoping that he will take the trouble to see
these studies and say whether the observations of the Committee are just
in deciding that the triangles be painted in such a way that they may be
shown to the public without fear of criticism.’ But when this resolution
of the Committee was communicated to Bayeu, he retaliated with a tirade
upon his offended dignity, and we find Allué appealing to Goya to ‘see
if there be any way of arranging the matter, knowing that the Committee
desire harmony, and do not wish to expose their conduct to censure, but
desire only that the work be skilful and perfect.’
To this appeal Goya returned what we may describe as a characteristic
letter. This epistle has been published in Spain, but no translation
has hitherto appeared in England. The letter is as follows:--
MEMORIAL OF GOYA TO THE BUILDING COMMITTEE.
D. Francisco de Goya, Member of the Royal Academy of San Fernando,
respectfully shows: That after having put the works of his
profession before the public, namely, the paintings just unveiled
at the Church of Our Lady of Pilar, his attention had been called
to the opinions he hears expressed, containing a criticism prompted
by a principle other than that of justice, or governed by the
authorised rules of art, which only should form the opinion
regarding the work; and although he cannot believe that ill-meant
prejudice has gained access to your rectitude, or that you could be
led away by impulses little in accord with reason; yet the honour
of a professor is a very delicate thing; opinion is what sustains
him, all his subsistence depends on his reputation, and when that
is obscured by even a light shadow, his fortune is gone; therefore
Nature warns him to take care of it by using all the defences
within his reach, and to omit the least would be to gain a slight
advantage by abandoning the greatest treasure the Creator had
entrusted to him.
These principles, accompanied by a sense of wounded honour, the
expositor hopes his explanation will make evident to your
benignity.
D. Francisco Bayeu asked that the work in the domes might be done
by his brother and the expositor, but it was on the understanding
that the latter should do one of the parts by himself, as Bayeu
himself agreed, considering that the degree of an honoured member
of the San Fernando Academy, acquired by the work which had won
great renown for him in Madrid, in addition to the work for H.M.,
would not admit of his absolute subordination to another professor
without detriment to his honour. The expositor might be wrong in
this, but his error would have the approbation of D. Francisco
Bayeu himself, who agreed to it, and was a trustworthy witness of
the success that might be expected; and also that of the chief
Presbyter Allué, to whom through some people in the city he had
manifested the same opinion, to which he agreed.
The expositor feeling sure of said promises, with all good faith in
them, proceeded with the Study or Design, and as he wished to be on
good terms with D. Francisco Bayeu he took it to him, and received
his entire approval: he came with him to this city: he began his
work by consulting him regarding the place where the principal
façade should be put; the expositor gave way to Bayeu’s opinion. He
presented the design to you, who approved them; and in executing
them he has only enlarged them.
Taking into consideration these harmonious dealings of the
supplicant with D. Francisco Bayeu, which created no motive for
resentment, and were governed by the principles and rules
prescribed in the first and only conversations regarding the
matter, who could think that the expositor had been wanting in
respect to Bayeu? There are those who think so, because when the
work was well in hand, they wished to make him understand that the
agreement with Bayeu was that he should interfere as much as he
liked with the expositor’s work, and that the latter should obey
him as a subordinate in execution, placing of figures, style,
colouring, and so forth; in a word make him a mere executor and
mercenary subordinate; but as this was in direct opposition to what
had been agreed, it would have been discreditable to his honour to
yield, as he would be losing what his merit had won for him, and he
could not therefore so humiliate himself, for he knew that the
previous offices were sufficient, and that similar ones if
continued would not make them anything but his own production. D.
Francisco Bayeu’s warning to you that he would not be responsible
for his part of the work, only shows that his object was to create
a want of confidence that should cause coercion to be exercised,
which was justly resisted, for doubt as to skill and success sat
ill on D. Francisco, who knew quite well of the honours acquired by
the expositor in Madrid, both from the Royalties and from all who
had seen his productions, all executed by himself without the
slightest direction from any one.
After this, things were artfully circulated against the conduct of
the expositor, concerning his temper, proceedings and dealings with
Bayeu, he being accused of hauteur, pride and stubbornness.
Thereafter malice prepared the blow, long premeditated, of first
creating personal disaffection, and then disaffection with his
work; as shown by the reception of his work in the dome of the
Cathedral of Our Lady. The criticism passed by some persons can
only be attributed to this, because all its merit is unobserved and
only the defects suggested by caprice or ignorance are sought.
He has suffered with resignation the insults to his honour, he has
had the patience to see that the same Bayeu who impaired his credit
with insinuating words, and the deceitful complaint that he was
responsible for the success of the work, and that he would have to
give an account of the confidence placed in him, and that the
supplicant was depriving him of this satisfaction because he would
not allow him to correct or alter his productions; on other
occasions defended the expositor, exalting his merit, acknowledging
his skill and the correctness of his painting.
The insinuations of Bayeu have led to the conclusion that the
expositor came to this city as a mere subordinate of his, and that
notwithstanding this absolute dependence, his proud spirit would
not submit to asking for instructions from D. Francisco, even on
the ground of friendship and relationship. Two entirely false
propositions, which are the cause of all the supplicant’s trouble,
because regarding the first he has already told you about the
agreements that preceded his coming to Zaragoza, and regarding this
and the second, D. Francisco Bayeu cannot deny that, as the result
of those agreements, the expositor executed the studies and designs
in Madrid, showed them to him, received his approval, and no fault
was found. The studies are the complete work, with the same
figures, colouring and arrangement to be observed, and the work
itself an entire copy of them; and if they passed his examination
in Madrid as an act of condescension on the part of the supplicant,
emanating from his desire for peace, why, if as he says he was
responsible, did he not then point out the defects he might have
noted? He did not do so; then what is to be inferred from his
having concealed them, if he noticed them? Obviously, and no
dissimulating artifice can hide this, it may be gathered that his
object was for the expositor to be in error, receive indignant
public censure, and lose all the merit and status won by his work.
But not wishing to believe such malevolence, because other proofs
would be required of it, it must be admitted either that he found
no defects in the studies or designs, and therefore the painting on
the dome, which is the same, has none, or that D. Francisco was
most culpable who, knowing of them, said nothing and allowed them
to be copied.
The expositor has never departed from that friendly subordination,
nor attempted to oppose D. Francisco Bayeu with the proud spirit of
which he is accused; a proof of this is what has been said about
the designs; another, the placing of the principal façade; and,
lastly, the many visits he paid him at his own house, even though
they were not returned. On being informed that the Chapter wished
Bayeu to inspect the work on the dome, he arranged for him to do
so, which he did, accompanied by the chief Presbyter Allué, and in
his presence admitted and acknowledged the perfection of the work,
saying that what he had been informed was not true; he also saw the
designs for the triangles, and approved of them.
In face of all this, the expositor finds that the same bitter
opposition which he had thought would cease, still continued,
because the sense of truth may be suspended but not extinguished,
but seeing that there is no hope of staying the torrent of
provocations that insult his honour and fame, and that an honoured
professor cannot stand for ever against the opposition of his
enemies, whose only object is to work him ill; notwithstanding that
he thought he must finish the work on the triangles, he has at last
been undeceived by the letter which the chief Presbyter Allué had
just sent to him, of which he sends you a complete copy. After the
calumnies he has had to endure, the slights and contempt with which
he is treated will not permit him to continue to expose himself to
some greater misfortune. He now humbly shows, and at the same time
sets forth that he has heard that some figures were to be altered
in the dome, and although the expositor cannot be sure that you
will allow yourselves to be guided by the declamatory voice of the
ignorant public, or the opinion of rivals, the right he has to
defend his honour leads him to forestall you. Before a daub is put
in the Church that will obscure and deprive it of merit, and leave
a permanent witness of the ignorance which is a reproach: which is
now the only thing in the matter that interests him, and regarding
which he appeals to you--because the will of the owner in his own
house does not let go the reins of liberty to such an extent,
merely in order to exercise his authority, as to permit without
cause, and quite uselessly, great detriment to another on a point
so delicate as honour--the expositor thinks the best way to appease
the want of confidence he presumes in others and to assert his own
opinion, is that a person expert in the art, authorised in his
profession, and whose opinion would be impartial, should minutely
inspect the work, and when his criticism detects his unskilfulness
and error, or testifies to his sufficiency and skill, he will watch
with indifference any mutilations executed. Therefore he humbly
begs that you will arrange for the work in the dome to be seen by
one of the members of the San Fernando Academy, one of the most
renowned, as D. Mariano Maëlla or D. Antonio Velazquez, at the
expense of the expositor, and after careful inspection his
declaration be accepted as testimony.--Zaragoza, March 17, 1781.
FRANCISCO DE GOYA.
Upon the receipt of this letter, which may be left to speak for itself,
the worthy and sorely tried Allué seems to have invited the mediation of
Father Salzedo, who was, perhaps, the only man to whom the irascible
Goya might be expected to listen. Salzedo wrote the painter a long,
earnest epistle, in which he appealed to his better judgment and
prudence, cited instances of humility in the life of Christ for his
guidance, and demonstrated the practical advantages that would be
derived from doing his work to the satisfaction of the Building
Committee. The good father did not hesitate to tell his friend that he
had taken up a wrong attitude towards his brother-in-law and the
Cathedral authorities, and plainly exhorted him ‘with all generosity and
Christian charity, to submit your studies to Bayeu’s opinion, in order
to please God by your humility, edify the public, and give pleasure to
your friends.’ And he adds in conclusion: ‘My dictum, as your greatest
admirer, is that you submit to the demands of the Committee, have your
studies taken to your brother’s house, and say to him in the best manner
possible: This is required by the Chapter--here they are; examine them
to your satisfaction, and put your opinion in writing, doing this as God
and your conscience shall dictate, etc. And then await the result.’
The foregoing letter was dated March 30, 1781. On April 6, Goya wrote a
conciliatory note to Allué, promising to make fresh studies in
consultation with Bayeu. Eleven days later the Committee approved the
new designs and expressed their pleasure at finding him reconciled to
his brother-in-law. But the truce, for such one supposes it to have
been, did not last. From a minute in the report of the Building
Committee’s proceedings on May 28, it is recorded that Goya, in a ‘not
very courteous’ manner, had told Allué that he was only losing his
reputation in Zaragoza and desired permission to return to Madrid as
soon as possible: ‘The Committee resenting this further affront,
resolved: First, that the Professor be paid for his painting. Second,
that under no circumstances would he be permitted to continue to paint
any more in this Church, but that this need not deter the Director from
giving some medals to his wife, in virtue of her being the sister of D.
Francisco Bayeu, who was so worthy of this and other considerations from
the Committee, by reason of his skilful work in this church.’
The source of the trouble was the failure of the Committee to accept
Goya at his own estimate, which was certainly the true one, as the
superior of Bayeu. The young painter doubtless did his best to follow
the advice of Father Salzedo, but he wore the robes of humility with a
bad grace, and was impatient of ignorant and pedantic criticism. His
position had become untenable. The painter received his payment, his
wife accepted her medals, and they left Zaragoza for Madrid in June
1781.
Goya was indulging no empty boast when he intimated, in his memorial to
the Building Committee, that his renown in Madrid was widely
acknowledged. He was no sooner back in the capital than the Conde de
Florida Blanca sent him a royal order to paint one of the pictures for
the Church of San Francisco el Grande. The favoured minister also
presented him to the Infante don Luis, the brother of the King and
husband of Maria Teresa Vallabriga, who at once conceived a great liking
for the painter. He spent a month at the palace of Arenas de San Pedro,
and was entertained with great hospitality, while he executed portraits
of the Infante’s family. He also painted for the Consejo de las Ordenes
several devotional pictures for the Calatrava College at the Salamanca
University. In his leisure hours he worked at his picture in the Church
of St. Francis. This work was not completed until November 1784. The
pictures were ceremoniously unveiled on the 8th of December, in the
presence of the King and his court. The occasion was a triumph for Goya.
Other pictures had been painted by Bayeu, Mariano Maëlla, Gregorio
Farro, Antonio Velazquez, Joseph del Castillo, and Andres Calleja. But
their work was eclipsed by the composition in which the magic brush of
the Aragonese represented San Bernardino de Siena. The saint is shown
with a crucifix in his hand, standing on a rock, preaching, by the light
of a brilliant star, to the wonder-filled King Alfonso of Aragon and his
court.