Part 15

The author cannot close this too lengthy article without citing the Life of the Virgin written by Maria de Agreda, whose absurd and blasphemous vagaries were “swallowed whole” by the Spanish nation--an unanswerable proof and a fitting result of the blight inflicted by Jesuitism and the Inquisition. Bayle says, “the only wonder is, that the Sorbonne confined itself to saying that her proposition was false, rash, and contrary to the doctrines of the Gospel, when she taught that God gave the Virgin all he could, and that he could give her all his own attributes, except the essence of the Godhead.” The condemnation of Maria de Agreda’s Life of the Virgin was not carried in the Sorbonne without the greatest opposition and tumult. The book was censured at Rome, notwithstanding all the efforts of the Spanish ambassador. The Spanish feeling, with reference to the Virgin, and more particularly to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, went far beyond the rest of Papal Europe; it was impossible for the Pope and the French Church to sanction at once the absurdities that Spain was quite ready to adopt. (See Sir Edmund Head’s Hand-Book of the History of the Spanish and French Schools of Painting.)

A MELANCHOLY PICTURE OF THE STATE OF THE FINE ARTS IN SPAIN.

A most interesting article on the present state of the fine arts in 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.