879004

8/17/2019 879004

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/879004 1/5

A Footnote on Goya and Reality

Author(s): Isadora Rose

Source: The Burlington Magazine , Vol. 119, No. 895 (Oct., 1977), pp. 712-715

Published by: Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/879004

Accessed: 17-05-2016 23:24 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted

digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about

JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Burlington Magazine

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.190 on Tue, 17 May 2016 23:24:49 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

8/17/2019 879004


SHORTER NOTCES

details (Fig. 58).2

Both are cabinet pictures, painted to be seen from close

quarters. Although a successful painter of fresco decorations, the

charm of Arpino's style is perhaps best appreciated in his work

on this more intimate scale. No doubt because of their popularity

he often made more than one version of his smaller pictures,

sometimes entrusting the task of their repetition to his studio.

Three lost versions of the Susanna are recorded: one, painted on

copper, formerly in the Massimi collection, Rome; another, the

material of whose support is not known, painted for the 'Emperor'

(Rudolf II?); and a third, also on copper and possibly identical

with one or other of the first two, formerly in the collection of

the Duc d'Orlkans.3 This last was taken to England in 1792

where it was sold on I4th February 18oo.4

The appearance is known of only one of the lost versions, that

formerly in the Orleans collection; it is reproduced in an engrav-

ing by Jacques Bouillard (Fig. 57) in a series of prints after pic-

tures in that collection, where it is shown in reverse to the

composition of the Stockport and Siena pictures.5 Since some of

the prints in the series are not in the same direction as the

paintings they reproduce, it seems safe to conclude that the

difference in direction was due to the engraver and not to

d'Arpino himself and that the Orlans picture would have

shared the sense of the two surviving versions.

Neither would the difference in size between the Stockport and

Orldans pictures preclude the possibility of their being con-

sidered as the same painting: the dimensions of the former are

43.4 by 33.8 cm., while those of the latter may be given as

approximately 51.4 by 40.5 cm. (calculated from the figures given

in the inscription of the print: 'de hauteur i Pied 7 Pouces, sur i Pied

3 Pouces de large'). The Stockport picture was apparently larger

and shows evidence of having been trimmed along all but the

bottom edge (which is smooth in contrast to the roughness of

the others), possibly to fit its present, late-seventeenth-century

frame. Originally the painting would have extended upwards

and to both sides to reveal the details - such as the upright

scroll supporting a grotesque head from whose mouth issues the

fountain of Susanna's bath- which appear at the extremities of

Bouillard's engraving. Before being cropped it would have been

about the same size as the Orlans picture.

However, what prevents these two pictures from being con-

sidered as one and the same are the differences between them of

certain details of design. In the Stockport picture Susanna wears

an earring, a piece of dark-green drapery appears behind the

white cushion on which she is seated, and a flower grows on the

creeper plant above her head. None of these appear in Bouillard's

engraving. In the Orleans picture there was a kneeling man

among the standing figures of the sculptured frieze who does not

appear in the corresponding passage in the Stockport version.

Since the new painting is not the Orleans picture, three

further possibilities remain: either it is an unrecorded version

or it is identical with the picture once in the Massimi collection

or with that once in the Imperial collection; but not enough is

known of these two to say which. The fact that its provenance

at this stage cannot accurately be traced will not detract from

our enjoyment of this very fine work of d'Arpino's maturity.

2 Rome, Palazzo Venezia, II Cavalier d'Arpino (exhibition catalogue by H.

ROTTGEN), Rome [1973], No.38. R6ttgen's critical comments about the style

and dating (c.I607) of the Siena picture are also applicable to the Stockport

picture. The Siena picture, which measures 52.8 by 37.1 cm., includes a glass

vase standing on the stone step to the bottom right; Susanna herself is partly

covered by a diaphanous robe.

3 Respectively: j. ORBAAN: Documenti sul Barocco in Roma, Rome [I920], p.516;

G. MANCINI: Considerazioni sulla Pittura (ed. MARUCCHI-SALERNO), Rome [1956],

Vol. I, p.239; A. DEZALLIER D'ARGENVILLE: Abreg6 de la vie des plus fameux

peintres, 2nd ed., Paris t1762], p.329. These three versions together with their

references are cited in a different order by ROTTGEN, Oc. Cit.

4 G. WAAGEN: Treasures of Art in Great Britain, London, Vol. II [1854], p.489.

r ABBA DE FONTENAI: Galerie du Palais Royal, 6e livraison, Paris [1786].

A Footnote on Goya and Reality

BY ISADORA ROSE

THAT Goya found artistic inspiration in the events and concepts

of his day is a generally accepted fact. It is precisely through the

art of Goya that we are so readily able to empathize with the

Spanish realities of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth

centuries. Over the years, numerous scholars have attempted to

pinpoint Goya's specific sources, whenever there has seemed to

be a correlation between his visual statements and contemporary

political occurrences, enlightenment philosophy and literature.'

I would here like to attempt to make a small addition to the

possible links between Goya's graphic descriptions and real

events.

In the Archivo Histdrico Nacional, Madrid, Seccio'n de Hacienda,

Legajo 3580, containing documents pertaining to the confisca-

tion of the properties of Don Manuel Godoy, there exists a

detailed description of certain street incidents which took place

in the Calle del Barquillo, Madrid, in front of one of the Prime

Minister's houses on i9th March i8o8, in relation to his fall from

power in Aranjuez on the 17th. The lines of this official report

which are relevant for us are as follows:

'Diligencia de lo ocurrido en la tarde de este dia.

Asimismo doy fe que en la tarde de este dia volvio S.S. a la Casa del

Barquillo a la continuacido'n de diligencias de su Comision, en ocasi n que

se encontr6 innumerable gente en la plaza que antecede, y un hombre

puesto en una escalera de mano intentando arrancar la piedra en mdrmol

que se hallaba en la esquina del frente y pared del Convento del Carmen

Descalzo que decia: Plaza del Almirante; y c6mo la gente auxiliaba a

aquel hombre ddndole de beber[,] aplaudiendo aquel malhecho[r] que

continu 6 en la operaci6n con un instrumento a modo de piqueta, no se

determind impedirselo S.S. ni el Sefor Alcalde de Casa y Corte Don

Diego Gil Ferndndez para evitar mayores dafos, y siendo ya muy

avanzada la tarde logrc arrancar la piedra de su lugar e inmediatemente

toda la turba de gente camind con ella hacia la Calle de Alcald . . .,2

The document is stamped with the official royal seal of Carlos IV

for the year 1i8o8 and is signed '. . . en Madrid a diez y nueve de

Marzo de mil ochocientos ocho' by Francisco Quintero and Antonio

Guerra.

The work by Goya which this account evokes is the drawing

from Album E, Number i9, dated by Pierre Gassier as belonging

to the period I8o6-I2," and entitled by Goya himself as 'No sabe

lo que hace' (today in the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin-Dahlem)

Fig. 61).

While certain elements of the above description of events

coincide with the drawing completely, others do not. It may not

be too unreasonable to suggest that Goya was inspired by the

* I would like to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to Professor Xavier de

Salas, who, with his many obligations at the Prado Museum, still manages to

find the time to encourage and generously help his doctoral students at the

University of Madrid.

1 For example: ELEANOR S. FONT: 'Goya's Source for the Maragato Series,'

Gazette des Beaux-Arts LII [November I958], 289-304. NIGEL GLENDINNING:

'Goya and Arriaza's Profecia del Pirineo,' Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld

Institutes XXVI [1963], 363-66. EDITH HELMAN: Trasmundo de Goya, Madrid

[19631-]. Jos LOPEZ REY: Goya's Caprichos, Beauty, Reason and Caricature, 2 vols.

Princeton [19531-].

2 Spelling and punctuation have been modernized.

3 PIERRE GASSIER: Dibujos de Goya. Los Albumes, Barcelona [1973], p.213.

7 13


8/17/2019 879004


6 I

61. 'No sabe lo que hace', by Francisco de

Goya. Drawing, Album E, No.19.

c. 18o6-I2. (Kupferstichkabinett,

Berlin-Dah-lem).

62. 'Populacho', by Francisco de Goya.

Etching from Desastres de la Guerra,

No.28. c.18I4-2o.

63. 'Populacho', by Francisco de Goya.

Drawing for Desastres de la Guerra,

No.28. (Museo del Prado, Madrid).

64. 'Lo merecia', by Francisco de Goya.

Etching from Desastres de la Guerra,

No.29. c.I814-2o.

i

6 3 i i ~ ~ i i i i i i i ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i i i ~ i i i i ~ i i i i i i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ i i i i ~ ~ ~ i ~ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ~ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

i ~i i i i i i i , i i i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i i : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ii~ii,,iiiiiii ii i~i ii~ : :~i i ':: :: ~ iiii iii ii~ iiii i i~~ i i~~i iiiiiiiiiii iii " :iiiiiiiiii?V:: ii

i~ iit i xi

i

i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - A . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .l , i i i i . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .

............. 41... ..,

i::i:::e : iii i i ii :iii : i '4 i :: i.. .

iiiii:iiN

os


8/17/2019 879004


SHORTER NOTCES

facts in themselves but then chose to subtract and add details

which would convert literal reality into a more legible universal

image and message.

Similarities exist in the very concrete details of the small

ladder and pick employed by a self-assured, perhaps somewhat

inebriated worker. One difference consists in the fact that the

individual is seen alone as opposed to being surrounded by a

large, encouraging crowd. The most significant variation is, of

course, the fact that the workman is destroying a classical female

statue (an allegorical depiction of Liberty?, Truth?, Justice?,

Harmony?, Order?), rather than a mere block of marble with

an inscription reading 'Plaza del Almirante' (Godoy had been

appointed 'Gran Almirante' on I3th January 1807).

This digression from the original event can be explained as

an attempt to generalize and philosophize on a specific occur-

rence, rather than record it graphically. Nevertheless, in spite

of these variations, the message of wilful, hate-inspired, irra-

tional, negative, and blind destruction is conveyed by both the

drawing and the specific description of an event which we now

know took place in Madrid immediately following the fall from

power of the generally despised and envied Prince of Peace.

Pierre Gassier interprets the drawing as being essentially a

symbol of 'blind vandalism':

'Este hombre que parece medio borracho podria personficar, sencilla-

mente, la ignorancia del pueblo, el vandalismo ciego que destruye una obra

de arte sin saber porqui . . . 4

He rejects F. D. Klingender's interpretation of the drawing as

'.. el simbolo de la ciega reacci dn de 1814, destruyendo la estatua de la

libertad,' saying that this '. . . interpretacidn politica, unida a la

vuelta al trono de Fernando VII, no convence enteramente.'5

If we accept Gassier's dating of Album E as from the period

i8o6-I2, then the relationship between the drawing and the

events of 1814 is totally impossible. On the other hand, Gassier's

non-political, more literal, and art-conscious reading of the

drawing is likewise not completely convincing, although he

notes its highly realistic quality.6 In a certain sense, Klingender's

intuition that the drawing could have been related to a real

event seems to come closer to the truth, even if he was not able

to identify the incident.7

If we ponder Goya's caption of 'No sabe lo que hace,' perhaps we

can theorize on some sort of partially hidden political statement

related to the uprising of Aranjuez. While on a popular level,

the deposition of Godoy, the abdication of Carlos IV, and the

proclamation of Fernando VII were widely acclaimed, these

events proved to be only the first in a disastrous chain of occur-

rences in relation to Napoleon and the French. Therefore, the

shortsightedness of the masses, their wild pleasure in the fall of

one tyrant (Godoy), their total blindness to the true significance

of political incidents, and the new tyrant soon to appear (Napo-

leon), can be elements of purposely obscured political content in

the drawing and its caption. If this was Goya's intention, then

perhaps the drawing can be interpreted as symbolizing the

Spaniard's unenlightened abetting of the destruction of their

own freedom.

Finally, even if we were to discard all other considerations,

the fact remains that we have three very substantial and verbatim

elements which link the drawing to a documented event: the

ladder, the pick, and the probably inebriated worker.

The second possible correlation I would like to suggest is

between an event recounted by Mesonero Romanos in his

Memorias de un Setenton and two of the etchings from Goya's

series of the Desastres de la Guerra.

Mesonero tells us that after the Spanish victory at the Battle

of Bail6n (I9th July 18o8), the French troops abandoned

Madrid for a few months It was then that the Madrilenians

took their revenge on those who:

...se habian adherido d la causa francesa: entre ellas la mds setalada

y vituperable fue' el bdrbaro asesinato cometido en la persona del ex-inten-

dente de La Habana D. Luis Viguri, grande amigo que suponian de

Godoy, d quien arrastraron inhumanamente por las calles de Madrid,

estableciendo un precedente que la gente aviesa se complacia en liamar

La Viguriana, amenazando con igual suerte d todos los que calificaba

de traidores. 8

Further confirmation of the rather shocking nature of this

event is found in a letter from the British art agent, Mr Wallis,

in Madrid at the time. On 5th August I8o8, he wrote to his

employer, the London art dealer Mr Buchanan:

'The times have been so dangerous to personal safety, that I

expected every minute to be destroyed. Two days past, in going

to examine a fine picture of Rubens in Madrid, I met the

populace armed, dragging the naked body of the president of

the Havanna, with a cord round his neck, crying death to all

traitors - long live Ferdinand the Seventh.'9

The two consecutive prints in the Desastres which represent

a man being dragged through the streets and mercilessly beaten

by an irrational mob are No.28 - Populacho (Figs. 62-63), and No.

29 - Lo Merecia (Fig. 64). These two etchings are usually consi-

dered to form part of the group called the 'Caprichos Enfdticos'10

within the Desastres series, that is, various images which are less

reportorial and more obscure than the majority of the prints, and

which perhaps contain partially submerged political significances.

TomAs Harris reasonably suggested that 'Plates 28 and 29

probably represent scenes of reprisal by the Spanish people

against the French troops and should probably be dated around

1814.'11 Pierre Gassier diverges only slightly from Harris's

commentary, saying that the assassinated man is probably an

'afrancesado', rather than a French soldier.12 Nevertheless, if the

Viguri incident was as well known as Mesonero Romanos

relates, and Mr Wallis verifies, then the mere suggestion of an

individual being tortured and executed in this manner would

have had immediate significance for Goya's contemporaries

without his having to have made any specific references to 'La

Viguriana' in its original or subsequent variations when writing

his captions for the prints.13

What seems to be clear from both of the above relationships

between documented events and Goya's drawings and graphic

work is that while Goya may not have literally reproduced

reality, he did borrow certain elements of content from the popu-

lar occurrences of his day, and recreated them in order to express

his own more universal concepts of ignorance, irrationality,

brutality, cruelty and hatred.

* I4bid., p.213.

5 Ibid., p.213.

6 Ibid., p.I169.

7 F. D. KLINGENDER: Goya in the Democratic Tradition, New York [1968], p.195.

8 MESONERO ROMANOS: Memorias de un Setentdn, Madrid [I188O], p.51.

9 w. BUCHANAN: Memoirs of Painting with a Chronological History of the Importation

of Pictures by the Great Masters Into England Since the French Revolution, 2 vols.

London [1824], Vol II, p.219.

10 TOMAS HARRIS: Goya Engravings and Lithographs, 2 vols. Oxford [1964], Vol. II,

pp.220o-21.

" Ibid., Vol. I, p.I47.

12 PIERRE GASSIER: Dibujos de Goya. Estudios para Grabados y Pinturas, Barcelona

[19751], p.242. Gassier further remarks (p.243), that the preparatory drawings

for Desastres 28 and 29 '. . . constituyen una especie de reportaje fotogrdfico de una

misma escena a la que Goya probablemente asistid.'

18 ENRIQUE LAFUENTE FERRARI, in his book Los Desastres de la Guerra de Goya y

sus dibujos preparatorios, Barcelona [1952], p.155, rejects the possibility of

714


8/17/2019 879004


Letters

Roman Drawings for Goldsmiths' work

SIR, In his perceptive article 'Roman Drawings for Goldsmiths'

Work in the Victoria and Albert Museum' (THE BURLINGTON

MAGAZINE, June 1977, pp-412-20) J. F. Hayward writes about the

altar service of cross and pair of candlesticks, presented by

Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to St Peter's in 1581, that 'the date

of commission is not recorded' but that it was completed in 158 I

by Antonio Gentile da Faenza.1 The striking 'similarities'

between the Cassetta Farnese and the altar service suggest to

Mr Hayward that the Cassetta and the altar service 'might have

been designed by the same master'. On the other hand, the

Cassetta was, as he points out, commissioned in or before I548

and completed by Sebastiano di Sbarri, otherwise known as

Manno Fiorentino' (p.415), a goldsmith who 'is known to have

executed other orders for Cardinal Farnese between 1554 and

1561, among them a cross and several candlesticks but none of

these survive' (p.419).

In my note 'Antonio Gentili or Manno Sbarri?' which

apparently escaped Mr Hayward's attention, I tried to give an

answer to this question.2 The cross and candlesticks com-

missioned to Manno were in 1574 still 'alquantulum imperfecta'

according to a last will of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese of that

year.3 After Manno's death they were obviously turned over to

Antonio Gentile, to be completed in 1581. In other words,

Manno s cross and candlesticks do survive.

This course of events seems to be borne out by the interesting

drawing in the Cooper-Hewett Museum, published and attri-

buted to Gentile by Rudolf Berliner.4 The sheet shows the

'slaves' and the rock crystal plates at the base of the cross as

they were handed over to Antonio Gentile and as they appear

on the executed cross, whereas the volutes over the slaves

differ considerably from the execution.

The dates, 1562, i566 and I571 on the drawings in the

Victoria and Albert Museum would seem to be quite compatible

with the history of the commission as reconstructed here. These

sheets may well be, as Mr Hayward suggests, 'preparatory

designs', recording the planning process in Manno's workshop.

Moreover, I think we can also establish the exact date of the

commission to Manno. In a letter to Cardinal Farnese of 28th

June I56 I he says that the Cardinal 'mi commesse che io dovessi

attendere alla Croce et alli Candelieri. Io ho dato ordine, et posso, ad

ogni hora che V. Ill.ma S. vorrd, cominciare a lavorare'.5 This evidently

implies that the commission predates the year 1561. Manno

seems indeed to have received the order much earlier; the

great silver cross, a gift of Charlemagne to St Peter's, 'anno

z551, tempore Julii Tertii ob magnam rerum penuriam in usus pios

sacrarii eiusdem basilicae a Manno Pisano aurifice conversa fuit in

calices, crucem, candelabros et statuas apostolorum Petri et Pauli'.6

Cardinal Alessandro Farnese was arciprete of St Peter's. This

explains why the silver from Charlemagne's cross passed into his

possession. (Did he also order the melting down in 1551 ?). He

turned the metal over to Manno who started working on the

candlesticks at the latest in 1559,1 but did not complete them.

After Manno s death the commission was transferred to Antonio

Gentile and completed in 1581. Thus Mr Hayward's 'theory of

a common design source for Cassetta and altar service gains

further support' from 'the features which they share' as well as

from the literary sources.

WOLFGANG LOTZ

Bibliotheca Hertziana

1 Incidentally, the Cross is signed Antonio Gentile Faentino F. . See F. s.

ORLANDI: II Tesoro di San Pietro, Milan [1958], p.86. For good illustrations of the

service, see ibidem, P1. 134-51.

2 The Art Bulletin, XXXIII [1195I], pp.26o-62.

3 According to C. v. Fabriczy Manno died 'intorno al 1571' (see 'Manno

Orefice Fiorentino', Archivio storico dell'Arte, VII [1894], p.149). However, pay-

ments to a 'mastro Manno orefwice' on 18th November and 12th December 1575

and his son 'Horatio Sari' (sic) on 3rd March 1576 seem to prove that he lived

longer. (See J. S. ACKERMAN and w. LOTZ: 'Vignoliana' in: Essays in Memory of

Karl Lehmann, Locust Valley [1964], p. 17.)

4 The Art Bulletin, XXXIII [1951], p.5i and Fig.i.

5 A. RONCHINI: 'Manno Orefice Fiorentino', Atti e Memorie delle R. R. Deputazioni

di Storia Patria per leprovincie modenesi eparmensi VII [1874], p.139; Mr Hayward's

reference is not quite correct.

6 See GIACOMO GRIMALDI: Descrizione della Basilica Vaticana di S. Pietro in Vaticano,

ed. RETO NIGGL, Vatican City [1972], p.144. As already noted by FABRICZY,

loc.cit., p.I5o, a slightly different version occurs in ANGELO ROCCA: De particula

ex pretioso et vivifico ligno sanctissimae crucis, Rome [I6o9], P-44f: 'Anno 1550 in

usus sacrarii basilicae conflatus et conversus in calices, in crucem altaris pulcherrimam

inauratem cum duobus candelabris magnis argenteis, quae a Manno pisano aurefice

egregio opere fabrefacta . . .'. Fabriczy certainly explains the epithet 'Pisano'

correctly by referring to Vasari's report of Manno's sojourn at Pisa: 'non si

conosceva a Roma la sua originefiorentina, ma invece si sapeva che vi era capitato da Pisa.'

7 NIGGL (see Note 6), p.144, quotes a late entry in the 'Liber bonorum sacrestiae

principis apostolorum de Urbe' of 1550: 'Candelieri doi grandi d'argento con figure di

rilievo, fatti l'anno 1559 per magistro Manni orefice Pesano.'

SHORTERNOTCES

Goya's having based Desastres 28 and 29 on any one specific case, citing

several similar occurrences which took place in various Spanish provinces.

Nevertheless, the very fact that the Viguri incident happened early in the war

period and in Madrid (where Goya resided), as well as Mesonero's indication

of the popular precedent set by the Viguri assassination, seem to point toward

Goya's at least having had the well-known 'La Viguriana' method in mind,

even if not the actual murder of Luis Viguri.

Tintoretto's Golden Calf

SIR, With reference to your Editorial in the August issue on the

restoration of the Madonna dell'Orto, at the risk of appearing

either naive or pedantic, may I point out that Tintoretto's

painting in this church commonly known as the 'Adoration of the

Golden Calf', is in fact The Making ofthe Golden Calf. Since cleaning

it has become quite apparent that the calf is made of clay and that

the jewels being laid before it are the raw material from which

it will be either cast or gilded and encrusted. To the right of the

calf, Aaron, holding calipers, is presumably discussing technical

problems and the whole of the foreground is indicative of work

and artistic interest rather than adoration of either the contem-

plative or frenzied variety. I hesitated to write to you on such a

relatively simple point but the recent and excellent publication by

Ashley Clarke and Philip Rylands about which you write with

enthusiasm in your Editorial perpetuates and indeed strengthens

the existing misconception by including in a caption the words

-'Detail of the Israelites bringing jewels to the ceremony' (p.70),

whereas in fact, they are simply bringing raw material as is

suggested in Exodus XXXII. 2. 3.

DAVID RODGERS

Curator, Wolverhampton Art Gallery and Museums

715

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.190 on Tue, 17 May 2016 23:24:49 UTCAll use subject to http://about jstor org/terms

Documents

879004