Umberger 1993 Velázquez and Naturalism I: Interpreting Los Borrachos

The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology

Velázquez and Naturalism I; Interpreting "Los Borrachos"Author(s): Emily UmbergerSource: RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 24 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 21-43Published by: The President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeThe President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeThePresident and Fellows of Harvard College acting through the Peabody Museum of Archaeology andEthnologyPeabody Museum of Archaeology and EthnologyPeabody Museum of Archaeology and EthnologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20166876Accessed: 14/10/2010 23:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pfhc.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The President and Fellows of Harvard College and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology arecollaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pfhc




http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pmae




http://www.jstor.org/stable/20166876?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Velazquez and naturalism I

Interpreting Los Borrachos

EMILY UMBERGER

In April 1622, Diego Velazquez left his native Seville, where he had achieved local fame as a

naturalistic painter of religious subjects, portraits, and

bodegones (genre scenes with food and figures), to seek a position in the newly formed court of Philip IV in

Madrid. He returned to Seville after portraying the poet Luis de G?ngora, but failing in his real purpose, which

was to paint the king. On the death of one of the court

artists, he was called back, and by the end of August 1623 he was given an opportunity to portray the

monarch. Pleased with the portrait, Philip appointed

Velazquez pintor del rey (painter of the king). As recent

studies emphasize, Velazquez had other supporters in

Madrid: his appointment to the court actually was

orchestrated by fellow Sevillians brought there with the

ascendancy in 1622 of the Count-Duke of Olivares as

the king's chief minister. His paintings would have also

been to the taste of a number of noble collectors in

Castile.1

Nevertheless, Velazquez faced serious challenges

during his early years in Madrid from another faction at

court, a group of conservative Italianate painters who were critical of his work and saw him as a competitive threat. These painters, while eschewing the extremes of

mannerism, perceived the radical naturalism that

Velazquez subscribed to as conflicting with values still

held from late-sixteenth-century Central Italian theory? the primacy of the intellectual concept and the

necessity of idealization. Moreover, they still

maintained a traditional hierarchy in which history

painting (a category including mythological and biblical

subjects) was exalted as the highest form, followed by the lesser pursuits of portraiture and genre subjects.

Paintings depicting low-life characters and practices were perceived as counter to the proper aims of art.

With Velazquez's appearance in the court, factions

polarized into those for and against the modern trend of

naturalism.2

At the same time, Velazquez was grappling with the

intellectual challenges of royal portraits and history

painting. Realizing the inadequacies of his previous mode of representation, he tried (among other things) traditional emblems, allegorical figures, and even

idealization.3 The most artificial of these devices soon

were rejected, but other experiments were to lead him, in the next decade, to a new and brilliant reconception

of painted reality, achieved principally through variations in brush strokes and ingeniously arranged

compositions.

Despite their centrality to Velazquez's development, little of the above complex of events and issues has

been considered as background to readings of the most

important and enigmatic painting surviving from the

period, Los Borrachos (fig. 1).4 One of Velazquez's rare

mythological depictions, Los Borrachos has received

relatively little scholarly attention. As Jos? Ortega y Gasset says, "these mythologies of Velazquez all have a

curious aspect to which, whether they admit it or no, art historians have not known how to react. They have

been called tentatively parodies or jests" (1972: 101).

Readings of Los Borrachos have varied especially on the

artist's expressive intentions as conveyed through the

faces of the protagonists. Humor is perceived, but

opinions have varied about the nature of the joke and to whom or against whom it was directed.

Interpretations have ranged from a perception of Los

Borrachos as a mockery or burlesque of the "false"

classical gods to its explication as a moralizing statement on drink and the evils of human behavior, or,

conversely, its reading as a sympathetic depiction of

contemporary peasants, whose troubles are given

1. For Sevillians in the court, see Brown and Elliott (1980: 42

43, 190-191) and Brown (1986: 44-45). For Castilian collectors of

genre paintings, see Sarah Schroth (1985).

2. For the general history of the theoretical conflict between

naturalism and idealism, see Panofsky (1968). No one has done an

overview incorporating Spanish writings (however, see Calvo Serraller

1979).

3. An example of Velazquez's use of a traditional emblem is a

laurel wreath visible in the radiograph of the portrait of Luis de

G?ngora (see L?pez-Rey 1968: pi. 40). The only known example of

idealization is apparent in the radiograph of an early portrait of Philip IV and its copies (see Brown 1986: 44-56, 287). From its description, the lost Expulsion of the Moriscos seems to have included an

allegorical figure or statue of Spain (Palomino 1947: 898-899).

4. The painting has been called by a number of names since its

creation. In the record of payment {Varia velazque?a 1960, II: 231), it

was simply referred to as a painting of Bacchus. In the palace

inventory of 1666, Velazquez's son-in-law, Juan Bautista del Mazo,

described it as representing "Bacchus crowning his fellows." See

L?pez-Rey 1979: 280.

22 RES 24 AUTUMN 1993

Figure 1. Diego Velazquez, Los Borrachos, 1628-1629. Museo del Prado, Madrid. Photo:

Courtesy of the Prado.

temporary respite through wine.5 None of these

interpretive stances, however, adequately explains the

painting's satirical tone.

Among previous interpreters, only Charles de Tolnay came close to sensing the composition's nexus of ideas

when he called it a "bodeg?n in a grand format" and

noted the influences of both Caravaggio (in its

naturalism) and Michelangelo (in the posing of

Bacchus) (1961: 32). Yet this is only a partial

interpretation. Tolnay did not develop these

observations or reconstruct the circumstances and

context of the painting's creation, and, thus, did not

grasp its wit.

Of primary importance are the ideas and

temperaments of the two major artist-protagonists at the

court during this period, Velazquez and Vicente

Carducho, the leading artist of Madrid's conservative

school. Although little documentary evidence remains

of Velazquez's specific thoughts on the theoretical

debates of his time, Antonio Palomino and others report

contemporary criticism of his work, other occasions that provoked conflict, and some of Velazquez's verbal retorts.6 Carducho's aesthetic theories and views are

recorded in detail in his treatise on painting of 1633, the Di?logos de la pintura.7

These sources combined with the evidence of other

paintings from the period enable a reconstruction of events and critical developments, against which Los

Borrachos can be viewed in its proper contemporary context. Los Borrachos was part of the palace ensemble on view to foreign dignitaries and other visitors; yet, in

its specific message, it must be understood as having been addressed principally to members of the court. It is a complex ?mage, which would have recalled for this

5. The first is a particularly Spanish interpretation (dating back to

1872), which sees parallels with contemporary literary satires and

burlesques (see ?ngulo I?iguez 1961; 1963: 36-38). The second,

suggested by Jos? L?pez-Rey (1963: 44), has not been well received

(see Steinberg 1965: 292-293). The third and most widely accepted

interpretation was suggested in 1888 by Justi (1889: 140), but recent

versions are based on Martin Soria's publication of the print

reproduced in figure 3 of Bacchus with peasants, accompanied by an

explanatory poem (1953: 278-283). See, for instance, ?ngulo I?iguez

(1963: 36-38) and Brown (1986: 66-67, 289).

6. Palomino (1947 [1715-1724]: 891-936) was one of

Velazquez's two biographers, the other being Francisco Pacheco

(1956 [1649], I: 154-166). 7. Pagination used here is from the first edition (Carducho 1633).

See also Calvo Serraller's annotated edition of 1979.

Umberger: Velazquez and naturalism I 23

sophisticated audience a number of ideas and visual

prototypes. It cannot, however, have been intended as

a particular interpretation of a mythological subject per se or as a statement on human behavior; the painting itself defies such categorization. Indeed, it is better

understood as a humorous parody of these serious types of "history painting": a rebuttal of the perceived evils of

naturalism, comparable to the artist's verbal retorts to

other court artists on the subject. As Palomino says, "He was very sharp in his witticisms and responses" (1947: 930). Velazquez's recorded quips are distinctive

in their satirical acuity, and, as will be seen, a similar

type of wit is found in the painting.

Although more compatible with the satirical tone of

Los Borrachos, this interpretation runs counter to several

scholarly problems and biases, which must be

addressed. It will be suggested, for instance, that

Velazquez was aware of certain Italian images, artistic

activities, and rumors before his Italian sojourn of

1629-1631. In addition, since Carducho's opinions did not appear in print until four years after the creation of Los Borrachos, some could, theoretically, have been

modified by hindsight. A further problem is in the

suggestion of a specific reference to Caravaggio. The

difficulty is not only in demonstrating Velazquez's

knowledge but also in arguing convincingly that he

would have been motivated to refer to Caravaggio. In

recent decades, scholars like Jonathan Brown, in

attempting to separate fact from fiction and to

document the "true" development of Spanish naturalism, have seen little of Caravaggio's direct influence in Spanish art.8 The general tendency is to

emphasize Velazquez's debts to other artists and to

underplay Caravaggio's more general impact.9 In conflict here are modern concepts of historical

reality (that is, the question of what Spanish painters

actually saw) and seventeenth-century perceptions of the situation. True, Caravaggio was not the first

proponent of certain aspects of naturalism, and, as

Brown and Richard Kagan have emphasized, when

Velazquez was practicing his own original version of the style (that is, before his arrival at court) he may have had very limited knowledge of Caravaggio's works

(1987: 247). Nevertheless, in Spain, as elsewhere,

Caravaggio was considered the genius of naturalism, the artist associated with its innovations and

iconoclasm, and this fact is more important in relation to Velazquez's early history than any material

influences on particular compositions. As Alfonso P?rez

S?nchez explains, what Caravaggio signified to Spanish

painters was an attitude, and not necessarily specific models. "Caravaggistas were copyists of reality, not

copyists of Caravaggio" (1973: [5]).10 Therefore, the

issues need to be separated. Although Francisco

Pacheco, Velazquez's first biographer, teacher, and

father-in-law, attempted to dissociate him from

Caravaggio (and recent scholars tend to follow him in

this), most of Velazquez's other contemporaries must

have seen him as a follower of the controversial Italian in his approach to painting.11 In addition, granted the

limited nature of Velazquez's knowledge of Caravaggio

during his youth in Seville, he had the means to learn

much more of events in Italy from acquaintances in

Madrid during the 1620s.

Finally, the problem of separating later formulations

from those of the members of the Spanish court during this period cannot be solved completely, but the

currency of the issues can be demonstrated. Carducho's

treatise provides the general tenor of the disputes and

his part of the dialogue.

Incidents and issues at court

As is well known, Vicente Carducho (1576-1638) and Eugenio Cax?s (1574-1634), who together dominated the artistic corps at court in 1623, were the

heirs of two Central Italian painters at the Escorial in

the late sixteenth century. These artists, Carducho's

older brother Bartolom? (1560-1608), and Cax?s's

father Patricio (circa. 1544-1611), remained in Spain and later became court painters. Continuing to work in

the "reform style" of the Escorial school, a departure from the artificiality of mannerism with elements

adopted from Venetian painting, they were among the

early practitioners of the new, more naturalistic

approach to painting in Spain at the end of the

8. For example, Brown (1986: 12, 15, and 285, n. 34), Brown

and Kagan (1987: 247), and P?rez S?nchez (1973). For a more recent

assessment of Caravaggio's material influence on Spanish artists, see

Brown (1991: chaps. 4, 5, especially 100-104). 9. McKim-Smith et al. (1988: chap. 1), for instance, in

discussing Velazquez's artistic genealogy, stress only the Venetian

branch.

10. See also Calvo Serraller (1979: CVI-VII), Dempsey (1986), and Brown (1991: 109).

11. Pacheco linked the two artists by name in only one place, where he mentions them as among those who relied on nature for

everything, the others being Jusepe Ribera and himself (1956, II: 13). He probably did not want to indicate a closer association, because of

Caravaggio's notoriety and, perhaps, his own mixed feelings about

certain aspects of naturalism. This type of selective omission likewise

is apparent when he speaks of envy of Velazquez but does not repeat the criticism found in other sources.


century.12 Bartolom? Carducho's Death of Saint Francis, with its tenebrism, humble still-life objects, and natural

gestures and proportions, is considered by Martin Soria

to be the "earliest surviving fully Baroque painting executed in Spain" (Kubier and Soria 1959: 208, 220-221).

The Death of Saint Francis was painted in 1593, at

the time when Caravaggio was beginning to make his

presence known in Italy. By 1617, the date of

Velazquez's earliest known productions, Caravaggio had been dead for seven years, his revolution had

jolted Europe, and a new, more radical version of

naturalism was linked with his name. In Velazquez's

early paintings, aspects of this international

Caravaggism are especially evident in the bodegones, which depict a few figures in half length with still-life elements of food, containers, and utensils in the

foreground. The subjects are spotlighted against dark

backgrounds, and there is a sharp focus on the virtuoso

representation of surface details. Unidealized models

painted from life studies appear in both his genre and

his religious paintings. Likewise, in portraits, Velazquez concentrated on capturing the actual, unidealized

appearance of the sitter.

In Spain, as elsewhere, the strongest adherents of the new naturalism were not writers; there remains little in

the way of literary defenses or organized theory. Only

fragmentary opinions, often expressing inconsistent

ideas, are found in biographical anecdotes and treatises

like Pacheco's and Carducho's; and these give a more

conservative view of the taste of the age than a survey of patronage would indicate (for example, Schroth

1985). In such treatises, the study of nature was

considered good practice, and descriptions of skillful

representations of reality abound. Nevertheless, conservative critics rejected the extremes of naturalism, in which nature was copied directly on the canvas (or so it was said), for its disregard for beauty, established

precedents, and decorum.

Whatever the direct sources of the new currents in

Spain, Palomino makes it clear that the young

Velazquez was seen by his contemporaries as a

follower of Caravaggio. He describes Velazquez as an

imitator of nature, who preferred to paint humble and

poor subjects and used ordinary people as live models.

"Everything that our Velazquez did at that time was in

this vein, to differentiate himself from all others and to

follow a new trend." Further on he asserts that

Velazquez rivaled Caravaggio in the boldness of his

painting, that he admired Caravaggio for the excellence

and subtlety of his genius, and that he was called a

second Caravaggio for imitating nature in his works

(1947: 893-894).13 In his early years at court, Velazquez dropped his

genre subjects to concentrate on the problems of court

painting, especially official portraiture: recorded or

surviving works are mostly portraits representing the

king, his brother, the Count-Duke of Olivares, and

visiting personages. These paintings provide early

testimony to Velazquez's talent for naturalistic

portrayal, and they document his progressive

improvement in the positioning of single standing

figures in space and in developing appropriate formulas

for official portraiture. At the same time, his fellow

court painters, Vicente Carducho and Eugenio Cax?s, who were friends and collaborated on several projects, were working in a style derived from their older

relatives. Although Carducho is considered a competent

painter who absorbed something of the more recent

trends in Italy, and Cax?s was proficient at one point in

his career, their "reform style" was by the 1620s an old

fashioned idiom. Most of the other royal painters during the 1620s were either of this Florentine-Spanish school or an even more retardataire (northern-derived style of

portraiture). Some artists worked in both styles; all were

lesser talents.14 In addition to the pintores del rey, there were two

other artists at court who were well versed in and

sympathetic to the more radical Italian trends: Fray Juan Bautista Maino (1578-1641) and Giovanni Battista

Crescenzi (1577-1635). Although not an active artist at

12. For the Escorial artists, see Zarco Cuevas (1932). For the

reform style, see Brown (1991: chaps. 4, 6) and (Jacob 1967-1968:

115-164). For Vicente Carducho, see ?ngulo I?iguez and P?rez

S?nchez (1969: 86-189), Volk (1977), and Brown (1991: 92-97,

133-137). For Eugenio Cax?s, see ?ngulo I?iguez and P?rez S?nchez

(1969: 212-259) and Brown (1991: various places). For naturalism in

Spain, see Soehner (1957), P?rez S?nchez (1973), and Jordan (1985).

13. The mention of the use of live models was derived by Palomino from Pacheco (1956, II: 146); the other passages linking

Velazquez and Caravaggio, however, are original to him and are

rarely cited by modern scholars. Harris (1982: 54) quotes one but

sees the comparison with Caravaggio as a matter of hindsight. 14. When Velazquez arrived, there were six appointments, with

the senior position, that of pintor de c?mara, held by Santiago Moran

(?ngulo I?iguez and P?rez S?nchez 1969: 68-73; Brown 1986: 43).

The three remaining painters were Francisco L?pez (Kubler 1965:

440; ?ngulo I?iguez and P?rez S?nchez 1969: 47-56), Bartolom?

Gonz?lez (Kubier and Soria 1959: 225-226, 380-381; Palomino

1947: 828), and Angelo Nardi, an Italian who arrived in Spain in

1607 and was more modern in orientation than the others (Martin

Gonz?lez 1958; Kubler and Soria 1959: 226-227; ?ngulo I?iguez and P?rez S?nchez 1969: 271-298).


Figure 2. Vicente Carducho, Expulsion of the Moriscos,

drawing, 1627. Museo del Prado, Madrid. Photo: Courtesy of the Prado.

this time, Maino had been Philip IV's drawing teacher

and is believed to have studied in Rome when

Caravaggio was there.15 Crescenzi, an Italian painter, architectural designer, and member of an important Roman family that reportedly patronized Caravaggio, also had worked in Rome in Caravaggio's time.16

The evidence indicates that the criticism of

Velazquez and jealous remarks found in several

anecdotes must have emanated principally from

Carducho and Cax?s, and that others among the

pintores del rey would have agreed with their

sentiments.17 Palomino reports that "some objected that

Velazquez did not paint with delicacy and beauty more

serious subjects, in which he could emulate Raphael of

Urbino, and he politely replied, saying that he preferred to be first in that kind of coarseness than second in

delicacy" (1947: 893).18 In another section, concerning an equestrian portrait of the king (circa 1625-1626), Palomino states that Velazquez invited public criticism.

When the execution of the horse was censured, the

angry Velazquez effaced the greater part of the picture and signed it in Latin, "Didacus Velazquius, Pictor

Regis, expinxit" ("Diego Velazquez, Painter of the King,

expunged [this]") (1947: 908).19 Jusepe Martinez reports further "envious gossip" that Velazquez did not know

how to paint anything but a head (1866: 117).

According to Palomino, when the king repeated this

gossip to Velazquez, the artist replied with

characteristic wit: "Sire, these gentlemen pay me a

great compliment; I don't know anyone who knows

how to paint one" (1947: 930).20 Conflicts culminated in 1627 in two clashes. In a

painting competition commanded by the king, Maino

and Crescenzi chose Velazquez's version of The

Expulsion of the Moriscos over those by Carducho,

Cax?s, and Nardi. (Of the entries, only a sketch by Carducho remains [fig. 2].) As a reward, the king made

Velazquez ugier de c?mara (usher of the chamber), the

first of many palace appointments. Later in the same

year, Philip supported Velazquez's list of applicants for

another position over those of Carducho and Cax?s (see Mart?n Gonz?lez 1958). Then in 1628 Velazquez was

named pintor de c?mara (chief court painter).

According to Martinez's account, the king ordered

the competition in 1627 as a reaction to remarks about

15. See ?ngulo I?iguez and P?rez S?nchez (1969: 299-325) and

Brown (1991: 100-104).

16. See Brown and Elliott (1980: 44-45; 261, nn. 32-34; and

36-40 for bibliography), Brown (1986: 60-61, 288, n. 55 for

bibliography), and Friedlaender (1974: 104-105, 248).

17. Lopez's agreement with Carducho and Cax?s is indicated by the fact that he engraved five of the eight emblematic illustrations for

Carducho's treatise (?ngulo I?iguez and P?rez S?nchez 1969: 48).

Although envy was the main impetus for criticism of Velazquez, there was also probably a kernel of truth in some of the comments.

Existing paintings from before 1630 indicate Velazquez's difficulties

with relating figures within a pictorial space, compositional focus,

and perspective. Even the visiting Italian connoisseur, Cassiano dal

Pozzo, remarked (in a diary entry of 1626) that Velazquez's portrait of Cardinal Barberini had a "severe and melancholy air," and he

indicated a preference for Juan van der Hamen y Leon's portrait (see

Harris 1970). For more on these conflicts between artists, see Martin

Gonz?lez (1958) and Orso (1986: 48-55).

18. ". . . que m?s quer?a ser primero en aquella groser?a, que

segundo en la delicadeza." Velazquez's retort is actually a trope,

rephrasing a response to criticism by Titian, as reported in a letter to

Philip II: "Sir, I was not sure that I could succeed at the delicacy and

beauty of the brushwork of Michelangelo, Raphael, Correggio, and

Parmigianino, and even if I were to succeed, I would be less

esteemed than they, or taken for their imitator" {Epistolario espa?ol, I, 1850: 519; trans. McKim-Smith et al. 1988: 24-25; see also 137

138, n. 116). In contrast to McKim-Smith et al., however, I do not

see here a literary invention on the part of Palomino, but rather a

reflection of the style of court discourse, in particular Velazquez's

style. Distinctive of his wit is the succinctness of the remark and its

play with the words primero and segundo. 19. This is one of several references to an equestrian portrait (now

lost) of about 1625-1626 (see also Pacheco 1956: I: 157; Harris

1970: 368, 371; Orso 1986: 48-52; Brown 1986: 287, n. 33).

Scholars have suggested from these that there may have been two

equestrian portraits painted at this time. It is more likely that, after

being criticized, Velazquez repainted part of the portrait (as he often

did throughout his career).

20. "Se?or, mucho me favorecen porque yo no s?, que haya

quien la sepa pintar."


Velazquez's inability to paint anything but heads. By

making the subject of the contest the painting of a

historical narrative with religious implications?the

expulsion of 1609 of converted Moors by Philip III?the

king was giving Velazquez an opportunity to

demonstrate his skills in a higher, more difficult

category of painting than portraiture. In Palomino's

description of this lost painting, the composition

appropriately included architecture, an allegorical

figure of Spain (probably a statue), a portrait of the king in the foreground, and many full-length figures arranged

at different depths on a seacoast, as well as boats and

carts, the latter probably with horses (1947: 898

899).21 As Brown notes, the circumstances were in

Velazquez's favor: both judges were followers of

modernism (1986: 60). Neither Martinez nor Palomino mentions

Velazquez's critics by name, but the opinions and

wording in Carducho's Di?logos, published six years after the contest, clearly indicate his role. The Di?logos takes the form of a series of exchanges between a

master and disciple, following Italian intellectual

precedents. The main purpose of the treatise was to

prove painting a liberal art, and some lines of argument come from earlier Spanish treatises. The theoretical

ideas marshaled against naturalism, however, go far

beyond those of his Spanish predecessors; their

elaboration was based on such theorists as Vasari,

Lomazzo, and Zuccaro, the latter of whom had been at

the Escorial with the Carducho brothers.22

Diego ?ngulo I?iguez and P?rez S?nchez aptly characterize Carducho as an artist who adopted certain

aspects of naturalism and respected Caravaggio's talent, but reacted strongly against its extreme forms (1969:

96). A polemical attack, the Di?logos emphasizes the

didactic functions of painting in the service of the

church and the king. Carducho believed art's proper

goal was to instruct the viewer and move him to

devotion, respect, and piety. Appropriate images were

achieved only through preparatory drawings, study of

revered precedents, idealization, and approved

iconography. Needless to say, Carducho considered the

vulgar subjects of naturalism and the practice of

including faults and idiosyncrasies of appearance as

counter to these aims and, in keeping with church

thought after the Council of Trent, potentially

sacrilegious. His definition of the exalted purpose of art

seems not to have allowed for humor and irreverence, or subjects that lacked obvious moral or religious purpose, much less those that portrayed degenerate activities. He also required moral rectitude in the

painter; spiritual preparation and meditation were

considered part of the creative process for worthy

religious ?mages. Like other critics of naturalistic

painters, he lumped the faults of artistic practice

together with faults of character.23

Carducho did not attack Velazquez openly, but his

attempts to encompass the younger artist in his remarks on naturalism are fairly obvious in the Di?logos.24 As

Mary Crawford Volk has suggested, Carducho, the

master in the dialogue, conceivably could have been

addressing Velazquez as the disciple.25 In one place, the disciple asks the master how to

judge a painting in which a cloth, jar, knife, bench,

bread, fruit, bird, animal (el animal bruto), and human

figure (el animal racional) seem real, and perhaps are

even depicted with decorum, but without the drawing,

study, and trabajo del esp?ritu recommended by the

master. To the suggestion that this type of painting, which the disciple calls the "faithful imitator of nature," had achieved the level of learned painting [docta

Pintura], the master replies: "Learned no, nor imitative

of nature [imitadora de la naturaleza] (which was

always known); of the natural [lo natural] yes . . ."

(56r). La naturaleza denotes ideal Nature, while lo

natural is unimproved nature?ingenuous, common,

21. The inscription on the socle beneath the figure of Spain (". . .

Philip IV . . . erected this monument, 1627") suggests that it was a

statue, as does the presence of a socle, although both Palomino and

the palace inventory of 1636 call it a figure. 22. See Volk (1977: chap. 4) and Calvo Serraller (1979) on

Carducho's sources.

23. As Volk and others have made clear, the vehemence of

Carducho's attack against naturalism at this late date is explained by a

combination of factors, Velazquez's ascendency at court being only one. Despite protests since 1600, in Spain painting was still classified

as a mechanical rather than a liberal art, making its practitioners liable to taxation and conscription. In 1625, Carducho and Cax?s

were ordered to pay taxes, and the ensuing legal battle was not

resolved until 1633. Written in these same years, the principal

purpose of the Di?logos was, in effect, to argue for liberal arts status.

Since Carducho's argument centered on the primacy of intellectual

activity in painterly creativity, the fact that the practices of naturalistic

painters undercut this claim must have infuriated him (see Spear 1985: 22). For discussion of the issues and documents, see Gallego

(1976: especially chap. 9), Volk (1977: chap. 3), and Brown (1978:

102).

24. Most of the following passages in Carducho are commonly seen as allusions to Velazquez, for instance, by Antonio Gallego Burin (in Varia velazque?a, 1960, II: 51-52) and Brown, who also

sees the attack on Caravaggio as aimed in part at Velazquez (in

Enggass and Brown 1970: 173). See also L?pez-Rey (1963: 40-41).

25. Volk (1977: 108-112) also puts forth the unusual view

that Carducho and Velazquez were not rivals and that Carducho

may have been somewhat of a mentor to the younger artist,

knowledgeable especially on Italian art and theory. The evidence,

however, does not indicate a friendly relationship.


artless, and crude. The painter cannot give life to his

paintings without the natural, the master says

elsewhere, but its use without preparation and science

causes great damage. Nature is to be studied, not

copied (54r).

Similarly, in the section on portraiture the master

criticizes the painter who skillfully paints a badly formed head without amending its faults (Carducho

actually uses the word retratar [portray] to mean "copy without improving").26 A learned painter (pintor docto) would correct nature with the reason and disciplined habits of mind in his possession. The master concludes

that this is the reason why the great and eminent

painters were not portraitists (retratadores). In other

words, those who were just portraitists were not great

painters (52r). His critique of genre subjects also is

pointed. He speaks of "paintings of bodegones with low

and vilest thoughts, others of borrachos, others of

cardsharps . . . without more thought or substance than

that it struck the fancy of the painter to portray four

disorderly rogues and two unkempt women, with

discredit to art itself and little fame to the painter" (112r). In the Di?logos, then, Carducho dismissed the two

categories in which Velazquez had gained fame?

portraiture and genre painting. Moreover, he revealed

himself unwilling to accept even the naturalistic painter whose images were decorous and skillfully depicted, a

category of painter that would have included

Velazquez. Velazquez could well be the unnamed

painter that Carducho knew, "of whom we could say he was born a painter, such that he had obedient brushes and paints, [who] worked more [from] natural

fury than studies" (90v).27

Although Carducho's hostility toward Velazquez was

disguised in the Di?logos, he showed no restraint in his

disapproval of Caravaggio, as this often-quoted excerpt reveals:

In our times arose in Rome Michelangelo da Caravaggio . . . with a new dish, in such a style and sauce ... the

great crowd of painters pursue it gluttonously, not seeing

that the fire of his talent is too powerful. . . . Did anyone ever paint, and succeed so well, as this monster of genius

and talent, almost without rules, without theory, without

study, only with the power of his genius and with nature before him, which he simply imitated with such admiration? I heard a devoted follower of our profession say that the coming of this man to the world was an omen

of the ruin and end of painting, and just like the Anti Christ at the end of this visible world, with false miracles and prodigious actions, he would carry to perdition a very

great number of people moved by his works which seemed so admirable. . . . Thus this Anti-Michelangelo with his

showy and external imitation, marvelous technique, and

living quality has been able to persuade such a great number of every type of man that his is good painting . . .

and they have turned their backs on the true method of

achieving eternal fame.

89r-v

Although it is well known, the implications of this

passage have not been given enough consideration.

Central to this study are the metaphors Carducho

used to express his feelings?his characterization of

naturalistic painters as gluttonous and of Caravaggio as

a false messiah and anti-Michelangelo. In addition, this

and the other passages quoted above show awareness

of the standard criticisms of Caravaggio in a text that was published before any Italian critique of the artist.

Only Van Mander's (1604) short biography of

Caravaggio was in print at the time. Yet, Carducho's

characterizations parallel those that appear later in

Baglione (published 1642), Bellori (1672), Mancini (written 1620), and Sandrart (1675), and that are

lacking in Van Mander. One particular statement in

Baglione's biography pulls together the ideas expressed in several of Carducho's pronouncements and is similar

even in wording: "Some people consider him to have

been the very ruination of painting, because many

young artists following his example simply copy heads from life without studying the fundamentals of drawing" (Friedlaender 1974: 232, trs. 235-236). Carducho and

other Spaniards, then, knew more about Caravaggio

through letters and oral transmissions than has been

acknowledged.

Los Borrachos and history painting

There is also no doubt that Carducho had Velazquez in mind as one of those deceived by Caravaggio, and it

is to such opinions that Velazquez was responding when he painted his fascinating and witty ?mage of

Bacchus surrounded by a group of drinking men.

26. Calvo Serraller 1979: XCII.

27. The mention of "a painter who skillfully copies a badly formed head" also recalls the criticism that Velazquez could paint

only "a head."

Despite these statements against naturalism, it should be noted

that Carducho did not blindly espouse notions of idealization and

"academic training" (e.g., see 62r), any more than Velazquez held

the former in total disregard. Velazquez's experimentation with

traditional artifices during the 1620s is mentioned above. See also

McKim-Smith (1979) for an analysis of the role of drawing in his art.

In contrast, see Christiansen (1986) and Friedlaender (1974: 20-21

and passim) on Caravaggio's practices.


Los Borrachos, Velazquez's first group composition to represent a mythological subject, was painted for

the king in 1629, or at least finished by then, and

subsequently hung in the palace (fig. 1).28 The painting

depicts nine figures in a country setting. Bacchus sits on a barrel in the midst of a group of mortal men and

places a grapeleaf crown on the head of a kneeling man (perhaps a soldier), who wears a dagger on his

belt. Bacchus's companion (possibly Pan or a satyr) and two other figures hold vessels of wine. Although all the

figures have the appearance of real individuals copied from life, Bacchus and his companion are younger, have bare torsos, and wear classical robes of rose and

white. The other, variously aged figures representing common humanity wear contemporary clothing of the

yellow and brown coloration found in the artist's

bodegones. The juxtaposition of the smooth, light body of Bacchus with the rough, dark complexions of the

mortal celebrants is often noted. In Ovid's Metamorphoses, Bacchus was the central

figure of a cult that swept irresistibly across the classical

world (Books lll-IV). Los Borrachos actually depicts the

visitation of a god to mortals: a teoxenia. Velazquez's source for this theme, according to Soria, was an

engraving of 1596 by Jan Saenredam of Bacchus and

Peasants (fig. 3). In both engraved and painted images, Bacchus offers the divine elixir to a group of peasants to help them forget their misery. This is the message of

the poem accompanying Saenredam's print and the

currently accepted interpretation of Los Borrachos.

The closeness of theme, compositional elements, and

imagery confirms that Velazquez must have been

familiar with the print, but Soria's interpretation of the

painting, in focusing on this single source, fails to credit

the artist with much beyond a wonderfully naturalistic

conception of the idea. Other key questions concerning

Velazquez's intentions remain unanswered: Why did he

choose to represent in a court painting the subject of

Bacchus among common men? Why did he return to

the common types and the exaggerated naturalism of

his pre-court period? Why does the viewer sense

humorous intent both in the grinning faces of the two

men who look directly at him and in Bacchus's

sideways glance? This last is especially compelling: it

calls attention to itself by not being directed at anyone within the painting, nor the viewer.

Figure 3. Jan Saenredam, Bacchus and Peasants, engraving after Hendrik Goltzius, 1596. Rijksmuseum-Stichting, Amsterdam. Photo: Courtesy of the Rijksmuseum-Stichting.

The painting's enigmas are best appreciated when it is contrasted with other historical and mythological

paintings being assembled and commissioned for the

king at the time.29 Among these are Velazquez's own

history paintings of a year or so later, The Bloody Coat of Joseph and The Forge of Vulcan. In neither of these did he stress the type of realism existent in Los

Borrachos, nor did he show his sense of humor. As

palace decoration, Los Borrachos also clashes with the

following passage in which Carducho expresses his ideas on the proper treatment of mythological subjects:

If they are royal galleries, one should paint histories, lofty, majestic, exemplary, and worthy of emulation. ... If it

should by chance be convenient, or to the taste of the owner, to paint the stories of Virgil, of Homer, and the

28. The only written document of the commission is a record of

payment to Velazquez dated 22 July 1629 for "a painting of Bacchus

which he made in the service of His Majesty" {Varia velazque?a 1960, II: 231).

29. These included principally paintings by Titian, Rubens, and

contemporary Italian artists. See Gerard (1982) and Orso (1986).


fables of Ovid, try to demonstrate, with liveliness and

propriety, the virtuous moral contained in it, unknown to the ignorant, and not immodest and unchaste rusticity; attend to improvement and do not court harm.

W8v-109r

Carducho refers here to the contemporary practice of decorating palace walls with history paintings in

order to provide parallels to the virtues of the royal

inhabitants, but particular to him are the moralizing tone and concluding admonition directed against the

evils of naturalism.

Despite Jos? L?pez-Rey's interpretation to the

contrary, Velazquez's painting does not contain such a

serious or moralizing statement (see n. 5). As Tolnay pointed out in calling the painting a bodeg?n in a

grand format, Los Borrachos is a conflation of different

genres. In it Velazquez arranged the rough characters of his early period in a full-figure group composition with

mythological personages, and transformed the act of

drinking into a mock-serious ceremony. The artist

thereby elevated the subjects of naturalism into a higher category. But Velazquez's satire goes beyond this: he

intended the image of Bacchus to evoke ideas with

rich resonances for viewers knowledgeable of current

artistic trends, in particular the mock activities of

naturalistic artists in Italy, Caravaggio's persiflages of

Michelangelo's Sistine ceiling figures, and a local

legend of the arrival of Bacchus in Spain.

Bacchic imagery and naturalistic painters

One of these contemporary associations was first

noted by Leo Steinberg, who suggested a connection

between Los Borrachos and a drawing of 1623 (fig. 4) that represents a group of Netherlandish artists in Rome

surrounding a Bacchus. These artists belonged to an

organization called the Bentvueghels, or "birds of a

flock" (1965: 293, n. 69).30 The Bentvueghels were

naturalistic painters with a reputation for rowdiness, excessive drinking, defiance of the proponents of

"academic" art, and even armed fights. (In these

Figure 4. Attributed to Jan van Bijlert, Bacchus Among the

Bentvueghels, drawing, 1623. Museum Boymans-Van

Beuningen, Rotterdam. Photo: Courtesy of the Museum

Boymans-Van Beuningen.

respects, they were worthy followers of Caravaggio.)31

Bentvueghel initiation ceremonies featured bacchic rites

(involving a variety of other classical gods) and made

sacrilegious references to Christian practices, such as

baptism and communion. These artists depicted themselves and their rowdy activities as well as other

genre subjects in a variety of ways. The setting was

often a tavern, and loose women could be included. In some works, as in life, conventions from religious

paintings and other serious genres were parodied, and

classically robed figures romped among those in

contemporary dress.32

Of relevance to Los Borrachos are depictions of

Bentvueghel fetes involving Bacchus, wine drinking, and coronations with laurel wreaths. In the drawing of 1623, which is attributed to Jan van Bijlert, the

Bentvueghels, dressed in contemporary clothing, are

seen drinking around a Bacchus seated on a barrel. A

print by Cornelis de Bruyn depicts a ceremony of 1675, in which a robed man with a sword is crowned in the

midst of his fellow artists, one of whom displays a

sketch (Hoogewerff 1952: pi. 25). In a print after

Dominicus van Wijnen, who was in Rome from about

1682 to 1685, the setting of the tableau vivant is a 30. For the Bentvueghels, see Hoogewerff (1952) and Kren (1980).

In his discussion of Los Borrachos, Soria (1953: 281-282) tells of a

display held probably in 1606 in the court at Brussels, where Bacchus

riding on a barrel was mock-worshiped by a group of young men.

Juli?n Gallego (in Dom?nguez et al. 1990: 146) reports that a Spanish

source, Estebanillo Gonzalez's Memorias, mentions a similar retinue.

The Bentvueghels' use of bacchic imagery seems more germane to

the interpretation of Los Borrachos, but their relationship to these

other ceremonies should be investigated further.

31. Charges of scandalous behavior (as well as lack of diligence) were leveled at Caravaggio in print as early as 1604 by Van Mander

(in Friedlaender 1974: 259, trs. 260).

32. For instance, see Kren's (1980) analysis of some of Roeland

van Laer's figures in the Merry Company (Museo di Roma), which

depicts a Bentvueghel initiation of about 1626 or somewhat later.


Figure 5. M. Pool, after Dominicus van Wijnen, Induction Celebration of the

SchiIdersbent, engraving, 1682-1685. Rijksmuseum-Stichting, Amsterdam. Photo:

Courtesy of the Rijksmuseum-Stichting.

Mount Parnassus on which the robed and wreathed man with the sword stands above a Bacchus sitting on

a barrel, his gesture of investiture aimed at the initiate

at the lower right (fig. 5). Although these prints postdate Los Borrachos, they probably reflect what had been

happening in the 1620s.

The Bentvueghels must have been known in Spain in

the late 1620s, in particular after the year 1626, which

marked the intensification of court interest in artistic

events in Italy, interaction with Italian collectors and

artists, and the active acquisition and commissioning of

Italian works by the king and other Spanish collectors.

From 24 May to 4 August of that year, two important

collectors, the papal legate Cardinal Francesco

Barberini and Cassiano dal Pozzo, visited Madrid.

Certainly there were discussions of contemporary artists

in Italy, as there were of artists and art at the Spanish court (see Harris 1970; Gerard 1982). Another source

of information on naturalistic painters in Italy would

have been the Duke of Alcal?, who returned from Italy to Madrid for a short stay in July 1626. A Sevillian from

Pacheco's intellectual circle, Alcal? collected genre

paintings (including some by Velazquez) and had a

taste for the new style; he had collected examples in


Rome, where he lived the previous year.33 Velazquez also would have had many opportunities to discuss

events in Italy with Rubens, who was at court and in

close contact with the artist for nine months in 1628

and 1629 (Pacheco 1956, I: 154). Although he had not

been in Central Italy since 1608, Rubens surely would

have been aware of the activities of his fellow northern

artists in Rome.

Visual evidence that Carducho himself associated

Bacchic as well as other "degenerate" practices with

naturalistic painters is provided by the print illustrating his first dialogue (fig. 6).34 A diligent young artist (the

good example that the disciple was meant to follow) is

depicted drawing in the foreground accompanied by his muse. In the background are male and female revelers, most nude and some with animal heads, recalling Carducho's use of the terms animal bruto and animal

racional. On the left is an animal-headed musician

playing a lute (players of stringed instruments were a

favored subject of genre painters). Behind the musician, a group eats and drinks at a table, a setting reminiscent

of a bodeg?n. (The connection between overindulgence and naturalism also is evident in Carducho's diatribe

against Caravaggio.) On the right side, a chubby nude man sitting on a donkey and holding a wine goblet is

probably Silenus, accompanied by more nude figures. The motto at the top reads "By reason and work, not by pleasure and sloth." These scenes thus depict the

activities attributed to naturalistic painters as well as the

subjects of their art.

The print follows the disciple's long account of

works seen on his travels through Europe, a lengthy section of which deals with Italian art. After this there is a change in tone, when the master comments that the

disciple should have seen less and drawn more from

the art of these masters. The emphasis on drawing is of course significant, because naturalistic painters were

considered lacking in this respect. The dialogue ends

with the illustration of the diligent artist in contrast to

Figure 6. Francisco Fern?ndez, illustration to First Dialogue, Di?logos de la pintura, by Vicente Carducho, 1633. Photo:

Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, bequest of

Benjamin Altman, 1913, 14.40.639.

those carousing behind him.

Thus, Velazquez chose the one mythological subject that should have recalled for the court audience the

degeneracy and irreverence of naturalistic painters, as

Carducho perceived them. In addition, the moralizing Carducho would have seen the god Bacchus as another

type of Antichrist, and his cult as unhealthy, dangerous, and false (yet irresistible and widespread), just as he

characterized Caravaggio's influence on a large number

of artists of his day.

Michelangelo and Anti-Michelangelo

Another point that needs further consideration is the

resemblance of Velazquez's Bacchus to Michelangelo's Sistine ceiling figures (which Carducho was to praise in his treatise as among examples of the ultimate

33. The duke was an early collector of Velazquez's bodegones and other Spanish still life and genre scenes, and later, during his

Italian sojourns, he collected paintings by Caravaggio and Ribera,

among other naturalistic painters (see Brown and Kagan 1987). He

also apparently had two paintings by the Bentvueghel Pieter van Laer,

whom he may have known at this time. Van Laer arrived in Rome in

1625 or 1626, the approximate date of the duke's residence there

(Kren 1980: 63-65), and he later dedicated a series of pastoral scenes

to the duke (Brown and Kagan 1987: 245). For other Spaniards involved in collecting in Italy, see Gerard (1982: 11), Volk (1977: 17,

and 29, n. 41), and Haskell (1963: 171-172).

34. For discussion of the illustrations for the eight dialogues, see

Kubier (1965).


Figure 7. Michelangelo, Delphic Sibyl, 1508-1512. Sistine

Chapel ceiling, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Courtesy of Al i nan/Art Resource, New York.

achievements of painting; 5v).35 The figure type with an

arm raised in front of the body and crossed ankles is

found in several of the prophets and sibyls, Isaiah in

particular, but in other respects Velazquez's Bacchus is

closer to the Delphic Sibyl, whose pose is seen in

reverse (fig. 7): the upraised arm and twisting torso, the

rounded contour of the back seen in profile, the frontal

face with eyes glancing to the side over the turned

shoulder, and even the shadows on the face (these on

the same side rather than the reverse) are quoted by

Velazquez.36

Although Velazquez's version lacks the rigorous distortions of pose and sculptural quality of its models

Figure 8. Vicente Carducho, Saint lohn, detail of vault fresco, 1614-1615. Toledo Cathedral, Sagrario Chapel. Photo:

Courtesy of Mary Crawford Volk.

(being a "naturalistic" version), the sideward glance in

particular would have indicated a purposeful reference

to an audience familiar with Michelangelo's figures.

Examples in Spain of seated figures based on the Sistine

ceiling probably existed in drawings and prints, as well

as the derivative figures found in fresco cycles around

Madrid; more of the latter (now lost) probably existed

in paintings by disciples of Michelangelo who worked

in Spain.37 The most notable surviving examples are

Pellegrino Tibaldi's murals in the Escorial library, which

Rubens and Velazquez would have seen together while

touring that palace.38 Although not characteristic of

their work, Carducho and Cax?s used the same figure

types in the 1614-1615 vault frescoes of the Sagrario

Chapel in the Toledo Cathedral. Carducho's Saint John

(fig. 8), in particular, resembles the Delphic Sibyl in a 35. This is the most apparent source for the composition, but not

the only one (see appendix). 36. The Michelangelesque affinities of Bacchus also have been

noted by ?ngulo I?iguez (1947: 100) and Soria (1953: 278), as well

as Tolnay (1961: 32), who recognized the pose as a conflation of

Isaiah and the Delphic Sibyl.

37. Palomino (1947: 780, 785-786) reports, for instance, frescoes

by El Bergamasco and Becerra in the Pardo and Madrid palaces. 38. For the library murals, see Scholz (1987).


reverse image, again with the exception of the shading of the face on the proper side, as in Velazquez's Bacchus.

Also significant is the fact that Velazquez's use of a

Michelangelesque invention in a satirical context has as

an antecedent two compositions by Caravaggio. These are the Saint John with a Ram (fig. 9), dated variously between 1593 and 1601, and the Amor Vincit Omnia

of 1602-1603 (fig. 10). Caravaggio obviously based

both on ignudi from the Sistine ceiling (Fig. 11),

transforming them into frolicking boys, painted from life

(Friedlaender 1974: 89-94; Freedberg 1983: 59-60; Christiansen 1986: 422.)39 The complex of intentions

behind these imitative works is not perfectly understood, but a satirical purpose is suspected.

According to Walter Friedlaender, the Amor Vincit

Omnia was meant to recall Michelangelo's statue of

Victory, as well as the ignudi, and was especially irreverent in the transformation of the figure into a

laughing child Cupid "triumphing over the symbols of

the moral and intellectual world" (1974: 92). More

generally, S. J. Freedberg characterizes both persiflages as "non-verbal manifestos of Caravaggio's anti-ideal

posture," expressing his aggressive attitude toward the

persistence of Michelangelo's influence in his time

(1983: 59-60). One also could see them as

39. The 5a/nt John follows closely the ignudo to the left above the

Erythraean Sibyl. The Amor is a freer interpretation that can be related

to several ignudi, one being the figure on the right above the

Erythraean Sibyl, but seen in reverse except for the positions of the

arms. Also very similar is one of the ignudi on the other side of the

bay, except for the arm raised above the head. See also Gregori

(1985: 277-281, 300).

Figure 9. Caravaggio, Saint John with a Ram, 1593-1601. Doria Palace, Rome. Photo: Courtesy of Alinari/Art Resource, New York.

Figure 10. Caravaggio, Amor Vincit Omnia, 1602-1603.

Gem?ldegalerie, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Photo: J?rg P. Anders, courtesy of the Gem?ldegalerie.


^^H HEW ajM^t ^?m^H^^^^^^^^m^ 1 ^^E^B ffi?HKn

Figure 11. Michelangelo, /gnud/ above Erythraean Sibyl (detail), 1508-1512. Sistine Chapel ceiling, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Courtesy of Alinari/Art Resource, New York.

Caravaggio's demonstration to his critics of the

"academic" study behind his art, through exaggerated and irreverent examples.

Although the derivation of the two compositions from Michelangelo is not mentioned in contemporary

reports, this would have been recognized instantly by

Caravaggio's Roman audience. The Amor was, in fact,

very well known in its time, in part for its own sake

and in part because of its involvement in the rivalry between Baglione and Caravaggio and Baglione's libel

suit of 1603 (Friedlaender 1974: 92-93, 278-279;

Gregori 1985: 277; and Spear 1985, 90-92). That its

fame persisted into the 1620s is demonstrated by Sandrart's report of seeing it on view in the palace of

the M?rchese Vincenzo Giustiniani sometime between

1629 and 1635:

This piece was publicly exhibited in a room with another hundred and twenty made by the most prominent artists; however on my advice it was covered with a dark green silk curtain, and only when all the other paintings had

been seen to satisfaction was it finally uncovered, since it

made all the other curiosities seem insignificant. Sandrart, in Friedlaender 1974: 262-263, trs. 265

Surely the artists at the Spanish court were aware of this

well-known mockery of Michelangelo, given the

presence of Maino, Crescenzi, and Rubens in Rome in

Caravaggio's time and Spanish contacts with the Roman

art world during the 1620s.40 It is also probable that

Caravaggio's alleged verbal disrespect for the masters

was known to Velazquez and Carducho (see Bellori, in

Friedlaender 1974: 246, 253). If there is satire in Los Borrachos, it centers on this

conception of Bacchus, which, like Caravaggio's

parodies, was painted from a real model striking a

Michelangelesque pose. Considering Velazquez's

probable knowledge that the Amor was created in the

midst of controversies and competition similar in some

respects to what he faced, the pose can be seen as a

reference to the derivative ?mage as much as to

Michelangelo. In other words, while it was meant to

call attention to itself as an imitation, it was also, as a

naturalistic reinterpretation, intended to remind

Velazquez's audience of the brilliant and inverted

demonstration of the practice of imitation by

Caravaggio.

Although most of Carducho's paintings have nothing to do with Michelangelo (the above fresco being an

exception) and Velazquez's works have little real

resemblance to Caravaggio's, the importance of

Michelangelo and Caravaggio in Spanish art theory should not be overlooked. They represented the

40. Rubens was in Rome in 1601 and 1602 and again frequently between 1605 and 1608. See Jaff? (1977: 57-58 and fig. 173) on

Rubens's interest in Caravaggio.


principles of dibujo and colorido (desegno and colore

in Central Italian theory), as practiced by the pintor interior and the pintor exterior, respectively (Carducho,

51v-52r). Michelangelo was the pintor interior who

represented dibujo, the principle of drawing and all

that went with it that was so important to Carducho

(that is, the intellectual idea; the picture conceived in

the mind; theory and science; preparatory sketches; and good proportions, anatomy, figurai arrangements,

foreshortening, relief, and perspective).41 Carducho

also considered the principle of colorido important. He had absorbed some of the values of Titian and the

Venetians, and he considered good painting to consist

of a combination of both drawing and color, rather than

seeing them as mutually exclusive. However, colorido,

being more superficial, was not as essential as dibujo. Colorido was associated with imitation, living quality, skillful application, brush technique, and the inclusion

of the nonessentials of reality.42 So, when it came to a

decision between dibujo and colorido as to where lay the essence of painting, the answer for Carducho was

still dibujo, with colorido being the decoration (77r-v).

As seen above, Caravaggio, with "his showy and

external imitation, marvelous technique, and living

quality," represented the deceptive and seductive aspect of colorido, when carried to an extreme, and without

the benefits of dibujo.

Velazquez probably knew that he was following

Caravaggio's lead. Like the epithet "Anti-Michelangelo" that it calls to mind, the painted image of Bacchus

reflects knowledge of the conflict between the

principles that Michelangelo and Caravaggio

represented in conservative thought. Its pose, then, should be considered an ironic display of Velazquez's own learning, referring, plausibly, also to Caravaggio's earlier examples: it is a rich mockery of Carducho's

concept of the "learned artist."43

Bacchus in Spain

Finally, another contemporary Spanish association

with Bacchus, a local story according to which his cult

was brought to Spain, suggests further meanings for the

original viewers of Los Borrachos and perhaps the

ostensible "subject" of the painting. In representing Bacchus and his worshipers Los Borrachos can be

related to two other pictures created for Philip IV,

seemingly at about the same time. These are works by the Neapolitan painters Massimo Stanzione and Jusepe

Ribera, which were recorded as hanging in the king's

dining room at the time of the 1666 and 1686 palace inventories (see Darby 1943: 146; Felton and Jordan 1982: 123-124). Both are interpreted as depicting

episodes of a version of the story of Bacchus

reconstructed by the Spanish antiquarian Rodrigo Caro

in his Antig?edades y principado de . . . Sevilla of 1634

(8r-v and 118v-119v).44 In this tale, derived from

several ancient authors, Bacchus, accompanied by

Pan, satyrs, and maenads, traveled from India to

southwestern Spain, converted the local inhabitants to

his rites, and left the territory to Pan, who called it

Pania (Hispania). Caro also discussed evidence of

Spanish worship of Bacchus in Roman times?ancient

remains, altars, and sculptures in Seville and Nebrija, a

town that Bacchus supposedly founded.

Ribera's bacchanal was cut up after the palace fire of

1734; only pieces with heads of figures remain. The

composition, however, is known through a copy

(fig. 12), which depicts Bacchus as an old man,

accompanied by Pan and others. Scholars believe that

the painting was created in approximately 1629-1631, in part because of the style of the fragments, and in part

because these were the years of the viceroyalty in

Naples of the Duke of Alcal?, who commissioned a

number of paintings from Ribera during his tenure

(Darby 1943: 141-142; Felton and Jordan 1982: 124). In the painting by Stanzione (fig. 13), which is the same

size, revelers surround the statue of the god; Felton and

Jordan believe that it too depicts the newly adopted bacchic rites of the ancient Spaniards.45

41. For example, 4v, 32v, 78v. Although a moralist in some

respects, Carducho did not follow the severe, post-Tridentine Italian

critics of Michelangelo, who attacked the Last Judgment for nudity and theological inaccuracies (see Blunt 1968: chap. 8). Alluding to

this censure and probably that of critics who favored Raphael over

Michelangelo, Carducho refers to the inability of some to understand

Michelangelo's art (1633: 5v; Calvo Serraller 1979: 47-48, n. 83).

42. In Spain, the principle of colorido also included the borr?n,

the Venetian-derived painterly brush stroke, but this aspect is not

relevant to the discussion of Caravaggio: he did not paint with

borrones, but rather with brush strokes that were unidos. See McKim

Smith etal. (1988: chap. 1).

43. Quotes from Michelangelo with less than serious intent were

not limited to Caravaggio and Velazquez. Michelangelesque poses are

apparent in figures 3 and 5, both of which are satirical images. The

Saenredam Bacchus and satyr, in fact, derive ultimately from

Michelangelo's early sculpture of the same subject (Soria 1953: 278

280). Lars Jones (1992) argues that Raphael's portrait of Michelangelo in his School of Athens, probably the first allusion to Michelangelo's

figurai inventions by another artist, was painted with a derogatory

purpose.

44. The book is item 65 in the inventory of Velazquez's library

(S?nchez Cant?n 1925: 396).

45. This painting is dated stylistically to the same approximate

period, between about 1630 and 1634 (Felton and Jordan 1982: 122?

124).


Figure 12. Anonymous, copy after Jusepe Ribera, Fable of Bacchus, original Ribera ca.

1629-1631. Collection of Princess Caroline Sch?nburg-Laserna. Photo: Courtesy of

Craig Felton.

Figure 13. Massimo Stanzione, Bacchanal, ca. 1630-1634. Museo del Prado, Madrid.

Photo: Courtesy of the Prado.


To understand how these three paintings may have

been conceived together, one must return to the court

context. As has been emphasized in recent art-historical

literature, in the late 1620s the new king and his

minister were involved in the meaningful arrangement of paintings for the creation of proper settings for events

of state. The first important ensemble, that of the Sal?n

Nuevo, was to glorify the Habsburgs as military victors

and defenders of the faith. Reformulations of its

program continued for several years.46 In the beginning (1624-1627), the room was decorated with paintings from the royal collections, notably Titians and paintings

by contemporary court artists: Velazquez's contributions

were the equestrian portrait of 1625-1626 and the

Expulsion of the Moriscos of 1627. In the late 1620s, the king began to purchase works directly from Italy, and he commissioned paintings from the visiting Rubens.

Although not all canvases in this and later ensembles

followed a theme, in certain rooms they did (at least

loosely), and the themes often related to the monarchy,

directly or allegorically. In addition to portraits,

appropriate depictions included battle scenes,

mythological and biblical subjects, and ancient rulers

and heroes. Many of the narrative paintings referred to

virtues and examples of good rulership to be followed, or the opposite, that is, bad examples to be avoided.

The subject of Bacchus in Spain, then, might have

been considered appropriate, because Bacchus had been one of Philip's predecessors as king of Spain (Caro 1634: 8r).47

The exact scenario of these bacchic commissions

cannot presently be reconstructed, but many interconnections between the main actors involved?

the king and the count-duke, Velazquez, Rodrigo Caro, the Duke of Alcal?, and Ribera?are demonstrable.

Caro's story focuses specifically on the ancient history of Seville, and was thus of special interest also to the

count-duke, Velazquez, and Alcal?: all four were or

had been inhabitants of that city. Caro, a classical

scholar and a member of Pacheco's "academy," had

arrived in Seville in 1620. Although his story of

Bacchus was not published until 1634, one may easily

hypothesize that it was well known before then among

this group, given the type of interaction prevalent in

Sevillian intellectual circles (Brown 1978, Part I; Brown

and Elliott 1980: 42-43). The Duke of Alcal?, in addition to being a member

of Pacheco's academy and an enthusiast of modern, naturalistic painting, was a classical scholar and an

important collector of antiquities (Brown 1978: 38-39).

Darby suggested that the duke commissioned the two

Neapolitan bacchanals (on Philip's behalf), because of

the closeness of the Ribera to a Graeco-Roman relief in

his own collection (1943: 145-146).48 It could be

added that Velazquez, also in Naples in 1631, might

easily have been involved in the commission or

conveyance of these paintings (Darby 1943: 146; Brown and Elliott 1980: 120, and 269, nn. 54 and 55;

L?pez-Rey 1963: 47-49). Los Borrachos may be a third version of the arrival of

Bacchus in Spain. Although it is smaller in size and is not known to have been in the king's dining room,

given the closeness of subject and date and Velazquez's

participation in palace decoration, some relationship is

indicated.49 Whatever the circumstances, his is a

personal interpretation, the meaning of which probably was best understood (and received with different

feelings) by those members of the court mentioned

above: Carducho and Cax?s, Velazquez's conservative

rivals; Maino and Crescenzi, the exponents of

modernism; the Count-Duke of Olivares and other

Sevillians at court, who were supporters of the artist

and had common intellectual interests; Rubens, his mentor and artistic equal; and, finally, the king, Velazquez's patron and defender, for whom the

painting was created. As the anecdotes of the period reveal, Philip was aware of the issues debated by his court artists and was an active participant (as sponsor of

the contest of 1627). His acceptance of a complex and

clearly satirical painting like Los Borrachos gives an

46. See Volk (1980), Gerard (1982), Orso (1986: 43-60, 113), and Brown (1986: 248) for the history of the decorative program of

the Sal?n Nuevo.

47. Another mythological predecessor of the Spanish monarchs,

Hercules, is more emphasized in modern scholarship. See Brown and

Elliott (1980: 156-161) for his depiction in Spanish palace

decoration, in particular the Hall of Realms of the Buen Retiro.

48. The duke was known to have commissioned copies of ancient

works on other occasions. An example is a copy of a famous Roman

fresco made in 1625-1626 (Brown and Kagan 1987: 235). 49. Unfortunately, the original dimensions of Los Borrachos are

unknown, because it was cut on the sides, presumably while being removed from its frame during the 1734 fire (for sizes given in all

inventories, see L?pez-Rey 1979: 280). It is presently less than half

the size of the other two, with a height of 165 cm and width of 227 cm. This width, however, is only 10 cm less than the height of the two Neapolitan paintings, which may be significant, because a

common dimension could indicate that they were intended for the same room (see Gerard 1982: 11). The three paintings are not

recorded together in any of the palace inventories. The 1636

inventory has Los Borrachos in the king's bedroom in the Lower

Summer Quarters (see L?pez-Rey 1979: 280).


idea of the latitude of expression that he allowed in the

decorative program of the palace. In the end, it is an awareness of the audience that

suggests that Velazquez's pastiche of genre and history

painting, of "naturalism" and "idealism," should be

seen above all as a facetious response to the moralizing Carducho. In Los Borrachos the characters of naturalism

participate decorously in a solemn ceremony around

their savior, Bacchus. This image of Bacchus should

have recalled the rites of naturalistic artists?the

unhealthy cult of Caravaggio, which, like that of

Bacchus in antiquity, had reached Spain in recent

years?and, more specifically, Caravaggio's satirical,

Anti-Michelangelesque paintings. Given the apparent

mockery of his old-fashioned ideas, Carducho easily could have been offended.

Although the detection of the satirical purpose behind the composition enriches the understanding of

the artist's intellect and personality, one must in the end

return to the result, a fascinating ?mage, and read it on

its own terms. There are faults in the composition,

primarily in the crowding of the figures, a less than

successful balance of elements, and an unclear

hierarchy of focal points (with the center wavering between Bacchus and the frontal faces of the two

smiling peasants). The painting also sustained damage

during the fire of 1734, evident in the darkened lower

left figure. Thus, some of its ambiguities are in the

imperfect achievement of the artist's idea and some in

the effects of later damage. Yet, evidence of his genius survives in the portraitlike characterizations, the

fascinating contrasts of individual expressions, and the

hints of irony conveyed through these faces. It is now

apparent that its irony results from the projection of

what Kendall Walton calls conflicting messages (1987:

94-96): a seemingly serious reference to Michelangelo becomes satirical as the eye moves from the posing

Bacchus, who glances toward no one, to the two

amused peasants looking directly at the viewer, to the

other participants, who attend solely to events within

the world of the painting. Los Borrachos is the earliest work to reveal the

complexities of Velazquez's intellect. A second article

to be published in RES will focus on Las Meninas, another multifigure painting in which visual images and literary/verbal allusions are balanced in an

extraordinary manner. This second study will reinforce

the interpretation presented here, by demonstrating the

extent to which the artistic issues and court intrigues of

the earlier years persisted in Velazquez's thoughts.

APPENDIX: COMPOSITIONAL SOURCES FOR LOS

BORRACHOS

As Diego ?ngulo I?iguez first made obvious,

Velazquez's paintings reveal the study of many artists

for figurai poses, groupings, and settings (1947). Another important source for Los Borrachos (besides

Michelangelo) was the Saenredam print (fig. 3), in

which Soria noted the outstretched arm of Bacchus and similarities in the peasants' costumes and

paraphernalia, as well as the subject in general (1953:

280). In both, a figure wearing a brimmed hat holds or

drinks from a bowl, and there is a bearded older man, a dagger, a man with one hand on another's shoulder, and a similarly shaped vase.

Further sources can be suggested for the poses and

gestures of individual figures and groupings, but these

tend to be types found in a variety of artists for which a

particular, single origin cannot be proposed. The satyr/

companion of Bacchus is a common type, recalling, for

instance, Ribera's Drunken Silenus etching of 1628, in

which Silenus also reclines on his right elbow, holding his drapery with the right hand and a vessel in the left

(Trapier 1952: 36). Yet, a different source for both the

satyr and the figure to his right, as ?ngulo I?iguez

suggested, might have been Titian's Bacchanal (now in

the Prado, but in Italy in the early seventeenth century), in which two reclining female figures are presented

from the same, contrasting perspectives and with a

similar positioning of arms (1947: 97). Another painting

displaying interesting parallels is Caravaggio's striking Uffizi Bacchus (fig. 14). Like the reclining satyr,

Caravaggio's Bacchus rests on the right elbow with

hand grasping part of the costume and extends the wine

glass in the left hand, but he is presented frontally. There are also similarities to Velazquez's Bacchus: the

frontality, the framing of the forehead with hair or

shadows, and the large leafy crown. Precedents also can be found for the conversing pair on the right side of

Los Borrachos. One has a hand raised to his chest, with

the third and fourth fingers held together while the

others are splayed. The second figure gestures with his

hand out, palm open and fingers bent. These types of

graceful gestures are commonly found in El Greco's

paintings, often in pairs of interacting figures (for

example, Saint Andrew and Saint Francis, Prado, and

the couple on the right side of The Purification of the

Temple, Frick Collection). Precedents for such

conversing couples and the specific gestures also are

found in Italian painting.


Figure 14. Caravaggio, Bacchus, ca. 1597. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Photo: Courtesy of Alinari/Art Resource, New York.


It was suggested above that the figure of Bacchus,

especially in its posing, was meant to allude to

Michelangelo's inventions and Caravaggio's persiflages of the same. Could there have been further allusions in

the use of other conventions, beyond the demonstration of learned habits conveyed by the general types? In

particular, one wonders about Caravaggio's Uffizi

Bacchus. Was this ?mage known in Spain, and could the image of Bacchus in Los Borrachos have been

intended to refer to an even more direct association

with Caravaggio? Also relevant is a report that Caravaggio once

portrayed himself as Bacchus. According to Baglione, in his early years Caravaggio "made some . . . small

pictures which were drawn from his own reflection in a

mirror. The first was a Bacchus with bunches of grapes executed with great care but a little dry" (Baglione, in

Friedlaender 1974: 231, trs. 234). Although Velazquez could not have acquired his copy of Baglione before its

publication in 1642, some of these anecdotes may have been known in Spain earlier, as seen above (S?nchez Cant?n 1925: 401, item 108).

Still, there remain too many problems with this

hypothesis to pursue it further at present. Although the

Baglione passage on the early self-portrait once was

linked with the Uffizi Bacchus, according to recent

scholarship, the Uffizi Bacchus is too late in date and

depicts another model, not Caravaggio. In addition, the Uffizi Bacchus seems not to have been widely known in its time: it is mentioned nowhere, nor are there

known copies. Perhaps Rubens saw it while he was in

Italy between 1600 and 1608 studying the works of

Caravaggio and other artists, but this cannot be

demonstrated.50

In the end, knowledge of the anecdote about

Caravaggio's self-portrait as Bacchus cannot be

demonstrated, and the visual correspondences between

the Uffizi Bacchus and the two mythological figures in Los Borrachos are not close enough to prove

Velazquez's knowledge of the composition. All of the

figures in Los Borrachos for which correspondences can be found are variations of types, found mostly in

Italianate paintings, and they probably were meant to

be perceived as types. At this point, only in the case of

the reference to Michelangelo's distinctive inventions

can it be said that Velazquez's contemporaries would

have been aware of an ultimate origin in a particular artist. Still, the possibility of a more direct reference to

Caravaggio is intriguing.

ACKNOWLEDCMENTS

I have benefited greatly from the critical comments

and advice of Jonathan Brown, Walter Cahn, Betsy Fahlman, Anne Gully, Anthony L. Gully, Elizabeth

Johns, Sandy Kita, Neil McWilliams, Donald Rabiner, Thomas Reese, David Rosand, Lisa Vergara, and Amy

Walsh, as well as the perceptive editing of Francesco

Pellizzi, Becky Brimacombe, and Cynthia Elmas. Funds for photographs were provided by the School of Art of

Arizona State University. Research was done during periods of support by a Humanities Research Award from the Graduate College at Arizona State University (1987) and an Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship in the

Department of Fine Arts, University of Pittsburgh (1988-1989). In memory of Donald Rabiner.

50. The best candidate for the early self-portrait is now thought to

be the Borghese Gallery Maleto Bacchino, which does not resemble

the figure in Los Borrachos. The Uffizi Bacchus is thought to have

been painted around 1597 and sent to Ferdinando de' Medici soon

after (Gregori 1985: 241-246).


REFERENCES

?ngulo I?iguez, Diego 1947 Vel?quez, c?mo compuso sus principales cuadros.

Seville. 1961 "Velazquez y la Mitolog?a/' in /// Centenario de la

Muerte de Velazquez, pp. 49-62. Madrid. 1963 "Mythology and Seventeenth-Century Spanish

Painters." Latin American Art and the Baroque Period in Europe, Acts of the Twentieth International

Congress of the History of Art, pp. 36-40.

Princeton.

?ngulo I?iguez, Diego, and Alfonso E. P?rez S?nchez 1969 Historia de la pintura espa?ola. Escuela madrile?a

del primer tercio del siglo XVII. Madrid.

Blunt, Anthony 1968 Artistic Theory in Italy, 1450-1600. Oxford.

Brown, Jonathan

1978 Images and Ideas in Seventeenth-Century Spanish Painting. Princeton.

1986 Velazquez: Painter and Courtier. New Haven and

London.

1991 The Colden Age of Painting in Spain. New Haven

and London.

Brown, Jonathan, and John H. Elliott 1980 A Palace for a King: The Buen Retiro and the Court

of Philip IV. New Haven and London.

Brown, Jonathan, and Richard L. Kagan

1987 "The Duke of Alcal?: His Collection and Its Evolution/' Art Bulletin, LXIX: 231-255.

Calvo Serraller, Francisco

1979 Introduction and notes to Vicente Carducho,

Di?logos de la pintura, su defensa, origen, esencia,

definici?n, modos y diferencias. Madrid.

Carducho, Vicente

1633 Di?logos de la pintura, su defensa, origen, esencia,

definici?n, modos y diferencias. Madrid.

Caro, Rodrigo 1634 Antig?edades y principado de la ilustr?ssima ciudad

de Sevilla. Seville.

Christiansen, Keith 1986 "Caravaggio and 'L'esempio davanti del naturale.'"

Art Bulletin, XLVIII: 421-445.

Darby, Delphine 1943 "In the Train of a Vagrant Silenus." Art in America,

XXXI: 140-150.

Dempsey, Charles 1986 "Velazquez: Painter and Courtier, by Jonathan

Brown" (review). Art in America, LXXIV: 9, 19-21.

Dom?nguez Ortiz, Antonio, Alfonso E. P?rez S?nchez, and

Juli?n Gallego 1990 Vel?zguez. Madrid.

Enggass, Robert, and Jonathan Brown, eds.

1970 Italy and Spain, 1600-1750. Sources and Documents in the History of Art, Englewood Cliffs.

Epistolario espa?ol, Biblioteca de Autores Espa?oles. 1850 Vol. XIII.

Felton, Craig, and William B. Jordan, eds. 1982 Jusepe de Ribera, lo Spagnoletto, 1591-1652, exh.

cat. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth.

F reed berg, S. J. 1983 Circa 1600: A Revolution of Style in Italian Painting.

Cambridge.

Friedlaender, Walter 1974 Caravaggio Studies. Princeton.

Gallego, Juli?n 1976 El Pintor de artesano a artista. Granada.

Gerard, V?ronique 1982 "Philip IV's Early Italian Commissions." The Oxford

Art Journal, V: 9-14.

Gregori, Mina 1985 Catalog entries, in The Age of Caravaggio, exh. cat.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Harris, Enriqueta

1970 "Cassiano dal Pozzo on Diego Velazquez."

Burlington Magazine, CXI I: 364-373.

1982 Velazquez. Ithaca and London.

Haskell, Francis 1963 Painters and Patrons. London.

Hoogewerff, G. J.

1952 De Bentvueghels. The Hague.

Jacob, Sabine 1967- "Florentinische Elemente in der Spanishen Malerei

1968 des fr?hen 17. Jahrhunderts." Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, XIII: 115

164.

Jaff?, Michael 1977 Rubens and Italy. Ithaca and London.


Jones, Lars

1992 "'Ars,' Ingenium/ and the 'Maniera': Expositions of Renaissance Paragon! in Raphael, Leonardo, and

Michelangelo." Master's thesis, Arizona State

University.

Jordan, William B. 1985 Spanish Still Life in the Colden Age, 1600-1650,

exh. cat. Kimbell Art Museum, Forth Worth.

Justi, Carl 1889 Diego Velazquez and His Times, trans. A. H. Keane.

London.

Kren, Thomas

1980 "Chi non vuol Baccho: Roeland van Laer's Burlesque Painting about Dutch Artists in Rome." Simiolus, XI: 63-80.

Kubier, George 1965 "Vicente Carducho's Allegories of Painting." Art

Bulletin, XLVII: 439-445.

Kubier, George, and Martin Soria 1959 Art and Architecture in Spain and Portugal and their

American Dominions, 1500-1800. Baltimore.

L?pez-Rey, Jos? 1963 Velazquez: A Catalogue Raisonn? of His Oeuvre,

With an Introductory Study. London. 1968 Velazquez' Work and World. Greenwich.

1979 Velazquez: The Artist as a Maker, With a Catalogue Raisonn? of His Extant Works. Lausanne and Paris.

Mart?n Gonz?lez, Juan J. 1958 "Sobre las relaciones entre Nardi, Carducho y

Velazquez." Archivo Espa?ol de Arte, XXXI: 59-66.

Mart?nez, Jusepe

1866 Discursos practicables del nobil?simo arte de la

pintura (written 1675?), ed. by Valent?n Carderera y Solano. Madrid.

McKim-Smith, Gridley 1979 "On Velazquez's Working Method." Art Bulletin,

LXI: 589-603.

McKim-Smith, Gridley, Greta Andersen-Bergdoll, and Richard Newman

1988 Examining Velazquez. New Haven and London.

Orso, Steven N.

1986 Philip IV and the Decoration of the Alc?zar of Madrid. Princeton.

Ortega y Gasset, Jos? 1972 Velazquez, Coya, and The Dehumanization of Art,

trans, by Alexis Brown. New York.

Pacheco, Francisco

1956 El arte de la pintura (1649), ed. Francisco J. S?nchez Cant?n. Madrid.

Palomino, Antonio 1947 El museo pict?rico y escala ?ptica (1715-1724), 3

vols. Madrid.

Panofsky, Erwin 1968 Idea: A Concept in Art Theory, trans, by Joseph J. S.

Peake, 2d ed. revised. New York.

P?rez S?nchez, Alfonso E. 1973 Caravaggio y el naturalismo espa?ol. Seville.

S?nchez Cant?n, Francisco J. 1925 "La librer?a de Velazquez," in Homenaje a

Men?ndez Pidal, vol. Ill, pp. 379-406. Madrid.

Scholz, Michael 1987 Eine spanische Wissenschaftsutopie am Ende des 16

Jahrhunderts. Die Bibliotheksfresken von Pellegrino im Escorial. M?nster.

Schroth, Sarah 1985 "Early Collectors of Still-Life Painting in Castile," in

Spanish Still Life in the Colden Age, 1600-1650, by William B. Jordan, exh. cat., pp. 28-39. Kimbell Art

Museum, Forth Worth.

Soehner, Halldor 1957 "Forschungs- und Literaturbericht zum Problem des

spanischen Caravaggismus." Kunstchronik: 31-37.

Soria, Martin

1953 "La Venus, Los Borrachos y la Coronaci?n, de

Velazquez." Archivo Espa?ol de Arte, XXVI: 269 284.

Spear, Richard E. 1985 "The Critical Fortune of a Realist Painter" and

catalog entries, in The Age of Caravaggio, exh. cat.,

pp. 22-27 and elsewhere. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Steinberg, Leo 1965 "Jos? L?pez-Rey, Velazquez. A Catalogue Raisonn?

of His Oeuvre, With an Introductory Study" (review). Art Bulletin, XLVII: 274-294.


Tolnay, Charles de 1961 "Las pinturas mitol?gicas de Velazquez." Archivo

Espa?ol de Arte, XXXIV: 31-45.

Trapier, Elizabeth Du Gu? 1952 Ribera. New York.

Varia velazque?a. Homenaje a Velazquez en el III centenario

de su muerte, 1660-1960.

1960 2 vols. Madrid.

Volk, Mary Crawford 1977 Vicencio Carducho and Seventeenth Century

Castilian Painting. New York and London. 1980 "Rubens in Madrid and the Decoration of the Sal?n

Nuevo in the Palace." Burlington Magazine, CXXII: 168-180.

Walton, Kendall L. 1987 "Style and the Products and Processes of Art," in The

Concept of Style, ed. Berel Lang, rev. and expanded ed., pp. 72-103. Ithaca and London.

Zarco Cuevas, Juli?n 1932 Pintores italianos en San Lorenzo el Real de El

Escorial (1575-1613). Madrid.

Umberger 1993 Velázquez and Naturalism I: Interpreting Los Borrachos

Documents

Transcript of Umberger 1993 Velázquez and Naturalism I: Interpreting Los Borrachos