DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.63331#0012
8
rIHE ART OF VELAZQUEZ
and painting those royal portraits which Philip sowed broad-cast over
Europe to carry the name, at least, of his favourite into Austria, Italy,
France, and England. But Mr. Curtis, in his Catalogue of the works
of Velazquez and Murillo, enumerates three hundred pictures ascribed
to the elder master in the various public and private collections of
Europe and America. Against this total of three hundred it would be
difficult to muster fifty left to his pupils. Outside Spain, I scarcely
know a picture ascribed to Mazo. The National Gallery has a
problematical copy with variations of the Prado Don Antonio the English-
man^ and a worthless little picture was exhibited under his name last
winter at the New Gallery. A few more can be found here and there,
but even then, the ascription to Mazo is, in most cases, a pure guess,
and the picture bearing it quite unlike the two thoroughly authenticated
examples in the Prado Museum. Before these two pictures, one a
portrait, the other a view of Saragossa from the opposite side of the
Ebro, the conviction is irresistible that not only many pictures ascribed
to Velazquez, but several of those on which his reputation rests most
securely for those who have not visited Madrid, are in reality the work
of his son-in-law. The question will be discussed in detail in the
following chapters. As with Mazo, so with Juan de Pareja. The
Moor lived in the house of Velazquez for thirty-seven years, and
astonished his master’s friends with the skill of his imitations. His
ability was rewarded by the king, and made use of by Velazquez. During
the ten years which elapsed between the discovery of his talent and his
master’s death, he did nothing but paint. Where are his pictures?
The Prado Museum has one, in which the influence of what he saw
during his attendance on Velazquez in Italy can be easily traced. Else-
where his name scarcely occurs. Their fellow-pupils were inferior in
ability to these two, but when at work under the master’s eye, they may
well have produced pictures now accepted as the handiwork of Velazquez
himself.
The readiness to accept as genuine pictures which are both different
from, and inferior to, the authentic works of the master is primarily due,
of course, to mere lack of opportunities for acquiring a trustworthy
knowledge of his art. In the first place, very few examples of any
importance have left Spain at all. In collections north of the Pyrenees
rIHE ART OF VELAZQUEZ
and painting those royal portraits which Philip sowed broad-cast over
Europe to carry the name, at least, of his favourite into Austria, Italy,
France, and England. But Mr. Curtis, in his Catalogue of the works
of Velazquez and Murillo, enumerates three hundred pictures ascribed
to the elder master in the various public and private collections of
Europe and America. Against this total of three hundred it would be
difficult to muster fifty left to his pupils. Outside Spain, I scarcely
know a picture ascribed to Mazo. The National Gallery has a
problematical copy with variations of the Prado Don Antonio the English-
man^ and a worthless little picture was exhibited under his name last
winter at the New Gallery. A few more can be found here and there,
but even then, the ascription to Mazo is, in most cases, a pure guess,
and the picture bearing it quite unlike the two thoroughly authenticated
examples in the Prado Museum. Before these two pictures, one a
portrait, the other a view of Saragossa from the opposite side of the
Ebro, the conviction is irresistible that not only many pictures ascribed
to Velazquez, but several of those on which his reputation rests most
securely for those who have not visited Madrid, are in reality the work
of his son-in-law. The question will be discussed in detail in the
following chapters. As with Mazo, so with Juan de Pareja. The
Moor lived in the house of Velazquez for thirty-seven years, and
astonished his master’s friends with the skill of his imitations. His
ability was rewarded by the king, and made use of by Velazquez. During
the ten years which elapsed between the discovery of his talent and his
master’s death, he did nothing but paint. Where are his pictures?
The Prado Museum has one, in which the influence of what he saw
during his attendance on Velazquez in Italy can be easily traced. Else-
where his name scarcely occurs. Their fellow-pupils were inferior in
ability to these two, but when at work under the master’s eye, they may
well have produced pictures now accepted as the handiwork of Velazquez
himself.
The readiness to accept as genuine pictures which are both different
from, and inferior to, the authentic works of the master is primarily due,
of course, to mere lack of opportunities for acquiring a trustworthy
knowledge of his art. In the first place, very few examples of any
importance have left Spain at all. In collections north of the Pyrenees