DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.63331#0022
CHAPTER III
CHRONOLOGY OF VELAZOUEz’s PICTURES
The chronology of Velazquez is by no means easy to establish. The
dates of a certain number of his pictures can be fixed with more or less
confidence, but for various reasons it is not safe to depend upon matters
which would be considered decisive in the case of most painters. It
seems, for instance, to have been his habit to work upon pictures which
had long been finished. There is reason to believe, too, that some of the
royal portraits represent their originals, not as they were at the time of
sitting, but as they had once been. In spite of this, however, a few fixed
points can be set up, which we must try to supplement by the internal
evidence of style. The earliest works we know are the fairly numerous
bodegones and kindred pictures, of which by far the finest is the Duke of
Wellington’s Aguador. These seem, for the most part, to have been
painted in his first youth, as, from the unerring evidence of technical com-
pleteness, they are inferior to the Adoration of the Kings at Madrid, still
more to the Adoration of the Shepherds in the National Gallery. And yet
the Madrid picture is dated 1619, when the master was only twenty, and
the probability is that the Adoration in Trafalgar Square was painted
immediately after it. We may, then, take the Aguador and the two
Adorations as the typical works of his youth, before the influence of
Seville had encountered a rival. It is possible, of course, that the
Adoration of the Shepherds was painted somewhat later, and that its
decided superiority represents more than a few months of added ex-
perience. It seems quite certain, however, that it holds a place about
midway between the Aguador and the bust portrait of Philip IV. (Prado,
No. 1071), which we may give to the year 1623 with some confidence.
CHRONOLOGY OF VELAZOUEz’s PICTURES
The chronology of Velazquez is by no means easy to establish. The
dates of a certain number of his pictures can be fixed with more or less
confidence, but for various reasons it is not safe to depend upon matters
which would be considered decisive in the case of most painters. It
seems, for instance, to have been his habit to work upon pictures which
had long been finished. There is reason to believe, too, that some of the
royal portraits represent their originals, not as they were at the time of
sitting, but as they had once been. In spite of this, however, a few fixed
points can be set up, which we must try to supplement by the internal
evidence of style. The earliest works we know are the fairly numerous
bodegones and kindred pictures, of which by far the finest is the Duke of
Wellington’s Aguador. These seem, for the most part, to have been
painted in his first youth, as, from the unerring evidence of technical com-
pleteness, they are inferior to the Adoration of the Kings at Madrid, still
more to the Adoration of the Shepherds in the National Gallery. And yet
the Madrid picture is dated 1619, when the master was only twenty, and
the probability is that the Adoration in Trafalgar Square was painted
immediately after it. We may, then, take the Aguador and the two
Adorations as the typical works of his youth, before the influence of
Seville had encountered a rival. It is possible, of course, that the
Adoration of the Shepherds was painted somewhat later, and that its
decided superiority represents more than a few months of added ex-
perience. It seems quite certain, however, that it holds a place about
midway between the Aguador and the bust portrait of Philip IV. (Prado,
No. 1071), which we may give to the year 1623 with some confidence.