The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-02-08
MRS. PRINGSHEIM AND THE BOS-
TON VELASQUEZ.

| pamphlet entitled "A Critical Investigation
Of tho So-callod velasquez OF the Boston
| Museum by Neena Hamilton Pringsheim,
| Pm. d. (Heidelberg). has lately been pub
! lished in Boston and seeks to impeach the
/ ascrptlon OF the picture 10 the hand OF
| velasluez.
! As it does 70 with an appearance ofmethod
and oonnoisseurship that may well mislead
/ many who have neither time nor oppor-
/ tunity 10 investigate the matter for them
! selves venture some comment with view
| to correcting tho conclusions reached by
! the author.
| After ascertaining that there existed in
! the palace Of the Duke Of villahermosa in
! Madrid picture similar TO the one in Boston.
| Mrs. Pringahem declares that they are one
and tho same. I'VE, without possible
| doubt" she says. shave before us In the
| Boston picture the Villnhermosa portrait,
and accordingly quotes Prof Jusu's ad-
ver3s opinion OF the latter as applicable to
the painting in the Boston Museum.
That sho is mistaken In this assertion
can easily be seen by comparison OF pho
tographs from the two.
Having before me the Laurent photo
graph "a 1852 after the Villahermosa
picture. which Mrs Pringsheim says shows
| IL 10 correspond Zine for line with that in
! Boston It Is at once evident that the head
ia shorter and squarer in its proportions
and placed nearer the top Of the canvas
and that there are numerous other differ
ences For instance, the crown of the hat
! is lower and the space between il and the
! hand is greater in the villahermosa picture,
the upper contour Of Philips right cuff Is
more horizontal and the front edge OF the
| go,lla moro curved than in the Boston
! portrait.
These and many minor divergences would
! be sufficient TO disprove Mrs. Pringsheim's
statement even had not seen the two can
vases some years ago, one in the Villa
| hermosa palace, AID the other (now In
| BOSTON, In the collection OF its then owner
| in Madrid.
! In order to account for the supposed
removal OF the Villahermosa picture, Mrs.
! Phngsheim suggests the demise OF the
/ DIchess At last accounts. however, that
/ august lady was still alive and, judging
from her recently reported reply to an
| applicant for the purchase OF one OF her
! pictures, sufficiently 80 TO make renarkn-
/ bly, vigorous protest against Mrs Prings-
/ helms obituary hypothesis should she
| hear Of it.
| Mrs PringsNeim also aIirms that the
\ painting under discussion Is a composite
! Of two portraits by velasluez in the Pfado
Museum. namely that OF Don Carlos Go.
! lo73l and OF Philip ". (No. 1910.
| Now this last has been painted over an
/ earlier figure on the same canvas. that fol-
| lowed the main lines of the Boston portrait,
| as can be detected to some extent in the
! photograph but better still in the picture
| itself, which Mrs. Pringsheim has examined
and classified, and where there are under
the presant painting traces Of the sp eadlng
cloak and pair OF legs standing apart.
II is clear that figure cannot be com
| posite partly derived from picture painted
subsequently.
without lnstancing further inaccurate
afirm1tions OF the pamphlet, / think am
justified in saying that where the premises
are 50 shaky the differences are to be sus-
pected. and | do not hesitat- 10 maintain
| that in pronouncing the Boston picture to be
a school copy Mrs. Pring sheim Is very wide
| of the marx. Her whole attitude toward
il Is based on n misconception OF the subject
Il Is manlfsstly futile to expect in this
pi,ture all the traits OF the fully developed
art OF Veins Ilsz, AMI equally vain TO look
| for a repetition OF his earlier Sevillian
! paintings. for the simple reason that this
! il a transition work. done at timo when
| the artist was abandoning his earlier style
! and hal not yet reached the phase ex-
| empiaed in the Prndo portraits Of Philip
| and Carlos.
! What we do find In the Boston picture Is
a communion OF the art that the painter
I elreldy had at command with attempts to
realize the new aims that were stirring in
| his mind
In uniertaking his first portrait Of the
King velasquez would naturally feel the
| inadaquacy OF his early -bodegone' manner
nty TO portray royalty and that he must
try TO produce a mort impressive ensemble
thrn he had hitherto achieved Hence the
somewhat constrained effort visible in the
general mlks-up Of the picture, in which
he tentatively strikes the note of his later
portraits
At the sams time II was essential that
| he should obtain Il speaking Likeness of
tho King, and to do this he put forth his
! povar OF accurate rendering OF nature.
| AMI this i visible in the painting OF the
| bod IN the hands there Is mixed result
duo 70 experimentation. and IN other parts.
"a for example the tablecloth we have a
glimpse Of the more advanced execution
that was to become the marvellous dex-
ter!ty usually associated with the name OF
velas luoz. There arc passages in which
ne appears almost timid, in others grimly
determined. and again easy and fluent.
Precisely these signs Of a struggle, OF
conflicting motives, are among the things
TINT make convincingly for the authenticity
OF the picture.
We distinctly see In the young Velnsquez
working exactly as we should surmise his
doing under the circumstances and at the
tins assigned for the painting Of this por-
trait.
There are the traces OF his earlier style
and OF the kind OF painting that he had al
randy done: there are indications as well
OF the new ideals that he was aiming for
an his partial succe sses in attaining them.
Such a work IS invaluable 20 the student
of the development OF Yelasquez, and con-
tlln:ny as it does Lessons OF incalculabie
! Importance TO painters It were a thousand
pities should It be in anyway dscredited
or relegated to the limbo Of school work
FRANCIS LATHRoP.
NEW YORK, Feb, I.