,1AEL AND SI SERA 
 
 BY VELAZQUEZ 
 
 J. C. ROBINSON 
 
 1896 
 ? 
 
JAEL AND SISI'RA 
 
Digitized by 
 
 the Internet Archive 
 
 
 
 in 2014 
 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/jaelsiseranoticeOOrobi 
 
JAEL AND SISERA. 
 
 BY VELAZQUEZ. 
 
JAEL AND SISERA 
 
 NOTICE OF A PICTURK BY VELAZQUEZ 
 
 HERETOFORE UNDESCRIBED 
 
 CONTRIBUTED TO THE EXHIBITION OF SBANISH ART 
 AT THE NEW CAELERN', JANUARY 1896 
 
 BY 
 
 SIR J. C. ROBINSON 
 
 ItONOKAKV MKXIIIKR OI' TlIK ACADKMIKS Ol' TIIK I'INK ARTS 
 OV MADRID AND I.ISDON, KTC. 
 
 II KK MAJKSTY's surveyor Or riCTURES 
 
 LONDON 
 1896 
 
JAEL AND SISERA 
 
 AN UNDESCRIBKl) I'lCTURl*: HV VELAZQUEZ 
 
 VKLAZf^UKZ (Don Diego dc Silva Velazquez) was born in 1599, 
 at Seville, perhaps at that time the most considerable centre of art 
 and letters in the Spanish Peninsula. lie was one of those to whom 
 the inspiration of art came at an early age by nature. His station 
 in life was a comparatively fortunate one ; it .secured him an adequate 
 education, and his subsequent art training was effected under the 
 guidance successively of two of the most celebrated national painters 
 of the day. In addition to the afflatus of genius he was endowed 
 with the practical qualities of industry and right conduct. I le was a 
 ready and productive worker and before his twenty-third or twenty- 
 fourth year, when the picture which is the subject of this notice is 
 believed to have been painted, he had doubtless produced a con- 
 siderable number of finished pictures, and had already acquired great 
 reputation in his native cit)-. Many of his early works produced in 
 Seville are still extant, and although they were greatly eclipsed b)- 
 his after performances they arc still regarded as precious masterpieces 
 of art. 
 
 In 1622, apparently prompted and assisted by influential friends, 
 he made his first appearance in Madrid, the seat of government and the 
 residence of the monarch. The reigning king was Philip I\'., then 
 a young man of seventeen, who had succeeded his father Philip III. 
 
 b 
 
6 
 
 in the preceding year. The king was both a lover and practiser of 
 the art of painting. He had commenced his reign by the dismissal of 
 his father's celebrated minister the Cardinal Duke of Lerma, and had 
 installed in his place the Count of Olivarez, a nobleman of high family 
 and means and a native of Seville. Velazquez came to Madrid with 
 introductions to influential members of the court, in particular to Don 
 Juan Fonseca, a noted amateur and patron of art, who was also usher 
 of the curtain to the king. Fonseca immediately procured him access 
 to the art treasures of the crown in the palaces in Madrid and the 
 Escurial. 
 
 During this first visit, however, Velazquez did not succeed in 
 obtaining the direct patronage of the king, and after some months' 
 study in the royal palaces he returned to Seville. His Madrid friends, 
 however, having doubtless brought his recent productions to the notice 
 of Olivarez, the all-powerful minister sent for the painter early in the 
 ensuing year (1623). On Velazquez's arrival in the capital he was 
 lodged in the house of Fonseca, whose portrait he forthwith painted. 
 It was shown to the king the same night, and was the immediate deter- 
 mining cause of his success. Philip forthwith appointed him his court 
 painter, with a stipend and emoluments of unusual liberality. Thence- 
 forth to the end of his days (in 1660) the career of the artist was of 
 ever progressive brilliancy and success. The title of king's painter, 
 pictor regis, was (on 31st October, 1623) assumed by Velazquez, and 
 he has so signed himself on more than one of his principal works. 
 Heretofore Velazquez had mainly painted still life and domestic subjects, 
 styled in the Spanish language bodegoites, literally shop or kitchen 
 pictures. Of these bodegones, the famous Agiiador de Sevilla, belong- 
 ing to the Duke of Wellington, and the Peasant Woman making an 
 Omelette, in Sir Francis Cook's collection, are perhaps the most excel- 
 lent examples ; these pictures were probably executed at about the 
 same time (1620). There is no record of his having produced any 
 historical or " subject " picture of importance during his Sevillian 
 period. 
 
7 
 
 Although Velazquez was no doubt actively productive during his first 
 period of residence in Madrid (in 1622), and still more so in the ensuing 
 year, when he finally settled there, we have but slight record of these 
 performances and the most notable of them, the equestrian portrait of 
 Philip IV., is known to have been destroyed by fire in 1734. It is, how- 
 ever, most unlikely that all the other works of these two years should have 
 perished and consequently it is reasonable to suppose, that as in the 
 present instance, some of them will yet be identified and brought to light. 
 
 The picture now in question, although apparently not dated, carries so 
 many internal evidences corroborative and conclusive in themselves, so 
 strengthened moreover by external indications, as to leave little doubt 
 that it is one of the pictures by \'elazqucz, produced in Madrid either 
 in 1622 or 1623. 
 
 On this point it may be observed, that one of the figures in the Jacl and 
 Sisera is a portrait of the minister Olivarez, of whom we have many other 
 portraits at various times of his life, and that the present picture obviously 
 represents him at an earlier age than any of the others. Apparently 
 indeed at the e.xact age — thirty-six — which he uoukl have attained in 
 1622-3. Moreover, the picture bears a signature in which the term pictor 
 regis is believed to be indicated. These indications, taken together with 
 the style of execution and general aspect of the work which arc pre- 
 cisely those which might be expected to have been displayed in the 
 interval between the execution of the " Imiegoiie" pictures in xGio, and 
 others extant, painted two or three years after 1623, it is thought 
 are sufficiently conclusive as to the period of production of the Jcii/ 
 and Siscra. 
 
 The earliest of Velazcjuez's historical pictures, properly so called, of 
 which definite record has been preserved, is that of the Expnlsion of 
 tlie Moriscos from Spain under Philip III. This picture, painted 
 in 1C27, is, however, no longer extant, and it is generally believed to 
 have been destroyed in a fire at the Alcazar, in 1734.' I'rom the 
 
 ' In Cumberland's /Jw<v/<'/fj Spanish Painiini^. London, 1782. \'i>l. ii. p. iS. 
 It is stated that one of the principal figures in the picture was a "personification 
 
 2 
 
8 
 
 description of the picture, which has come down to us however, it is 
 known to have been characterised by a precisely similar mingling of 
 allegorical and naturalistic treatment as is seen in the Jael and Sisera. 
 
 The picture now in question, representing the biblical story of Jael 
 and Sisera, according to Velazquez's habitual practice, is treated in an 
 entirely naturalistic manner, all the details of the picture having been 
 evidently painted direct from the natural objects, put into position in 
 the locality where the picture was executed, or copied from outdoor 
 studies as the case required. The action depicted is from Judges 
 c. 4, v. 22, " And behold as Barak pursued Sisera Jael came out to meet 
 him, and said unto him, Come and I will show thee the man whom thou 
 seekest ; and when he came unto her tent behold Sisera lay dead and 
 the nail was in his temples." 
 
 of the Kingdom of Spain as a majestic matron in Roman armour.''^ Now as 
 Velazquez is known, whenever it was possible, to have painted every detail of his 
 pictures from the actual objects, it may, it is thought with great probability, be 
 conjectured, that the " Roman armour " in the Expulsion of ilic Moriscos picture was 
 painted from an actual suit, just as the Sisera is represented in "Roman armour" 
 which belonged to the Emperor Charles V. Moreover, as this particular suit in the 
 seventeenth century was almost certainly an unique specimen of " Roman armour " ; 
 i.e. of pseudo-antique style, it is most likely to have been the model for both the 
 pictures in question. In regard to the disappearance of the Expulsion of the Moriscos 
 nothing is definitely known as to the fate of the picture, possibly it may yet be in 
 existence. It has not, perhaps, been hitherto noticed, that a Spanish writer on art 
 of great authority, Don Valentin Carderera, writing in i860, states that "this picture, 
 which adorned the grand saloon of the queens in the palace of the Retiro, was, it is said, 
 taken away by the French General Sebastiani." If so the Expulsion of the Moriscos was 
 still in existence in the early part of the present century, and is unlikely to have 
 been since destroyed. This information occurs in one of the notes to Carderera's 
 edition of Juseppe Martinez, Arte de la Pintura, &c., published for the first time in 
 Madrid in i860. From the text of this publication we learn that the picture was of 
 great size — about 15 feet long by 10 feet high — and it seems very unlikely that the 
 French Marshal would have elected to carry off so unwieldy a canvas. The writer 
 suggests that further research might possibly result in the recovery of this celebrated 
 work ; it may, for instance, have been taken down during the French occupation of 
 the Retiro Palace and rolled up ; if so it would, perhaps, not be surprising if it were 
 still to be found amidst the vast series of tapestries put away in the store-rooms of 
 the royal palace in Madrid. 
 
9 
 
 Instead, however, at the tent of Ilcbcr the Kenite, the scene passes 
 within the entrance of a house, apparently studied from a Spanish country 
 inn or " parador." Through an archway in the centre of the picture a 
 view is seen into the open air, apparently into the courtyard of the inn, 
 wherein are a yoke of oxen and a waggon. In the foreground, in the 
 centre of the composition, lies Sisera prone on the ground, with the nail 
 driven through his temples, a marshal's baton has dropped from his hands, 
 and his helmet, adorned with a rich plume of white ostrich feathers, has 
 fallen from his head and lies beside it. The rich armour in blue steel 
 and gold, worn by the slain man, is of fine Italian cinquecento design 
 intended to simulate antique Roman armour. It was painted in the 
 most minute and careful manner from the celebrated suit made for the 
 Emperor Charles V., said to have been worn by him at his entry into 
 Bologna when about to be crowned by Pope Clement \'II. in 1530. 
 The .suit is still preserved in the royal armour)- at the palace in Madrid, 
 from whence it has probably never been removed since its first de- 
 position in the sixteenth century. The under hawberk of ringed mail 
 and some details ^of the armour and helmet, represented on the picture, 
 are now missing from the suit. (See aiiti, note, p. 7.) 
 
 Jacl represented as a young Spanish woman, in the costume of a 
 peasant or the landlady of an inn, is standing on the spectator's right ; 
 she holds out the hammer in her right hand, and seems to be recounting 
 the facts of the deed to Barak. She wears a blue corset or vest with 
 voluminous white linen sleeves, and a dark green gown or skirt. Barak, 
 a stately aged man with a pointed white beard, is armed cap-a-pic in 
 a splendid .suit of engraved and gilded mail of the fashion of c. 1540-50, 
 the helmet on his head decorated with a rich plume of white ostrich 
 feathers. His right hand rests on a walking-staff, his left on the hilt 
 of his sword, and he appears to be listening attentively to the recital 
 of the heroine. This figure is a portrait of the famous Duke of Alva. 
 
 On the left-hand side of the picture is a standing figure of a man, 
 clad in half armour of the fashion of Velazquez's own day. He has a 
 red cap on his head which is also decorated with a tall plume of white 
 
lO 
 
 ostrich feathers ; he wears a short frock or kilt of dull pale crimson or 
 pink colour, and dark green tight-fitting hose. This figure carries a 
 banner on a tall staff, finished with a gilded spear-head and gold tassel. 
 The banner is of green stuff trimmed with gold lace, and in the centre 
 is a painted compartment with a remarkable emblem or " impresa." 
 This personage represents the minister Olivarez. He stands in front 
 with his back partly turned towards the spectator ; his countenance 
 is seen in three-quarter profile, he is looking down on the slain 
 Sisera, and he has his right hand uplifted in an attitude of astonish- 
 ment. Behind the figure of Jacl stands a young soldier with a long 
 lance ; he wears a steel cuirass over a buff coat, a dark crimson cap 
 on his head with a small feather in it, and red hose. Behind Barak 
 are three other soldiers in armour, bearing long lances, and the points of 
 other lances, seen projecting into the picture in the same side, seem to 
 indicate a numerous array of armed men stationed behind. 
 
 It was not until quite recently, and several years after the acquisition 
 of the picture, that the signature on it, as it appears above, was dis- 
 covered by the writer. It is situated in the right-hand lower corner 
 near the margin of the picture. At some time or other the picture 
 had probably been left for a long time without a frame and with its 
 lower edge resting on the ground, consequently moisture had caused 
 the paint to scale off in many places, for upwards of an inch all along 
 the lower edge. To hide these defects the injured margin had been 
 
1 1 
 
 coarsely repainted, this repaint it was necessary to remove, and on 
 doing so, the signature, which had been covered by it came to h'ght ; 
 unfortunately, a large piece of the paint had scaled off in the centre 
 of the inscription, whilst other parts of it were rendered almost illegible 
 by decay ; enough, however, remains to show its purport and to leave 
 little doubt as to its exact interpretation. 
 
 The signature is in two lines, an upper and a lower one ; it is 
 written in cursive characters, but in an abbreviated or monogrammatic 
 manner, greatly affected in Spain at the time. 
 
 The first monogrammatic capital letter is perfectly preserved ; it 
 serves for the commencement of both lines, and for two separate letters 
 — namely, a "D" and a "P," the former for the upper and the latter 
 for the lower line. The upper part of the character forming the " D " 
 is fully and strongly marked, but the vertical downstroke is a thin and 
 delicate, though precise and firmly-painted line ; following this on the 
 upper line of the inscription is the commencement and tail-ending of 
 another strongly-written character, interrupted in the centre by the 
 missing scale of paint alluded to. This character was obviously the 
 capital letter " V," but it seems to have been compounded with some 
 other letter, so as to form an abbreviated name or monogram ; for, 
 rather more to the right and lower down a flourish or " paraphe " is 
 visible, which in all probability formed part of the monogram, and most 
 likely was appended to the terminal letter " z " of the name " Velazquez." 
 There can be little doubt that these compound initials formed the 
 signature of the artist " Diego Velazquez." The " paraphe " in question 
 is followed by a large letter "f" in the same formula and position for 
 fecit!' The lower line of the inscription commences with the capital 
 " P," and although the line of delicately-written cursive writing which 
 follows is all but obliterated, in all probability it read " piclor regis" as 
 in other instances of Velazquez' signature. It will be recollected in 
 confirmation of this interpretation that Velazquez was made painter to 
 the king in the same year (1623) in which the picture was almost 
 certainly painted, 
 
12 
 
 Further with regard to the signature, it should be remarked, that there 
 is no record of any artist other than Velazquez, at the period in question 
 having enjoyed the patronage of either Olivarez or the king, so as to 
 have been allowed to execute pictures within the precincts of the royal 
 palaces. Nor is there any other known Spanish painter whose name 
 could have been indicated by the initials above described. 
 
 As regards the technique of the picture, it is painted on canvas on 
 a dull red ground, precisely such as all the early works of the master 
 are executed upon. The picture is in perfect preservation, being entirely 
 free from abrasions or retouching, but in the thinner and more transparent 
 parts the dark ground-colour has pierced through, owing to the saponi 
 fication and increased transparency of the pigments. The general effect 
 however, is most luminous and brilliant ; and in force of colour, light and 
 shade, and aerial quality, it is perhaps unsurpassed by any other work 
 of the master. In respect of local colouring, the prominence of the 
 pecuhar light dull crimson and the low-toned brownish greens, which 
 in combination, from first to last form the key-note of almost all the 
 works of the great master, are especially conspicuous. The dimensions 
 of the work are 4 feet 2 inches wide by 4 feet high. 
 
 In reference to the peculiarities of technique before alluded to, 
 it may be noted that probably one of the next pictures in point of date 
 by Velazquez in the New Gallery Exhibition, the Castle Howard 
 Portrait of the Infant Prince Balthazar Carlos, with the Female Dzvarf 
 (No. 48), which is known to have been painted in 163 1, does not show 
 such a marked advance in style upon the fael and Sisera as might 
 perhaps have been expected to be made during the interval between the 
 production of the two works. The Castle Howard picture is still more 
 or less hard and precise, " tight " in execution, but like the fael and Sisera 
 it is much less solid in impasto than are the earlier bodegone pictures 
 of Velazquez's Seville period. The technique and scheme of colour in 
 general are indeed almost identical in both the pictures in question. The 
 Castle Howard picture nevertheless, as was to be expected, shows to 
 a certain extent, greater freedom of handling, more refined modelling of 
 
13 
 
 forms, and a smoother surface. In both, however, a certain discordance 
 of effect and want of harmony have resulted from the greater prominence 
 of the dark underground of the picture which has resulted from lapse of 
 time. 
 
 The plume of white feathers, in the cap of the infant prince in the 
 Castle Howard picture, forms a similar prominent white spot in the 
 picture as do the white plumes in the Jnel and Siscra ; and this simply 
 because these details, having been solidly painted in unchangeable 
 white pigment, have retained their pristine force of colour, whilst almost 
 all the other parts of the pictures have become much lower in tone 
 from the sinking in of the thinner and more oleaginous colours employed 
 in the darker parts of the work. 
 
 Writers in the press, for the most part acquainted only with the later 
 works of Velazquez, have criticised the Jael and Siscra from two opposite 
 points of view ; on the one hand it has been said, that the hardness of 
 outline and general "tightness" of style of the picture are as great or 
 even greater than in the earlier hodegone pictures, but others again have 
 objected that a certain " bravura " execution or "chic" displayed in some 
 parts of the Jacl and Sisera was inconsistent with X'elazquez's st)-lc at 
 the early period in question. 
 
 These opposing characteristics are indeed to a certain extent per- 
 ceptible in the picture, but they are in reality confirmatory evidences of 
 authorship. When the picture was painted, Velazquez had doubtless just 
 received his first impressions from the master, who unquestionably thence- 
 forth exercised the greatest influence upon his style — II Greco — and the 
 greater freedom and certainty of touch seen in the Jacl and Siscra, as 
 compared with the earlier bodcgoucs, are doubtless a first evidence of 
 the new influence. The prominence given in the Jacl and Siscra and in 
 other works of Velazquez, to the representation of bright sparkling 
 steel armour, was probably also an influence derived from the same source. 
 Whoever indeed has seen the famous and \cvy admirable picture by 
 II Greco, T//C Burial oj the Coitdc dc Orgaz in Santo Tome, at Toledo, will, 
 jt is thought, have little doubt as to the original source of this influence. 
 
The provenance of the picture is entirely unknown. It was pur- 
 chased in one of the London auction rooms some years ago, and no 
 account of its previous ownership could be obtained. The work was in a 
 neglected condition when acquired. The original old varnish on the 
 surface was much chilled and decayed, whilst it was covered with a dense 
 coat of accumulated " house dirt." It seems most likely therefore, that it 
 was one of the many pictures brought over to this country during the 
 Peninsular War, and that it had since found a resting place, disregarded 
 and unvalued, in some country house, whence it was finally sent for sale 
 as unconsidered lumber. 
 
THREE LETTERS BY SIR CHARLES ROBINSON TO THE "TIMES" 
 NEWSPAPER ON THE "JAEL AND SISERA" PICTURE 
 
 To Till' Editor of tiii: "Ti\ir^." 
 
 Jttniittry 4, 1S96. 
 
 Sir, — In j'our excellent notice of the New Gallery Spanish Exhibition, 
 mention is made of the picture of Jac! and Siscra, by Velazquez, and 
 your reviewer has expressed his intention of giving it further con- 
 sideration in another article. The coming to light of a hitherto unknown 
 work of the great Spanish master is, in a sense a notable event in the 
 art world, and I shall be glad if jou can fiml space for a few brief 
 notes respecting the picture, which, I think, will assist in elucidating 
 the origin and meaning of the work. 
 
 If the picture stood simply on its merits it would, I think, carry 
 conviction to those who have made the works and history of Velazquez 
 their serious study ; but there are both internal and indirect evidences, 
 testifying to its authorship, singularly numerous and complete, so 
 much so that 1 cannot call to mind any other instance of a picture 
 to which so remarkable a chain of corroborative illustration attaches. 
 The public will probably find out for themselves these indications, 
 and perhaps other points which I have not jet myself full)' grasped. 
 The picture has, in fact, been sent to the New Gallery in order that 
 it may be submitted to the most exhaustive criticism which can be 
 bestowed upon it. 
 
 This process began forthwith, for one of your contemporaries has 
 
i6 
 
 already prejudged the question, apparently at the first glance, and has 
 issued his fiat in the most approved style of the superior critic. He 
 says : — " It is necessary, all the same, to enter a protest against the 
 unaccountable ascription to him (Velazquez) of the curious if second-rate 
 Jael and Sisera," &c. Now, on my part, I think it "necessary" to call 
 this writer's attention to certain facts of which he was not aware when he 
 issued this authoritative verdict. People will form their own judgment 
 as to whether the picture is first-rate or " second-rate " ; there may 
 doubtless be differences of opinion upon that point, but I think there will 
 be none as to the authenticity of the work when all the facts concerning 
 it are laid before them, which they very shortly will be. In the meantime 
 I have to state that, although I believe the evidences, direct and indirect, 
 proving that the picture must be from the hand of Velazquez are decisive 
 of the question, there is one positive confirmation which has not yet been 
 taken into account. It is that the picture bears the signature of the 
 artist unquestionably superimposed by his own hand. This signature 
 reads " D. V.," with a large cursive " f.," following after, these characters 
 obviously meaning " Diego Velazquez fecit." This, moreover, is followed 
 by a second line of cursive character, unfortunately almost illegible from 
 decay, but of which the first capital letter, " P," is well preserved. This 
 line in all probability should be read as " Pictor Regis" which formula, 
 it should be observed, was the usual one adopted by Velazquez in his 
 signed works, after he was made painter to King Philip IV. The writer 
 in the Daily Telegraph is now, then, invited to tell us what Spanish 
 painter, other than Velazquez, working in Madrid in 1622 or 1623, and 
 actually painting within the precincts of the Royal Palace — the evidence 
 for both of which points is quite conclusive — could have produced this 
 picture, and, further, what other Sjoani-sh painter there is who signed his 
 pictures with the initials " D. V.," or anything like these letters, at any 
 period. 
 
 I am anxious not to occupy too much of your space, but as regards 
 this last matter, I should state that the biographers of Velazquez make 
 known, that when he came up to Madrid for the first time, in 1622, his 
 
17 
 
 friends at the Court procured him admission to the Palaces of the Crown 
 in Madrid and the Escurial, where he spent his time in making studies 
 from the art treasures of the Crown. 
 
 Your reviewer has already stated that the two principal suits of armour 
 represented in the picture, were unquestionably painted from the actual 
 suits originally belonging to the Emperor Charles V., and which arc still 
 preserved in the armoury in the Palace at Madrid, which they have never 
 quitted since Velazquez's time. They must, in fact, have been most 
 carefully and laboriously copied from the armour put in the position 
 required by the exigencies of the composition. These suits arc well known 
 to mc. I may state, indeed, that I myself had one or both of them 
 photographed for the first time in Madrid in 1866 or 1867, for our own 
 Government, and the photographs arc still to be seen in the library of the 
 South Kensington Museum. May I now call attention to a detail for the 
 elucidation of which I wish to invite the co-operation of the public 
 
 The figure, on the left side of the picture holding a banner, is without 
 doubt a portrait of the Conde Duque Olivarez, then (1623) in his thirty- 
 sixth year. It is consequently the earliest presentment of the famous 
 Minister we possess. It is interesting to note the next portrait of him in 
 point of date, four or five years later, that in the fine engraving executed 
 by P. de Jodc. Whilst this print shows Olivarez as a decidedly older 
 man, it also shows him wearing the same armour, or a nearly similar suit, 
 to that in the picture. This suit is in the fashion of his own da\-, and was 
 doubtless the one actually worn by him. 
 
 That Olivarez should be represented as a standard-bearer is probably 
 an allusion to his being the chief leader of the State, but this banner has 
 obviously a further definite allegorical meaning. That meaning I have 
 hitherto failed to fathom : and I am now desirous, through your columns, 
 to invite the co-operation of )our readers in its elucidation. There can 
 be no doubt the banner was painted from an actual one ; many similar 
 ones were, to my knowledge, preserved in the Madritl armoury before 
 the late fire — perhaps they are there still. i\s will he seen, it has a 
 painted compartment in the centre, tlic subject of u hich is very remark- 
 
i8 
 
 able. It apparently represents a sailor seated in an attitude of dejection 
 on the sea-shore, with his hands bound before him, whilst a fleet of 
 three large ships is sailing away from the shore towards the distant 
 horizon. 
 
 The question now to be solved is whether this device has any special 
 reference to Olivarez, or whether it is merely one which happened to be 
 on a banner in the Royal armoury, which was introduced into his picture 
 by Velazquez as a mere convenient studio property. My own feeling 
 is that the latter is the true explanation, but it is, I think, a fair subject for 
 further consideration. 
 
 To THE Editor of the " Times." 
 
 January 14, 1896. 
 
 Sir, — Cedant anna togce. It seems almost an impertinence to ask 
 for any of your space, on a question of art, amidst these rumours of 
 wars, but there are still people who retain their accustomed interest in 
 problems of art and story. May I, then, offer a few more notes about 
 this newly-discovered Jael and Sisera picture, in sequel to my letter in 
 your issue of the 4th instant .■' 
 
 I have first to correct a slight mistake in my former communication. 
 Alluding to the fine engraved portrait of Olivarez, the name of the 
 engraver should have been Paul Pontius, not P. de Jode. I shall cause 
 a photograph of this print to be placed near the picture in the New 
 Gallery. I wish now to direct attention to the peculiar "cut" of 
 Olivarez's brown hair, identical in the picture and the engraving and in 
 other of his early presentments ; later on Olivarez seems to have become 
 bald, whereupon he provided himself with a black wig (see the portrait 
 No. 45 in the New Gallery, in which he seems so embellished). He 
 was always high-shouldered, almost hunchbacked, a peculiarity which 
 was cruelly commented on by his detractors at the period of his fall. 
 Velazquez, as a true Court painter, is said to have adroitly softened down 
 this admitted deformity in the portraits of his patron. The position of 
 
*9 
 
 the figure of Olivarez in the present work appears, indeed, to have been 
 chosen with this intention in view. 
 
 The corresponding principal figure on the opposite side of the 
 picture, the stately, gray-bearded old man, posing as Barak the Israelite, 
 armed, nevertheless, cap-a-pie in a splendid suit of armour of the fashion 
 of 1 540-50, is most certainly a posthumous portrait of the great Duke of 
 Alva. Pictures and prints of that celebrated personage are unusually 
 numerous ; there is, in fact, perhaps no better known historical portrait. 
 All the engraved portraits represent Alva in similar rich armour, but, 
 although the suits are very much alike, no two are exactly the same. The 
 suit represented in the present picture, again, though a similar one, does 
 not correspond with any one of them. The explanation is obvious and 
 suggestive ; in fact, this suit was not one worn by Alva, but on the 
 contrary, by his Sovereign, the Emperor Charles V. No less than 
 nineteen suits which belonged to the Emperor are still preserved in the 
 Madrid Armoury. These suits are distinguishable bj- certain devices 
 uniformly engraved upon all of them ; these arc — on the upper part of the 
 cuirass in front, an oval gilded compartment or aureole with an engraved 
 standing figure of the Virgin surrounded by rays, and on the back plate, 
 Santa Barbara. Now this aureole is plainly to be seen represented on the 
 suit worn by Alva in the present picture. There has not yet been time to 
 ascertain whether or not this particular suit is amongst those still in the 
 armoury, but which, it should be observed, form only a remaining portion 
 of the splendid .series known to have been original!)' in the possession of 
 Charles V. The characteristic and striking head in profile behind the 
 Alva figure is obviously a lifelike portrait. I fear there will be no means 
 of identifying the individual, but I think it highly probable that it was 
 some one of Velazquez's Seville friends, perhaps Eonscca, or some other 
 of the Madrid Palace officials. Clearly the individual must have been a 
 personage of importance, or he would not have been .so conspicuously 
 introduced into such high company. 
 
 As to the Jael, this lady was, I believe, painted from an ordinary 
 model. It would have been contrary to all Spanish usage and 
 
20 
 
 etiquette to have introduced the portrait of any high-bred lady into 
 such a picture. 
 
 More interesting is it to take note of the young soldier, holding a 
 lance who stands behind Jael. The dull, stolid-looking countenance 
 of this young man obviously again indicates, that it was not that 
 of any distinguished personage, and, in fact, there cannot be a 
 doubt that this head, again, was painted from an ordinary model, 
 Unless, indeed, I am much mistaken, this model can be positively 
 identified. 
 
 If any of your readers will take the trouble to look at the Duke 
 of Wellington's picture, the Agtiador de Sevilla (No. 134 in the New 
 Gallery Exhibition), and Sir Francis Cook's Woman making an 
 Omelette (No. 135), which hangs beside it, they will see in both these 
 pictures the same head of a stolid, heavy-looking Spanish lad of about 
 sixteen or seventeen. Now this boy is undoubtedly the Mozo or 
 apprentice whom at the time when these pictures were painted (1620) 
 Velazquez had taken into his service for the express purpose, as 
 Pacheco informs us, of serving as a model in his pictures. Now the 
 Jael and Sisera was painted two or three years later ; consequently the 
 boy in question would then be nineteen or twenty years old. Allowing 
 for the difference of age, it appears to me almost certain that this 
 same boy posed for the soldier with a lance. It will be noted that he 
 has now the rudiments of a beard and moustache, such as would 
 doubtless have made their appearance at the age the young man 
 had arrived at. 
 
 It is rather unfortunate that this figure, having been originally 
 rather more thinly and slightly painted than the foreground figures, 
 has suffered somewhat, and become less distinct than it originally 
 was, from the piercing through of the dark-red ground on which 
 the picture was painted, and the coincident increased transparency of 
 the pigment, the result of saponification of the vehicle in the course 
 of time. 
 
 As to the head of the slain Sisera, with the nail driven into the temples 
 
21 
 
 unquestionably this head must have been painted from nature, most 
 probably from that of a decapitated criminal. 
 
 There would have been little difficulty in obtaining such a gruesome 
 piece of " still life " to paint from in Velazquez's time in Spain. 
 
 To TiiK Editor or tiik "TiMr>." 
 
 JaniKiry 20, 1896. 
 
 SiK, — I have still to ask you to kindly allow me space for a few 
 concluding notes on the Jacl and Siscm, with the \ iew mainly of 
 stating what I conceive to have been the meaning and intention of the 
 composition, and the circumstances under which it was produced. This 
 picture may obviously be considered as a kind of tableau vivant, a 
 representation of a biblical subject L-nacted, as it were, b)- Spanish 
 performers in Spain in the seventeenth centur\-. What, then, were 
 the occasion and motives which gave rise to such a |)crformance t 
 
 In the first place one of the chief actors is the Condc lJuquc Olivarcz 
 — he bears the banner. Curiously enough, of the very scanty notices 
 of the personal views or sayings of \'elazqucz which have come down 
 to us, this banner-bearing as a mark of supreme leadership is notable- 
 as having been in his mind. 
 
 The contemporary Venetian writer on painting, Marco IJoschini,' 
 relating a conversation with Velazquez as to the principal art heroes 
 of Italy, reports that Velazquez said, 
 
 "Titian is he who bears the b.inncr." 
 
 Olivarez, then, in like manner figures in this picture as the standard- 
 bearer of the State ; and why he should be so depicted will, I think, 
 be made evident by the explanation of the composition I am about 
 to offer. 
 
 ' Boschini, Carta del Na7'C(^iu; &.C., Venice, 1660. Textually in the \'enctian 
 dialect, in which this work is w-ritten — 
 
 '* Tician x6 quel, chc porta la bandicra." 
 
22 
 
 The picture is, I believe, substantially an allegorical one — a veiled 
 allusion, in fact, to an event in recent Spanish history. Allegories were 
 the fashion of the day, especially in Spain. The very next historical 
 picture painted by Velazquez, about four years later — TJie Exptilsion of the 
 Moriscos — was also purely allegorical in treatment, with precisely such 
 an allusion to a recent actual event. 
 
 The present composition, then, was, I believe, intended as an allusion 
 to the assassination of the arch-enemy of Spain, William the Silent of 
 Orange, by Balthazar Gerard in the preceding century. Moreover, that 
 such a subject should have been chosen may be accounted for by the 
 fact, that at this time (1622 or 1623) Olivarez, then at the outset of his 
 career of absolute power, had determined to recommence the struggle with 
 the revolted Dutch provinces, which had been discontinued for almost a 
 generation previously by his more pacific predecessor, the Cardinal Duke 
 of Lerma. Olivarez, indeed, unable to realise the fact of the complete 
 decadence of Spain which had taken place in the previous reign, and in 
 the first flush of his pride of place and power, was on the very point of 
 beginning the disastrous career of aggression and warlike enterprise by 
 which his own and his country's ruin were ultimately accomplished. 
 
 The assassination of William of Orange, in consequence of the price 
 put upon his head by Philip II., was esteemed one of the standing glories 
 and evidences of the might of Spain. As an illustration of the savage 
 national feeling, it may be stated that a few years only after the picture 
 now in question was painted, the death of Gustavus Adolphus, another 
 of the great enemies of the house of Austria, was celebrated in Madrid by 
 the most extravagant popular rejoicings, extending over no less than forty 
 days. It may be furthermore observed that the United Provinces were 
 still, at the period in question, under the leadership of an immediate 
 descendant of the hated William the Silent. 
 
 The Jael and Sisera is then, in the fullest sense of the term, an 
 historical picture. It is unquestionably the first of which we have any 
 record produced by the great painter, but it was also the typical pre- 
 cursor of other more important ones from his hand. The composition of 
 
23 
 
 the famous picture, The Surrender of Breda {Las Lanzas), so called from 
 the prominent and striking array of soldiers bearing tall lances on each 
 side of the picture was, I think, obviously based on the quite similar 
 arrangement in the Jael and Sisera. 
 
 It is important to remark, moreover, that The Surrender of Breda was 
 one of the only gleams of success which illumined the career of Olivarez. 
 As that occurrence took place only two or three years after the pro- 
 duction of the facl and Sisera, so it was also the principal event in the 
 life of another of the personal friends and protectors of Velazquez — 
 the Marquis Spinola. 
 
 In further allusion to the remarkable and entirely original composition 
 of the fael and Sisera, it may be further noted that the archway in 
 the centre, through which a second plane of action is seen, is precisely 
 that of the picture of Las Hilanderas (the Spinners), where a part of the 
 action ot the subject is seen through a similar central archway. The 
 Hilanderas was one of the latest works of Velazquez, but it gives 
 evidence that the great painter had not forgotten his early production 
 now in question. 
 
 As to the precise time when the fael and Sisera was painted, and 
 whether the choice and general working out of the subject were the artist's 
 own or suggested to him by others, there would be ample scope for further 
 illustration and speculation, but your space is too valuable to admit of 
 other than a few more brief remarks on these heads. Obviously the 
 picture could not have been painted earlier than 1622, for it was in that 
 year that Velazquez first went to Madrid. The general style and teehnique 
 of the picture, moreover, point directly to that period of development of 
 his art ; but if the supposition that the almost illegible second line of the 
 signature should be read as Pietor Regis be correct the work should 
 seemingly be referred to the nc.\l year, fur it was not till the autumn 
 of 1623 that Velazquez was made painter to the king. 
 
 My own impression is that the picture was one of the works under- 
 taken in 1622, when Velazquez was first allowed to work in the Royal 
 galleries, and where only it is evident he could have painted the armour. 
 
24 
 
 &c., but that It may not have been finished till 1623, when the signature 
 would be appended as the first evidence of his new dignity. 
 
 It seems to me, in conclusion, more likely that Fonseca or some 
 other of Velazquez's friends suggested the subject and the mode of its 
 treatment, than that a work, with so obvious a political meaning, should 
 have been the spontaneous conception of the painter himself. 
 
 In any case, as a production calculated to second the known inten- 
 tions of the vainglorious Minister, it is, I think, reasonable to suppose 
 that it may have had a valuable influence on the fortunes of the artist.