Goya, an account of his life and works

by Albert Frederick Calvert

The expositor feeling sure of said promises, with all good faith in them, proceeded with the Study or Design, and as he wished to be on good terms with D. Francisco Bayeu he took it to him, and received his entire approval: he came with him to this city: he began his work by consulting him regarding the place where the principal façade should be put; the expositor gave way to Bayeu’s opinion. He presented the design to you, who approved them; and in executing them he has only enlarged them.

Taking into consideration these harmonious dealings of the supplicant with D. Francisco Bayeu, which created no motive for resentment, and were governed by the principles and rules prescribed in the first and only conversations regarding the matter, who could think that the expositor had been wanting in respect to Bayeu? There are those who think so, because when the work was well in hand, they wished to make him understand that the agreement with Bayeu was that he should interfere as much as he liked with the expositor’s work, and that the latter should obey him as a subordinate in execution, placing of figures, style, colouring, and so forth; in a word make him a mere executor and mercenary subordinate; but as this was in direct opposition to what had been agreed, it would have been discreditable to his honour to yield, as he would be losing what his merit had won for him, and he could not therefore so humiliate himself, for he knew that the previous offices were sufficient, and that similar ones if continued would not make them anything but his own production. D. Francisco Bayeu’s warning to you that he would not be responsible for his part of the work, only shows that his object was to create a want of confidence that should cause coercion to be exercised, which was justly resisted, for doubt as to skill and success sat ill on D. Francisco, who knew quite well of the honours acquired by the expositor in Madrid, both from the Royalties and from all who had seen his productions, all executed by himself without the slightest direction from any one.

After this, things were artfully circulated against the conduct of the expositor, concerning his temper, proceedings and dealings with Bayeu, he being accused of hauteur, pride and stubbornness. Thereafter malice prepared the blow, long premeditated, of first creating personal disaffection, and then disaffection with his work; as shown by the reception of his work in the dome of the Cathedral of Our Lady. The criticism passed by some persons can only be attributed to this, because all its merit is unobserved and only the defects suggested by caprice or ignorance are sought.

He has suffered with resignation the insults to his honour, he has had the patience to see that the same Bayeu who impaired his credit with insinuating words, and the deceitful complaint that he was responsible for the success of the work, and that he would have to give an account of the confidence placed in him, and that the supplicant was depriving him of this satisfaction because he would not allow him to correct or alter his productions; on other occasions defended the expositor, exalting his merit, acknowledging his skill and the correctness of his painting.

The insinuations of Bayeu have led to the conclusion that the expositor came to this city as a mere subordinate of his, and that notwithstanding this absolute dependence, his proud spirit would not submit to asking for instructions from D. Francisco, even on the ground of friendship and relationship. Two entirely false propositions, which are the cause of all the supplicant’s trouble, because regarding the first he has already told you about the agreements that preceded his coming to Zaragoza, and regarding this and the second, D. Francisco Bayeu cannot deny that, as the result of those agreements, the expositor executed the studies and designs in Madrid, showed them to him, received his approval, and no fault was found. The studies are the complete work, with the same figures, colouring and arrangement to be observed, and the work itself an entire copy of them; and if they passed his examination in Madrid as an act of condescension on the part of the supplicant, emanating from his desire for peace, why, if as he says he was responsible, did he not then point out the defects he might have noted? He did not do so; then what is to be inferred from his having concealed them, if he noticed them? Obviously, and no dissimulating artifice can hide this, it may be gathered that his object was for the expositor to be in error, receive indignant public censure, and lose all the merit and status won by his work. But not wishing to believe such malevolence, because other proofs would be required of it, it must be admitted either that he found no defects in the studies or designs, and therefore the painting on the dome, which is the same, has none, or that D. Francisco was most culpable who, knowing of them, said nothing and allowed them to be copied.

The expositor has never departed from that friendly subordination, nor attempted to oppose D. Francisco Bayeu with the proud spirit of which he is accused; a proof of this is what has been said about the designs; another, the placing of the principal façade; and, lastly, the many visits he paid him at his own house, even though they were not returned. On being informed that the Chapter wished Bayeu to inspect the work on the dome, he arranged for him to do so, which he did, accompanied by the chief Presbyter Allué, and in his presence admitted and acknowledged the perfection of the work, saying that what he had been informed was not true; he also saw the designs for the triangles, and approved of them.

In face of all this, the expositor finds that the same bitter opposition which he had thought would cease, still continued, because the sense of truth may be suspended but not extinguished, but seeing that there is no hope of staying the torrent of provocations that insult his honour and fame, and that an honoured professor cannot stand for ever against the opposition of his enemies, whose only object is to work him ill; notwithstanding that he thought he must finish the work on the triangles, he has at last been undeceived by the letter which the chief Presbyter Allué had just sent to him, of which he sends you a complete copy. After the calumnies he has had to endure, the slights and contempt with which he is treated will not permit him to continue to expose himself to some greater misfortune. He now humbly shows, and at the same time sets forth that he has heard that some figures were to be altered in the dome, and although the expositor cannot be sure that you will allow yourselves to be guided by the declamatory voice of the ignorant public, or the opinion of rivals, the right he has to defend his honour leads him to forestall you. Before a daub is put in the Church that will obscure and deprive it of merit, and leave a permanent witness of the ignorance which is a reproach: which is now the only thing in the matter that interests him, and regarding which he appeals to you—because the will of the owner in his own house does not let go the reins of liberty to such an extent, merely in order to exercise his authority, as to permit without cause, and quite uselessly, great detriment to another on a point so delicate as honour—the expositor thinks the best way to appease the want of confidence he presumes in others and to assert his own opinion, is that a person expert in the art, authorised in his profession, and whose opinion would be impartial, should minutely inspect the work, and when his criticism detects his unskilfulness and error, or testifies to his sufficiency and skill, he will watch with indifference any mutilations executed. Therefore he humbly begs that you will arrange for the work in the dome to be seen by one of the members of the San Fernando Academy, one of the most renowned, as D. Mariano Maëlla or D. Antonio Velazquez, at the expense of the expositor, and after careful inspection his declaration be accepted as testimony.—Zaragoza, March 17, 1781.

Francisco de Goya.

Upon the receipt of this letter, which may be left to speak for itself, the worthy and sorely tried Allué seems to have invited the mediation of Father Salzedo, who was, perhaps, the only man to whom the irascible Goya might be expected to listen. Salzedo wrote the painter a long, earnest epistle, in which he appealed to his better judgment and prudence, cited instances of humility in the life of Christ for his guidance, and demonstrated the practical advantages that would be derived from doing his work to the satisfaction of the Building Committee. The good father did not hesitate to tell his friend that he had taken up a wrong attitude towards his brother-in-law and the Cathedral authorities, and plainly exhorted him ‘with all generosity and Christian charity, to submit your studies to Bayeu’s opinion, in order to please God by your humility, edify the public, and give pleasure to your friends.’ And he adds in conclusion: ‘My dictum, as your greatest admirer, is that you submit to the demands of the Committee, have your studies taken to your brother’s house, and say to him in the best manner possible: This is required by the Chapter—here they are; examine them to your satisfaction, and put your opinion in writing, doing this as God and your conscience shall dictate, etc. And then await the result.’

The foregoing letter was dated March 30, 1781. On April 6, Goya wrote a conciliatory note to Allué, promising to make fresh studies in consultation with Bayeu. Eleven days later the Committee approved the new designs and expressed their pleasure at finding him reconciled to his brother-in-law. But the truce, for such one supposes it to have been, did not last. From a minute in the report of the Building Committee’s proceedings on May 28, it is recorded that Goya, in a ‘not very courteous’ manner, had told Allué that he was only losing his reputation in Zaragoza and desired permission to return to Madrid as soon as possible: ‘The Committee resenting this further affront, resolved: First, that the Professor be paid for his painting. Second, that under no circumstances would he be permitted to continue to paint any more in this Church, but that this need not deter the Director from giving some medals to his wife, in virtue of her being the sister of D. Francisco Bayeu, who was so worthy of this and other considerations from the Committee, by reason of his skilful work in this church.’