Coello.
Other notable painters.
The era of splendor began with Domenico Theotocopuli (1545?-1625), better known as “El Greco.” As indicated by his name this artist was not Spanish in origin, but Greek. The character of his works, however, was so original and its influences were so powerful in the formation of the Spanish school that he may truly be claimed for Spain, where he lived and worked. He established himself at Toledo in 1577, which city is still the best repository of his paintings. His early style was marked by a strong Venetian manner, with warm tones, great richness, firm drawing, and an intense sentiment of life. Toward 1581 he began to change to a use of cold, gray, shadowy tones, and the employment of a kind of caricature in his drawing, with long and narrow heads and bodies. By this method, however, he was able to attain wonderful results in portraiture. Aside from his own merits no painter so profoundly influenced the greatest of the masters, Velázquez. Chronologically next of the great painters was Ribera (1588-1656), called “Espagnoletto” in Italy, where he did most of his work in the Spanish kingdom of Naples. Naturalism, perfect technique, and the remarkable bodily energy of the figures he depicted were the leading qualities of his work. The diffusion of his paintings in Spain tended to make him influential in the Spanish school, to which his individuality, as well as his birth, entitled him to belong. Zurbarán (1598-1663) was the most rigorous of the realists, including all the accessories in his paintings, even to the minute details of a person’s dress. Less vigorous than Ribera he was best in his portrayal of monks, in which subject-matter his sombrely passive, exceedingly religious atmosphere found a suitable vehicle. He was nevertheless a brilliant colorist. Next in point of time came Diego Velázquez de Silva (1599-1660), greatest of Spanish masters and possibly the greatest of all painters. Velázquez had various periods and various styles, in all of which he produced admirable works. Unlike his predecessors and those who succeeded him as well, he was as diverse in subject-matter as it was possible to be, within the law, and was far less notable for his religious works than for his many others. He depicted for all time the court life of Philip III and Philip IV, including the portraits of those kings and the other leading figures of the court. Some of his greatest work appeared in these portraits, which he knew how to fit into a setting of landscape, making the central figure stand out in a way that no other painter has surpassed or perhaps equalled. He also painted common people (as in his Los borrachos, or Intoxicated men) and queer people (as in his paintings of dwarfs), and drew upon mythology (as in his composition entitled “the forge of Vulcan”) and upon contemporary wars (as witness the famous “surrender of Breda”). Once only, during a lapse of the prohibitory law, did he paint a nude,—the celebrated Venus of the mirror, now in London, one of the greatest works of its kind. In many of his paintings he revealed himself as a wonderful landscape painter. His landscapes were characterized by the use of a pale, yet rich, pervading blue, and by effects of distance and atmosphere. No painter is more inadequately set forth by photography. To know Velázquez, one must see his works.[58] After Velázquez came Murillo (1618-1682), an Andalusian, who well represented the traits of southern Spain. His leading characteristics were a precise, energetic drawing, fresh, harmonious coloring, and a religious sentiment which was a remarkable combination of imaginative idealism, or even supernaturalism, of conception with realism of figures and scenes. His biblical characters were represented by the common people of the streets of Seville. Few painters have more indelibly stamped their works with their own individuality. Last of the masters was Coello (1623?-1694), who maintained the traditions of the Spanish school, though under strong Venetian influence, amidst a flood of baroque paintings which had already begun to corrupt public taste. Other names might well be included in the list of great Spanish painters in this era, such as Pacheco, Roelas, Herrera, and especially Valdés Leal and Alonso Cano. Indeed, it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the Spanish school. It is not unthinkable that a list of the ten greatest painters in the history of the world would include the names of Velázquez, El Greco, and Murillo, with a place reserved for Goya (of the eighteenth century), and with the claims of Ribera deserving consideration.
Noteworthy character of Spanish music.
Spanish music, though not so important in the history of the world as that of Italy or Germany, had a notable development in this period, and displayed an individuality which distinguished it from that of other lands. For the first time it came into a place of its own, apart from recitation or the merely technical presentation of medieval church ceremonial, and was characterized by a certain expressiveness, approaching sentimentality and having a flavor which has led many to assert that its roots were to be found in the song and dance of Spanish Moslems. To be sure, the influence of Italy was greatest at this time. The siglo de oro in Spanish music was the sixteenth century, in the time of the four great composers of the era, Morales, Guerrero, Cabezón, and Victoria. The greatest works were in the field of religious music, in which various parts were sung to the accompaniment of the organ. Music of the court occupied a half-way post between church and popular music, displaying a combination of both elements, with song to the accompaniment of the viola, which filled the rôle of the modern piano. At the close of the sixteenth century the viola was replaced by the guitar, which became the national instrument of Spain. Popular music found its fullest expression in the theatre. It got to be the fashion for the entire company to sing as a preliminary to the play, to the music of the viola, the harp, or the violin. This song had no necessary connection with the play, but song in dialogue soon began to be employed as an integral part of one-act pieces of what might be termed a vaudeville type. In the seventeenth century, song invaded the legitimate stage, and some operas were sung in which the dialogue was entirely in music or else alternated with recitation. The last-named type, the zarzuela, became particularly popular. Unfortunately, none of the examples of this music which would have been most interesting, such as that employed in the zarzuelas of Lope de Vega and the other masters, has survived. Its true character therefore remains unknown, although its use in theatrical representation is an important fact in the history of the art.
CHAPTER XXXI
THE EARLY BOURBONS, 1700-1759
Basis and consequences of Spanish reforms of the eighteenth century.
THE eighteenth century in Spain was of intense import as affecting the ultimate interests of the Americas. It was an era of regeneration, of a somewhat remarkable recovery from the decadent state which Spain had reached by the time of the reign of the last Hapsburg monarch. It was accompanied, however, by Spain’s engaging in a series of wars, due in some cases to unwise ambitions of an imperialistic character in European affairs and in others to unavoidable necessity as a result of the aggressions of foreign powers. It was a period when international morality with its attendant diplomatic intrigue and unprovoked attacks was in a low state, and Spain was often a sufferer thereby; indeed, many interesting parallels might be drawn between European diplomatic practices in the eighteenth century and those of William II of Germany in the twentieth. England, Austria, and France were at various times the opponents of Spain, but the first-named gradually emerged as the most persistent, aggressive, and dangerous of her enemies. If the prospects of wars were the principal motive force which induced the life-giving reforms,—so that Spain might acquire wealth and efficiency which could be converted into military strength,—the wars themselves tended to increase the needs of the state. Thus in the case of the Americas the very improvements which were introduced were to contribute to bring about the eventual separation of Spain from her colonies, in the first place because they occasioned a development in resources and capacity which gave prospects of success when the revolts should come, and in the second because Spain drew too heavily upon the colonies in promoting European objects without giving an adequate return, wherefore discontent was fostered. Nevertheless, her efforts were at least to have the merit of saving those colonies to themselves, thus conserving the influence of Spanish-speaking peoples in the world, with indirect effects on the history of the United States.
Causes of the War of the Spanish Succession.
With the exception of Austria, whose candidate for the Spanish throne, the Archduke Charles, was unwilling to recognize the validity of the document which had chosen the grandson of Louis XIV, the European nations were disposed to view the accession of Philip V (1700-1746) with favor, especially since the French monarch consented to the conditions imposed in the will of Charles II that the crowns of France and Spain should be independent and never be united in a single person. This seemed to insure a maintenance of the equilibrium in Europe almost more certainly than the crowning of the Archduke Charles would have done, wherefore most of the powers recognized Philip V. It was at this time that the autocratic Louis XIV, whose many victorious wars had given him an undue confidence, made one of the serious mistakes of his life. In certain formal letters he recognized in Philip V such rights of succession to the French throne as he would ordinarily have had but for the terms of his acquisition of Spain, and caused these documents to be recorded before the Parlement of Paris. Other events also tended to show that Louis XIV meant to dispose of Spain as if that country belonged to him. When he presented the Spanish ambassador at Versailles to Philip V the Castilian envoy exclaimed: “God be praised! The Pyrenees have disappeared! Now we are all one!” This remark was indicative of the opinions which by that time had become current. This new element in the situation, together with certain other impolitic acts of the French king against the interests of England and the Protestant Netherlands, caused the countries just named to join with Austria and the Holy Roman Empire in 1701 in an alliance for a war against Louis XIV and Philip V. Austria wished to acquire the crown of Spain for the archduke, while the English and the Dutch were primarily desirous of avoiding a Franco-Spanish union, wherefore they insisted on the dethronement of Philip V, accepting the pretensions of Charles. England was particularly inspired by a fear that her commerce and expansion in the new world would be prejudiced, or even crushed, by the joint power of France and Spain. Furthermore, the profits of contraband trade with the Spanish colonies were likely to be cut off under the energetic rule of the king of France, then the most powerful monarch in Europe, and direct indications to that effect occurred in 1701, when the asiento (contract), or right to introduce negro slaves into America, was granted to a French company and several South American ports were occupied by French ships.