[El Greco's Library] Edited by Javier Docampo and José Riello

Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro

CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

La biblioteca del Greco
[El Greco's Library]
Edited by Javier Docampo and José Riello

With writings by Javier Docampo, Richard L. Kagan, Fernando Marías, José Riello and Leticia Ruiz Gómez

Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, 2014

El Greco, St. Luke Painting the Virgin with Child (before 1567), Benaki Museum, Athens
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The exhibition, the catalogue

This "exhibition aims at reflecting on the reputation of a painter who is supposed to have been a mystical artist, but did not write a single line on religious painting, who also was an alleged neo-Platonist, and however owned books of Aristotle but not of Plato, and was seen as the founder of the Spanish school of painting, but was unable to speak or write properly in the language of his contemporary Cervantes" (p. 11).

'The library of El Greco' is the catalogue of the exhibition held at the Prado in Madrid between 1^st April and 26^th June 2014. The few lines I have just quoted from the introductory essay authored by Javier Docampo explain the spirit of the exhibition, which also characterizes its catalogue: to eradicate clichés on the painter. For various reasons, including political ones, the image of Domenikos Theotokopoulos (alias El Greco) has been frequently altered or boxed into frames which it did not belong to. On El Greco everything has been said, especially among the late nineteenth and the twentieth century. The renowned art critic Julius Meier-Graefe defined him as the father of modern art; in much more parochial terms, Spanish criticism has made him the champion of the painting of the Iberian Peninsula and the maximum expression of art mysticism; others behaved in a much stronger way, defining the artist (in the most benign cases) as a man who was suffering from serious sight problems, and reaching as far as to call him insane and drug-addict.

The curators, of course, are well aware of all the limitations related to such an operation: the fact that a man (in this case an artist) possessed books does not mean at all that he had read them all, nor does it tell us, if he did, how he interpreted them. And given that books were very expensive at the time, it can certainly not be ruled out (indeed, it is certain) that he read other texts which he had taken in loan, or that in turn he lent or donated some of his owns. 

El Greco, Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple, about 1570, Minneapolis Institute of Art
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Two inventories

Our highly partial knowledge of El Greco’s library is fundamentally based on two inventories, both known from the first decades of the twentieth century: the compilation of the first one was ordered by his son Jorge Manuel at his father's death, in 1614; the second was drawn up seven years later, in 1621, on the occasion of the second marriage of Jorge Manuel. The two inventories do not coincide with each other; it is of course possible that Jorge Manuel had sold some books and/or that he had bought other ones; however, it seems reasonable to put into evidence the two different circumstances in which the lists were formed: in the first case - as I said – the trigger was the compilation of El Greco’s heritage, who had died with many debts. It was therefore in the interest of the son to reduce the heritage of the father, to protect it from the hands of creditors; in the second case, however, the wedding created incentives to make explicit his family richness to the future spouse.

In total, we are talking about 130 volumes. Both inventories are unfortunately extremely incomplete in the description of the works: sometimes, they include only the title, sometimes only the author, sometimes nothing at all. One cannot hide the fact that, for example, in the first inventory two-thirds of volumes are not described and there is a generic reference to about 50 volumes in Italian or 19 books on architecture. The exhibition presented 39 titles, using sometimes the first, sometimes the second inventory, of which it is certain that were included in the artist's library. But mind you: of these 39, only four volumes (and perhaps a fifth one, but is not sure) really belonged to the painter (whose collection is today totally dispersed), along with about 200 prints that were documented as being ownership of the deceased. As to the remaining 35 ones, it was decided to exhibit in the show (and to describe in the catalogue) specimens of the same issues that were probably consulted by El Greco. We do not know anything more about the circumstances in which the artist bought (or received) the books: it seems logical to think that, of the three major stages that had marked his life (childhood and youth in Crete until 1567, Italian stay, especially in Venice and in Rome until 1577 and then maturity and old age in Toledo, in Spain) the most significant stage was the one in Venice, as it represented a turning point not only in artistic terms, but also of the painter's readings. Venice, moreover, was at that time the publishing capital of Europe. But there is no chance to find any purchase dates. There are cases, such as that of the Due regole della prospettiva pratica (Two rules of practical perspective) by Vignola, where the problem is solved from the date of publication: the book was in fact released posthumously in 1583, when Domenikos was already in Spain; and therefore, he must have purchased it there. But these are very rare situations.

El Greco, The Annunciation (about 1573-1576), Madrid, Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Vasari and Vitruvius

Of course, no analysis of the Greco library can ignore the reality of the four volumes that surely belonged to him (a specimen of the Giuntina edition of Vasari's Lives [1] and one of the De Architectura of Vitruvius, published in Venice by Daniele Barbaro in 1556). These volumes are annotated so systematically, that they return us the image of El Greco as a ‘serial’ note taker. The notes of the two books, rediscovered in the second half of the twentieth century,have been published in full between 1981 and 1992 [2]. In total, the notes encompass around 22,000 words. In sum, the book collection of El Greco is a somehow “talking" library, much more than that of other artists, and reveals us many things. The first is that the painter did not write (and one can presume that he also did not speak) a correct Spanish, but rather a Venetian-Italian turned into a Spanish mood. His mother tongue was Greek, but one can bet that since the early years in Crete he knew the use of the Venetian language, as Venice ruled the island at the time. The unfamiliarity with the Spanish stands out even more when one considers that both volumes were most probably annotated by the artist around the last decade of the sixteenth century, that is, when he was already in Toledo since more than 15 years. This coincides with the absence of books in Spanish in the first inventory and the scarcity of the same in the second one. But do not forget that this evidence could be partial: the copy of Vasari itself was not stated explicitly in the inventories [3].

El Greco, The Burial of the Count of Orgaz, about1586-1588, Church of Santo Tomé, Toledo
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Why Vasari and why Vitruvius? I would tend to say that El Greco was particularly bold when he disagreed with what he read. As to Vasari [3] it is evident that the artist adhered to the line of Venetian coloring, which was opposing Vasari's view of the primacy of drawing, traditionally attributed to the Tuscan environment. Domenikos was soaked in Venetian culture and had probably read books like the Dialogo della pittura by Ludovico Dolce (1557). His models were Titian, Tintoretto, Veronese, and Bassano. The most beautiful picture ever painted was, in his view, the Crucifixion of Christ by Tintoretto in the Sala dell’Albergo della Scuola Grande di San Rocco (Confraternity of St. Roch) in Venice. However, it would be quite restrictive to reduce El Greco’s "theoretical dimension" to the polemic against Vasari (or, as the authors suggest, against the Italian followers of the modern manner like Luca Cambiaso and Pellegrino Tibaldi, who had been called by Philip II to decorate the Escorial).

We understand it better, when we come to examine the annotated Vitruvius. As precisely stated by the son, the specimen in question contained notes that were due to serve as a reminder for the future drafting by El Greco of a treatise on architecture. In 1621 (the year of the second marriage) Jorge Manuel tried to take a major administrative office in Toledo and, in order to enrich his curriculum, also noted that he had helped his father to draw up "a distinguished book on architecture written by him, dedicated to His Majesty [Philip III] above Vitruvius, where he discussed all issues on architecture and to which he worked continuously for many years" (pp. 28-29). It is natural to identify this treaty with the "zincos libros de arquitetura manuescriptos el uno co[n] trazas" (i.e., the five handwritten books on architecture and one with marks) that appear between the goods of El Greco in the second inventory of the same year (p. 29). The original text has unfortunately gone missing along with almost the artist’s entire library.

El Greco, Crucifixion, 1597-1600, Madrid, Prado Museum
Source: Wikimedia Commons

El Greco painter-architect

The real question is however: why did a painter write a treatise on architecture and not instead a manual or a "theoretical discussion" on his own art? The relationship between El Greco and architecture has been the subject of a very prolonged debate and retracing all the stages of discussion would go beyond the scope of this post. However, it seems credible, as it is noted in the catalogue, that the artist did not consider architecture as a stand-alone and universal science by nature (like it was a common occurrence in the great treatises printed in the sixteenth century), but as an integral part of his interpretation of painting. Not surprisingly, the most interesting statements with respect to painting was contained in the notes to Vitruvius and not in those to Vasari. Starting from an examination of the work of the Roman architect, El Greco proves to be substantially indifferent to concepts that are typical of architecture in strict sense, such as the firmitas, or the solidity of the building. This explains why he did not annotate the sections of the work dedicated to building techniques. To the contrary, he rather lingers on the study of perspective and venustas, or of beauty. This applies not so much to the representation of the beauty in perspective and the architectural representation regarding single pictures (several paintings, especially in the Spanish period, do not display a perspective construction), but in a broader sense, tied to the location of the artwork in a given context and to the point of view of the viewer, which varies with the change of the position assumed in front of the canvas. The architecture, for the painter El Greco, has essentially a theatrical value, and immediately comes to mind a similar tradition which is basically that of Venice, and one can recall examples ranging from the Bellini's Altarpiece of St. Job to the large canvases by Veronese. In this sense, it is not necessary to be an architect "in office" to understand and design architecture. Architecture is design, and implies the understanding of the mechanisms of vision and of the relationship between the artwork and the viewer. The controversy, here, appears mainly addressed to those whom El Greco called the "vitruvisti", i.e. the architects who slavishly followed the guidelines of Vitruvius as a canon (immediately think of the building of the Escorial). El Greco was not a "vitruvista"; he should not be reckoned among those who he defines as related to the "superstition" of the Latin text. Had he have lived a century later in France, the artist would have been counted, in the famous quarrel between ancient and modern, as a staunch supporter of the modernists. Architecture is emptied of its prescriptive value, which was understood by the advocates of Vitruvius as a noble way to practice a universal science that leads to the understanding of reality. Architecture is not a speculative science; or, rather, it has a universal value only if it is understood within the speculative science par excellence, namely painting.

El Greco, Adoration of the Shepherds, about 1612-1614, Prado Museum
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Painting as a speculative science

In one of his annotations to Vitruvius, El Greco wrote: "painting is the only art that can judge all things, especially shape and color, since it has the imitation of all things as its object. In summary, painting holds a role of careful interpretation of all that one sees [...] But painting, to be so universal, must be speculative" (p. 65). It was an important statement. How El Greco has come to such a Weltanschauung it is not known exactly. It seems likely that his was a Herculean effort to learn as autodidact. From a first Cretan phase which he will never repudiate (if only in the proud claim of his Hellenic origins) he dived in the world of the Venetian art and then in the Roman one. It is unclear which readings have accompanied him. For example, the only treatise on painting quoted in the artist's library is that of Lomazzo. The undeniable influence of Leonardo’s suggestions related to the just mentioned statement were most probably drawn precisely via Lomazzo and not by any reading of Leonardo's manuscripts, in the hands of Pompeo Leoni, at the time in Spain. In his theoretical training, the artist must have probably rejected any book in Latin (among 130 books it is mentioned only one Latin edition of Vitruvius), a language that he did not seem to master (and thereby is scrapped another common place on the learned education that he would have received already in Greece: El Greco was the son of a small trader). The man seems driven by an incredible determination and a good dose of self-esteem. José Riello writes that in Italy El Greco begins to be aware that "with his practice of painting, he could make explicit a certain artistic creed or - I think that's the same thing - to make a speech".

It is absolutely certain that the artist's work must be evaluated within the speculative function he attributed to the painting. Painting is a prudent tool to interpret and know all things, whether "possible" (i.e. real) or "impossible" (or supernatural). This is why, while declaring himself a staunch defender of the representation of the human body according to nature, El Greco shows that he often did not stick to the rules of such proportions, especially in the sacred nature paintings: "In fact, for him the superiority of painting has its roots also in its ability to represent ‘impossible’ things (epiphanies, myths, incarnations), showing that they must necessarily be based in proportions which are not inspired by the human canon. [...] In fact, in most of the works that he painted later in Spain, one can appreciate the practical implementation of this theoretical conception of painting and the gap which is to be understood between the visible and the invisible"(p. 69). No madness, therefore; no physical weakness of sight or anything similar; only the application of a "discourse" which involves the use of two different registers: for the real things and for supernatural entities. Riello reviewed convincingly a series of paintings in which it is possible to analyze the use of this double register. All this must take into account that in painting "the satisfaction of practicing a speculative activity can never be exhausted, because there is always something you can do. Even with poor light one can still see, enjoy and you have something to imitate" (p. 75). In this sense - Riello says - El Greco painting is an "empirical investigation, which transforms itself in the canvas because of the reflexive imitation of the painter and that translates itself into a naturalism which seemed to be exclusive characteristic of a Caravaggio or Carracci" (p. 75 ).

NOTES

[1] In general, as to the phenomenon of the annotations to Vasari's Lives, I would like to refer to Giovanni Mazzaferro, The Annotated Specimens of Vasari's Lives: an Inventory.

[2] See Fernando Marias and Agustín Bustamante, Las ideas Artísticas de El Greco. Comentarios a texto inédito (El Greco’s ideas on art. Comments to unpublished text), Madrid, Cátedra, 1981 (this is the commentary to Vitruvius) and Xavier de Salas and Fernando Marías, El Greco y el arte de of time. Las notas de El Greco to Vasari (El Greco and the art of his time. El Greco notes to Vasari), Toledo, Real Fundación de Toledo, 1992.

[3] According to a reconstruction that basically has been repeated without challenges since the rediscovery of the specimen, the Lives would have been donated to El Greco by Federico Zuccari, during the Spanish stay of the latter, around 1586. In fact, the books hosts four glosses, which are attributed by El Greco to Zuccari. In the last years of his life the artist, would have transferred the specimen to his disciple, Luis Tristán, who in turn incorporated other annotations. Upon his death, El Greco would therefore not have been anymore the owner of the work. Personally, I doubt that the annotations to the copy of El Greco have been autographed by Zuccari. I shall explain why on another occasion.