Voces del Prado

Three of all the attributions

Matías Díaz Padrón, Technical Advisor and Head of the Department of Conservation of Flemish Painting and the Northern Schools up to 1700, 1970-2005

I was summoned by Diego Angulo, I'm not sure whether he was the director of the Prado Museum at the time, because he also presided over the Prado Museum Council. He asked me, "Why don't you go...?" He took to me to his office, a rather dark place, and told me, "Why don't you go to Seville, to the church of San Alberto, they have a painting amidst the rubble, a picture they say is by Alonso Cano, but I think it's by a follower of his. Go and take a look." I went and had a look, they had sold it shortly before that. Later I had to go to Barcelona and found it. Fortunately the Prado bought it. It's wonderful, finally I got it, it's by Jordaens. I think don Diego knew it and he was so kind as to bring it for me as a present because it was quite obvious. I found preparatory sketches in different places in Flanders plus a replica, and we published our findings outside Spain, in the Royal Museums Bulletin of Brussels and that was one of the reasons for the Prado to buy it. So we have this splendid, remarkable Jordaens here at the Prado.
Right now I recall another work, apparently well documented, a Pietà at the Prado Museum, we have it catalogued as a work by Van Dyck, a huge Pietà by Van Dyck at the Prado Museum, which was a very tough decision for me. Such an imposing work, attributed to Rubens, it seemed strange to me because it was obviously done imitating Rubens, but the brush strokes were more powerful, looser, more like Van Dyck. So I finally summed up some courage and published an article that caused a commotion here at the Prado Museum, I published it in the Archivo Español, furnishing all the necessary documentation. The documentation shows that the work was mentioned as being at El Escorial, we knew where because of Father Santos. Father Santos was a friend of Velázquez and his testimony is justified, because he talks about things he is experiencing. Technically it seemed to me that it was by Van Dyck, but absolutely everybody, in the Prado Museum catalogue and in books on Rubens attributed it to Rubens, especially monographic works. It was difficult, but then I found something in the inventories: The Pietà by Antonio Rubens [not Pedro Pablo Rubens], in other words it was a slip, not an error. Father Santos, a friend of Velázquez, taking notes from the most direct source got it mixed up, he wrote down Antonio Rubens, really Anthony Van Dyck, he took the first name of one painter and the surname of another one. And then I came across a map from the same period with handwriting by Velázquez, referring to those very halls and how the paintings were arranged, and there it clearly says Van Dyck. So I now have another source supporting me. You understand what that means, today nobody doubts it and the Pietà is recognized as a work by Van Dyck, they have changed the name, even though a Belgian colleague of mine always insists, "No, it's by Rubens."
Another story related to this and with Isabel Matías, a friend of mine at the Spanish National Research Council, when I published it I discovered an Immaculate Conception by Rubens. I don't know whether you are aware that this was a discovery of mine, the picture was attributed to Erasmus Quellinus from the moment it entered the Prado Museum, since Ferdinand VII transferred the works to the Prado Museum. I knew the work through photographs, it was attributed to Erasmus Quellinus, a disciple of Rubens, familiar to Belgians who did research on Rubens. One day I thought to myself, "This is well above Erasmus Quellinus," you could see the quality in the photograph. And I went rummaging through the archives, where I found that there were three Immaculate Conceptions. One was at the Alcazar, the Alcazar in Madrid, they say it was burned, another one appears in El Escorial, whereabouts unknown, and another one in the collection at the Prado. And I wondered, "What if they're all one same work?" The one from the Alcazar, the one that was later taken to El Escorial and the one at the Prado, "Are they the same painting?" It was said that the Immaculate Conception by Rubens, mentioned by Pacheco, belonged to the Marquis of Leganés. And here's the thing, they say that the painting belonging to the Marquis of Leganés ended in a rounded arch, and I said to Xavier de Salas, when he was the deputy director, "Look, Xavier, I think this is the famous Rubens they say disappeared, the one mentioned by Pacheco, the one that was at the Alcazar, which rather than being burned went to El Escorial, and there they made it a square arch and it finally showed up at the collection here." I explained it all to him. I remember his office was next to Sánchez Cantón's, and he went to the director's office while I waited outside. He commented what I just told him and I heard Sánchez Cantón crying out, "That boy is out of his mind, everyone knows that it's a rounded arch and this one is a square arch," and he continued talking. He then called the head of the porters and out came Sánchez Cantón, Salas and then the head of the porters to go down to the dark deposits of the Prado Museum. Plenty of cobwebs, paintings all gathered there, and he went with the workers to move the paintings, he didn't even look at me. Salas told me to come along so I joined them in the line, I was fourth or fifth in line. They started moving around the paintings and suddenly the one we were searching for showed up, with the rounded arch, which they had changed into a square arch to adapt it to the altar in the enclosure, something Velázquez himself did when he was entrusted with placing the pictures later on at El Escorial. So this was the famous lost painting by Rubens, there it was, one of the most wonderful Rubens, which according to Pacheco was painted for the Marquis of Leganés, who in turn gave it to the king. There it was, all quite spectacular. You knew at the time that those people took you into consideration, but I never got a word of praise. You could tell anyway. He ordered that they take it out immediately, had it restored and it was immediately displayed as a work of Rubens. I prepared the research paper that was published in those years and it made quite a splash. I got a call from Justus Müller Hofstede from Germany, one of the great scholars on Rubens in the world, he called to congratulate me for the magnificent article of the 1960s. As you can see, I never got it much better than that.