THE SACRED PAINTING.
407
The artist Cabrera[1] describes the countenance as exquisitely beautiful in every feature, and maintains that even if a person were ignorant of the origin of the painting, he could not deny, on seeing it, that it is supernatural work.[2] The figure is surrounded by an aureola encompassed by a luminous-edged cloud.[3]
In 1835 a formal investigation was made with regard to the genuineness of the existing painting,[4] from which it was discovered that its identity with the one miraculously depicted on the mantle of Juan Diego,[5] was not proven until its removal from its place on the
- ↑ Miguel Cabrera, at a meeting of the artists of Mexico in 1751, was selected to make a copy of the painting for presentation to Benedict XIV. This copy was the most celebrated ever taken. Cabrera in 1756 wrote a lengthy critique on the original. Aparic. Guad., 42-7.
- ↑ Grave authorities have agreed that no human hand could have painted such a picture. Becerra Tanco, Feléc., 55.
- ↑ The length of the picture is, according to Cabrera, two and one twelfth varas, and its width a little over one and a quarter varas. The length of the virgin's figure is about one vara. It is painted on ayate, a coarse native cloth manufactured out of the fibre of the agave plant, and has been extensively copied. The miraculous origin of this painting has given rise to much controversy as to its authenticity. The arguments advanced in contra consist of five principal ones: 1. The miracle was never affirmed by any auto; 2. Bishop Zumárraga left no writing on the subject; 3. Torquemada leaves the reader to infer that it was the work of man; 4. The ayate, said to have belonged to Juan Diego, was longer and narrower than the mantles usually worn; 5. The painting itself shows artistic faults. Bartolache makes an elaborate attempt to refute these arguments. Manifest. Opusc. Guad., 70-105. The defenders of the miracle, the warmest of whom is Bustamante, base its authenticity on native manuscripts giving an account of it; on extant narratives of ancient writers mentioned by Veytia and others; on the testimony of aged persons; on ancient native canticles; and on the miracles performed at the sanctuary, mentioned by many writers, among whom was Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 250. Those who desire further information can consult, besides the authorities already quoted, the following: Lasso de la Vega, Huei Tlamahuicoltica, published in Mexico, 1649, a work supposed to be modelled from Sanchez; Boturini, Idea, Hist. Gen. Amer., Madrid, 1746. This author collected a great number of Indian manuscripts: Vetancurt, Teatro Mex., Mexico, 1698; Sanchez, Imagen Guad., Mexico, 1648; Cabrera, Maravilla Amer., Mexico, 1756, a work treating exclusively of the painting; Florencia, Zodiaco Mariano, Mexico, 1755; Id., Estrella de el Norte, Mexico, 1741, a discussion on the painting and Indian antiquities. Antonio and Tuñon, Col. Ob. y Opusc., an excellent collection of passages from the best writers on the Guadalupe mystery; and Castro, Octava Maravilla Mex., Mexico, 1729, a poem in five — The material on which the picture was painted is discussed in this work.
- ↑ The committee, besides Bustamante, was composed of the bishop of Monterey, Fray Ortigosa, two prebends, Movellan, secretary of congress, a notary public, and the artists Aillon and Villanueva.
- ↑ This personage, after the apparition of the virgin, withdrew from business, lived a life of celibacy, and devoted himself to her service. He died in 1548, aged 74, warned, according to Vetancurt, Chron., 128, of his approaching end.
