ART SENSATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2934, 8 June 1910, Page 41

ART SENSATION.

THE VELASQUEZ VENUS. IS IT GENUINE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, April 8. Serious doubts as to whether the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery was painted by Velasquez have been raised by Mr James Greig, artist end critic, who asserts that he has descovered a signature on the picture which is not that of Velasquez. The Rokeby Venue, or " Venus with the Mirror," was bought for the National Gallery by the National Art Collections Fund for £15,000, and -on March 14, 1906, it was handed over to the trustees of the National Gallery as a gift to the nation. It vvm one time in the possession of the Duke d'Alba, and later belonged to Godoy, the Spanish statesman. In 1808 Mr Morrifct, of Rokeby Hall, purchased it, and it became an heirloom of bis family. In 1905 it was 6old under an order of the Court of Chancery for £30,000, and Messrs T. Agnew and Sons purchased it. From Messrs Agnew it passed to its present home in Trafalgar square. MR GREIG'S STATEMENT. Mr Greig announced his discovery in a letter to the Morning Post early this week. He said a careful examination revealed, on the low left-hand corner of the painting, about 12 inches under the left foot of Venus, close to the frame, certain signatures. " To me," he wrote, " the first cipher suggests J 8., the second D. M.. which, taken together, may be interpreted as the initials of Juan Bautieta del Mazo,

scn-in-law of Velasquez, a.nd his successor as court painter to Philip IV. Mazo had an extraordinary talent for reproducing the character and quality of the works of other painters, especially of VeLasquez. Bo closely do his best pictures resemble those of the father-in-law that there has always been some uncertainty in regard to their attribution. Beruete says that Velasquez rarely put his name to a picture, but that when he did so he aiwa-ns painted it on a paper placed in the hand of the subject of the portrait. The full-length portrait of Philip IV in the National Gallery is an example. The portrait of " Admiral Adrian Pulido Pareja " in the same gallery, which was bought as a Velasquez for the ration at about £IB,OOO, is also signed, but the signature is now generally believed to be a forgery, and the picture given to 1 Mazo." WHERE EXPERTS DIFFER. There followed at once a great sensation. The National Gallery directors naturally found experts to back them, and Mr Greig found other eminent artists to support him. For instance, Sir W. B. Richmond, R.A., said: "I have seen the signature, but until I have examined it again under a strong light I cannot express any opinion as to whether it is what Mr Greig claims it to be. I have always maintained that the picture was not a Velasquez, and I have not the slightest doubt on that point." No progress was made on Wednesday toward a solution. All day long crowds of connoisseurs and the curious were grouped in front of the screen, bearing the picture. Many were armed with magnifying glasses of great power, and spent much time in patient scrutiny. The majority of onlookers, however, failed to observe any signature, and returned with open mind to await the decision of the critics. THE EXAMINATION. A diligent examination of the picture was made yesterday by artists of repute, who came to the conclusion that the marks and cracks detected by Mr Greig do not show the vestige of any monogram or signature. To this Mr Greig replies: ""On reaching the National Gallery yesterday morning I learned for the first time that a committee of experts was deliberating on the picture. I was courteously invited by Sir Charles Holroyd to their councils, and found that they had already made up their minds. I also learned that they had been looking in, the wrong place. I was unable to convince them, however, in 10 minutes of the -presence of the cipher, whioh took me eight to discover. Sir Charles Holroyd has kindly given me permission to have the picture specially photographed. This may, I hope, clear up the matter."