This great painting is undoubtedly one of the most important pictorial pieces in the Amparo Museum Collection due to its quality, age and author; a key factor in Puebla's pictorial development. The Flemish Diego de Borgraf came to Puebla in 1640, accompanying Bishop Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, who also came with the painter Pedro Garcia Ferrer (1583-1660), who must have been his main artist since Borgraf was much younger.
While Palafox and Garcia Ferrer were in Mexico, Borgraf had no orders of the magnitude of those made by the Aragonese painter, but upon his return to Spain with the bishop in 1649, Borgraf certainly became one of the most important artists in Puebla.[1] Borgraf can even be considered one of the founders of Puebla's pictorial tradition, which would show different characteristics from the style of the capital, perhaps because of the importance of the direct influence of European painting on the city.
Although the Museum's piece is not signed, it is certain that it is a creation of this artist for two reasons: his peculiar way of interpreting the human figure and landscape, and that a work that was possibly its partner, in the Soumaya Museum Collection, is signed by the artist. It is the one that represents The vision of Saint Anthony of Padua, in other words, a Franciscan theme related to that of Saint Francis, which has similar dimensions (it is slightly larger). Certainly, both works also share artistic characteristics: composition, coloring, drawing, the way they represent figures and the handling of light and shadow.[2] It is very likely that they were created as a pair and that at some point in their history they were separated, which is why only one is signed.[3]
The piece represents, with great care and great detail, an intimate moment in which the founder of the Seraphic Order prays in the field while a warm golden light comes down from the sky to symbolize the relationship of the saint with God, who inspires him. The details are depicted in a meticulous fashion, as was the Flemish tradition, so that each leaf, string or blade of grass, is painted individually and with great precision, which is what stands out by looking at the x-rays taken for study, which show no contrition in the design. The vivid colors correspond to the palette used in the 17th century, and the quality in their elaboration and application have allowed their permanence despite the normal darkening of all oil paintings. Despite the tranquility that the artist captured, certain details highlight some of the dramatic religiosity of the time: the visibility of the wound in the side and hands, as well as the blood present at the tips of the sackcloth with which the saint was martyred.
It is almost certain that Borgraf drew from an engraving by the Frenchman Claude Mellan (1598-1688), dated from 1638, which also represents Saint Francis meditating. From the dates of the picture, it is clear that Borgraf was aware of European artistic novelties.[4] As often happens, the painter did not copy the image identically, but introduced changes that must be linked to his artistic intentions. The main ones are that the engraver represented the saint before his stigmatization, and the figure of another Franciscan in the background. In addition to the wounds, Borgraf also introduced the burst of glory to mark the divine presence at that moment.
Given the importance of the painter to Puebla, scientific analysis of this work intends to set a precedent in the studies of the artist and the school of painting that he left. Analysis of the material in the painting attributed to Borgraf would allow, henceforth, the possibility of comparative studies in other paintings attributed and signed by the architect, and thus hypothesize about his way of painting and his artistic tradition. An analysis under ultraviolet light (UV) was performed, and a photographic image was taken which shows the presence of an old varnish applied from top to bottom with a brush, and over it a highly homogeneous varnish applied by spraying in a previous restoration, both with a natural resin identified by its characteristic fluorescence. It was also possible, with this analytical technique, to recognize the presence of the pigment known as copper resin, whose existence was confirmed by x-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) studies.
Furthermore, the painting was analyzed with x-rays. In the image, the x-ray showed the presence of white lead used in the painting's light, the same being applied at the end of the elaboration of the figures. In the radio-graphs, one can see the accuracy of the placement of the brushstrokes, the attention to detail of the composition and the pictorial construction from a medium shade to then apply shadows and finally the light.
In order to establish the technical and pictorial sequence and define the type of elaboration carried out by the painter, two stratigraphic samples were taken which were studied under the microscope and photographic images were made. Sample one was taken from the base of the habit of Saint Francis, near the left border. In this section you can see, from bottom to top, a red base with heavy loads and medium thickness, which was commonly used during the 17th and 18th centuries. Immediately we see a very thin and compact layer which is known as primer; it is the layer that receives the pictorial layer, which usually has a different intonation and/or texture from the base preparation. In this case the layer is homogeneous, thin and compact.
At the top there is the brown layer with natural shade pigments, and black and burnt sienna particles. The FRX study also identified a white lead mixture to compose the light of the clothing.[5] Finally, a thin layer of natural resin varnish can be seen, although it is not possible to differentiate the two layers identified under ultraviolet light.
Sample two was taken from a yellow filling from the floor of the scene, in the lower right corner. In this cross-section a thick red base is also identified, and the primer of the same color. At the top there is a yellow layer which is a mixture of a white pigment matrix (white lead), with yellow particles (iron oxides) and some greenish particles (iron oxides) only to achieve the yellow tone. The chemical compounds were identified by XRF. There is a layer of natural resin varnish in the upper part.
Therefore, the work is of great quality, both technically and expressively, and attests to one of the most influential and powerful pictorial moments in Puebla's art. It is consistent with the production of cultured New-Spanish painting from the 17th century.
[1]. Rodriguez Miaja, Fernando E.,Diego de Borgraf. Un destello en la noche de los tiempos (A glimmer in the mists of time). Obra pictórica (Pictorial Work), Mexico, Patronato Editorial para la Cultura, Arte e Historia de Puebla, Universidad Iberoamericana Golfo Centro, 2001, pp. 25 et seq.
[2]. The author speaks of both paintings in particular, and proposes that the painting of Saint Anthony is the partner of the one of Saint Francis. Ibid., pp. 364-371 and 416-423.
[3]. In the opinion of Rodriguez Miaja the painting from the Amparo Museum is cut, plus it received "unfortunate" restorations before a better intervention was made. This leads him to think that the picture bears the signature on the stone similar to the one which appears in the Saint Anthony one, which must have been cropped. These ideas do not entirely agree with the scientific observation that was made about the piece, which recognized good interventions and the technological qualities of the author were emphasized. An "unfortunate" restoration may be irreversible and leave visible traces. On the other hand, the stone to which he refers has enough space to have held the signature (only the edge is incomplete), and more so if compared to the central position of this in the in Saint Anthony rock. Perhaps the author's opinion is due to a misunderstanding of the intervention: the work presents bands of linen that were used to tighten it again to the frame (probably replaced as was fashionable in Mexican restorations for decades), and a horizontal crack is observed at the bottom, which may correspond to the edge of the original frame. Perhaps he mistook that line for an aggregate of restoration, ascribing to the person responsible for this the removal of the alleged signature.
[4]. The identification of the engraving is attributed to Daniel Sanchez Villavicencio. The specimen found belongs to the collection of prints from the Metropolitan Museum of New York and measures 51.5 x 36.5 cm.
[5]. Study by Jose Luis Ruvalcaba Sil, April 2012, pp. 14-20.
