(Heraklion 1541–1614 Toledo)
The Wedding at Cana,
monogrammed upper centre: δ.ϑ,
oil on panel, 39 x 30 cm, framed

Provenance:
sale, Finarte,14 June 1988, lot 23 (as Scuola Veneto-Cretese del XVI secolo);
where acquired by the present owner

We are grateful to Maria Paphiti for her help in cataloguing the present painting.

This composition depicts Christ’s first miracle, the transformation of water into wine at the Wedding at Cana of Galilee (John, 2:1-11) and it relates to two paintings of the same subject. One in the Correr Museum (see fig. 1), which has been attributed to Michael Damaskenos and a monumental work painted by Jacopo Robusti, called il Tintoretto in the sacristy of the basilica of Santa Maria della Salute, Venice (see fig. 2).

Although the Correr painting largely follows Tintoretto’s work the artist subtly altered many iconographic details. For instance, the plain stone floor of Tintoretto is replaced by tiles in the Correr painting. The depictions of the figures on the left side of the table are different. The artist of the Correr painting seems to have portrayed specific men with special attention given to their distinct features, in contrast to the other figures in the composition. Moreover, the painter of the Correr panel replaced Tintoretto’s bystanders to the left of the table by introducing three musicians. He also inserted an oriental carpet under the white, embroidered tablecloth and he emphasised the display of silverware against the right wall by using a taller, three-tiered piece of furniture.

The Wedding at Cana discussed here has many more differences from both of these previously mentioned paintings than those between them. For instance, the crowd portrayed here is significantly reduced, and the event takes place in a more enclosed space and not in a loggia. The artist chose to depict only two sides of the chamber. On the left wall he incorporated three windows and he added features, which on the other paintings appear on the right wall, such as the door and the shelves with the silverware. He omitted the second door and the wall-fountain, while he added a curtain that is tied and pulled to one side. The back wall has only one arched opening, complemented by two novel features: a hanging festoon and a pair of flanking candleholders. The circular and conical relief ornamentations of the coffered ceiling are smaller and less protruding on the current panel, and they further lack the suspended festive flags. Only one such flag exists in the present panel and it hangs from the garland in the archway. Another noticeable departure is the perspective of this panel, which differs from the Tintoretto and Correr paintings. In the present painting, the artist changed the viewpoint and moved the onlooker a step to the right, allowing them to see the table diagonally thereby showing the backs of the people who sit on the right side. One other change, which appears significant in its symbolism and artist’s motivation, is the moving of Christ and his Mother from the head of the table, where they appear on the Tintoretto and Correr compositions, to the first seat on the right and the second seat opposite. A young man with a hat and an elderly, bald man with a beard next to him now occupy the head of the table.

The picture under consideration differs both to the Tintoretto and Correr paintings as described above, however it shares some similarities exclusively with the Correr piece. The present painter adopted the three-tiered dresser for the display of the silverware, depicting however, only dishes and one vase. In terms of the figures, among all the servants who execute a variety of chores, the artist depicted only two in the foreground, those with the most extravagant postures. The man standing to the left, in a contraposto pose with an urn, seen from behind, is a mirror image of the man on the Correr painting’s lower right corner. The second servant, kneeling, also in a serpentine position and pouring water into the bowl, has no counterparts in the other paintings, which suggests that he is an innovation of the present artist.

Although the current painting, and especially the Correr painting relate to the Tintoretto picture, they are nonetheless equally remote from it in terms of style and they actually share many technical features in common, such as the gessoed wooden support, similar under-drawing and application of gold leaf that highlights many details on the painted surface. The present panel, however, appears more freely executed than the Correr one. The brushstrokes are more painterly, the folds of the draperies appear more fluid and the entire composition is lighter. It can be suggested that the artists of these paintings had the same cultural background, yet they developed individual styles. The painter of this picture departed in more ways from the “model” composition by Tintoretto, especially in moving Christ from the head of the table to the front of the right side. This change served two purposes. First, by placing Christ in the foreground, he captured the exact moment in which he carried out the miracle, while the dinner was underway. The other two paintings show, in fact, the wedding celebration, which is yet to begin as suggested by the empty glasses and food platters that are still untouched by the diners. Secondly, this arrangement freed the seats at the head of the table, giving the opportunity to the artist to allocate them to those whom he possibly considered important. Reasonably, one wonders who are this boy and old man next to him?

Technically the Correr version and this painting are quite similar and they recall basic principles of icon painting. The combination of Byzantine features with Italian Renaissance trends of the time are typically encountered in works of art produced in Orthodox countries colonised by Venice. In these areas local artists were trained in the traditional icon painting, but subsequently many of them partially abandoned or adapted their craft under the influence of the Renaissance artistic tendencies, and their patrons, as they were exposed to a cultural environment heavily influenced by the West.

The above practices found many exponents in the Venetian colonies in Greece, some of whom also had a career in Italy, primarily, Venice. One can mention George Klontzas, Michael Damaskenos and El Greco, who were active around the time this artwork was produced.

An attribution to El Greco:

The Wedding at Cana offered here was painted by a competent artist, talented as seen in the execution of many details of the painting and inventive in his way of thinking, as evidenced by the introduction of innovations that conceptually might be even considered provocative, as is for example the replacement of Christ with the young man at the head of the table.

The flag that hangs from the garland on the arched entrance is inscribed with the letters δ.ϑ, which are the initials in greek miniscule of the artist’s name Δομήνικος Θεοτοκόπουλος, Doménikos Theotokópoulos. Similar initials appear on the forehead of the lion on the painting of the Madonna with Saint Martina and Saint Agnes in the National Gallery, Washington (see fig. 4). Technical examination of the monogramme in the present painting, has confirmed its consistency and compatibilty with the rest of the painted surface (see technical report below).

Despite the positive technical results, one can still question the attribution of this work to El Greco. This is because at first, the overall impression is that the execution seems more constrained than other early works by the artist. However, a closer inspection reveals details that are directly comparable to other works belonging to El Greco’s early activity in Venice.

The heads of the Virgin and the woman next to her, both rendered in three quarter view and somewhat diagonally elongated, the latter with parted lips, are comparable to other figures by the artist, for instance the Virgin in the Adoration of the Shepherds from the Agnes Etherington Arts Centre and in the Adoration of the Magi at the Lázaro Galdiano Museum, the woman in the Healing of the Blind from Parma and as seen in later stages in his career for example in the Entombment of the National Gallery in Athens and in the Pieta in the Philadephia Museum of Art. Also the replacement of the crimson Byzantine maphorion of the Virgin with a blue mantle is regularly used by El Greco throughout his career, with the exception of his two icons in Greece, the Dormition and St. Luke, where the Virgin wears traditional Byzantine attire.

The collar and front closure of the deep green costume worn by the elderly man at the head of the table is outlined in gold, just like the golden trim that runs along the hem of the same-coloured mantle of the saint in the recently discovered, signed icon of Saint Demetios by El Greco (notice, in fact, how the gold lines are double in some areas, for instance on the chest of the old man and on most of the hem of St. Demetrios’ cape). Apparently the deep cypress green colour was a favourite of the artist. It is encountered also on other fabrics, such as seen here on the curtain in the door on the left and the fabric that hangs from the ceiling in the Last Supper of the National Gallery, Bologna. The latter painting shares two further features employed by the artist in the present Wedding at Cana; the plain architrave of the door and the pastel tiled floor, that recurs many times in later works by El Greco, such as in the Washing of the Feet on the Ferrara Triptych and the Annunciation in the Prado. The musicians in the background, especially their headwear, recall the pair of figures portrayed in the Adoration of the Shepherds from the J. F. Willumsen Museum.

The three musicians and the standing man with the raised hand, the youth and the elderly bearded man at the head of the table, the Virgin, the glassware, as well as the kneeling man in the foreground all reveal the artist’s great capabilities. It should be noted that the facial features, the shirt and hat of the young man at the head of the table are basically the same as those of the kneeling figure in the foreground, suggesting that the host and the servant is one and the same, seemingly a real person and possibly the artist himself. That the latter is a specific individual is further reinforced by the outfit of the young man. Unlike the other men, he is not formally dressed according to the occasion. Instead he is the only figure at the table wearing simple clothes and a day hat, setting himself apart from the other guests, looking like an outsider. Seated to his right is the most elegantly dressed woman of all, in fashionable clothes of her time, with a gold pendant around her neck, similar to the Portrait of a Girl by Titian in Capodimonte, Naples, and representing most probably the bride. There is no apparent groom, unless this role is also assumed by the young man himself.

Conclusion:

It is confidently suggested that the present painting was produced in Venice, because this is where the sources for the composition were located. It surely dates to after 1561, when Tintoretto painted the primary model of this composition and is probably later than the Correr version, which appears to be the intermediary work between the Tintoretto and the one discussed here. The technical features reveal that the artist was conversant with the methods of icon painting, which at first sight are masked, on the present panel, behind the Renaissance drawn execution. During the time of its production Greek icon painters were active in Venice as previously mentioned. This Wedding at Cana is unlike the crowded and miniaturistically rendered compositions of Klontzas, incompatible with the reserved and more confined manner of Damaskenos, but stylistically the present painting is comparable to works by the young El Greco.

The fluid execution of the draperies shown on the curtain, the tablecloth, the chiton worn by Christ and the vividly depicted garments of the Virgin, recall the early style of El Greco. Any weaknesses and the reduced agility in comparison to other of his early works could be understood in the context of the fact that this painting was evidently an exercise for the artist. Based on another picture, that of the Correr Museum, which was bigger, more complex and more accomplished, he attempted to create his own, semi-autonomous version.

His refusal to merely copy, his need to experiment by contributing his own concepts and his aspiration to display his skills are unambiguously manifested, thereby revealing a confident, yet impatient artist who was at a formative stage of his career. The monogramme δ.ϑ convincingly and homogeneously belongs to the composition and this work can justly be attributed to Doménikos Theotokópoulos, El Greco. This Wedding at Cana which could be either a standalone picture or, small enough to be part of an ensemble, appears to be one of the earliest he worked on in Venice in 1567-8.

This work can be seen as one of those missing steps that trace the process of El Greco’s artistic transformation following his departure from Crete and his assimilation of the artistic production in Italy. Finally, the artist offers us a wonderful portrait, that of the composition’s central figure, who is charged with multiple roles: of the host and servant, but also the groom. This could justly be considered as a self-portrait.

Technical analysis:

The painting has undergone an extensive set of non-invasive analyses carried out by Gianluca Poldi and Manfred Schreiner including visible IR, UV, X-rays imaging, optical microscopy, visible reflectance spectroscopy (vis-RS) and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF). Please refer to the department.

The work is painted on a single wood panel (possibly cypress) with a sub-tangential cut and one evident wood knot in the lower part; the panel has been thinned.

Underdrawing:

Thin outline underdrawing can be detected by IR reflectography (IRR) under the figures and many details, both in the short infrared band (ab. 0.8-1 microns, with a modified camera) and at longer wavelengths (up to 1.7 microns, with InGaAs detector scanning device).

The underdrawing appears accurate, but also quite free, suggesting that no cartoon or similar transferring methods were used. A few details are partially visible to the naked eye where pigments have faded or discoloured, and the refractive index of siccative oil has changed, it is made with a black ink and probably with a pen, or a very thin brush. The ink contains a carbon-based pigment, but perhaps it could be a mixture of a carbon-based ink with an iron-gall one, this can explain why in many areas it more readable. As detailed IR images well show, its characteristics are unusal, with short, frequently broken lines, sometimes fragmented dots as visible in the smaller figures and faces. It defines the outline of the figures and architecture, the folds, sometimes by only suggesting them.

Monogramme:

The monogram with the Greek letters ‘δ’ (delta-omicron) and ‘ϑ ’ (theta), in lowercase, painted with gold on the flag hanging from the garland, appears to be original and coherent with the painting, as UV, IR and microscopic images show: they were realized on a thin yellow-brown glaze, containing bright yellow, for which space is reserved inside the blue sky painted with azurite. A couple of lines, the upper one larger than the lower, are placed above these characters, suggesting the letters are abbreviations.

Similar ligatures can be seen in various paintings by El Greco signed Doménikos Theotokópoulos in lowercase Greek letters, for example in the Saint Jerome (1590-1600) of The Frick Collection, New York, in the Saint Andrew and Saint Francis of the Prado Museum, Madrid and elsewhere.

Technical comparisons with paintings by El Greco:

El Greco’s painting technique, also from his Italian period, has been studied by Carmen Garrido of the Prado Museum, providing important information and helping to create an understanding of the technical features of his work.

Regarding the underdrawing of the present painting, which is thin, linear and broken by frequent detachment of the small brush or pen from the white ground, and quite nervous or flickering in some areas, this painting shows clear affinities with those of the Triptych of Modena, with the Baptism of Christ now in the Historical Museum of Crete, Iraklion, with the Annunciation of the Prado and with the Adoration of the Magi of the Benaki Museum of Athens, that could be one of El Greco’s first Italian works.

The drawing is also similar to the black underdrawing that shows through the red robe of the Virgin Mary in the Lamentation of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Comparing the underdrawing of the present painting with the one of the small panel with the iconic Saint Demetrius belonging to a private collection, signed ‘XEIΡ ΔΟΜΗΝÏΚΟY’ (hand of Doménikos) and recently rediscovered, which is thought to belong to El Greco’s late years in Crete or his early period in Venice, it is possible to find the same approach to drawing and a similar kind of lines. For further examples please refer to the department.

Conclusion:

Many technical features, including the peculiar type of underdrawing, are highly coherent with El Greco’s technique from the belonging of his Italian period between 1567 and about 1570. The golden monogramme on a flag hanging from the garland is also consistent with Doménikos Theotokópoulos signature.

The impressive and rapid change of technique and style visible in El Greco’s corpus of works from his early phase as a painter of icons when he worked in Crete to his late Venetian period is greater than large gap between his Venetian and his Spanish peirod. There is a difficulty in tracing an evolution in the artist’s oeuvre because of an absence of certain pivotal works, exemplifying fundamental stylistic changes.