Title

Wolf. Mural painting from San Baudelio de Berlanga (Soria)

Generic classification

Object

Date

Century

Cultural context / style

Dimensions

Material

Technique

Iconography / Theme

Provenance

Current location

Inventory Number in Current Collection

Object history

"Our amazement upon entering the interior was immense..." This is how Manuel Aníbal Álvarez and José Ramón Mélida described their surprise at seeing the mural complex in the chapel of San Baudelio de Berlanga, in an article published in 1907. This unique artistic treasure—discovered by Teodoro Ramírez, a member of the Numancia Excavation Commission—had already been described by Elías Romera. Located in the village of Casillas de Berlanga, the building was sober on the outside, but its interior offered visitors one of the finest collections of Romanesque mural paintings in Europe, linked to an absolutely original architectural structure. The aforementioned historians, in addition to wondering how such an exceptional collection had gone unnoticed until then, carried out a joint study of the building and its paintings, with the aim of having it protected as a national monument (Mélida and Álvarez, 1907, pp. 144-155). This declaration took place a few years later, by Royal Order of August 24, 1917, published in the Gaceta de Madrid on August 27, 1917.

This call for attention to the richness of the mural complex, and the extensive photographic repertoire that accompanied the 1907 article, encouraged interest not only from historians, but also from collectors and art dealers. In the summer of 1922, the alarm was raised: attempts at theft were looming over the chapel. Suspicious movements around the monument were reported, sparking heated debate in the press and a complaint that led to lengthy court proceedings. The residents of Casillas de Berlanga, owners of the estate on which the chapel stood, had sold the set of paintings to Italian merchant Leon Levi for 50,000 pesetas, advised in the transaction by Francisco Marina Encabo, registrar of property in Almazán (Soria). The removal and extraction of the paintings was carried out clandestinely, but after a tip-off from the Civil Guard in Berlanga, the operation was halted and the paintings seized until the complaint had been resolved and the appropriate solution to the operation had been reached in the courts.

The Provincial Commission for Monuments of Soria immediately aroused the interest of its representatives in the Cortes, the academics of the Royal Academies of Fine Arts of San Fernando and History, as well as the General Directorate of Fine Arts, in order to prevent the removal of the paintings. The art historian and senator Elías Tormo denounced the events before the Senate on July 21, 1922: "...Mr. Levi, who is already known in many great stories, in many regrettable stories of the depreciation of Spain's artistic treasure, because he is the same person who, with carte blanche from Emperor Frederick, which he estimated to be worth nearly a million francs, acquired the famous and splendid Monforte altarpiece, which is now one of the glories of the Berlin Museum" (Santonja, 2004). For its part, the local and national press tried to raise awareness in society about what had happened and about the need to preserve artistic treasures in order to avoid such losses; Various problems, such as the scarcity of public resources for the maintenance of the country's artistic wealth, or the freedoms enjoyed by owners when disposing of their property, even those of historical and artistic value, were topics that filled the pages of newspapers when discussing the sale of the paintings from San Baudelio. (Martínez Ruiz, 2008, pp. 213-276).

The history of letters sent by the Provincial Commission of Monuments of Soria, the trips to Madrid to seek the attention of the higher authorities, as well as the visits to the chapel, well reflected in the preserved documentation, constitute an eloquent testimony to the arduousness of an unequal struggle that resulted in small victories, such as the Royal Order of the Ministry of Public Instruction and Fine Arts of September 12, 1923, which ordered that the paintings removed from the walls of the chapel be returned to their original location. During the long administrative and judicial process, Leon Levi hinted, and even stated to journalists, that he had important contacts who would allow him to sway the judges in his favor. Finally, after a long process, a ruling by the Supreme Court on February 25, 1925, marked a milestone in the history of artistic dispossession in Spain: "...that the appellants, owners of the chapel of San Baudelio, have been able to freely sell the mural paintings therein and that Mr. Leon Levi has been able to acquire them and, henceforth, dispose of them lawfully..." Shortly thereafter, the mural ensemble, transferred to various canvases, left Spain. (Martínez Ruiz, 2013, pp. 19-36).

That ruling came as a shock to those who had tried to prevent the export of the paintings. The judges' interpretation of the events caused real surprise. Among other things, the decision was based on property rights, even though the chapel had been declared a national monument; it was considered that the paintings did not qualify as antiques under the Law of July 7, 1911; it was considered that the mural ensemble was independent of the building, on the grounds that the paintings had been detached from it; not even the process of removal was understood as damage or impairment to the artistic ensemble. The Director General of Fine Arts himself, Joaquín Pérez del Pulgar y Campos, Count of Las Infantas, expressed his bewilderment to the president of the Provincial Commission of Monuments of Soria, Santiago Gómez Santa Cruz, on August 21, 1926: "What an unfortunate affair this is with the paintings of San Baudelio! I believe, although it may seem immodest, that if I had been in charge, the proceedings would not have been initiated with such stammering and such a lack of consistency in the criteria and actions of the official defenders of our artistic treasure, which certainly contrast with those of you in the Monuments Commission, and the determined will of the bargain-hunting buyers who, by whatever means, and God knows what they have been, have managed to obtain this damnable sentence from the highest court in the nation" (Martínez Ruiz, 2008, p. 271).

The case served in Spain to review the laws in force and try to remedy the loopholes they presented. Leví entrusted the set of paintings to Gabriel Dereppe, who tried to sell them to various museums and private collectors. On November 17, 1927, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston purchased two of the most interesting compositions from the upper cycle: The Last Supper and The Marys at the Tomb. In 1941, according to the monograph published by José Gudiol for an exhibition held in Toledo, Ohio, the rest of the paintings were still in Dereppe's possession. On January 25, 1952, they were acquired from him by Elijah B. Martindale and H. A. Clowes, a doctor and a chemist, respectively, who were manufacturers of antibiotics in Indianapolis. In 1958, they bequeathed Christ's Entry into Jerusalem and The Wedding at Cana to their museum. Clowes even offered Sánchez Cantón the transfer of the San Baudelio paintings to the Prado Museum in exchange for two canvases by Velázquez, which he refused. In 1957, thanks to the mediation of James J. Rorimer, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, who at that time was negotiating with Franco's government for the export of the Romanesque apse of San Martín de Fuentidueña to The Cloisters, several fragments of paintings were acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, specifically six panels with hunting scenes. The purpose of the operation was to offer them in exchange for the Romanesque apse of San Martín de Fuentidueña (Segovia). The Metropolitan Museum made the purchase once it had confirmation that Franco's government would agree to dismantle and transfer the apse to New York in exchange for these paintings, which until then had been in the possession of the industrialists Martindale and Clowes. This was a very positive outcome for the New York institution, as it not only acquired the Segovian monument to complete one of the rooms at The Cloisters, but also received a donation for its own catalog from the Indianapolis collectors of the paintings in the collection: Temptation of Christ by the Devil, Healing of the Blind Man and Resurrection of Lazarus, and Camel, intended to adorn the new room created with the incorporation of the apse from Fuentidueña, which opened in 1961. The Cincinnati Museum receivedThe Falconer and other fragments from the same set, such as this Wolf (inv. 1964.64), while the Prado Museum received, as a temporary and indefinite deposit, following the aforementioned agreement of 1957: Hare Hunt, Deer Hunt, Elephant, Bear, Soldier or Hunter, and Curtain ( Merino de Cáceres and Martínez Ruiz, 2023, 229-262, 305-330).

Description

Wolf: fragment of the mural painting, transferred to canvas, which adorned the chapel of San Baudelio de Berlanga (Casillas de Berlanga, Soria).

Although numerous historians have attempted to discern the symbolism of this mural repertoire—Cook, Camón Aznar, Ortego, Frinta, Nieto, Guardia Pons, etc.—there is no consensus on the iconographic interpretation of this enigmatic ensemble. Interpretations that seek to relate the symbolic keys of the mural decoration to the architectural analysis of the building have gained ground. The upper part of the walls was decorated with a Christological cycle, while the lower register was illustrated with hunting scenes. Cook pointed out the similarities with other ensembles of the period, such as Maderuelo and Taüll, but the truth is that a pictorial cycle dedicated to hunting is unusual. This same historian believed that the master of Maderuelo would have painted the upper frieze after working in Taüll and Vera Cruz de Maderuelo, a second painter would have been responsible for the murals in the small chapel of the tribune, and the master of San Baudelio himself, the most original of the three, would have been responsible for the hunting scenes in the lower area, at the same time, despite the diversity of styles (Cook, 1955). Other authors, such as Camón, considered the paintings in the lower area to be older (Camón, 1958). Guardia Pons, however, proposed a comprehensive analysis due to the same programmatic unity, even pushing the chronology of the whole back further in time, to the late 10th and early 11th centuries, as was the building, so that the architecture and decoration would respond to the same concerns (Guardia Pons, 2011). In any case, many authors seem to agree that the mural ensemble has a symbolism that weaves together hunting, war, power, and the secular struggle between good and evil. The paintings in the lower part have even been interpreted as an echo of the territorial conflicts that took place between different bishops in an effort to reaffirm their dominance. In recent years, the interpretation of both cycles, upper and lower, as a unified whole has gained more weight, as can be seen in the technique used and the decorative motifs, as well as in the chronological framework that could be placed in the first quarter of the 12th century.

Locations

• First half of the XII^th c. - 1925

  hermitage

  Hermitage of San Baudelio de Berlanga, Soria (Spain)

• 1922 - 1927

  dealer/antiquarian

  Leon Levi / Leone Levi, Venecia/Barcelona. Recorría toda la geografía española en busca de tesoros artísticos (Spain) *

• 1927 - 1952

  private collection

  Gabriel Dereppe, París / Londres / Nueva York *

• 1952 - 1964

  private collection

  Elijah B. Martindale and George H. A. Clowes, Indianapolis (United States) *

• 1964 - present

  museum

  Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati (United States)