Las Meninas

Las Meninas (Spanish for 'The Ladies-in-waiting' ) is a 1656 painting in the Museo del Prado in Madrid, by Diego Velázquez, the leading artist of the Spanish Golden Age. It has become one of the most widely analyzed works in Western painting, due to the way its complex and enigmatic composition raises questions about reality and illusion, and the uncertain relationship it creates between the viewer and the figures depicted.

The painting is believed by F. J. Sánchez Cantón to depict a room in the Royal Alcazar of Madrid during the reign of King Philip IV of Spain, and presents several figures, most identifiable from the Spanish court, captured in a particular moment as if in a snapshot. Some of the figures look out of the canvas towards the viewer, while others interact among themselves. The five-year-old Infanta Margaret Theresa is surrounded by her entourage of maids of honour, chaperone, bodyguard, two dwarfs and a dog. Just behind them, Velázquez portrays himself working at a large canvas. Velázquez looks outwards, beyond the pictorial space to where a viewer of the painting would stand. In the background there is a mirror that reflects the upper bodies of the king and queen. They appear to be placed outside the picture space in a position similar to that of the viewer, although some scholars have speculated that their image is a reflection from the painting Velázquez is shown working on.

Las Meninas has long been recognised as one of the most important paintings in the history of Western art. The Baroque painter Luca Giordano said that it represents the "theology of painting", and in 1827 the president of the Royal Academy of Arts Sir Thomas Lawrence described the work in a letter to his successor David Wilkie as "the true philosophy of the art". More recently, it has been described as "Velázquez's supreme achievement, a highly self-conscious, calculated demonstration of what painting could achieve, and perhaps the most searching comment ever made on the possibilities of the easel painting".

## Background

### Court of Philip IV

In 17th-century Spain, painters rarely enjoyed high social status. Painting was regarded as a craft, not an art such as poetry or music. Nonetheless, Velázquez worked his way up through the ranks of the court of Philip IV, and in February 1651 was appointed palace chamberlain (aposentador mayor del palacio). The post brought him status and material reward, but its duties made heavy demands on his time. During the remaining eight years of his life, he painted only a few works, mostly portraits of the royal family. When he painted Las Meninas, he had been with the royal household for 33 years.

Philip IV's first wife, Elizabeth of France, died in 1644, and their only son, Balthasar Charles, died two years later. Lacking an heir, Philip married Mariana of Austria in 1649, and Margaret Theresa (1651–1673) was their first child, and their only one at the time of the painting. Subsequently, she had a short-lived brother Philip Prospero (1657–1661), and then Charles (1661–1700) arrived, who succeeded to the throne as Charles II at the age of three. Velázquez painted portraits of Mariana and her children, and although Philip himself resisted being portrayed in his old age he did allow Velázquez to include him in Las Meninas. In the early 1650s he gave Velázquez the Pieza Principal (main room) of the late Balthasar Charles's living quarters, by then serving as the palace museum, to use as his studio, where Las Meninas is set. Philip had his own chair in the studio and would often sit and watch Velázquez at work. Although constrained by rigid etiquette, the art-loving king seems to have had a close relationship with the painter. After Velázquez's death, Philip wrote "I am crushed" in the margin of a memorandum on the choice of his successor.

During the 1640s and 1650s, Velázquez served as both court painter and curator of Philip IV's expanding collection of European art. He seems to have been given an unusual degree of freedom in the role. He supervised the decoration and interior design of the rooms holding the most valued paintings, adding mirrors, statues and tapestries. He was also responsible for the sourcing, attribution, hanging and inventory of many of the Spanish king's paintings. By the early 1650s, Velázquez was widely respected in Spain as a connoisseur. Much of the collection of the Prado today—including works by Titian, Raphael, and Rubens—were acquired and assembled under Velázquez's curatorship.

### Provenance and condition

The painting was referred to in the earliest inventories as La Familia ("The Family"). A detailed description of Las Meninas, which provides the identification of several of the figures, was published by Antonio Palomino ("the Giorgio Vasari of the Spanish Golden Age") in 1724. Examination under infrared light reveals minor pentimenti, that is, there are traces of earlier working that the artist himself later altered. For example, at first Velázquez's own head inclined to his right rather than his left.

The painting has been cut down on both the left and right sides. It was damaged in the 1734 fire that destroyed the Alcázar, and was restored by court painter Juan García de Miranda (1677–1749). The left cheek of the Infanta was almost completely repainted to compensate for a substantial loss of pigment. After its rescue from the fire, the painting was inventoried as part of the royal collection in 1747–48, and the Infanta was misidentified as Maria Theresa, Margaret Theresa's older half-sister, an error that was repeated when the painting was inventoried at the new Madrid Royal Palace in 1772. A 1794 inventory reverted to a version of the earlier title, The Family of Philip IV, which was repeated in the records of 1814. The painting entered the collection of the Museo del Prado on its foundation in 1819. In 1843, the Prado catalogue listed the work for the first time as Las Meninas.

In recent years, the picture has suffered a loss of texture and hue. Due to exposure to pollution and crowds of visitors, the once-vivid contrasts between blue and white pigments in the costumes of the meninas have faded. It was last cleaned in 1984 under the supervision of the American conservator John Brealey, to remove a "yellow veil" of dust that had gathered since the previous restoration in the 19th century. The cleaning provoked, according to the art historian Federico Zeri, "furious protests, not because the picture had been damaged in any way, but because it looked different". However, in the opinion of López-Rey, the "restoration was impeccable". Due to its size, importance, and value, the painting is not lent out for exhibition.

### Painting materials

A thorough technical investigation including a pigment analysis of Las Meninas was conducted around 1981 in the Museo del Prado. The analysis revealed the usual pigments of the Baroque period frequently used by Velázquez in his other paintings. The main pigments used for this painting were lead white, azurite (for the skirt of the kneeling menina), vermilion and red lake, ochres and carbon blacks.

## Description

### Subject

Las Meninas is set in Velázquez's studio in Philip IV's alcázar palace in Madrid. The high-ceilinged room is presented, in the words of Silvio Gaggi, as "a simple box that could be divided into a perspective grid with a single vanishing point". In the centre of the foreground stands the Infanta Margaret Theresa (1). The five-year-old infanta, who later married Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I, was at this point Philip and Mariana's only surviving child. She is attended by two ladies-in-waiting, or meninas: Doña Isabel de Velasco [Wikidata] (2), who is poised to curtsy to the princess, and Doña María Agustina Sarmiento de Sotomayor [es] (3), who kneels before Margaret Theresa, offering her a drink from a red cup, or búcaro, that she holds on a golden tray. To the right of the Infanta are two dwarfs: the achondroplastic Austrian Mari Bárbola (4), and the Italian Nicolás Pertusato [es] (5), who playfully tries to rouse a sleepy mastiff with his foot. The dog is thought to be descended from two mastiffs from Lyme Hall in Cheshire, given to Philip III in 1604 by James I of England. Doña Marcela de Ulloa [es] (6), the princess's chaperone, stands behind them, dressed in mourning and talking to an unidentified bodyguard (or guardadamas) (7).

To the rear and at right stands Don José Nieto Velázquez (8)—the queen's chamberlain during the 1650s, and head of the royal tapestry works—who may have been a relative of the artist. Nieto is shown standing but in pause, with his right knee bent and his feet on different steps. As the art critic Harriet Stone observes, it is uncertain whether he is "coming or going". He is rendered in silhouette and appears to hold open a curtain on a short flight of stairs, with an unclear wall or space behind. Both this backlight and the open doorway reveal space behind: in the words of the art historian Analisa Leppanen, they lure "our eyes inescapably into the depths". The royal couple's reflection pushes in the opposite direction, forward into the picture space. The vanishing point of the perspective is in the doorway, as can be shown by extending the line of the meeting of wall and ceiling on the right. Nieto is seen only by the king and queen, who share the viewer's point of view, and not by the figures in the foreground. In the footnotes of Joel Snyder's article, the author recognizes that Nieto is the queen's attendant and was required to be at hand to open and close doors for her. Snyder suggests that Nieto appears in the doorway so that the king and queen might depart. In the context of the painting, Snyder argues that the scene is the end of the royal couple's sitting for Velázquez and they are preparing to exit, explaining that is "why the menina to the right of the Infanta begins to curtsy".

Velázquez himself (9) is pictured to the left of the scene, looking outward past a large canvas supported by an easel. On his chest is the red cross of the Order of Santiago, which he did not receive until 1659, three years after the painting was completed. According to Palomino, Philip ordered this to be added after Velázquez's death, "and some say that his Majesty himself painted it". From the painter's belt hang the symbolic keys of his court offices.

A mirror on the back wall reflects the upper bodies and heads of two figures identified from other paintings, and by Palomino, as King Philip IV (10) and Queen Mariana (11). The most common assumption is that the reflection shows the couple in the pose they are holding for Velázquez as he paints them, while their daughter watches; and that the painting therefore shows their view of the scene.

Of the nine figures depicted, five are looking directly out at the royal couple or the viewer. Their glances, along with the king and queen's reflection, affirm the royal couple's presence outside the painted space. Alternatively, art historians H. W. Janson and Joel Snyder suggest that the image of the king and queen is a reflection from Velázquez's canvas, the front of which is obscured from the viewer. Other writers say the canvas Velázquez is shown working on is unusually large for one of his portraits, and note that is about the same size as Las Meninas. The painting contains the only known double portrait of the royal couple painted by the artist.

The point of view of the picture is approximately that of the royal couple, though this has been widely debated. Many critics suppose that the scene is viewed by the king and queen as they pose for a double portrait, while the Infanta and her companions are present only to make the process more enjoyable. Ernst Gombrich suggested that the picture might have been the sitters' idea:

> Perhaps the princess was brought into the royal presence to relieve the boredom of the sitting and the King or the Queen remarked to Velazquez that here was a worthy subject for his brush. The words spoken by the sovereign are always treated as a command and so we may owe this masterpiece to a passing wish which only Velazquez was able to turn into reality.

No single theory, however, has found universal agreement. Leo Steinberg suggests that the King and Queen are to the left of the viewer and the reflection in the mirror is that of the canvas, a portrait of the king and queen.

Clark suggests that the work comprises a scene where the ladies-in-waiting are attempting to cajole the Infanta Doña Margarita to pose with her mother and father. In his 1960 book "Looking at Pictures", Clark writes:

> Our first feeling is of being there. We are standing just to the right of the King and Queen, whose reflections we can see in the distant mirror, looking down an austere room in the Alcázar (hung with del Mazo's copies of Rubens) and watching a familiar situation. The Infanta Doña Margarita doesn't want to pose...She is now five years old, and she has had enough. [It is] an enormous picture, so big that it stands on the floor, in which she is going to appear with her parents; and somehow the Infanta must be persuaded. Her ladies-in-waiting, known by the Portuguese name of meninas... are doing their best to cajole her, and have brought her dwarfs, Maribarbola and Nicolasito, to amuse her. But in fact they alarm her almost as much as they alarm us.

The back wall of the room, which is in shadow, is hung with rows of paintings, including one of a series of scenes from Ovid's Metamorphoses by Rubens, and copies, by Velázquez's son-in-law and principal assistant del Mazo, of works by Jacob Jordaens. The paintings are shown in the exact positions recorded in an inventory taken around this time. The wall to the right is hung with a grid of eight smaller paintings, visible mainly as frames owing to their angle from the viewer. They can be identified from the inventory as more Mazo copies of paintings from the Rubens Ovid series, though only two of the subjects can be seen.

The paintings on the back wall are recognized as representing Minerva Punishing Arachne and Apollo's Victory Over Marsyas. Both stories involve Minerva, the goddess of wisdom and patron of the arts. These two legends are both stories of mortals challenging gods and the dreadful consequences. One scholar points out that the legend dealing with two women, Minerva and Arachne, is on the same side of the mirror as the queen's reflection while the male legend, involving the god Apollo and the satyr Marsyas, is on the side of the king.

### Composition

The painted surface is divided into quarters horizontally and sevenths vertically; this grid is used to organise the elaborate grouping of characters, and was a common device at the time. Velázquez presents nine figures—eleven if the king and queen's reflected images are included—yet they occupy only the lower half of the canvas.

According to López-Rey, the painting has three focal points: the Infanta Margaret Theresa, the self-portrait and the half-length reflected images of King Philip IV and Queen Mariana. In 1960, Clark observed that the success of the composition is a result first and foremost of the accurate handling of light and shade:

> Each focal point involves us in a new set of relations; and to paint a complex group like the Meninas, the painter must carry in his head a single consistent scale of relations which he can apply throughout. He may use all kinds of devices to help him do this—perspective is one of them—but ultimately the truth about a complete visual impression depends on one thing, truth of tone. Drawing may be summary, colours drab, but if the relations of tone are true, the picture will hold.

However, the focal point of the painting is widely debated. Leo Steinberg argues that the orthogonals in the work are intentionally disguised so that the picture's focal center shifts. Similar to Lopez-Rey, he describes three foci. The man in the doorway, however, is the vanishing point. More specifically, the crook of his arm is where the orthogonals of the windows and lights of the ceiling meet.

Depth and dimension are rendered by the use of linear perspective, by the overlapping of the layers of shapes, and in particular, as stated by Clark, through the use of tone. This compositional element operates within the picture in a number of ways. First, there is the appearance of natural light within the painted room and beyond it. The pictorial space in the midground and foreground is lit from two sources: by thin shafts of light from the open door, and by broad streams coming through the window to the right. The 20th-century French philosopher and cultural critic Michel Foucault observed that the light from the window illuminates both the studio foreground and the unrepresented area in front of it, in which the king, the queen, and the viewer are presumed to be situated. For José Ortega y Gasset, light divides the scene into three distinct parts, with foreground and background planes strongly illuminated, between which a darkened intermediate space includes silhouetted figures.

Velázquez uses this light not only to add volume and definition to each form but also to define the focal points of the painting. As the light streams in from the right it brightly glints on the braid and golden hair of the female dwarf, who is nearest the light source. But because her face is turned from the light, and in shadow, its tonality does not make it a point of particular interest. Similarly, the light glances obliquely on the cheek of the lady-in-waiting near her, but not on her facial features. Much of her lightly coloured dress is dimmed by shadow. The Infanta, however, stands in full illumination, and with her face turned towards the light source, even though her gaze is not. Her face is framed by the pale gossamer of her hair, setting her apart from everything else in the picture. The light models the volumetric geometry of her form, defining the conic nature of a small torso bound rigidly into a corset and stiffened bodice, and the panniered skirt extending around her like an oval candy-box, casting its own deep shadow which, by its sharp contrast with the bright brocade, both emphasises and locates the small figure as the main point of attention.

Velázquez further emphasises the Infanta by his positioning and lighting of her maids of honour, who are set opposite one another: before and behind the Infanta. The maid on the viewer's left is given a brightly lit profile, while her sleeve create a diagonal. Her opposite figure creates a broader but less defined reflection of her attention, making a diagonal space between them, in which their charge stands protected.

A further internal diagonal passes through the space occupied by the Infanta. There is a similar connection between the female dwarf and the figure of Velázquez himself, both of whom look towards the viewer from similar angles, creating a visual tension. The face of Velázquez is dimly lit by light that is reflected, rather than direct. For this reason his features, though not as sharply defined, are more visible than those of the dwarf who is much nearer the light source. This appearance of a total face, full-on to the viewer, draws the attention, and its importance is marked, tonally, by the contrasting frame of dark hair, the light on the hand and brush, and the skilfully placed triangle of light on the artist's sleeve, pointing directly to the face.

The mirror is a perfectly defined unbroken pale rectangle within a broad black rectangle. A clear geometric shape, like a lit face, draws the attention of the viewer more than a broken geometric shape such as the door, or a shadowed or oblique face such as that of the dwarf in the foreground or that of the man in the background. The viewer cannot distinguish the features of the king and queen, but in the opalescent sheen of the mirror's surface, the glowing ovals are plainly turned directly to the viewer. Jonathan Miller pointed out that apart from "adding suggestive gleams at the bevelled edges, the most important way the mirror betrays its identity is by disclosing imagery whose brightness is so inconsistent with the dimness of the surrounding wall that it can only have been borrowed, by reflection, from the strongly illuminated figures of the King and Queen".

As the maids of honour are reflected in each other, so too do the king and queen have their doubles within the painting, in the dimly lit forms of the chaperone and guard, the two who serve and care for their daughter. The positioning of these figures sets up a pattern, one man, a couple, one man, a couple, and while the outer figures are nearer the viewer than the others, they all occupy the same horizontal band on the picture's surface.

Adding to the inner complexities of the picture is the male dwarf in the foreground, whose raised hand echoes the gesture of the figure in the background, while his playful demeanour, and distraction from the central action, are in complete contrast with it. The informality of his pose, his shadowed profile, and his dark hair all serve to make him a mirror image to the kneeling attendant of the Infanta. However, the painter has set him forward of the light streaming through the window, and so minimised the contrast of tone on this foreground figure.

Despite certain spatial ambiguities this is the painter's most thoroughly rendered architectural space, and the only one in which a ceiling is shown. According to López-Rey, in no other composition did Velázquez so dramatically lead the eye to areas beyond the viewer's sight: both the canvas he is seen painting, and the space beyond the frame where the king and queen stand can only be imagined. The bareness of the dark ceiling, the back of Velázquez's canvas, and the strict geometry of framed paintings contrast with the animated, brilliantly lit and sumptuously painted foreground entourage. Stone writes:

> We cannot take in all the figures of the painting in one glance. Not only do the life-size proportions of the painting preclude such an appreciation, but also the fact that the heads of the figures are turned in different directions means that our gaze is deflected. The painting communicates through images which, in order to be understood, must thus be considered in sequence, one after the other, in the context of a history that is still unfolding. It is a history that is still unframed, even in this painting composed of frames within frames.

According to Kahr, the composition could have been influenced by the traditional Dutch Gallery Pictures such as those by Frans Francken the Younger, Willem van Haecht, or David Teniers the Younger. Teniers' work was owned by Philip IV and would have been known by Velázquez. Like Las Meninas, they often depict formal visits by important collectors or rulers, a common occurrence, and "show a room with a series of windows dominating one side wall and paintings hung between the windows as well as on the other walls". Gallery Portraits were also used to glorify the artist as well as royalty or members of the higher classes, as may have been Velázquez's intention with this work.

### Mirror and reflection

The spatial structure and positioning of the mirror's reflection are such that Philip IV and Mariana appear to be standing on the viewer's side of the pictorial space, facing the Infanta and her entourage. According to Janson, not only is the gathering of figures in the foreground for Philip and Mariana's benefit, but the painter's attention is concentrated on the couple, as he appears to be working on their portrait. Although they can only be seen in the mirror reflection, their distant image occupies a central position in the canvas, in terms of social hierarchy as well as composition. As spectators, the viewer's position in relation to the painting is uncertain. It has been debated whether the ruling couple are standing beside the viewer or have replaced the viewer, who sees the scene through their eyes. Lending weight to the latter idea are the gazes of three of the figures—Velázquez, the Infanta, and Maribarbola—who appear to be looking directly at the viewer.

The mirror on the back wall indicates what is not there: the king and queen, and in the words of Harriet Stone, "the generations of spectators who assume the couple's place before the painting". Writing in 1980, the critics Snyder and Cohn observed:

> Velázquez wanted the mirror to depend upon the useable  [sic] painted canvas for its image. Why should he want that? The luminous image in the mirror appears to reflect the king and queen themselves, but it does more than just this: the mirror outdoes nature. The mirror image is only a reflection. A reflection of what? Of the real thing—of the art of Velázquez. In the presence of his divinely ordained monarchs ... Velázquez exults in his artistry and counsels Philip and Maria not to look for the revelation of their image in the natural reflection of a looking glass but rather in the penetrating vision of their master painter. In the presence of Velázquez, a mirror image is a poor imitation of the real.

In Las Meninas, the king and queen are supposedly "outside" the painting, yet their reflection in the back wall mirror also places them "inside" the pictorial space.

Snyder proposes it is "a mirror of majesty" or an allusion to the mirror for princes. While it is a literal reflection of the king and queen, Snyder writes "it is the image of exemplary monarchs, a reflection of ideal character". Later he focuses his attention on the princess, writing that Velázquez's portrait is "the painted equivalent of a manual for the education of the princess—a mirror of the princess".

The painting is likely to have been influenced by Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait, of 1434. At the time, van Eyck's painting hung in Philip's palace, and would have been familiar to Velázquez. The Arnolfini Portrait also has a mirror positioned at the back of the pictorial space, reflecting two figures who would have the same angle of vision as does the viewer of Velázquez's painting; they are too small to identify, but it has been speculated that one may be intended as the artist himself, though he is not shown in the act of painting. According to Lucien Dällenbach:

> The mirror [in Las Meninas] faces the observer as in Van Eyck's painting. But here the procedure is more realistic to the degree that the "rearview" mirror in which the royal couple appears is no longer convex but flat. Whereas the reflection in the Flemish painting recomposed objects and characters within a space that is condensed and deformed by the curve of the mirror, that of Velázquez refuses to play with the laws of perspective: it projects onto the canvas the perfect double of the king and queen positioned in front of the painting.

Jonathan Miller asks: "What are we to make of the blurred features of the royal couple? It is unlikely that it has anything to do with the optical imperfection of the mirror, which would, in reality, have displayed a focused image of the King and Queen". He notes that "in addition to the represented mirror, he teasingly implies an unrepresented one, without which it is difficult to imagine how he could have shown himself painting the picture we now see".

## Interpretation

The elusiveness of Las Meninas, according to Dawson Carr, "suggests that art, and life, are an illusion". The relationship between illusion and reality were central concerns in Spanish culture during the 17th century, figuring largely in Don Quixote, the best-known work of Spanish Baroque literature. In this respect, Calderón de la Barca's play Life is a Dream is commonly seen as the literary equivalent of Velázquez's painting:

> > What is a life? A frenzy. What is life? A shadow, an illusion, and a sham. The greatest good is small; all life, it seems Is just a dream, and even dreams are dreams.

Jon Manchip White notes that the painting can be seen as a résumé of the whole of Velázquez's life and career, as well as a summary of his art to that point. He placed his only confirmed self-portrait in a room in the royal palace surrounded by an assembly of royalty, courtiers, and fine objects that represent his life at court. The art historian Svetlana Alpers suggests that, by portraying the artist at work in the company of royalty and nobility, Velázquez was claiming high status for both the artist and his art, and in particular to propose that painting is a liberal rather than a mechanical art. This distinction was a point of controversy at the time. It would have been significant to Velázquez, since the rules of the Order of Santiago excluded those whose occupations were mechanical. Kahr asserts that this was the best way for Velázquez to show that he was "neither a craftsman or a tradesman, but an official of the court". Furthermore, this was a way to prove himself worthy of acceptance by the royal family.

Michel Foucault devoted the opening chapter of The Order of Things (1966) to an analysis of Las Meninas. Foucault describes the painting in meticulous detail, but in a language that is "neither prescribed by, nor filtered through the various texts of art-historical investigation". Foucault viewed the painting without regard to the subject matter, nor to the artist's biography, technical ability, sources and influences, social context, or relationship with his patrons. Instead he analyzes its conscious artifice, highlighting the complex network of visual relationships between painter, subject-model, and viewer:

> We are looking at a picture in which the painter is in turn looking out at us. A mere confrontation, eyes catching one another's glance, direct looks superimposing themselves upon one another as they cross. And yet this slender line of reciprocal visibility embraces a whole complex network of uncertainties, exchanges, and feints. The painter is turning his eyes towards us only in so far as we happen to occupy the same position as his subject.

For Foucault, Las Meninas illustrates the first signs of a new episteme, or way of thinking. It represents a midpoint between what he sees as the two "great discontinuities" in European thought, the classical and the modern: "Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velázquez, the representation as it were of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us ... representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form."

> Now he (the painter) can be seen, caught in a moment of stillness, at the neutral centre of his oscillation. His dark torso and bright face are half-way between the visible and the invisible: emerging from the canvas beyond our view, he moves into our gaze; but when, in a moment, he makes a step to the right, removing himself from our gaze, he will be standing exactly in front of the canvas he is painting; he will enter that region where his painting, neglected for an instant, will, for him, become visible once more, free of shadow and free of reticence. As though the painter could not at the same time be seen on the picture where he is represented and also see that upon which he is representing something."

## Las Meninas as culmination of themes in Velázquez

Many aspects of Las Meninas relate to earlier works by Velázquez in which he plays with conventions of representation. In the Rokeby Venus—his only surviving nude—the face of the subject is visible, blurred beyond any realism, in a mirror. The angle of the mirror is such that although "often described as looking at herself, [she] is more disconcertingly looking at us". In the early Christ in the House of Martha and Mary of 1618, Christ and his companions are seen only through a serving hatch to a room behind, according to the National Gallery (London), who are clear that this is the intention, although before restoration many art historians regarded this scene as either a painting hanging on the wall in the main scene, or a reflection in a mirror, and the debate has continued. The dress worn in the two scenes also differs: the main scene is in contemporary dress, while the scene with Christ uses conventional iconographic biblical dress.

In Las Hilanderas, believed to have been painted the year after Las Meninas, two different scenes from Ovid are shown: one in contemporary dress in the foreground, and the other partly in antique dress, played before a tapestry on the back wall of a room behind the first. According to the critic Sira Dambe, "aspects of representation and power are addressed in this painting in ways closely connected with their treatment in Las Meninas". In a series of portraits of the late 1630s and 1640s—all now in the Prado—Velázquez painted clowns and other members of the royal household posing as gods, heroes, and philosophers; the intention is certainly partly comic, at least for those in the know, but in a highly ambiguous way.

Velázquez's portraits of the royal family themselves had until then been straightforward, if often unflatteringly direct and highly complex in expression. On the other hand, his royal portraits, designed to be seen across vast palace rooms, feature more strongly than his other works the bravura handling for which he is famous: "Velázquez's handling of paint is exceptionally free, and as one approaches Las Meninas there is a point at which the figures suddenly dissolve into smears and blobs of paint. The long-handled brushes he used enabled him to stand back and judge the total effect."

## Influence

In 1692, the Neapolitan painter Luca Giordano became one of the few allowed to view paintings held in Philip IV's private apartments, and was greatly impressed by Las Meninas. Giordano described the work as the "theology of painting", and was inspired to paint A Homage to Velázquez (National Gallery, London). By the early 18th century his oeuvre was gaining international recognition, and later in the century British collectors ventured to Spain in search of acquisitions. Since the popularity of Italian art was then at its height among British connoisseurs, they concentrated on paintings that showed obvious Italian influence, largely ignoring others such as Las Meninas.

An almost immediate influence can be seen in the two portraits by Juan Bautista Martínez del Mazo of subjects depicted in Las Meninas, which in some ways reverse the motif of that painting. Ten years later, in 1666, Mazo painted Infanta Margaret Theresa, who was then 15 and just about to leave Madrid to marry the Holy Roman Emperor. In the background are figures in two further receding doorways, one of which was the new King Charles (Margaret Theresa's brother), and another the dwarf Maribarbola. A Mazo portrait of the widowed Queen Mariana again shows, through a doorway in the Alcázar, the young king with dwarfs, possibly including Maribarbola, and attendants who offer him a drink. Mazo's painting of The Family of the Artist also shows a composition similar to that of Las Meninas.

Francisco Goya etched a print of Las Meninas in 1778, and used Velázquez's painting as the model for his Charles IV of Spain and His Family. As in Las Meninas, the royal family in Goya's work is apparently visiting the artist's studio. In both paintings the artist is shown working on a canvas, of which only the rear is visible. Goya, however, replaces the atmospheric and warm perspective of Las Meninas with what Pierre Gassier calls a sense of "imminent suffocation". Goya's royal family is presented on a "stage facing the public, while in the shadow of the wings the painter, with a grim smile, points and says: 'Look at them and judge for yourself!' "

The 19th-century British art collector William John Bankes travelled to Spain during the Peninsular War (1808–1814) and acquired a copy of Las Meninas painted by Mazo, which he believed to be an original preparatory oil sketch by Velázquez—although Velázquez did not usually paint studies. Bankes described his purchase as "the glory of my collection", noting that he had been "a long while in treaty for it and was obliged to pay a high price".

A new appreciation for Velázquez's less Italianate paintings developed after 1819, when Ferdinand VII opened the royal collection to the public. In 1879 John Singer Sargent painted a small-scale copy of Las Meninas, while his 1882 painting The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit is a homage to Velázquez's panel. The Irish artist Sir John Lavery chose Velázquez's masterpiece as the basis for his portrait The Royal Family at Buckingham Palace, 1913. George V visited Lavery's studio during the execution of the painting, and, perhaps remembering the legend that Philip IV had daubed the cross of the Knights of Santiago on the figure of Velázquez, asked Lavery if he could contribute to the portrait with his own hand. According to Lavery, "Thinking that royal blue might be an appropriate colour, I mixed it on the palette, and taking a brush he [George V] applied it to the Garter ribbon."

Between August and December 1957, Pablo Picasso painted a series of 58 interpretations of Las Meninas, and figures from it, which currently fill the Las Meninas room of the Museu Picasso in Barcelona, Spain. Picasso did not vary the characters within the series, but largely retained the naturalness of the scene; according to the museum, his works constitute an "exhaustive study of form, rhythm, colour and movement". A print of 1973 by Richard Hamilton called Picasso's Meninas draws on both Velázquez and Picasso. Photographer Joel-Peter Witkin was commissioned by the Spanish Ministry of Culture to create a work titled Las Meninas, New Mexico (1987) which references Velázquez's painting as well as other works by Spanish artists.

In 2004, the video artist Eve Sussman filmed 89 Seconds at Alcázar, a high-definition video tableau inspired by Las Meninas. The work is a recreation of the moments leading up to and directly following the approximately 89 seconds when the royal family and their courtiers would have come together in the exact configuration of Velázquez's painting. Sussman had assembled a team of 35, including an architect, a set designer, a choreographer, a costume designer, actors, and a film crew.

A 2008 exhibition at the Museu Picasso called "Forgetting Velázquez: Las Meninas" included art responding to Velázquez's painting by Fermín Aguayo, Avigdor Arikha, Claudio Bravo, Juan Carreño de Miranda, Michael Craig-Martin, Salvador Dalí, Juan Downey, Goya, Hamilton, Mazo, Vik Muniz, Jorge Oteiza, Picasso, Antonio Saura, Franz von Stuck, Sussman, Manolo Valdés, and Witkin, among others. In 2009 the Museo del Prado published online photographs of Las Meninas at a resolution of 14,000 megapixels. The Greek painter Kyriakos Katzourakis also refers to Las Meninas in his painting, Las Meninas (1976), which is on display in the National Gallery of Athens, Greece.

## See also

- List of works by Diego Velázquez

1656 painting by Diego Velázquez

Portraits by Diego Velázquez in the Museo del Prado

Portraits of Philip IV of Spain by Diego Velázquez


Georg Forster

Johann George Adam Forster, also known as Georg Forster (, 27 November 1754 – 10 January 1794), was a German geographer, naturalist, ethnologist, travel writer, journalist and revolutionary. At an early age, he accompanied his father, Johann Reinhold Forster, on several scientific expeditions, including James Cook's second voyage to the Pacific. His report of that journey, A Voyage Round the World, contributed significantly to the ethnology of the people of Polynesia and remains a respected work. As a result of the report, Forster, who was admitted to the Royal Society at the early age of twenty-two, came to be considered one of the founders of modern scientific travel literature.

After returning to continental Europe, Forster turned toward academia. He taught natural history at the Collegium Carolinum in the Ottoneum, Kassel (1778–84), and later at the Academy of Vilna (Vilnius University) (1784–87). In 1788, he became head librarian at the University of Mainz. Most of his scientific work during this time consisted of essays on botany and ethnology, but he also prefaced and translated many books about travel and exploration, including a German translation of Cook's diaries.

Forster was a central figure of the Enlightenment in Germany, and corresponded with most of its adherents, including his close friend Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. His ideas, travelogues and personality influenced Alexander von Humboldt, one of the great scientists of the 19th century who hailed Forster as the founder of both comparative ethnology (Völkerkunde) and regional geography (Länderkunde). When the French took control of Mainz in 1792, Forster played a leading role in the Mainz Republic, the earliest republican state in Germany. During July 1793 and while he was in Paris as a delegate of the young Mainz Republic, Prussian and Austrian coalition forces regained control of the city and Forster was declared an outlaw. Unable to return to Germany and separated from his friends and family, he died in Paris of illness in early 1794, not yet 40.

## Early life

Georg Forster was born in Nassenhuben (now Mokry Dwór, Poland), a small village near Danzig, on 27 November 1754. Georg was the oldest of seven surviving children of Johann Reinhold Forster, a Reformed Protestant pastor and scholar, and his wife Justina Elisabeth, née Nicolai. From an early age, Georg was interested in the study of nature, and his father first learned natural history from the books of Carl Linnaeus and then taught his son biology as well as Latin, French, and religion. In 1765, Reinhold obtained a commission by the Russian government to inspect the recently founded colonies near Saratov on the Volga River, which were mostly settled by German colonists. Ten-year old Georg accompanied his father on the 4,000 km (2,500 mi) journey, which reached the Kalmyk Steppe and Lake Elton, and collected hundreds of specimens of plants, helping his father with naming and identification. From October 1765, he attended Saint Peter's School in St Petersburg, while his father prepared a report about the state of the colony. Reinhold's report was critical of the voivode of Saratov and of the conditions in the colony, and the Forsters left Russia without payment amidst quarrel with Grigory Orlov. After a sea journey from Kronstadt, during which Georg learned English and practiced Russian, they arrived in London on 4 October 1766. Twelve-year old Georg competently translated Lomonosov's history of Russia into English and continued it until the present, and the printed book was presented to the Society of Antiquaries on 21 May 1767. His father took up a teaching position at Warrington Academy in June 1767, succeeding Joseph Priestley, leaving Georg behind in London as apprentice with a London merchant until the rest of the family arrived in England in September 1767. In Warrington, Georg learned classics and religion from John Aikin, mathematics from John Holt and French and natural history from his father.

## Around the world with Captain Cook

The Forsters moved back to London in 1770, where Reinhold Forster cultivated scientific contacts and became a member of the Royal Society in 1772. After the withdrawal of Joseph Banks, he was invited by the British Admiralty to join James Cook's second expedition to the Pacific (1772–75). Georg Forster joined his father in the expedition again and was appointed as a draughtsman to his father. Johann Reinhold Forster's task was to work on a scientific report of the journey's discoveries that was to be published after their return.

They embarked HMS Resolution on 13 July 1772, in Plymouth. The ship's route led first to the South Atlantic, then through the Indian Ocean and the Southern Ocean to the islands of Polynesia and finally around Cape Horn back to England, returning on 30 July 1775. During the three-year journey, the explorers visited New Zealand, the Tonga islands, New Caledonia, Tahiti, the Marquesas Islands and Easter Island. They went further south than anybody before them, almost discovering Antarctica. The journey conclusively disproved the Terra Australis Incognita theory, which claimed there was a big, habitable continent in the South.

Supervised by his father, Georg Forster first undertook studies of the zoology and botanics of the southern seas, mostly by drawing animals and plants. However, Georg also pursued his own interests, which led to completely independent explorations in comparative geography and ethnology. He quickly learned the languages of the Polynesian islands. His reports on the people of Polynesia are well regarded today, as they describe the inhabitants of the southern islands with empathy, sympathy and largely without Western or Christian bias.

Unlike Louis Antoine de Bougainville, whose reports from a journey to Tahiti a few years earlier had initiated uncritical noble savage romanticism, Forster developed a sophisticated picture of the societies of the South Pacific islands. He described various social structures and religions that he encountered on the Society Islands, Easter Island and in Tonga and New Zealand, and ascribed this diversity to the difference in living conditions of these people. At the same time, he also observed that the languages of these fairly widely scattered islands were similar. About the inhabitants of the Nomuka islands (in the Ha'apai island group of present-day Tonga), he wrote that their languages, vehicles, weapons, furniture, clothes, tattoos, style of beard, in short all of their being matched perfectly with what he had already seen while studying tribes on Tongatapu. However, he wrote, "we could not observe any subordination among them, though this had strongly characterised the natives of Tonga-Tabboo, who seemed to descend even to servility in their obeisance to the king."

The journey was rich in scientific results. However, the relationship between the Forsters and Cook and his officers was often problematic, due to the elder Forster's fractious temperament as well as Cook's refusal to allow more time for botanical and other scientific observation. Cook refused scientists on his third journey after his experiences with the Forsters.

## Founder of modern travel literature

These conflicts continued after the journey with the problem of who should write the official account of the travels. Lord Sandwich, although willing to pay the promised money, was irritated with Johann Reinhold Forster's opening chapter and tried to have it edited. However, Forster did not want to have his writing corrected "like a theme of a School-boy", and stubbornly refused any compromise. As a result, the official account was written by Cook, and the Forsters were deprived of the right to compile the account and did not obtain payment for their work. During the negotiations, the younger Forster decided to release an unofficial account of their travels. In 1777, his book A Voyage Round the World in His Britannic Majesty's Sloop Resolution, Commanded by Capt. James Cook, during the Years, 1772, 3, 4, and 5 was published. This report was the first account of Cook's second voyage (it appeared six weeks before the official publication) and was intended for the general public. The English version and his own translation into German (published 1778–80) earned the young author real fame. The poet Christoph Martin Wieland praised the book as the most important one of his time, and even today it remains one of the most important journey descriptions ever written. The book also had a significant impact on German literature, culture and science, influencing such scientists as Alexander von Humboldt and it inspired many ethnologists of later times.

Forster wrote well-polished German prose, which was not only scientifically accurate and objective, but also exciting and easy to read. This differed from conventional travel literature of the time, insofar as it presented more than a mere collection of data – it also demonstrated coherent, colourful and reliable ethnographical facts that resulted from detailed and sympathetic observation. He often interrupted the description to enrich it with philosophical remarks about his observations. His main focus was always on the people he encountered: their behavior, customs, habits, religions and forms of social organization. In A Voyage Round the World he even presented the songs sung by the people of Polynesia, complete with lyrics and notation. The book is one of the most important sources concerning the societies of the Southern Pacific from the times before European influence had become significant.

Both Forsters also published descriptions of their South Pacific travels in the Berlin-based Magazin von merkwürdigen neuen Reisebeschreibungen ("Magazine of strange new travel accounts"), and Georg published a translation of "A Voyage to the South Sea, by Lieutenant William Bligh, London 1792" in 1791–93.

## Forster at universities

The publication of A Voyage Round the World brought Forster scientific recognition all over Europe. The respectable Royal Society made him a member on 9 January 1777, though he was not even 23 years old. He was granted similar titles from academies ranging from Berlin to Madrid. These appointments, however, were unpaid.

He travelled to Paris to seek out a discussion with the American revolutionary Benjamin Franklin in 1777. In 1778, he went to Germany to take a teaching position as a Natural History professor at the Collegium Carolinum in Kassel, where he met Therese Heyne, the daughter of classicist Christian Gottlob Heyne. They married in 1785 (which was after he left Kassel) and had two surviving children, Therese Forster and Clara Forster, but an unhappy marriage. She would eventually leave him for Ludwig Ferdinand Huber and became one of the first independent female writers in Germany. . From his time in Kassel on, Forster actively corresponded with important figures of the Enlightenment, including Lessing, Herder, Wieland and Goethe. He also initiated cooperation between the Carolinum in Kassel and the University of Göttingen where his friend Georg Christoph Lichtenberg worked. Together, they founded and published the scientific and literary journal Göttingisches Magazin der Wissenschaften und Litteratur. Forster's closest friend, Samuel Thomas von Sömmering, arrived in Kassel shortly after Forster, and both were soon involved with the Rosicrucians in Kassel, where Forster took the secret name Amadeus Sragorisinus Segenitor.

However, by 1783 Forster saw that his involvement with the Rosicrucians not only led him away from real science, but also deeper into debt (it is said he was not good at money); for these reasons Forster was happy to accept a proposal by the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Commission of National Education and became Chair of Natural History at Vilnius University in 1784. Initially, he was accepted well in Vilnius, but he felt more and more isolated with time. Most of his contacts were still with scientists in Germany; especially notable is his dispute with Immanuel Kant about the definition of race. In 1785, Forster traveled to Halle where he submitted his thesis on the plants of the South Pacific for a doctorate in medicine. Back in Vilnius, Forster's ambitions to build a real natural history scientific centre could not get appropriate financial support from the authorities in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Moreover, his famous speech on natural history in 1785 went almost unnoticed and was not printed until 1843. These events led to high tensions between him and the local community. Eventually, he broke the contract six years short of its completion as Catherine II of Russia had offered him a place on a journey around the world (the Mulovsky expedition) for a high honorarium and a position as a professor in Saint Petersburg. This resulted in a conflict between Forster and the influential Polish scientist Jędrzej Śniadecki. However, the Russian proposal was withdrawn and Forster left Vilnius. He then settled in Mainz, where he became head librarian of the University of Mainz, a position held previously by his friend Johannes von Müller, who made sure Forster would succeed him when Müller moved to the administration of Elector Friedrich Karl Josef von Erthal.

Forster regularly published essays on contemporary explorations and continued to be a very prolific translator; for instance, he wrote about Cook's third journey to the South Pacific, and about the Bounty expedition, as well as translating Cook's and Bligh's diaries from these journeys into German. From his London years, Forster was in contact with Sir Joseph Banks, the initiator of the Bounty expedition and a participant in Cook's first journey. While at the University of Vilnius he wrote the article "Neuholland und die brittische Colonie in Botany-Bay", published in the Allgemeines historisches Taschenbuch (Berlin, December 1786), an essay on the future prospects of the English colony founded in New South Wales in 1788.

Another interest of his was indology – one of the main goals of his failed expedition to be financed by Catherine II had been to reach India. He translated the Sanskrit play Shakuntala using a Latin version provided by Sir William Jones; this strongly influenced Johann Gottfried Herder, and triggered German interest in the culture of India.

## Views from the Lower Rhine

In the second quarter of 1790, Forster and the young Alexander von Humboldt started from Mainz on a long journey through the Southern Netherlands, the United Provinces, and England, eventually finishing in Paris. The impressions from the journey were described in a three volume publication Ansichten vom Niederrhein, von Brabant, Flandern, Holland, England und Frankreich im April, Mai und Juni 1790 (Views of the Lower Rhine, from Brabant, Flanders, Holland, England, and France in April, May and June 1790), published 1791–94. Goethe said about the book: "One wants, after one has finished reading, to start it over, and wishes to travel with such a good and knowledgeable observer." The book includes comments on the history of art that were as influential for the discipline as A Voyage Round the world was for ethnology. Forster was, for example, one of the first writers who gave just treatment to the Gothic architecture of Cologne Cathedral, which was widely perceived as "barbarian" at that time. The book conformed well to the early Romantic intellectual movements in German-speaking Europe.

Forster's main interest, however, was again focused on the social behavior of people, as 15 years earlier in the Pacific. The national uprisings in Flanders and Brabant and the revolution in France sparked his curiosity. The journey through these regions, together with the Netherlands and England, where citizens' freedoms were equally well developed, in the end helped him to resolve his own political opinions. From that time on he was to be a confident opponent of the ancien régime. With other German scholars, he welcomed the outbreak of the revolution as a clear consequence of the Enlightenment. As early as 30 July 1789, shortly after he heard about the Storming of the Bastille, he wrote to his father-in-law, philologist Christian Gottlob Heyne, that it was beautiful to see what philosophy had nurtured in people's minds and then had realized in the state. To educate people about their rights in this way, he wrote, was after all the surest way; the rest would then result as if by itself.

## Life as a revolutionary

### Foundation of the Mainz Republic

The French revolutionary army under General Custine gained control over Mainz on 21 October 1792. Two days later, Forster joined others in establishing a Jacobin Club called "Freunde der Freiheit und Gleichheit" ("Friends of Freedom and Equality") in the Electoral Palace. From early 1793 he was actively involved in organizing the Mainz Republic. This first republic located on German soil was constituted on the principles of democracy, and encompassed areas on the left bank of the Rhine between Landau and Bingen. Forster became vice-president of the republic's temporary administration and a candidate in the elections to the local parliament, the Rheinisch-Deutscher Nationalkonvent (Rhenish-German National Convention). From January to March 1793, he was an editor of Die neue Mainzer Zeitung oder Der Volksfreund (The new Mainz newspaper or The People's Friend), a name chosen in reference to Marat's L'Ami du peuple. In his first article he wrote:

> Die Pressefreiheit herrscht endlich innerhalb dieser Mauern, wo die Buchdruckerpresse erfunden ward.

> The freedom of the press finally reigns within these walls where the printing press was invented.

This freedom did not last long, though. The Mainz Republic existed only until the retreat of the French troops in July 1793 after the siege of Mainz.

Forster was not present in Mainz during the siege. As representatives of the Mainz National Convention, he and Adam Lux had been sent to Paris to apply for Mainz – which was unable to exist as an independent state – to become a part of the French Republic. The application was accepted, but had no effect, since Mainz was conquered by Prussian and Austrian troops, and the old order was restored. Forster lost his library and collections and decided to remain in Paris.

### Death in revolutionary Paris

Based on a decree by Emperor Francis II inflicting punishments on German subjects who collaborated with the French revolutionary government, Forster was declared an outlaw and placed under the Imperial ban; a prize of 100 ducats was set on his head and he could not return to Germany. Devoid of all means of making a living and without his wife, who had stayed in Mainz with their children and her later husband Ludwig Ferdinand Huber, he remained in Paris. At this point the revolution in Paris had entered the Reign of Terror introduced by the Committee of Public Safety under the rule of Maximilien Robespierre. Forster had the opportunity to experience the difference between the promises of the revolution of happiness for all and its cruel practice. In contrast to many other German supporters of the revolution, like for instance Friedrich Schiller, Forster did not turn back from his revolutionary ideals under the pressure of the terror. He viewed the events in France as a force of nature that could not be slowed and that had to release its own energies to avoid being even more destructive.

Before the reign of terror reached its climax, Forster died after a rheumatic illness in his small attic apartment at Rue des Moulins in Paris on 10 January 1794, at the age of thirty-nine. At the time, he was making plans to visit India.

## Views on nations and their culture

Forster had partial Scottish roots and was born in Polish Royal Prussia, and therefore was by birth a Polish subject. He worked in Russia, England, Poland and in several German countries of his time. Finally, he finished his life in France. He worked in different milieus and traveled a lot from his youth on. It was his view that this, together with his scientific upbringing based on the principles of the Enlightenment, gave him a wide perspective on different ethnic and national communities:

> All peoples of the earth have equal claims to my good will ... and my praise and blame are independent of national prejudice.

In his opinion all human beings have the same abilities with regard to reason, feelings and imagination, but these basic ingredients are used in different ways and in different environments, which gives rise to different cultures and civilizations. According to him it is obvious that the culture on Tierra del Fuego is at a lower level of development than European culture, but he also admits that the conditions of life there are much more difficult and this gives people very little chance to develop a higher culture. Based on these opinions he was classified as one of the main examples of 18th-century German cosmopolitanism.

In contrast to the attitude expressed in these writings and to his Enlightenment background, he used insulting terms expressing prejudice against Poles in his private letters during his stay in Vilnius and in a diary from the journey through Poland, but he never published any manifestation of this attitude. These insults only became known after his death, when his private correspondence and diaries were released to the public. Since Forster's published descriptions of other nations were seen as impartial scientific observations, Forster's disparaging description of Poland in his letters and diaries was often taken at face value in Imperial and Nazi Germany, where it was used as a means of science-based support for a purported German superiority. The spreading of the "Polnische Wirtschaft" (Polish economy) stereotype is most likely due to the influence of his letters.

Forster's attitude brought him into conflict with the people of the different nations he encountered and made him welcome nowhere, as he was too revolutionary and antinational for Germans, proud and opposing in his dealings with Englishmen, too unconcerned about Polish science for Poles, and too insignificant politically and ignored while in France.

## Legacy

After Forster's death, his works were mostly forgotten, except in professional circles. This was partly due to his involvement in the French revolution. However, his reception changed with the politics of the times, with different periods focusing on different parts of his work. In the period of rising nationalism after the Napoleonic era he was regarded in Germany as a "traitor to his country", overshadowing his work as an author and scientist. This attitude rose even though the philosopher Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel wrote about Forster at the beginning of the 19th century:

> Among all those authors of prose who are justified in laying claim to a place in the ranks of German classics, none breathes the spirit of free progress more than Georg Forster.

Some interest in Forster's life and revolutionary actions was revived in the context of the liberal sentiments leading up to the 1848 revolution. But he was largely forgotten in the Germany of Wilhelm II and more so in Nazi Germany, where interest in Forster was limited to his stance on Poland from his private letters. Interest in Forster resumed in the 1960s in East Germany, where he was interpreted as a champion of class struggle. The GDR research station in Antarctica that was opened on 25 October 1987, was named after him. In West Germany, the search for democratic traditions in German history also led to a more diversified picture of him in the 1970s. The Alexander von Humboldt foundation named a scholarship program for foreign scholars from developing countries after him. His reputation as one of the first and most outstanding German ethnologists is indisputable, and his works are seen as crucial in the development of ethnology in Germany into a separate branch of science.

The ethnographical items collected by Georg and Johann Reinhold Forster are now presented as the Cook-Forster-Sammlung (Cook–Forster Collection) in the Sammlung für Völkerkunde anthropological collection in Göttingen. Another collection of items collected by the Forsters is on display at the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford.

## Works

- A Voyage Round the World in His Britannic Majesty's Sloop Resolution, Commanded by Capt. James Cook, during the Years, 1772, 3, 4, and 5 (1777) Internet Archive scans: Vol. I and II; modern publication with commentary: (preview)
- Characteres generum plantarum, quas in Itinere ad Insulas Maris Australis, Collegerunt, Descripserunt, Delinearunt, annis MDCCLXXII-MDCCLXXV Joannes Reinoldus Forster et Georgius Forster (1775/76), archive.org
- De Plantis Esculentis Insularum Oceani Australis Commentatio Botanica (1786) available online at Project Gutenberg
- Florulae Insularum Australium Prodromus (1786) available online at Project Gutenberg and Biodiversity Heritage Library (DOI:10.5962/bhl.title.10725)
- Essays on moral and natural geography, natural history and philosophy (1789–97)
- Views of the Lower Rhine, Brabant, Flanders (three volumes, 1791–94)
- Georg Forsters Werke, Sämtliche Schriften, Tagebücher, Briefe, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, G. Steiner et al. Berlin: Akademie 1958
- Werke in vier Bänden, Gerhard Steiner (editor). Leipzig: Insel 1965. ASIN: B00307GDQ0
- Reise um die Welt, Gerhard Steiner (editor). Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1983.
- Ansichten vom Niederrhein, Gerhard Steiner (editor). Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1989.
- Georg Forster, Briefe an Ernst Friedrich Hector Falcke. Neu aufgefundene Forsteriana aus der Gold- und Rosenkreuzerzeit, Michael Ewert, Hermann Schüttler (editors). Georg-Forster-Studien Beiheft 4. Kassel: Kassel University Press 2009.

## See also

\*: Category:Taxa named by Georg Forster

- European and American voyages of scientific exploration
- List of important publications in anthropology

German naturalist, ethnologist, travel writer, journalist, and revolutionary

Academic staff of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz

German people in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Members of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina

Saint Peter's School (Saint Petersburg) alumni


Steep Holm

Steep Holm (Welsh: Ynys Rhonech, Old English: Ronech and later Steopanreolice) is an English island lying in the Bristol Channel. The island covers 48.87 acres (19.78 ha) at high tide, expanding to 63.26 acres (25.60 ha) at mean low water. At its highest point it is 78 metres (256 ft) above mean sea level. Administratively it forms part of the unitary authority of North Somerset within the ceremonial county of Somerset; between 1 April 1974 and 1 April 1996, it was administered as part of Avon. Nearby is Flat Holm island (Welsh: Ynys Echni), part of Wales.

The Carboniferous Limestone island rises to about 200 feet (61 m) and serves as a wind and wave break, sheltering the upper reaches of the Bristol Channel. The island is now uninhabited, with the exception of the wardens. It is protected as a nature reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with a large bird population and plants including wild peonies. There was a signal station or watchtower on the island in Roman times, but there may have been human habitation as early as the Iron Age. In the 6th century it was home to St Gildas and to a small Augustinian priory in the 12th and 13th centuries. An inn was built in 1832 and used for holidays in the 19th century. A bird sanctuary was established in 1931 and since 1951 has been leased to charitable trusts. It is now owned by the Kenneth Allsop Memorial Trust.

In the 1860s the island was fortified with ten 7-inch rifled muzzle loaders as one of the Palmerston Forts for the coastal defence of the Bristol Channel until it was abandoned in 1898. The infrastructure was reused in World War I and II when Mark VII 6-inch breech-loading guns and search lights were installed. To enable the movement of materials, soldiers from the Indian Army Service Corps initially used mules and then installed a cable-operated winched switchback railway.

## Geology and ecology

The island is formed of Carboniferous Limestone and is often described as geologically a continuation of the Mendip Hills at Brean Down; however, the dip is at a different angle to that on Brean Down. On Steep Holm the dip is about 30 degrees to the north whereas at Brean Down it is 30 degrees to the south. There are some folds and fractures with dip angles up to 75 degrees created during the final phases of the Variscan orogeny near the end of the Carboniferous Period, 300 million years ago.

The island rises to about 200 feet (61 m) from the surrounding sea and covers 49 acres (20 ha) at high tide, whereas at low tide it expands to 63 acres (25 ha) due to the tidal range of 43 feet (13 m), second only to the Bay of Fundy in Eastern Canada. There are many caves on the island, and pot holes up to 60 metres (200 ft) deep in the surrounding sea bed that are believed to be the remnants of collapsed cave systems. The caves on the islands cliffs are at two different levels: the caves in the current inter-tidal zone which are below the water table and are producing stalactites, and many others high up on the cliffs that were on the water line many thousands of years ago.

Steep Holm is protected as a nature reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), notification having taken place in 1952. There is a large bird population, particularly European herring gulls (Larus argentatus) and lesser black-backed gulls (Larus fuscus). There has also been a small population of muntjac deer. The plateau at the top of the island has a layer of soil between 6 inches (150 mm) and 12 inches (300 mm) deep. It has a red colour from veins of iron in the rock and has arrived as sand particles less than 0.0039 inches (0.099 mm) in diameter. The island is the only site in the UK on which wild peonies (Paeonia mascula) grow, although these have been damaged by the fungus botrytis. The wild peony was introduced to the island of Steep Holm, possibly by monks, or brought from the Mediterranean by the Romans. Alexanders (Smyrnium olusatrum) is also common along with golden samphire, buck's-horn plantain (Plantago coronopus) and wild leeks (Allium ampeloprasum). The only reptiles on the island are slowworms (Anguis fragilis).

## History

### Prehistoric to Roman

The earliest sign of human activity on the island are prehistoric vertebrae of red deer discovered in Five Johns' Cave during an exploration in 1975. Worked flints from the Mesolithic and scrapers from the Neolithic were uncovered as part of the Priory excavations carried out between 1977 and 1992.

Roman remains, possibly a signal station or watchtower, have been identified on the island by an electrical resistance survey. Accurate exploration and interpretation of the site is difficult as it was reused by builders in both the Victorian era and during World War II. A carved stone head found on the island in 1991 is likely to be a Celtic head from the Romano-British era, but may be from the Iron Age. In addition to shards of cooking pots from the Roman era, some luxury items have been identified including Arretine ware, La Tène style brooches, and an amphora dating from between 90 and 140 AD which was made in southern Spain. There have also been shards of Castor ware. Fragments of pottery roofing and box flue tiles have been identified signifying the presence of a heating system and possibly a bath house. Roman coins from the reigns of Claudius Gothicus (268–270) and Tetricus I (271–273) have also been found.

### Religious foundations

According to legend, first recorded by John Leland in the 16th century, Saint Gildas, the author of De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, lived on Steep Holm during the 6th century. He arrived on Steep Holm after visiting his friend Saint Cadoc, who lived on Flat Holm as a hermit. Gildas supposedly left the island, after pirates from Orkney carried off his servant and furniture, to become Abbot of Glastonbury. Other semi-legendary saints are also associated with the island; in John Rous's Historia Regum Angliae (c. 1480), Rous claims that Saint Dubricius, the saint said to have crowned Arthur, retired to an hermitage on the island of 'Stepeholm' in the River Severn. The Vikings took refuge on Steep Holm during the summer of 914 and then carried out raids on the coast of Somerset at Watchet and Porlock, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. At the end of the 12th century, there was a small priory of Canons Regular of St Michael on the island. The only priory building fully excavated measured 73 feet (22 m) long and 15 feet (4.6 m) wide, with the cloisters and other structures still to be identified. The date of the original foundation of the priory is unclear; however, in the early 13th century the patron was William I de Cantilupe. His family were also patrons of Studley Priory in Warwickshire. His granddaughter married Lord Robert de Tregoz who acquired the freehold of the whole island; however, endowments for the upkeep of the priory were declining, which led to it being abandoned between 1260 and 1265, the monks returning to Studley Priory. A Blue Lias memorial stone from the abbey, which has a Cross of Lorraine, was found in 1867 during the fortification of the island. It was incorporated into an armoury leading to the naming of the "tombstone battery".

### Manorial ownership

The island seems to have been held, in association with the local manors of Uphill and Christon, by the Bek family, who granted it to Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln. Although the mechanism is unclear, it next passed to the Berkeley family with Maurice de Berkeley, the second Baron Berkeley, holding it in 1315. The site was used again by warreners in the 14th and 15th centuries. They lived in one of the ruined priory buildings which was rebuilt.

By 1453 the overlordship of the island was held by James Butler, 5th Earl of Ormond, and in 1460 the advowson was exercised by Margaret Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury. Margaret Talbot (née de Beauchamp) was a distant cousin of James Butler as both were descended from different sons of Thomas de Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick. In other words, James Butler (via his mother Joan Butler, Countess of Ormond (née Beauchamp) and his grandfather William Beauchamp, 1st Baron Bergavenny, whilst Margaret Talbot was daughter of Elizabeth de Beauchamp (née Berkeley) and the granddaughter of Thomas de Beauchamp, 12th Earl of Warwick. In short, James Butler's and Margaret Talbot's de Beauchamp grandparents were brothers. Of note is that Margaret Talbot was the daughter of Elizabeth Berkeley, Countess of Warwick (and her husband Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick) from which discord in the Berkeley family was to emerge (see below). Furthermore, Elizabeth Berkeley was the only daughter of Thomas de Berkeley, 5th Baron Berkeley, showing that ownership still resided to some extent in the Berkeley family since Maurice de Berkeley took over the island in 1315 - Margaret Talbot was the great, great, great granddaughter of Maurice de Berkeley.

However, in the years following, the ownership of a variety of estates, including Norton Beauchamp, to which Steep Holm was attached, was disputed. At the heart of this was the dispute from how the Barony was passed on from Thomas Berkeley, the 5th Baron. These disputes had on one side James Berkeley, 1st Baron Berkeley, also known as 'James the Just' (not to be confused with the other 1st Baron Berkeley Thomas de Berkeley, 1st Baron Berkeley who pre-dated him by 150 years). Yet it was to James whom the Barony transferred to under a new creation by writ since his uncle, the aforementioned Thomas de Berkeley (5th Baron) had no male heirs even though he had named his only daughter (Elizabeth Berkeley) as his heir. This was to be the start of a longstanding legal dispute.

On one side of the dispute originating through the line of James, the new 1st Baron, continued through his son (Sir) William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of Berkeley in 1463, who was the first male issue from his 3rd marriage to Lady Isabel de Mowbray. This was after two previous marriages that yielded no children. On the opposing side of dispute were the descendants of the aforementioned Elizabeth Berkeley (James' the 1st Baron's, 1st cousin) and in particular through her daughter Margaret (de Beauchamp) that shows some curious tangled sub-plots.

One such sub-plot lies with John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury who took Margaret de Beauchamp as his 2nd wife. His first marriage, to a Maud Neville (the daughter of his stepfather Thomas Neville, a Baron Furnivall) and which produced Lady Joan Talbot, amongst 6 children is however notable. The same John Talbot seemingly kidnapped and imprisoned until their death in 1452, the 3rd wife of James Berkeley (the 1st Baron) and mother of the aforementioned 2nd Baron Berkeley (Sir William de Berkeley). Yet, this James Berkeley, took a 4th wife, Lady Joan Talbot (i.e. the daughter of John Talbot who kidnapped his 3rd wife!).

A further sub-plot, or extension of the previous one, centres again around John Talbot but this time as a result of his marriage to Margaret de Beauchamp. Their eldest son, John Talbot, 1st Baron of Lisle and 1st Viscount Lisle, was the father of Thomas Talbot, 2nd Baron of Lisle and 2nd Viscount Lisle. This Thomas Talbot sought to exert his claim on the lands of Baron Berkeley on the death of his grandmother Margaret de Beauchamp (daughter of the disenfranchised Elizabeth Berkeley), who in the interim had continued to press her claim to Baron Berkeley lands against James Berkeley the 1st Baron. It brought him into direct opposition with Sir William de Berkeley (2nd Baron and son of James Berkeley and came to a full head at the Battle of Nibley Green (1470), following what is described as Thomas Talbot's impetuous challenge to Sir William, which had concluded by the end of the following day with the death of Thomas Talbot and the subsequent sacking of his Manor at Wotton-under-Edge.

In the 16th century Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset and brother of Jane Seymour (3rd wife Henry VIII) took over, and then lost, large estates including Brean, to which Steep Holm was allied. The marriage of his sister Jane and Henry VIII in 1536 coincided with him being made Viscount Beauchamp, potentially linking back to ancestral marriage between Sir Roger Seymour (c.1308 – Before 1366), who married Cicely, the eldest sister and heir of John de Beauchamp, 3rd Baron Beauchamp. This may be related to the feudal Barony of Hatch Beauchamp, Somerset, previously held by his father Sir John Seymour.

The Seymour descendants recovered the estates, owning them into the 17th century, although the only activity on Steep Holm seems to have been the employment of gull watchers and fishermen. In 1684 the Norton Beauchamp estate (possibly in Kewstoke, Somerset, near Sand Bay, north of Weston-Super-Mare) was sold to Edward Ryder. It appears to have been auctioned by decree of the Court of Chancery 11 years later in 1695, possibly because of difficulties in maintaining sea defenses along the Somerset coast; however, this seems to have been disputed in the light of outstanding mortgages. In 1699 the estates, including Steep Holm, were sold to Philip Freke of Bristol, whose descendants held it for the next 130 years. Freke's granddaughter married into the family of John Willes, who was Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and Member of Parliament. During their ownership, probably around 1776, a new cottage was built on Steep Holm for fishermen. It was built using stones from the ruined priory. In 1830 the island was sold again, according to some sources this was to a cousin of John Freke Willes named William Willes; however, other sources suggest it was to a solicitor in Weston-super-Mare named John Baker.

In 1832 the island was leased to Colonel Tynte of Halswell House, who established an inn for sailors. The inn was run by the Harris family, using rum and tobacco bought from ships. They claimed that the island was outside the jurisdiction of the excise men until a court case in 1884. After the Harris family, the inn was run by Mr W. L. Davies, who offered fishing, shooting and boating holidays. To make landing on the island easier, a new pier was built close to the inn. In 1835 clergyman John Ashley from Clevedon voluntarily ministered to the population of the island and the neighbouring Flat Holm. Ashley created the Bristol Channel Mission in order to serve seafarers on the 400 sailing vessels which used the Bristol Channel. The mission would later become the Mission to Seafarers, which still provides ministerial services to sailors in over 300 ports.

### Palmerston Fort

Both Steep Holm and Flat Holm were fortified in the 1860s as a defence against invasion. They form part of a line of defences, known as Palmerston Forts, built across the channel to protect the approaches to Bristol and Cardiff. The island was fortified following a visit by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert to France, where they had been concerned at the strength of the French Navy. The Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom, under the direction of Lord Palmerston, recommended fortification of the coast, and the island formed part of this strategic coastal defence system. Construction began in 1865 and was completed in 1869 by John Perry of Weston-super-Mare. The work involved the creation of a perimeter road around the summit plateau and a lime kiln for the manufacture of lime mortar to build the barracks and gun emplacements with their ammunition stores.

The concrete gun emplacements were called Summit Battery, Laboratory Battery, Garden Battery and Tombstone Battery. Along with the barracks they have been designated as Grade II listed buildings. The facilities installed included a master-gunners house, a small inn, and a water tank holding 49,000 imperial gallons (220,000 L; 59,000 US gal) of rainwater. The water tank is beneath the barracks and collects rainwater from its roof. The brick tank is 16.7 metres (55 ft) long, 4.8 metres (16 ft) wide and 4.5 metres (15 ft) high with a vaulted roof. Armaments included ten 7-inch rifled muzzle loaders Mk III spread between six batteries. These were later replaced with Armstrong 6-inch RML guns. Some of the gun batteries are scheduled monuments, and there are the remains of a centralised group of brick-built barrack blocks. In 1898 test firing by HMS Arrogant, an Arrogant-class cruiser, on Rudder Rock battery showed that the fixed gun emplacements used on Steep Holm and other sites were susceptible to attack by modern warships, and the site was no longer active. The military control on the island was maintained until 1908 when it was leased to James Sleeman and his family. In 1927 the first test of the RAE Larynx (from "Long Range Gun with Lynx engine") an early pilotless aircraft, to be used as a guided anti-ship weapon, took place just off Steep Holm.

### World wars

These facilities were updated in both World War I and World War II. From 1915 to 1919 the island was requisitioned by the Admiralty as a coastguard station. After the war the Sleemans returned to carry out farming and fishing and played host to occasional tourists. In World War II, search light batteries were built on Steep Holm. In 1940 the island's warden, Harry Cox, who had developed the island into a bird sanctuary since 1931, was appointed as a coastguard and was supported by Local Defence Volunteers from Weston-super-Mare. In 1940 and 1941 the battery was refortified by soldiers from the Indian Army Service Corps using mules to transport guns and equipment up the steep cliffs. The armament included Mark VII 6-inch breech-loading guns taken from World War I naval vessels which had been scrapped, and also included Lewis automatic machine guns against air attack. The Garden Battery was built over two Victorian stone gun emplacements. Engineers from the Royal Pioneer Corps improved the infrastructure including importing sheep to feed the soldiers and, after a case of typhoid fever, shipping drinking water from south Wales. To enable the movement of equipment, the engineers built a new jetty. This was linked to the plateau with a cable-operated winched switchback railway using prefabricated 60 centimetres (24 in) gauge lines which had been captured from the Germans in World War I. The Steep Holm batteries were also connected, by underwater telegraph cable, to the Brean Down Fort batteries, but parts of the cable were stolen for scrap after the end of World War II.

### Post war

In 1953 the island was leased by the Steep Holm Trust supported by four local organisations: the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, Bristol Naturalists Society, Mid-Somerset Naturalists and the Bristol Folk House Archaeological Club. They repaired some of the buildings and established a bird ringing programme. In 1974 their lease expired and was taken over by the Kenneth Allsop Memorial Trust, a registered charity formed in memory of the broadcaster and naturalist Kenneth Allsop. The Trust purchased the island in 1976. The mission statement of the Trust is: "To protect, preserve and enhance for the benefit of the public the landscape, antiquities, flora, fauna, natural beauty and scientific interest of the island of Steep Holm in the County of North Somerset and to advance the education of the public in the natural sciences."

Visits can be made to the island. The trust runs day-long boat trips from Weston-super-Mare. One barrack block is in use to provide visitor facilities. In 1980 the Bollywood film Shaan was set and partially filmed on the island.

The island is the focal point of the 2018 crime thriller Arcam, by Jason Minick.

Island in the Bristol Channel, United Kingdom

Ports and harbours of the Bristol Channel

Sites of Special Scientific Interest in North Somerset

Sites of Special Scientific Interest notified in 1952