Robles
Goya’s Social Commentary in
“The Family of Charles IV”
ELIZABETH ROBLES
R
ecognized early in his career as a great painter, Francisco
José De Goya y Lucientes was appointed Pintor del Rey
(Painter to the King) in 1786 and by 1799 was promoted to
First Court Painter. In this capacity Goya produced portraits of the
royal family such as The Family of Charles IV (1800). While Goya’s
earlier court paintings, such as The Parasol (1777), epitomize the idealization of classical beauty popular during the Neoclassical movement, the artist makes no attempt to promulgate the image of a beautiful or perfect royal family in The Family of Charles IV. While it is clear
that Goya depicted the royal family in a natural light, it is not certain
whether Goya intended the portrait as a critique of the monarchy. In
light of the relationship between the patron and the painter, and in the
growing popularity of naturalism, Goya’s portrait was not so much a
critique but as a symbolic representation of the organization of the
monarchy amidst political instability and a homage to the art of painting.
The primary argument for interpreting “The Family of Charles IV” as
a social criticism and caricature of the royal family is the unflattering
representation that the monarchy was somehow duped into accepting
the piece, as they did not object to it upon its completion. Traditionally
the royalty was depicted with a systematic reverence equal to symbolism and the importance of façade; the old would often be painted
young and attractive and malformations or imperfections would be
altered according to the desires of the patron. Though Goya did not
make drastic adjustments in his physical representation of the royal
family, he did not represent them grotesquely; as the pretty, young
Infanta Doña Maria Isabella is juxtaposed with her naturalistically
65
Journal of the Core Curriculum
aged mother, something of the Queen’s former beauty is revealed,
especially in her large eyes. Furthermore, in his representation of Doña
Maria Luisa (to the right, holding her infant son), Goya had an opportunity to ridicule the royal family, as she suffered from a spinal defect,
instead, Goya depicts her standing rigidly upright, displaying his
humanity and respect for the family. Like Doña Maria Luisa, the figure
of the king’s sister, Doña Maria Josefa, has long been referenced in
Goya’s ridicule of the monarchy; however, historical records reveal that
the aging woman suffered from the effects of Lupus, which Goya painted naturalistically, neither hiding nor emphasizing her illness. While
Goya did not gloss over the imperfections of the monarchy, there seems
to be little basis for the assertion that in depicting the monarchy naturalistically Goya mocked his patrons. The relationship between the
painter and the patron seems to render the likelihood of mockery nearly obsolete. As Edward Olszweski writes “That they were duped by
Goya seems as impossible to accept as the belief that Goya wanted
to mock and deceive them, for their portraits derived from numerous
approved sketches” (Olszweski 177). Thus, while Goya did not idealize the royal family, he also did not mock them, and indeed there is no
historical reference to the portrait as mockery in the artist’s time (175178).
While “The Family of Charles IV” is not a caricature of Spain’s royal
family, it clearly does aim to represent the organization of the monarchy during an era of turmoil and instability, primarily through the positioning of the subjects. Though the royal family seems to stand casually in front of a mirror, as Goya paints their reflection, upon further
inspection it is clear that the artist constructed the portrait with a tight
structural order in mind. The Queen is clearly the central figure in the
image, though she is properly painted to the right of the King, as both
the faceless figure and Maria Luisa glance at her. The King’s stance
indicates his advance toward the center, to be met by Ferdinand (on
the left) and followed by the future Duke of Parma (on the far right),
which clearly draws the dynastic succession. Furthermore, the King’s
brothers and sisters fade into the background; both their positions and
their status fixed. The hierarchy of scale used in depicting the King’s
sons also emphasizes their importance and their place in the line of succession; the twelve year old Infante Don Carlos stands behind the
66
Robles
future Ferdinand VII, eclipsed by his older brother yet still ready to
step forward and claim the throne should the need arise. Just as the
relationship between fathers and sons reflects their place in the state,
so too does the King’s relationships with his daughters, as they are
physically distant, reflecting their “function as barter” in dynastic marriages (179). All are subservient to the rights of kinship, a concession
made only for the emotional needs of the youngest child, placed
between his parents.
Goya’s emphasis on the royal lineage seems excessive, as he represents thirteen figures spanning three generations of the dynastic line,
yet in his work, Goya also addresses the delicate state of the monarchy. Quite noticeably, the group lacks a common focus, some looking
out towards the viewer while others gaze at each other, adding a sense
of animation to the portrait, while also creating a sense of uncertainty
and disorder. Furthermore, in the somewhat uncomfortable stances of
the family members Goya seems to allude to their impending exit, an
uneasiness in the regency permeating the painting. Thus, it seems that
in the uncertainty of focus and casual demeanor of his subjects, Goya
underscores the uneasy state of the monarchy during an era of turmoil.
67
Journal of the Core Curriculum
Further displaying the fragility of the monarchy is the faceless figure
to the left of the Queen. Though this figure is thought to represent the
bride of the future King Ferdinand VII, the woman had not yet been
chosen, thus, a face could not be painted. This uncertainty of lineage is
poignantly depicted by Goya as the faceless figure could easily have
been omitted, and the decision to include this indication of fragility only
emphasizes the artist’s symbolic structure. Thus, in his deliberate choice
of subjects and their positioning Goya sheds light onto the insecurity of
a fragile monarchy, though he does so subtly and without a sense of
ridicule or caricature (Licht 127).
While the representation of both the structure of the monarchy and
its fragility is central to Goya’s “The Family of Charles IV,” by drawing
inspiration from earlier works such as Diego Velásquez’s “Las Meninas,”
the artist celebrates the art of painting. The reference to “Las Meninas”
is clear, in both the subject matter and its representation. Like
Velásquez, Goya places himself in the image and alludes to a mirror
in the space of the viewer that the subjects seem to gaze into. The
Infanta and her servants represented in “Las Meninas” are animated,
with a great sense of movement and interaction that indicates an unposed nature paralleling that of “The Family of Charles IV.”
Furthermore, Goya incorporates the idea of a painting within a painting, by including two large pieces in the background, much like
Velásquez’s visual references to the work of Rubens in “Las Meninas.”
It is important to note that like Goya, Velásquez held the illustrious
position of court painter, a position he revered and in which he sought
to garner respect. Thus, in his hearkening back to a great predecessor,
Goya recognizes the distinction of the tradition of courtly portraiture
from which his work springs.
Perhaps the most important parallel between “Las Meninas” and
“The Family of Charles IV” is the placement of the artist in the scene.
Though Goya paints himself hidden in the background (almost completely enveloped by the dark tones of his chiaroscuro), he remains visible, a necessary reference to the importance and dignity of his profession. Further celebrating the artistic ability of his work, Goya uses
elaborate detail to articulate the clothing of the royal family. Unlike
the clothing in other work such as “The Parasol,” in “The Family of
Charles the IV” the artist carefully details the fine brocading and
68
Robles
embroidery of the royal wardrobe. While the effect of the richly
detailed clothing partially serves to demonstrate the wealth and elegance of the ruling class, the careful execution displays the skill of the
artist, a tactic used by Velásquez (Kleiner 592, 662).
While Goya avoided neoclassical idealization in his depiction of
“The Family of Charles IV”, there seems to be little true basis for the
assertion that the artist ridiculed the monarchy in portraying them naturalistically. Perhaps the desire to see Goya as a critical painter, especially given his later work, has clouded the true nature of the monarchical painting. Though Goya subtly demonstrated the fragility of the
monarchy and the importance of the line of succession in the careful
placement of each subject and in the uneasy nature of their gathering,
he made no attempt to ridicule the family, depicting them as they were,
even making adjustments to improve upon their actual features (as in
the straightened back of Doña Maria Luisa). Furthermore, in his visual
references to the work of an earlier court painter, Diego Velásquez,
and in the exquisite detail of his own work, Goya celebrates not only
the art of painting, but also the professional painter. Thus, though
Goya’s work is void of a harsh social criticism, the artist consciously
included references to the state of the monarchy and to his own position in the court (artistic liberties which are still surprising given the strict
nature of royal commissions).
WORKS CONSULTED
Kleiner, Fred S., and Christian J. Mamiya. "The Enlightenment and Its Legacy." Gardner’s
Art Through The Ages; The Western Perspective. Thomson Wadsworth, 2006.
Licht, Fred. “Goya’s Portrait of the Royal Family.” The Art Bulletin 49, 1967.
<http://links.jstor.org.>
Olszewski, Edward J. “Exorcising Goya’s “The Family of Charles IV”” Artibus et
Historiae 40th ser. 20, 1999.
69