Among the works of Diego Velázquez, Las Meninas (1656) usually stands out, the mystery and mastery behind every detail in the painting does not cease to surprise with findings or theories. But Velázquez's genius is not summarized in a single work and therefore he remains one of the most famous masters in art history and especially in Spain.

Within the court of King Philip IV, Velázquez was his favorite painter and even a great friend, the Sevillian enjoyed almost all the privileges he could want and studied the artists he wanted. Philip IV had a great fondness for art and this was reflected in his exquisite collection of works, to which Velázquez had access, although the trips he made were also enriching for his development.

On this occasion, we want to share some observations and stories about Las Hilanderas (1657) or Velázquez's La Fábula de Aracne. This is one of those wonderful works in which not everything is what it seems and the elements have more than one meaning, so we will break down some parts to understand it better.

Title changes

This painting, which we know as Las Hilanderas, was originally titled La Fábula de Aracne. The story behind this change of title is due to errors in its cataloging. Before, the works were used to be cataloged according to a visual description of it, so in 1872, Pedro de Madrazo would catalog it with the description "The tapestry factory of Santa Isabel de Madrid: painting called Las Hilanderas". De Madrazo was - among many things - an art critic and writer who served as a member of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of San Fernando and director of the Museum of Modern Art of Madrid, so his opinion was taken very seriously when cataloging the works.

So how do we know that that is not the title of the work? Fortunately, the first owner of the work, Pedro de Arce, had an inventory of his art collection and according to this record of 1664, the painting appears as "another painting by Diego Velázquez from the fable of Aragne of more than three bars of long and two of cayda valued in five hundred ducats." So the work is originally titled "The Fable of Aracne".

This gives it a deeper sense than the work could have from an interpretation by its title of Las Hilanderas. With the title we can see meanings in the works that perhaps we would not have thought of at first sight. For example, in the painting of Las Hilanderas we talk about a genre scene, it is what is seen and what is indicated; on the other hand, in La Fábula de Aracne, we look for Athena and Aracne in the middle of the dispute that led the best seamstress to be punished by a goddess.

Without knowing the history of the change of title, perhaps it would be difficult to imagine that we talk about the same work and be interested in what the Myth of Aracne has to offer from Velázquez's perspective, is it the only myth in the work? No, and many things in the work are more than what they seem.

Myths in the work

The myth of Aracne consists of a famous spinner who was so confident in her knitting skills, that she proposed to the goddess Athena a competition to see who was better. Athena did not win and accepted her defeat, but she did not take it well at all, the offense she felt for Aracne's pride made her consider it necessary to punish her by turning her into a spider.

In the foreground we can find two female figures who are the main focus of the work and these are from Athena and Aracne in full competition and behind them there is another narrative.

What looked like the scene of young aristocrats admiring a wallpaper in the background, also deserves attention since the simple fact that Velázquez has put a second myth inside this painting makes the first one make sense. Velázquez was very confident in his skills and his prestige, so it could be considered that the myth of Aracne is related to the own confidence that the painter had in his work, but unlike Aracne, he knew that what he possessed was not superb, it was trust. This is obtained from years of experience, recognition at work and the power behind the knowledge obtained.

This knowledge that supports him can be interpreted in the wallpaper in the background of the work. The previous interpretation is completely subjective, it is commented with the purpose of sharing an opinion about the work and what is known about it, is not proven by theoretical records.

What is objective is that the wallpaper is a recreation of an oil work: The Rapture of Europe.

From maestro to maestro

Possibly of the best that Velázquez has done in his works was that tapestry. The appearance of The Rapture of Europe is a reference to another painting of the same theme that creates a circle between friends and people that he respected. And with it he demonstrated the confidence he had in his knowledge, his talent and what he had studied.

The version that appears on the tapestry is a reference to the painting that Peter Paul Rubens made on that subject in 1628, Velázquez imitated this one knowing that it was not an original of the Flemish painter. But the reference doesn't end there, this painting by Rubens is a copy he made on one of his diplomatic trips to Spain.

Rubens was not only a painter, he had an important career as a diplomat and often traveled to different countries, for this reason and for his fame as a painter, he created a good relationship with Philip IV and inevitably met Velázquez.

Having a good relationship with the king, Rubens was able to get to know his exquisite collection and was allowed to study it. It was then that he met The Rapture of Europe, but the 1560 version of the Italian great master Titian.

The works themselves have practically no differences, same composition, same positions, you could say that they are the same painting, but the original is the version of Titian and the second by Rubens. It's really a copy made from a study exercise. However, Velazquez was impressed by Rubens' ability to recreate a wonderful work with great mastery of an artist as important as Tiziano, and Velázquez's respect did not come for anything.

Then, to demonstrate - perhaps to himself - that he could also completely appropriate a work made by a great painter, he integrated it into his canvas in one of the most creative ways that we can recognize in the entire history of art. It is subtle, it is difficult to see, it requires a lot of attention and the story behind it is like a treasure for the pleasure of discovering it.

It is surprising how masters so distant from our time still cause sensation, not only because we can continue to enjoy their immortal art, also because of the fact that the ingenuity they captured in their work reveals discoveries that are worth sharing today.

Sources: National Geographic, The historical challenge, History of art.