Talk:The Third of May 1808

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article The Third of May 1808 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2008.
April 24, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted


Is there any chance that the peseant's outstreached arms are supposed to recall the crucifixtion? It would seem to make sense, given the martyr-like portrayal and that the painter and his audience were Christian. Anyone know what the art-world concensus on this is? Snowboardpunk 00:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in a 100 level ( first year ) Art History class, and we have recently viewed and discussed this painting. My professor made a point to point out the similarities with the man you mentioned and Christ.

I think that the analasys of the meaning of the painting should be changed. I don't see any citations, if you could prove the painter said something about it, you could state it's a fact. If you can't find a source, write it in such a way that it has simmilarities to something. -- (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

a Pleaʃing Area for Diʃcuʃʃion[edit]

A couple of comments. Nice work everyone.

  • I don't see our hero kneeling on a corpse, but the ground is bloody. Right now it says "the brilliantly lit figure of a man kneeling on the corpses of those already executed"?
  • "In 1808 Napoleon sought to take advantage of Spanish unrest and an unpopular monarchy by invading Spain, entering through the Pyrenees unopposed, only to meet resistance from civilians in Saragossa.[4] Napoleon’s principal commander was Marshal Joachim Murat, who may well have intended to establish an equitable government in Spain." I'd rather have a citation for the second sentence than the first, given that the first is basic history and the second suggests intention.

Outriggr § 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Both good points. My error regarding the corpse business; he is kneeling amongst, not on them. And I can cite the information on Murat. Thanks, JNW (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. On p. 109 Licht writes: ..."Murat doubtless intended to establish a more equitable, efficient, and honorable government in Spain than that which Spain had enjoyed under the Bourbon-Parma monarchy. But the Spanish people, who had accepted abominably inept foreign rulers several times in the past...balked at a benevolent king forced on them by the sober dictates of political exigency." JNW (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
David-Oath of the Horatii-1784.jpg
Sounds good. What do you think of this Horatii connection. It's rather striking when you compare the two. The references will tell that this isn't necessarily intentional, but what a marvelous repurposing of pictorial rhetoric it would be. If you will.... –Outriggr § 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes! I grabbed a few books from the library today, and though I have not yet had a chance to read through them, comparisons to David (primarily), and Baron Gros, are substantiated. What I have not found thus far is scholarship regarding provenance, history of the painting, as was so voluminous for Las Meninas. JNW (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Have since found and incorporated content on provenance and other matters. Will add more. JNW (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The account of the invasion in Peninsular War is rather different & more dramatic, & I suspect no less accurate. Perhaps a touch of that could be added. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Do feel free to make improvements, Johnbod. JNW (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Afterthought: My only concern, maybe not justified, is that the specificity and length of the background history not overwhelm the rest of the article. JNW (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Btw, pace Licht, I think yellow and white are strictly the heraldic colours of the Papacy, rather than the whole RC Church. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct away! JNW (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Also pace Licht, I've adjusted the "Baroque invention" of lantern light-sources; one might add that it is exactly in scenes of the arrest of Christ in Gethsemine that it is often seen earlier. I'll see if if I can dig up a Spanish example, or would that be OR? Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Doesn't seem like OR, especially if there is a written ref on the use of light, which ought not be hard to find. JNW (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We should add something on the pushed-up perspective; I don't have sources (yet anyway). Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I have a brief mention of the perspective, most likely from Licht. Will look for it. JNW (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod: The use of the word 'government' comes from Tomlinson. If there is a more apt term, please change it. JNW (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good gosh, has anyone seen The private life of a masterpiece on Google Books? A whole chapter here. Also, could whoever added the Clark references clarify if they all came from the website, or directly from the book?—for reference formatting purposes. –Outriggr § 06:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Outriggr: The Clark refs come from the online version of the essay from 'Looking at Pictures'. Thanks so much for the clean-up. I might not be able to contribute much for the next few days. Cheers, JNW (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Added a note, from Licht, on the change of point of view that enables us to look down at the sprawled victim, yet would we not be looking down on him anyway? Especially if his upper body is slumped over that of another corpse beneath him, as it appears? JNW (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Clark refs came from the online version as does the Danto ref. Modernist (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

TwoThree A few things:[edit]

  • For its content, presentation, and emotional force, The Third of May is now regarded as a revolutionary work - Is it only recently regarded as such? Needs to be clarified.
Deleted 'now'. JNW (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really good enough. When did the painting come into wide view. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • repeated mechanical movement - What does this mean in this instance?
Agreed. Not my favorite alliteration. Just now I can't find it, so I trust it has been deleted. If not, feel free to erase. JNW (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • an ironic comment on the French painter Jacques-Louis David's - Ironic is not developed. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I wonder if comments from Clark and Danto belong under 'Iconography and invention', or are better served by a separate header, say, 'interpretation' or 'assessment'. They don't deal directly with Goya's iconoclasm, but are later commentaries by others. JNW (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, or they could be worked into the legacy section, as Danto is comparing with Manet. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reservations about moving the commentary to the Legacy section for the same reason, with its focus on artworks rather than critical commentary. I think it will be easy to find more quotes attesting to the painting's import, and justifying a new header, if we want to go there. JNW (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A separate section Critical commentary might work. I wonder if there were any other and/or contemporaneous comments we can find...Charles Yriarte or even later ones by Andre Malraux. Massacre in Korea by Picasso is another important work that we should include in Legacy, it quotes Goya far more directly then Guernica - which also must stay. Modernist (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot all about the Korea painting. Great find. JNW (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The Third of May is regarded as a revolutionary work - Revolutionary has two meanings; but seminal doesn't work either. Any suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If revolutionary means bringing about radical change and a if revolutionary work of art or painting means radically changing the art of painting then it's a good word. Goya's painting was revolutionary. Modernist (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
So do we say 'in both sences' Ceoil (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not. Its an accurate and succinct concept. Modernist (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably not necessary. I've deleted the mention 'in both senses' because the accompanying cite from Clark explains this, calling it revolutionary in every sense of the word, in style, in subject, and in intention. JNW (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it, and I'd bet it will be called during FAC. Revolutionary also means finding guns and what not and killing thoes 'not like us'. I'm not convinced Goya was of this mind; this why he is so resonant. Panently the painting is anti rather than pro 'means vs. ends'. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually Goya might well have been aware of revolutionary in that sense of the word also, if Arthur Danto is to be believed then Goya was thinking about stirring people up against the French, it is a powerful and emotionally charged picture. I'm curious to hear what French critical commentary about the painting is. I read some of Andre Malraux's comments that seemed a little obtuse, and antithetical..maybe I'm wrong about that...I'll try to find them again, hmm from what I found I think I'm probably wrong about Malraux - he seems a great admirer of Goya. Modernist (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
When initially choosing the word 'revolutionary', I did so only to describe the import of the work, and then only after finding several refs (Licht and Clark) that supported use of the term. Given the work's break with tradition, as detailed in the article, it ought not be a controversial word, but if there is indeed a problem, it can be rephrased (e.g., innovative is a possible synonym). The article is just getting more solid, with much great work. JNW (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I like "revolutionary", which Webster's defines as "of, having the nature of, characterized by, tending toward, or causing a revolution, or drastic change, especially in a government or social system". Goya's painting was certainly characterized by a drastic change—in the manner of painting massacres, if nothing else, so the word choice is defensible. "Innovative" sounds like a better mousetrap, and there aren't a lot of other alternatives--"radical", perhaps (although that word has problematical connotations). The article is looking very, very good. Ewulp (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
In a pinch, "innovative" could be helped with "powerfully" or "drastically"--but you gotta like the punchiness of "revolutionary". Ewulp (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Art critic Arthur Danto has drawn a comparison between Goya's The Third of May and Manet's several versions of his Execution of the Emperor Maximilian:...{quote}" I'm not seeing a comparison in the quote that follows. It seems mostly to rehash what the article has already said. I think only the last couple of sentences, as a quote, are relevant. –Outriggr § 06:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Danto ref links to his entire comparison between Manet and Goya. The quote in the article is Danto on The Third of May the entire comparison is much longer and detailed - mostly about Manet. What is in the article is what Danto said about the Goya with basic historical context. I think his remarks about the occupation, the French, Mexico, etc. are helpful for understanding the last two sentences; alone they are too misleading. I still like revolutionary by the way...Modernist (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Are the soldiers here, as opposed to May 2, actually Mamluks? Their uniforms are standard European ones, & it seems unlikely to me they are intended to represent Mamluks, regardless of any role they may have had in the historical events. Note, from the article: "During their service in Napoleon’s army, the Mamluk squadron wore the following uniform:

Before 1804: The only "uniform" part was the green cahouk (hat), white turban, and red saroual (pants), all to be worn with a loose shirt and a vest. Boots were of yellow, red, or tan soft leather. Weapons consisted of an "Oriental" scimitar, a brace of pistols in a holder decorated with a brass crescent and star, and a dagger."

Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The executioners in The Third of May, do look like regular official French soldiers, (they remind me of the soldiers in one of my favorite movies - directed by Wojciech Has, The Saragossa Manuscript, 1965, although the action takes place a little earlier than 1800. I think of the film whenever I look at the Goya). Maybe the Mamluks had an extra uniform, these guys seem to be regulars though. Modernist (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • removed, now "French soldiers"; precise link (as above) added re May 2 to lead. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Article size[edit]

If someone has dr pada's article size script, can the post the output here please. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Early critical study[edit]

O'Connell p. 149 indicates that Richard Schickel's 1968 book covers early critical study in some detail. Anybody have a copy? Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To do[edit]

"Iconography and invention", and the legacy section have cross over thoughts that needs to be resolved. The lead is weak and inchorent sill. A few image captions are still stubby, and a few other treads at various points are disjointed, and have logic jumps. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Goya Christ.jpg
  • The painting is nearly 4 metres wide; I have removed references to its "small and intimate scale".
  • "Description

The painting is set at night, and centers on two masses of men; one a rigidly poised firing squad, the other a disorganized group of captives forced at gun point against a wall...." - is it a wall? Most writers seem to think it is the hill, although looked at hard it seems to be some object in betweeen the two.

  • I have re-written the martyr bit in terms of Ribera, more to the point than Tiepolo, and whose many martyrdoms now in the Prado Goya would have known. I hope this is still compatible with the Licht reference. I'm beginning to have my doubts about Licht.
  • "In The Third of May, the man with raised hands at the focal point of the composition uses the iconography of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, and shows stigmata-like marks on his right hand..." - or is he being crucified, as we say shortly after. There is a Goya Gethsemine painting (of 1819) which is similar, with outstretched arms, but these are not I think common in depictions of the scene. (see pic - worth including?)
That Gethsemane comparison really does seem off--the classic Gethsemane pose is arms down more or less, or crossed; never high over the head. Ewulp (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vasari The Garden of Gethsemane.jpg Wildensteiner Altar-Flügel-gechlossen.jpg

Well the commons cat has one or two but they aren't typical. Hands clasped in prayer is commonest. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please amend to reflect your valid point. I was using this passage from Licht as ref:

Not only is the figure seen in a position that has become the canonical attitude of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, but his right hand bears unmistakable signs of the stigmata. By the way, I still prefer revolutionary. I need to reread the entire article, which I have not done lately. JNW (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
After JNW took it out, I have re-added a combined version. Johnbod (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Caption: "The realism of Peter Paul Rubens's Massacre of the Innocents c.1611, was a direct influence on Goya when he painted the Príncipe Pío canvases." I think the painting turned up in the last decade in an Austrian monastery, and was probably once in the Princes of Lichtenstein's collection. How could Goya ever have seen it? I don't believe there were prints of it. Same problem in the text.
  • Peter Paul Rubens's Massacre of the Innocents c.1636-38, though was possibly seen by Goya who was an admirer. The second painting was painted by Rubens from what I read partly because the other one just wasn't easily available to be seen. Modernist (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Picasso caption: "Pablo Picasso]], Massacre in Korea, 1951, painted as a protest and denouncement of the United States intervention in Korea, that directly quotes The Third of May 1808." - Probably true, but somewhat overemphatic? Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess we can tone down the description of Picasso's protest by suggesting he protested United Nations intervention in Korea, which is also probably true and more accurate anyway. I've changed the caption to read United Nations...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
now UN not US. Johnbod (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Changed back to US not UN, everything I've read indicates Picasso meant the US, including in the major catalog Picasso A Retrospective, Museum of Modern Art, edited by William Rubin, 1980, on p.383 Modernist (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is as though Goya's intention is to clearly demonstrate that the French firing squad goes against the Church, and against man and finally against God.
Maybe, but this would be strengthened by a ref. JNW (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That might be tough, I wrote that partly as an interpretation of a Malraux comment from L'Intemporal: The Third of May is a lay crucifiction, a Christian world without grace. And partly from extrapolating some Hughes comments, and also in this essay by Malraux about Saturn: [1] some of Goya's sense of alienation and anger against mankind, the church and the state. Modernist (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As we are now in FAC, removing pending a referenced version. Johnbod (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • According to a 2003 UK Guardian article The Unflinching Eye about Goya by Robert Hughes it took forty years for the the painting to be seen by the public, remaining in storage until then. [2], Modernist (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we are covered there - Gautier saw it in 1845, presumably on a normal visit as a punter, so 40 yrs seems too long. There doesn't seem to be a record of when it was first hung in the public galleries. Murrays guide is on line - 1840s I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hughes says forty, I know of works done in 1968 and before that haven't seen the light of day yet, in the museum collections that store them; so forty years really doesn't seem so long. Modernist (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't explain how Gautier saw it 9 years earlier though. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Since we really aren't sure and (assuming) Hughes is probably (?) not sure either I changed the sentence to read: According to some accounts the painting was in storage for thirty or forty years before being shown to the public. Modernist (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I've perpetrated minor copy edits to lead, including removal of the technical finesse reference (not important enough for lead) and the claim that the painting has been considered one of the first works of the modern era since the mid-19th century--please reinstate this if there is a ref, but the ref I found (I don't think it was Licht, either; in all the copy editing sometimes refs get misplaced) only stated that the work was seen and began to be appreciated by the mid- 1800s. I am uncertain of the time of its high critical ascendancy, which took eloquent form from the pens of Clark, Licht, et al. JNW (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your perpetration is fine JNW; note my edit summary when I added thoes bits. Ceoil (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The tie in with Rubens's massacar is interesting but underdeveloped. Anyone like to clarify this. Ceoil (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
See above - I toned it down a bit because there is a question as to which of Rubens' many massacres would have been known to Goya. I looked up all the Prado Rubenses, and actually, apart from harrassment of nymphs, they are a much more peaceable bunch than, say, the London ones. But he may have known others in aristocratic collections, or from prints, copies or imitations, as Clark's comment suggests (though I'm not entirely sure Clark can be relied on to have checked this was the case). Johnbod (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Given both Clark and Huxley's comments about Goya and Rubens it seems clear that a connection between Goya's series of etchings and paintings of war with Rubens' paintings and prints of war, seems to make sense. The composition of the second is very similar to the Rubens, while the composition of the third demonstrates Goya's willingness to follow his own genius. Modernist (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


The reason for the inclusion of Saint_barthelemy.jpg is unclear. If it should stay, the reason should be in the img caption. Ceoil (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to stay. Initially I included the image to underscore this sentence and ref from Licht:
But such depictions were artfully fashioned, the mastery of composition and painting in works such as those by Tiepolo serving to correlate to the harmony with God achieved through Christian martyrdom.[17]
I believe it has since been removed, and with it, the rationale for the image. JNW (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I re-targeted the text reference to Ribera, as being at the rougher end of traditional martyrdoms, rather than the elegant Tiepolo, but I think the Tiepolo pic, with the caption, still works to make the point. Or change the text back - it wasn't directly quoted, so I didn't know if Tiepolo was specifically or uniquely mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To do[edit]

Two things:

  • The statement Kenneth Clark felt the Second of May an "artistic failure ... contradicts the several quotes from him earlier in the article. Also the statement is a fragment and unclear in its present state.
  • The fact that this work is a break from traditional depections of war scenes is touched upon in a few sections, but lightly and makes the article disjointed. Seperate section? Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ceoil: I confess that though I have noticed a great deal of good work, I have not really read the article through for some days. However...
  • 1. The Clark is about the Second of May, and is included to tie in with Rubens' influence. The passage that exists uneasily there is the one sentence claiming a possible influence from Rubens, with the second asserting it as definite...sounds like two contributors having a conversation.
Eek, my mistake JNW. I'm going green eyed from reading the same prose over and over. I think we need more on The Second however, and is their a collective name for the two? Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Perfectly understandable. I don't know that there's a collective title, other than The Second and Third of May...JNW (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The collective name is on the tip of my toungh, but I can find it. Its the Spanish name of the hill where the 3rd is set. O'Connell uses it, but Im too lazy and well fed to bend over and opick up the book, Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I think you are misreading Connell (p.159) there (or he is wrong). The 2nd is set on Puerta del Sol, the Times Square of Madrid. The Principe Pio hill is the edge-of-the-city place they went to for the executions. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Feck. My bad. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 2. Primary content re: the break with traditional depictions might best fit within Iconography and invention, rather than starting a new header. JNW (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up on Rubens: I've tried to make the aforementioned passages on Rubens' influence less bumpy, and less definite on the claim of influence, as well. Goya did not title any of the Black paintings, and the Saturn title was given after his death. It does resemble the Rubens, but might there not have been other similar works as well, including various versions of Ugolino? And as someone (probably Licht) has noted, the unfortunate 'child' in Goya's painting does not even have a child's anatomy. In all, I'm not certain that the matter of influence is conclusive. I will see if I can find something that sheds more light. Refs, anyone? JNW (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Further, and this is good stuff: Licht notes that Goya would have been familiar with the Rubens Saturn, which was then already in Spain's royal collection. He also speculates that other influences might have been relevant, including the then widespread superstition, illustrated in print, paint, and sculpture, that Jews needed the blood of Christian infants to make Passover bread. Sigh. Eventually, that's material for the article on Goya's Saturn. JNW (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and Passover was tonight... The 1796-97 drawing by Goya actually looks more like the Rubens painting - of Saturn biting, then Goya's own later painting. [3] Modernist (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Minor point: There are two books by Guidol in the bibliography (assuming they are in fact different), but only 1 ref, which does not give a distinguishing date. Both have been added this month. The ref is no 46, for: "The brushwork could not be described as pleasing, and the colors are restricted to earth tones and black, punctuated by bright flashes of white and the red blood of the victims. The quality of the pigment itself is characteristic of that which Goya would employ in many of his later works; a granular solution producing a matte, sandy finish.[46]"

-Can we can work out which this was from? Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I contributed that from the 1971 tome. Previously someone added the 1941 ref, which is unknown to me. JNW (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, dates added all round. 1941 book left, but do we need it? Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Is the statement that the uprising was made up of "ex-prisoners, vagabonds, and transients" relevant. It seems bitter. And for some reason it is cited twice. Ceoil (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree - also, may not be accurate - see the note.
  • "However, Goya did not intend the painting to be a formalized decoration, or political tableau" This should be taken out of the description section and into analysis. Again its underdeveloped, but I do not have the source. Ceoil (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
or just drop? Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut both of these. Ceoil (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The original line provided context, and included a cite from Clark which was meant to underscore that the composition was not a traditional staged presentation, as in David's 'Oath': A square lantern rests on the ground between these two groups, throwing a strong light and creating the effect of a staged scene, yet the painting is not a formalized decoration or political tableau. JNW (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In this line from - Background - Murray's description is by no means borne out by the incomplete lists of the names and occupations of those executed, which include many skilled workers. Who is Murray? Modernist (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I've restored an earlier passage which explains Murray's contribution, and moved the above quote back to footnote, where it was originally. I imagine the cite will need to be cleaned up. JNW (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. I've restored the Murray passage discussed for reversion above, but it was not reverted fully. Here's a possible justification for keeping it: Tomlinson, too, reports that the uprising probably involved the 'lowest classes'. Those rounded up on May 3 could have included other sympathizers and innocents (clerics, for example, were considered instigators) know how all-inclusive those nasty military reprisals can be. JNW (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


I found a book using google book search that discusses this painting if anyone wants to incorporate this information into the article Google Book Search result. Remember (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Remember. I incorporated bits yesterday, maybe others could have a look. Ceoil (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, FA[edit]

Thank you and congratulations to all! Well done...Modernist (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You too. I have readded to the Main page requests & hope we are ok for May 3. We can sort out the anti-vandal shifts later.... Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, folks! Looking forward to the next one.
¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who raised the article to FA status, including those whom I contacted initially (Ceoil, Johnbod, Modernist, Outriggr, and Ewulp) and who answered the call to arms with more enthusiasm than I could have hoped for, and those whose subsequent contributions also proved indispensable (including, but not limited to, Noetica, Awadewit, and Roger Davies). Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Toasting FA status in appropriate garb
Main page now confirmed for the eponymous day. Well done everyone! Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful article on a terribly moving painting, and on just the right day. Great work everyone. Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant! Ty 03:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


I've never seen a Citations section labeled "Citations." Almost always it's "References" or "Notes." Is there a particular reason for one or the other? (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it just doesn't matter. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Many articles split Notes & References; some split out notes into notes (footnote points)and citations, which I think was the case at one point here. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Milestones Question[edit]

According to the Article Milestone section above, this article was never reviewed for Good Article Status before it applied for Featured status. Isn't that bad form? Zidel333 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No it's not (and where did you get the idea that one editor's opinion that an article is "good" is necessary or useful on the path towards becoming a featured article ? GA is one editor's opinion: most experienced FA writers don't need that step. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to me to force an article go to through the extra step. JMHO. Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with both above. I would guess that less than 50% of new FAs have been GAs (though no doubt Sandy has the exact figure!). Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of FAs do go through the GA process, but GA has nothing to do with FA. Nothing. I recall one of Yomangani's stubs going to featured within weeks of being a stub, and being on the mainpage shortly thereafter. Experienced FA writers may opt for GA, but it's not necessary, ever. It can, however, be helpful for inexperienced FA writers (not an issue on this article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I guess I always assumed that FAs had to be GAs or became FAs before the GA process was initiated. And I supposed I just a lot of editors who frown on articles not becoming Good level before trying for Featured. Thanks again. Zidel333 (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Any reason the article capitalizes afrancesados? It's a Spanish word, and would not be capitalized in Spanish. - Jmabel | Talk 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, just copied from the article title. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Jmabel is right; there is a lot of stuff that is capitalized in English but not in Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll change it when the merry-go-round stops. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No can do; fully protected. Drat. I aked the protector, but s/he seems to be offline. Could a passing admin please unprotect; I'd like to add [4], please. Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it to AN/I. Raul would take off the protection in a second, but he left a note on my talk page that he's traveling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Did. All fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous print, 1867[edit]

Print of the Execution of Maximilian, artist unknown, first published in Harper's Weekly on August 10, 1867.

Is it true, and is there a source for the claim, that the anonymous print of the execution of Maximilian I is "clearly influenced" by Goya? Someone is bound to object to this as OR, and I'm a little skeptical myself. The image could plausibly have been drawn by someone with no knowledge of Goya, but who had witnessed one or more executions by firing squad, or was working from a photograph (of any such execution, not Maximilian's). Ewulp (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. An anonymous print, without ref, that given its similarities, may or may not owe its composition to the Goya. Also, it's not of the same quality as the other works pictured here. JNW (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
My impression of the print is it's either influenced by or influenced on Manet, with little thought of Goya. The execution took place in June, and the print was published in August. Probably meant to convey the event, which was a current event. Ceoil removed the claim. Modernist (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how an artist in New York could have been aware of the first Manet (we illustrate the last one) so quickly. Look at the Moma timeline, which incidentally does not support what the article references to it about a Manet on the subject being in the 1867 Salon -it says they were first exhibited in the US in 1879. A look at the commons category shows there are only so many ways to depict, or photograph, a firing squad, and I would be doubtful if the Harpers print relates to either Goya or Manet in either direction. What commons does bring out is the originality, and perhaps the artifice, of the forward-lunging stance of Goya's soldiers - or perhaps their muskets had a bigger recoil. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The MoMA timeline does seem to help understand a few questions - it looks like it was likely the 1869 Salon that Manet might have submitted the painting, (although he was warned, and it was a very politically incorrect picture especially if you were the French government) rather than the 1867 Salon, which seemed to me to be too soon. The NY print might have influenced Manet, but visa versa seems unlikely. Manet did begin the series in 1867 but with the more violent and less artful, but most painterly version. Modernist (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I changed the article a tad on this. I think Goya>Manet is established, & the rest need not concern us here. I'm neutral whether the print stays or goes. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Though it does belong in the article on Maximilian, and possibly in the article on Manet's painting, unless a clear relationship to the Goya can be established, its connection here seems tenuous. JNW (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets take it out. I added the size to the Manet, and its getting too complicated. By the way I was not prepared for the blitz of vandalism. Modernist (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The influence of Goya's deafness[edit]

At the end of the article Kenneth Clark is quoted as once having seen The Third of May as "a kind of superior journalism.... I was mistaken." In explaining why he was mistaken, he makes the point that Goya's deafness influenced how he absorbed information, and communicated it back. "And this power of concentrating his whole physical being on a split second of vision was developed by an accident [his illness].... Gesture and facial expression, when they are seen without the accompanying sound, become unnaturally vivid.... The crowds in the Puerto del Sol were silent to him; he could not have heard the firing squads on the third of May. Every experience reached him through the eye alone." (Excerpt from Looking at Pictures.)

Should a reminder of Goya's deafness be included, somewhere in "Iconography and invention"? (Looking at Pictures is the only source I've found that mentions it in connection with this painting, though.) -- LaNaranja (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

From the Spanish article[edit]

Graffiti del cuadro de Francisco de Goya El Tres de Mayo (detalle), Madrid, España
Interesting doc snippet here [5]. (On Goya rather than the grafitti). Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Article diverts from main topic[edit]

I personally feel that this article should be only about the specific painting of Third May, 1808. However lot of other paintings are included and discussed. Each painting should have its own section instead of being crammed into one article. It gets confusing too — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado thin black margin.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado thin black margin.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 3, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-05-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day
The Third of May 1808

The Third of May 1808 is a painting completed in 1814 by the Spanish master Francisco Goya, now in the Museo del Prado, Madrid. Along with its companion piece of the same size, The Second of May 1808 (or The Charge of the Mamelukes), it was commissioned by the provisional government of Spain at Goya's suggestion. Goya sought to commemorate Spanish resistance to Napoleon's armies during the Peninsular War.

Painting: Francisco Goya
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


From "Points" above:

Peter Paul Rubens' works, such as this Massacre of the Innocents c. 1611, probably influenced Goya.[1]

* Caption: "The realism of Peter Paul Rubens's Massacre of the Innocents c.1611, was a direct influence on Goya when he painted the Príncipe Pío canvases." I think the painting turned up in the last decade in an Austrian monastery, and was probably once in the Princes of Lichtenstein's collection. How could Goya ever have seen it? I don't believe there were prints of it. Same problem in the text.

  • Peter Paul Rubens's Massacre of the Innocents c.1636-38, though was possibly seen by Goya who was an admirer. The second painting was painted by Rubens from what I read partly because the other one just wasn't easily available to be seen. Modernist (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
All these years and the while the fact-checkers are still putting their boots on the first and most dubious illustration remains here and has propagated into other WPs. Even the second seems dubious: Goya didn't go to Munich, and I doubt the painting traveled to Spain, so he would have to have seen an engraving. More to the point, the reference makes it look like Kenneth Clark says something he doesn't. I found the book and his only mention of Rubens is in the quote about 2nd of May referring to "similar pictures by Rubens". Sparafucil (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Higher resolution[edit]

Changed to File:Jacques-Louis David - Oath of the Horatii - Google Art Project.jpg, because original doesn't have FP quality. Maybe it can be the picture of the day on 3 May. Hafspajen (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Following a recent edit, the original language style does seem to be British English - in the first edits in 2006 Sparkit used "metre". I've templated accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC) ... which I see Ewulp has reverted! We'd better discuss. As I've explained the article began in British English. Was a change ever discussed, and is there any reason for one? see WP:ENGVAR for those new to such discussions. Johnbod (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought the recent Engvar change by an IP violated MOS:RETAIN: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary ... When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." Consistent usage has been established in this article. When the article began as a 246-byte stub on Feb. 3, 2006, Engvar was indeterminate. On March 2, 2006, Sparkit enlarged it to a 805-byte stub that included "metre"; three edits later on April 11 an IP changed it to "meter". Sparkit edited again but did not revert this. The stub was expanded by JNW on April 5, 2008 with US spellings, and it was worked on by many before being promoted to FA with US spellings a few weeks later. I think seven years of consistent usage in a stable FA meets the definition of "established" if anything does, and the priority MOS:RETAIN gives to "the first non-stub revision" suggests that the brief existence of a single word in a tiny stub should not be grounds for overturning the established version. Ewulp (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • ^ Clark, p. 127.