"The Greek Manner and A Christian "Canon": François Duquesnoy's "Saint Susanna""

The Greek Manner and a Christian "Canon": Franois Duquesnoy's "Saint Susanna" Author(s): Estelle Lingo Source: The
Art Bulletin, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Mar., 2002), pp. 65-93 Published by: College Art Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177253 . Accessed: 24/05/2013 18:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art Bulletin.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:39:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
Greek
Manner
and
Christian Susanna
Canon:
Francois
Estelle Lingo
Duquesnoy'sSaint
In his 1672 Lives of the ModernPainters, Sculptorsand Architects, Giovan Pietro Bellori wrote that in the statue of Saint Susanna in S. Maria di Loreto, Rome (Fig. 1), the Flemish sculptor Francois Duquesnoy (1597-1643) "had left to modern sculptors the example for statues of clothed figures, making him more than the equal of the best ancient sculptors .. ."1 This was significant praise, for Bellori was implicitly comparing Duquesnoy's achievement in the Saint Susanna to that of the ancient Greek sculptor Polycleitus in the statue called the Canon, a nude figure that embodied Polycleitus's theory of art and whose outlines were imitated by subsequent artists.2 Bellori's praise drew a crucial critical distinction simultaneously between the ancient and the modern and the pagan and the Christian, for in the post-Tridentine era, it had become a commonplace of art theory to urge the artist to demonstrate his virtuosity in the fabric rather than the flesh, in the clothed rather than the nude body.3 The distinction between the nude and the clothed is also a key to seventeenth-century connoisseurship of ancient Greek and Roman sculpture. From at least the sixteenth century, scholars and collectors had noted Pliny's report, in book 34 of the Natural History, that the Greek sculptural practice was to represent the figure nude, and that the Romans had introduced the clothed statue (Natural History 34.18). This observation, which strikes the modern reader as an overgeneralization of little value as a connoisseurial tool, encouraged sixteenth- and seventeenth-century antiquarians and connoisseurs to attribute Greek authorship to any sculpture of a nude or largely nude figure. Pliny's statement was lent credence by the presence of the inscribed names of Greek artists on several celebrated nude figures, such as the Farnese Hercules and the Borghese Gladiator.4In the essay on ancient art that he contributed to the 1568 edition of Vasari's Lives, the Florentine scholar Giovanni Battista Adriani wrote: Greek and Roman statues had a difference between them that was very clear, that the Greek statues for the most part were nude, according to the custom of the gymnasium, where young men exercised themselves in wrestling and in other nude games, in which they placed the highest honor; the Roman statues were made clothed, either in armor or in the toga, the particularly Roman garment....5 In subsequent art theoretical writings, this distinction received both positive and negative interpretative glosses. Pliny's observation was restated later in the century by the painter and theorist Gian Paolo Lomazzo, who speculated that the Romans had begun to create statues of clothed figures because they were not able to sculpt nudes with the same skill ("facilita e felicita") as the Greeks.6 In the third decade of the seventeenth century, Cardinal Federico Borromeo, in Della pittura sacra, used Pliny's testimony to argue for
the classical pedigree of the modestly draped figure, asserting, "Nor will the covering of the statues and the paintings be a new thing, since it was actually the Romans who did not like to follow the custom of the Greeks, who made their figures nude."7 Duquesnoy and the Greek Manner Duquesnoy had received his training as a sculptor in the Brussels workshop of his father, Jerome Duquesnoy the Elder, who served as court sculptor to Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabella. On the strength of his father's position, Francois applied to Albert and Isabella for a stipend to support two or three years of study in Rome. His request was granted, and in 1618 Francois left for Rome, where he spent the remainder of his career. According to the seventeenthcentury biographies, the sculptor's early years in Italy were devoted to intensive studies of ancient sculpture, and some time after Nicolas Poussin's arrival in Rome in the spring of 1624, the two artists began to collaborate closely in these investigations.8 Giovanni Battista Passeri, another of Duquesnoy's seventeenth-century biographers, recorded that the sculptor ... wanted to show himself a rigorous imitator of the Greek manner, which he called the true teacher of perfect working, because in itself it holds at the same time grandeur, nobility, majesty, and loveliness, all qualities difficult to unite together in a single compound, and this tendency for him was increased by the observations of Poussin, who wanted above all to vilify the Latin manner, for the reason which I will tell in his life.9 Unfortunately, at least in the surviving copies of his biography of Poussin, Passeri did not return to the issue of the Greek manner.10 Scholars of Duquesnoy and Poussin have generally noted Passeri's comment about the Greek manner but found its significance for the interpretation of their art difficult to determine.l1 In 1988 Charles Dempsey published a groundbreaking study, later expanded in collaboration with Elizabeth Cropper, that offered the first serious consideration of Duquesnoy's and Poussin's interest in a Greek form of classicism and underscored the importance of this interest as an antecedent to the thought ofJohann Joachim Winckelmann. Cropper and Dempsey maintained that Duquesnoy and Poussin combined a high level of connoisseurship with a scholarly historical consciousness that allowed them to distinguish between Greek and Roman styles in ancient sculpture, and on this basis to establish a largely new canon of ideal, expressive figure types derived from ancient Greco-Roman sculpture, which then formed the foundation for their own art.12 In their investigation, Cropper and Dempsey traced the impact
66
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
11
I I
I.
.f
II
I
;:s
ii
*' :
I
.:
. I 1
:,, ' 0 I
. <
i I
.4 oi
I
A \
I
ii
Ii'\
.,
1 FranCoisDuquesnoy, Saint Susanna. Rome, S. Maria di Loreto (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la
Documentazione, Rome)
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
67
of the ideas of Poussin, Duquesnoy, and their circle on the discussions of ancient art at the Acad6mie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture in the 1660s and 1670s.13 In my research, I have sought to reconstruct this idea of the Greek manner, to discover the sources and methods through which Duquesnoy and his circle conceived and developed the notion, and to probe its relation to Duquesnoy's sculpture. Somewhat to my surprise, I found that the idea of the Greek manner seems to have taken shape among these artists, rather than among contemporary antiquarians, and that the key building blocks for their vision of the Greek style were available-and had been for some time-in the most familiar classical and art theoretical texts. But it was within Duquesnoy and Poussin's circle, which included the paintersJoachim von Sandrart and Andrea Sacchi, Duquesnoy's pupil Artus Quellinus the Elder, and the nobleman and connoisseur Vincenzo Giustiniani, that textual as well as archaeological evidence about Greek art was interpreted and transformed into a critical ideal they called la gran maniera greca. Until now, Passeri's statement and a few rather cryptic allusions by Duquesnoy's student Orfeo Boselli, the Roman sculptor, have constituted the only period testimony regarding Duquesnoy's pursuit of the Greek manner,14 and the isolation of the evidence has made it both more difficult to interpret and easier to dismiss. However, a previously unnoted passage of Joachim von Sandrart's Teutsche Academie contains notice of an academy formed by Duquesnoy's circle, in which a conception of the Greek manner was formulated and extolled in discussions and through studies of the antiquities in Rome.15 Sandrart arrived in Rome in 1629 and rapidly established himself in Roman artistic circles; Domenichino became a close friend and served as Sandrart's artistic mentor until the former's departure for Naples in mid1631.16 It may have been in Domenichino's studio academy that Sandrart met Poussin, and he formed especially close friendships with Duquesnoy and Claude Lorrain.17 From 1632 until his departure from Rome in 1635, Sandrart was employed by Vincenzo Giustiniani as the curator of his collection, which included an impressive number of antiques as well as late sixteenth-century and contemporary paintings.18 In Giustiniani's service, Sandrart oversaw the production of the Galleria Giustiniani, two deluxe volumes of engravings of ancient sculptures from the Giustiniani collection. Sandrart assembled a team of mostly Dutch and French artists to produce the engravings for the Galleria, including Theodor Matham, Michael Natalis, Renier Persin, Cornelis Bloemaert, Claude Mellan, and Francois Perrier.19 During his years in Rome Sandrart occupied a position remarkably well connected to both Italian and northern artistic circles; he was initiated as a member of the association of northern artists in Rome, the Schildersbent, and in 1633 was elected to the Roman Academy of St. Luke.20 Much later in life, Sandrart wrote his compendious TeutscheAcademie, a two-volume work comprising art theory, history, and biography, published between 1675 and 1679. Sandrart included in these volumes brief biographies of Duquesnoy, Poussin, and members of their circle, as well as reminiscences of his years in Rome. In the second volume of the Academie,in part two of his book on the art of sculpture, Sandrart justified the selection of an-
tique sculptures that he provided in the form of engravings for the instruction of the young sculptor. He wrote, We wish here only to give report of these most select antiques which are for the most part carved of Greek and Italian white marble, and in which the old Greek excellence appears above all; at the Academy of Antiquity in Rome I recall discussion was often cultivated about this excellence, La gran maniera Greca, as the amazing grand manner of the Greeks is called, and to these statues given praise above all.21 In this passage Sandrart provided implicit confirmation of Passeri's account of Duquesnoy's and Poussin's interest in the maniera greca, as well as the tantalizing report that the Greek manner was discussed within a circle of artists that he described as an academy. Certainly, the concept of the art academy was dear to Sandrart, who founded academies at Augsburg and Nuremberg and conceived of his great written work as an academy in published form.22 From the glimpse of this Roman academy afforded by Sandrart, it appears to have been one of the many relatively small and informally structured groups established by artists for the purposes of study, often focused on life drawing, but in this case defined by a commitment to the intensive investigation of ancient art. Unlike larger organizations such as the Schildersbent or institutionalized academies such as the Roman Academy of St. Luke, such gatherings among artists might well leave little or no trace in the historical record.23 Knowledge of this informal academy casts new light on several other passages in the Teutsche Academie in which Sandrart may have referred to this Roman circle. Artus Quellinus the Elder, the Dutch sculptor who was Duquesnoy's most important student, came to Rome in 1634.24 In his biography of Quellinus, Sandrart noted, "he [Quellinus] went to Rome and through Francois Duquesnoy, who was well-disposed toward him, reached the true light in all things; [Duquesnoy] also had him apply himself assiduously at the antique academies, as a result of which he improved markedly...."25 Andrea Sacchi has long been viewed as a leading representative of classicist tendencies within seventeenth-century painting, and Sacchi's friendship with Duquesnoy was recorded by Bellori and Passeri.26 Passeri also reported that Poussin attended a life drawing academy held in Sacchi's studio.27 Sandrart described Sacchi in his brief life of the artist as "one of the most excellent in the fine art of painting, and a very valuable member of our then flourishing Academy."28 Further evidence for both the friendship between Duquesnoy and Sacchi and their shared archaeological interests is found in the antiquarian Giacomo Filippo Tomassini's De Donariis ac tabellis Votivis, published in 1639, in which Tomassini recorded a visit to Nemi by Sacchi and Duquesnoy for the purpose of examining the architectural and sculptural remains at the site of the sanctuary of Diana.29 In addition, Sandrart recalled in his biography of Poussin that in those early days the latter, with his notebook of texts and drawings in hand, would oftenjoin him, Duquesnoy, and Claude Lorraine for discussions.30 In his commentary on the Capitoline Marcus Aurelius, Sandrart recounted an episode that may have been the outcome of such a gathering:
68
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
When in my time at a meeting of the Academy in Rome a discussion of excellent and skillful metal casting took place, and the present statue [the Marcus Aurelius] was cited as an extraordinary example of this, it so impressed the talented Francesco du Quesnoy and me that we climbed up on it ourselves and through very careful investigation judged that the whole work came out from the casting so neatly and cleanly that nothing on it was filed over (even the nail which in the casting held the pipe) and also that the entire work including the horse was all of equal thinness, and not thicker than a Reichsthaler.31 We thus with amazement saw these things and approvingly thought this statue to be an excellent piece of sculpture.32 Sandrart's descriptions suggest that this circle's investigations of ancient art in Rome were inspired by the legendary excellence of ancient Greek art and undertaken with the aim of applying the lessons of selected antiquities to modern artistic practice. In fact, the idea of Greek artistic excellence was firmly rooted in the tradition of art writing by the opening decades of the seventeenth century. Then as now, classical writers-above as a primary all, Pliny the Elder-served source of information about ancient art for scholars, critics, and artists. For the subjects of painting and sculpture, the most commonly cited ancient texts were books 33 through 36 of Pliny's Natural History, Pausanias's Descriptionof Greece, and the history of Greek art contained in book 12 of Quintilian's Institutio oratorio.33 These texts contain descriptions of numerous ancient Greek paintings and sculptures, narrations of the origins and progress of the arts in Greece, and accounts of the specific innovations of individual Greek artists. By the early seventeenth century, these sources were widely accessible in translation.34 Moreover, during the course of the preceding two centuries, the information about Greek art contained in these texts had been increasingly assimilated into the art literature. In his Della pittura, Leon Battista Alberti used abbreviated accounts of the accomplishments of Greek artists drawn from Pliny and Quintilian as examples to support his discussion.35 Pomponius Gauricus introduced Pausanias into art literature in his De sculptura.36Adriani drew on these same classical sources in compiling his survey of ancient art for the second edition ofVasari's Lives. In the north, Karel van Mander made use of the information contained in Pliny for the introduction to painting in the first book of his Schilder-Boeck and for the biographies of ancient artists that Thus, by the appear in the second part of the Schilder-Boeck.37 turn of the seventeenth century, material drawn from classical texts about Greek art and artists had become a familiar feature of art literature. Art writers almost invariably described Parrhasios's and Zeuxis's rivalries in illusion, Apelles's extraordinary feats of the brush, the divine beauty of Phidias's colossal Olympian Zeus, and Lysippos's patronage by Alexander the Great. If the notion of Greek artistic excellence was not entirely new by the seventeenth century, neither was the term maniera greca. Already in the second edition of the Lives, Vasari used the term maniera greca in different contexts to refer to both Byzantine and ancient Greek art, and he took pains to distinguish between these uses.38 Furthermore, beyond the association of Greek art with nude statues, some ideas about
how to distinguish between Greek and Roman sculpture were current by the mid-sixteenth century. In his introduction to the art of architecture, Vasari noted that Greek sculptures might be identified by the type of marble from which they were made, by the manner of the head and hair, and by a distinctive straight profile from the brow through the nose.39 However, Sandrart's use of the Italian phrase "la gran maniera greca," rather than its German equivalent, made clear that the Greek manner had become within Duquesnoy's circle a critical ideal rather than a principally historical designation. When Sandrart wished simply to denote ancient sculptures made in Greece, he used German. For example, he described the collection of antiquities of Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel, as containing sculptures in the "Griechischund Romischer Manier."40 Even the Latin translator of Sandrart's TeutscheAcademie did not venture a Latin rendering of the Italian expression, which appears in the text as "gran
maniera Greca."41
From the combined testimony of Sandrart and Passeri, it appears that Duquesnoy, Poussin, and their circle were the first to explore the possible meanings and significance to modern artistic practice of the already familiar idea of Greek artistic excellence. Evidently, this new ideal of the gran maniera grecawas believed within Duquesnoy's circle to comprise artistic practices or aesthetic qualities that might be recognized through the close study of both Greek originals and accomplished Roman sculptures present in Rome.42 Indeed, as they examined the ancient statues in Rome, Duquesnoy and Poussin had good reason to believe that some of them were Greek. In his contribution to Vasari's Lives, Adriani retold Pliny's account of the vast removals of sculptures from the Greek mainland to Italy by the conquering Romans, but warned of the difficulty of attributing sculptures to Greek artists because of the subsequent upheavals and destruction during the fall of the empire.43 In the introduction to the second part of his book on sculpture, Sandrart, also following Pliny, noted that after the plunder of Corinth, three thousand Greek statues were brought to Rome, from which Sandrart believed Roman sculptors had learned much from the Greeks.44 In their pursuit of the Greek manner, Duquesnoy's circle took up and developed sixteenth-century perceptions of Greek sculpture-such as the established association of nude statues with Greek art, reiterated by Sandrart in his book on transformed those perceptions through their painting-but belief in the superiority of Greek art.45 In his treatise entitled Osservazioni della scoltura antica, written in the 1650s, Duquesnoy's pupil Boselli recorded one of the critical perceptions of Greek art that had evidently been developed in Duquesnoy's circle. According to Boselli, "the more subtle the contour is, the more the manner is Greek; and the more the contours serve to locate the principal parts at their proper places, the more excellent they are."46This statement must derive, directly or indirectly, from Pliny's description in the Natural History of the extraordinary control and refinement of the contours of figures painted by the ancient Greek artist Parrhasios. In the course of the description Pliny asserted that "the contour ought to round itself off and so terminate as to suggest the presence of other parts behind it also, and disclose even what it hides" (Natural History 35.67-
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
69
68).47 Although earlier Italian art writers had taken note of this description, Boselli's gloss of the passage differs from these previous interpretations in relating the characteristic contour specifically to ancient Greek art, rather than to antique art generally, and in understanding that contour to have been delicately modulated ("meno risaltato").48 The emergence of this view of Greek art in Duquesnoy's circle suggests not only the study of classical texts but also the influence of northern Italian art criticism. Already in Ludovico Dolce's Aretino of 1557, subtle contour had been presented as typical of antique practice generally, as well as aesthetically preferable in modern art. Dolce drew on the critical views of Pietro Aretino, for whom he worked as an editorial assistant, and whom he presented as one of the interlocutors in his text.49 The views about contour voiced by Aretino in Dolce's book are related to his criticism, recorded in his letters, of the muscular contour used by Michelangelo for all his figures, regardless of physical type.50 In a passage of Dolce's dialogue, Aretino states, I think myself that a delicate body ought to take precedence over a muscular one. And the reason is that, in art, the flesh areas impose a more strenuous task of imitation than the bones do.... The man who works in the delicate manner, on the other hand, gives an indication of the bones where he needs to do so; but he covers them smoothly with flesh and charges the nude figure with grace. And if you tell me at this point that the ways in which the painter elaborates his nudes enable one to recognize whether or not he has a good grasp of anatomy-a field of knowledge which plays a very necessary role with the artist, since without bone structure the human figure cannot be modeled nor clothed in flesh-I will reply that the suggestive indications and the fleshy passages give one the same insight. And above and beyond the fact that a tender and delicate nude is naturally more pleasing to the eye than a robust and muscular one, let me refer you in conclusion to the works produced by the ancients, whose practice it was, by and large, to make their figures extremely delicate.51 Mark Roskill proposed that Dolce took this observation about ancient sculpture from Daniele Barbaro's commentary to his 1556 edition of Vitruvius.52 Although Boselli did not cite Dolce as a source in his treatise, he referred a number of times to Barbaro's edition of Vitruvius.53 Boselli described the representation of the body in ancient sculpture in terms very similar to Barbaro's and Dolce's: "the antique avoided too many muscles, and always had more of a view toward the whole rather than to the parts, and more to the larger parts than to the smaller."54 The ideal of the subtly contoured nude informed many of Duquesnoy's sculptures, including his celebrated bronze Mercury(Fig. 2), commissioned by Vincenzo Giustiniani as a pendant to a Hellenistic bronze Hercules in his collection.55 Through a subtle cross-pollination of ideas drawn from their knowledge of classical texts, their studies of antiquities, and their meditation on aesthetic ideals, Duquesnoy and his circle advanced their perceptions of Greek art. The associations of Greek sculpture with the nude, with a slender, subtly
2 Duquesnoy, Mercury. Vaduz, Collections of the Prince of Liechtenstein
contoured body type, and, among clothed statues (as will be shown), with body-revealing drapery were several of the interpretative keys through which Duquesnoy's circle began to without some accuracy, distinguish Greek sculpture-not from a modern perspective. The transformation of the maniera greca into a critical ideal within Duquesnoy's circle marks the birth of an imaginative vision of Greek art that for over a century would continue to fuel the pursuit of a clearer archaeological distinction between Greek and Roman art. In Dresden in 1755, Winckelmann wrote the manifesto declaring the preeminence of ancient Greek art and calling for a modern art based on ancient Greek models. The polemical in der essay Gedankeniiberdie Nachahmung dergriechischenWerke Malerey und Bildhauerkunst, Winckelmann's first publication, quickly won the German scholar an international reputation. As has been often pointed out, at the time he wrote the Gedanken,Winckelmann's only knowledge of Greek art came from literary descriptions and from casts and engravings of Greco-Roman antiquities. In the Gedanken, Winckelmann
70
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
cited four characteristics that he believed endowed Greek statues with unparalleled beauty: a slim, athletic physique, a subtly controlled contour, body-disclosing drapery, and "a noble simplicity and quiet grandeur, both in posture and expression."56 At least the first three of these find clear precedents in the ideas about Greek art current in Duquesnoy's circle. Indeed, Winckelmann seems to have been among the first to take to heart Sandrart's concluding call to students in the introduction to sculpture contained in the Academie:"the diverse and fine pieces in Rome are very well known to the true connoisseur, and we should have as our most certain teacher and aim the imitation of their Gran maniera greca."57The patterns in the perception of Greek art traceable in Duquesnoy's circle are compelling indications of a historical trajectory of perception and criticism within which Winckelmann's thought emerged, and which very likely paved the way for the enthusiastic embrace of Winckelmann's ideas.58 Duquesnoy's manifesto of his theory of art was his Saint Susanna; the sculpture was clearly viewed as such by his contemporaries. The recovery of some of Duquesnoy's ideas about Greek art brings significant aspects of the Saint Susanna into focus for the first time. Although the sculpture's importance continues to be acknowledged by frequent citation in the art historical literature, the history of Duquesnoy's involvement with the commission, the work's distinctive features, and its critical fortune have never been fully clarified. In exploring these questions, the present essay aims to contribute to the ongoing process of building more historically nuanced understandings of classicism, an issue that has strongly shaped-and so often vexed-the historiography of seventeenth-century Italian art, particularly sculpture.59 The Commission In the seventeenth-century accounts of Duquesnoy's career, it was commonly assumed that the critical success of the Saint Susanna secured for the sculptor the prestigious commission for his colossal Saint Andrew for the crossing of St. Peter's.60 The testimony of the early biographers gave rise to a long and continuing discussion in the art historical literature regarding the relative chronology of the two sculptures. Mariette Fransolet, whose 1942 study has remained the only sustained monographic treatment of Duquesnoy, believed that Pope Urban VIII himself had sought a design from Duquesnoy for the Saint Andrew during the initial stages of the planning for the crossing decoration, in the second half of 1627, and that it was a model by Duquesnoy for the Saint Andrew that received the pope's approval at a meeting of the Congregazione della Fabbrica of St. Peter's in May 1628.61 Fransolet, following the biographers' chronology, concluded that a definitive model of the Saint Susanna must have been completed and exhibited by Duquesnoy during the first half of 1627.62 This account, however, required the imaginative leap of hypothesizing the existence of a highly finished model well in advance of the sculptor's documented work on the Saint Susanna, for the record of payments to Duquesnoy for the Saint Susanna, published by E. Dony in 1922, provides no indication of the sculptor's involvement with the project prior to the end of 1629.63 Then, in 1968, Irving Lavin offered the important observation that the official transcrip-
tion of that May 1628 meeting recorded, as the meeting minutes cited by Fransolet did not, that the model for the Saint Andrew selected by the pope was by Gianlorenzo Bernini.64 The first documentation of Duquesnoy's work on the Saint Andrew is thus the record of his first payment for work on the full-scale stucco model in May 1629.65 Therefore, even if one chose to retain Fransolet's line of argumentation based on the early biographers' reports of the precedence of the Saint Susanna to the Saint Andrew, a completion date for a model of the Saint Susanna might be moved as late as shortly before May 1629.66 The very complete documentary record of Duquesnoy's work on the Saint Susanna, however, lends little support to the biographers' assertions that the Saint Susanna preceded the Saint Andrew. The confraternity of the Roman Bakers' Guild commissioned the Saint Susanna as part of the decorative program for the newly extended choir of their church of S. Maria di Loreto, near the Forum of Trajan (Fig. 3).67 The choir, which is always referred to in the documents as either the Chapel of the Madonna or the capella maggiore,houses the main altar of the church and shares the church's dedication to the Madonna of Loreto. The high altarpiece, The Madonna of Loreto with Saints Rocco and Sebastian, a fifteenth-century panel attributed to Marco Palmezzano, had belonged to the small fifteenth-century church that stood previously on the site and had been ceded to the confraternity by Pope Alexander VI. The rich decoration of the new choir continued the post-Tridentine tradition of the reinstallation and celebration of older sacred images, though with a less venerable "old" image and on a somewhat more modest scale than better-known projects such as the high altar of the Vallicelliana.68 The fifteenth-century painting clearly supplied the point of departure for the development of the choir's iconography, and at this time the confraternity also instituted new rituals surrounding the altarpiece in order to do greater honor to "the most holy image of the most glorious Virgin Mary."69 Although the disposition of the statues has been altered, the choir remains essentially intact today. Two angels carved by Stefano Maderno initially stood in the apse niches at either side of the altarpiece, as recently noted by Marion Boudon, rather than in their current position in the outermost lateral niches at either side of the entrance to the choir. They thus performed the traditional function of adoration, as made explicit in the inscriptions above the original niches.70 For the lateral walls of the chapel, Cavaliere d'Arpino painted the Birth of the Virginand the Death of the Virgin,whose subjects relate clearly to the altar's dedication to the Madonna; in addition, the confraternity had a second dedication to the birth of the Virgin.71 Four statues of virgin martyrs complete the primary figural elements of the decoration: Duquesnoy's Saint Susanna, Giuliano Finelli's Saint Cecilia, Pompeo Ferrucci's Saint Agnes, and Domenico de Rossi's Saint Flavia Domitilla (Figs. 1, 4-6). The statues of the virgin martyrs were originally placed in the lateral niches on either side of the two paintings; when the angels were moved to the outermost lateral niches, evidently during the nineteenth-century restoration of the church, the virgin martyrs were distributed among the two lateral niches closer to the altar and the two apse niches (Fig. 3).72 On June 22, 1628, the confraternity signed a contract with
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
71
3 Choir of S. Maria di Loreto (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome)
the sculptors Pompeo Ferrucci, Stefano Maderno, and Domenico de Rossi "to make all the statues that will be made for the service and ornament of the principal chapel of the aforesaid church of S. Maria di Loreto and in particular two angels, a Saint Cecilia, a Saint Agnes, and other saints as they are directed by the said representatives and by Mr. Gaspare de Vecchi, the architect...."73 Ferrucci and Maderno were successful sculptors of the older generation, both of whom had worked on the Pauline Chapel at S. Maria Maggiore.74 De Rossi, a younger sculptor, had worked under Bernini on the baldacchino.75 The wording of the contract makes clear that neither Duquesnoy's nor Finelli's participation in the project was anticipated at this date. According to the contract each sculptor was to be paid 150 scudi per statue. The contract envisioned that each of the three sculptors would make two statues: two angels by Maderno, a Saint Agnes by Ferrucci, a Saint Cecilia by de Rossi, with two additional saints to be determined at a later date and to be carved by Ferrucci and de Rossi.76 Saint Susanna had not yet been designated as one of the saints to be included in the choir decoration. The records of the confraternity's meetings say very little about the bakers' ideas for the choir and their reasons for eventually selecting the Saints Susanna, Cecilia, Agnes, and Flavia Domitilla to be represented in the decoration.77 Fransolet identified Saint Susanna as a patron of bakers, but nothing in the confraternity's archives or in the hagiographic literature confirms this association.78 Saint Susanna has been
venerated primarily in Rome, where she has a church dedicated to her.79 Her legend, like that of many other virgin martyrs, hinges on the tragic interplay of beauty and Christian chastity in a pagan world. Martyred in 295, Susanna was thought to have been the beautiful and learned daughter of the Roman Christian priest Gabinus and the niece of the pope Saint Caius. Seeking her hand for his son-in-law Maximilian, the emperor Diocletian sent two of his officers successively to negotiate the marriage. When Susanna refused to take any earthly husband and inspired the conversion of Diocletian's emissaries, the emperor was so enraged that he ordered the beheading of Susanna, her father, and the two officers.80 Although her story is now considered fictitious, the circumstances of her life and martyrdom were reaffirmed in the third volume of Cardinal Cesare Baronius's Annales ecclesiastici, published in 1593.81 The fact that in the contract Saints Cecilia and Agnes were the first saints to be chosen for inclusion in the program also seems to confirm that Saint Susanna was not the confraternity's special patron. Rather, the virgin martyrs that comprise such a substantial portion of the decoration may have been selected as emblems and patrons of one of the confraternity's primary charitable functions, the provision each year of dowries to enable daughters of poor bakers to marry or to enter a convent.82 As each of the chosen saints was Roman, the confraternity members may have considered them to be particularly appropriate exemplars of virtue, faith, and chastity for the young unmarried
72
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
became frustrated in this position and obtained the opportunity for an independent commission through the agency of his friend Cavaliere d'Arpino, then at work on his two paintings for the choir.88 On August 16, 1629, the confraternity's bursar issued the payment order for the purchase of marble for Finelli's Saint Cecilia.89 The statue was completed and installed in the church in October 1632 (Fig. 4).90 The earliest document linking Duquesnoy to the confraternity's project is an order of payment to Gianlorenzo Bernini, dated December 14, 1629, of fifty-two scudi for a block of white marble "for the making of the statue of Saint Cecilia by Mr. Francesco Fiammingo, sculptor, for the principal chapel of our church."91 (In Italy Duquesnoy was often referred to as Francesco Fiammingo or simply "il Fiammingo," the Fleming.) The bursar's identification of the sculpture to be produced by Duquesnoy as a Saint Cecilia seems to have
4 Giuliano Finelli, Saint Cecilia.Rome, S. Maria di Loreto (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome)
Roman women the confraternity sought to assist. It may also be significant that the confraternity chose four saints whose feast days fell in different quarters of the year, thus creating a complete annual cycle of liturgical celebration within the program of the cappella maggiore.83 The order for the first payments to Ferrucci, Maderno, and de Rossi was written on September 1, 1628,84 and the work was carried out quickly. By late January 1630, Maderno's two Angels, de Rossi's Saint Flavia Domitilla (the subject changed in the first payment order from the Saint Cecilia specified in the contract), and Ferrucci's Saint Agnes had been delivered to the church (Figs. 5, 6).85 However, neither de Rossi nor Ferrucci received a commission for a second statue as implied in the original contract. Rather, during the later months of 1629, the confraternity found itself able to attract the services of two of the most promising younger sculptors in Rome, Giuliano Finelli and Duquesnoy.86 No contract between Duquesnoy or Finelli and the confraternity is preserved in the confraternity archive or in the records of their notary, but the two worked for the bakers on the same terms as Maderno, Ferrucci, and de Rossi.87 Finelli had been working as Bernini's assistant, but according to Passeri, the ambitious sculptor
5 Pompeo Ferrucci, Saint Agnes. Rome, S. Maria di Loreto (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome)
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
73
been simply an error, since he had written the purchase order for the marble for Finelli to carve the Saint Cecilia for the chapel previously on August 16.92 The documentary record does not establish precisely when Duquesnoy received the commission from the confraternity or an exact date by which he completed a model for the statue. It does not seem necessary, however, to assume that an agreement between Duquesnoy and the confraternity and the making of a model of the Saint Susanna would have preceded the ordering of the marble by any significant amount of time.93 Most probably Duquesnoy received the commission for the Saint Susanna in or shortly before mid-December 1629, months after he had already received his first payment for work on the full-scale stucco model for the Saint Andrew. Contrary to the early biographers' reports, it is likely that Duquesnoy's work on the Saint Andrewfor the Congregazione della Fabbrica of St. Peter's led to his employment by the confraternity of the Bakers' Guild. Cardinal Lelio Biscia was elevated to the cardinalate in 1626, becoming in that year co-chairman of the Congregazione della Fabbrica; he also served as the cardinal protector of the confraternity of the Bakers' Guild until his death in 1638.94 A bibliophile and art patron of moderate means, Biscia served on the Congregazione della Fabbrica of St. Peter's during the construction of Bernini's baldacchino, for which Duquesnoy had been employed in the making of models, and during the planning for the pier decoration, although Biscia did not live to see the finished colossi installed in the crossing in 1639 and 1640.95 According to Tomassini, Biscia accompanied Duquesnoy and Sacchi on their visit to the remains of the sanctuary of Diana at Nemi, a circumstance suggesting that the cardinal shared the archaeological interests of Duquesnoy and his circle.96 Given that the purchase order for the marble was dated December 14, it is attractive to speculate that Cardinal Biscia recommended Duquesnoy to the confraternity after the fullscale stucco model of the Saint Andrew was unveiled in its intended niche before the pope and attending cardinals on December 10, 1629.97 Bellori, Passeri, and Sandrart all reported that after its unveiling the model was closely scrutinized and well received by artists and critics.98 Cardinal Biscia's interest in and involvement with the project of expanding and decorating the choir of S. Maria di Loreto is suggested by a record of a meeting of the confraternity on March 14, 1630. At this meeting the confraternity ratified a proposal by Cardinal Biscia that every year in perpetuity the church's high altarpiece be opened by the light of candles carried by the confraternity members on two annual festivals, prior to the vespers procession on the Saturday before Palm Sunday and prior to the vigils of the Nativity of the Virgin. Throughout the octave of each of those feast days, the altarpiece would be left open "in order to honor much more the most holy image of the most glorious Virgin Mary of our church."99 Biscia's involvement with the choir program is not more fully documented, but it may be significant that the plans for the project got under way in the years immediately following his appointment as cardinal protector of the confraternity.100
6 Domenico de Rossi, Saint Flavia Domitilla.Rome, S. Maria di Loreto (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome)
Like Finelli, Duquesnoy took more time to execute his statue than had Ferrucci, Maderno, and de Rossi. Duquesnoy took delivery of the marble onJanuary 31, 1630.101 It was not
until over a year later, on March 6, 1631, that Duquesnoy was issued the first payment of fifty scudi for work on the Saint Susanna.'02 The following August 8 the confraternity's bursar issued a second payment of fifty scudi to Duquesnoy.103 At this point, the payment record for the Saint Susanna becomes less straightforward. The statue was installed in the choir of S. Maria di Loreto on or before March 29, 1633, some twenty months after the second payment to Duquesnoy.104 On May 19, 1633, the final payment of fifty scudi to Duquesnoy was ordered; however, it escaped the notice of Dony, who first transcribed this document, that this payment order was sub-
74
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
sequently canceled.105 Fransolet and later scholars have relied on Dony's transcriptions and accepted 1633 as the year of the statue's completion. However, Duquesnoy's final payment for the Saint Susanna was not reissued until twenty months later, on January 11, 1635, and he did not actually collect that money until March 28 of that year.106 In early August 1633, several months after the cancellation of the initial payment order, Duquesnoy petitioned the confraternity for reimbursement for additional expenses outside his obligation incurred during the execution of the statue. He presented an itemization of these costs, for which he received payment on August 29, 1633.107 The reason for the confraternity's delay in paying Duquesnoy the final fifty scudi for the Saint Susanna is not clear; the confraternity archives preserve no record of any dispute with the sculptor. In the documents for the payment of the installation costs of the statue in March 1633, for the canceled payment order of May 19, 1633, and for the reimbursement of Duquesnoy's additional expenses the following August, the statue was described as completed.108 Several notices contained in the early biographies, however, may shed light on the cancellation. According to Bellori and Passeri, Duquesnoy suffered from gout, attacks of severe vertigo, and episodes of depression.'09 These ailments recurred from the early 1630s until his final illness and death in 1643, and Duquesnoy's poor health may help to account for his lowered productivity and financial difficulties during these years.110 Bellori reported that during one of Duquesnoy's debilitating attacks of vertigo, ... while he was positioning the metal palm branch that was lacking to his statue of Saint Susanna, he fell suddenly from the ladder and almost lost his life. He was distressed to find himself in a poor state, and oppressed by the exhausting work of several commissions; and to tell the truth it is a great sorrow for an elevated and scholarly mind if, after all the care, sweat, and effort, he can't catch his breath, and finds himself needy and without relief... .111 Very possibly a long period of ill health prevented the sculptor from putting the finishing touches on the statue in situ, and the confraternity consequently decided to withhold the final payment until these details were completed. In the case of the Saint Andrew, the documents indicate that Duquesnoy finished the sculpture after its installation in St. Peter's, which was a standard procedure.1l2 The payments to Duquesnoy for his contemporary work on the Saint Andrew were also interrupted during this period. After receiving two final blocks of marble for the Saint Andrew in April 1633, Duquesnoy was issued payments for his work on the statue in April and May. Payments then cease until March 1634, after which date they continue at nearly monthly intervals for the next several years.ll3 In addition, Sandrart reported that due to intrigues against Duquesnoy, the sculptor's payments for his work on the Saint Andrew were so delayed that he was driven to a state of desperation. Then, according to Sandrart, Vincenzo Giustiniani intervened and commissioned from Duquesnoy a life-size
marble sculpture of the Virgin, paid for in advance, thus providing Duquesnoy with the funds he needed to continue working on the Saint Andrew. Although Sandrart's reference to intrigues against Duquesnoy cannot be substantiated, in light of the documentary record of Duquesnoy's sporadic income during this period, Sandrart's report may be essentially accurate as an account of Duquesnoy's perception of his experience.1l4 A document in the Giustiniani archive confirms that Giustiniani did in fact advance Duquesnoy three hundred scudi for a statue of the Virgin and Child on October 15, 1633.15 This unusual and substantial advance might well have been an act of assistance to the sculptor at a time when his illness had left him in a position of financial insecurity. As noted above, Duquesnoy had somewhat desperately petitioned for and received reimbursement for various minor expenses totaling about fifteen scudi in August 1633, and by September 15, according to the Giustiniani document, Duquesnoy and Giustiniani had agreed on the cash advance."16 Whatever the reason for the delay in the final payment, the installation of Duquesnoy's Saint Susanna completed the decorative program for the confraternity's new choir. As we have seen, the bakers' decision to include Saint Susanna in the choir was made only as the work on the program progressed. However, for Duquesnoy, as will be shown, meditation on the legend of Saint Susanna provided the point of departure for his conception of his statue-for his representation of the saint in the Greek manner.
Duquesnoy's Greek Manner and Its Seventeenth-Century Critical Reception The Saint Susanna made a powerful impression in Roman artistic circles, provoking admiration as well as critical debate over its style and its relation to the antique. Although the accounts of the sculpture given by Bellori and Passeri have largely shaped scholarly discussion of the Saint Susanna, the critical issues raised by the two writers have never been examined. Both Bellori and Passeri reveal an almost startling fascination with the calibrated tension between eroticism and modesty they saw played out in the sculpture in the shifting relation between the body and the drapery (Fig. 7). Bellori, at the suggestion of Poussin, employed ekphrasisas his primary descriptive and critical tool in the Lives."7 Bellori's sustained analysis of the Saint Susanna offers the reader an elegantly polished, yet vividly sensual journey around the saint's body by way of the drapery: There breathes in the face a sweet air of the purest grace, with the hair gathered simply, and all the lineaments are formed to beauty and to modesty. But the perfection of this statue consists principally in its drapery, for it is totally clothed. The mantle is thin and light and arranged over the tunic in such a way that the chest and right shoulder remain uncovered; it then falls over the arm and the hand that holds the palm. From the left shoulder it wraps around and folds again under the elbow, and emerges outside the hand that points to the altar. Here the sculptor took the opportunity to exhibit in the folds all the industry of the chisel, for the mantle, spreading out from the elbow and below the chest, veils the rest of the body and, rising
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
75
7 Duquesnoy, Saint Susanna, detail (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome)
up on the other side and falling down again at its edge in a double cascade, it exposes, under the tunic midway down the leg, the folds running to the other foot, and so much so that the pure volume of the members is visible. And above the chest and the breasts, the tunic gathers gently in such a way that the stone, having entirely lost its roughness, becomes thin in the folds and enlivened in the spirit and in the action [s'assottiglia nelle pieghe e si avviva nello spirito e nell'atto]. Moreover, the statue being entirely covered and dressed, this sculptor increased his labor by unveiling the arm a bit, modestly and almost by chance, for in extending it to point at the altar, the sleeve falls back and by so much the body appears, giving so much variation and grace to the entire figure. Francesco was so capable with his study over this marble that he left to modern sculptors the example for statues of clothed figures, making himself more than the equal of the best ancients in a style entirely refined and delicate, there not having been up to now anyone to equal him in the work of the chisel.118
Passeri's comments are even more explicit: The form of her dress is a religious imitation of the most beautiful ancient statues as far as the use of the draperies, which, although covering, reveal openly the entire nude, but not in a free and licentious manner, and, while [the drapery] allows the form of the breasts to be distinguished, they remain covered in a way that indicates perfect modesty [sono ricopertea segno, che danno indizio d'una perfetta
onestd] 119
Passeri, like Bellori, admired the noble and modest character of the head, and was likewise enchanted by the way the saint's left arm is unexpectedly bared as an apparent consequence of her gesture. In his commentary, Passeri clearly associated a body-disclosing style of drapery with the approach to drapery found in "the most beautiful ancient statues." However, he was at pains to point out this aesthetic refinement had been achieved without compromising the modesty of the representation. Federico Borromeo in Della pittura sacra had already explicitly condemned those artists who were eager to
76
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
8 Urania. Rome, Musei Capitolini (photo: Archivio Fotografico dei Musei Capitolini, Rome, n. 1013/01)
that the learned idea of the ancients could attain over nature."122 Bellori added that the Saint Susanna was based on the ancient statue of Urania on the Capitoline (Fig. 8), "although [Duquesnoy] executed his Susanna in a manner more tender and more delicate" than that of his model.'23 Bellori's qualification of the Saint Susanna's relationship to the antique distinguished his analysis from Passeri's and cast a long shadow across the later criticism. The former's comments presaged the often expressed view that the softness of surface Duquesnoy achieved in the Saint Susanna marks it unmistakably as a product of the seventeenth century. Fransolet followed the later eighteenth-century critic Francesco Milizia in characterizing the Saint Susanna as having "the appearance rather than the substance of antique taste." Rudolf Wittkower considered not only the softness of surface of the statue but also the "sweetness" of the facial expression as typical of the seventeenth century, and Antonia Nava Cellini and Lydie Hadermann-Misguich reiterated these views.124 While such criticism appears persuasively self-evident, particularly with the benefit of hindsight, it fails to account for the extraordinary fascination Duquesnoy's contemporaries evinced for the Saint Susanna, especially for the statue's drapery, and for why, to many period observers, the sculptor seemed decidedly not of his time but "a returned spirit of [the ancients] come back to life."125 By reconstructing seventeenth-century perceptions of ancient art, we may begin to understand these responses; indeed, many of the features of the Saint Susanna that appeared so striking to seventeenththe passages of clinging drapcentury viewers-including be to relate to Duquesnoy's perceptions of shown ery-may ancient Greek art. Within Duquesnoy's circle, the well-established association between Greek sculpture and the nude seems to have held clear implications for the rendering of drapery. A number of passages in Boselli's Osservazionisuggest that Duquesnoy believed that the best ancient draped statues were those that remained closest to the purity of the Greek nude through the use of thin, body-revealing drapery.126 In the third book of Boselli's treatise, which is devoted entirely to drapery, he wrote: They [the ancients] then did not have another aim, nor other end, or intention, than to dress the nude while showing it, to cover it by displaying it; and they cared about this goal so much that many times one finds indicated on the surface of the garment the belly button, the peaks of the nipples, the muscles of the knees, and other parts of the nude, which it is most certain are covered by clothing. They were so particular about this observation, and they worried to such an extent about not forgetting it that they took the license of indicating with the chisels those parts of life which are hidden by the garment. It seems that in all their figures one hears an exclaiming voice that says, "notice there are no errors, because here is the elbow, there the knee, here the body, there the chest, here the other members, and not elsewhere."'27 Earlier in the treatise, Boselli counseled his students, "one must drape with suitable and lovely folds; ... the antique made draped figures as if they were nude."'28 Boselli cited as
imitate "the most beautiful Roman statues" by showing the body too clearly beneath the clothing.120 Passeri reported further: Those most expert in art have always agreed that in this statue Duquesnoy collected all the best refinements that are preserved in the ancient marbles of a similar subject, as much from the Greek as from the Roman memories, and that he brought them all together in that Saint Susanna, and whether statues of equal or greater perfection have been seen after that one, the century itself, which has been its continuous spectator, tells.l21 Bellori, too, emphasized the sculpture's relation to ancient art, reporting that as soon as the Saint Susanna was exhibited to the public, "the eyes and the voices of everyone turned to him [Duquesnoy], seeing the most select and the best forms
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
77
exemplary in this regard the Farnese Flora (Fig. 9), the Belvedere Cleopatra(Fig. 10), and the daughter that Niobe holds in her arms in the group then at the Villa Medici. 29 In his admiration of these works, Boselli made clear his appreciation of the close relation between the drapery and the nude. He wrote of the Cleopatra,"the folds belong to that nude, and the nude belongs to those folds."130 In the introduction to sculpture published in his Teutsche Academie, in the first chapter of part 1, entitled "Rules for Sculpture," Sandrart offered very similar advice to his readers: If the figure is to be draped, the drapery should not be too thin and lay without interest, yet also it should not be so thick as to make it appear like stone, but rather it must be arranged around the body with folds so that the nude underneath is sometimes discernible but sometimes artfully concealed without any hardness which can obscure the members of the figure.'13 Sandrart instructed that the draperies should be arranged in the manner demonstrated by the sculptors of the best antiquities and cited as exemplary both the Farnese Flora and the Cleopatra,of which he provided engravings for the use of the student. 132 This approach to drapery was at odds with the spectrum of mainstream contemporary sculpture as practiced by both its most and least innovative exponents. The privileging of a subtle and naturalistic surface created by folds of limited depth over the dramatic effects of deep folds was out of sympathy with Bernini's increasing commitment to the expressive use of heavy, deeply folded drapery in his sculptures from the later 1620s on.133 Throughout his treatise, Boselli made clear his disapproval of such an approach to drapery, commenting in one passage that "the beautiful always consists in the surface, and not in the depths, and that master is in great error who with [depths of folds] thinks to amaze."134 This discourse on drapery was not as detached from the central theoretical concerns of the period as one might think. In his life of Duquesnoy, Passeri wrote that Andrea Sacchi, greatly esteemed painter of our times, made strident acclamations of it [the Saint Susanna], and in order to demonstrate even more the regard that he held for the statue, he included it in the oil canvas he was painting of the Miracle of S. Anthony of Padua for the Capuchin church in Rome, as I mention in his life, and he painted it in a niche, representing it within the architecture of the church in which the miracle occurred.l35 Sacchi's painting, with its representation of the Saint Susanna in a background niche, is still in place in S. Maria della Concezione.136 One is tempted by Passeri's report of Sacchi's "strident acclamations" regarding the Saint Susanna to speculate that the ideas of Duquesnoy's circle about the maniera greca played a role in the celebrated debate between Sacchi and Pietro da Cortona at the Academy of St. Luke, which is believed to have occurred in 1636.137 According to Melchior Missirini's account of the now lost documentation of the exchange, the central issue of the debate was whether a narrative is best conveyed through many figures and subsid-
9 Farnese Flora. Naples, Museo Nazionale (photo: Alinari)
iary groups or through a few, strongly unified figures. Cortona's defense of the former through comparison with epic poetry was better received than Sacchi's defense of the Aristotelian tenets of tragedy. While such questions of narrative construction might appear to be of little relevance for those making statues of single figures, there is evidence that during the first half of the century, as sculpture increasingly came to inhabit its relatively new status as a liberal art, at least theoretically minded sculptors began to apply such principles to what was, after all, their most frequent task.138A glimpse into this process is supplied by Boselli's Osservazioni. Boselli has been characterized as "normalcy itself," and scholarly views of his unexceptional quality as both a theorist and artist have encouraged the use of the Osservazioniprimarily as a source
78
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
The Vatican, 10 Belvedere Cleopatra. Musei Vaticani (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome)
for technical aspects of sculptural practice.'39 Yet Boselli's opinionated and at times rather unpolished instructions to his students reveal a vitality that contrasts with the standard scholarly perception of early seventeenth-century classicism, so bound to texts and so often rooted in later seventeenthcentury developments. Boselli documented for a fairly early date some of the specific kinds of thinking that occurred as artists studied the antique and developed and adapted the ideas that had been derived from classical literary theory to the problems of visual representation.'40 In the Osservazioni, the common set of values that lay behind the ideals of clear narrative and body-revealing drapery are readily discernible. Boselli instructed his readers that the beauty of a figure depends on the clarity and the decorum with which the sculptor conveys the figure's action.'41 In his analysis of drapery, what Boselli valued above all was the clarity with which the drapery conveyed the body beneath it and the ability of well-designed drapery to enhance the figure's pose or action. Boselli warned his students that since draperies "always by their nature cool down the action and deaden the figure," the sculptor must exercise extreme caution not to lose the description of the body in the drapery.142 Boselli recalled in this context that Duquesnoy, in making a model for a small figure of a saint to be cast in silver, "not only made three models of the nude, each larger than the other, but in draping it, because of his concern not to lose the structure of the belly button, kept reworking it there . . ."143 He further cautioned, Some moderns have ventured to improve upon the antique in this respect [drapery], saying that the draperies are dry. But when they want to make them fat, in place of folds they make tripe, and in place of fabric, tables. And
when such sculptors want to cover the body they reduce the figures so that one can't tell what they are....144 It was Duquesnoy's approach to drapery derived from selected antique models that clearly excited seventeenth-century viewers of the Saint Susanna and that signaled a significant departure from the practice of his contemporaries. Bellori was responding to the way that thin, subtly carved drapery enhanced the sense of liveliness in the sculpted body when he wrote of the Saint Susanna, "above the chest and the breasts, the tunic gathers gently in such a way that the stone, having entirely lost its roughness, becomes thin in the folds and enlivened in the spirit and in the action." While other sculptors made use of clinging drapery, they rarely did so with naturalistic consistency. A typical example is Ferrucci's Saint Agnes. On the saint's right leg, Ferrucci interrupted his pattern of crisp, decorative folds with a stylized passage of clinging drapery, a sort of rhetorical convention in the language of drapery folds (Fig. 5). For the more innovative Finelli, the body beneath the fabric was entirely secondary to the drapery's surface; the forms of the breasts and the relaxed left leg of the Saint Ceciliaprovide a rocky substructure on which the relentless waves of Finelli's draperies swirl and break (Fig. 4). Finelli committed himself fully to experimentation with tightly twisted, highly complex folds, the expression of a visual imagination profoundly related to a virtuoso mastery of the medium.145 In the Saint Susanna, the standard, serviceable representation of fabric in stone, with its inclinations to ornamental caprice, and with its deeper folds providing standardized cues to the location of the body, has been resoundingly banished, supplanted by Duquesnoy's conception of drapery as a descriptive web through which the body's contours are mapped
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
79
and explored. Duquesnoy painstakingly covered the torso of the Saint Susanna with continuous vertical marks of the claw chisel, mimicking the loose weave of the clingy fabric of the tunic and at the same time tracing countless descriptive outlines across the torso of the figure (Fig. 7). As Bellori observed, the mantle, too, plays a role in describing the body; drawn close about the saint's left side, it is carved with soft, horizontal folds that delineate the volume of the relaxed leg (Fig. 1). Interpreting Bellori's claim that the Capitoline Urania (Fig. 8) served as Duquesnoy's principal model for the Saint Susanna has caused scholars some discomfort, for, as Norbert Huse put it, the differences between the two statues are "admittedly great."146 The antique statue, identified at that time as the Muse of astronomy, enjoyed considerable popularity throughout the seventeenth century, and Duquesnoy undoubtedly knew the Urania well.147 Jacob Hess thought that the Urania was relevant as an example of a common type of draped female statue that Duquesnoy would have known through various examples in Rome.148 Boselli mentioned the Urania in just this sense, giving the statue as an example of a draped figure in a pose standard in antique sculpture.149 He did not relate the statue to the Saint Susanna, and although he admired the body-revealing drapery of the Urania, his description of that drapery seems to confuse the statue with another sculpture on the Capitoline.l50 Nonetheless, the Urania may well have informed the sculptor's arrangement of the mantle of the Saint Susanna, drawn close around the relaxed leg and running in long diagonal folds across the body, culminating in a cascade parallel to the weight-bearing leg. The pose, style of tunic, and general arrangement of the mantle of the Saint Susanna also have much in common with a statue at that time in the Mattei collection, often referred to as Ceres(Fig. 11).151 Like the Saint Susanna, the Ceresrests her right hand on her right hip and extends her left hand from beneath her mantle; the gesture closely parallels the minimal lifting of the left arm of the Saint Susanna as she points to the altar. In both statues, the gentle motion of the figure is accentuated by the apparently restraining tension of the winding mantle. Moreover, the Ceres,like the Saint Susanna, wears a thin, open-necked tunic that clings to her breast in thin, vertical folds; the mantle is drawn closely about, and clearly discloses, the greater part of her body. The drapery of the Ceres has long been admired, and the statue was catalogued in the last edition of Helbig as a classicizing Hellenistic work of the third century B.C.E. or slightly later.152 But the Saint Susanna is clearly not a straightforward imitation of the Ceres or the Urania, for to suppose that Duquesnoy would have based his statue on a single ancient work is to misunderstand the type of thinking that characterized his pursuit of the Greek manner. Perhaps significantly, Passeri chose not to follow Bellori in citing the Urania, although he relied on Bellori's text in many other respects; it may be recalled that it was Passeri who asserted that in the Saint Susanna Duquesnoy "collected all the best refinements that are preserved in the ancient marbles of a similar subject. .. ." In his study of antique sculpture, Duquesnoy sought, like a humanist working with ancient texts, to recover a grammar of form that he could then employ freely to fulfill modern needs of expression. Boselli's treatise, for which he compiled count-
The Vatican, Musei Vaticani (photo: Alinari) 11 Mattei Ceres.
less lists of ancient statues to be studied by the young sculptor in relation to each aspect of sculpture discussed-whether the pose or proportion of the body, or the arrangement of the drapery-was clearly conceived from this perspective. While the Capitoline Urania and the Mattei Ceresserved as appropriate models for the Saint Susanna with regard to age, attire, and pose, Duquesnoy went well beyond simple imitation to recombine and transform his sources in accordance
80
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
12 Duquesnoy, Saint Susanna, detail (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome)
with his understanding of the verisimilitude, emotive power, and material refinement of ancient Greek art. As Bellori perceived, Duquesnoy's painstaking carving infused the Saint Susanna with naturalism, a naturalism that was not evident in some of the ancient sculptures in Rome but which Duquesnoy certainly considered to be characteristic of ancient Greek art. After all, astonishing verisimilitude is the feature of Greek art emphasized in the familiar stories of the competition of Parrhasios and Zeuxis, and of Apelles's painting of a horse that incited living horses to whinny (Natural History 35.65-66, 35.95). Even more pertinent in the present context are Pliny's accounts of the emperors Tiberius and Nero, who both developed sexual obsessions with Greek statues, testifying to the extremely compelling naturalism of Greek sculpture (Natural History 34.62, 34.82). Early in the century, Peter Paul Rubens identified the achievement of
naturalism as the foremost challenge to artistic practice grounded in the imitation of the antique.153 Experimentation with highly naturalistic effects deriving from the model of Hellenistic sculpture was also a pronounced feature of Bernini's sculptures of the 1620s. Yet however much a soft, naturalistic surface was a shared interest of seventeenthcentury artists-and this has been somewhat overstatedgiven what is known from the sources about Duquesnoy's consistent effort to theorize his practice in relation to the antique, it is likely that his interest in such effects was motivated by the understanding he had evolved of the characteristics of Greek art. Duquesnoy's method of working may be plumbed further through an analysis of the head of the Saint Susanna, which has been consistently described by scholars as reflecting a very seventeenth-century sensibility, completely unrelated to
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
81
13 Greek coin with head of

Artemis, ca. 289 B.C.E. London,
British Museum
15 CrouchingVenus.London, British Museum (on loan from the Royal Collection) (photo: by permission H. M. the Queen) 14 Duquesnoy, Saint Susanna, detail (photo: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Rome) Yet the restrained coiffure of Artemis tells only half of the story of Saint Susanna. Duquesnoy chose to model the face of the virgin martyr on the features of Venus, or Aphrodite, the ancient goddess endowed with the greatest beauty and power of erotic attraction. A comparison of the frontal views of the faces of the Saint Susanna (Fig. 14) and the Crouching Venus (Fig. 15), now in London, but which Duquesnoy may have studied in Mantua, reveals striking congruencies. Duquesnoy adopted the heart-shaped face, the dimpled chin, the soft, slightly opened mouth, the delicately elongated nose, and the wide-set, almond-shaped eyes of this type.'56 The change of the arrangement of the hair from the sensuously spilling curls of the Venus to the modest chignon of a Diana produces the same fateful tension embodied in the simultaneously modest and revealing drapery. By such means, Duquesnoy did not simply recast an ancient Muse as a Christian saint but created, in the formal language of the antique, an original composition that powerfully expressed the beauty, erotic appeal, and chastity of the virgin martyr. A further observation may be offered about the head of the Saint Susanna. The profile of the saint takes an almost straight course from the forehead down to the tip of the nose (Fig. 12). As noted above, Vasari described this type of profile in a passage of the Lives as an identifying characteristic of Greek
the antique (Fig. 12). The comparison of the soft cheeks and tender expression of the Saint Susanna with the rather stolid face of the Capitoline Urania has often been made in support of this view.154 But the heads of the placid Muses or imperious empresses that were so often to be found atop these draped Roman statues offered little to the sculptor in his effort to characterize the Roman virgin martyr. Instead, Duquesnoy searched among the antiquities for those Greek forms that perfectly embodied the archetypal qualities he hoped to convey in his Christian Canon. For a chaste young woman, the ancient goddess of hunting, the Roman Diana or the Greek Artemis, supplied a clear prototype. The arrangement of the hair of the Saint Susanna, with its graceful waves parted and gathered at the back of the head without the adornment of escaping curls, alludes to the most frequent depiction of the virgin goddess. Duquesnoy must have studied not only sculpted representations of the goddess but also the profiles of Artemis that appear on ancient Greek coins (Fig. 13). Critics dating back to Milizia have persistently viewed the fullness of the face of the Saint Susanna as a clear departure from the antique; however, rather full cheeks are a typical feature of these relief profiles.155
82
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
16 Domenichino, Alexanderand Timoclea. Paris, Musee du Louvre (photo: Reunion des Musees Nationaux/Art Resource, NY)
sculpture.157 Such a profile could be observed on a number of celebrated sculptures that were held to be Greek, including the Medici Venus,which was at the Villa Medici in Rome until 1677.158 Because the base of the Venus is inscribed in Greek with the name of Cleomenes, son of Apollodorus, the Venuswas commonly called the "Grecian Venus," as it was by Sandrart.'59 The association of the straight profile with Greek beauty found further confirmation in the profiles of goddesses found on ancient Greek coins (Fig. 13). In his painting Alexander and Timoclea of about 1615, Domenichino employed the straight profile to represent the beautiful Theban heroine Timoclea (Fig. 16), although he generally favored shorter, more upturned noses for his depictions of lovely young women, as in his portrayal of Saint Cecilia in his contemporary frescoes at S. Luigi dei Francesi.160 Domenichino evidently believed that the straight profile would be recognized as Greek by the viewers of his painting. In the same years that Duquesnoy was at work on the Saint Susanna, Poussin frequently painted figures with this Greek profile, such as, for example, the lovely Diana in the Diana and Endymion in Detroit.161 Even the material of the Saint Susanna was probably influenced by Duquesnoy's knowledge of ancient Greek art. In the
list of additional expenses incurred by him during the execution of the statue, Duquesnoy included an extra eight scudi that he had paid over the allotted cost of the marble block "in order to have it taken from the whitest and the finest that can be found as one can see in the work."162Although this was a common specification for the selection of marble,163 Pliny's report that from the earliest times the Greeks had preferred to sculpt only in the exceptionally pure, brilliantly white marble of Paros may have made Duquesnoy especially determined to obtain the whitest marble possible (Natural History 36.14, 36.44). The extraordinary extent of Duquesnoy's investigation into ancient media is suggested by a comment by Bellori so brief that it has remained almost completely unnoticed. According to Bellori, Duquesnoy restored an ancient alabaster statue as a Minerva for the Roman art dealer and collector Ippolito Vitelleschi, supplying the antique fragment with a head, hands, and feet cast from "metallo corinzio cavato da medaglie disfatte"-Corinthian bronze obtained by melting down ancient Corinthian coins.164 Duquesnoy would have known from Pliny that Corinth produced the bronze prized most highly by the Greeks (Natural History 34.1, 34.6). In his effort to recapture the legendary power of Greek art, Duquesnoy pursued a highly innovative course within the
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
83
history of seventeenth-century sculpture. But his undertaking, like all antiquarian ventures, was motivated by ambitions of the present. The Saint Susanna has often been contrasted to Bernini's slightly earlier Saint Bibiana (Fig. 17), in which Bernini exploited the emotive power in the ecstatic moment of the saint's reception into Heaven, and in which he had begun to privilege the expressive potential of drapery over the description of the body. Although Duquesnoy used different means, he, too, sought to offer the viewer a viscerally affecting perception of the virgin martyr. Looking once more at the sculptor's luminous, chaste "Venus" (Fig. 7), it may be noticed that the inclination of the saint's head exposes her neck and her right shoulder, whose soft flesh is further accentuated by the slide of the tunic's neckline toward the right side of her body. This formal arrangement, worked in the body itself, constitutes a visual meditation on the terrible reality of her beheading. Likewise, the sculptor's painstaking chiseling of the young woman's breasts beneath her tunic literally underscores the erotic appeal that led so directly to her execution. In creating a statue in which, as Boselli phrased it, "the folds belong to the nude and the nude belongs to the folds," Duquesnoy traced the subtle contour between Susanna's erotic power and her virginity, between the artistic aims of classical beauty and Christian modesty, between the Roman and the Greek. Critical Fortune Despite the considerable impact of the Saint Susanna in Roman artistic circles, scrutiny of the historical record suggests that the statue's appearance was little known outside Rome in the seventeenth century. When Rubens wrote in 1640 to thank Duquesnoy for sending him casts of the putti from the sculptor's Epitaph of Ferdinand van den Eynden in S. Maria dell'Anima in Rome, he referred to the fame of Duquesnoy's Saint Andrew but made no mention of the Saint Susanna.l65 Indeed, it was the high-profile commission for the Saint Andrew that ensured Duquesnoy's international reputation; after the unveiling of the statue in St. Peter's in 1640, the French court worked vigorously to bring the sculptorParis, where Duquesnoy was to together with Poussin-to take up the position of royal sculptor to Louis XIII and found a royal academy of sculpture. In declining health, Duquesnoy finally accepted the invitation in 1643, but he died en route to France in July of that year.166 The inventory of Sandrart's collection taken after his death in Nuremberg in 1688 includes "the Susanna by Francesco as she stands in Rome, of plaster."167Sandrart probably brought this model with him when he left Rome in 1635, and although its size is not known, it was probably a small-scale copy. Also listed among Sandrart's possessions is "a bust representing a Susanna, very graceful, virtuosic, in metal cast in Rome."168 Although the early biographies do not record that Duquesnoy produced a bust version of his statue, bronze busts of the Saint Susanna exist today in Vienna, Berlin, and Copenhagen (Fig. 18).169 Sandrart's bust must have been of this type, for he drew a bust almost identical to these examples in the engraving Ruina Romae, published in the Teutsche Academie (Fig. 19).170 In the composition, the bust of Saint Susanna stands above a group of fallen and broken ancient statues, seeming to have arisen from the fragments. Sandrart
17 Gianlorenzo Bernini, Saint Bibiana. Rome, S. Bibiana (photo: Alinari)
positioned the bust so that the Susanna is turned away from the viewer, gazing pensively back into the engraving, across the ruins-an arrangement that speaks eloquently of Sandrart's understanding of the origins of Duquesnoy's sculpture. Copies of the Saint Susanna such as those owned by Sandrart appear to have remained rare throughout the seventeenth century.171 While the statue's influence may be detected in a number of Roman sculptures from the second half of the seventeenth century, only in the eighteenth century does the Saint Susanna seem to have been discovered by a broader international audience.'72 The rather well-documented history of the sculpture's later reception illuminates how closely the critical fortune of the Saint Susanna was bound to issues concerning taste and the perception of antiquity that lay at
84
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
tor Guillaume Coustou the Younger, a fellow at the French Academy in Rome from 1736 to 1739, chose to carve a marble copy of the Saint Susanna for his fellowship project. In another letter to d'Antin, Wleughels reported on Coustou's progress on the marble and again emphasized the beauty of the Saint Susanna and how, in France, the statue would be endowed further with "the graces of novelty."'77 Coustou completed his marble copy by May 1739,178 and it was sent to Paris, where it was very well received and installed in the Hall of Antiquities in the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in the Louvre.179 The cast of the Saint Susanna was kept in the cast collection Wleughels was building in Rome, to be studied by the academy's pupils. Wleughels's promotion of the Saint Susanna precipitated a surge of interest in the statue, which, over the next several decades, was inducted into the canon of exemplary sculptures in academies across Europe. Particularly beautiful evidence of this renewed interest in the sculpture are two paintings by the French artist Pierre Subleyras (1699-1749), a student of Wleughels; a small copy of the Saint Susanna appears in Subleyras's The Attributesof the Arts (Fig. 20) and again in The Painter's Studio.l80 In The Attributes of the Arts,
_ 1:
. _V
htOlfes
18. i1
18 Duquesnoy, Saint Susanna, bronze. Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Skulpturensammlung
the heart of the statue's genesis. An engraving of the Saint Susanna was published in Domenico de Rossi's Raccolta di statue of 1704, which surely increased the statue's celebrity.l73 However, the decisive moment in the statue's later history occurred in 1736, when Nicolas Wleughels, the Franco-Flemish painter who was then director of the French Academy in Rome, rediscovered the Saint Susanna and obtained permission from the confraternity of the Bakers' Guild to make the first cast of the statue.74 In a letter to the duke d'Antin about the project, Wleughels expressed his excitement about both the beauty of the Saint Susanna and the prospect of sending to France a copy of a sculpture that was "certainly unknown" there.17 This is surprising, since so many of Duquesnoy's models and casts after them had been collected avidly after his death by connoisseurs and artists in both Italy and France. The French royal sculptor Francois Girardon owned a great number of Duquesnoy's terra-cotta models, which are recorded in the inventory of Girardon's collection drawn up after his death in 1715.176 The fact that Girardon's collection does not seem to have included a model of the Saint Susanna, together with Wleughels's testimony, further confirms that !. seventeenth-century copies of the statue were very rare. For the casting initiated by Wleughels, the Saint Susanna was removed from its niche to a small room, whence all the connoisseurs in the city flocked to view it. The French sculp-
!_! ,i ",i
19 Johann Jakob von Sandrart, after Joachim von Sandrart, Ruina Romae (photo: Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rome)
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
85
20 Pierre Subleyras, TheAttributes of the Arts. Toulouse, Musee des Augustins (photo: Bridgeman Art Library)
Subleyras portrayed the Saint Susanna strongly lit against a dark background, positioned so that she gazes down at a palette, brushes, and sheet music at her feet, while pointing back into the picture space at a small model of the Belvedere Torso. Here, the Saint Susanna is figured in a new status as both artist's model and instructing muse. One of those who may have seen Coustou's copy of the Saint Susanna when it arrived in France was the Venetian collector Filippo Farsetti. Farsetti, who lived in Paris during the later 1730s, frequenting the court of Louis XV, was impressed by the casts and marble copies of antiquities produced for the French Academy and the royal residences by the French Academy in Rome. With the aim of fostering Neoclassical art in Venice, Farsetti decided to create a similar cast collection to serve as a study museum for artists and scholars. Farsetti's museum ultimately included over two hundred and fifty casts, displayed at first in his family palace in Venice, where they were studied by the young Antonio Canova. From about 1762 part of the collection was housed at the villa Farsetti built at S. Maria di Sala, near Padua.181 In 1753, through the intercession of Maggiordomo Marcantonio Colonna, Farsetti secured a papal order to allow him to have a cast made from the Saint Susanna for his collection, evidently against the wishes of some of the confraternity members.182 To the dismay of the confraternity, during this casting the forefinger of the saint's left hand was broken, and the face was discolored.183 Through the third quarter of the eighteenth century, Duquesnoy's statue continued to be much admired. In 1763, while studying in Rome, the Spanish sculptor Isidro Carnicero (1736-1804) made a reduced-scale marble copy that is preserved in the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of S. Fernando in Madrid.184 About a decade later, the Flemish sculptor Pierre-Francois Leroy (1739-1812) paid homage to Duquesnoy's Saint Susanna in a Saint Catherine he carved be-
tween 1774 and 1777 for the royal chateau of Laeken in Brussels.185 Boris Lossky, who rediscovered Coustou's marble copy, located an anonymous late eighteenth-century statue of Ceresfrom the Luxembourg Gardens that is a close imitation of the Saint Susanna and recently noted a cast of the Saint Susanna on the monumental staircase at the Academy of Fine Arts in St. Petersburg, probably one of the casts obtained by Ivan Chouvalov, the founder of the academy, during his travels in Italy and France between 1762 and 1773.186 The enduring popularity of the Saint Susanna and the continuing demand for casts of the sculpture led to changes in the way the statue was displayed in S. Maria di Loreto. About 1773 the confraternity decided to move the Saint Susanna to the altar of the Chapel of the Magi, one of the four chapels that open onto the octagonally shaped nave of the church.187 The record of the confraternity's meeting of July 12, 1781, clarifies some of the circumstances surrounding the decision to remove the Saint Susanna from the choir. At this meeting, the confraternity voted to deny permission to the Roman sculptor and founder Francesco Righetti to cast the Saint Susanna, despite the fact that Righetti's request was supported by some of the confraternity members and a "person of authority." Righetti had been commissioned by the English banker and collector Henry Hope to cast twelve full-scale lead copies of famous statues, primarily antiques, but including also Giambologna's Mercuryand Duquesnoy's Saint Susanna, to adorn the garden of his Neoclassical country house near Haarlem.'88 The confraternity members cited the damage done to the statue during the casting by Farsetti as the reason for their denial of Righetti's application, and they added in support of their decision that the statue was no longer in the choir niche, but accessibly displayed in the Chapel of the Magi for the veneration of the public.189 The following year Righetti was compelled to settle for a cast of
86
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
the cast of the Saint Susanna at the French Academy in Rome.190 Hope's inclusion of the Saint Susanna among the casts of celebrated antiquities he selected to decorate his country house seems to represent a high-water mark in the appreciation of the sculpture. In his guide to viewing art according to the Neoclassical principles of Sulzer and Mengs, published in the same year Hope placed his order with Righetti, Francesco Milizia offered a relatively positive assessment of the Saint Susanna, substantially tempered, however, by his view-already touched on-that the statue differed from the antique in critical respects: It has loveliness taken as a whole. The face is of a beautiful form, but with some fullness in the upper part of the cheeks. The position of the left leg feels somewhat forced. The drapery is one of the best understood among the modern works, but much inferior to the aforementioned antiques. This work has the appearance rather than the substance of antique taste. The expression is the sweetness of a saint, comprehensible by saints.191 As the theoretical underpinnings of Neoclassicism matured, seventeenth-century art came to be viewed with such extreme disfavor that the Saint Susanna was inevitably felt to be tainted, in spite of its strengths. For Milizia, the sculpture bore only a superficial relation to the antique, although the antiquities that served as his touchstones included many of those admired and imitated by Duquesnoy's generation. Similarly, Milizia could see in Bernini's Apollo and Daphne only a monstrous parody of the Apollo Belvedere,and he utterly condemned the Saint Bibiana.192 The fall of seventeenth-century art into critical disapprobation was not soon remedied. In the mid-nineteenth century, Jacob Burckhardt awarded Duquesnoy's statue the ambivalent distinction of being the best statue of the seventeenth century.193 Despite the positive revaluations of seventeenth-century art that occurred in the course of the twentieth century, the entwined roots of archaeology and Neoclassical aesthetics have lent pronouncements such as Milizia's a startlingly enduring air of objectivity, a circumstance that can still at times obscure our vision of seventeenth-century classicizing art. Wittkower's analysis of the Saint Susanna, and the comments of the many subsequent scholars who have reiterated his views, betray echoes of the earlier polemics. Wittkower acknowledged the all'antica arrangement of the drapery so much admired by the seventeenth-century critics, but the soft, naturalistic surface achieved by Duquesnoy-the fleshiness that disturbed Milizia-he situated as a seventeenth-century feature, completely unrelated to the sculptor's antique models. Moreover, he characterized the head of the Saint Susanna as having a "distinctly seventeenth-century flavour," although this no longer constituted a reservation regarding the statue's aesthetic value. Like Milizia, he isolated the expression of the saint as a departure from the antique, Milizia viewing its "sweetness" as a motif of Catholic spirituality, Wittkower as an expression of Baroque sentiment that heralded the Rococo.194 The rising tide of Neoclassical taste that had lifted the Saint Susanna from relative obscurity in the course of the
eighteenth century ultimately left the sculpture stranded as a relic on the horizon of modern art history. By restoring the Saint Susanna to its context in the seventeenth-century perception of antiquity, in Duquesnoy's understanding of the Greek manner, we can begin to perceive the subtle contours of a most remarkable episode in the history of seventeenthcentury classicism.
EstelleLingo receivedherPh.D. from Brown Universityin 1999 and is assistant professorof Baroque art at Michigan State University. She has published on Michelangelo'sMedici Chapel and is currently preparing a thematicmonographon Duquesnoy and the Greekideal [Departmentof Art, 113 KresgeArt Center,Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. 48824].
Frequently Cited Sources

APSF:Archivio del Pio Sodalizio dei Fornai, ASR ASR:Archivio di Stato, Rome e architetti ed. Evelina Bellori, Giovan Pietro, Le vite de'pittori,scultori moderni, Borea (Turin: G. Einaudi, 1976). Le chiese di Roma illustrate,100 (Rome: Benedetti, Sandro, S. Mariadi Loreto, Marietti, 1968). dellascoltura anticadai manoscritti Corsini e Doriae Boselli, Orfeo, Osservazioni altriscritti,ed. Phoebe Dent Weil, facsimile ed. (Florence: S.P.E.S., 1978). de Francoisdu Quesnoy et le programme Boudon, Marion,"LaSainteSuzanne sculpte de Sainte-Mariede Lorette a Rome," StoriadellArte96 (1999): 122-52. d'UrbainVIII, 1597-1643, Fransolet, Mariette, Francoisdu Quesnoy: Sculpteur 2d ser., 9 Memoires,Academie Royale de Belgique, Classedes Beaux-Arts, (Brussels:Palais des Academies, 1942). The Art and Theory of Francois Lingo, Estelle, "Un saperenon ordinario: Duquesnoy,"Ph.D. diss., Brown University,1999. von Giovanni Battista Passeri, Passeri,GiovanniBattista,Die Kiinstlerbiographien ed. Jacob Hess (Leipzig: Heinrich Keller; Vienna: Anton Schroll, 1934; reprint, Worms am Rhein: Wernersche, 1995). unterUrbanVIII, vol. 2, Die Peterskirche in Rom Pollak, Oskar,Die Kunsttdtigkeit (Vienna: B. Filser, 1931). dellaarchitectura, scultura Todesca Sandrart, Joachim von, 1675-79, L'academia epitturaoder teutsche deredlenBau-,Bild-und Mahlerey-Kiinste, Academie 2 vols. (Nuremberg). derBau-, Bild-und Mahlerey-Kiinste von 1675, ed. A. R. , 1925, Academie Peltzer (Munich: G. Hirth).
Notes
My investigation of Duquesnoy's Saint Susannabegan as part of my doctoral research, and I wish to thank ProfessorsJeffrey Muller,Juergen Schulz, and IrvingLavinfor their generous contributionsat everystage of the dissertation. I first presented some of the ideas developed here in the Open Session on ItalianBaroqueArt chaired by ProfessorElizabethCropperat the College Art Association Annual Conference in Los Angeles in 1999, and I am most grateful to Professor Cropper and to Professor Charles Dempsey for invaluable exchange on that occasion. I would also like to thank Dott.ssa Fiorenza Gemini, Dott.ssa Miriam Grattagliano,and Maria Teresa Caradonio of the Archivio di Stato, Rome, for permitting me to examine the uncatalogued Archiviodel Pio Sodaliziodei Fornai and for kind assistancein that endeavor. Finally,thanks are due to ProfessorH. PerryChapman, the editor-in-chiefof the Art Bulletin,and two anonymous readers, who all offered thoughtful comments and suggestions.Unless otherwiseindicated, translationsare mine. 1. Bellori, 291. 2. Pliny the Elder, NaturalHistory,trans. H. Rackham, Loeb ed., 10 vols. (Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress, 1938-62), 34.55. 3. The standard introduction to art theory after the Council of Trent remains Paolo Prodi, "Ricercasulla teorica delle arti figurativenella Riforma
cattolica," Archivio Italiano per la Storia della Pieta 4 (1962): 121-212, reprinted as a separate volume under the same title (Bologna: Nuova Alfa, 1984). 4. On these ancient sculptures, see Francis Haskell and Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500-1900 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), cat. nos. 46, 43. 5. Giovanni Battista Adriani, "Lettera di Messer Giovambatista di Messer
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
87
Marcello Adriani,"in Le vite de' piu eccellenti nelle pittori,scultorie architettori del 1550 e 1568, by Giorgio Vasari,ed. Rosanna Bettarini and Paola redazioni le greche Barocchi,vol. 1 (Florence:Sansoni, 1966), Testo, 225-26: "Avevano statue e le romane differenza infra di loro assai chiara, che le greche per lo piu erano, secondo l'usanza delle palestre, ignude, dove i giovani alla lotta et ad altri giuochi ignudi si esercitavano, che in quelli ponevano il sommo onore; le romane si facevano vestite o d'armadurao di toga, abito spezialmente romano... ." dellapittura,scoltura dell'arte 6. The comment appears in Lomazzo's Trattato et architettura; see Gian Paolo Lomazzo, Scrittisulle Arti, ed. Roberto Paolo Ciardi, 2 vols. (Florence: Marchi e Bertolli, 1973-74), vol. 2, 533. 7. Federico Borromeo, Dellapitturasacra,ed. BarbaraAgosti, Quaderni del seminario di storia della critica d'arte, 4 (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 1994), 25: "Ne sara cosa nuova il cuoprire le statue e le pitture: conciosiacosache fu proprio dei Romani, ne a loro piacque [di seguitare] l'usanzagreca, che le fecero ignude." Borromeo cited Pliny as his source in his footnote to this statement. 8. Bellori, 289; and Passeri, 105-6. 9. Passeri, 112: "Sivoleva mostrarerigoroso imitatore della maniera Greca, la quale chiamavala vera Maestradel perfetto operare, perche in se ritiene, in un tempo istesso, grandezza, nobilita, maesta, e leggiadria, tutte qualita difficili ad unirsi insieme in un solo composto, e questo umore gli veniva accresciuto dall' osservazioni di Poussino, che voleva del tutto avilire la maniera Latina per cagione, che dirassi nella vita di lui." 10. As noted by Jacob Hess in Passeri, 112 n. 4. Passeri's Vitede' pittori, in Roma,Mortidal 1641, fino al 1673 was chehannolavorato ed architetti scultori, first published only in 1772; Hess reviewed the extant manuscript copies for his edition. 11. In the earlyyearsof the modern studyof Duquesnoy'sart, Hess signaled the interest of the question of the Greek manner and credited Duquesnoy and his circle with founding a new classicismthat anticipatedWinckelmann's ideals, although he did not develop these insights; see Hess, "Notes sur le sculpteur Francois Duquesnoy (1594-1643)," Revuede lArt 69 (1936): 26, Studienzu Renaisreprinted with additional notes in idem, Kunstgeschichtliche sanceund Barock (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura,1967), vol. 1, 134. In the decades that followed, scholarsdid not pursue the issue beyond observing Duquesnoy's use of antique models, often characterizedas eclectic, and on occasion suggesting a general affinity of his works, especially the Saint Susanna, with classical Greek sculpture. See, for example, Mariette Fransolet's monograph-the only sustained study of Duquesnoy to date-101-4; and delseicento Antonia Nava Cellini, La scultura (Turin:UTET, 1982), 77. Among scholars of Poussin, Anthony Blunt noted Passeri'sstatement and presented evidence drawn from Poussin's correspondence and reported comments for his preference of Greek over Roman art; see Blunt, NicolasPoussin,2 vols. (London: Phaidon, 1967), vol. 1, 232-35. 12. Charles Dempsey, "The Greek Style and the Prehistory of Neoclassicism," in PietroTesta, 1612-1650: Prints and Drawings,exh. cat., Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, Mass., 1988, xxxvii-lxv; and Cropper and Dempsey, in "TheGreek Style, the ExquisiteTaste, and the Prehistoryof Neoclassicism," and the Loveof Paintingby Elizabeth Cropper and NicolasPoussin:Friendship Charles Dempsey (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1996), chap. 1. In Antiken her 1987 doctoral dissertation,published under the title Die schonsten im rimischen Seicento antikeBildhauerwerke Roms:Studienzur Rezeption (Worms: Wernersche, 1990), Dorthe Nebendahl surveyed instances of the use of the term maniera grecain the 17th century and concluded that the term lacked a clear definition and was employed for the expression of taste rather than to designate a clear archaeological distinction between ancient Greek and Roman sculpture; see 59-64. Most recently, Ingo Herklotz cited Nebendahl's conclusion in the context of his own finding that the antiquarianCassianoDal Pozzo, a central figure at the intersection of art and scholarshipin this period, and a friend and patron of both Duquesnoy and Poussin, often failed to make what we would recognize as an accurate distinction between Greek and des 17. Dal Pozzound dieArchiologie Roman antiquities;see Herklotz, Cassiano (Munich: Hirmer, 1999), 292. As I have argued elsewhere and Jahrhunderts emphasize below, the perception of Greek art throughout the early modern period was shaped by interchange between art criticism and antiquarianism, and in my view the important observationsoffered by Nebendahl and Herklotz do not lessen the historical significance of the theoretical developments within the circle of Duquesnoy and Poussin; see Lingo, chaps. 1, 5. Seventeenth-centuryGreek classicism has been touched on in other contexts by IrvingLavin;see his "Berniniand Antiquity-the Baroque Paradox:A imHochbarock, ed. Herbert Beck and Sabine Poetical View,"in Antikenrezeption Schulze (Berlin: Mann, 1989), 9-36. See also MarcFumaroli'swell-informed du sketch of classicizing interests within the Barberini circle in "L'inspiration in L 'ecole du silence: Lesentiment desimages de Poussin:Les deux Parnasses," Pogte au XVIIesiecle (Paris: Flammarion, 1994), 53-147. Additional recent comments regarding the currency of a critical distinction between Greek and Roman antiquities in 17th-centuryRome are found in Jonathan W. Unglaub,
"Bolognese Painting and Barberini Aspirations: Giovanni Battista Manzini in the Archivio dal Pozzo," Accademia Clementina, Atti e Memorie, n.s., 38-39 (1998-99): 61-63; and Maria Grazia Picozzi, "Nobilia Opera:La selezione della scultura antica," in L 'ideadel Bello: Viaggioper Roma nel seicento con Giovan Pietro Bellori, exh. cat., 2 vols., Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Rome, 2000, vol. 1, 32-35. Most recently, on the Greek style in relation to Joachim von Sandrart's
drawings after the antique, see Sybille Ebert-Schifferer, "Naturalezza e 'maniera antica':Joachim von Sandrartdisegnatore dall'Antico,"in Caravagcon manouna collezione del seicento, ed. Silvia Danesi gio e i Giustiniani:Toccar Squarzina,exh. cat., Palazzo Giustiniani,Rome, 2001, 62-63. I am currently preparing a thematic monograph on Duquesnoy and the Greek ideal. 13. Cropper and Dempsey (as in n. 12), 33, 38-40, 47. Among the primary sources discussedby Cropperand Dempsey are lectures at the academyby the sculptor Michel Anguier and by the painter and art writerHenri Testelin that very likely reflect knowledge of Poussin'sviews,CharlesLe Brun's and Andr6 Felibien's references to Poussin's use of a varied canon of types derived from ancient sculpture, and Roger de Piles's definition of expression. 14. See below at n. 46 and n. 126 below; and Lingo, 68-70. della scolturaantica, 15. In a note in her edition of Boselli's Osservazioni Phoebe Dent Weil suggested that Sandrartcontributed to the development of veteris the idea of the Greek manner, citing the first chapter of his Sculpturae see Boselli, 17-18. admiranda; 16. Sandrart, 1925, 339; for Domenichino's departure from Rome, see Richard E. Spear, Domenichino, 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), vol. 1, 18. 17. Bellori and Passeri recorded Poussin's attendance at Domenichino's academy; see Bellori, 427; and Passeri, 326. On Sandrart, see Christian Kunst-Werke und Lebens-Lauf von Sandrart: Klemm,Joachim (Berlin: Deutscher 1986). Verlag fiir Kunstwissenschaft, 18. On the collections of Giustiniani and his brother Cardinal Benedetto ei Giustiniani, see most recently Silvia Danesi Squarzina, ed., Caravaggio del seicento, exh. cat., Palazzo GiusGiustiniani:Toccar con manouna collezione tiniani, Rome, 2001, with further bibliography; and Angela Gallottini, Le sculture della collezione Giustiniani, vol. 1, Documenti, Xenia antiqua, monografie, 5 (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1998), which is to be followed by a second, interpretativevolume. 19. Sandrart, 1925, 247-49, 259-60. On the GalleriaGiustiniani,see E. Baccheschi, "Vincenzo Giustiniani collezionista d'arte e la sua Galleria di Sculture antichee incisioniseicentesche, Giustiniani: Quastampe,"in La Galleria derni del Museo dell'Accademia Ligustica di Belle Arti, 10 (Genoa: Accademia Ligustica di Belle Arti, 1989), 3-5, with further bibliography; and Cropper and Dempsey (as in n. 12), 81-84, for their discussion of the engravings. technique of the Galleria 20. Klemm (as in n. 17), 17, 337. 21. Sandrart, 1675-79, vol. 2, 1: "Wirwollen hier nur meldung thun von diesen auserlesensteAntichen die meistentheils von Griechen und Italianern weissen Marmelstein gebildet seyn in welchen der alten Griechen Vortrefzu Rom mit dero ich lichkeit vor allen erscheint vor die Antiquitat-Academia hierinnen offtmals Unterredung gepflogen solche La gran maniera Greca, das ist die verwunderliche grosse Art der Griechen genannt und ihnen vor allen das Lob gegeben." 22. See Klemm (as in n. 17), 345, 37-38. Sandrartalso referred to the team of draftsmen and engravers who worked on the GalleriaGiustinianias an academy,since the less experienced engraversof the group received training from the others in the northern tradition of reproductiveengravingderiving from the practice of Egidius Sadeler, Hendrik Goltzius, and Cornelis Cort. See Sandrart,1925, 247; and Cropper and Dempsey (as in n. 12), 81-84. In the passagescited below, however,Sandrartseems to refer to a distinct group that included artists not associated with the Galleria,like Quellinus and Sacchi. 23. For a brief survey of period references to such academies and their activities,see Nikolaus Pevsner,Academies of Art,Past and Present (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress, 1940), 71-75. More recent studies of the history of art academies include Anton W.A. Boschloo et al., eds., Academies of Art 5-6 (1986LeidsKunsthistorischJaarboek between Renaissance and Romanticism, Academies and Schools toAlbers 87); and CarlGoldstein, TeachingArt: fromVasari (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1996). dans les au sieclede Rubens 24. R. Hoozee, "ArtusI Quellin," in La sculpture de Liege,exh. cat., Musee d'Art Ancien, meridionaux et la principaute Pays-Bas Brussels, 1977, 142. 25. Sandrart, 1925, 236: "... er nacher Rom gezogen und vermittelst des FrancisciQuesnoy, als welcher ihm wolgeneigt gewesen, in allem das rechte Liechtuiberkommen,auch ihme, sich bey denen antichen Academien steif zu halten, fleissig angelegen seyn lassen, wodurch er dann merklich zugenommen..." 26. Bellori, 577; and Passeri, 108. Rudolf Wittkowergrouped Sacchi with Poussin, Duquesnoy, and the sculptor Alessandro Algardi as exponents of "high baroque classicism"in his influential surveyItalianArtand Architecture, 1600 to 1750, first published in 1958 in the Pelican History of Art series; see 1st integrated edition, reprinted with corrections and augmented bibliography (New York: Viking Penguin, 1982), chap. 11. Ann Sutherland Harris argued that there is little evidence of significant contact between Sacchi and Poussin and stressed the inaccuraciesof formal readings of Sacchi's art based in Wittkower's Wolfflinian conception of classicism;see Harris,AndreaSacchi (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1977), 7-11, 26-37. 27. Passeri, 326. in der edlen Mahl28. Sandrart, 1925, 288: ". . . einer der Fuirtreflichsten kunst, so ein sehr kostbaresMitgliedunserer allda florirenden Academie ...." 29. See Giacomo Filippo Tomassini, De Donariisac tabellisVotivis(Udine,
88
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
1639), 212; and Karin Wolfe, "Andrea Sacchi architetto,"in AndreaSacchi 1599-1661, exh. cat., Forte Sangallo, Nettuno, 1999-2000, 29. 30. Sandrart,1925, 258. 31. A type of coin. 32. Sandrart, 1675-79, vol. 2, 5: "Als zu meiner Zeit bei gehaltener Academia in Rom von gutem und kfinstlichem Metall-giessen einige Reden gefallen und gegenwirtige Statuafur ein Wunder-Exempeldessen angezogen worden hat solches den kunstreichenFrancescodu Quesnoy und Mich dahin bewogen das wir selbst hinauf gestiegen und durch genaues Nachforschen so viel befunden dass das ganze Werck vom Guss dermassen nett und sauber hervorgekommen dass an demselben nichts (ausser der Nigel welche im Giessen die Sehl gehalten) uiberfeiletauch sonst das ganze Bild samt dem Pferd alles in gleicher Dunne und nicht iiber einen Reichsthaler dick gewesen: Welches wir dann mit Berwunderung gesehen und daher billich diese Statue fur ein vortrefflichesStuck der Bildhauerkunstgehalten." 33. The descriptions of ancient Greek paintings that comprise the Imagines of the Elder and Younger Philostrati, and the ekphrases of ancient Greek statues in Callistratus'sDescriptions were also important sources; however, these literarydescriptions do not generally provide the type of specific information about worksof art, their creators,and their locations that made Pliny, Pausanias,and Quintilian so indispensable. For the interest of Duquesnoy's circle in the Imagines, see Lingo, 29-30. 34. Italian translationsof Pliny's NaturalHistory appeared throughout the 16th century and continued to be revised and reissued in the 17th, when French and English translationsalso began to appear. For example, in 1612 Lodovico Domenichi's Italian translation,Historia wasrepublished in naturale, Venice. Philemon Holland's English translation, TheHistorie was of the World, published in London in 1601 and was reissued in 1634-35. A French translation by Anthoine du Pinet, L'histoire du monde, appeared in Parisin 1622. An Italiantranslationof Pausaniasby Alfonso Bonacciuoli,Descrittione dellaGrecia, was published in Mantua in 1593. 35. Leon BattistaAlberti, Dellapittura,ed. Luigi Malle (Florence: Sansoni, 1950), 76-80. 36.Julius Schlosser Magnino, La letteratura Manualedellefontidella artistica: ed. Otto Kurz,trans.Filippo Rossi, 3d ed. (Florence:La storiadell'arte moderna, Nuova Italia, 1935; reprint, 1996), 236; Pomponius Gauricus, De sculptura (1504), ed. and trans.Andre Chastel and Robert Klein (Geneva:Droz, 1969). 37. Karelvan Mander, HetSchilder-Boeck waerin vooreerst de leerlustigheJeught den grondtder Edel VrySchilderconst in verscheyden deelenwort voorghedraghen Netherlandish and German (Alkmaar,1604); see idem, TheLivesof theIllustrious Painters,trans. and ed. Hessel Miedema (Doornspijk:Davaco, 1995), vol. 2, 171. 38. Vasarireported that Cimabue received his first instruction in the art of painting from Byzantine artists-"pittori di Grecia"-working in Italy, but quicklysurpassedthe manner of his teachers, ". .. who, not caring to advance themselves, had been making works in the manner that they appear today, that is, not in the good ancient Greek manner, but in that awkward modern manner of those times [... i quali, non si curando innanzi, avevano passarpiuz nel modocheellesi veggono fatte quelle opre oggi,cioenon nellabuonamaniera greca di que'tempi... ]"; see Vasari (as in n. 5), vol. antica,ma in quella goffamoderna 2 (1967), Testo, 36. In the 1550 edition of the Lives,Vasaridid not bother to distinguish between the styles of ancient and modern Greek art. He stated simply that Cimabue soon surpassed the "manieraordinaria"of his Greek teachers.In his introduction to both editions of the Lives, Vasaristated that he would refer to Byzantine Greeks as "Greci vecchi" and the Greeks of the classicalera as "Greciantichi";see ibid., 29. The greaterhistoricalprecision of the second edition of the Liveswas the result of the influence of Vasari's friend the historian Vincenzo Borghini; see Roger Williams, "Vincenzo Borghini and Vasari's 'Lives,"'Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1988; and also Patricia Lee Rubin, GiorgioVasari:Art and History(New Haven: Yale enUniversityPress, 1995), 190-97. However, Vasari'sTuscan campanilismo tailed an enthusiasm for Etruscan art that complicated his perception of ancient Greek art; see Lingo, 226-35. 39. Vasariwrote that the Dioscuri on the Quirinal and the Belvedere Nile maybe recognized as Greekworksbecause of the type of marble of which they are made, and "... alla maniera delle teste et alla acconciaturadel capo et ai nasi delle figure, i quali sono dall'appiccaturadelle ciglia alquanto quadri fino alle nare del naso";see Vasari (as in n. 5), vol. 1, Testo, 43. 40. Sandrart,1675-79, "Lebenslauf... Joachims von Sandrart .... " vol. 1, 5 (separatelypaginated at end of volume); and Sandrart,1925, 22. 41. C. Arnoldus translatedSandrart'stwo-partbook on sculpture from the Teutsche the translationwas published, with a catalogue of images, as Academie; veteris sivedelineatio veraperfectisadmiranda, Joachimus de Sandrart,Sculpturae simarum una cum artis hujusnobilisimae theoria statuarum, eminentissimarumque (Nuremberg, 1680). The phrase appears in the first chapter, on the second page, designated "b,"and on the third page, which is unpaginated. 42. This conceptualization finds an important 16th-centuryprecedent in of lost "rules" of Greekart;see LambertLombard'sbelief in the recoverability Lingo, 235-42; and Ellen Kemp and Wolfgang Kemp, "LambertLombards 36, nos. 2-3 antiquarischeTheorie und Praxis,"Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte (1973): 122-52. 43. Adriani, in Vasari (as in n. 5), vol. 1, Testo, 214-15, 224. 44. Sandrart,1675-79, vol. 2, pt. 2, 2. 45. Ibid., vol. 1, pt. 2, 3, in foreword to "Derur-alt-berihmtenEgyptischen/
Griechischenund R6mischen ErstenKunst-Mahlere Leben und Lob":"Inder Bildhauerey haben gleichfals die Griechen vor andern excellirt und nicht allein den Gottern;sondern auch den Menschen Statuen aufgestellet. Dieses thiten erstlich die zu Athen von denen diese Gewonheit zu den Romern gekommen: mit dem Unterschied dass diese ihre Seul-bilderin Kleidernjene aber nackicht vorgestellet."In Latin ed., Academia nobilissimae artispictoriae (Frankfurt,1683), 41. 46. Boselli, fol. 10v: "Quanto il contorno e meno risaltato, tanto pii la maniera 6 Greca;et quanto li contorni pongono le parti principali a proprii siti; tanti piu sono eccellenti." Boselli's treatise was not published until Phoebe Dent Weil's modern edition, which made available a manuscript facsimile;much of the literatureon DuquesnoypredatesWeil'sworkand does not take the treatiseinto account. Recently,transcriptionsof two 18th-century manuscriptsof Boselli's treatisehave been published; see Boselli, Osservazioni sulla sculturaantica:I manoscritti di Firenze e di Ferrara, ed. Antonio Torresi (Ferrara:LibertyHouse, 1994). 47. For the interpretationof this passage,see Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, "Piccoli problemi da risolvere,"pt. 1, "Parrasio: Linea, spazio, volume," La Critica d'Arte 3 (1938): 4-11, reprinted in idem, Storicitd dell'arte classica(Florence: Electa, 1950), 45-61. 48. For example, Alberti equated Parrhasios'scontours with the component of painting he termed "circumscription"but did not discuss their capacity to describe three-dimensional volume, the feature emphasized by Pliny;see Alberti (as in n. 35), 82. In a letter to Michelangelo dated September 16, 1537, Pietro Aretino used but did not cite Pliny's passage on Parrhasios's contours as a source for his praise of Michelangelo's art; see Aretino, Lettere di Pietro sull'arte ed. Ettore Camesasca,3 vols. (Milan:Milione, Aretino, 1957-60), vol. 1, 64. In his surveyof ancient artistsfor the second edition of Vasari'sLives,Adriani outlined Parrhasios'saccomplishments and noted the excellence of his contours; see Vasari (as in n. 5), vol. 1, Testo, 187-88. 49. See Mark W. Roskill, Dolce's "Aretino" and Venetian Art Theoryof the (NewYork:New YorkUniversityPress, 1968), with Italian text and Cinquecento English translation. On the relationship of Aretino's statements in Dolce's Aretinoto Aretino's own views, see ibid., 25-48; and Sergio Ortolani, "Le 26 (1923): 1-17. origini della critica d'arte a Venezia,"L'Arte 50. See Aretino (as in n. 48), vol. 2, 84-87, 106-7. Lora Palladino has argued that Aretino's views on the comparison of Raphael, Titian, and Michelangelo were overstatedby Camesascaand in the art historical literature generally, and that a survey of his writings on art as a whole indicates that Aretino's position was not in fact so polemical. See Palladino,"PietroAretino: Orator and Art Theorist,"Ph.D. diss., Yale University,1981, 89-91. 51. Roskill (as in n. 49), 142-43; see also 172-77. See Lingo, 68-75, 242-48, for a discussion of the critical issues regarding subtle contour and the association of such contours with the art of Raphael. 52. Roskill (as in n. 49), 293. Barbaro'sstatement appearson 56 in the 1556 di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati edition, Vitruvius,I diecilibridell'architettura da Monsignor ... (Venice, 1556): "Gliantichi facevano i corpi grandi, Barbaro. le teste alquanto piccole, & la sveltezzaera posta nella lunghezza della coscia, parlo hora de i corpi perfetti, imperoche altra misura conviene a putti altraa corpi grassi,altri ad alcuni asciutti,similmente gli antichi stando nelle misure convenienti amavanola lunghezza, & la sottigliezzad'alcune parti parendo di dar no so che piu di leggiadro all'opere" (The ancients made the bodies large, the heads somewhat small, and the thighs slender. I am speaking now of perfect bodies, for different proportions apply to children, heavy bodies, or aged bodies; likewise, with regard to ideal proportions, the ancients loved slenderness and subtletyin some partswhich seems to give a certain increased loveliness to the works). 53. Boselli, fols. 4v, 31, 54v, 103v, 112, 113, 128v, 139, 152v, 168v. On the evidence for the popularity of Dolce's text among artists and theorists throughout the 17th century, see Roskill (as in n. 49), 66-67. 54. Boselli, fol. 23v: "L'Anticoha fugito li troppi moscoli, e sempre ha havuto piu riguardo al tutto che alle parti, e piu alle parti maggiori che alle minime." 55. On the Mercury and its relation to Giustiniani'ssculpturalcriticism,see Lingo, 74-85. 56. Johann Joachim Winckelmann,Reflections on theImitation Works of Greek in Paintingand Sculpture, German text with English trans. by Elfriede Heyer and Lucy Freeman Sandler (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1987). 57. Sandrart, 1675-79, vol. 2, 2: ". . . die zu Rom vielfiltige und zierliche Werckstuck welche den recht Kunstverstindigen sehr wol bekandt nach welcher Granmanieragreca wir am allersicherstenunsere Lehr und Absehen haben sollen." Winckelmann'smanuscript 68, an annotated compilation of texts describing the art collections in Rome, now in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France in Paris, documents that Sandrartwas among the authors consulted by Winckelmannas he toured the Roman villas and palaces at the beginning of his residence in Italy;see Johann Joachim Winckelmann, Villee palazzidi Roma,ed. Joselita Raspi Serra (Rome: Quasar,2000), 255, 275, 347. 58. For a fuller treatment of these issues, see Lingo, 249-60. 59. For the most recent reconsiderationof classicismin 17th-century Rome, with emphasis on the thought of Bellori, see L'ideadel bello(as in n. 12). 60. Bellori, 292; Sandrart,1925, 232; and Passeri, 108. 61. The documents relating to the crossing decoration are published in Pollak; the relevant document here is found on 427, no. 1623. 62. MarietteFransolet, "Le S. Andre de Francois Duquesnoy a la Basilique
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
89
de S. Pierre au Vatican, 1629-1640," BulletindelInstitutHistorique deRome Belge 13 (1933): 241-43. Fransolet, 112, reiterated this argument in summaryform in her monograph. 63. E. Dony, "Francois Duquesnoy, sa vie et ses oeuvres,"Bulletinde lInstitut Belgede Rome2 (1922): 87-127, app. of documents, 125-27. My Historique examination of the documentaryrecord for the commission and execution of the Saint Susanna,as well as for the paintings and statues that together with Duquesnoy's sculpture comprised the decorative program of the newly extended choir of S. Mariadi Loreto, found Dony's presentation of the documents to be generally accurate in factual content, despite some irregularities of transcription,with one significant oversight concerning Duquesnoy'sfinal June 1628 contract with the payment. Dony did not locate the confraternity's sculptors Pompeo Ferrucci, Stefano Maderno, and Domenico de Rossi, nor was she exhaustive or consistent in correlating the variousledgers; see Lingo, 146-65, and below. Extensive transcriptionsof the documents related to the chapel's decoration, including those concerned with the colored marblesand stuccos, have recently been published by Boudon. She offers important comments on the original disposition of the sculptures (see below at nn. 70, 72), and her publication of the documentary record should prove useful to future students of the chapel, despite occasional minor errorsin transcription and editing. In my view the motivation for the long tradition of arguments, reviewedby Boudon, for the existence of a model of the SaintSusannaas early as 1627 was effectively eliminated by Irving Lavin's 1968 contribution concerning the document around which much of the discussion revolved, on which see below. In the arguments that follow, I have relied on my own transcriptionsand have chosen, unless otherwise noted, to retain my citations to the original documents. 64. IrvingLavin,Berniniand theCrossing (NewYork:New York of SaintPeter's UniversityPress for the College Art Association, 1968), 20. The document cited by Lavin is published in Pollak, 427, no. 1624. 65. Pollak, 430, no. 1639. 66. Lavin (as in n. 64), 38-39 n. 174. 67. The church of S. Maria di Loreto was constructed over a long period between 1507 and 1576. The project to expand the choir and build a sacristy for the church was carried out between 1628 and 1630 under the direction of Gasparede Vecchi; an overviewof the building history is found in Benedetti. On the involvementof Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, see ChristophJobst, Die PlanungenAntoniosda SangallodesJiingeren S. Mariadi Loreto fiir dieKirche in Rom,Romische Studien der Bibliotheca Hertziana,6 (Worms:Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft,1992). 68. For a discussion of this phenomenon, see Hans Belting, "Artas the Mise-en-scene of the Image at the Time of the Counter-Reformation," in A History Likeness and Presence: theEra of Art,trans. Edmund of theImagebefore Jephcott (Chicago: Universityof Chigago Press, 1994), 484-90. 69. See below at n. 99. 70. "ADORATEOMNES ANGELI EIUS," on the left as one faces the altar, compresented other evidence for the original placement of the angels; see Boudon, 126-27. 71. Benedetti, 12-13. 72. For the original placement of the statues of the virgin martyrs,see Boudon, 126-27. On the history of the placement of the Saint Susanna,see below at n. 187 and nn. 104, 183 below. 73. The contract is preserved in the notary'srecords in the ASR, fondo 30 Notari Capitolini,Ufficio 19, 1628, parte seconda, fols. 747r-748v;the quoted portion appears on 747r-747v: "Faretutte le statue che andaranno fatte per servitio et ornamento della cappella principale della chiesa di S. Maria di Loreto pred.a et in particolaredoi angeli una S. Cecilia, una S. Agnese et altre sante secondo che li sara ordinato dalli d.ti sig.ri deputati et dal Sig.r Gaspare de Vecchi architetto ...." Another copy exists in the confraternity'sarchive, APSF,Libro d'Instrumenti,vol. 7 (1624-28 Settembre 1634), fol. 157r-157v. For a transcriptionof the full contract, see now Boudon, 141. 74. On Ferrucci (1565-1637), see the entry by Susanna Zanuso in Scultura del '600 a Roma, ed. Andrea Bacchi (Milan: Longanesi, 1996), 805, pls. 395-402, with bibliography;and S. Bellesi, entry in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1960-), vol. 47 (1997), 251-52. For Maderno (ca. 1576-1636), see Agnese Donati, Stefano Maderno scultore,1576-1636 (Bellinzona: A. Salvioni, 1945); as well as the entry by Zanuso in Bacchi, 817, pls. 508-27, with recent bibliography. Maderno is in S. Cecilia in Trastevereand for his probablybest known for his Saint Cecilia smaller marbles and terra-cottas after the antique. Maderno, like Duquesnoy, was employed in 1624 making models for components of Bernini's baldacchino; see Pollak, 333, no. 1085. 75. Domenico de Rossi'sdates of birth and death are unknown;documents indicate that he wasactive in Rome between 1627 and 1651. See Bacchi (as in n. 74), 840-41, pls. 728-30. 76. ASR (as in n. 73). The confraternitystipulated that the statues were to be carved from a single block of marble, excepting the wings of the angels, and were to be completed within seven months from the followingJuly 1 or from the sculptors' receipt of the marble. The first fiftyscudi were to be paid when the statues were roughed out, the remaining one hundred at the completion of the work. 77. On November 14, 1627, the confraternity'sguardiansofficiallycommitted funds to the project of "embellishing and finishing" the church, as
SANCTO EIUS,"above the niche on the right. Boudon pleted by "IN ATRIO
recorded in ASR,APSF,Decreti di Congregazione,vol. 2 (1613-45), fol. 167, and on February24, 1628, the guardianspledged to continue the decoration of the choir and altar;see ibid., fol. 173. 78. Fransolet, 99. 79. On the church, see Bruno M. Apollonj Ghetti, S. Susanna,Le chiese di Roma illustrate, 85 (Rome: Marietti, 1965); and Rosella Vodret et al., Santa Susannae San Bernardo alle Terme (Rome: FratelliPalombi, 1993). 80. Butler'sLives of the Saints, ed. Herbert Thurston, S. J. Attwater, and Donald Attwater (New York: P. J. Kenedy, 1956), vol. 3, July-Sept., 301-3. di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica (Venice: Compare Gaetano Moroni, Dizionario TipografiaEmiliana, 1840-61), vol. 71, 86, for the story of Susanna'srefusal to worshipan idol, one of the scenes included in the fresco cycle at the church of S. Susanna. See also Agostino Amore, "Susanna, santa, martire di vol. 12 (Rome: Istituto Giovanni XXIII Roma(?)," in Bibliotheca Sanctorum, della Pontificia UniversitaLateranese, 1969), 78-79. 81. Vodret et al. (as in n. 79), 29; the twelvevolumes of Baronius'sAnnales were published in Rome between 1588 and 1607. 82. Carlo Bartolomeo Piazza, Opere pie di Roma... . (Rome, 1679), Trattato 8, "Delle Confraternitadelle Arti,"chap. 1, "Della Madonna di Loreto de' Fornari," 605ff.; and Benedetti, 18. This activity was one of the primary charities performed by many of the guild confraternities. 83. The feast daysof SaintsAgnes, FlaviaDomitilla,Susanna,and Ceciliaare January21, May 12, August 11, and November 22, respectively. 84. ASR,APSF,Registro dei Mandati,vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 78r n. 131. 85. The payment of one hundred scudi to Maderno for finishing the first angel was ordered on April 30, 1629; ibid., fol. 93v n. 63. The statue was transportedto the church on August 13; see ASR,APSF,MandatiPag.ti, vol. 13 (1628-31), recto of unpag., unnumbered receipt, "Lista delle Spese che ho premitio della Comp.a di S.ta Mariadel Loreto di Roma fatte da M.rTomasso Rosi camarlingho."In this same list of expenses on the verso is recorded the delivery of the second angel to the church on December 5, 1629. For the second angel Maderno was written a payment order on December 28, 1629, for the full amount of one hundred and fifty scudi, which was immediately canceled and reissued as an installment of only fifty scudi; ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati,vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 107r n. 203. The payment of the remaining one hundred scudi was ordered on January 25, 1630; ibid., fol. di diversiOrdini di SS.riGuardianidella Ven.le Comp.a di S.ta 191v,"Registro Mariadi Loreto di Roma."OnJune 7, 1629, final paymentwas ordered to de Rossi for the Saint FlaviaDomitilla, including reimbursement for the cost of the porters who brought the sculpture to S. Mariadi Loreto; ibid., fol. 95v n. 85. Ferrucci'sSaintAgnes wasbrought to the church onJanuary26, 1630;ASR, APSF,MandatiPag.ti, vol. 13, unpag., receipt no. 152 for year 1630. His final payment was ordered on February28 of that year;ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6, fol. 110r n. 28. For a more detailed discussion of the documents relating to the execution of these sculptures, see Lingo, 153-55; and Boudon, 134-37, with minor variances. 86. For an introduction to Finelli, see the entry by Zanuso in Bacchi (as in n. 74), 805-7, pls. 403-16. Finelli had worked together with Duquesnoy making models of angels and of a figure of Christthat were to be cast for the top of Bernini's baldacchino, components of a decorative scheme subsequently abandoned; see Pollak, 356-57, nos. 1168, 1169. 87. My search in the confraternity'sLibrid'instrumenti for the years 1626 through January 1635 failed to turn up a contract between Duquesnoy or Finelli and the confraternity.I also checked the records of the confraternity's notary for the second half of 1628 and for 1629, without result. 88. Passeri,246-48; see alsoJennifer Montagu, "BerniniSculpturesNot by Bernini: NewAspects ed. Irving Bernini,"in Gianlorenzo of His Art and Thought, Lavin (UniversityPark,Pa.:Pennsylvania State UniversityPressfor College Art Association, 1985), 26. Cavaliered'Arpino was paid 400 scudi for each of his paintings for the lateral walls of the choir; he was issued his first payment of 400 scudi on August 23, 1629; ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 98v n. 116. On the paintings, see HerwarthR6ttgen, II Cavalier exh. cat., PalazzoVenezia, Rome, 1973, cat. no. 59. He was issued the d'Arpino, final paymentfor his two paintings for the choir onJuly 29, 1630;ASR,APSF, Registro dei Mandati,vol. 6, fol. 115r n. 78. In addition to paying d'Arpino higher wages than the sculptors, the confraternitysupplied him with white bread each day during the period that he worked for them, with a value totaling 27.20 scudi; the bursar'srecord of this expense is preserved in ASR, APSF,MandatiPag.ti,vol. 13 (1628-31), unpag., receipt no. 152, "Listadelle Spese Minute fatte per servitio della Ven.le Compagnia di S.ta Maria del Loreto di Roma da Tomasso Rosi Camarlengho d' essa per l'anno 1630," verso. 89. ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 98r n. 112. Finelli himself was paid for the purchase of the marble, which was delivered to his studio on September 12, 1629; the record of the deliveryof the marble is preservedin ASR,APSF,MandatiPag.ti,vol. 13 (1628-31), unpag., unnumbered receipt, "Listadelle Spese che ho premitio della Comp.a di S.ta Maria del Loreto di Roma fatte da M.r Tomasso Rosi camarlingho."As a native of Carrara,Finelli used his family connections in obtaining marble from the quarries rather than relying on the services of a marble dealer; see Jennifer The Industryof Art (New Haven: Yale Montagu, Roman BaroqueSculpture: UniversityPress, 1989), 23. 90. A receipt for the delivery of the Saint Ceciliato S. Maria di Loreto is found in ASR, APSF,Mandati Pag.ti, vol. 14 (1632-34), unpag., receipt no.
90
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
156. The receipt records that the statue was transported to the church from the street of Capo le Case, confirming Passeri's report that the commission was carried out in Finelli's own studio there. (Bernini did not move his studio from S. Maria Maggiore to Capo le Case until 1641; see n. 101 below.) Receipt no. 125, recto, in the same volume is a payment to porters on October 20, 1632, for helping "to hoist the statue in the Chapel of the Madonna [atirare su la statua nella Capella della Mad.a]"; these receipts were omitted by Boudon. The final payment to Finelli was issued September 19, 1633; ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 169r n. 108. For earlier payments to Finelli, see Lingo, 157. 91. ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 106r n. 187: "... per fare la statua di S.ta Cecilia da S.r Fran.co Fiamengo Scultore per la Capp.a Mag.e della nostra Chiesa...." A payment order for marble for a statue for the choir of October 20, 1629, written to Giovanni Battista Calandra, superintendent of the Fabbrica of St. Peter's, may have been intended for Duquesnoy's use, since the marble for the other five choir statues had already been ordered by that date; see ibid., fol. 103v n. 157. But it is perhaps the stronger possibility that Duquesnoy had not been engaged by the confraternity at this date, since the bursar generally indicated in the payment order the name of the sculptor and the subject to be represented when these were known. Calandra (1586-1644) was a mosaicist and painter who worked extensively at St. Peter's under Urban VIII; see Frank DiFederico, The Mosaics of Saint Peter's:Decorating the New Basilica (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983), esp. 15-16; and Louise Rice, The Altars and Altarpieces of New St. Peter's: Outfitting the Basilica, 1621-1666 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 92. See n. 89 above. 93. The contract between the confraternity and Ferrucci, Maderno, and de Rossi does not make any reference to models for their statues having been completed, and a payment order for the marbles for the first three statues for the chapel was issued the day after the contract was signed; ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 74r n. 89. 94. A very brief biography of Lelio Biscia is found in Moroni (as in n. 80), vol. 5, 251. Biscia, born in Rome in 1573, trained in the law and began his clerical career through his purchase of the office of papal cleric in charge of food provision. After his elevation to the cardinalate by Urban VIII, his background in food management made him an appropriate choice for cardinal protector of the confraternity of the Bakers' Guild; he was also vice protector of the Camaldolese Order. Prospero Mandosio described Biscia as a "literatorum Mecoenatis" who had amassed an impressive library curated by the Chiot humanist Leone Allacci; see Mandosio's Bibliotheca romana seu romanorumscriptorumcenturiae (Rome, 1642), vol. 2, 259-60. Allacci, a student of the Greek College of S. Atanasio in Rome, also served Biscia as his theologian for questions regarding the Greek church. The Grecophile orientation of Allacci's scholarly interests may be significant in the context of Biscia's tastes and probable support of Duquesnoy; for an overview of Allacci's career, see D. Musti, entry in Dizionario biograficodegli Italiani (as in n. 74), vol. 2 (1960), 467-71. Although Biscia possessed the inclination, he lacked the resources to patronize the arts personally on a large scale. He had inherited a reasonably large fortune from his father, and between 1603 and 1608, while he was still a monsignor, Biscia and his brothers paid for the restoration of S. Francesco a Ripa, with the provision that the Biscia family would be given two tombs in the choir of the church; see Anna Menichella, San Francesco a Ripa: Vicende construttive della prima chiesafrancescana di Roma (Rome: Rari Nantes, 1981), 50-53. After his elevation, Biscia seems almost immediately to have lost favor with the pope. He failed to get lucrative appointments and his financial position was weakened; see the 1627 report of the Venetian ambassador to Rome, published in Niccolo Barozzi and Guglielmo Berchet, Relazioni degli stati Europei lette al Senato dagli Ambasciatori Veneti del secolo decimosettimo, Italia, Relazioni di Roma, 3d ser. (Rome: P. Naratovich, 1877-78), vol. 1, 278. As vice protector of the Camaldolese Order, Biscia very likely commissioned Sacchi's Vision of Saint Romuald in 1631 (Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome); see Ann Sutherland Harris, "The Date of Andrea Sacchi's Vision of Saint Romuald, "Burlington Magazine 110 (1968): 486-94. For Biscia's activity at St. Peter's, see Rice (as in n. 91), passim. 95. Pollak, 355-57, nos. 1154, 1168, 1169. 96. See n. 29 above. 97. Pollak, 93, no. 117. 98. Bellori, 292; Passeri, 110; and Sandrart, 1925, 232-33. Denis Mahon expressed strong skepticism of Fransolet's supposition that a model of the Saint Susanna led to the commission for the Saint Andrew and thought it likely that Duquesnoy's full-scale model for the Saint Andrew helped to secure the commission at S. Maria di Loreto; see Mahon, "Poussiniana: Afterthoughts Arising from the Exhibition," Gazettedes Beaux-Arts60 (1962): 66-71; and also Italo Faldi, La scultura barocca in Italia (Milan: Garzanti, 1958), 116-17. 99. ASR, APSF, Decreti di Congregazione, vol. 2 (1613-45), fol. 195: "per honorare tanto piui la S.ma Imagine della gloriosissima Vergine Maria della nostra chiesa." 100. On November 14, 1627, the confraternity decided to dedicate for the choir project the funds left to the confraternity by Giovanni Battista Antifassi; see Benedetti, 67. On Biscia's activity as a patron of the arts, see n. 94 above. 101. ASR, APSF, Mandati Pag.ti, vol. 13 (1628-31), unpag., receipt no. 152, "Lista delle Spese Minute fatte per servitio della Ven.le Compagnia di S.ta Maria del Loreto di Roma da Tomasso Rosi Camarlengho d'essa per l'anno
1630." The entry states that the block was brought from S. Maria Maggiore, the location of Bernini's home and studio until 1641, to Strada Vittoria, where Duquesnoy lived and kept his workshop. On Bernini's house at S. Maria Maggiore, see Cesare D'Onofrio, Roma vista da Roma (Rome: Liber, 1967), 122-29. For Duquesnoy's studio, see Fransolet, 56-57. Duquesnoy evidently opted for a higher-quality marble than the one arranged for in the payment order. The receipt for that payment records that on January 8, 1630, Bernini signed the fifty-two scudi for the block over to Duquesnoy, who received the payment onJanuary 10; see ASR, APSF, Mandati Pag.ti, vol. 13, receipt no. 91. A different block was then delivered January 31, for which Duquesnoy paid Bernini sixty scudi on February 15. Duquesnoy later presented Bernini's receipt to the confraternity when he was reimbursed for the additional eight scudi he had spent for the marble; see n. 107 below. Relying on Dony's incomplete transcription of the documents, Mahon believed there was no documentary evidence that Duquesnoy ultimately purchased the marble from Bernini; see Mahon (as in n. 98), 66 n. 211. 102. ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 125r n. 32. The receipt of this payment is not preserved in the Mandati Pag.ti, vol. 13 (162831); most of the receipts for 1631 are lacking from this volume, nor do they appear in the subsequent volume. The year 1631 was bound in a single volume, number 15 in the 18th-century numbering of the volumes. This volume did not form part of the 19th-century numerical series and thus had disappeared by that time. As the preceding and following volumes have suffered notable insect damage, it is probable that the smaller vol. 15 was ruined completely. In addition, the "Entrata/Uscita" ledger for 1631 is lost. 103. ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 130v n. 103. 104. Ibid., fol. 160v n. 25. The payment order states that it is a reimbursement to Duquesnoy for the amount, six scudi, that he had already paid to the porters who transported the Saint Susanna to the church. The receipt, preserved in Mandati Pag.ti, vol. 14 (1632-34), receipt no. 25, shows that Duquesnoy signed for that payment on April 2, 1633. The Saint Susanna is no longer in its original position, the lateral niche farther from the altar on the side of the sacristy (on the right as one faces the altar), as described by Passeri, 107. In 2000, following the statue's cleaning and exhibition at the Palazzo delle Esposizioni (see Maria Giulia Barberini and M. Boudon, in L 'ideadel bello [as in n. 12], vol. 2, 396, 401-2), the Saint Susanna was moved from the lateral niche closer to the altar on the left side as one faces the altar to the lateral niche closer to the altar on the right, changing places with Finelli's Saint Cecilia. Although this latest arrangement does not return the statue to its original position, it does help to restore the significance of the gaze and gesture of the Saint Susanna, who looks toward the worshiper in the nave and points in the direction of the altar. For further history of the several positions the statue has occupied in S. Maria di Loreto, see below at n. 187 and n. 183 below. 105. ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 163r n. 50. In the margin to the right of the entry is written "non ha havuto effetto rifatto al novo Cam.o a di 11 Gen.o 1635." Boudon transcribed the cancellation without speculating as to its cause; see Boudon, Annexe A.V.7. 106. The payment order is found in ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 7 (1635-42), fol. lv n. 5; the receipt is in Mandati Pag.ti, vol. 15 (1635-36), unpag., receipt no. 5. 107. The payment order, dated August 9, 1633, is ASR, APSF, Registro dei Mandati, vol. 6 (1625-34), fol. 167v n. 91; the receipt, followed by Duquesnoy's itemization, is found in Mandati Pag.ti, vol. 14 (1632-34), unpag., receipt no. 91. The expenses listed are for moving the block inside his studio and hoisting it upright (2.70 scudi), the construction of scaffolding during the installation of the statue (4.60 scudi), and for an additional sum (8 scudi) paid to Bernini in order to obtain a marble "the whitest and finest that one can find." For discussion of this last item, see below at n. 162. The receipt was written on an earlier receipt, signed by Gianlorenzo Bernini and dated February 15, 1630, stating that Bernini had received sixty scudi from Duquesnoy for the block of marble. 108. In all the payments related to the choir statues, the bursars of the confraternity distinguished in a standard way in the registers between a sculpture on which the sculptor was at work, "che fa," and the completed work, described as "fatta." 109. Bellori, 296; and Passeri, 113-14. 110. According to Bellori, in 1635 Duquesnoy was also occupied with his portrait bust of Cardinal Maurice of Savoy, now in the Galleria Sabauda, Turin. See Bellori, 300; and Valentino Martinelli, "Un 'modello di creta' di Francesco Fiammingo," Commentari 13 (1962): 113-20. Bellori, Passeri, and Sandrart all described Duquesnoy's financial difficulties during the 1630s; see Bellori, 294, 296; Passeri, 110-11; and Sandrart, 1925, 233. 111. Bellori, 296. The palm is now missing, but the early biographers all note it; see Passeri, 107; and Sandrart, 1925, 232. 112. The Saint Andrew was installed in its niche between September 26 and October 27, 1639, and unveiled on March, 2, 1640, when it is nonetheless described as "non ancora finita intieramente"; see Pollak, 434, nos. 1667, 1670, 1671. 113. Pollak, 432, nos. 1654-57. 114. Sandrart, 1925, 233. Bellori, Passeri, and Sandrart all reported that was being when Duquesnoy's full-scale stucco model for the Saint Andrewv transported back from the basilica, it fell and was destroyed; see Bellori, 292; Passeri, 110; and Sandrart, 1925, 233. According to the biographies, Du-
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
91
quesnoy made a new stucco model identical to the first but was devastatedby the incident, which he believed had not been accidental. Sandrartwrote that someone, whom he would not name, was instrumental in withholding the marbles for the Saint Andrew from Duquesnoy, with the result that his payments for work on the statue were delayed. Sandrart indicated that Duquesnoy had been working at this point for five years on the statue and that he had drained his availablefunds in preparing the stucco, for which he had hired assistance.The delay in the deliveryof the marbles was clearly not the result of intrigues against Duquesnoy, presumablyby Bernini; as Lavin has noted, delaysin obtaining the large blocks of marble affected all the sculptors and Duquesnoy received his marblesover a year before workingon the colossi, Bernini, Andrea Bolgi, and Francesco Mochi; see Lavin, 38-39 n. 174; and Pollak, 443-46, nos. 1718-28. It is nonetheless true that in 1633 Duquesnoy had been working on the SaintAndrew for about five years. Between November 1629, when Duquesnoy received his last payment for the stucco model, and April 1633, when two blocks of marble arrived for the Saint Andrew, Duquesnoy received only one payment of fifty scudi, in March 1632, perhaps for work on a block that had been delivered to St. Peter's the previous January; see Pollak, vol. 2, 430-31, no. 1645, and 432, nos. 1652-55. If Duquesnoy did in fact have to reconstruct the full-scale stucco model as the biographies state, there is no record that he received any additionalpayments for that work.The incident, if true, would go some distance towardexplaining Duquesnoy's drained resources and growing sense of persecution during this period. 115. The record of Giustiniani's payment to Duquesnoy is preserved in ASR, Archivio Giustiniani,vol. 7, Armadio A, Mazzo N, parte II, "Oblighi e polize diverse dall' an. 1578 a t.o l'an. 1719,"and was published in Italo Faldi, "Le 'Virtuose operationi' di Francesco Duquesnoy scultore incomparabile," ArteAnticae Moderna 2 (1959): 62. 116. ASR,ArchivioGiustiniani(as in n. 115). Although the payment did not take place until October 15, 1633, the first part of the agreement is dated September 15, 1633. 117. See GiovanniPrevitali'sintroduction to Borea's edition of Bellori, I-lx. 118. Bellori, 291. 119. Passeri, 107. 120. Borromeo, 25. 121. Passeri, 108. 122. Bellori, 291. 123. Ibid. 124. Fransolet, 103-4; Wittkower (as in n. 26), 274-75; Cellini, "Nota critica,"in Francesco (Milan:Fratelli Fabbri, 1966), n.p., as well as Duquesnoy idem (as in n. 11), 77; and Hadermann-Misguich, Lesdu Quesnoy (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1970), 23. An exception is an article by Norbert Huse that criticized earlier scholarlytreatmentsof the SaintSusannaand formulated an independent analysisemploying concepts of naturalismand idealization;see fur KurtBadt zu Huse, "Zur'S. Susanna' des Duquesnoy,"in Argo:Festschrift seinem80. Geburtstag am 3. Mirz 1970 (Cologne: DuMont Schauberg, 1970), 324-35. 125. Passeri, 106. 126. Boselli's treatise, probablywritten in the 1650s, is a crucial source for evidence of the ideas of Duquesnoy's circle about the Greek manner, but it does not supply ready definitions. The Greek manner is discussed specifically in two passages of the Osservazioni; see Boselli, fols. 10v, 98v-99; and Lingo, 68-70. In the second of these, Boselli stated that in his own sculpture he strove to work in the Greek manner. This encourages cautious scrutinyof his instructionaltreatise as a whole as possible evidence for Duquesnoy's conception of the manieragreca;it should be noted, however, that the Osservazioni contains much that appears to be Boselli's independent and occasionally inconsistent thought. But throughout the treatise Boselli made a distinction between the "bad" and the "good" ancient statues, and, in light of his statements about the Greek manner, one may reasonably conclude that he considered the latter to be "in the Greek manner." 127. Boselli, fol. 75: "Essidunque non hebbero altra mira, ne altro fine, o intentione, che di vestir l'ignudo col mostrarlo, coprirlo per manifestarlo;e tanto accuratamente hebbero questo fine che molte volte si trova sopra l'habito segnati, il belico, il caporello delle zinne, li moscoli delle ginochia, et altre parti del'ignudo, le qualie certissimo,che sono dal vestimento coperte. Furono tanto gelosi di questa osservatione, et dubitarono talmente di non obliarla che si presero licenza di segnare co ferri, quelle parti della vita le quali per l'habito sono occulte. Sembrache in tutte le loro figure si senta una voce esclamante, che dica: awertite di non errare, perche qui e il cubito, la il ginochio, qui il corpo, la il petto, qui sono l'altre membra, e non altrove." 128. Ibid., fol. 55v: "... si deve vestire con pieghe convenienti et legiadre; ... I'antico ha fatto le figure pannegiate, come fossero ignude." 129. Ibid., fol. 75v;on these antique statues,see Haskell and Penny (as in n. 4), cat. nos. 41, 24, 66. The Florais identified as a Greek work in Francois Perrier's Segmenta nobilium et statuarum dentem invidium signorum que temporis evase(Rome, 1638). A wax copy of the Cleopatra, now in the Musee du Louvre,
Paris, has traditionally been attributed to Poussin; see Blunt (as in n. 11), vol. 1, 31-32, 229. 130. Boselli, fol. 75v: "... le pieghe sono proprie di quello ignudo, et l'ignudo proprio di quelle pieghe." 131. Sandrart, 1675-79, vol. 1, pt. 1, 30: "Wann das Bild soil bekleidet sein mus er das Gewand nicht zu dunn und trucken anlegen doch auch nicht so
grob machen dass es fuireinen Stein mochte angesehen werden: sondern er mus mit dessen Falten den Leib dergestalt umgeben dass das nackende darunter zuweilen erkantlich seie zuweilen aber Kunst-zierlichverborgen werde ohne Hartigkeitwelche des Bildes Gliedmassenverstellen kan." 132. Ibid. 133. Dramatically folded, deeply undercut draperybecame an increasingly central feature of Bernini's style from the SaintLonginusof 1629-38. 134. Boselli, fol. 99r: "... sempre il bello consiste nella superficie, e non ne fondi et quel mastroe in grande errore il quale con essi pensa di fare stupire." 135. Passeri, 108. 136. Harris (as in n. 26), cat. no. 35, SaintAnthony of PaduaRevivinga Dead Man. The painting probablydates to the spring of 1633, shortlyafter the Saint Susannawas installed in S. Mariadi Loreto. A second autographversion is in the collection of Denis Mahon; see Gabriele Finaldi and Michael Kitson, theItalian Baroque: TheDenis Mahon Collection, exh. cat., National Discovering Gallery, London, 1997, 148-49, cat. no. 17. While the Saint Susanna is recognizable from her posture, the figure, partiallyhidden by a pier within the painting, is not a detailed likeness. 137. The debate was mentioned by Melchior Missirini in his Memorie per servirealla storia della RomanaAccademia di S. Luca (Rome: Stamperia de Romanis, 1823), 111-13, a memoir of the academy'sactivitiesbased in part on documents subsequentlylost. An argument for the 1636 dating of the debate was given by Denis Mahon and accepted by Harris.See Mahon (as in n. 98), 97; and Harris (as in n. 26), 45 n. 64. See also Cropper and Dempsey's insightful comments on the relation of Sacchi's position in the debate to the ideas of Duquesnoy's circle; Cropper and Dempsey (as in n. 12), 45. 138. In 1607, about the time Duquesnoy began his training in Brussels,a fourteen-yearlegal battle between the sculptors and the masons of Antwerp ended with the official confirmation of sculpture as a liberal art. Sculptorsin the Southern Netherlands were no longer under the jurisdiction of the masons' guild but of the painters' guild of St. Luke; see Zirka Z. Filipczak, 1550-1700 (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, PicturingArt in Antwerp, 1987), 18. 139. See Weil's citation of Wittkower'scomment in her introduction to Boselli, xiii. 140. The standard study of classicizing art theory remains Rensselaer W. TheHumanistic Poesis: Lee, UtPictura Theory ofPainting,originallypublished in the Art Bulletin22 (1940): 197-269, later republished under separate cover (New York:W. W. Norton, 1967). 141. Boselli, fol. 39r-39v. 142. Ibid., fol. 94v:". . sempre di lor natura,rifredano1'atto, et inaniscono la figura." 143. Ibid., fols. 94v-95r: "... non solo haver fatto tre modelli del ignudo uno magior del altro: ma nel vestirlo per gelosia di non perdere il loro del belico vi teneva lavorando...." Boselli also stated that he owned the final version of this model by Duquesnoy. 144. Ibid., fol. 71v: "Hanno ardire alcuni moderni riprendere in questa parte 1' antico, dicendo li Panni esser sechi; ma quando li vogliono far grassi, in loco di pieghe fanno trippe; et in loco de panni tavole;e quando tal hora vogliono ocultare 1' ignudo riducono le figure, che non si sa che cosa si siano... ." 145. These tendencies are extremely pronounced in Finelli's contemporary bust Michelangelo Buonarroti il Giovane, CasaBuonarroti,Florence;see Antonia Nava Cellini, "Un tracciato per l'attivita ritrattisticadi Giuliano Finelli," (Arte)131 (Nov. 1960): 9-30. Paragone 146. Huse (as in n. 124), 330. is one of the castsof antique sculpturesincluded in Willem 147. The Urania van Haecht's 1628 painting ThePicture van derGeest, Rubens of Cornelis Gallery House, Antwerp;see Haskell and Penny (as in n. 4), 35. On the statue, see in the Preserved Henry StuartJones, ed., A Catalogue of the AncientSculptures vol. 2, TheSculptures MunicipalCollections of Rome, of thePalazzodei Conservatori was included in Perrier's (Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1926), 20-21. The Urania 1638 Segmenta nobilium (as in n. 129), pl. 74. The inventory of the collection of the painter Carlo Maratta includes "Una statueta in piede, copia dell'Urania modellata dal Fiamengo di creta cotta";see David L. Bershad, "The Newly Discovered Testament and Inventories of Carlo Marattiand His Wife Francesca," di BelleArti,n.s., 25-26 (1985): 82. Antologia 148. Passeri, 108 n. 2. 149. Boselli, fols. llv, 45v; see also p. 80 n. 39. 150. Ibid., fol. 78v, p. 81 n. 50. 151. On this sculpture, see Haskell and Penny (as in n. 4), cat. no. 22. The statue is now in the Musei Vaticani, Galleria dei Candelabri.Although the sculpture is not securely identified in the documents, it is very likely that the Ceres waspart of CiriacoMattei'scollection, protected in his will of 1610. Peter Paul Rubens drew the statue; see John Rowlands, Rubens:Drawingsand exh. cat., British Museum, London, 1977, 32, cat. no. 19. Boselli Sketches, mentioned the Mattei collection in the Osservazioni but did not cite any
specific works; Boselli, fols. 12, 15, 45v, and Weil's note on pp. 96-97. Nebendahl (as in n. 11), 121-22, has called attention to a similar antique statue represented in the Galleria Giustiniani. See also the engraving of a draped female statue identified as a Ceres from the garden of Vincenzo Giustiniani near the Porta Flaminia in Sandrart, 1675-79, vol. 2, pt. 2, pl. "o." 152. Wolfgang Helbig et al., Fiihrer durch die offentlichen Sammlungen klassi-
92
ART BULLETIN
MARCH
2002
VOLUME
LXXXIV
NUMBER
scherAltertiimerin Rom, 4th ed., 4 vols. (Tiibingen: Wasmuth, 1963-72), vol. 1, 447.
153. Rubens addressedthis issue in his essay"De imitatione statuarum"; see Justus Muller Hofstede, "Rubensund die Kunstlehre des Cinquecento: Zur Deutung eines theoretischen Skizzenblattesim Berliner Kabinett,"in Peter Paul Rubens, exh. cat., Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Kunsthalle Koln, Cologne, 1977, vol. 1, 53; and Wolfgang Stechow, Rubensand the ClassicalTradition (Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress, 1968), 26. Naturalismis also a characteristicfrequently emphasized by Sandrart(Naturlichkeit) in his discussion of Duquesnoy's art. 154. Wittkower (as in n. 26), 275, located the source of Duquesnoy's inspiration instead in the female types found in Domenichino's frescoes in the choir of S. Andrea della Valle. The few young women depicted in these frescoes that are comparable to the Saint Susanna are spectators in the which bear, Flagellation of Saint Andrewand Saint Andrew Adoringthe Cross, however,only a general relation to Duquesnoy's sculpture. Domenichino, of course, formulated his art in part through his own study of the antique. On these frescoes, and Domenichino generally,see Spear (as in n. 16), vol. 1, cat. no. 88, and vol. 2, pls. 266-303; and the recent catalogue Domenichino, 1581-1641, exh. cat., PalazzoVenezia, Rome, 1996. 155. On Milizia,see below at n. 191. 156. On the Crouching see Phyllis Pray Bober and Ruth Rubinstein, Venus, Renaissance A Handbook Artistsand AntiqueSculpture: of Sources(New York: HarveyMiller, 1986), cat. no. 18. The London statuewassold to CharlesI and sent from Mantua to London in 1631; while it was still in Mantua, the sculpture was studied by Rubens. It is possible that Duquesnoy knew of the Venus through his early contact with the circle of Rubens at the royalcourt in Brussels,and it is also possible that he visited the collections at Mantua.The first life-size marble sculpture that he produced in Rome was a seated (or See Bellori, 288; and Passeri, 103-4. crouching?) Venus. 157. See above at n. 39. 158. Haskell and Penny (as in n. 4), cat. no. 88. 159. See, for example, Sandrart (as in n. 41), 16. 160. Spear (as in n. 16), vol. 1, cat. nos. 43, 42. 161. On the painting, see Pierre Rosenberg, entry in Nicolas Poussin,15941665, exh. cat., GaleriesNationales du Grand Palais,Paris, 1994, 191-92, cat. no. 37. Charles Sterling noted Poussin's and Duquesnoy's use of this facial type, which he characterizedas Hellenistic, around 1630; see Sterling, "Un nouveau tableau de Poussin,"Pantheon 33 (1975): 224. 162. ASR, APSF, Mandati Pag.ti, vol. 14 (1632-34), n.p.: "... per haverlo preso del piu biancho e piu fino che si trovi come si puo vedere nell opera." 163. For example, see the contract of Cardinal Aldobrandini quoted in Montagu (as in n. 89), 25. 164. Bellori, 300; on this extraordinary work,which has not yet been traced, see Lingo, 53-56; MariaGraziaPicozzi, "Una collezione romana di antichita tra XVIIe XVIIIsecolo: La raccoltaVitelleschi,"Bollettino d'Arte 68 (1993): 71, 73; and idem (as in n. 12), 38 n. 165. Weil noted Bellori's statement without comment in her discussion of Vitelleschi's collection; see Boselli, 103. 165. The letter, dated April 17, 1640, was first published by Bellori; see Bellori, 302. Hess initially doubted the letter's authenticity, but he later softened his position toward the document, which has been generally accepted. See Hess, 1967 (as in n. 11), 129-31,137. For analysisof the letter, see most recently Pietro Paolo Rubens, Lettere italiane,ed. Irene Cotta (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1987), 490; PietroPaolo Rubens(15771640), exh. cat., Palazzo della Ragione, Padua, 1990, 242; and Gerhard Wiedmann, "La tomba di Ferdinand van den Eynden di Duquesnoy e la scultura nello spirito di Rubens,"in Rubensdall'Italiaall'Europa, Atti del condi studi, Padova,24-27 maggio1990, ed. Caterina Limenvegnointernazionale tani Virdis and Francesca Bottacin (Vicenza: N. Pozza, 1992), 75-88, with further bibliography. 166. For an overviewof the events surroundingDuquesnoy'srecruitmentby the French crown, see Lingo, 16-19. 167. Sandrart,1925, 331. 168. Ibid. 169. For the bust in the KunsthistorischesMuseum, Vienna, see Leo PlaPublikaStatuetten, niscig, Die Bronzeplastiken: Reliefs,Geratenund Plaketten, tionen aus den Sammlungen fur Plastik und Kunstgewerbe,4 (Vienna: A. Schroll, 1924), 215, cat. no. 342; andJulius von Schlosser, Werke derKleinplastik in derSkulpturensammlung desA. H. Kaiserhauses (Vienna:A. Schroll, 1910), 16, pl. XLI. For that in the Skulpturengalerie,Berlin, see Ursula Schlegel, Die italienischen Bildwerke des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, Die Bildwerke derSkulpturenvol. 1 (Berlin:BruderHartmann, 1978), 169-71, cat. no. 57, with Berlin, galerie furtherliterature.Fransolettracedback to at least 1673 the gilded bronze bust of Saint Susannain the Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Copenhagen; see Franin Denmark solet, 105, 183; and Harald Olsen, ItalianPaintingsand Sculptures (Copenhagen: Munksgaard,1961), 106 (not illustrated). Schlegel noted that the two examples of the bust formerly in the Berlin private collections of
Oscar Huldschinsky (published in Paul Cassirer and Hugo Helbing, Die Sammlung Oscar Huldschinsky [Berlin: P. Cassirer, 1928], 144-45, fig. 102, pl. Lxriv)and Robert von Mendelssohn (published in Ausstellung von Kunstwerken des Mittelalters und der Renaissance aus Berliner Privatbesitz veranstaltet von der KunstgeschichtlichenGesellschaft20 Mai bis 3Juli 1898 [Berlin, 1899], pl. xxxI, no. 4) are now lost. Fransolet, 106, 183, also noted a version of the bust
formerlyin the collection of A. von Lanna, Prague, sold in 1909 in Berlin to a private collector. 170. Sandrart,1675-79, vol. 2, bk. 2, pl. "qq"; and also idem (as in n. 41), no. 65. 171. Earlyin the 20th century,Georg Sobotkacalled attention to a number of free variantsof the bust of SaintSusanna,some of which Fransoletrightfully considered to bear very little relation to Duquesnoy's statue; see Sobotka, "Frans Duquesnoy," in Thieme-Becker, vol. 10 (Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1914), 190; and Fransolet, 105-7, 183. Fransolet did accept a small bronze female head formerly in the collection of G. Auriti as a variant of the Saint Susanna,but as ElisabethDhanens later argued, this sculpture appears more closely related to other worksby Duquesnoy;see Dhanens, "Tweeongekende Werkenvan Fransdu Quesnoy te Rome," Gentse TotdeKunstgeschiedeBijdragen nis 14 (1953): 251. 172. Hess noted several 17th-centurysculptures that were influenced by for the Duquesnoy's Saint Susanna:Giovanni Antonio Mari's Saint Barbara cathedral of Rieti, dated to 1657 and designed by Bernini; Giuseppe Peroni's SaintEugeniain the crypt of SS. Apostoli; and Vincenzo Felici's SaintAgnesin the Pantheon; see Passeri, 108 n. 2. These statues-to which others might be added-depend on Duquesnoy's sculpture to varying degrees; only Peroni attempted to imitate Duquesnoy's manner of carving.Passeri, 317, reported that Peroni took Duquesnoy'sstatue for his model. The SaintBarbara and the SaintEugeniaare reproduced in Bacchi (as in n. 74), pls. 541, 681. 173. Domenico de Rossi, Raccoltadi statue antichee moderme.... (Rome, 1704), pl. 161. 174. Anatole de Montaiglon and Jules Guiffrey, eds., Correspondance des de l'Academie directeurs de Francec Romeavec les surintendants des batiments, 18 vols. (Paris:Charavay Freres, 1887-1912), vol. 9, 236-37, no. 4010; see Boris Lossky,"LaSainte Suzanne de Duquesnoy et les statuairesdu XVIIIesiecle," RevueBelged'Archeologie et d'Histoire de l'Art9 (1939): 333. 175. Nicolas Wleughels to the duc d'Antin, Mar. 23, 1736, in Montaiglon and Guiffrey (as in n. 174), vol. 9, 238, no. 4012. 176. Francois Souchal, "La collection du sculpteur Girardon d'apres son inventaire apres deces," Gazette desBeaux-Arts, 6th ser., 82 (1973): 1-98. 177. Wleughels to d'Antin, Apr. 11, 1736, in Montaiglon and Guiffrey,vol. 9, 244, no. 4017. 178. Ibid., 376, no. 4187, 381, no. 4200. 179. Lossky(as in n. 174), 333, citing a manuscriptinventoryof 1754 in the ArchivesNationales de France, no. 1965. After the Revolution, the statue was moved to the gardens of St-Cloudand given the new apellation of Melpomene, the Muse of tragedy.Although Coustou's statue is inscribed "Esculp.a Gme Coustou filio ex autore dito il flamingo anno 1737,"by the mid-19th century the sculpture's relation to Duquesnoy's statue had been forgotten, and "il flamingo"was thought to refer to Anselme Flamen. In 1872, following the siege of Paris, the statue was moved to a cellar at Versailles, where it was recognized by Losskyand Gaston Briere in 1936. After Lossky'srediscoveryof the sculpture, it was moved to a niche on the Escalier des Princes, where it remained until 1991, when it was put into storage in the GrandesEcuries;see Boris Lossky,"Descendancede la SainteSuzanne de FrancoisDuquesnoy dans desBeaux-Arts, 6th ser., 127 (1996): 114-15. l'art classique,"Gazette 180. In ThePainter's Studio,Duquesnoy's statue (as well as a cast of one of van den Eyndenin S. Maria Duquesnoy's putti for the Epitaphof Ferdinand dell'Anima, Rome) is arranged with casts after the antique and Giamboloas models for the painter's art. On ThePainter's Studio, gna's Rapeof theSabine in the gallery of the Akademie der bildenden Kfinste in Vienna, see in derGemdldegalerie derAkademie der MargarethePoch-Kalous,Pierre Subleyras bildende Kiinste in Wien(Vienna:Rosenbaum, 1969), 19. On TheAttributes of the Arts, in the Musee des Augustins, Toulouse, see Pierre Rosenberg et al., 1699-1749, exh. cat., Musee du Luxembourg,Paris,and Accademia Subleyras, di Francia,Rome, 1987, cat. no. 14; and Lossky (as in n. 179), 117. 181. On Farsetti and his collection, see P. Frausin, "II museo di Filippo Triestino 52 (1992): 441-58; Krzysztof Farsetti,"Archeografo Pomian, Collectors Paris and Venice,1500-1800, trans. Elizabeth Wiles-Portier and Curiosities: and Painters: (Cambridge:PolityPress, 1990), 212-13; FrancisHaskell, Patrons A Studyin theRelations in theAgeof theBaroque, between ItalianArtand Society rev. ed. (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1980), 361-64; and P. Preto, entry in Dizionariobiografico degliItaliani (as in n. 74), vol. 45 (1995), 182-84, with further bibliography. 182. The confraternityvoted to permit the casting of the Saint Susannaat their meeting ofJanuary 14, 1753;ASR,APSF,Decreti di Congregazione,vol. 10 (1738-55), fol. 189. The records of interventions related to the Saint Susanna preserved in the volumes of the Decreti di Congregazione were compiled by a 19th-centuryarchivistin a manuscriptbooklet entitled "Notizie diverse tratte dai Libri delle Congni. intorno alla Statua di S. Susanna esistente nella nostra Chiesa."The booklet waslabeled at that time as item no. 30 in box "A." MarcantonioColonna's assistanceto Farsettiis mentioned in the Decreti di Congregazione, vol. 11 (1756-82), fol. 314, entry for meeting of
July 12, 1781. In this document, Colonna is described as Maggiordomo Colonna in 1753 and later cardinal. This must refer to the Roman-born Marcantonio Colonna (1724-1793), who was maggiordomo from 1743 and cardinal from 1758; see I. Cotta Stumpo, entry in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (as in n. 74), vol. 27 (1982), 383-85. This same document refers to "Abate Farsetti"; Filippo Farsetti took minor orders in his youth and received
FRANCOIS
DUQUESNOY'S
SAINT
SUSANNA
93
the tide "abate." Most of Farsetti'scastswere made by the Bolognese sculptor BonaventuraFurlani. 183. After the casting, the statue may have been moved to the niche over the door to the bell tower, that is, the niche farthestfrom the altar on the left side of the chapel as one faces the altar,directlyopposite the statue's original niche. This door no longer leads to the bell tower, now accessible only from the exterior of the church, but to the 20th-centuryChapel of the Madonna di Loreto. The confraternityevidently arrangedfor the finger to be repaired in 1755; see ASR, APSF,Decreti di Congregazione, vol. 10 (1738-55), fol. 239, for meetings of April 16 and May8, 1755, when the confraternityresolved to make the repair, and, ibid., fols. 241-42, for a meeting ofJuly 30, 1755, when it was noted that the repair had been accomplished. At all three of these meetings, the statue was identified only as the "statuasopra la porta del Campanile."The damage that occurred during the casting for Farsettiwas detailed in the meeting of July 12, 1782, Decreti di Congregazione, vol. 11 (1756-82), fol. 314, on which see below. Benedetti, 70, dated the statue's move to the opposite niche to 1755 based on a misreading of "dito"as "sito" in the statement he quoted from the meeting of May8. It is evident from the record of the April 16 meeting, however, that the sculpture was already in place above the door to the bell tower;if the SaintSusannawas in fact moved, this would most likely have occurred following the completion of the 1753 casting. It is possible, however, that the statue to which the confraternity members referred in these entries was not the Saint Susanna,as believed by Benedetti and the 19th-centuryarchivist (see n. 182 above), but the Saint Flavia Domitilla,the statue that originally occupied this niche and whose extended fingers have suffered breaks still visible today. 184. See LeticiaAzcue Brea, La escultura en la RealAcademia deBellasArtes de San Fernando y Estudio)(Madrid:Real Academia de Bellas Artes de (Catalogo San Fernando, 1994), 187-88, cat. no. E-214. The statuette is just under 39 inches high. 185. Leroy's statue was identified in the 1930s in Czechoslovakiaby Marguerite Devigne; see her "P.-F.Leroy, sculpteur namurois," Les Beaux-Arts (Brussels),no. 200 (Apr. 10, 1936): 20-21, and also Boris Lossky,"Une Sainte Christineproche de la Sainte Suzanne de FrancoisDuquesnoy (Lettresde nos 3d ser., 64 (1936): 259-60. An lecteurs)," Revuede l'ArtAncien et Moderne, inventoryof 1758 by the French Academyin Rome lists an unfinished marble copy of the Saint Susannaby Leroy; see Montaiglon and Guiffrey (as in n. 174), vol. 11, 226. On Leroy, see Denis Loze, ed., 1770-1830: Autourdu en Belgique, exh. cat., Musee Communal des Beaux-Arts neo-classicisme d'Ixells, Brussels, 1985, 61-64, 396-97. 186. Lossky (as in n. 174), 334-35; and idem (as in n. 179), 116. 187. ASR,APSF,Decreti di Congregazione, vol. 11 (1756-82), fol. 210. At the meeting on September 25, 1773, the confraternityresolved to commission a new marble sheathing for the altar of the Chapel of the Magi and "on the dellastatuamettervi base of the statue to put the name St. Susanna [nel zoccolo il nomeS. Susanna ... ]." The planning for redecoration suggests that the
placement of the Saint Susannain the Chapel of the Magi was then new. In addition, in the entry for the meeting of July 12, 1781, the statue was described as having been moved to the chapel during the time that Cardinal Stoppani served as cardinal protector of the confraternity;see ibid., fol. 314. CardinalGianfrancescoStoppani was elected cardinalprotector in June 1766 (see ibid., fol. 120), and served in that capacityuntil his death on November 18, 1774. June 1766 is thus a terminus post quem for the relocation of the statue. 188. On this commission, see A. M. Koldeweij, "De loden beelden van Francesco Righetti voor Welgelegen te Haarlem,"Bulletinvan de Koninklijke Nederlandse Bond(KNOB) 82 (1983): 1-24. Righetti's lead cast Oudheidkundige of the SaintSusannawas readyfor shipment to Haarlem in October 1782; the cast's present location is not known. 189. ASR,APSF,Decreti di Congregazione, vol. 11 (1756-82), fol. 314. In this document the sculpture is described as in the chapel facing the Chapel of the Crucifix,which is the Chapel of the Magi;the location of the statue within the chapel is designated as "in altare." Strangely, the statue is called "S. Agnese" in the entry, but the references to Farsettiand Righetti indicate that it was the SaintSusannato which the confraternitymembers referred. Recalling how Farsetti had secured permission to cast the statue by obtaining a papal order through the intervention of Maggiordomo Colonna, the confraternitymembers this time sought the assistanceof their cardinalprotector in forestalling Righetti from obtaining such an order. 190. Montaiglon and Guiffrey(as in n. 174), vol. 14, 222-24, no. 8247. Well into the 19th century, the confraternityupheld its cautious policy regarding casts of the Saint Susanna,denying permission in 1851 to Leopoldo Malpieri to cast a bust of the statue for the use of the "Academy of New York"; see ASR, APSF, Decreti di Congregazione, vol. 15 (1836-54), fol. 479, meeting of September 5, 1851. It seems to have been between 1867 and 1871, during the extensive restoration of the church directed by the marble carver Luca Carimini, that the Saint Susannawas returned to the choir, to the middle niche on the left side as one faces the altar, where the statue remained until very recently. On this restoration, see Benedetti, 72-75; on the recent relocation of the statue, see n. 104 above. 191. Francesco Milizia, Dell' artedi vedere nelle bellearti del disegnosecondo i principiidi Sulzere di Mengs (1781; Venice: Avisopli, 1823), 19: "Ha della venusta nel tutto insieme. Il viso e di bella forma, ma con qualche pienezza nella parte superiore delle guance. La situazione della gamba sinistrarisente qualche stento. La drapperiab una delle meglio intese tra le opere moderne, ma inferiore di molto alle predette antiche. Questo lavoro e piuttosto un' apparenza che una sostanza di gusto antico. L'espressione e una dolcezza di santa, comprehensibile da' santi." 192. Ibid., 24, 18. vol. 10, Der Cicerone 193.Jacob Burckhardt, Gesammelte Werke, (Basel: B. Schwabe, 1959), vol. 2, 97. 194. Wittkower(as in n. 26), 272-75.

"The Greek Manner and A Christian "Canon": François Duquesnoy's "Saint Susanna""

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

"The Greek Manner and A Christian "Canon": François Duquesnoy's "Saint Susanna""

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Greek Manner and a Christian "Canon": Franois Duquesnoy's "Saint Susanna" Author(s): Estelle Lingo Source: The

2 Duquesnoy, Mercury. Vaduz, Collections of the Prince of Liechtenstein

9 Farnese Flora. Naples, Museo Nazionale (photo: Alinari)

The Vatican, Musei Vaticani (photo: Alinari) 11 Mattei Ceres.

13 Greek coin with head of

17 Gianlorenzo Bernini, Saint Bibiana. Rome, S. Bibiana (photo: Alinari)

Frequently Cited Sources

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi