Tl lli. B‘s-"RI .| NCJTON .-'\-\,'—\('JAY_I M".
Re-viewing
Re-Viewing the 'Divine' Guido
Author(s): Richard E. Spear and Guido Reni
The Burlington Magazine,
Magazine, Vol. 131,
131, No. 1034
1034 (May,
(May, 1989),
1989), pp. 367-372
Source: The
Published by: Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.
http://www._jstor.org/stable/883893
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/883893
19-03-2016 12:35
12:35 UTC
Accessed: 19-03-2016
Your use
use of
of the
the JSTOR
JSTOR archive
archive indicates
indicates your
acceptance of
of the
the Terms
Terms &
& Conditions
Conditions of
of Use,
Use, available
available at
at http://www.jstor.org/page/
http://WWW.jstor.org/page/
Your
your acceptance
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR
use, and
JSTOR is
is aa not-for-profit
not-for-profit service
service that
that helps
helps scholars,
scholars, researchers,
researchers, and
and students
students discover,
discover, use,
and build
build upon
upon aa wide
Wide range
range of
of content
content
in aa trusted
trusted digital
digital archive.
archive. We
We use
use information
information technology
technology and
and tools
tools to
to increase
increase productivity
and facilitate
facilitate new
new forms
forms of
of scholarship.
scholarship.
in
productivity and
For
For more
more information
information about
about JSTOR,
JSTOR, please
please contact
contact [email protected].
support@j stor.org.
Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is
is collaborating
collaborating with
with JSTOR
JSTOR to
to digitize,
digitize, preserve
preserve and
and extend
extend access
access to
to The
The Burlington
Magazine.
http://WWW. jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org
This
This content
content downloaded
downloaded from
from 130.240.43.43
130.240.43.43 on
on Sat,
Sat, 19
19 Mar
Mar 2016
2016 12:35:52
12:35:52 UTC
UTC
All
All use
use subject
subject to
to JSTOR
JSTOR Terms
Terms and
and Conditions
Conditions
Exhibition Reviews
Ito—viewing the ‘Dioine’ Guido
BY RICHARD E. SPEAR
GUIDO RENI was the most famous and successful painter of
seventcenth-century Italy, Caravaggio and the Carracci notwithstanding. This immoderate claim can be justified by weighing
the competitive demand for his art, the high status ofhis patrons,
the unprecedented prices paid for his paintings as they were
sold and then re-sold on a secondary market, the laudatory
critical response to his work, and his very widespread influence
on other artists. Although his reputation declined under the
spell ofthosc nineteenth-century critics who saw affectation and
insipidity rather than ‘sincerity’ in his imagery, modern scholars
have re—cstablished his standing ,, but only to a certain extent;
for Reni‘s refined, often intensely spiritual art still remains distanced from the taste of many contemporary viewers.
A large body of Reni’s work was seen together for the first
time in the ground-breaking exhibition organised in Bologna in
1954 by (lesare Gnudi and Gian Carlo Cavalli, who subsequently
published the first detailed monograph on the artist (1955).
Previously, Otto Kurz’s fundamental research (1937, Italian
translation in Atti e memorie, 1988, cited below) had clarified
many aspects ofReni’s career, though only with the appearance
of Edi Baccheschi’s remarkable L’O/iem timn/Jletu di Guido Rani
(1971) and Stephen Pepper’s more recent monograph (1984,
Italian translation with Appendix, 1988) were efforts made to
provide a complete catalogue 01‘ the paintings and their bewilderingly numerous versions. Pepper’s study was preceded by
an outstanding, and unfortunately still unpublished, dissertation
by Gatherinejohnston on Reni’s drawings (1974), as well as by
an important exhibition ofthe drawings which greatly benefited
from johnston’s thesis, organised at the Albertina by Veronika
Birke (1981). The indispensable foundation ofall ofthis modern
scholarship is the extraordinarily rich and sensitive life of the
painter written by Carlo Cesare lV'lalvasia, the learned Bolognese
biographer who knew the artist personally and who collected
data from Reni’s own records and friends. As lVlalvasia’s ou‘e
have themselves been the subject of recent art—historical study,
with results generally affirming the biographer’s reliability, an
unusually solid foundation has been laid over the course of the
past few decades for re—assessment ofReni’s career.
Such an opportunity has been provided, though not fully
exploited, by the exhibition of eighty paintings attributed to
Reni that was conceived by Scott Schaefer and opened last
October in Bologna, then travelled, reduced to forty-seven
loans, to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; it is now
48. 7V/zeJutlgementofSolomon, by Guido Reni. 142 by 100 cm. (Private Collection;
cxh. Bologna, Los Angeles, 1"ort\\i"orth).
exhibition prompted and partly fed in to Guido Rani um] Europa in
Frankfurt (reviewed by lV’lichael Itevey in the February issue),
an ambitious and more provocative show devoted to Reni’s
impact on seventeenth- and eighteenth—century European painting that reflects recent German interests in [{ezeplionltgeir/zic/zte.
It included forty-two pictures associated with Reni himself,
mostly mature or late works (fourteen of which had been shown
in Bologna),'2 sixty—eight of his drawings,“ and a selection of
reproductive prints (see below for notes on the paintings). Still
another exhibition, entitled Guido Rout und der Reproduktiousslic/L,
organised by Veronika Birke in Vienna,4 drew heavily upon the
Albertina’s rich holdings of Reni’s original prints and those after
his paintings. Finally, Seiwulo: [e tier/e z/e (I'uruouge dam [es collections
I/ranruixes (reviewed by Hugh Brigstockc in the December 1988
issue), included seven paintings by Reni from French provincial
museums.
Thus over the course of the past few months there was an ex—
ceptional opportunity to study and compare the great majority
of Reni’s most important easel paintings, and to rethink issues
of chronology and workshop replication. Ilere attention will be
focused on the exhibition that opened in Bologna and travelled
to the United States, first through briefdiscussion ofits catalogue
and some wider matters, and secondly through consideration of
the individual loans, whose significance effectively compensates
for the lack of conceptual issues behind the project. Andrea
Emiliani is to be congratulated in overcoming the many obstacles
that threatened the viability of the exhibition, including the
potential conflict ofintcrcst because a dealer was closely involved
in the project (this problematic issue is discussed below) and a
controversy that resulted in the compromise to publish Sir Denis
Mahon’s briefIntroduction in the Italian version ofthe catalogue
and Charles Dempsey’s essay only in the English edition.
At the outset, the principle was to exhibit only Reni’s best,
autograph works, rather than new or problematic attributions
'Bologna, 5th September-10th November 1988; Los Angeles, 11th December
1988»th February 1989; Fort Worth, 11th March-14th May 1989.
231 illit'ltdg/ from S. iVIaria della Concezione, Rome, and Lucretia from Potsdam
were not in the end lent (see A15 below),
JVeronika Birke selected and catalogued all of the drawings, which included
two unpublished sheets (NosBQQ, B39), and one newly attributed to Reni (B35).
The drawings cannot be considered within the scope of this review, though
attention should be called to an article by Federica l’api and Emanucla Zicarclli
(in the special issue of Am e memorie discussed below) on a large group of quick
sketches attributed to the young Reni illustrating the life ofSt Philip Neri.
AGraphisehe Sammlung Albertina, 15th September»l3th November 1988 (I
did not see this exhibition).
on view at the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth.1 The
367
This
This content
content downloaded
downloaded from
from 130.240.43.43
130.240.43.43 on
on Sat,
Sat, 19
19 Mar
Mar 2016
2016 12:35:52
12:35:52 UTC
UTC
All use
use subject
subject to
to JSTOR
JSTOR Terms
Terms and
and Conditions
Conditions
All
EXHIBITION
REVIEWS
generous space was allotted to the exhibition at Fort Worth,
where the paintings especially came to life against the gently
daylit travertine walls
The English and Italian editions of the catalogues, as well as
the German and Italian versions of the Frankfurt catalogue,
were all handsomely printed by Nuova Alfa Editoriale,6 which
has become one of Europe’s foremost publishers in art history
under the dedicated leadership of Maurizio Armaroli. For the
Bolognese-American project, a group offour essays precedes the
catalogue proper, which is divided into five chronological sections,
each having its own biographical Introduction. Only the Italian
edition has an extensive documentary—bibliographical Regii‘tro.
There also is a lengthyforlunu critica, an anthology of historicalcritical response to Reni’s work.
The first of the essays, by Scott Schaefer, is an attempt to
capture Reni’s personality, “to recreate from the existing evidence
the man behind the material results ofthe activity ofhis painting’.
Malvasia’s vita ofReni is recounted in a useful and clear fashion,
but with scant effort to go much beyond the biographer’s words.
The long essay that follows, by Andrea Emiliani, is a wide—
ranging, provocative discussion ofReni’s life and stylistic development. It is a classic example of the kind of Italian criticalhistorieal writing that constitutes Longhi’s widespread legacy,
and is quite unlike most Anglo-Saxon art history in its broad
cultural generalisations and literary conceits. Emiliani, too, sug—
gests that ‘the pictures of Guido Reni seem, more than those of
other artists, to coincide with, or at least project themselves
into, the highly informative and vivid narrative of his life’.
Finding that ‘it is difficult to discern around Guido the kind of
panoramic context that art historians have often ingenuously
adduced when they mix the specific significance of the art with
other more tangible social, economic, or political material’,
49. The Yiium/Jn ofjob, by Guido Reni. 415 by 265 cm. (Notre Dame, Paris;
exh. Bologna and Frankfurt).
that were not ofthe highest quality. While that idea was eventually
compromised to some degree, the visual effect of the show in
Bologna was stunning. All phases of Reni’s career were well
represented, particularly the last years, when the artist’s palette
lightened, his brushwork broadened, and numerous pictures
remained unfinished. The American public unfortunately was
deprived of some of the most significant and beautiful loans, a
few ofwhich were too large to travel, though others were sent to
Frankfurt instead, including the magnificent Triumph ofj'ol)
from Notre Dame in Paris (Fig.49), Alolonto and Hippomener
from Naples, and the ‘Cuppuccini’ Crucifixion from Bologna. The
galleries of the Pinacoteca Nazionale in Bologna could not
accommodate the entire exhibition as well as the smaller ‘promostm’ oflate Cinquecento Bolognese painting and Reni’s earliest
work that opened last summer in the Museo Civico and remained
on ViCW;5 nor could they allow a strict chronological hanging,
given their physical restrictions. Reni’s development 7 from the
time he joined Denis Calvaert’s shop c.1584, through his study
with the Carracci 01594-98, to his subsequent independence in
Bologna and Rome and death in 1642 7 was more clearly laid
out in Los Angeles where Philip Conisbee’s intelligent installation
did much to alleviate the absence ofimportant loans. The most
“Doll’avanguurdia dei Carmcci al 565010 burocco. Bologna 1580-1600, july-November,
l988. Although much of the material in this exhibition had been seen before,
the opportunity of studying the Fifleen mysteries oft/lo Rosary from San Domenico
was particularly worthwhile. Among the essays in the catalogue, Mario Fanti’s
provocative discussion of mysticism in Bologna c.l600 merits special notice.
Armanda Pellicciari’s contribution on Reni‘s shop is now superseded by her
more detailed article in .‘ltti o memorie (cited below).
“(mi/i0 Rr'ni 1375-1642. 233 pp. + 8? col. pls. + numerous b. &. w. ills. {Nuova
Emiliani believes that ‘far too much has been made of Guido’s
purported ivory tower’. He argues instead that ‘Reni himself
swung back and forth between an ideological Roman classicism
and the more contained Stoic and Senecan sevoiilus of his major
patron and friend, the moralist Virgilio Malvezzi’.
It is impossible here to summarise Emiliani’s many sensitive
and challenging views on Reni’s career, whether with regard to
attributions, chronology, stylistic influences, patronage, or religion.
I will note in passing only my agreement with him that Reni
painted the Crowning wit/i Thorns at S. Colombano in Bologna,
the most important fresco from the artist’s early career, which
Pepper rejects (some other matters are discussed in the notes on
individual paintings below). Instead, I should like to direct
attention to just two themes that unite Emiliani’s essay with
Schaefer’s and those by Charles Dempsey and Ezio Raimondi
that follow it: the artist’s personality and his literary milieu.
Artistic style, in Emiliani’s analysis, was a motivating force in
its own right, the actual causation of many of Reni’s actions
rather than just its result. Thus, Reni’s behaviour is often explained
by Emiliani as an effort to safeguard style, to ‘proceed in whatever
style pleased him . . . the entire idea ofmaking style the measure
and basis of a composition was something totally new, and it
would be a dominant consideration throughout the 1620s’. Moreover, tOwards the end ofhis career, when ‘the procedures ofthe
imaginative process manifest themselves in terms of line and
color’, for Reni, ‘style itselfbecomes the protagonist of the act of
painting’.
This interpretation of the artist and conception of the act of
painting rests on Emiliani’s fundamental beliefthat Reni’s work
was created ‘to celebrate the eye’s primacy in the organization
Alfa Editorale, Bologna, 1988) Lit/10,000; Guido Reni 1575-1642. 367 pp. +
80 col. pls. + 33 b. & w. ills. (Nuova Alfa Editorale, 1988), £37.50. ISBN
88—7779—053—9. The English edition of the catalogue includes some, but not all,
ofthe loans that were seen exclusively in Bologna; hence there is no way to gain
from it an accurate sense of the original exhibition, nor is the reader told that
some entries were re-written (see the discussion below). Inevitably there is
much repetition between the catalogues; Mahon’s Introduction and Raimondi’s
essay are reprinted verbatim in the catalogue for Frankfurt.
This
This content
content downloaded
downloaded from
from 130.240.43.43
130.240.43.43 on
on Sat,
Sat, 19
19 Mar
Mar 2016
2016 12:35:52
12:35:52 UTC
UTC
All
All use
use subject
subject to
to JSTOR
JSTOR Terms
Terms and
and Conditions
Conditions
EXHIBITION
of the world’. Charles Dempsey’s and Ezio Raimondi’s approaches
are entirely different, since there words, not images, are primary.
Raimondi provides an excellent summary of ‘Literature in Bologna
in the Age of Guido Reni’, without any pretensions to link
writing ~ and its hard-fought controversies regarding the poet
Marino’s style e with painting, other than by noting that literature
was widely integrated into the intellectual climate of Bologna,
and that some of the attitudes expressed by Matteo Peregrini,
Giambattista Manzini, and especially Virgilio Malvezzi, whom
Reni knew personally, occasionally paralleled Reni’s views.
Surprisingly little attention is given to the florid encomia written
in praise of Reni’s art, no doubt because Raimondi sees the
authors ofthose poems as having ‘adopted the “monstrous pen”
of the encomiastic display-piece and its parade of tantalizing
and teasing elegances’ in the tradition of demonstrating poetic
ingegno. Most of the poets in any case reached maturity only
during Reni’s last years, which compromises their potential significance for the painter’s attitudes. What is more, Malvezzi’s
theory regarding the dichotomy of the senses and the intellect,
despite his catholic taste, hardly favours the operational mode
ofReni’s art, which first and foremost is optically based.
Raimondi nonetheless suggests that Malvezzi and Reni shared
a ‘modern frame of mind’ that guided them ‘in their separate
yet profoundly related inquiry into the nature and actions of
their fellow human beings’. The essay by Charles Dempsey
explores that similarity by arguing for a commonality of‘imaginative techniques’ and ‘artistic thinking’. There is much to
ponder in his analysis, including his remarks regarding Reni’s
dual link to the ‘absolute’ beauty ofmoniera theory and the more
‘natural’ vision of the Carracci and reformist art; and regarding
Reni’s ‘hermaphroditic’ union ofMichelangelesque ‘masculine
idealism’ with Lombardic ‘feminine color and sentimentality’.
The real problem with any literary approach to Reni’s art, in
my View, is that Malvasia makes it perfectly clear that the
painter was not cultivated. On the contrary, his education
seems to have been deficient, probably because he dropped out
of school at an early age to join Calvaert’s studio. NIalvasia
specifically relates that Reni read so very little that it damaged
him as a history painter. He spelt so poorly that the biographer
chose to paraphrase his letters rather than transcribe them.
And Malvasia further reports that Reni preferred the company
of simpletons to that of the learned. Hence, to see the meaning
of Reni’s art as parallel to Cesare Rinaldi’s verses, as Dempsey
does (and as Pepper had, considerably earlier ~ his views pass
unmentioned), or as analogous to lVfalvezzi’s complex writings,
as Raimondi suggests, blurs the deep educational and intellectual
division between Reni and these highly cultivated poets, who
were profoundly theoretical, and who were writing for one
another , whose art, that is, was catalysed by different forces
and directed to significantly different kinds of audiences. One
alternative approach would be to consider Reni’s imagery in
light of late Cinquecento religious thought in Bologna, the
place of mystical experience in that society, and Reni’s own
devotion and visions.
This leads back to Schaefer’s and Emiliani’s essays and to a
second problem — the need to confront Reni’s personality headon. I for one am convinced that there is a large measure of truth
in Malvasia’s explanation of the relationship between Reni’s
pathological gambling and his late style. But that is only the
surface layer of the artist’s personality and neuroses, which
needs to be peeled away if we hope to understand his erratic
behaviour 7 from his arrogant rebellion against authority which
had wide—ranging consequences for his career, to his addiction
to gambling, and its effect on his style, shop procedures, and
marketing strategies, to his visions and devotion to the Virgin
and the phenomenal success tis religious icons, and to his fear
of women and probable homosexual orientation and their relationship to his imagery. I agree with Dempsey’s conclusion
that ‘male and female are locked together in an eternally fateful
struggle’ in Reni’s art, but I propose that psychological rather
REVIEWS
than literary methods of inquiry are much more likely to yield
fruitful results in analysis ofReni’s career.
The catalogue entries were mostly written by a team ofItalian
scholars in the Soprintendenza at Bologna, a few being contributed
by Stephen Pepper. They do not meet the scholarly standards
of recent comparable projects, including the exhibition in Frankfurt, whose catalogue is much richer. The entries tend to be
discursive and overwritten, but above all they lack essential
historical data regarding provenance, preparatory drawings,
related versions and copies, bibliography, etc. (see, as one example,
the remarks under No.23 below). This deficiency seems to stem
chiefly from the mistaken assumption that Pepper’s monograph
already provides the necessary information. As a result, the
entries make only rare advances over that erratic catalogue.
The biographical Introductions and the Regislro in the Italian
edition, all compiled by Stephen Pepper, significantly supplement
the documentary-chronological summaries published in the exhibition catalogue 011954, in Gnudi and Cavalli’s monograph,
and in Pepper’s own book, but the data are not consistently
handled: sometimes they are transcribed, sometimes they are
only summarised. More problematic is the tendency to state
without reservation that a given painting is the one cited in a
certain document, even though a tight provenance cannot be
established. As a consequence, these valuable sections of the
catalogues must be used with caution. A document of interest
that has slipped through the modern literature might be added.
On 27thjune, 1642, Reni wrote to Carlo Ridolfi, thanking him
for ‘the book you kindly sent me’, i.e., Ridolfi’s oita of the
‘oalentissimo Tintoretto’. Evidently Reni had been asked to send
to Ridolfi notes on some of his own paintings, a task that he
delegated to ‘un mio amico amatore di pittura’. But death overtook
the artist six weeks later, depriving him of the opportunity of
being ‘onorato dello sua [Ridolfi’s] penna’.’
Death notwithstanding, extravagant praise came from many
quarters, tinged at first only with some reservations regarding
Reni’s skill as a history painter, his ‘weaker’ late style, and his
immoderate gambling. Reni’s fall, like that of his Bolognese
colleagues, came in the mid-nineteenth century. Robert Erich
Wolf has provided a very rich selection of three centuries of
critical comments on Reni’s life and art, all newly translated by
him. For anyone interested in Reni or the history — and subjectivity
e oftaste, it provides fascinating reading, from Nfalvasia’s extra—
ordinarily perceptive discussion ofReni’s style to the early French
appreciation of Reni’s grdce to Goethe’s disgust with paintings
that have ‘never a proper action, never anything to do with our
own times. . . .’ The nineteenth century provided the most
colourful responses, ranging from Stendhal’s love ofthis ‘French
soul if ever there was one’, to Ruskin’s hatred of the ‘false, feeble,
fallen’ artist, to John Addington Symonds’s provocative oneliner: ‘He wearies us with his effeminacy’.
In general, it must be said that the catalogue fails to address
some of the most interesting and neglected issues concerning
Reni’s career, including his relationships both with Antique art
7‘G.0.F.’: Per [6 aurpicatissime nozze Longari-Ponzone—Pelizzoni, Treviso [1869],
unpaginated. As this pamphlet is very rare, I transcribe Reni’s letter published
m it:
Bologna, [i 27 Giugno 1642
Rondo molle grazie (1 VS. per il [ii/7o che mi ha fez/07in) mundane. E (erlo, the [a
eccellmtirrima penna di VS. hafallo degnirsima elezione. Sam quarto un perpetuare il name
do! oalenlirrimo Tintorelto: e tori come é 5mm degnammte gradito do coderto 2555150 Sonata
[on publim munifirenza, tori in ogni luogo ram sempre [audata lajolica, e la vim) di VS.
persuadendola aproroguire ii rimanente delle vite, dalle quali no rirevemmm gli .ttudiosi utile
e dilello. Io mm mam/zero difarle mpitare, poirhé tori .ri rompiace, [a 710t di alcune mie
pitture per rertm onoralo della .tua penna: e di gid ho pregato 1m mio amico amalore di
pittum afarmi querto [)iacero, [he [)oi do me, o do lui [e rare inviata. In tanto mi eribisco a
VS. servitoie, e desideioro di Scrivorle in tutlo quello che mi conorce atto, e (01 desidemrle
ranita‘, e lung/iirrima vita, [e bacio [e mam} e rioerirro [’Eccellentirr. I’igheti‘i.
Deootirr. Servo
Guido Roni
369
This
This content
content downloaded
downloaded from
from 130.240.43.43
130.240.43.43 on
on Sat,
Sat, 19
19 Mar
Mar 2016
2016 12:35:52
12:35:52 UTC
UTC
All
All use
use subject
subject to
to JSTOR
JSTOR Terms
Terms and
and Conditions
Conditions
EXHIBITION
50. Dotti/l om/
Golial/z, attributed
to Guido Reni.
174-.5 by 133 cm.
(Fondation Rau,
)Iarseilles;
exh. Bologna,
Los Angeles,
Fort Worth).
and his immediate contemporaries, such as Albani and Domenichino; his studio organisation and practice; his interpretation of
Christian stories; his still—problematic ‘second manner”; and his
personality. The catalogue of the Frankfurt exhibition is more
probing in all ofthese matters. Likewise, a special issue (No.22,
1988) of the newly—revived Alli e memorie of the Accademia
Clementina, Bologna, which appeared in conjunction with the
Italian exhibition, makes more substantial contributions. Among
other articles devoted to Reni, it includes a valuable account of
Reni’s shop by Armanda Pellicciari andJohn Spike’s important
publication of the artist’s recently-discovered death inventory,
which has the unusual distinction ofrecording names ofpatrons
for whom works had been begun, many ofwhich can be identified
today. And it decisively confirms N’lalvasia’s account of Reni’s
late studio practices by listing copy after copy of paintings of
Cleopalra, judil/z, Sl Cecilia, Europa, etc., as well as numerous
works categorised as abboz/zi. It also cites hundreds ofdrawings,
including two in pen and wash for the ‘laoola (lei Gesuili cli Roma’,
which I propose must have been for Reni’s late (unfulfilled)
commission to decorate the high altar ofS. Ignazio.8
The exhibition in Bologna was unfortunately marred by the
inclusion ofdealers’ and ‘privately owned’ pictures of dubious
authenticity. For instance, a Penilenl .Magllalen exhibited in
Bologna and Frankfurt (No.52 and No.Al9, respectively) is a
weak copy, not even from Reni’s shop, of the original formerly
in the Almagia Collection, which also was on view in Bologna
and Frankfurt (No.51; A18). No one with whom I have spoken
RI am grateful to John Spike for providing me with a copy of the inventory in
advance ofpublication. 'l'he altar-piece for S. Ignazio would have been ofgreat
importance for bringing to Rome Reni’s late style (Pepper overlooked the
project in his monograph, but has added reference to it in the documentary
Registro in the Italian version ofthe catalogue, under 1637-42).
"Many pictures from just two dealers, seldom of primary importance, were
shown in Painting in Naplet [60611705,f7'om Caravaggio lo Giordano, which was
organised by a London dealer and shown at the Royal Academy (1982) and
then the National Gallery in Washington. An American dealer was the chief
force behind a society that organised Still Life Painting from Three Centuries
(1983), which circulated to three tax—exempt American institutions. It included
many works lent by a Swiss dealer with whom the American dealer often
collaborates. Both American and European institutions lent to Lam/scape l’aialing
in Rome, [595-1675 (1985), which was organised as a ‘benefit exhibition’ for the
European Paintings Department ofthe Metropolitan Museum ofArt and given
further lustre through a ‘Consultative Committee‘ of scholars (as a matter of
principle I refused to be listed on that committee); this exhibition was held in
the dealer’s showrooms and contained many pictures from his own stock,
catalogued blindly as “private collection' and interspersed with the other loans.
REVIEWS
thought otherwise upon seeing the two pictures, for they are of
such vastly different quality and technique. The former was even
exhibited in Frankfurt as ‘uac/i Guido Reui (9)”. It is privately
owned, and now has the ‘imprimatur’ ofthe Bologna exhibition
and citation in the English catalogue as an ‘autograph work’. It
is also included as an original in the Appendix of the Italian
edition of Pepper’s monograph, wherein there is an unsuccessful
effort 7 as Sybille Ebertchifferer recognises in her entry for the
Frankfurt catalogue . to twist the documents in order to make
them fit the ‘new’ version rather than the ex-Almagia original.
(The argument regarding dimensions is irrelevant since there is
a strip added onto the top ofthe ex-Almagia canvas; the copy is
based on the original before it was enlarged.) That Appendix is
peppered with pictures in the trade classified as ‘originals’ of
‘maggior rilieoo” that, in my opinion, are of very low quality
indeed. Not only is the Appendix a lamentable disservice to the
reputation ofthe artist, but a pall inevitably falls over all of the
privately—owned pictures lent to Bologna, regardless of their
quality.
The cataloguing or re-cataloguing _ of Sl Apollonia (No.34
[No.27 in the English edition, lent by Richard Feigenl) makes
such problems even more manifest. In the Italian edition Francesca Valli describes an unevenness in its execution, speculating
therefore that the picture might be ‘uua buona replica lli bollega’. It
is ofsecondary relevance that I tend to agree with herjudgment.
What is ofprimary concern is that Valli’s entry was withdrawn
and replaced in the English catalogue by an abbreviated version
written by Pepper, wherein one is told that ‘the refinement in
the handling . . . demonstrates beyond any doubt its autograph
nature’ and that Reni ‘devoted his personal attention to this
autograph replica’ W without even mentiong Valli’s published
opinion.
These problems are not unique to the Reni exhibition,g but
they do raise with particular force the general issue of whether
commercially owned works ofart should be catalogued and dis—
played in exhibitions organised by public museums. In my view,
they should be excluded unless they are crucial examples of their
kind and cannot be replaced with others entirely divorced from
the trade. Large sums of money may be at stake and inclusion in
an exhibition inevitably lends the aura ofinstitutional sanction.
Such problems are greatly exacerbated if scholars with commercial interests are closely involved in an exhibition’s organisation.
Although significant progress has been made since 1954 in
defining Reni’s authentic aauzo‘e, which necessitates wrestling
with the slippery problem of what the artist himself considered
to be an ‘original’, the daunting task ofestablishing a convincing
calalogue raisouue’ is far from complete. The recent exhibitions
hopefully will serve as a catalyst towards that goal, regardless of
whether or not one agrees with Roger de Piles’s judgment that
‘it must be admitted that [Reni’s] genius was not such as could
treat all sorts ofsubject equally well’. Reni was no Poussin when
it came to history painting, nor was he a Domenichino. But, as
de Piles further recognised, and as the paintings exhibited in
Bologna and Frankfurt fully prove, Reni was incomparable in
‘subjects with pathos and those that are devout . . . nobility,
sweetness, and grace were the traits ofhis spirit’.
”(Violas on llle ealalogue
The following notes on the paintings exhibited in Bologna, Los Angeles, Fort
Worth, and Frankfurt are directed to problems ofstyle, attribution, and dating.
They are arranged chronologically according to the numbers of the Bolognese
and Frankfurt catalogues (references to the English version of the former catalogue
appear in square brackets). The pictures exhibited in Frankfurt, all of which
were thoughtfully catalogued by Sybille Ebert-Schill‘erer, bear numbers prefixed
by the letter A, as they do in their catalogue.
2 [2]. It might be attractive to identify this H00 Family with St John the Baplisl
with the lost youthful fresco of ‘uaa Beala Vergine’ cited by M alvasia, but it
would be imprudent to accept the attribution without considerable caution. On
370
This
UTC
12:35:52 UTC
2016 12:35:52
Mar 2016
19 Mar
Sat, 19
on Sat,
130.240.43.43 on
from 130.240.43.43
downloaded from
content downloaded
This content
Conditions
and Conditions
Terms and
JSTOR Terms
to JSTOR
subject to
use subject
All use
All
EXHIBITION
REVIEWS
stylistic grounds I see no evidence of Reni’s hand in this work based on designs
by Calvacrt; moreover, the crucial link with IVIaIvasia’s text seems tenuous,
since he presumably would have known the original in suburban Bologna and
not so radically confused its subject.
3. God thejather blessing. Despite the documentary evidence in favour of this
newly-discovered panel, it curiously has few stylistic links with Reni’s works
that are securely datable to the 1590s.
5 [4]. There appears to be little reason for assigning the Virgin and Child with
Sis Catherine and Hyarinth to Reni, unless something from his hand lies beneath
the unpleasant surface we now see. I believe that conceptually and stylistically
it is more allied with the generation ofpainters like GB. Ramcnghi (Bagnacavallo
junior) than with Reni, despite its Carraccesque features. Pepper‘s entry for this
picture in the trade is very misleading in stating categorically that it is the work
‘mentioned by IVIalvasia’ in the Fioravanti Collection: no evidence of provenance
is given to support that assertion, there would be a chronological conflict with
IVIalvasia’s remarks if this were a picture by Reni after 1595, and it lacks the
puttini that Malvasia"s text implies might have been present in the Fioravanti
painting,
7 [3A]. Emiliani‘s important discovery of the archaistic Judgment o/‘Salomon
mentioned by Malvasia as in the casa Gaggi (Fig.48) significantly adds to our
knowledge of Reni’s juvenilia (it could, I believe, precede by a few years the
proposed date of 1595—96). Gauche in design, dramatically weak, and deeply
indebted in its figural elegance and affectation to Parmigianino‘s art, it already
reveals Reni’s penchant for suppressing the brutality of horrible actions. It also
supports the artist‘s candid self-appraisal that his first efforts were uninspired,
and that only ‘incessant study and persistent toil’, not precocious talent, were
necessary ingredients for his later success.
10 [6]. Francesca Valli could be correct in speculating that Denis Mahon’s
St Francis consoled by a musical angel was painted in Bologna prior to Reni‘s departure for Rome. Her detailed discussion in the Italian catalogue was replaced in
the English edition by Andrea limiliani’s entry, where the more commonlyaecepted later dating, 1606-07, is supported instead.
11 (A2). Ebert-Schifferer speculates that this charming, little-known Rest on
{Ifeturnfrom’} theflight into Egypt (Fig.51) could be a picture cited in 1603 in the
Aldobrandini Collection. While that link is far from solid, 1 agree with her
preference for placing it some years prior to ‘1607-08‘, the date suggested by
Pepper in the Italian edition ofhis monograph.
l2 [7] It would be prudent to await cleaning of Sts Peter and Paul before
deciding on its date. (Cleaning also will bring out details in the background, such
as the vine, which refers to John 1525-6). I nonetheless suggest, provisionally,
that it is considerably later than c.1605 and that it is not a ‘Caravaggesque’
picture at all; the bold, fluid handling of paint is entirely unlike that of the
early, self-consciously Caravaggesque David in the Louvre (No.14 [9]) and is
closer instead to that ofLot and his daughters (22 [17]) from about a decade later.
In his review of Pepper’s m011()g1‘21p1’1,JOI-IN GASH questioned the early dating of
this picture (‘Succcss and Failure, ofClassicism’, Art History, IX [1986], p.520).
16 [II]. The closest analogy to Dazrid and Goliath (Fig.50) is the splendid
tlfartyrdom of St Catherine in Albenga (No.13), which shows Reni grafting a
Caravaggism similar to Saraceni‘s onto his hybrid style ofthe maniera (even ifin
this case one is reminded much more of Orazio Gentileschi‘s David in the
National Gallery ofIrcland). But here the graft did not take, assuming that this
much-restored picture is cis. Despite close affinities with his work (in the
landscape) and some recently discovered sketches attributed to him, there is an
unusual lack of figural unity and grace, mostly because of the disjuncturc
between the Renicsquc David and the uncharacteristically still, awkwardly
sprawling Goliath. The insistent, harsh, unbroken sheen on the armour is unlike
the way Reni typically modulates reflections on metal, in which variegated
brushwork and reflections create an effect where light and atmosphere are one.
18, I9 [13, 14]. The third ofthe detached frescoes from S. Maria dci Servi,
representing Carlo Borrameo, was also cleaned on the occasion of the exhibition
but it was not shown; surprisingly, it appears to me to be by a studio hand.
20 [15]. There is no ‘proof' that this remarkably subtle portrait depicts
Reni’s mother, as tradition holds, but the evidence is stronger than the catalogue
suggests. Foremost is the physiognomic likeness with the wonderfully sensitive
portrait of Reni by Cantarini (No.1 [1]). Contrary to what is written, the
widow’s costume might bc‘appropriate, even though it is true that Ginevra
Pozzi remarried Matteo Muratori in 1595 (not 1600 as stated in the catalogue),
i.e., eighteen months after her first husband had died. Evidence of Muratori’s
death remains to be documented, but he was certainly no longer with his wife
when she died, aged seventy—five, in 1630. If this is a portrait of her, it probably
belongs to the 16205 rather than to the previous decade (Gnudi and Cavalli,
Emiliani, Mahon) or the subsequent one (Kurz, Pepper). I am indebted to
Silvia Campanini for clarifying on my behalf archival data regarding Reni’s
family. Muratori’s presence in Bologna is traceable at least up until 1605, when
he received a payment for his stepson (who was absent in Rome) for a second
painting in the cloistcr at San Michele in Bosco (the money was returned in
1611 because Reni never completed the project). His name does not appear in
the Bolognesc Libri dei morti for the years before 1630, the date Ginevra Pozzi
died. Since he is unmcntioncd in the notice of her death and she is not cited
there as a widow, Muratori had possibly died many years earlier, outside
Bologna.
23 [18]. This St Sebastian in the Palazzo Rosso, Genoa, is perhaps a good
studio replica (cleaning is needed before a firmer judgment can be reached).
No mention is made, in the entry of the identical composition in the Museo
Capitolino, Rome, which was rejected by Pepper (1984) and is now known, on
51. Rest on the
flight into Egypt,
by Guido Reni.
Oil on copper.
28.5 by 21.5 cm.
(Coombs
Collection,
London; exh.
Bologna and
Frankfurt) .
the basis of a collector‘s mark on the back of the canvas, to have belonged to
Cardinal del Monte. The recent cleaning of the Roman painting, like its
provenance, supports its autograph status and likely priority over this version in
Genoa. Pepper (1988), Appendix No.18, accepts the del Monte picture now,
but he omits reference to the essential publication: M.E. ’I‘I'l‘TONI MON”: ‘11 “San
Sebastiano” di Guido Reni ne11a Pinacoteca Capitolina’, lia/lettino (lei .Musei
Comuna/i diRoma, XXIV (misprinted as XXIII) [1977], pp.64—69.
24 [19]. I studied the St Sebastian in the Louvre and this version from the
Prado only a day apart and feel confident that the one in Paris, not Madrid, is
from Reni’s hand. Most telling is the way the loin—cloths are painted, though
the handling of the figures also differs; in the picture in Paris the fabric is
brushed with a uniform fluidity that seems structural, while in this version the
paint is inconsistently applied, often superficial and even wobbly as it forms
pleats over the right hip.
26 [20]. I favour placing Samson earlier than the ‘(Jappueeini‘ Crucifixion
(No.25;A7), as many authors have done in the past (in his essay, Iimiliarli
prefers c.1612), rather than at the very end of the 1610s as this catalogue and
Pepper suggest. Samson does not have the breadth of handling, the strongly
contrasted greys and pinks in the flesh, or the sculptural vigour of the works
approaching 1620 (it is especially revealing to compare Samson with the figure
ofStJohn in the Crucifixion, which, as is recognised in the Frankfurt, but not the
Bologna, catalogue, is now documented to 1619). Samson is more delicate,
linked conceptually with the Aurora; stylistically it is closer to the fresco of San
Domenieo completed in 1615 than to the series of boldly executed paintings of
Hercules of 1617—21 (Nos.30—33 [23-26]; A5). In the Frankfurt catalogue, Pérez
sanchez suggests that Samson may have been painted before Pedro Orrentc left
Italy to return to Spain (August 1611), but the compositional parallel that
supports the argument is not decisive. Surely Emiliani is right to interpret
Samson as a serious tonretto rather than a ‘stzherza’ 7 Pepper’s reading for this and
other paintings by Reni.
27 [21], 28 (A6). The exhibition in Bologna included both versions of the
famous Atalanta and Hippumenes. As recent opinion holds, the painting from the
Prado seems superior, but the one in Naples has excellent passages and should
not be dismissed as a routine copy. It probably is a studio product, conceivably
retouched by ci himself Drawing upon Marc Fumaroli’s reading of the
image in Christian—allegorical terms this recent article in the I’estrtzhrifl for
Andre Chastcl, 1987, is not cited in the Bolognesc catalogue), l‘lbttrt—Schiflcrer
argues, on the basis of the commission and possible iconographic link with
Fcrdinando Gonzaga, that the picture in Naples nonetheless must predate the
version in Spain.
30—33 [23-26]; (A5). The documents published by Braghirolli, contrary to
the view repeated in the Bologna and Frankfurt catalogues, do not establish the
sequence of work on the Hercules series; by inference, it seems likely that
[ferrules on the [lyre was finished first, but there is no further information regarding
the order of completion. Birkc discusses the iconography of the series and its
possible relationship with the patron, Ferdinando Gonzaga (in Frankfurt, under
Nos.B37-42); she also publishes for the first time a full compositional study for
Hereules and At’helaus’ (No.1339).
35, 36 [28, 29]. St ll/Iatthew and St Luke are perhaps by two hands, as their
differently coloured grounds would indicate. Only the former is on Reni’s usual
warm, reddish—brown ground; the latter is painted on a cooler, grcyish ground.
Even so, without an opportunity ofdirect comparison, I hesitate to accept that
St lMatthew is necessarily autograph or superior to the fine, version in the Vatican.
38 (A8). David and Abigail surely is a copy, in my view not even from Reni’s
battega, which the catalogue suggests it is.
371
This
UTC
12:35:52 UTC
2016 12:35:52
Mar 2016
19 Mar
Sat, 19
on Sat,
130.240.43.43 on
from 130.240.43.43
downloaded from
content downloaded
This content
Conditions
and Conditions
Terms and
JSTOR Terms
to JSTOR
subject to
use subject
All use
All
EXHIBITION
A9. This little-known version of the widely-copied Lucretia is problematic,
despite its quality. The discrepancy between the loosely brushed fabrics and the
finely finished hands seems atypical of Reni, all the more so when this picture is
compared with the strikingly different Cleopatra from Potsdam (A16), which is
unquestionably autograph and purportedly not many years later.
All. Although the authenticity of this version of Judith and IIolofernes is
difficult to judge because ofthe severe abrasion the canvas has suffered, I find
few indications ofReni’s probable responsibility for it. l‘lbert-Schiiferer provides
a very rich discussion of the various problems. One of them, the question of the
picture’s Spanish provenance and ofcopies ofthe composition in Spain, remains
to be clarified; when it is, account should be taken of an unrecorded copy in the
great mosque (Mesquita) of Cordoba, where Judith’s sandals correspond with
those in the copy (Prado) that Juan Carrefio de Miranda made of the picture
then in the royal collection, rather than with this version.
A15. Because cleaning of Lucretia in Potsdam was not completed in time for
the exhibition in Frankfurt, a privately-owned replica ofit was shown instead.
The wall label was generous in describing it as ‘eine sehr gute Werkstattkopie’, but
that is closer to the mark than Pepper’s opinion that it is an original.
44 [36]. Dating ofthe Charity from the Palazzo Pitti has long been problematic;
in my view it is from the later 1610s, when Reni’s art contains uncanny parallels
with certain Neapolitan work both in morphology and coloration (compare
the left hand ofCharity with hands in Cavallino’s paintings).
45 [37]. The brilliantly painted figure ofRoberto Ubaldini and the sumptuous
fabrics are compromised only by the prosaically described architectural background, which must be by a studio assistant (cf.Nos.47 [39] and 62; A29 below,
which are from approximately the same period ofReni’s activity).
46 [38]. When cleaned, this little-known Cleopatra promises to become one of
Reni’s colouristic masterpieces, worthy of comparison with the Immaculate Conception in New York (No.50; A20), the Abduction ofIIelen in the Louvre, and one
of the revelations of the exhibition, St Andrea Corsini in Florence (No.55 [44]),
whose extraordinarily beautiful combination of radiant purples, silvery greys,
salmon red, and golds has emerged through recent cleaning.
47 [39]. Documents now settle the dating of Christ consigning the keys to St Peter;
it was completed by 1626 rather than sometime in the 1630s. That the back—
ground initially was closed off by an arcuated wall is unmentioned in the
catalogue (the large pentimento is visible even in photographs); nor is there
citation of Malvasia’s report that, for architectural backgrounds such as this,
Reni relied on the assistance ofG. M. Tamburini (he painted the closely allied
background ofthe Triumph ofJob, No.62; A29).
49 [40]. I have studied the Venus and Cupid (‘Il diamante’) in the Toledo
Museum of Art when it was acquired, in the context of Reni’s work in the
exhibition, The Age of Correggio and the Carracci, and now amidst other surely
authentic pictures from the mid-1620s. On none ofthose occasions has it seemed
to me to be by the hand of the master, which might account for the anomalous
‘signature’ (the only comparable inscribed name and date, on the destroyed
version ofthe Portrait ofRoberto Ubaldini, No.45 [37], is also suspect). I think that
it is a studio product, lacking both Reni’s structure of form and suppleness of
fabrics. Should, in fact, this be the ‘original’ that Reni sold, then the jeweller
who bought it seemsjustified in having felt that he paid too high a price for it.
53 [42]. The energetic St John is convincing as Reni, but I suspect that the
softly modelled, relatively flaccid Christ is by an assistant, perhaps Francesco
Gessi (see, e.g., his Christ in the Garden ofGethsemane in the Pinacoteca Nazionale,
Bologna), who . probably not by coincidence . had been working for the same
Neapolitan patron.
56 [45]. Many versions ofthe Head ofChrist have been attributed to Reni, but
the entry for this copper in Detroit does little to sort them out by category or
quality. The one referred to in Rome, for example, which is identical in design
and accepted by Pepper as autograph is, in my opinion, a replica from the shop
and inferior to the copper in Detroit. The widely imitated Head of Christ from
the Louvre that was exhibited in Frankfurt (No.A35) is surely autograph.
A21. This version of the youthful St Cecilia in the Norton Simon Foundation
is not an autograph replica from c.163U—32 but a routine copy. To judge from
photographs, another version published by Pepper in the Italian edition of his
monograph is no more convincing.
A22. Major additions to all edges of the canvas 0f the Girl with a rose grossly
falsify its design (the entire parapet, e.g., is a later invention).
A23. Pepper (1984) cleverly recognised this fragment as being from a lost
Rape ofEuropa, which Ebert—Schiiferer convincingly dates in the early 1630s. To
judge from what survives, the original must have been ravishingly beautiful,
comparable even to the great Abduction ofIIelen in the Louvre.
A24. I believe that Pepper was right when he classified Erigone under the
rubric ‘studio version7 (1984) rather than when he upgraded it to the status of
an original (1988); the latter opinion is shared by l‘lbert-Schiiferer. The painting,
for me, lacks delicacy and subtlety, as does the supposed ‘cartoon’ for it on the
London art market, which Pepper accepts (1988). Both are feeble . not just
cool, but frozen 7 in comparison with the autograph and highly sensitive
drawing for the Toilet of Venus (exhibited in Frankfurt, No.B47), which itselfis a
studio picture. Erigone is excerpted from that composition.
62 (A29). The Triumph ofJob (Fig.49), one of Reni’s most ambitious and
complex designs, has been splendidly restored by ()ttorino Nonfarmale, whose
laboratory in Bologna cleaned fifteen of the paintings in the exhibition. The
REVIEWS
documents concerning this altar-piece, published by Gualandi in 1840, are
confusing, perhaps because oferrors oftranscription. It seems highly improbable
that the Arte della Seta gave Reni the commission as early as 1601 and waited
thirty—five years for the picture, as generally is assumed on the basis oqalandi’s
publication. Rather, the contract apparently dates from 1622, which is entirely
consistent with the style of the work. A further sign of a possible mix up in
Gualandi’s transcription is that the contract of 1622 specifies the identical fee,
3000 lire, as in the one purportedly of 1601. Reni is quite unlikely to have
agreed to the same payment twenty years later (in fact it escalated to 7500 lire).
Hence it is relevant to note, regarding the parallel proposed in the catalogue
between the dense crowd offigures surroundingJob and Reni’s early mural at
S. Michele in Bosco (cf.No.9), that the contract of 1622 specifically required
‘more than twenty—five figures, ofwhich ten are full—figures and somewhat more
than life—size’.
A31. See No.82 below.
A33. I fail to understand how the Woman with a lapis-lazuli dish (‘Artemisia’) in
Birmingham can be accepted as by Reni, c. 1638—39. Its hard features and pasty
turban have nothing of the characteristic delicacy and morbidezza of Reni’s Sibyl
(61 [49]) and Cleopatra (72; A36), both in the Mahon collection, which would
bracket this picture chronologically. Moreover, a Sibyl in the Spencer Museum
ofArt that probably is its pendant is not autograph either. Finally, it should be
noted that the canvas in Birmingham was prepared with a granular ground,
which, to my knowledge, would be extremely rare in any autographic work of
Reni’s.
69 [57]. Sir Denis Mahon’s version of the Rape ofEuropa has been dated
c. 1638-40 on the basis ofa letter from the King of Poland written on 3rd March
1640, in which a Europa by Reni is cited. On purely stylistic grounds, however,
the early to mid—1630s would have seemed more likely, given the distance
between the handling and coloration of this painting and others from the late
phase of Reni’s activity, such as the Cleopatra also in the Mahon Collection
(No.72; A36).
73 [60]. St Sebastian (Pinacoteca Nazionale, Bologna). The difference between
Reni’s late sketchy style and the abbozzi, the unfinished works, usually is quite
clear, though this important distinction often remains vague in the literature. If
John Spike is right, for example, in identifying the ‘S. Sebastiano non finito’ in
Reni’s death inventory with this canvas, then one must modify the statement in
the catalogue that it ‘unquestionably belongs’ to the group of works that ‘only
look unfinished because of their more vibrant brushwork and freer and more
immediate rendering’. Many parts of the painting, in my view, are unfinished.
The unexpected absence of arrows further argues for the picture’s incomplete
state.
A37. There conceivably is an original late abbozzo lying beneath this recently—
discovered Lucretia, but the heavy handling of the surface paint is surely not
Reni’s c.1638—39. It lacks the fineness and grace of the Cleopatra in the Palazzo
Pitti, whose dimensions and design it follows 7 too closely, in fact, to have been
conceived as a pendant to it (Pepper proposes such a relationship).
75 [62]. The Christ at the column in the Stadelsches Kunstinstitut, Frankfurt,
mentioned in this entry was attributed to Reni by Pepper, whose opinion I
followed in Domenichino (1982). Since then I have had an opportunity to study
the original, in which I can see little basis for the attribution.
77 [64]. Credit for discovery of this large St Jerome in the sacristy of the
Cathedral of Piacenza is due to Stephen Pepper. The striking similarities between
the angel here and the angel at the upper left of the Annunciation painted for
Maria de’Medici c.1628 (No.54 [43]) prompts caution in assuming that every
abbozzo by Reni must belong to his very final years, 1640-42. Could this be an
unfinished work ofthe mid-1630s instead? The unusual squiggly, zig-zag brush—
work on Jerome’s right leg is very similar to the brushwork on the right arm of
the central giant in the recently—cleaned Fall ofthe giants in Pesaro (A32), which
must predate 1639.
A39. Pepper’s classification of this [lead ofSt John the Evangelist reading as a
‘studio variant’ (1984) seems preferable to calling it an “original, unfinished late
work’ (Ebert—Schiflerer). In addition to what I see as uniform mediocrity in the
modelling of the heads, hands, and book, the extreme contrast between the
finished and unfinished portions of the canvas is quite atypical ofReni’s method
ofworking.
82. St Joseph with the Christ Child (Arcivescovado, Milan). If No.70 [58], is
autograph and from c.1638, it seems impossible to assign this painting of the
same subject to the same hand, at the same date (previously unpublished, it is
cited in documents of 1638). The bristly hatching of paint is very close to
Cantarini’s technique. Still another St Joseph with the Christ Child was exhibited
in Frankfurt (A31), which Pepper (1988) believes is Reni’s and ofthe same date
as No.82. They are identical in design, but quite different in execution. The
slickly modelled Christ Child in A31 is especially incompatible with Reni’s
work of the 1630s, and looks pastiched, as if based on Reni’s depictions of the
Child alone. In a further variation on this design in the Hermitage (Pepper,
1988, Appendix No.48), the Child raises an arm in recognition of Joseph.
Similarly, he is psychologically engaged with Joseph in the (partly studio)
version exhibited in Fort Worth (70 [58]).
[tors-catalogue (Fort Worth only). St James Major (Richard Feigen, New York).
I believe that this painting, which was recently sold at Christie’s (London,
9th December 1988 lot 13), is a very good studio replica.
372
This
This content
content downloaded
downloaded from
from 130.240.43.43
130.240.43.43 on
on Sat,
Sat, 19
19 Mar
Mar 2016
2016 12:35:52
12:35:52 UTC
UTC
All use
use subject
subject to
to JSTOR
JSTOR Terms
Terms and
and Conditions
Conditions
All
