.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The attribution of the present model has been disputed since as early as 1927, when Leo Planiscig rejected Wilhelm von Bode's earlier ascription to Riccio, by suggesting the name of the little known sculptor and bronze founder Desiderio da Firenze (op. cit., pp. 401-403, fig. 426). Despite the fact that no further firm documents have surfaced to contribute to our understanding of the latter artist, the debate still continues.
This bronze figure of a satyr is a second example of a satyr from a two figure group which is today in the Musée National de la Renaissance, Ecouen. That group was originally acquired as a three figure group of two satyrs and a satyress in 1858 by Edouard Sommerard for the Musée de Cluny. However, by the late 19th century the curator Edouard Saglio had consigned it to the storerooms, no doubt uncomfortable about the overtly sexual nature of the figures.
In the early 1980s, Bertrand Jestaz discovered the group and was puzzled by the relationship of the three figures to each other. Upon close examination, he realised that the quality and facture of one of the satyrs and the satyress were closely comparable, but that the second satyr was of a different alloy, and markedly inferior in quality. It did not take long to realise that the second satyr was not part of the original composition, and that the correct configuration was distinctly more explicit (see illustration).
In a seminal article of 1983 (loc. cit.) Jestaz went on to attribute the group to the renaissance master Riccio, who included comparable satyrs on his celebrated Paschal Candlestick of 1507-1516 in the Santo in Padua. Comparisons were also made to other small bronzes figures which were universally accepted as being by Riccio, including a seated satyr drinking from a cup in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Leithe-Jasper, loc. cit.). The attribution was followed without reservation by Radcliffe, Blume, de Winter and Leithe-Jasper (Jestaz, op. cit, p. 163).
However, scholarship into the field of small Paduan bronzes continued and in 1998 Jeremy Warren sugggested a new attribution to Desiderio da Firenze in the form of a seated figure of Pan Listening to Echo in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. In his article (op. cit.), Warren also discusses a group of related bronzes which he thus attributes by extension to Desiderio as well. By the time of the exhibition Donatello e il suo tempo in 2001, the Ecouen group of the satyr and satyress mentioned above was included as a work by Desiderio, although this attribution was given a mixed reception.
The difficulty remains that the only documented work by Desiderio is the bronze Voting Urn of 1532, in the Museo Bottacin, Padua, which has only relief decoration and does not include an example of a satyr or even an adult figure. His oeuvre has been extended by the comparison of small motifs, and by the fact that he is known to have been in Padua toward the end of Riccio's career. It has therefore been suggested that Desiderio took over Riccio's workshop, or at least had close access to his models, and that he continued to produce these - and variations of them - over an extended period of time.
Most recently, Bertrand Jestaz has published an article which re-examines the larger circle of bronzes that has been given tentatively to Desiderio, and comes out in favour of attributing the Ecouen group to him (Jestaz, 2005, op. cit.). However he finishes the discussion by saying that the satyr and satyress bronze is of a level of quality so much higher than any of the other bronzes he includes in the article that he thinks the new attribution poses as many problems as it attempts to solve. He notes the fine hammering - which is evident on the present bronze satyr and is considered to be almost a hallmark of Riccio's - and concludes the discussion by wondering if it might not actually be a collaboration between master and apprentice (ibid, p. 165).
Despite the extremely high quality of the present bronze figure of a Rampant Satyr, it must be noted that there are subtle differences between it and, for example, the Seated Satyr in Vienna mentioned above. The torso is slightly narrower and more rounded, and the nipples are certainly more pronounced. In addition, the facial features are more exaggerated in the separate elements of the cheekbones, the nose and the furrowed brow. Conversely, it could be argued that one of the main characteristics of the bronzes now being attributed to Desiderio is that there is virtually no after-working, which is certainly not the case here. As with the satyr from the Ecouen group, the fur on the legs and the hair of the Beit satyr have been finely chiselled and the torso has been hammered extensively. This would seem to be in direct contrast to what is understood of the bronzes now being given to Desiderio.
Whether the present example is the product of an unrecorded 'mature' period of Riccio's career, or is the creation of someone working in his immediate orbit such as Desiderio da Firenze will no doubt continue to be a subject of debate until further documentation comes to light. Although there are subtle perceived differences from other bronzes by Riccio, the attribution to Desiderio must remain tentative considering what little evidence survives from the period. What remains constant is the satyr himself, symbol of the forces of nature and an iconic image for early cinquecento Paduan society with its high regard for classical antiquity.
This bronze figure of a satyr is a second example of a satyr from a two figure group which is today in the Musée National de la Renaissance, Ecouen. That group was originally acquired as a three figure group of two satyrs and a satyress in 1858 by Edouard Sommerard for the Musée de Cluny. However, by the late 19th century the curator Edouard Saglio had consigned it to the storerooms, no doubt uncomfortable about the overtly sexual nature of the figures.
In the early 1980s, Bertrand Jestaz discovered the group and was puzzled by the relationship of the three figures to each other. Upon close examination, he realised that the quality and facture of one of the satyrs and the satyress were closely comparable, but that the second satyr was of a different alloy, and markedly inferior in quality. It did not take long to realise that the second satyr was not part of the original composition, and that the correct configuration was distinctly more explicit (see illustration).
In a seminal article of 1983 (loc. cit.) Jestaz went on to attribute the group to the renaissance master Riccio, who included comparable satyrs on his celebrated Paschal Candlestick of 1507-1516 in the Santo in Padua. Comparisons were also made to other small bronzes figures which were universally accepted as being by Riccio, including a seated satyr drinking from a cup in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Leithe-Jasper, loc. cit.). The attribution was followed without reservation by Radcliffe, Blume, de Winter and Leithe-Jasper (Jestaz, op. cit, p. 163).
However, scholarship into the field of small Paduan bronzes continued and in 1998 Jeremy Warren sugggested a new attribution to Desiderio da Firenze in the form of a seated figure of Pan Listening to Echo in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. In his article (op. cit.), Warren also discusses a group of related bronzes which he thus attributes by extension to Desiderio as well. By the time of the exhibition Donatello e il suo tempo in 2001, the Ecouen group of the satyr and satyress mentioned above was included as a work by Desiderio, although this attribution was given a mixed reception.
The difficulty remains that the only documented work by Desiderio is the bronze Voting Urn of 1532, in the Museo Bottacin, Padua, which has only relief decoration and does not include an example of a satyr or even an adult figure. His oeuvre has been extended by the comparison of small motifs, and by the fact that he is known to have been in Padua toward the end of Riccio's career. It has therefore been suggested that Desiderio took over Riccio's workshop, or at least had close access to his models, and that he continued to produce these - and variations of them - over an extended period of time.
Most recently, Bertrand Jestaz has published an article which re-examines the larger circle of bronzes that has been given tentatively to Desiderio, and comes out in favour of attributing the Ecouen group to him (Jestaz, 2005, op. cit.). However he finishes the discussion by saying that the satyr and satyress bronze is of a level of quality so much higher than any of the other bronzes he includes in the article that he thinks the new attribution poses as many problems as it attempts to solve. He notes the fine hammering - which is evident on the present bronze satyr and is considered to be almost a hallmark of Riccio's - and concludes the discussion by wondering if it might not actually be a collaboration between master and apprentice (ibid, p. 165).
Despite the extremely high quality of the present bronze figure of a Rampant Satyr, it must be noted that there are subtle differences between it and, for example, the Seated Satyr in Vienna mentioned above. The torso is slightly narrower and more rounded, and the nipples are certainly more pronounced. In addition, the facial features are more exaggerated in the separate elements of the cheekbones, the nose and the furrowed brow. Conversely, it could be argued that one of the main characteristics of the bronzes now being attributed to Desiderio is that there is virtually no after-working, which is certainly not the case here. As with the satyr from the Ecouen group, the fur on the legs and the hair of the Beit satyr have been finely chiselled and the torso has been hammered extensively. This would seem to be in direct contrast to what is understood of the bronzes now being given to Desiderio.
Whether the present example is the product of an unrecorded 'mature' period of Riccio's career, or is the creation of someone working in his immediate orbit such as Desiderio da Firenze will no doubt continue to be a subject of debate until further documentation comes to light. Although there are subtle perceived differences from other bronzes by Riccio, the attribution to Desiderio must remain tentative considering what little evidence survives from the period. What remains constant is the satyr himself, symbol of the forces of nature and an iconic image for early cinquecento Paduan society with its high regard for classical antiquity.