.jpg?w=1)
拍品專文
The bronze figure of the Infant Christ offered here is a virtually unique masterpiece displaying the sensitive modelling, dynamic composition and highly finished surface most commonly associated with the work of Giambologna. Currently, only three other versions are known; of which two are probably 19th century casts (one in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, and one in the Cyril Humphris collection, London (2006 Giambologna exhibition catalogue, op. cit., p. 352, no. 4, Bode, op, cit., pl. CCIV and Sotheby's, New York, 11 January 1995, lot 79, respectively)). However, the third bronze which appears in a Medici inventory of 1619 and is now in the Bargello, Florence is of identical size, style, quality and finish to the present lot leaving little doubt that they were made by the same hand.
When Dhanens first recorded the Bargello Infant Christ she referred to it as (probably) being an autograph work by Giambologna and conceived in circa 1570 at the same time as he executed the Apollo for the Studiolo of Francesco I (loc. cit). In the 1978 Giambologna exhibition catalogue, however, Avery proposed that it is more likely to have been a bronze executed by Antonio Susini and possibly after a model by Giambologna (op. cit, p. 138, no. 93). A 1619 inventory quoted in the 2006 Giambologna exhibition catalogue perhaps provides the clearest indication of the authorship of the Fargello bronze; stating that tFere was in the 'stanzino di Madama… un san Giovannino piccolo di bronzo di rilievo, con una palla in mano, overo il Nostro Signore da bambino di mano del Susina' (Of interest, a little Infant Saint John the Baptist, in bronze, with a ball in his hand, or possibly The Infant Christ, by Susina) (op. cit., p.352, no. 4).
Although conceived on a different scale, Dhanens's juxtaposition of the Infant Christ model with Giambologna's Apollo in the Sudiolo provides a strong argument for his authorship of the former model. Consider for example the plasticity of the Apollo's contrapposto (ibid, pp. 221-2, no 30.), with the strongly defined 's' curve of the proper left side, the narrow, muscular shoulders, the protruding hip and long muscular thigh and calf. By imagining the Apollo compressed into the proportions of a child, one can see virtually the same modelling in the present bronze. Comparisons can also be made with the finer details; such as the rendition of the pot belly, the defined abdomen, genitalia and knee-caps, not to mention the colour of the bronze itself. Virtually identical comparisons can also be made with the babies in the Charity group and the smaller Cherubs executed by Giambologna in 1579 for the Grimaldi Chapel, Genoa (Avery, op. cit, p. 196, pl. 218 and p. 27, pls. 20-1). In the former group, the figure of the standing child is depicted in a heavily classical contrapposto pose, that mirrors that of the Infant Christ, and, as with the Cherubs, all are modelled with virtually identical facial features, hair style and anatomical details.
The Apollo and Charity group are clearly part of the same visual vocabulary as the bronze on offer here, but their conception on a larger scale and waxier detailing do make it harder to attribute the original small-scale model of the Infant Christs to Giambologna. Antonio Susini, who is the same Susina mentioned as the maker of the Bargello bronze, was one of the principal men working alongside Giambologna in the execution of bronzes for almost 20 years. He was principally known for his exceptional modelling skills, fastidious after-working and lively surfaces - attributes clearly seen on both the Infant Christ bronzes - but was also known for having created some original models.
Susini's creation of new compositions, while also appropriating Giambologna's style, is possibly one of the reasons why the authorship of such models interchange so much between the two artists. Two non-exhaustive, posthumous, lists of Giambologna's oeuvre compiled in 1611 and 1688, by Markus Zeh and Baldinucci, respectively, provide a secure corpus of models firmly attributable to Giambologna. There were, however, omitted models that other contemporary sources subsequently suggested were by him. This point might highlight a modern-day misunderstanding of Giambologna's oeuvre, and the fact that many of these models may have been omitted because they were original models by Giambologna's assistants who had become so expert in producing 'Giambolognaesque' compositions that the origins of their authorship had became uncertain. Examples of this are the figures of Ss John the Evangelist, Matthew and Mark the former two in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, the latter in the Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig (1978 Exhibition Catalogue, op. cit, nos. 113-5) all executed by Susini, but with only a tentative attribution to Giambologna as the author of the model.
One bronze that demonstrates Susini as being the creator of the model and the bronze is his autograph Virgin and Child in the Museum of Fine Arts, Texas (ibid, no. 92). Here one not only sees an original Giambologanesque creation, but also a bronze that is documented in a pre-1609 inventory as being di mano di Antonio Susini e sua inventione. All the obvious Susiniesque attributes are present here, but most significantly, Susini has virtually replicated the head, arm and torso of the Infant Christ bronzes in the Christ Child of this group. Virtually every detail in the modelling of the head, pectoral muscles, abdomen and arms are identical. Yet, it is entirely likely that Susini was looking at, for example, his Master's Charity group for the inspiration of these child figures or perhaps even the pose of the Risen Christ figure from the Altar of Liberty in San Martino (Avery, op,. cit, pp. 193-4, pls. 210 and 212).
What can be summarised through this, is that the attribution to Giambologna of the Infant Christ model can only be made in a very abstract way. Giambologna certainly created a number of small-scale studies of animals, children and people that bear compositional and stylistic similarities to the present bronze, but without a firm record of him having created an Infant Christ of these dimensions one cannot make absolute conclusions. What can be said with certainly, however, is that Susini, might well have been directly influenced by a Giambologna model for the creation of this bronze, but if not, he would certainly have been indirectly influenced after nearly twenty years of servitude to Giambologna.
When Dhanens first recorded the Bargello Infant Christ she referred to it as (probably) being an autograph work by Giambologna and conceived in circa 1570 at the same time as he executed the Apollo for the Studiolo of Francesco I (loc. cit). In the 1978 Giambologna exhibition catalogue, however, Avery proposed that it is more likely to have been a bronze executed by Antonio Susini and possibly after a model by Giambologna (op. cit, p. 138, no. 93). A 1619 inventory quoted in the 2006 Giambologna exhibition catalogue perhaps provides the clearest indication of the authorship of the Fargello bronze; stating that tFere was in the 'stanzino di Madama… un san Giovannino piccolo di bronzo di rilievo, con una palla in mano, overo il Nostro Signore da bambino di mano del Susina' (Of interest, a little Infant Saint John the Baptist, in bronze, with a ball in his hand, or possibly The Infant Christ, by Susina) (op. cit., p.352, no. 4).
Although conceived on a different scale, Dhanens's juxtaposition of the Infant Christ model with Giambologna's Apollo in the Sudiolo provides a strong argument for his authorship of the former model. Consider for example the plasticity of the Apollo's contrapposto (ibid, pp. 221-2, no 30.), with the strongly defined 's' curve of the proper left side, the narrow, muscular shoulders, the protruding hip and long muscular thigh and calf. By imagining the Apollo compressed into the proportions of a child, one can see virtually the same modelling in the present bronze. Comparisons can also be made with the finer details; such as the rendition of the pot belly, the defined abdomen, genitalia and knee-caps, not to mention the colour of the bronze itself. Virtually identical comparisons can also be made with the babies in the Charity group and the smaller Cherubs executed by Giambologna in 1579 for the Grimaldi Chapel, Genoa (Avery, op. cit, p. 196, pl. 218 and p. 27, pls. 20-1). In the former group, the figure of the standing child is depicted in a heavily classical contrapposto pose, that mirrors that of the Infant Christ, and, as with the Cherubs, all are modelled with virtually identical facial features, hair style and anatomical details.
The Apollo and Charity group are clearly part of the same visual vocabulary as the bronze on offer here, but their conception on a larger scale and waxier detailing do make it harder to attribute the original small-scale model of the Infant Christs to Giambologna. Antonio Susini, who is the same Susina mentioned as the maker of the Bargello bronze, was one of the principal men working alongside Giambologna in the execution of bronzes for almost 20 years. He was principally known for his exceptional modelling skills, fastidious after-working and lively surfaces - attributes clearly seen on both the Infant Christ bronzes - but was also known for having created some original models.
Susini's creation of new compositions, while also appropriating Giambologna's style, is possibly one of the reasons why the authorship of such models interchange so much between the two artists. Two non-exhaustive, posthumous, lists of Giambologna's oeuvre compiled in 1611 and 1688, by Markus Zeh and Baldinucci, respectively, provide a secure corpus of models firmly attributable to Giambologna. There were, however, omitted models that other contemporary sources subsequently suggested were by him. This point might highlight a modern-day misunderstanding of Giambologna's oeuvre, and the fact that many of these models may have been omitted because they were original models by Giambologna's assistants who had become so expert in producing 'Giambolognaesque' compositions that the origins of their authorship had became uncertain. Examples of this are the figures of Ss John the Evangelist, Matthew and Mark the former two in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, the latter in the Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig (1978 Exhibition Catalogue, op. cit, nos. 113-5) all executed by Susini, but with only a tentative attribution to Giambologna as the author of the model.
One bronze that demonstrates Susini as being the creator of the model and the bronze is his autograph Virgin and Child in the Museum of Fine Arts, Texas (ibid, no. 92). Here one not only sees an original Giambologanesque creation, but also a bronze that is documented in a pre-1609 inventory as being di mano di Antonio Susini e sua inventione. All the obvious Susiniesque attributes are present here, but most significantly, Susini has virtually replicated the head, arm and torso of the Infant Christ bronzes in the Christ Child of this group. Virtually every detail in the modelling of the head, pectoral muscles, abdomen and arms are identical. Yet, it is entirely likely that Susini was looking at, for example, his Master's Charity group for the inspiration of these child figures or perhaps even the pose of the Risen Christ figure from the Altar of Liberty in San Martino (Avery, op,. cit, pp. 193-4, pls. 210 and 212).
What can be summarised through this, is that the attribution to Giambologna of the Infant Christ model can only be made in a very abstract way. Giambologna certainly created a number of small-scale studies of animals, children and people that bear compositional and stylistic similarities to the present bronze, but without a firm record of him having created an Infant Christ of these dimensions one cannot make absolute conclusions. What can be said with certainly, however, is that Susini, might well have been directly influenced by a Giambologna model for the creation of this bronze, but if not, he would certainly have been indirectly influenced after nearly twenty years of servitude to Giambologna.