.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The composition of the present lot is related to a marble figure carved by Giambologna – probably the most influential Mannerist sculptor - in the years 1580-1583, today known as the Cesarini Venus. A letter dated 28 July 1580 records that Grand Duke Francesco I de' Medici of Florence promised Giangiorgio II Cesarini, Marquis of Civitanova, that he would allow Giambologna, the most brilliant artist of his court, to undertake the carving of a marble statue for the Villa Ludovisi, Cesarini's palace in Rome, as soon as he had completed all his existing commissions (Wengraf in Seipel, op. cit., p. 118). On 9 April 1583 the Duke of Urbino’s ambassador Simona Fortuna wrote to the duke, Francesco Maria II della Rovere, stating that the sculptor then had the figure of Venus in hand (‘fra mano’), suggesting that the sculpture was then in the process of being carved (Radcliffe, 1996, op. cit., p. 60). Presumably completed in 1583, it was installed in the Villa Ludovisi. It eventually found its way to another Ludovisi property, the Villa Margherita, today the home of the American embassy, where it stands today.
Giambologna’s composition of the Venus, standing in a contrapposto position that can be viewed from any angle, has long been one of the sculptor’s most popular compositions, and small scale casts of it were produced in bronze to satisfy the demand among connoisseurs. The dating of this group of bronzes, and their relation to Giambologna’s marble figure, has long been the subject of debate. They come in two distinct sizes: a group of smaller examples including the signed bronze in Vienna which measures 24.8 cm, and a larger size – including the present bronze – which measures between 33 and 34 cm. In 1584, Giambologna's biographer Raffaello Borghini described a diplomatic gift from Cosimo I de’ Medici to Emperor Maximillian II in 1565 of ‘una figurina pur di metallo’ which von Schlosser associated with the bronze model of Venus Drying Herself in Vienna (Schlosser, loc. cit.). This assumption led scholars to conclude that the bronzes had to pre-date the marble Venus and that for Cesarini’s commission Giambologna transformed a small model he made twenty years earlier into a life-size marble. This would be in direct contrast to his usual practice, which involved the creation of small bronzes based on his large-scale marbles (Radcliffe, 1996, loc. cit.). However, as Radcliffe has argued (ibid.), at the time of Cesarini’s commission Giambologna was exceptionally busy and re-working an earlier model would have been a significant time-saving device.
It has been argued that, stylistically, the model for the ‘Cesarini’ Venus fits best into Giambologna’s oeuvre in the 1560s (Leithe-Jasper in Seipel, op. cit., p. 203, and Radcliffe, 1993, op. cit.). However, there is a general consensus that the larger group of bronzes of this subject was probably cast by Antonio Susini and the model was therefore created around the time of the carving of the large-scale marble – that is, in the 1580s (ibid., p. 199). Some believe that the larger model represents an evolution of the composition, with its slightly more elongated proportions and greater sense of torsion.
In the entry for a closely related example of this composition in the Quentin collection, Wengraf and Leithe-Jasper discussed the four main types which they named A, B, C and D (op. cit., p. 146). The Quentin bronze and the present bronze were both categorised as Type B. The group also included an example formerly in the collection of Cardinal Richelieu (present whereabouts unknown), a bronze in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and a cast in a Berlin private collection.
The present bronze and the bronze example in the Metropolitan Museum (inv. no. 24.212.16) were brought together on 5 March 2000 where a physical examination, as well as X-rays and composition analysis, were carried out on both bronzes. The casting technique, the physical details and the composition of the alloys were deemed to be so close as to confirm that the Met bronze and the present example were cast from the same mould and by the same foundry.
All the ‘Type B’ bronze share two details which help to give a more specific dating: the circular base and the treatment of the hair, which depicts the hair within the circle of plaits at the top of the head brushed straight from the front of the head to the back. Significantly, in 1616 the marble was broken into many pieces and restored. During the restoration it was set into the present circular base, and the top of the head was also altered (Wengraf in Seipel, op. cit., pp. 119-120); the hair within the circle of plaits was changed from a central parting to the hair brushed straight back. It has therefore been concluded that the ‘Type B’ bronzes – which all have a circular base and depict the hair brushed straight back - post-date the restoration of the marble, which must have taken place shortly after 1616.
The extremely fine details of the hair, fingers and toenails, along with the overall quality of the cast, suggest that this was produced by Antonio Susini, who was famed for his technical ability and was known to be one of Giambologna’s most trusted assistants. It must have been produced after Susini had set up his own very successful workshop when he was at the height of his powers. Susini was known to have had access to many of Giambologna’s models, and occasionally worked together with his former employer. This bronze therefore reflects both immense technical ability as well as a supremely graceful depiction of mythological beauty created by one of the most important sculptors of the Mannerist era.
Giambologna’s composition of the Venus, standing in a contrapposto position that can be viewed from any angle, has long been one of the sculptor’s most popular compositions, and small scale casts of it were produced in bronze to satisfy the demand among connoisseurs. The dating of this group of bronzes, and their relation to Giambologna’s marble figure, has long been the subject of debate. They come in two distinct sizes: a group of smaller examples including the signed bronze in Vienna which measures 24.8 cm, and a larger size – including the present bronze – which measures between 33 and 34 cm. In 1584, Giambologna's biographer Raffaello Borghini described a diplomatic gift from Cosimo I de’ Medici to Emperor Maximillian II in 1565 of ‘una figurina pur di metallo’ which von Schlosser associated with the bronze model of Venus Drying Herself in Vienna (Schlosser, loc. cit.). This assumption led scholars to conclude that the bronzes had to pre-date the marble Venus and that for Cesarini’s commission Giambologna transformed a small model he made twenty years earlier into a life-size marble. This would be in direct contrast to his usual practice, which involved the creation of small bronzes based on his large-scale marbles (Radcliffe, 1996, loc. cit.). However, as Radcliffe has argued (ibid.), at the time of Cesarini’s commission Giambologna was exceptionally busy and re-working an earlier model would have been a significant time-saving device.
It has been argued that, stylistically, the model for the ‘Cesarini’ Venus fits best into Giambologna’s oeuvre in the 1560s (Leithe-Jasper in Seipel, op. cit., p. 203, and Radcliffe, 1993, op. cit.). However, there is a general consensus that the larger group of bronzes of this subject was probably cast by Antonio Susini and the model was therefore created around the time of the carving of the large-scale marble – that is, in the 1580s (ibid., p. 199). Some believe that the larger model represents an evolution of the composition, with its slightly more elongated proportions and greater sense of torsion.
In the entry for a closely related example of this composition in the Quentin collection, Wengraf and Leithe-Jasper discussed the four main types which they named A, B, C and D (op. cit., p. 146). The Quentin bronze and the present bronze were both categorised as Type B. The group also included an example formerly in the collection of Cardinal Richelieu (present whereabouts unknown), a bronze in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and a cast in a Berlin private collection.
The present bronze and the bronze example in the Metropolitan Museum (inv. no. 24.212.16) were brought together on 5 March 2000 where a physical examination, as well as X-rays and composition analysis, were carried out on both bronzes. The casting technique, the physical details and the composition of the alloys were deemed to be so close as to confirm that the Met bronze and the present example were cast from the same mould and by the same foundry.
All the ‘Type B’ bronze share two details which help to give a more specific dating: the circular base and the treatment of the hair, which depicts the hair within the circle of plaits at the top of the head brushed straight from the front of the head to the back. Significantly, in 1616 the marble was broken into many pieces and restored. During the restoration it was set into the present circular base, and the top of the head was also altered (Wengraf in Seipel, op. cit., pp. 119-120); the hair within the circle of plaits was changed from a central parting to the hair brushed straight back. It has therefore been concluded that the ‘Type B’ bronzes – which all have a circular base and depict the hair brushed straight back - post-date the restoration of the marble, which must have taken place shortly after 1616.
The extremely fine details of the hair, fingers and toenails, along with the overall quality of the cast, suggest that this was produced by Antonio Susini, who was famed for his technical ability and was known to be one of Giambologna’s most trusted assistants. It must have been produced after Susini had set up his own very successful workshop when he was at the height of his powers. Susini was known to have had access to many of Giambologna’s models, and occasionally worked together with his former employer. This bronze therefore reflects both immense technical ability as well as a supremely graceful depiction of mythological beauty created by one of the most important sculptors of the Mannerist era.