Some Unpublished Works by Carlo Dolci

CHARLES

Some

McCORQUODALE

UnpublishedWorks

THE current revaluation of Carlo Dolci's contribution to seventeenth-century painting arises mainly from the increasing exposure being given to fine originals by him, as opposed to the hearsay reputation based principally on studio variants of his more popular images. It seems safe to assume that the climate of taste is sufficiently altered in Dolci's favour to prevent a recurrence of the situation which permitted the wilful destruction of one of his most important - and to judge by photographs of the surviving fragment (Fig.2) - most beautiful, altar-pieces after its sale from the Darnley Collection at Cobham Hall in 1957.1 Since the publication of this fragment, I have been able to establish conclusively that the altar-piece was certainly that painted by Dolci for the church of S. Andrea a Cennano in Montevarchi, near Florence, in 1656. Surprisingly, in view of the comparative rarity in Dolci's euvreof pictures of such size (it measured 90 by 68 ins.) and of the proximity to Florence of its location, Baldinucci makes only the briefest mention of the painting: 'Circa a questi tempi,per la terradi Monte Varchicolori una tavola di un san Domenico'2. Baldinucci's vagueness, tantamount to inaccuracy, with regard to the picture's subject3 suggests that he never saw the painting himself, and the uncertainty about its iconography persisted in the catalogue of the Cobham sale, which described it as The Glorificationof St Dominic. Only one writer, the perceptive and highlyinformed Stefano Ticozzi, to whom we owe a considerable amount of our knowledge of the painting's later provenance, was able to speak with authority and accuracy about the theme. Ticozzi, it seems, was sufficiently impressed by the painting to devote a short study to it4, which, in the

1The sale (The Contentsof CobhamHall) was held by Sotheby's on the premises on 22nd-23rdJuly 1957, and the Dolci, which hung in the Picture Gallery was sold as Lot 310o for ?90. The present writer's 'Some Paintings and Drawings by Carlo Dolci in British Collections' in KunstdesBarockin der Toskana, Florence-Munich [1976], pp.317-20, outlines the appearance later the same year of a fragment measuring 24 by 39 in. with a London dealer, which showed the Madonna holding the upper edge of an unframed canvas, and reproduced the fragment as Fig.3.

2FILIPPOBALDINUCCI: Notizie dei Professoridel Disegno, V [1847], P-349.

1 The subject, as Ticozzi rightly pointed out (see note 4) was The Miraculous Presentationof an Imageof St Dominicby the Virginat Soriano.The story is outlined in MCCORQUODALE, op. cit., pp.318-19, from a contemporary description. BURGER, in his Trdsorsd'Art exposesa Manchesteren 1857, p.Io8, No.5, described the painting as 'Une Viergedonnanta la supirieured'un couventun tableau de Saint Dominique', and BUSSE: 'Carlo Dolci' in Thieme-Becker, AllgemeinesLexikonderBildendenKiinstler,IX, Leipzig [1913], P-385, assumed that the St Dominic for Montevarchi was identifiable as the small picture showing the PenitentSt Dominicin the Pitti, an error corrected by CARLODEL BRAVO in 'Carlo Dolci, Devoto del Naturale', Paragone, 163 [1963], p.40, Note 9. Del Bravo also noted the reference to the picture in the RealeGalleria di Firenze Illustrata,third series, Vol. III [1821], where the picture is described as 'la SS. Verginechepresentail Ritrattodi p.I3o, S. Domenicoai religiosidi lui, quadrochevenneeseguitoper Montevarchi,e cheorpossiedel'Avvocatodel Nobolo.'

4 STEFANOTICOZZI:'Descrizione di un Quadro in tela di Carlo Dolce alto circa braccia 4. largo 22/4 rappresentante Maria Vergine che da a tre Frati l'effigie di S. Domenico', NuovoGiornaledei Letterati,No. XIII, Pisa [1824].

by

Carlo

Dolci

apparent absence of any pictorial record of the entire composition, provides the only description of the picture's original appearance: 'II gruppoprincipaleche occupail centro del quadro e compostodi tre figure, di M. V., di S. Maria Maddalena, e di S. Caterinacheportano un quadrocoll'effgie di S. Domenico. Sebbenenon vedasi chiaramenteespressala qualit& del sito in cui trovasiin quell'istantela Vergine,dalla mossa che il pittore le diede, risentitamentechinandolasul quadro,che tiene tuttaviain aria sospesoa qualquedistanza da trefrati, chesorgono dalfondo della tela, puboconghietturarsiesserealquantoelevatadal suolo: della qual cosa ne da pure indizio la troppo maggiore vicinanza de' frati allo spettatore,espressaperaltro dalla sola prospettivalineare.

Il quadrodel Santo imitanteuna veneratapittura del quattordicesimo secolo, dalla pia credenzade' divoti di quel tempoattribuito a celesteartefice,nascondela Verginedella cintura in giit; lasciandoallo scopertola superiorparte del corpovestitodi tunica d'un rossoassai modesto,che stretta sopra i lombi con cinto d'oro gemmato, va allargandosi con pieghe intorno al petto ed alle braccia,lasciandovederela sinistra manoe parte della destradi una cost dilicata bellezza, che non oserei chiamare ideale, ma all' ideale vicina.

L'artefice, che senza affatto ingoffirla, non poteva interamentecoprirleil seno, cercOdi temperarela vivacitddelle carni con un neroleggerissimovelo ora appenasensibile. Un doviziosomanto azzurro col rovesciodi color violaceoe tutt'all'intornofregiato di sottile ricamod'oro le scendecon maestosoandamentodal capo in su gli omeri. E quasi non bastasse la dovizia delle vesti a far sentireche l'umile donzella di Nazzaret regna adesso in Cielo, il diligente arteficele pose in sul capo regale corona,chepiiu vaga o piz' ricca non saprebbedarle la pia imaginazionede'fedeli.' The description conforms exactly with the appearance of the Madonna fragment, notably in the spectacular crown which recalls the splendid jewels of the Magdalen in Christ in the House of the Pharisee of I1649 (Corsham Court, Methuen Collection, Fig.4) - and the '... vorticedi bianca luce' described by Ticozzi as surrounding the Madonna's head. An otherwise inexplicable feature barely visible in the photograph is the central painted area at the top of the canvas held by the Madonna: Ticozzi provides the key.

'Ed in fondo del quadro si vede ancora dipinta l'Arme della famiglia del Nobolo, che contienedue bracci con il compassoche misuracinquePianeti o Stelle . . .' The fragment of the painting is recorded as having borne the inscription Giovannidel JNobolo1656, and Ticozzi records the details of the commissioning of the picture from Dolci by Giovanni del Nobolo and an inscription in the painter's hand on the stretcher5.

6 'Ed infatti da una iscrizione,che esistesemprea tergodi dettatavoladi manodello stesso Carlo Dolce in matita rossa, resulta,che egli avea 4o. anni, allorchhdipinse questa tavolaper Montevarchi,e resultaaltrest il tempo,in cui incominci6questa opera,ed il tempo,in cui la termin6,recandolaegli stessoa Montevarchiper esporla dopoesserestata benedetta.'(TICOZZI, op. cit., pp.10o-I 1).

142 Burlington Magazine is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to The Burlington Magazine www.jstor.org

®

2. Madonna,by Carlo Dolci. Fragment.61 by 99.2 cm. (Presentwhereabouts unknown).

4. Christin the Houseof the Pharisee,by Carlo Dolci. 170 by 216.5 cm. (Collection of Lord Methuen, CorshamCourt).

3. TheAngelappearingto HagarandIshmael,by Carlo Dolci. 9

5. TheMarriageof the Virgin,here attributed to Fra 178 by 220 cm. (BigongiariCollection, Florence).

7. St PhilipBenizzi,by Carlo Dolci. (Kunsthalle,Hamburg).

6. St PhilipBenizzi,by Carlo Dolci. 121 by 95 cm. (Londonart market).

8. ThePenitentStJerome,by Carlo Dolci. Panel. (Presentwhereaboutsunknown).

9. St Franciscontemplatingthe Crucifix,by Carlo Dolci. (Formerly Waddingham Collection, London).

SOME

UNPUBLISHED

WORKS

The altar-piece had, according to Ticozzi, been reclaimed by the Del Nobolo family after the church in which it stood fell from use, and an additional note in his article states that it was then (1824) in the possession of a certain 'Sig, Professor Cay. Pietro Benvenuti' in Florence. Exactly when it entered the Darnley Collection is uncertain, although Waagen6 says that it had been purchased 'by the presentLord' and Burger noted in I857 'ce Dolci a jtj achetd& Florencepar le Comtede Darnley'7. It can only be hoped that although the painting was cut into what were presumably regarded as more saleable fragments at a time when Dolci's reputation was at its lowest ebb, none of the pieces were destroyed, and that they may some day be reunited.

In 19I10, M. Cioni published archival information relating to a painting by Dolci which, although discussed

by Baldinucci, was regarded by Cioni as lost (8). Baldinucci describes the painting, of St Philip Benizzi, as follows: 'Anche per la compagnia di san Filippo Benizj, di propriainvenzione,dipinseunostendardocoll'immaginedel santo; opera che a quegli uominifu si gradita, che, toltala all' uso di stendardo,la ridusseroin forma di un bel quadro: ed avendolo nobilmenteornato,gli diederoluogo sopra alla porta della spogliatojo. Fu poi questa invenzioneintagliata, e vedesi andareper le stampe.'Cioni outlines the extraordinary lawsuit conducted

by Dolci against the Compagnia di San Filippo Benizzi, who had refused to pay the painter for the banner despite his having - amazingly for Dolci - delivered it in time for a pilgrimage to Loreto in the summer of 1641, because they maintained that the commission had originally come from one of the Compagnia's members: Dolci finally won his suit in 1643. There can be little doubt that the painting showing St Philip Benizzi which was sold out of Portsmouth Cathedral in I9769 (Fig.6) is the stendardo, and the fact that this painting has at some time in the past been cut to its present octagonal shape seems to be attested by the fact that two preparatory drawings exist for the whole composition, both showing the saint in full-length1o (Fig.7); an engraving of the whole composition, with the addition of clouds and the winged heads of several putti appears in a volume celebrating the saint's canonisation (1671) published in Florence in 1672.11 There can be no certainty of knowing whether this was the engraving mentioned by Baldinucci, but the somewhat coarse nature of the engraving might also account

6 G. F. WAAGEN: Treasuresof Art in GreatBritain, London [1854], III, p.2o.

Waagen too misinterpreted the subject of the picture, which presumably entered the Darnley Collection after I831, since it is not mentioned in the Mss. Inventory of Cobham Hall's contents made in I831I (Victoria and Albert Museum, London). However, no mention is made of it either in The Pictorial Guideto Cobhamof 1844.

7W. BURGER: Trisorsd'Art exposesa Manchesteren 1857 [1857], p. Io8.

8 M. CIONI: 'Appunti d'Archivio. Di uno stendardo dipinto dal Dolci', Rivista d'Arte, VII, 1910, pp.i143-51.

9 The painting was sold at Christie's, 2nd April 1976, lot 79.

10A second drawing, showing the saint full-length with a slightly different face and the addition of a separate study of his right arm in the upper right-hand corner was in the Claas Sale, Amsler & Ruthardt, Berlin, : I have been unable to trace the present whereabouts I4th-I5th May Igoi appears from a of this drawing, which photograph to be entirely autograph.

11Applausidi Firenzeper la canonizzazionedi S. Filippo Benizi . . . Descritti da Fra ProsperoBernardiFiorentinoServita . . . In Firenze: Nella Stamperiadella Stella MDCLXXII. Eugenio Casalini will publish the engraving in a forthcomiing study, and I am grateful to Dr Andrew Ciechanowiecki of the Heim Gallery for passing on Father Casalini's information to me regarding the engraving, which is inscribed CarloDolci invent.

BY

CARLO

DOLCI

for the degree of liberty taken by the engraver with the background details of the painting. The appearance of the preparatory drawing so far traced by me confirms the relationship of the painting to that mentioned by Baldinucci; stylistically the drawing is completely characteristic of Dolci's graphic manner in the early 164os, combining considerable attention to detail with a fairly broad handling of the chalk in areas of heavy shading. St Philip's head and facial features are particularly close to a study of A Young Man holding an Open Book in the Ashmolean Museum which can be dated in the 164OS12 and the summary handling of the saint's curly hair is virtually identical to that in one of the studies for Dolci's St Andrew praying before Martyrdom (Birmingham City Museum and Art Gallery) which is also in the Ashmolean Museum.13 The Birmingham picture is dated I643, and the close similarity of the Ashmolean study for it to the Hamburg drawing confirms the painting's dating. The present relationship of the saint's outstretched hands to the octagonal frame is slightly uncomfortable, and further strengthens the supposition that this is the original banner, since the composition of the heavily-draped body in the drawings is notably well-related to the long oblong form which the banner originally had. Del Migliore's contention14 that the banner was painted on taffeta seems to carry little weight in view of the fact that the banner was made for what was, after all, a long pilgrimage (to Loreto), but nonetheless remained in sufficiently good condition to be transformed into a more permanent picture. Until more is known of the painting's provenance, it is impossible to say when it left Florence, but in an engraving of the nineteenth century, the appearance of the composition has changed so radically that it seems clear that the engraver was not working from the original painting, but from another engraving.

One of the more unexpected developments in Dolci's art of the 1640s was his series of small-scale paintings executed in a loosely-handled technique which differs considerably from the more polished style best exemplified by the breathtaking detail of the Birmingham St Andrew.

The background landscape detail of the St Andrew, however, which I have suggested elsewhere may derive from Andrea del Sarto's Borgherini panels15 in its use of muted tones and soft, atmospheric distances, perhaps gave Dolci the idea of uniting such landscape with small figures. In this context, an oval panel-painting showing The Penitent St Jerome (Fig.8) is of considerable importance16, since

12 See the present writer, 'A Fresh Look at Carlo Dolci', Apollo, XCVII, No.135 [May 1973], pp.477-88, where the drawing is reproduced, Fig. 2.

13 See K. T. PARKER: Catalogueof the Collectionof Drawings of the Ashmolean Museum,Oxford [1972], Vol.I, Pl. CLXXX. 14 F. L. DEL MIGLIORE: Firenze, citth noblissimaillustrata, Florence [1684], p.306.

15 CHARLES MCCORQUODALE: Painting in Florencei6oo-1700 (Catalogue of the exhibition at the Royal Academy and the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge), Cat. No.25.

16 The best examples are The Flight into Egypt (The Marquess of Exeter, Burghley House) and The GuardianAngel (Lord Methuen, Corsham Court).

This little panel of St Jeromemay be the one described by BALDINUCCI(op. cit. [1847], V, p.35I) as having been painted for Antonio Lorenzi, Dolci's physician (see below); '. . . un altro San Girolamoin atto di battersiil petto col sasso . . .'. Its date, 1647, would fit perfectly with the principal known Lorenzi painting, Christin the House of the Phariseeof 1649 (Fig.4).

I45

SOME

UNPUBLISHED

WORKS

it is inscribed on the back in Dolci's hand with a brief and partly illegible inscription, and is dated 1647. So far, the dating of these smaller pictures, such as the Marquess of Exeter's Flight into Egypt and Lord Methuen's Guardian Angel has been based on the stylistic comparison of preparatory drawings, and this little panel provides a firm reference point for other works of this type by Dolci.

Although parts like the beautiful still-life of skull and books at the right are minutely detailed without being highly finished, the painterly treatment of both figure and landscape recall Dolci's training with Vignali, a comparison strengthened by a confrontation of what would appear to be one of the earliest Dolci paintings known to me (Fig.9) with a closely similar octagonal canvas by Vignali (Fig. io). Although superficially similar, the St Francis and the St Louis differ considerably in their approach to the handling of details. Echoes of Vignali's generalized painting of the hands occur in the St Francis, as they do in The Penitent St Jerome, but the intensity of the saint's gaze at the crucifix, the careful rendering of each stitch of St Francis's coarse habit and the much more assured treatment of his facial bone structure all point to Dolci's authorship of the painting. Furthermore, the handling of paint and light on the skulls in both paintings - despite their differences in scale - is striking. While it is difficult to be precise about the possible source for a picture of the type and scale of Dolci's tiny panel, it seems unlikely that it lay among his contemporary Florentine artists of the late 163os and 164os, who, while they certainly were becoming interested in smaller-scale canvases (notably in the case of Vignali and Lippi), do not appear to have gone as far as Dolci in this direction. The scale of such paintings by Dolci suggests a non-Italian influence, but their freedom of handling is uncharacteristic of the Dutch and Flemish paintings at which Dolci certainly looked in subsequent years.

Baldinucci records that Dolci painted his first pictures in 162517, and consequently, the St Francis may be dated c.I627-30, allowing for the further perfection of his technique as seen in his portraits of Stefano della Bella of 1631 and Ainolfo de' Bardi of 1632 (both Florence, Galleria Palatina). Thus Dolci was probably about thirteen or fourteen years old when he painted the St Francis.

As yet no secure dating can be established for what can only be regarded as one of the most important additions to made since the re-appearance of the David Dolci's Head of Goliath painted for the Marchese Pier with theoeuvre Francesco Rinuccini18 - his The Angel appearingto Hagar and Ishmael (Figs.3 & I). Baldinucci mentions one version of this theme as belonging to the noted collector Andrea del Rosso19 as follows: 'Possiedeancoradi sua mano Andrea del Rosso soprannominato,in figure maggioredi braccio, la storia di Agar e d'Ismaele'. Gaetano Cambiagi noted in 177520, '... (la) Famiglia del Rosso, chepossiedepur di sua mano una storia di Agar, ed Ismaele in figure poco maggioredi braccio.

La stessa storia, ma di diversainvenzione,fu dipinta da Carloper

BY

CAR

LO

DOLCI

un certoconteXeter, che la mandOin Inghilterra.' The version belonging to the del Rosso family was included in the inventory of their picture gallery made in 1689 three years after Dolci's death21, and was exhibited by them in Florence in 1724 and again in 1767.22 Cambiagi indicates firmly that the del Rosso version was still in that family's possession, and was therefore probably referring to a purchase made by the 5th Lord Exeter during one of his two visits to Italy between 168o and 1685.23 When and why the painting left the Exeter Collection is unclear.

Although the landscape background of the picture has suffered to some extent, the condition of the three protagonists is excellent, and the figures are certainly among Dolci's most beautiful, including as they do passages of delicately modulated colour like the warm ochre and gold of Hagar's robe (Fig.i). The pose of Hagar is borrowed directly from Francesco Furini's version of the same theme (Fig.i i) in the Bigongiari Collection, Florence, dated by Bigongiari to c.i638-4o24, which gives a terminuspost quem for Dolci's painting. The extent of the landscape is unparalleled in Dolci's religious painting, outdoing even St Dominic in Penitence(Florence, Galleria Palatina), where in fact only the left side of the painting can accurately be described as 'landscape'. Dolci's interest in landscape is a theme which has never been discussed in any of the literature, but it is evident that he gave the subject considerable attention from the very beginning of his career.

The landscape background of Fra' Ainolfo de' Bardi, painted when Dolci was sixteen, constitutes an essential part of the painting's atmosphere, and its sources lie (as do those of his Hagar) in the landscape of Vignali's figure-pictures and, perhaps even more, those in Francesco Curradi's.25 The treatment of the 'wilderness' in which Hagar and Ishmael find themselves, however, has no precise antecedents in Florence, and the rendering of the central area beyond the figure of Ishmael with its carefully-observed land formations suggests that Dolci had looked closely at nature rather than relying on formulae already in existence. Although there is a strong suggestion of the standard coulissesof early seventeenth-century landscape in the dominant forms to left and right of the picture, the tonal formulae normally accompanying them are absent and Dolci leads the eye into depth from the discarded water flagon in the foreground by means of the somewhat daring device of leaving the entire central part of the painting largely empty. The desolate, wind-blown trees above Hagar strongly recall those in St Dominic in Penitence,and are also reminiscent of others in Dolci's tiny

21

It was listed in this inventory (p.i 19) as follows: 'Agar nel Des. to con Ismaeleche si muoredi sete, e l'angioloche li mostrail fonte'. See FABIA BORRONI

SALVADORI: 'Le Esposizioni

d'Arte a Firenze dal I674 al I767', Mitteilungen note [ 1974], p.80, 384.

des Kunsthistorischen Institutsin Florenz, XVIII 22 F. B. SALVADORI, op. cit., p.8o,

p.8I.

23 E. K. WATERHOUSE:'A Note on British collecting of Italian pictures in the

later seventeenth THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE century', p-57[1960], 24 PIERO BIGONGIARI:II SeicentoFiorentinotra Galileo e il 'Recitar Cantando', 17 BALDINUCCI

(op. cit. [1847], V, p.340).

18 See the present writer's 'David with the Head of Goliath', Connoisseur,

787 [1977], pp.54-9.' BALDINUCCI, cit., V, op. p.348.

20 GAETANOCAMBIAGI:'Elogio di Carlo Dolci', in Serie degli Uomini i pii' illustri nella Pittura, Sculturae Architettura,XI [1775], P-37.

146

Milan[1974], P.55.

25 Creighton Gilbert drew attention to a landscape signed and dated by Curradi 1658 ('Francesco Curradi e la tipologia del paesaggio del seicento', Commentari,III, I [I952], pp.-135-145); as I have shown elsewhere, Dolci seems to have studied Curradi during the 163os, notably for the movement of-his figures, and it is likely that Curradi, who was certainly experimenting with landscape also influenced Dolci in this respect.

10. St Louisof France,by Jacopo Vignali. 80 by 60 cm. (Private Collection).

12. Studyfor the head of a Man in profile,by Carlo Dolci. Red chalk, 21.7 by 14.6 cm. (Presentwhereaboutsunknown).

11. TheAngelappearingtoHagar,by FrancescoFurini.160by 139cm.(BigongiariCollection, Florence).

13. Pentecost,

by LazzaroBaldi. Pen and brown wash, heightened with white, 12.2 by 9.1 cm. (Uffizi, Florence).

SOME

UNPUBLISHED

WORKS

sketchbook now in the Fitzwilliam Museum.26 Further similarities also occur between the Hagar and another picture in which landscape plays an important part, The GuardianAngel (Prato, Museo del Duomo); in both, the flying angel strikes a note of posed artificiality which recalls Florentine Mannerism at its most extreme, and the angel in the Hagar, in particular, has a compactness of outline reminiscent of late Bronzino.27 The recent publication of a preparatory study for the standing servant at the extreme right of Dolci's Christ in the House of the Pharisee28 added another important facet to our sparse knowledge of the artist's drawings in the 1640os, and confirms Baldinucci's assertion that Dolci, using as the basis of his composition Cornelius Galle's engraving after Cigoli's picture of the same theme, studied '. . . dal naturaleogni cosa . . .'.29 A further study can now be added (Fig.12) which indicates the minuteness with which Dolci prepared each part of the composition, moving from the summary outline of studies dealing with whole figures to exquisitely sensitive studies such as this for details of elusive subtlety like the profil perdu of Christ. It is tempting to assume that Dolci made such studies for other outstandingly beautiful parts of this painting such as the figure of the Magdalen, and to hope that these have survived. Although it is now possible to clarify more of the provenance of this painting, several major problems regarding it still persist. Until now, the provenance was only securely known after it entered the collection of Sir Paul Methuen (1672-I1757)30 and it was that it was the although naturally assumed painting mentioned by Baldinucci as having been painted for Dolci's physician, Antonio Lorenzi31, there was no evidence for this. Niccol6 Gabburri, in his unpublished manuscript Vite32written in 1739, noted in his short life of Dolci; '. . . mentrenel celebregran quadrodifigure al naturale, che egli fece (words illegible) rappresentantela Maddalena in casa del Fariseo a piedi di nostroSignore,fece vedereun'invenzione mirabilee una disposizionedifigure totalmenteperfetta . . . questo fu ben conosciutodal Sigl. ColmanResidenteBritannicoalla corte di Toscana mentrea prezzo ben alto volle averlo (one word illegible) Inghilterradove si trovapresentamente.'Mr Francis Colman was accredited to the Grand Duke Gian Gastone as Resident on ioth April 1724, arriving in Florence in February 1725. He died of 'a consumption' in 1733, but so far as is known had made only one journey away from Florence - to Parma in 1731 - and so presumably his Dolci painting would have gone to England after his death.33 It would be easy therefore to assume that this 26Although the sketchbook contains leaves by both Carlo and Agnese Dolci (his daughter), the landscapes are certainly the work of Carlo.

27 Similarly stiff flying angels occur notably in Bronzino's Martyrdomof St Lawrenceof 1569 (Florence, San Lorenzo) and The Raising of Jairus's Daughterof c.1570 (Florence, Santa Maria Novella).

28 CHRIsTEL THIEM: Florentiner Zeichner des Friihbarock,Munich [i 977], Fig.22o, reproduces the study in the Pushkin Museum, Moscow, for this figure.

29 BALDINUCCI, op. cit. V, p.344.

30 TANCRED BORENIUS:A Catalogueof the Pictures at CorshamCourt, London [1939], p.17.

31 BALDINUCCI, op. cit., V, p.345.

32

NICCOL6 GABBURRI: Vite di Pittori, manuscript

in Biblioteca

Nazionale,

Florence (Cod. Pal. E.B.9.5) [17391, II, PP-523-4.

33 I am indebted to Mrs Mary Foreman of the British Consulate in Florence for information regarding Colman's period as British Resident there.

BY

CARLO

DOLCI

provenance completed the Lorenzi-Colman-Methuen were it not for the existence of another version of the painting, first mentioned, so far as I am aware, by Cambiagi.34 Cambiagi speaks of the picture painted for Lorenzi, continuing, 'Passo col tempo in potere dei Sigg.

Aldobrandini,presi i quali vien custodita'. In 1846, Rosini records the paintings as being 'ora in Firenze presso gli Aldobrandini'35but no subsequent mention appears to have been made of it in Florence, and the next occasion on which the Aldobrandini name was connected with a version of the Methuen picture was in Borenius's Corsham Catalogue of 1939.36 It would be easy to dismiss the other version as nothing more than a version, were it not for Baldinucci's assertion that Francesco Furini was commissioned to paint for Lorenzi '. . . il quadro dello sposalizio di Maria Vergine, per accompagnaturadel tanto rinomatoquadrodella Maddalenain casa il (sic) Fariseo, di mano di Carlo Dolci.'3v Since the Methuen version and the socalled bozzetto in Stockholm are both dated 1649, and Furini died in 1646, this contention seems untenable, but a comparison of the only known rendering of The Marriage of the Virgin by, or partly by, Furini (Fig.5) with the Methuen picture reveals certain undeniable similarities. Since the present whereabouts of the supposed Aldobrandini version formerly in the Leslie Collection (see note 36) are unknown, and all that is known about it are its measurements and that it is closely similar to the Methuen picture, a combination of the latter's composition with the Leslie version's dimensions may be instructive; the Leslie version measured 173 by 216.5 cms, that is to say slightly closer to the Bigongiari Marriage of the Virgin than the Methuen version, and the compositions of the two are unquestionably related in certain respects (Figs.4, 5). The placing of the youth at the right, who, although his body is turned away from the spectator, turns to look at him and invites him to consider the central action of the painting, strongly recalls the same device in the Dolci. In both, background figures are ranged in receding ranks of heads, and the female figure seen from behind at the extreme left of the Furini performs a pictorial function not dissimilar to the Magdalen's in the Dolci. In terms both of their dimensions and their compositions, the two paintings complement each other rather closely, and the similarity may provide an important additional factor in the attribution of - at the very least the designer of the composition.38 The tradition noted by

34 CAMBIAGI, op. cit., XI [1775], P-34 and note I. 35 GIOVANNIROSINI, Storia della Pittura Italiana, espostacoi

Monumenti.

Pisa [1846], VI, pp.136-7.

36 BORENIUS,op. cit., p. I18. Borenius noted that a version then in the Sir John Leslie collection at Glaslough, Co. Monaghan was 'acquired in the I9th century out of the chapel of the Aldobrandini Palace at Genoa', and that family were portrayed in it. traditionally members of the Aldobrandini The Leslie picture was subsequently sold at Sotheby's, 7th December 1960,

lot 15 as Mary Magdalen washing the Feet of Christ, and the sale catalogue

gave more precise information,

stating that it had been 'bought from the

Aldobrandini Palace, Genoa, in I876'. So far, I have failed to trace any reference either to the Aldobrandini in Genoa or to this picture having been there in the nineteenth century.

OP. cit. [1846], IV, p.637.

37 BALDINUCCI, 38 This painting has had a colourful history of continuous reattribution: GIUSEPPE CANTELLI: 'Precisazioni sulla Pittura Fiorentina del Seicento: I Furiniani', Antichitd Viva, 4 [1971], pp.3-4 attributed it outright to Cecco Bravo, refusing to allow any connection to be made with a painting of the

149

SOME

WORKS

UNPUBLISHED

Borenius that the Leslie version incorporated portraits of the members of the Aldobrandini family offers no real assistance in consolidating the theory that the Leslie

BY

DOLCI

CARLO

version might in fact have been the original composition, painted prior to Furini's death in I646 for Lorenzi, and that the Methuen version might be a subsequent version

by Dolci himself of the painting. The whole question of Dolci's undeniably extensive inclusion of portraits in many of his paintings remains to be fully investigated.39

theme mentioned in a letter written by Furini from Rome dated I6th December 1645 (G. CORTI: 'Contributi alla vita e alle opere di while MINA Francesco Furini', Antichithi Viva [I97I], X, No.2, p.2i), GREGORI:

Bigongiari

'A Cross Section of Florentine Seicento Painting. The Piero Collection',

Apollo,

i5I

[I974],

pp.218-29

conceded

that

39The most notable example is his St Andrew Praying before Martyrdom (Birmingham City Museum and Art Gallery) which quite clearly contains not only the portrait of Raffaello Ximines mentioned by Baldinucci, but many others in addition, and, apart from derivations from Titian and Rubens (see MCCORQUODALE, op. cit., Painting in Florencei6oo-I700oo, Cat. No.25), a head copied from Cristofano Allori's St Julian (formerly in San Benedetto Bianco), of which Dolci also made a small oval copy whose present whereabouts is unknown.

'Despite affinities with Furini, the conjecture that this artist began it and Cecco Bravo finished it is unlikely.' CANTELLI:'Documenti figurativi per Simone Pignoni', Scrittiin Onoredi Ugo Procacci,Milan [1977], II, pp.527-35, subsequently attributed the painting to Furini, Cecco Bravo and Simone Pignoni, summing up the whole history of the painting's attributions on p.535, note I o. The supposition that Furini left the painting unfinished at his death in I646 would explain an earlier version of the Methuen picture

by Dolci having had the Furini as a pendant.

TURNER

NICHOLAS

Some

Drawings

o r Pietro da Cortona's major pupils - Giovanni Francesco Romanelli (161o-I1662), Guglielmo Cortese (1628-1679), Ciro Ferri (1634-1689) and Lazzaro Baldi (1624-1703) the last mentioned has probably been the least studied.1 Few seem prepared to take his work seriously, and it has to be admitted that the most frequently cited characteristic of his painting, a slightly grotesque facial type, broad-nosed, big-eyed and narrow-browed, a distortion of the similar but more finely-wrought features of the monumental figures in Cortona's late paintings, far from being attractive, is at times slightly ridiculous.

However, it would be wrong to label his paintings as a curious survival in Rome until the end of the seventeenth century of Cortona's baroque idiom, with a passing lament for their tendency to a certain coarseness; they are, naturally, more than that. His work has an individuality which deserves to be defined, and the fact that his paintings can still be mistaken for those by Cortona is both a compliment to his abilities and an indication of the confusion still surrounding the division between certain works by the master and those of the more competent of his followers. But it is as a draughtsman that he will be studied here, by the publication of two drawings in the British Museum, both preparatory studies for prints, and by the discussion of a small selection from a previously unknown group of fifty-six of his drawings in the Uffizi, placed with those by the Florentine painter Baldassare Franceschini, called il Volterrano (16I1-1689).

by

Baldi*

Lazzaro

The first of the British Museum drawings (Fig.14) is the final study in reverse for the one etching by the painter to be described by Bartsch, the Conversionof St Paul (Fig. 15).2 Were it not for the obvious connection with the print, the drawing would for stylistic reasons hardly be considered as by Baldi. It once belonged to the painter's near contemporary, Padre Sebastiano Resta (1635-1714), and then to the English collector, Lord John Somers (165I11716), as indicated by the number preceded by a small letter, h:157, inscribed in brown ink in the bottom left-hand corner of the sheet.3 Resta's entry on the drawing transcribed from the page on which it was once laid down in one of the many albums of his collection also makes this identification: 'Non si sA che il Sig.r Lazaro habbia dipinta questa caduta di S. Paolo, bensi la fece con diligenza e la stampo in acqua forte, ed il rame hoggi lo tiene il Sig.r D. Filippo . . . suo heredee discepolohonorato,che mi ha favorito molto in questo libro.4

2 British Museum:

I974-12-7-2:

pen and brown ink with different shades

of brown wash over black chalk, the outlines indented for transfer, 25.6 by 20.1 cm; inscribed in the lower left-hand corner in brown ink: h: 157. For Baldi's

etching

see:

A. BARTSCH: Le Peintre-Graveur, Vienna

[1i803-21],

cm. The connection Vol. XXI, p.88, No.i. The print measures 25.3 by 19.4 between drawing and etching was noticed by J. Gere.

3 For the formula, a small letter followed by a number, found on drawings with a Resta-Somers provenance, see: F. LUGT: Les Marques de Collections, Amsterdam

[I921],

No.2981;

A. E. POPHAM: 'Sebastiano

Resta

and his

Collections', Old MasterDrawings,xi [June 1936], pp.I ff.; and most recently,

* I would like to thank the following for their help towards this article: Professore Mario Di Giampaolo, Dr Dieter Graf, Mr Antony Griffiths and Mr Martin Royalton-Kisch.

1 The essential bibliography is cited by E. BOREA: Dizionario Biograficodegli Italiani, Rome [1963], Vol. 5, ad vocem,and includes the best study to date of Baldi as a draughtsman: A. GRISERI: 'Due dipinti di Lazzaro Baldi a Granada', Paragone,13 [ 1962], No. 153, PP-37-39. For subsequent literature, and a useful note on some of Baldi's drawings in the Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe, Rome, which have been related to the painter's work in Umbria, see: V. CASALE,G. FALCIDIA,F. PANSECCHI and B. TOSCANO: Pittura del Seicentoe del Settecento;Ricerchein Umbria i, Treviso [1976], p.71, under note 70. Hereafter referred to as Ricerchein Umbriax.

150

j. BYAM SHAW: Drawings by Old Masters at Christ Church, Oxford, Oxford [I976], pp.12ff.

4 British Library, Department of Manuscripts, MS Lansdowne 802, folio 132, continuing on to the verso. The 'heir' to whom Resta refers in his entry

on the drawing and whose surname he had evidently forgotten is Filippo Luti or Luzi (1665-I1720). Baldi named Luti and another pupil, Giovanni Battista Lenardi (i656-

70o4) as executors,

as well as minor beneficiaries

in

his testament: Rome, Archivio di Stato, 30 Notai Capitolini, ufficio 12, Testamenti, Vol.663, fols. 283ff. I am grateful to the former Director of the Archivio di Stato, Rome, Professore Marcello del Piazzo, for indicating the reference to Baldi's testament. Baldi left his estate to the Chapel of St La Chiesadei SS. Luca e Lazzarus in SS. Luca e Martina, see: K. NOEHLES; Martina, Rome [1970], pp.' 14 and 360 (under doc. i45). Filippo Luti in his

turn left a legacy to the Chapel in 1722, recorded two years after his death,

see: NOEHLES,op. cit., p.193.

1. Detail from TheAngelappearingto HagarandIshmael,by Carlo Dolci. 91.5 by 123.8 cm. (PrivateCollection).