Guglielmo della Porta

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N SCULPTOR

Publication Coll&Cortés Catalogue Rosario Coppel Charles Avery Margarita Estella Translation Ian Macnair Design and production IMAGIAofficina.es Coll&Cortés photography Unidad móvil - Francisco Fernández Ortiz General photography © Scala Archives Printed by Gráficas Palermo, S.L. Binding Ramos © 2012 All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the express written permission of Coll&Cortés, Madrid.

ISBN: 978-84-615-7436-0 Dep. Legal: M-7173-2012 Coll&Cortés wishes to express their gratitude to all those who have helped make this catalogue possible.

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N SCULPTOR

FOREWORD S

ince 2005 our gallery has been devoted to, and concentrated on Spanish art. Our first two exhibitions were a tribute to the history of painting in Spain since the sixteenth century to the nineteenth century. Through various works by significant schools and artists, we hoped not only to cover a significant gap in art history, but remind the public of the importance and popularity these pieces once commanded. An effort designed to cherish what was once the most solicited and sought after venue for patrons and connoisseurs.

These two successive projects paved the way for our venture in an almost abandoned and forgotten field in our country and completely ignored in the world: polychrome sculpture. We strived to create a publication, both commercially appealing and scholarly solid. Since then, significant progress, and new found enthusiasm have blessed Spanish plastic art. Our last project dedicated to the arts outside our natural frontiers but within our sphere of inf luence, The Arts of the New World, focused on Colonial art in all its facets, from silver to ivory, from decorative lacquer to furniture, and not excepting sculpture and painting. A complex and monumental effort that comprised more than a 100 works.

Thus, having covered in detail not only the history of painting and sculpture in Spain, but also the series of inf luences and factors that inspired other schools and artists across the Atlantic, a firm stand and resolute aim at expanding our grounds of expertise was taken. We wanted to continue exploring other fields of undoubted mastery, still not fully disclosed to collectors and scholars: ignored aspects of singular craftsmanship and artistic industry waiting to be rediscovered.

We found it in three metal works of sculpture from the sixteenth century. Only three pieces, two in relief, one in the round, which depict scenes from the Passion of Christ. A quality, the likes of which we had never seen before-and expect rarely to see againinspired us to move forward in the new and difficult terrain of Italian sixteenth century sculpture. One of the most fascinating periods in history, the Renaissance, was no stranger to sculpture, quite the opposite, the abundance of bibliography, production, artists and patrons, render it one of the most important chapters of art history in the Western World. Making it all the more surprising

that such lack of knowledge continued to surround the authorship of the present works.

Guglielmo della Porta, a Mannerist sculptor from Genoa, to whom Rome, the Medici and the Farnesse families and Popes Paul III and Pius IV, ultimately surrendered to, is still to this day largely unknown and omitted from main stream exhibitions and literature. Although most of his production is housed in museums in Europe and the United States, including St Peter ’s cathedral in Rome and the Metropolitan museum of art, a significant and thorough publication exploring his style, commissions, technique and work, has yet to see the light. This catalogue constitutes an important starting point for this endeavor, albeit lacking the scope to serve as the final guide to his artistry.

Although we have always devoted our efforts to the unique, the rare and the exceptional, the present catalogue is, by far, the most specialized of its kind and probably the most mature.

After nearly eight years of experience, countless attributions, numerous discoveries, and several contributions to art history, Coll&Cortes takes on an important and daring step by focusing solely on the production of three small-scale works by an Italian sculptor. These pieces, small in size, are extremely high in quality and illustrate the birth of a new type of collecting, more personal, more intimate that of the ultimate collector, designed to fulfill even the deepest of passions.

In the mounting of this exhibition we relied heavily on the collaboration, contribution and work of countless individuals, so numerous we could not possibly name them all, but above all the academics. We would like to express our thanks to Rosario Coppel, who took a chance on three unknown, untried works of art from the start. To Charles Avery, whose enthusiasm helped a great deal in establishing the attributions made here. And finally to Margarita Estella who from the very beginning has always been a staunch supporter for our cause.

Jorge Coll and NicolĂĄs CortĂŠs

07 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CONTENTS 10 PREFACE ROSARIO COPPEL

13 BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S EARLY YEARS AND SOME OF HIS WORKS IN SPAIN 14 MARGARITA ESTELLA

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME 28 ROSARIO COPPEL

59 CATALOGUE ROSARIO COPPEL

CHRIST CRUCIFIED 62 FLAGELLATION OF CHRIST 74 MOUNT CALVARY 98

113 GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO CHARLES AVERY

CHRIST CRUCIFIED 126 FLAGELLATION OF CHRIST 128 MOUNT CALVARY 134

139 Documentary appendix / SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

preface Rosario Coppel

G

uglielmo della Porta (Porlezza, Como, c. 1515 - Rome, 1577) was a stucco plasterer, restorer, marble and bronze sculptor, draughtsman, designer, architect, collector, antiquarian and historian. He was a great admirer of classical sculpture, to the extent that he named his children Lysippus, Myron and Phidias.

His time was constantly taken up by restoration work on antique marbles pieces, which often involved replacing missing parts. He actually owned some of these statues and frequently sold them once he had restored them. In addition, he cast bronze copies for contemporary collectors.

In his lifetime, Guglielmo managed to scale the heights of fame, working for some of the most influential personages of the time, which may have been thanks to the fact his first mentor was none other than Michelangelo and that he received the important appointment of “Custode del Piombo” - the sole custodian of the seal for papal bulls only a few years after settling in Rome. He took over this office from the painter Sebastiano del Piombo and this, as Vasari said, “è di tanto gran rendita, che si può studiare ed affaticarsi per la gloria; il che non può fare chi non ha tante comodità”1. His friends also included Bartolomeo Ammannati, with whom the subject-matter of his work evolved in step during the Counter-Reformation. Guglielmo della Porta knew how to adapt his oeuvre to the new times and dedicate his talent and skills in drawing to the creation of sculptures with a sacred theme, as expected by the times in which he lived. It was in these pieces, almost always small in size and made of gilt-bronze or silver, that the sculptor could finally express all the expertise he had gained from copying “the Ancients”, both in his mastery of the technique of the lost-wax casting process, in which he became a virtuoso, and in the creation of models and scenes of great originality.

Guglielmo’s pieces of religious iconography were made for popes, cardinals, monarchs and patricians and, as in the case of Giambologna - who had been a student of his during his first stay in Rome - his models continued to be cast even after his death in response to the huge demand there was for them. This is the most conflictive point in the sculptor’s critical fortunes. His children litigated for their rights and his assistants exploited his models and moulds, with them all managing to create a climate of uncertainty regarding the true authorship of some of his pieces. This doubt, compounded by the scarcity of surviving piece,

10 COLL & CORTÉS

means that he is an extremely difficult artist to study. The discovery of the three pieces, introduced in this publication, all three by his hand, as we shall set out to explain over the course of these pages, will make a definitive contribution to the enlargement and clarification of the works of Guglielmo della Porta.

The sketchbooks, two volumes of parchment contained in the “L’Arte del Disegno, e le vivezze dell’ingegno di Gvglielmo Della Porta celebre scultore, et architetto… per servigio dell’Ecma. Casa Farnese”, Rome, 1721 2, with drawings, sketches, notes, observations, letters and corrections, are the most valuable documents that have survived to this day. Thanks to them, attribution can confidently be made of many of his works. They are, furthermore, a work of art in their own right, reflecting his energetic and fluid style and his way of expressing movement and portraying his figures in a few strokes; a feat achieved by only the great masters. If we compare these drawings with his pieces, we gain an exceptional insight into his talent. Guglielmo appears as a sculptor with a special interest in space and perspective, in the choice of his models, which he situates in small spaces, albeit with great solemnity, without forgetting the iconography or omitting any detail that might lead to a better understanding of the scene being depicted. On the other hand, the finish on the pieces is performed with a detail and technical perfection that helps to improve them even further, cold working each space in a different manner, with a view to distinguishing the materials and creating more pictorial scenes.

It was from this moment onwards that Guglielmo began to produce religious objects, and his cooperation with Manno Sbarri and Antonio Gentili grew closer. These two magnificent goldsmiths, by whom there survive to this day masterpieces such as the chest, the Cassetta Farnese, and the Altar cross and the two candlesticks in the Basilica of St. Peter’s, executed with designs by Perino del Vaga, Francesco Salviati or Guglielmo della Porta, although in the case of these items they also used small rock crystal reliefs that had been made years earlier by the carver Giovanni Bernardi de Castelbolognese.

The two inventories drawn up upon Guglielmo’s death reveal that his studio contained models and moulds of crucifixes and reliefs with scenes from the Passion. They were of a range of materials and some of them were incomplete. This indicates that towards the end of his life he continued to work on pieces of this nature. Furthermore, after the

statements made that have survived from the lawsuits heard between his heir - his son Teodoro della Porta - and some of his former collaborators, it is clear that all of them, as they themselves admitted, worked not only with Guglielmo’s designs, but also with his models and moulds.

The three pieces that have come to light, a Christ crucified, an altarpiece-oratory depicting the Flagellation and four Virtues, and a relief of Mount Calvary, are part of Guglielmo della Porta’s most representative output.

The Christ crucified is the largest one known. Both the model and the technical quality and excellent finish point to the master’s hand. The relief of Mount Calvary, the first version in gilt-bronze, which had been adjudged lost by Werner Gramberg, the foremost expert on Guglielmo’s work, is the missing link between the drawing and the stunning silver version at the monastery of El Escorial. The altarpiece-oratory of the Flagellation, one of the scenes of the Passion that the artist returned to most often, as well as the Virtues that decorate its ebony frame, which are a constant throughout his career, testify to the most personal Guglielmo, capable of creating an original work, drawn by the religious iconography dictated by the theologians of the Council of Trent, but without forgoing the formal beauty of the characters inspired by the art of the ancient world.

1. VASARI, 1568, ed. MILANESI, VII, 1881, p. 549. “...gives such a revune that the holder can study and lavour for Glory, which he who has not such advantages is not able to do”. Although he adds “ma è propietà di chi ha quell’ uffizio impigrire e diventare infingardo” (“But is the characterisitic of those who hold that office to become sluggish and indolent”). English translation from Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans. Gaston du C. de Vere, Everyman’s Library, Alfred A. Knopf, New York and Toronto, 1996, vol. 2. p. 844.

2. “The Art of Drawing and the livey imagination of Guglielmo della Porta, the celebrated sculptor and architect, ...made in the service of the Most Excellente House of Farnese” collected by Giuseppe Ghezzi. Second half of the 17th century –first quarter of the 18th, secretary of the Accademia de San Luca. In 1778, the two volumes were acquired by the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts and are now in the city’s Kunstmuseum. Vol. I. 129 folios and 258 pages; Vol. 2. 85 folios and 170 pages. See GRONAU, 1918, pp. 171-200 and the facsimile edition published by GRAMBERG in 1964.

11 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S EARLY YEARS AND SOME OF HIS WORKS IN SPAIN MARGARITA ESTELLA

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME ROSARIO COPPEL

BIOGRAPHY

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S EARLY YEARS AND SOME OF HIS WORKS IN SPAIN M A R G A R I TA ESTELLA

Fig. 1. Gian Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta.

Tomb of Baltasar del Río. Seville Cathedral.

14 COLL & CORTÉS

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S EARLY YEARS AND SOME OF HIS WORKS IN SPAIN Margarita Estella

T

here were several factors that contributed to the advent of the Renaissance in Spain in the first years of the 16th century, although specific mention should be made of the arrival in this country of Italian artists commissioned to execute specific works of importance, such as Fancelli. This fuelled the desire of Spanish artists to gain a firsthand understanding of the rules of the Renaissance, and it was at this time that some of Spain’s foremost artists first set off for the cradles of these new aesthetics, Florence, Rome and above all Naples, which then belonged to the Spanish crown and can be considered their first port of call.

The arrival in Naples of Ordóñez and Siloé breathed new life into Neapolitan sculpture, and would lead to their knowledge being disseminated upon their return to Spain. It is also possible that Alonso Berruguete, who no doubt embarked upon the journey influenced by his father Pedro Berruguete, passed through Naples before moving on to Florence in the hope of making contact with Michelangelo. Finally, one should not forget the major trend of importing of actual Italian works of art.

In the field of sculpture, an appropriate study has been made, both in Spain and in Genoa, of the importance Ligurian workshops had on the early introduction into Spain of the new Renaissance language. Many years ago, Alizeri1 provided key data for the study of this flow towards Spain that produced such iconic works as Calahorra Castle.

This influx did not always lead to finished works supervised by Italians, such as Calahorra, but instead in many cases was limited to the despatch to Spain of countless architectural features, such as columns, lintels, fireplaces, etc. whose candelieri ornament taught the first letters of the alphabet in this new language that would still take a few years more to be fully embraced.

One of the more noteworthy workshops in Genoa that served Spain was the one belonging to the Aprile family, who like so many others hailed from the Italian region of the northern lakes, being allied in many cases with the Carlone workshop. Alizeri, along with other publications before and after him, have addressed the topic, studying the type of trading companies incorporated amongst the different workshops in Genoa with a view to attending to the continuous demand, not only from Spain, but also from other countries in Europe, notably France. These alliances that combine an artistic interest with a purely commercial approach render it difficult to monitor the execution of the commissioned work, which was sometimes passed on from one workshop to another.

16 COLL & CORTÉS

For the purpose of this article, we are interested in the development of the workshop that grew up around the figure of Gian Giacomo della Porta, for it received numerous orders from Spain and provided the setting in which his son Guglielmo learnt his trade: he was not simply a member of the workshop but also hired professionally, just like any other of the sculptors in his father’s firm workshop on the Spanish commissions.

GIAN GIACOMO’S OEUVRE IN SPAIN Gian Giacomo’s activity in Spain, has been addressed by Kruft2, for example, but he was unaware of some of the work from his output, as some were cited in Alizeri only by their documentary reference, and we shall refer to these briefly in due course3. We shall merely highlight the importance of the tomb of the Marquis of Villanueva del Fresno in Moguer, closely related to a further two works attributed to Guglielmo, which are also to be found in Spain and with which this short article is largely concerned.

According to data provided by Alizeri, extended and commented on by Kruft, in 1524 Gian Giacomo della Porta was appointed architect and sculptor at Milan Cathedral, no doubt because of the fine quality of his earlier works.

His time in Lombardy has been studied separately from his Genoa period,

1. ALIZERI, F. “Notizie dei professori del disegno in Liguria dalle orgini al secolo XVI”, Vol. IV, V and VI Scultura. Genoa, 1876-1880.

2. KRUFT, H. W. & ROTH, A. “The della Porta workshop in Genoa”, Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa, 1973, III, 893.954, plates LXV-CXX. 3. ESTELLA MARCOS, M. “La importación de esculturas italianas, Obras en España del taller de los della Porta, de Giambologna y del Naccherino. El modelo italiano en las Artes Plásticas de la Península Ibérica durante el Renacimiento, Valladolid University, 2004: it also provides brief references to many of the facts provided here. Those of interest to this study will be expanded upon, and stress will be placed on those that are incorrect. Finally, HELFER, Y. “Guglielmo della Porta: dal Duomo de Genova al Duomo di Milano”. Prospettiva, no. 132, Oct. 208, pp. 61-77, does not refer to workshop pieces in Spain, and although it mentions our research on Moguer and Niccolò da Corte (see below) it does not mention this later one from 2004.

where according to his more recent biographers he set up a workshop of great importance in 1530. According to Alizeri, who cites Vasari, his arrival in Genoa actually took place in 1531 in the company of his son Guglielmo, whom - it appears - he already planned to appoint as his assistant. The same source reports that Cicognara also mentions his relationship with Perino del Vaga, who wanted him to marry one of his daughters. This is an extremely interesting detail, as it tells us also that the friendship between Guglielmo and Perino del Vaga continued in Rome, where his style reflects “the grace of Perino and the strength of Michelangelo” (la grazia del Perino y la robustezza de Michel Angel), an opinion shared by the more recent biographers of this great Roman sculptor.

The first known commission for Spain, of which both Alizeri and Kruft were unaware, was revealed by Klapisch4 and subsequently analysed by Drª Marín Fidalgo5. It involves a shipment of columnas y balaustres for the Alcázar in Seville, with the order being placed in 1532 with the company owned by Gian Giacomo in partnership with Niccoló da Corte, along with his subsequent and long-standing collaborator, Antonio Novo di Lancia and, above all, Antonio Masría Aprile (brother of Pietro, who was so heavily involved in commissions for Spain). This member of the Aprile family, to whom Gian Giacomo was apparently related, is believed to be the one who introduced the della Porta into Spanish circles, specifically in Andalusia.

According to reports by Migliaccio, it seems that, between 1536 and 1539, the same team made up of the della Porta and Aprile executed the The sumptuous tomb of Don Baltasar del Río, Bishop of Scala (fig. 1) in Seville Cathedral. In view of the scant attention that has been paid to this information, it seems expedient to study this monument separately (see below), for one can clearly detect Guglielmo’s hand in some of its features, through a brief introduction to his formative years prior to his Roman stage.

In 1534, Gian Giacomo had opened the doors of his workshop to men who were by then his partners, his son Guglielmo and Niccoló da Corte, the latter being the sculptor responsible for part of the splendid narrative reliefs that decorate the palace of Charles V in Granada. This decision was possibly due to the increase in his order book and perhaps above all to the execution of his masterpiece, Bishop Cybo’s Tomb in Genoa Cathedral. It was Kruft who being identified the work on this altar that can be attributed to each of these two new partners - never an easy task. The company that years earlier had executed the interesting Ciborium in Saint John the Baptist’s Chapel (1531),

in the same cathedral in Genoa, continued operating for some years, as recorded by Alizeri and described by Kruft, at least until 1537, when Niccoló left for Spain and Guglielmo for Rome, and possibly even until 1538.

Again for Spain, apparently just as a collaborator to Gio María Pasallo, in 1536 Gian Giacomo executed a series of architectural features and two fountains for the Palace in Granada of Don Alvaro de Bazán, a naval commander with the title of General-Captain of the Galleys of Spain6.

It should be remembered that between 1533 and 1535, the same artists who worked on the monument to Cybo, Bishop of Agrigento, had been involved in several pieces closely related to Spain. These are the commissions they received from Jean Henin Liétard, Lord Lieutenant to Charles V and Lord of Boussu Castle, in Flanders, then under the Spanish Crown. This was mentioned in previous studies in which special attention was paid to the report made by Vasari on the group of the Three Graces, four putti and a life-sized marble Ceres that Guglielmo delivered to this dignitary in 1535 and regarding the commission to Gian Giacomo and Niccoló da Corte in 1533 of an ornate entrance with two statues.

In 1538, Giacomo della Porta expanded the company with new members, including Guglielmo, who was represented by his own father, for he was in Rome by then, and Niccoló da Corte, also represented by one of the Carlone, as he was away in Granada. There is no doubt that this new contract was motivated by new commissions from both Genoa and Spain. The Cybo monument had been completed, but an indirect reference tells us that in 1540 Niccoló da Corte was busily working on a commission from the Duke of Alba7, a work that Gian Giacomo may have wished to be involved in, although this is mere conjecture.

4. KLAPISCH-ZUBER, C. Les maîtres de marbre de Carrara, 1300-160º. Paris, 1969, with the information being provided by Gestoso.

5. MARÍN FIDALGO, A. El Alcázar de Sevilla bajo los Austria. Seville, 1990, I, 140-142; II “marmoleros” (marble masons), 750-754.

6. LÓPEZ TORRIJOS, R. “La relación del primer Marqués de Santa Cruz con las Artes.

Datos inéditos sobre obras y colecciones”. El arte en las Cortes de Carlos V y Felipe II. IX Jornadas de Arte. Madrid, CSIC, 1999, 409-418.

7. ESTELLA, M. & LAMERA, F. Niccoló da Corte. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani.

1985, vol. 31.

17 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S EARLY YEARS AND SOME OF HIS WORKS IN SPAIN Margarita Estella

In any case, it was around this time that Gian Giacomo’s recorded work took off. Although Kruft does not mention the commission for Charles V’s Lord Lieutenant, Jean Henin Liétard, as described by Alizeri, or the aforementioned deliveries of architectural features for the Alcázar in Seville, as reported by Drª Marín Fidalgo, he does provide documentary references to other Spanish commissions, albeit without analysing or verifying the existence of the work. For instance, he refers to the contract for the Tomb for the Marquis of Villanueva del Fresno, dating from 1546, which will be analysed below, and those referring to the Triumphal Arch for Philip II’s entry into Genoa from 1549 and the Tomb for the parents of the Bishop Bernardo Sandoval y Rojas from Oviedo from the later date of 1552. The latter has never been found, possibly because it was never actually made, as he is known to have died in the first months of 1555. Gian Giacomo continued to undertake of commissions for his Spanish clientele continued from 1532 onwards, the date of his association with his son Guglielmo and above all with Niccoló da Corte (his long-time collaborator whose work in Granada links him closely to Spain) right up until his death. Although these two artists left Genoa in 1537, the 1538 contract just mentioned suggests that their association was not completely dissolved. The works by Gian Giacomo for Spain subsequent to those dates, above all the tomb for the Marquis of Villanueva del Fresno in Moguer (commissioned in 1546 with another team), feature a number of details that are consistent with the works which he could have undertaken with da Corte and Guglielmo.

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S FORMATIVE YEARS In his masterful study on the della Porta family workshop in Genoa, Kruft wrote a brief final chapter on Guglielmo’s art prior to his debut on the stage of Rome. He affirms that once it was known that Guglielmo was Gian Giacomo’s son, and not his nephew (as had hitherto been believed), the first years of his professional career must have taken place in his father’s workshop and environment in the years from around 1520 to 1530, when Gian Giacomo began undertaking

18 COLL & CORTÉS

commissions for Milan Cathedral. Vasari himself confirms this when he remarks in his life of Guglielmo that “he succeeded with great effort in copying things by Leonardo” (attese con molto studio a ritrarre le cose di Leonardo) to which Kruft adds the logical inference of Lombard influence from the circle of Bambaia. In the light of these findings, it seems that Guglielmo’s date of birth in 1515 should be moved back several years, as noted by Hefel, who places it in 1510.

All authors highlight the influence that Perino del Vaga had on Guglielmo’s work from his time in Genoa onwards, which was first been noted by Vasari, who went on to affirm that Guglielmo used the painter’s design to produce stucco work on the Massimi Chapel in the church of Santa Trinita ai Monti in Rome. This has led other authors to posit his possible collaboration on the elaborate, earlier, stucchi in the Palazzo Doria in Genoa, although none of this has been sufficiently documented.

In his clear and concise summary, Kruft defines Guglielmo’s style in these first years of his career as a mixture of the Lombard tradition represented by his father, somewhat archaic and conservative; the influence of Perino del Vaga; and the partial knowledge that he could have had at that time of Antiquity and the art of Raphael and Michelangelo. He suggests that those inspirations are apparent in one of his first works upon his arrival in Rome in 1537, the Tomb for Bishop Solís, part of which would be used on Pope Paul III’s tomb, with the rest to be found in Malaga Cathedral.

In our study of this oeuvre, which we shall conduct in due course following Gramberg’s clear analysis, note has nonetheless been taken of the major progress in his art in relation to the works from his father’s workshop, such as the Tomb of the Marquis of Villanueva in Moguer, a later work that did not involve Guglielmo’s collaboration, or in the one that is now attributed to the two artists, father and son in partnership, namely, the Tomb of the Bishop of Scala in Seville. A few brief paragraphs cover these three tombs that are to be found in Spain, as robust testimonies to the art performed in the della Porta workshop and to Guglielmo’s art prior to his major Roman undertakings.

Following these early years, he fell under the spell of the stunning world of Rome, and the polished style of his output during his Roman period bears hardly any traces of these beginnings in Lombardy and Genoa.

Fig. 1a. Detail. Gian Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Baltasar del Río. Seville Cathedral.

THE TOMB OF DON BALTASAR DEL RÍO IN SEVILLE CATHEDRAL The sumptuous tomb of Don Baltasar del Río, Bishop of Scala, in Salerno, in his chapel in Seville Cathedral (fig. 1a) has confounded many historians, who have been unable to produce sound evidence of its authorship. They have generally attributed it to the Aprile workshop, given its general stylistic feel and the constant activity of these artists in Seville and environs at around the time when it is thought to have been installed.

Renowned scholars have trawled through the archives of Seville Cathedral, and there are also numerous historians who have sought references to this tomb in the archives in Genoa, but to date no documentary evidence has been found to resolve this mystery 8.

All we know is that the personage had formerly been Almoner in Rome during the pontificates of Julius II and Leo X, or according to Alonso Morgado - in the years of Pope Clement VII 9.

8. Amongst the numerous references to the work we can only recollect the analysis

by HERNÁNDEZ DÍAZ, J. “Retablos y esculturas”. La Catedral de Sevilla, 1984.

9. PALOMERO PARAMO, J. M. Cat. 9. “Retablo e sepolcro di don Baltasar del Rio, Vescovo di Scalas”, Génova e Siviglia, l´avventura dell´Occidente. Genoa, 1988, 92-93; they are consummate experts on the matter and recap on the previous information on the work. Recently, RECIO. “Una visión de la escultura andaluza del Renacimiento a partir del género del retrato”, La escultura del primer naturalismo en Andalucía e Hispanoamérica”. Co-ord. Lázaro Gila Medina. Seville, 2010, pp.

115-134, has mentioned the interest of the Scala tomb, whose installation was supervised by Miguel de Gainza, according to the Chapter Minutes (note 41) and it curiously mentions that Baltasar del Río acts as an intermediary in the donation made by the Empress Isabella in 1535 of “five little silver heads” destined for the chapel in Seville’s Old Cathedral. p. 134. MORGADO, J. A. Prelados sevillanos o episcopologio de la Santa Iglesia Metropolitana de Sevilla, Seville, 1899-1906.

19 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S EARLY YEARS AND SOME OF HIS WORKS IN SPAIN Margarita Estella

Fig. 1b. Detail. Relief of the loaves and the fishes. Gian Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Baltasar del Río. Seville Cathedral.

The more complete description given by Gestoso 10 covered all the steps for the grant of the chapel by the Cathedral Chapter, the beginning of the work in 1536, the valuable donation of jewellery towards the cost of its foundation 1 1 and the fact the bishop was buried in Rome, apparently against his wishes.

According to Gestoso, the reading of the will of 7 March 1540 did not provide any other information on the magnificent tomb the author describes, adjudging it to be an Italian work of varying quality in its different components. The tomb in Seville bears a long inscription that identifies its commissioner and his personal details. An investigation was made into his possible kinship with a certain Felipe de Roi, Duke of Asculi in case there was

20 COLL & CORTÉS

an error in the transcription, and the surname was, in fact, del Rio, who according to Alizeri, in 1533 had commissioned a fountain from Gian Giacomo and Niccolo da Corte, but the search proved fruitless.

10. GESTOSO Y PEREZ, J. Sevilla Monumental y Artística. Historia y descripción de todos los edificios notables, religiosos y civiles. Seville 1890, II, 545-550.

11. ORTÍZ DE ZÚÑIGA, D. Anales eclesiásticos y seculares de la ciudad de Sevilla, (1671) Ed. Revised by José SANCHEZ HERRERO, 1988, p. 220: it summarily describes the tomb and the main reliquaries he donated.

Fig. 1c. Detail. Madonna and Child.

Gian Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta.

Tomb of Baltasar del Río. Seville Cathedral.

The finding that the Neapolitan professor Luciano Migliaccio published in 1991 on the monument is therefore of great interest. His text affirms that the piece was made in Genoa between 1536, when the chapel was founded, and 1539, when the altar was installed.

The information clarifies that the piece was made in the workshop belonging to Giangiacomo and Guglielmo della Porta, authors of its principal components, and inspired by the monument to Bishop Cybo in Genoa Cathedral, executed by this same workshop in 1533.

According to this author, the circular ornament on the Madonna and Child (fig. 1c) and the relief on the Miracle of the loaves and the fishes (fig. 1b) can be attributed to Guglielmo 12.

The foregoing is undoubtedly of the utmost importance for resolving the issue of the monument’s attribution, but the author does not provide any supporting documents. Years ago, he talked to us about the document and also explained that the upper part of the altar was also apparently executed by the Aprile workshop 13.

Known documents confirm the relationship between the workshops owned by the Aprile and by Gian Giacomo della Porta, as stated with regard to the commissioning of building features for the Alcázar and later on when other members of the Aprile broke off their association with Gian Giacomo for the execution of the tomb of the Marquis of Villanueva del Fresno. According to the authors, these testimonies confirm that the association between the two workshops for the undertaking of the tomb for the Bishop of Scala is highly likely.

Of even greater interest is the stylistic analysis, summarised

by Migliaccio. The architectural element and its decoration appear to be attributable to the Aprile, and Migliaccio also points to the similarity between the statues of Saint Peter and Saint Paul that appear in small niches at the head and feet of the recumbent figure and certain sculptures to be found in Avenza which he

identifies with those on Bishop Fonseca’s tomb - part of the work

by Bartolomé Ordoñez that Pietro Aprile agreed to finish, but which were never taken to Spain.

The recumbent figure, however, bears a likeness to the sculptures and subject of Bishop Cybo’s tomb in Genoa Cathedral and the Tomb of Gregorio Magaloti (fig. 2), which Kruft attributed to Guglielmo. There is a noticeable similarity in the rounded head or in the thick-fingered hands with very prominent knuckles 14 .

Also ref lecting his style is the relief of the Miracle of the loaves and the fishes, on the lower part of the altar. The stylised figures arranged into two groups, on the left and on the right, are as yet only lightly defined, and are devoid of Guglielmo’s characteristic treatment of folds, though in general they ref lect a more skilful touch than Gian Giacomo’s. Nonetheless, they

12. MIGLIACCIO, L. “Alcune opere di Pietro Aprile da Carona in Toscana occidentale e le contingenze italo-spagnole nella scultura della prima metà del Cinquecento” Arte Lombarda, no. 96-97, 1991, 19-28: in the text 24-25 and above all note 22.

13. We have contacted the author, who has confirmed the existence of the document he will try to find for its inclusion in the present article, so in the hope that he will manage to locate it we have analysed the monument from this new perspective that we consider to be correct, examining documents that could indirectly support the hypothesis and comparing the style its features reflect with documented works from the della Porta workshop.

14. GRAMBERG, W. “Die Liegestatue des Gregorio Magalotti. Ein römisches Frühwerk des Guglielmo della Porta. Bemerkungen zur Gruppe der DemiGisants in der römischen Grabplastik des Cinquecento“ Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsammlungen, XVII (1972), 43-51; KRUFT, “The della Porta Workshop, 1973, cited on p. 922-923, plate XCVIII.

21 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S EARLY YEARS AND SOME OF HIS WORKS IN SPAIN Margarita Estella

could still be associated with him, if they are compared to the ones Kruft attributes to him in Vigevano, which are reminiscent of the reliefs on the tombs in the charterhouse of Las Cuevas in Seville by Antonio María Aprile. Something similar may be said of the circular ornament on the Madonna and Child, whose outline and facial features are reminiscent of the drawings of female figures with slightly more elongated features that appear in Guglielmo’s famous sketchbooks, but whose traces in this work are barely apparent.

This brief stylistic review has singled out similarities in the stances, facial compositions and design of the hair on the Apostles in the Pentecost scene with the biblical characters portrayed on Bishop Cybo’s tomb, attributed to Gian Giacomo by Kruft and to Guglielmo by Yasmine Helfer, and on the Ciborium in Saint John the Baptist ’s Chapel (figs. 3 and 4).

Fig. 2. Guglielmo della Porta. Head of Cybo. Geneva Cathedral.

Emphasis has been placed on a review of the few biographies of the commissioning party, Don Baltasar del Río, Bishop of Scala, Archdeacon of Niebla and canon of Seville Cathedral.

They generally all refer to his concern for the poor, to whom he dedicated a foundation that is alluded to by the relief of the Miracle of the loaves and the fishes. The same sources state that he lived in Rome for several years, according to some authors in the service of Julius II (1503-1513) and Leo X (1513-1522), although Alonso Morgado refers to the Pontificate of Clement VII (1523-1534), where he died in 154 1. However, as noted above, he expected to be buried in Seville Cathedral, for which the lavish monument had been commissioned and installed in 1539.

Instead, he was actually buried at San Giacomo degli Spagnuoli, in the Eternal City.

Figs. 3 and 4. Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta.

Prophets Chapel of San Giovanni Battista. Geneva Cathedral.

22 COLL & CORTÉS

Figs. 5 and 5a. Attributed to Guglielmo della Porta. Virgin of the Caves. University of Seville.

THE VIRGIN OF THE CAVES Let us now turn to the delightful image of the Madonna and Child (fig. 5), somewhat akin to the one on Bishop of Scala’s tomb, which has attracted the attention of art-historians because of its beauty, but without an accompanying in-depth study15. It is now in the chapel of the Virgin of the Caves or of Women at the charterhouse of Las Cuevas in Seville. According to a report in the Protocolo de el Monasterio de Nuestra Señora Santa María de las Cuevas, transcribed by Professor Palomero, it was apparently in the chapel of the monks’ chapter and had been commissioned by Don Fadrique de Ribera in 1519. This information undoubtedly led to the piece being classified as Genoese at that time, and generally accepted as such by all art historians16.

Finding the date strange, for it appears to be a later work, a review was made of the reports provided by Alizeri on the commissions that Don Fadrique de Ribera, Marquis of Tarifa, contracted with the Aprile.

These were for the tombs of his forbears, executed in Genoa in two stages, the first being mentioned in 1519 and the second dating from 1529 and 1530, which were indeed to be installed at that convent.

A summary stylistic analysis indicates that it is not reminiscent of works by Aprile, and - as far as we know - it cannot be ascribed to any Italian sculptor of the time hailing from Genoa. Although it may be something of a bold assertion, it could perhaps be compared to works by one of the della Porta family, not so much to those by

Gian Giacomo, for it bears no similarities with his best-known pieces, as to those by his son Guglielmo. The beautiful face of the statue (fig. 5a), with a high forehead framed by soft locks of hair, large eyes with drilled irises and a highly original mouth with fleshy lips, presents unusual similarities with, for example, a bronze mask on the base of the Solís tomb, as well as the gentle curvilinear folds on the robe that recall the folds on the short garment covering the reclining figure of Hope on the same monument, one of the first pieces by Guglielmo in Rome, which we shall deal with forthwith17. This assertion has numerous obstacles, not only in terms of chronology, but also in the origin of the commission, for one has to surmise that, as in the case of the Scala tomb, the Aprile, busy with the tombs for the Marquis of Tarifa, passed the work on the statue on to the della Porta workshop. We have taken the bold step of presenting this suggestion so that the investigation into the origin of such a fine piece of work will not be overlooked.

15. CONTRERAS (DE AYALA), J. de, MARQUÉS DE LOZOYA. Escultura de Carrara en España. Madrid, 1957, where a detailed study is conducted on these works.

16. HERNÁNDEZ DÍAZ, Retablos… 1984, op. cit. PALOMERO PÁRAMO, Génova e Siviglia, 1988, op. cit., Cat. 10, p 93.

17. GIBELLINO-KRASCENNINICOWA. Guglielmo della Porta, Rome, 1944. Tav. II and figs. 442-443.

23 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S EARLY YEARS AND SOME OF HIS WORKS IN SPAIN Margarita Estella

Fig. 6.

6 Guglielmo della Porta.

Tomb of Bishop Solís. Malaga Cathedral.

THE TOMB OF BISHOP SOLÍS IN MALAGA CATHEDRAL This magnificent monument standing in Malaga Cathedral (fig. 6, 6a and 6b) was initially attributed to the Leoni, as it is an exquisitely made bronze sculpture. A study by Gramberg, the great German scholar, related it directly to one of the first commissions Guglielmo della Porta received in Rome, namely, the tomb for the Spanish Bishop Solís, who sent it to a church in Salamanca. It was apparently more or less finished upon the death of Solís in Rome in 1545 18.

Gramberg tried to find the work’s destination through documents related to relatives of Bishop Solís in Rome, but the data he found shed light only on the proceedings for the purchase of the base of the tomb that Pope Paul III used for his own tomb, and did not provide any new information on the sculpture that was initially planned to complete it.

An investigation has been conducted into recent Spanish sources on the life of Bishop Solís, revealing that he pursued studies in medicine at Salamanca University and later travelled to Italy, where he entered the priesthood. It seems that he replaced the famous Doctor Laguna in the service of Pope Paul III, as his physician and private secretary, having been appointed Bishop of Bagnorea, as it appears in Spanish documents, by Pope Clement VII. We know about his school foundation for orphans (Fundación del Colegio de Huérfanos) in Salamanca, whose premises are now used for public sector offices, and it is very likely that he intended to place d the tomb commissioned from Guglielmo della Porta in his own chapel: no data have been forthcoming from the Spanish bibliography consulted, but they may have thrown up new lines of research 19.

24 COLL & CORTÉS

As no useful data were found in the above investigation, we turned to the study by Gramberg, which as already noted had revealed the commission made to Guglielmo for the tomb of Don Francisco Solis for a sum of 5000 scudi, whose payment was contested by his heirs. We know the artist did not deliver the base of the tomb that was stored in his workshop, but no data were found on the destination of the sculpture that was to crown the monument and which had probably been sent to Spain.

In his study, the German scholar presented a delightful drawing

by Guglielmo della Porta of the tomb of Bishop Solís that enabled him not only to identify the base stored in the artist’s workshop and purchased by Pope Paul III for his own tomb that was to be made by the sculptor, but also a magnificent recumbent figure that precisely coincided with the sculpture in Malaga Cathedral known as the tomb of the Bishop of Salerno Luis de Torres, I, taken to Malaga by his nephew of the same name, Luis de Torres

18. GRAMBERG, WERNER. “Guglielmo della Portas Grabmal für Paul III Farnese in San Pietro in Vaticano”, Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, XXI, 1984, ESTELLA, “La importación de esculturas italianas”, 2004, op. cit… summarising certain research that is presented here, with the addition of some more information on the Solís family.

19. MARTÍN SÁNCHEZ, M. A. “Un Mecenas de la educación: Francisco de Solís Fundador del Colegio Menor de Huérfanos”, Aula. Revista de Pedagogía de la Universidad de Salamanca. No. 13, 2001, 113-126. Ditto. El salmantino Francisco de Solís, Obispo de Bagnorea y fundador del Colegio Menor de la Concepción de Huérfanos de Salamanca. Salamanca. Revista de Estudios., 50. 2003. pp. 67-84.

Fig. 6a. Detail. Guglielmo della Porta.

Fig. 6b. Detail. Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Bishop Solís. Malaga Cathedral.

Tomb of Bishop Solís. Malaga Cathedral.

II, and likewise Bishop of Salerno, as stated in the inscription that accompanies the monument in Malaga. Gramberg also discovered a letter from Annibale Caro, an attendant of Pope Paul III, addressed to Fernando Torres, brother of Luis de Torres, the Elder, who was on his way to Spain to see to his deceased brother ’s affairs and move the body to Malaga. The document could point to Caro’s involvement in the purchase of the sculpture from the Solís by the Torres family. Fernando Torres was one of the better known brokers for the House of Farnese in the purchase of works of art, but we do not know how the sculpture by Guglielmo commissioned by the Solís came to be in the possession of the Torres family, who - according to Gramberg - installed it on a pedestal made by Giovannantonio Dosio and had a copy of middling quality made of it for the tomb of Luis de Torres II 20.

Only recently, a symposium was held on the Torres family in Malaga, but although it described the characters of its main members, it provided no information on the point in question here. An investigation was also made into Don Luis de Torres’s heir, his nephew of the same name who held the same office of Bishop of Salerno and who was a figure of great interest within the Counter-Reformation in Rome. He is buried in the capital of his diocese in a simple tomb, the information gathered do not provide any specific information on the tomb’s despatch to Malaga. Nevertheless, new studies on the Torres family and this publication on Luis de Torres II’s tomb in Palermo may perhaps open up new lines of research 21 .

Many loose ends need to be tied up and a more thorough investigation could be made into the pro-Hispanic environment at the papal court involving Spanish dignitaries whose office

enabled them to wield an inf luence over both artists and their patrons. These Spanish customers may have favoured Guglielmo della Porta, from amongst other major Roman sculptors, because the high nobility knew of the work that della Porta’s company had done for Spainmentioned above.

20. ESTELLA, M. “La importación de esculturas italianas”. 2004, op. cit. 435: it mentions the relationship between Per Afán de Ribera, 1st Duke of Alcalá, and Fernando Torres, with this information appearing in LLEO CAÑAL, La Casa de Pilatos, 1998.

21. CAMACHO MARTÍNEZ, R.”Importaciones italianas en España en el siglo XVI. El sepulcro de D. Luis de Torres, Arzobispo de Salerno, en la Catedral de Málaga” Boletín de Arte. History of Art Dept. Malaga University, 1985, 93-112: it provided information on the Torres family in Malaga and on the installation of the tomb in the cathedral. - Minutes… -. On the tomb of Luis II de Torres in Palermo: ABBATE, Vi cenzo. “Ludovico de Torres II e la capella di S.Castrense nel Duomo de Monreale. La scultura meridionale in età moderna nei suoi rapporti con la circolazione mediterranea. Convegno Internazionale, Lecce, 2004 a cura de Leticia GAETA: Published 2007, I, pp. 387-401, fig. 10. This same PhD holder collaborated as co-ordinator on the edition of the Minutes of the International Congress on Artistic Creation and Patronage in the cultural development of the Mediterranean in the modern age. Malaga, 2011, in which Doctor Camacho herself addresses, amongst other things, the first burial of the Bishop of Salerno in his Roman chapel, and the articles by Teresa LOPEZ BELTRÁN, Pedro RODRIGUEZ OLIVA and Wenceslao SOTO ANTUÑEDA, are specifically concerned with the TORRES family in Malaga. A careful reading of this weighty volume would be required to glean more information on the tomb examined here.

25 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S EARLY YEARS AND SOME OF HIS WORKS IN SPAIN Margarita Estella

THE TOMB OF THE MARQUIS OF VILLANUEVA DEL FRESNO IN SANTA CLARA DE MOGUER Amongst the works that Alizeri mentioned as contracted with Gian Giacomo and destined for Spain, identification may be made of this tomb, which has been attributed, like so many other Genoese pieces in Spain, to the Aprile workshop. Kruft mentioned solely the contract for the work with Gian Giacomo della Porta without any further comment, as the monument had yet to be located at the time of his publication. Therefore we need to recall what was said about it in its day and certain other observations prompted by the topic that is the focus of this study 22 .

According to Alizeri, “the tomb was designed in memory of the Marquis of Villanova”, in the words transcribed from the contract signed by the company of sculptors who agreed to make it, formed by Gian Giacomo della Porta, Giovanni María Pasallo, Michele Solari and the brothers Giovanni and Leonardo Aprile de Carona, on 16 February 1548. For reasons unknown, on 7 March 1549 Solari and the Aprile left the company.

Located in the convent of Santa Clara de Moguer (Huelva), the tomb is the burial place of Don Juan de Portocarrero, 1 st Marquis of Villanueva del Fresno and Lord of Moguer (fig. 7), who died in 154 4, and of his wife María de Osorio, according to the inscription that appears on the tombstone that is to be found at the back of the arch containing the tomb. These data made it easy to identify this work with the one with commissioned from Gian Giacomo della Porta.

No one knows chose the artist for making the tomb, but it has been noted that this may have been inf luenced by the second marriage between the Marquis’s heir, Pedro, possibly the one who commissioned the work, and a certain Enriquez de Ribera, from the family that went to the Aprile workshop for the execution of their tombs. The relationship between these artists and the della Porta has already been mentioned.

It should be remembered that Niccoló da Corte may also have had an inf luence on the commission, as his activity in Spain

26 COLL & CORTÉS

lasted from 1537 to 1549, although he kept his workshop open in Genoa. A loyal collaborator of Gian Giacomo, he may have put his name forward to members of the nobility in Andalusia.

Designed as a triumphal arch topped by a small tabernacle featuring an oculus, it partly reminds us of Bishop Cybo’s tomb in Genoa. Beneath a semicircular arch lie the figures of the married couple, somewhat roughly portrayed. Framed by pilasters, its front features the beautiful and moving reliefs of Saint Peter and Saint Paul and the slender figures of Hope and Faith. Within the arch is the tombstone with the aforementioned inscription and the sides contain the reliefs of Temperance, Prudence, Justice and Strength, which are typical features of funerary sculpture.

The base bears the family ’s coats of arms held by putti adopting graceful airs.

As stated at the time, both its structure and the sculpted reliefs and recumbent figures on the monument clearly relate to Gian Giacomo’s style, although the greater refinement of the reliefs of the Virtues may ref lect Guglielmo’s inf luence in terms of the architectural design, while some other details may indicate the distant inf luence of Niccoló da Corte, who Tormo perceived in the manner already stated.

The recently restored work is preserved in a relatively good condition in this convent and is one of the more significant ones for studying Gian Giacomo della Porta’s stylistic development.

22. ESTELLA MARCOS, M. “El sepulcro del Marqués de Villanueva en Santa Clara de Moguer, obra de Gian Giacomo della Porta con la colaboración de Giovanni María Pasallo”. Archivo Español de Arte no. 208, 1971, 440451. It is described in ESTELLA “La importación...”, 2004, op. cit.

CONCLUSIONS The presence of these three tombs in Spain provides an extremely important testimony to the arrival of Italian sculpture there and considerably expands the reference material for studying the della Porta workshop, especially regarding the little known early years of Guglielmo’s artistic career.

The altarpiece-tomb of the Bishop of Scala in Seville was to be one of the first major works by Gian Giacomo, by then in partnership with his son Guglielmo and Niccoló da Corte and in collaboration with the Aprile workshop. A study of the piece, as already noted, seems to confirm the document cited by Migliaccio, which at the time of writing we have been unable to inspect.

As Gramberg has revealed, the tomb of Bishop Solís or the Bishop of Salerno, whichever one prefers, is the first bronze piece by Guglielmo during his early stages in Rome in which, nonetheless, the finest traits of his art shine brightly.

The tomb of the Marquis of Villanueva del Fresno in Moguer, on the other hand, is one of the last pieces by Gian Giacomo, without the collaboration either of his son or of da Corte, although the work provides vague hints of both their work. Kruft, it is the only one of tombs that has been documented, for no original contract has been found for Bishop Cybo’s tomb, even if its authorship has been revealed by sound documentary references. The illustrious author Kruft did not know that it is to be found in Moguer, and although slightly damaged, its ease of access allows the final years of Gian Giacomo’s art to be properly studied.

Fig. 7. Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of the Marquis of Villanueva del Fresno.

Convent of Santa Clara de Moguer, Huelva.

27 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME ROSARIO COPPEL

Fig. 8. Guglielmo della Porta. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. © Scala.

28 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 9. Farnese Hercules.

Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples. Š Scala.

Fig. 10. Farnese Flora.

Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples. Š Scala.

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

PASSION FOR ANTIQUITY. THE FARNESE FAMILY AND POPES PAUL III, (1534-1549), JULIUS III 1550-1555) AND PAUL IV (1555-1559)

G

uglielmo della Porta arrived in Rome towards the end of the 1530s, probably in the company of the painter Perino del Vaga (1501-1547), with whom he had been working in Genoa. He soon met Michelangelo, who at that time was the pre-eminent figure in the city’s artistic circles. Amongst other things, Michelangelo was remodelling the Piazza del Campidoglio and designing the new pedestal for the monumental equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius1.

Guglielmo’s first recorded work in the city was as an assistant to Perino del Vaga, for whom he executed the stuccos in the Massimo chapel in the church of the Santissima Trinità dei Monti (destroyed). He continued collaborating with him when, between 1544 and 1547, Pope Paul III commissioned Perino to decorate his new apartment, the Sala Paolina, in the Castel Sant’Angelo2. Guglielmo then made a bust for an antique head of Antoninus Pius (Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo), he restored a marble Cupid, and executed a portrait of the Pope in metal3. Possibly dating from that same period is a marble bust of this same pope4. Guglielmo was also involved in the work on marble and mischia mixed stone doors in the regal hall, as well as on some ephemeral ornaments5.

Michelangelo, who according to Vasari defined him as “fiero e molto assiduo alle fatiche”6, recommended him to the Farnese family as a restorer for the “lavori di integrazione” - replacement of damaged or missing parts - on the antique marble sculptures that were being uncovered at the Baths of Caracalla. Flora, and the colossal Hercules (figs. 9 and 10) that was discovered in 1546 by Alessandro Farnese was missing the lower part of the legs and the left arm. A year later, Guglielmo remade the lost parts, and when in 1560 the original parts were located, Michelangelo advised against removing Guglielmo’s additions so as to show that the skill of modern sculptors was directly on a par with that of the Ancients7.

In 1547, Pope Paul III Farnese (1534-1549) appointed him Custode del Piombo, a prestigious papal office that was well paid - 800 coronas a year - for which he competed with Benvenuto Cellini. His main duty was to make the lead seal for the papal bulls and, as was the tradition, he

32 COLL & CORTÉS

became a brother of the Cistercian Order, being known as “Fra Guglielmo del Piombo”. From that moment onwards, he became the Pope’s official portrait bust sculptor, also working on the Farnese Palace that was being

1. The sources for his study are VASARI, 1568, ed. MILANESI, VII, 1881, pp. 544-550; BAGLIONE, 1649, ed. 1924, I, pp. 151-152; and BERTOLOTTI, 1881, ed. 1972, I, pp. 132-144, II, 300-307. Although in 1944 GIBELLINO KRASCENINNICOWA published a book on Guglielmo della Porta with a number of documentary contributions, there is still no comprehensive and updated publication dedicated solely to this artist. The research into his work is based on the invaluable essays Gramberg wrote about him between 1937 and 1984, and largely the publication in 1964 of the two sketchbooks of drawings mentioned in the previous footnote. Regarding his works of a secular nature, the essential references are the works by JESTAZ, 1981 and 1993 and by RIEBESELL, 2011; for those of a religious nature, see MIDDELDORF, 1935 and 1977; VENTURI, 1937, X, III; POPE-HENNESSY, 1963, ed. 1986, pp.

396-400 and 462; RIEBESELL, 1989, 1995 and 2004. For his biography, see BRENTANO, DBI, 1989, XXXVII, pp. 192-199, which contains a complete bibliography prior to 1986.

2. GAUDIOSO, 1976, I-II, p. 26 and III-IV, p. 252; D’ONOFRIO, 1978, pp. 280, 296, 316.

3. Paid 20 escudos in 1547, it may be a small one that is kept in Hamburg’s Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe (GRAMBERG, 1959), of which at least a further seven versions are known.

These have been studied in an interesting article on the lost-wax technique published by BARBOUR and DEMING GLINSMAN in 1993.

But are now considered to be casts or even fakes.

4. Naples, Certosedi of San Martino, GRAMBERG, 1984, fig. 69.

5. BAGLIONE, 1642, p. 151.

6. VASARI-MILANESI, VII, 1881, p. 545. “Proud and a hard worker”.

7. “... e tra le altre rifece le gambe al famosissimo Ercole con tanta, e si lodevole maestria, che essendosi poi le antiche ritrovate, Michelagnolo giudicò, non doversi mutare quelle di F. Guglielmo, per mostrare con quel rifarcimento si degno al mondo, che le opere della scultura moderna potevano stare al paragone de` lavori antichi”, BAGLIONE, 1642, p. 151. (“…and among other things he remade the legs of that most famous Hercules with much prisworthly mastery, that since it was a relocated antiquity, Michelangelo adjudicated that the work of F. Guglielmo should not be changed, so that it could demonstrate to the world with that worthly restoration that the works of modern sculpture can be at the regarded at the same level as “ancient works”. They were replaced in 1787 during the restoration work carried out by Albacini. SEYMOUR HOWARD, 1968, I, pp. 402-407, vol. II, plate CLXXVI-CLXXVII.

built. At around that same time, he received a commission to execute the tomb of Francisco de Solís, a Spanish bishop from Bagnoregio, who had died in 1545. The only knowledge we have of this work is an anonymous design kept in the Royal Library of Turin8. Most of it was made of bronze, with numerous figures in relief, the Cardinal Virtues and others, but only the effigy of the bishop was sent to Salamanca and is now to be found on the tomb of Luis de Torres in Malaga Cathedral9. The monument’s base was acquired by Paul III and used as part of his tomb in the Basilica of St. Peter’s at the Vatican, see below.

Between 1546 and 1547 Guglielmo executed the work that stablished his name as a sculptor: a Portrait bust of Pope Paul III, (figs. 11 and 11a), in white and yellow marble and alabaster, two magnificent versions remain10. The first is decorated with white marble reliefs on the cope. The back features scenes from the Old Testament: The Eternal Father giving the tablets with the commandments to Moses, and The Red Sea Crossing. At the front, along the edges, the allegorical figures of Peace, Abundance, Justice, Temperance, Innocence and History. The central clasp consists of two winged chimeras with a grotesque mask. The second version has a similar fibula, but no plaquettes in relief, although it does have an extraordinarily beautiful base: two muscular atlantes that reflect Michelangelo’s major influence.

Soon after the pope’s death, in November 1549, thanks to the success of the aforementioned portrait and their meetings with him, Cardinals Santa Fiora and Maffei and bishops Figliucci and Frangipane called upon Guglielmo to design a funerary monument for him11 (fig. 8).

8. GRAMBERG, 1984, p. 360, fig. 88.

9. Ibid, p. 253 ff.; CAMACHO MARTÍNEZ and MIRÓ DOMÍNGUEZ, 1985, pp. 93-111.

See here the essay by ESTELLA, M. pp. 14-27.

10. The two in Naples, Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, measuring 75 and 80 cm in height, respectively. Inspired by the 1546 portrait by Titian that is kept in the same museum in Naples. GRAMBERG, 1984, pp. 319 ff; Exhibit. Cat. I Farnese, 1995.

11. They allocated 10,000 ducats to the work. GIBELLINO, 1944, p. 14, citing TORRIGIO, Le sacre grotte vaticane, II, ed. Rome, 1639, p. 213. POPE-HENNESSY, 1963, ed. 1986, pp.

398-99, plates 99-101. A key reference is the article by GRAMBERG, 1984, pp. 254-364.

Figs. 11 and 11a. Guglielmo della Porta. Portrait bust of Pope Paul III. Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples.

33 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

Yet this, which was to become, even in its reduced form, his masterpiece, caused him numerous problems and even made him enemies. Commissioned on 17 November 1549, it was finally erected 25 years later, in 1575, at the expense of the pope’s nephew, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. The initial design was inspired by Michelangelo’s tomb for Julius II and the tomb of Lorenzo de’ Medici (fig. 12) and its planned location was as a free-standing monument in the transept, but neither its grandiose design nor its original location were respected 12 .

Paul III, in bronze, is depicted enttroned, without a tiara and with his head bent forward and his right hand is raised in blessing. His cape features four allegories, Abundance, Peace, Justice and Victory, in addition to four ornamental reliefs with their corresponding emblems.

The statue, which is signed, is placed on an ancient sarcophagus that had been chosen by the Pope before his death. The bronze ornaments on the marble base consist of putti seated on volutes crowned by rams’ heads and finished with grotesque masks, and with reliefs taken from the tomb of Bishop Solís, all in bronze, as Paul III had agreed with Guglielmo. The effigy was cast in the autumn of 1552 and it had already been engraved by May 1553. It was surrounded by four marble allegories - Justice, Prudence, Peace and Abundance whose model had been approved in July 1552. Only Justice, (fig. 8a) signed on the long ribbon at the back: “Guglielmo Della Porta F”, had been finished by April 1554, being highly acclaimed by his peers13.

That same year work began on the second one - Prudence -, whereas the blocks for the other two were already in the sculptor’s studio.

Guglielmo’s demands regarding the tomb’s location led to the end of his friendship with Michelangelo. It was initially placed as a freestanding arrangement, but soon afterwards, between 1575 and 1588, it was abutted to the wall in a chapel, and two of the allegorical figures, Peace and Abundance, were removed and transferred to the Farnese Palace, where they remain to this day. In 1629 the tomb was moved to the apse, opposite the one belonging to Urban VIII by Bernini. This also marked the disappearance of the inscription, the coat of arms, two putti, and most of the plinth14. Regarding the monument’s four bronze reliefs, which have now been covered up, arranged in pairs on each side of the base, they are the first ones the sculptor executed in Rome - around 1547 - and therefore of great interest for the study of his style development15.

Fig. 8a. Detail of Justice. Guglielmo della Porta. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. © Scala.

12. VASARI-MILANESI, VII, 1881, pp. 546-48.

13. Letter from Annibale Caro, who might have been the one who inspired the iconography, to Cardinal Farnese, in November 1553, in which he describes it as “a wonder for all those that see it.”, GRAMBERG, 1984, p. 35. According to VASARI, idem p. 547: “una figura nuda sopra un panno a giacere” (A nude figure reclined on drapery). It was subsequently covered by Teodoro della Porta in 1593, applying the precepts of the Counter-Reformation. There is a sketch at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford and there was another in the P. Morgan Collection, South Kensington.

14. Bernini changed certain details. The ancient Vatican Grotto (Pretiano Museum) kept a grotesque bronze mask that came from the tomb of Bishop Solís.

GIBELLINO, 1944, plate II. 15. There were eight, but four were melted down to cast the colossal statue of the Pope.

MATTHIAE, 1935, pp. 313-326.

Fig. 12. Michelangelo Buonarroti. Tomb of Lorenzo de’ Medici.

Chapel of San Lorenzo, Florence.

34 COLL & CORTÉS

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

Fig. 13. Guglielmo della Porta. God’s Charity.

Fig. 14. Guglielmo della Porta. The restitution of the church.

Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

The relief God’s Charit y, (fig. 13) the first on the left, measures 63 x 60 cm on its upper width and x 90 cm on its lower width.

It is a classical variation on the theme. The allegorical figure is reclining and wearing a cloak with a fibula, the highlight being the noble features on the face. Appearing on the right are Adam and Eve and on the left there are several male figures. They are all looking towards Christ, who enveloped in a f lowing rounded cloak stands with the cross. Above, in the centre there is an anthropomorphic sun 16. The restitution of the church, (fig. 1 4) the second on the left, is exactly the same size as the previous relief. The female figure is shrouded with a veil and her hands are clasped across her chest. Beside her there is a dog and two people carrying the chalice/containing the sacred host. On the left, the Sibylla Tiburtina indicates the Emperor Augustus genuf lecting in a show of devotion, the heavenly vision of the Madonna appearing with a radiant aureole of lights. Philosophy and the Liberal Arts, (fig. 15) the first on the right, of the same size as the other reliefs, is a classical figure elegantly seated that is reminiscent of a Tanagra 17. She rests her left arm on an amphora from which a

36 COLL & CORTÉS

fountain springs forth. Above her, a male figure holding a chalice is in the act of pouring the water. The background contains a grouping of several figures. A male figure collects water from the fountain, an old man is seated, and another rests his head on his right arm in a pensive stance, and there is a young man playing a zither. Exceptionally pictorial and impressionistic, it illustrates the major inf luence of Michelangelo 18. The Strength of Faith, (fig. 16) the second on the right, rests her right hand on a shield, whilst in the left she holds a throwing spear. A lion lies beside her. Behind her are Jacob, who is fighting with the angel, David, who trying to sever Goliath’s head raises his sword in a threatening manner, and Samson, who is throttling a lion. They are all allusions to strength.

Although these first works already feature some of Guglielmo’s stylistic traits, above all in the composition of the scene, both the movement and the postures are very forced. The models are taken from those made during his years as an apprentice in Genoa alongside his father Gian Giacomo della Porta and Nicolò del Arca.

Fig. 15. Guglielmo della Porta. Philosophy and the Liberal Arts.

Fig. 16. Guglielmo della Porta. The Strength of Faith.

Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

During the first years after his arrival in Rome, Guglielmo was commissioned to undertake other monumental pieces: the tombs for Bernardino Elvino in S. Maria del Popolo (1548), and for Paolo y Federigo Cesi in S. Maria Maggiore (1546-50), in which he followed the same model of a slightly raised reclining figure in the Etruscan manner which he had used on the tomb for Bishop Solís 19.

When Julius III (1550-1555) became pope, he called upon Vasari to execute the tomb for his uncle, Cardinal del Monte, in San Pietro in Montorio. Ammannati was commissioned the sculptures. The artist, who that same year married the poet Laura Battiferri, was in daily contact with Michelangelo who, aged 77, had just been appointed the first architect of St. Peter’s. That same year, 1550, Guglielmo also received an important commission, the project for an Equestrian Statue of Charles V. It was requested by the Pope at the prompting of Cardinal Maffei and the Spanish ambassador Diego Hurtado de Mendoza20. The idea was to portray the Emperor on horseback by means of a large bronze statue like the Marcus Aurelius, with four provinces, Italia, Sicilia, Germania and Africa, personified as female figures in a position of obedience at his feet, all on a plinth decorated with captives as a sign of victory.

The project was abandoned due to the “changing times”, but around 1560 Guglielmo presented a second larger and more imposing study: a standalone, measuring twelve metres in diameter, decorated inside and outside with historical scenes and crowned by the figure of the Emperor, the provinces and the captives. The scenes were to be fourteen episodes from the Passion of Christ, whose models, started four years earlier, were almost finished and ready for casting in bronze in bas-reliefs measuring 1 x 2 metres21.

16. GIBELLINO, 1944, pp. 43-44, plate XVI; GRAMBERG, 1984, fig. 54-57.

17. GIBELLINO, 1944, p. 45, plate XVIII. 18. VENTURI, 1937, X, 3, fig. 442, Hope, and fig. 443, Temperance identified as Peace.

19. The first one is in marble and the other two are in bronze. Ibid, fig. 437, 454 and 455.

20. GRAMBERG, 1964, cat. No. 118, 121-123 and 223-224.

21. Report submitted to the Spanish court in early 1560. Granvela to Gonzalo Ruiz, 28 July 1560: “regarding the tomb of the emperor so that the design can be made by Michelangelo. What is offered by the friar of lead on it”. PLON, 1887, p. 385, no. 70.

37 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

Fig. 17. Anonymous, Italian. Largest Talman Album. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

38 COLL & CORTÉS

Yet this second version of the monument Charles V also failed to materialise, although over subsequent years the Scenes of the Passion were offered to various personages, such as Paul IV, Cosimo de’ Medici, Cardinal Farnese, his friend Giovanni Dosio and the King of Spain, Philip II 22, and cast in various materials.

Coinciding with this date, around 1556-1557, Guglielmo made the drawings for the reliefs on the side doors of the church of San Silvestro al Quirinale (St. Sylvester on Quirinal Hill), in Rome, which were made

by Giovanni Antonio Dosio (1533-1609). The drawings are now kept at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (fig. 17) (Largest Talman Album)23.

The description Vasari gives of the models of the reliefs with scenes of the passion is extremely useful for forming an idea not only of the grandiosity of the project, but also of Guglielmo’s style.

“Il medesimo Fra Guglielmo ha condotto, nello spazio di molti anni, quattordici storie, per farle di bronzo, della Vita di Cristo; ciascuna delle quali è larga palmi quatrro e alta sei <89.2 x 133.8 cm.>; eccetto però una, che è palmi dodici alta e larga sei <267.6 x 133.8 cm.>, dove è la Natività di Giesu Cristo, con bellissime fantasie di figure. Nell’altre tredici sono l’andata di Maria con Cristo putto in Ierusalem in su l‘asino, con due figure di gran rilievo, e molte di mezzo e basso; la Cena con tredici figure ben composte, ed un casamento ricchissimo; il lavare i piedi ai discepoli; l’orare nell’orto, con cinque figure ed una turba da basso molto varia; quando è menato ad Anna, con sei figure grandi, e molte di basso, ed un lontano; lo essere battuto alla colonna; quando è coronato di spine; l’Ecce Homo; Pilato che si lava le mani; Cristo che porta la croce con quindici figure, ed altro lontano che vanno al monte Calvario; Cristo crucifiso, con diciotto figure; e quando è levato di croce: le quali tutte istorie, se fussono gettate, sarebbono una rarissima opera, veggendosi que è fatta con molto studio e fatica. Aveva disegnato papa Pio IV farle condurre per una delle porte di San Piero; ma non ebbe tempo, sopravvenuto dalla morte. Ultimamente ha condotto

22. PÉREZ DE TUDELA, 2007, pp. 404-405.

23. VALONE, 1977, pp. 243-255, plates 1-8.

39 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

Fra Guglielmo modelli de cera per tre altari di San Piero: Cristo deposto di croce, il ricevere Pietro le chiavi della Chiesa, e la venuta dello Spiritu Santo; che tutte sarebbono belle storie” 24 .

It involved three altar reliefs, of which he only managed to make the wax models, which were kept in the sacristy, although they have now been lost. According to Middeldorf, this same provenance may apply to two wax bas-reliefs of the Crucifixion, which survive to this day, one in Rome, at the Galleria Borghese, and the other in Stockholm, in the Howing & Winborg Collection 25 .

Another piece associated with the scenes of the Passion is a marble relief of the Descent from the Cross (fig. 18) which is now in Milan, at the Castello Sforzesco Museum.

At around that time, abandoning what could have been his most ambitious work - the monument to Charles V - Guglielmo turned his attention to making copies of the most famous classical statues kept in Roman collections. This meant that by 1560, he could offer his own catalogues of bronze castings for sale, which was something quite exceptional 26. Julius III granted him the right or privilege to visit the Belvedere and perform “lavori di scalpello” - chisel work, as well as collect antiques.

This work meant he required a team of assistants, who he paid 10 escudos a month 27. Working for him were Willem van Tetrode and the young Giambologna, who probably learnt the technique of lost-wax casting in his workshop. These were also the years in which he was busy completing Paul III’s tomb, when he had already become a collector of antique statues and had plans for a guide to Rome’s collections 28. He designed sarcophagi and continued restoring antique pieces, some of which he actually owned and often went on to sell. He also continued working at the Farnese Palace as the member responsible for the workshop.

It was there that he took part in the architectural project, the interior decoration and the valuation of the collection, as well as undertaking goldsmiths work and ephemeral decoration for parties 29.

According to Brentano: “ The direct experience of classical pieces, above all of the narrative scenes on sarcophagi, as well as the initial knowledge gained in Genoa, and later in Rome, of numerous frescos by Perino del Vaga with a classical-

40 COLL & CORTÉS

mythological subject-matter, led Della Porta, once he had settled in Rome, to supply a huge market with small reliefs, generally measuring 15 x 22 cm, which once designed could be modelled, sculpted or cast for several purposes, in a wide range of manners and materials” 30.

24. VASARI, 1568, MILANESI, VII, 1881, pp. 548-549. “The same Fray Guglielmo has executed during a period of many years fourteen stories of the life of Christ, for casting in bronze; each of which is four palms in breadth and six in height <89.2 x 133.8 cm>, excepting only one, which is twelve palms high and six broad <267.6 x 133.8 cm>, wherein is the Nativity of Jesus Christ, with most beautiful fantasies of figures. In the other thirteen are, Mary going with the Infant Christ on the donkey, to Jerusalem, with two figures in strong relief, and many in halfrelief and low-relief; the Last Supper, with thirteen figures well composed, and a very rich building; the Washing of the disciples’ feet; the Prayer in the Garden, with five figures, and at the foot a multitude of great variety; Crist led before Annas, with six large figures, many lower down, and one in the distance; the was Scourging at the column, the Crowing with Thorns; the “Ecce homo”; Pilate washing his hands ; Christ bearing the cross, with fifteen figures and others in the distance who are heading for Mount Calvary; Christ Crucified, with eighteen figures; and Christ taken down from the Cross. All of which, if they were cast, would form a very rare work, seeing that they have been wrought with much study and labour. Pope Pius IV had intented to have them executed for one of the doors of S. Pietro, but he had not time, being overtaken by death.

Fra Guglielmo has executed models in wax for three altars in S. Pietro: Christ taken down from the Cross, Peter receiving the keys of the church, and the Coming of the Holy Spirit, which would all be beautiful scenes”.

25. MIDDELDORF, 1935, pp. 90-96.

26. Inventory published by JESTAZ, 1993, pp. 11-12: “Statue e teste di metallo gettate simile alle propie antice di Rome”. It provides the specific model that has been used, the weight and price of each item in gold escudos. (200 the Mercury, 150 the rest, except Caracalla, 50).

27. LANCIANI, 1907, p. 38.

28. Della Valle, Cesi & Garimberti. GRAMBERG, 1964, p. 126.

29. Exhibit. Cat. Palazzo Farnese, 2011.

30. 1989, p. 196.

Fig. 18. Guglielmo della Porta. The Deposition (or, Lamentation), marble. Museo di Castello Sforzesco, Milan.

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

Fig. 19. Guglielmo della Porta. Oval plaquette of the Metamorphosis. Kunst Historisches Museum, Vienna.

They involved scenes from Ovidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Metamorphosis (figs. 19 and 20) of which an entire series of eight oval-shaped ones and eight octagonal-shaped ones has survived, now kept at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, and previously in the Este Collection. There are other versions in museums in Hamburg and Berlin, at the Metropolitan in New York, the Victoria and Albert in London and in the Vatican Museums 31 .

When Carafa became Paul IV (1555-59), Guglielmo fell out of papal favour. However, when the people of Rome, out of

42 COLL & CORTĂ&#x2030;S

gratitude because the Pope repealed a tax on meat, planned a statue of the Pope for the Capitol, they commissioned Guglielmo.

But the project was abandoned, according to a complaint Guglielmo made to Cardinal Farnese, because of Michelangelo and other artists. There was, moreover, another project that failed to see the light of day, namely, a 2.5 metre high statue of Saint John that was to be placed, together with another four made by Raffaello da Montelupo, Daniele da Volterra, M. Civitali and G. A. Sormani, on a new door at the Castel de

Fig. 20. Guglielmo della Porta. Octogonal plaquette of the Metamorphosis. Kunst Historisches Museum, Vienna.

Santâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Angelo. The marbles were ordered from Carrara but the project never materialised, probably due to the war with Spain.

These circumstances convinced Guglielmo that as a sculptor he was being hounded by Michelangelo and other artists. There is a surviving letter that he wrote to Cardinal Farnese in which in addition to the above he blamed other artists for having lost the commission for the bronze casting of four prophets that were in the Paolina Chapel, for their placing in the four main niches in St. Peter â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, and another one, on the tomb of Gian Giacomo Medici,

Marquis of Marignano, in Milan Cathedral, which was awarded to Leoni, precisely upon the recommendation of Michelangelo 32.

31. GOLDSMITH PHILIPS, 1939, pp. 148-151; GRAMBERG, 1960, pp. 31-52.

32. GRAMBERG, 1964, cat. no. 225 and 226.

43 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

When Pius IV (1560-65) became pope, the good times returned for Rome’s sculptors. Nevertheless, the first commission, a series of copies of antique art for the ornament of his Casino in the Vatican gardens, was awarded to Tommaso della Porta, who although related was a rival to Guglielmo. Both of them worked for Cardinal Alessandro Farnese at the same time, both on his Roman Palace and on his summer residence in Caprarola 33.

In 1560, the Pope, who maintained excellent relations with the Spanish court, sent Philip II a number of sculptures. These were the busts of Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Antoninus Pius and Faustina 34 . Around that same time he also made a gift to Prince Don Carlos: a portrait of the future Augustus or one of his grandsons, Gaius or Lucius, in bronze, in all likelihood from the series of copies of antique art executed by Guglielmo 35 .

Furthermore, Museo Arqueológico Nacional, in Madrid, has a 50 cm high bronze bust of Pius IV (fig. 21) that is undoubtedly by the hand of this sculptor. Received (Provenance) from the Salamanca Collection, it might have been sent to Spain as a gift from the Pope to the monarch 36.

As we have seen, in 1564, Pius IV commissioned Guglielmo to execute fourteen reliefs with scenes from the Passion for one of the doors at St. Peter ’s. That same year he also acquired part of Guglielmo’s catalogue of bronzes: “Cinque teste, et 4 statue di metallo, fatte per lui in Belvedere d’ordine di nostro signore et poste nelle tantie noue” 37. There were four statues: Mercury, Spinario, The Gypsy Woman, and the Child Hercules and five busts: Antinous, Aelius Verus, Lucius Verus, Geta and Caracalla, but when the Pope died his successor returned them, as we shall see in due course 38.

THE PAPACY OF PIUS V (1565-1572) AND THE IDEAS OF THE COUNTER-REFORMATION The doctrinal definitions of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) were the starting point in the Counter-Reformation for the spiritual renewal of the Catholic Church. The discussions at one of the sessions focused on sacred art and a definition was made of the new forms accepted by theologians, a more proper and decent iconography, allegorical depictions and new instructive images.

Acting upon the instructions of Paul IV, Daniele de Volterra (1509-1566) had to cover up the nudes in the Last Judgement by Michelangelo, who had died in 1564, and because of this he was popularly referred to as “il braghettone” (the breeches maker); Bartolomeo Ammannati wrote a letter to his fellow artists that he himself published in Florence in 1582, reneging on his artistic past full of nudes 39. In 1593, Guglielmo’s son, Teodoro della Porta, received a commission to cast some metal garments to cover the statue of Prudence on Paul III’s tomb, complying with a request

33. VASARI-MILANESI, VII, 1881, pp. 550-551. See here pp. 32-34.

34. All four are in the Prado Museum (inv. E-215, E-378, E-123 and E-216), SCHRÖDER, 1994; COPPEL, 1998.

35. “An antique bronze statue, with a pedestal of the same material, gilt, which is said to portray Octavian as a child, which the Pope is said to have sent His Majesty when he was in Toledo. Valued at 25 ducats” (Inv. 1569-70, en español en el original), COPPEL, 2004, p. Furthermore, amongst the sculptures Cardinal Ricci de Montepulciano sent to Philip II in 1561, there was a copy of the Spinario, now in the Jardín de la Isla at the palace in Aranjuez, which has been attributed to Guglielmo della Porta (Deswarte Rossa, 1990).

36. Inventory no. 52.859. COPPEL, 1989, no. 56.

37. BERTOLOTTI, 1881, I, p. 135. “Four metal statues and five heads made by him in the Belvedere by order of our lord and placed by him in the new rooms”.

38. JESTAZ, 1993, pp. 15-17.

39. SCHLOSSER, Spanish edition, 1976, pp. 365-370.

44 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 21. This work, until now unknown, is attributed here, for the first time, to Guglielmo della Porta.

Bust of Pius IV. 漏 Antonio Trigo Arnal. (Inv. 52859).

Museo Arqueol贸gico Nacional, Madrid.

45 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

(Fig.18 Viena).

Fig. 22. Guglielmo della Porta. Gilt-silver crucifix. Geistliche Schatzkammer, Vienna.

46 COLL & CORTĂ&#x2030;S

his father had made in life. All this shows how the arrival of Pius V put an end to the works related to ancient times. From then on our sculptor dedicated himself to making crucifixes and reliefs with a religious theme.

In January 1568, the new Pope returned to Guglielmo the statues and the busts of a secular nature that his predecessor Pius IV had bought and which had probably not been paid for. In one of Guglielmo’s wills, dated 1568, the artist gave order to sell these pieces and for the proceeds to be distributed amongst his heirs 40. In 1575 these were purchased by Duke Ottavio Farnese through the intercession of Monsignor Alessandro Rufino, majordomo of Cardinal Alessandro, for the Farnese Palace41.

A year later, disillusioned with the atmosphere prevailing in the city, Guglielmo sought the patronage of Maximilian II of Austria, sending him a crucifix and an accompanying letter in which, as in another of the same date addressed to his friend Ammannati42, he clearly describes the redirection of his activities towards religious iconography.

“Perche tuti quelli che in qualunque professione sono stati eccelenti in qual si voglia tempo, hanno sempre cercato di haver il favor de’Principi de l’età loro, / Io, come quello che mi sforzo di imitar quanto è possibile ne la scoltura quei Fidiy, quei Prasiteli, quei Lisippi, et quei tanti altri famosi huomini che già furono in quest’arte, i quali per esser stati da Alessandro Magno, et da altri gran Signori tanto stimati, ett honorati, hanno lasciato memorie eterne del lor valore; per questo ho sempre desiderato sommamente di esser sotto l’ombra de la Mt a V. come del maggior Principe del mondo, et maggior fautore di questa, et di tutte l’altre sciensze” 43.

The gilt-silver crucifix, which stands 23.8 cm high and is 24 cm wide, is now to be found in Vienna at the Geistliche Schatzkammer 44 (fig. 22).

From that moment on, he received numerous commissions for religious iconography.

In 1570 he designed twelve reliquaries for Pius V, which were made by Antonio Gentili (Lost). Two years later, on 18 December 157 1, Cardinal Farnese thanked Guglielmo for sending him a crucifix and conveyed words of the highest praise 45 . This silver crucifix is placed over the great Cross and the two candlesticks made by Manno Sbarri and Antonio Gentili, which Cardinal Farnese donated for the high altar in the Basilica of St. Peter ’s in the Vatican on 2 June 1582 46 (fig. 23).

Fig. 23. Antonio Gentili. Silver crucifix. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

40. BERTOLOTTI. 1881. II, p. 304.

41. Exhibit. Cat. I Farnese, Naples, 1995. They are all kept in the Capodimonte Museum except for the Mercury and the Spinario, which disappeared early in the 19th century.

42. See here p. 66.

43. 23 May 1569, Vienna, State Archives, Varia fasc. 4. Published by Gramberg, 1981, p.

96. “Because all those who in any profession have been excellent, for which they require time, have always sought to have the favour of the Princes of their time./ I, as one who endeavours to imitate everything that is possible in the sculpture of Phidias, Praxiteles, Lysippus, and so many other famous men that have graced this art, who because they were once with Alexander the Great, and other great lords we hold in such esteem, have left an enduring memory of their worth: hence the reason I have always wished to stand in the shadow of Your Highness as the world’s Greatest Prince, and the greatest supporter (patron) of this and of all the other sciences”.

44. Documented at the end of the preceding letter, whose excerpt we transcribe in due course in the catalogue file for the crucifix, p. GRAMBERG, 1964, p. 96, fig. 1 and 6.

45. Naples, State Archives, Fascio Farnesiano 1324, published by GRAMBERG, 1981, p. 96. See here pp. 53-54.

46. GRAMBERG, 1960, pp. 101 ff. fig. 7 and 10-14; RIEBESELL, 1998, p. 258.

47 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

il ditto Gibileo farà diliencia dele storie della passione di Iesu di metalle indorate, et de<l>li dodeci apostoli et Iesu Cristo di argento et delle sedici storie (greche) morali di argento et oro per adornamenti di tavole et de studioli con li dodeci Cesari con la testa di argento et la clamuda di metallo indorata, et molte altre belli studi, come V. S. sa. E questo ricordo Io fo aciochè Sua Maesta abia a caro la venuta di V. S. in Rome aciò si poseno concludere ditte hopere di Sua Maesta. E con questo Facio fine, pregando il S. Idio la conserva e conduca presto a Rome sano. A di 29 aprile del 75 di V. S. aff.mo et minor fratello” 48.

Finally, the cross on the altar that Gregory XIII (1572-1585) (fig. 24) gifted to the Basilica of St. Peter ’s, cast by Bastiano Torrigiani, also with a model by Guglielmo, at least for the figure of Christ, is the last piece recorded until this moment, yet his output of crucifixes towards the final years his life was enormous, as can be seen in the inventory of works, models and moulds that remained in his workshop 49.

Fig. 24. Bastiano Torrigiani, based on a model by della Porta. Crucifix.

St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

47. RONCHINI, vol. IV, p. 228, cited by Hayward, 1976, p. 138 and 166, note 17. “I have already shown your emissary several items made of silver and other gilded metals and several new designs invented that are related to this art”.

48. “…And it seems to me now year thousand that Your Holiness has come to

In addition, thanks to another letter, dated 15 March 1573, from Guglielmo to Duke Ottavio Farnese, we know that he continued with his goldsmiths work, both in silver and in gilt-bronze: “Ho gia mostrato diversi lavori d’argento et d’altro metallo indorato, et varie invenzioni di dissegni al suo huomo, che sono pertinente col’arte sua” 47.

There is yet another letter, this time penned by Guglielmo himself and addressed to some unidentified person at the Spanish Court, which bears witness to his work: “…Et mi pare una ora mille anno, che V. S. venga a piliare questo St. Gibileo come sonno sicuro, che vera se per esere lei divota et di buona mente, come ancho per avere lisencia di Sua Maesta, al quale V. S. potra dire. che v <en>endo a Rome per

48 COLL & CORTÉS

earn this Jubilee as I am sure, which will occur because you, Sir, are extremely devout and of a sound mind, for having a licence from Your Majesty, which Your Holiness may say that coming from Rome for said Jubilee you shall have deleite of the stories of Our Lord’s Passion in gilded metal, and of Jesus Christ’s twelve apostles in silver and of the sixteen moral tales (Greek) in silver and gold for the ornament of tables and studies with the twelve Caesars with silver heads and a gilded metal chlamys, and many other beautiful features, as Your Holiness knows. And this I remember fo aciochè in this way. Your Majesty is to favour Your Holiness’s arrival in Rome so that these works of Your Majesty may be completed.

And with this I conclude, begging God to keep you well and bring you soon to Rome in good health. On 29 April of the 75th year of Your Holiness your most affectionate younger brother”, GRAMBERG, 1964, cat. no. 200 and 201.

49. See here catalogue no. 1 and documentary appendix. pp. 140-141.

GUGLIELMO DELL A PORTA’S ST YLE Guglielmo della Porta started off undertaking restorations in marble, the magnificent portraits busts of Paul III at the Capodimonte Museum in Naples, and the four great Virtues for Paul III’s tomb, but most of his subsequent output was in bronze. He probably learnt the technique of lost-wax casting in the foundry workshops of northern Italy, although his first piece in this material, a small bust of Paul III, would be made when he was in Rome and opened the doors to a commission of far greater importance, namely, the tomb for Bishop Francisco de Solís. In order to undertake this project, Guglielmo took as his point of reference the funerary monuments of the cardinals Ascanio Sforza and Girolamo Basso della Rovere, by Andrea Sansovino, in S. Maria del Popolo.

Although he does not appear to be an outstanding portrait sculptor - his busts all look very similar -, the reliefs that decorate a large number of these works testify to his expertise, firstly as a draughtsman and then as a sculptor, as he was capable of transferring his designs to sculptures and models with a f luency and freedom that are the most characteristic features of his oeuvre.

In all probability, this was due to his years of apprenticeship in Genoa alongside his father Gian Giacomo. It is also due to his early stucco works, so close to the designs by Perino del Vaga, whose inf luence can be noted throughout his entire career.

Guglielmo’s drawings reveal a perspective centred within a framework, with buildings or landscapes with trees and distant cities, featuring stylised figures, whose muscles and clothing are stretched with nervous energy. The postures, with elegant contrapposto, (fig. 25) express either great activity or static passivity, depending on whether the figures are the protagonists or mere onlookers.

Furthermore, there are designs of frames decorated with hermae (fig. 26), fantastic female heads, grotesque masks, cherubs, garlands, leaves and f lowers, whose development can be followed throughout the pages that make up his sketchbooks.

There is no doubt that Guglielmo had a large workshop with numerous assistants capable of making the plasters for his wax models and understanding the technicalities of casting.

However, the finishes on the pieces by his hand have a bright surface that ref lects the effect of his sketches in such a personal manner that it is hard to believe they were performed by anyone else. This is apparent in the f luency, speed and spontaneity with which they have been undertaken.

Stefanie Walker defines it in a succinct manner, referring to a pax that is kept at the Metropolitan Museum in New York (fig. 27): “Although not identical, these figures all seem to have sprung from the same creative mind that developed the paper sketches into a beautiful and functional sculptural form. These comparisons indicate to what a great extent the Metropolitan’s pax captures the style, spirit, and effect of Guglielmo’s autograph drawings. The artist himself must certainly have made the wax models for its central scene, frame and handle. The chasing, polishing, and punching - which in the scene only appear to be sketchy - are, in fact, extremely confident and may even be by the hand of the master, or at least by one of his closest and most talented collaborators” 50.

The style of the reliefs, described perfectly by Vasari as “ bellissime fantasie di figure” 51 , is noteworthy for the huge number of characters he introduces in scenes 13, 15 and even 18, being well composed and varied, some of which are freestanding, others in mid-relief and other in bas-relief. Although the historian is describing the great models that, it appears, were never actually cast, he provides the guidelines for understanding Guglielmo’s manner of working 5 2 .

50. WALKER, 1991, p. 171.

51. Ed. MILANESI, VII, 1881, pp. 548-49. “Beautiful creation of figures”.

52. See p. 39 for the full description.

49 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

Fig. 27. Guglielmo della Porta.

Fig. 26. Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing.

Museum Kunstpalast, DĂźsseldorf.

Christ risen appearing to his disciples.

Metropolitan Museum, New York. Š Scala.

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

Fig. 25. Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf.

On the other hand, Guglielmo’s female models, inspired by the allegories painted by Perino del Vaga (fig. 28) in the Paolina Hall at the Castel de Sant’Angelo, provide a suggestion of the shapes of the bodies beneath the thin, clinging fabrics, as Vasari already noted in the description of one of the Virtues on Paul III’s funerary monument: “La terza fu l’Abbondanza, una donna giovane, coronata di spigue, con un corno di dovizia in mano, e lo staio antico nell’altra, ed in modo vestita, che mostra l’ignudo sotto il panni” 53.

The faces always reveal a classical beauty, with the long hair gathered up or hanging loose with great movement. A feature that is repeated on many pieces is the lock of curly hair that hangs over the face. It appears in the marble Prudence on Paul III’s tomb, on the Hope on the reliquary altarpiece cat. no. 2, and also on the Christ, cat. no. 1.

52 COLL & CORTÉS

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S WORKSHOP A comparative study has yet to be made between Guglielmo’s documented works and those of his workshop assistants and the latter’s degree of creativity.

The first assistant was Jacopo Cobaert, known in Italy as “Coppe Fiamingo”. By the age of 18-20 he was already employed in the workshop making models and remained there until Guglielmo’s death. Manno Sbarri and Antonio Gentili da Faenza, both living in Rome since the early 1550s, had their own workshop and were only occasional collaborators of Guglielmo, although they subsequently continued his work. Finally, Bastiano Torrigiani, who was his successor, could have been the one who cast the copies of the antique sculptures in the 1560’s 54.

involved designs by Perino da Vinci (for the crystals), Pellegrino Tibaldi or Francesco Salviati. Vasari describes the subjects as “la più belle fantasie del cardinale”60. The chest anticipates the iconographic motifs that were to be addressed in greater detail in the ornament of the Farnese Palace in Rome. It was the first piece of its kind to feature a secular iconographic content. It is thought to have been designed to hold the Farnese Hours produced by Giulio Clovio for the Cardinal although, as Garimberto said: “The Farnese chest must of all have given pleasure, aroused wonder, and made anyone who gazed upon it forget life’s trials and tribulations”61.

As the forerunners of this unique piece, one might mention the urn of Saint John the Baptist made by Francesco d’Antonio (1466), which is housed at the Museo del Duomo in Siena, and a box commissioned to Valerio Belli by Clement VII with scenes of the Passion (1532), which is in the Museo degli Argenti, Firenze.

The same year in which he finished the Farnese Chest, 1561, Manno Sbarri received a further commission from Cardinal Farnese: a golden altar cross, the figures of St. Peter and St. Paul and two candlesticks.

Two years after the goldsmith’s death, Cardinal Farnese passed the commission on to Antonio Gentili, who finished and signed it in 1581.

Fig.28. Perino del Vaga. Allegory. Paolina Hall, Castel de Sant’Angelo, Rome.

53. “The third one was Abundance, a young woman crowned with thorns, holding a horn of

They were also other artists who trained alongside him, such as Willem van Tetrode55, or Giambologna56, (figs. 29 and 29a) and who disseminated his style when they left Rome, with the former settling in Delft and the latter in Florence. Others devoted themselves to marble pieces, such as Giovanni Batista di Bianchi, for we must not forget the other side of Guglielmo as a restorer of classical pieces57.

Manno di Sebastiano Sbarri (Florence, 1536-Rome, 22-1-1576) was a student of Cellini and Giovanni Bernardi de Castelbolognese. He worked for Cardinal Farnese, Julius III and Paul IV58. The Cassetta Farnese (Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte) was his masterpiece, for which he used a series of reliefs in rock crystal carved by Giovanni Bernardi de Castelbolognese (1494-1553)59.

The Cassetta Farnese chest was made between 1548 and 1561, at the behest of the young Cardinal Alessandro. Commissioned at some time in 1543, in April 1544 Bernardi offered to take the crystals to Rome. It

abundance in her hand, and the ancient measure in the other, and dressed in such a way that she reveals her nakedness beneath her garments”. VASARI-MILANESI, VII, 1881, p. 547.

54. JESTAZ, 1993, p. 44.

55. MASINELLI, 1991, pp. 88-100; Exhibit. Cat. Fiamminghi a Rome, Brussels, Rome, 1995 Exhibit. Cat. Willem van Tetrode. Amsterdam, New York, 2003.

56. AVERY, 1987, pp. 122-125; WETZEL GIBBONS, 1995; ZIKOS, 2006, pp. 22-23.

57. RIEBESELL in DBI, vol. 39, pp. 683-686.

58. HAYWARD, 1976, pp. 149-50.

59. “Volendo poi fare il medesimo cardinal Farnese una cassetta d’argento ricchissima, fattone fare l’opera a Manno Orefice fiorentino”. “With the very same Cardinal Farnese wishing to make a very ornate chest, he commissioned the work to Manno Sbarri, a silversmith from Florence” (VASARI, V, p. 373); MARTINO, Exhibit. Cat. I Farnese, 1995, pp. 358-361; RIEBESELL 60. “The cardinal’s most beautiful fancy”, VASARI, V, p. 373.

61. Cited by Riebesell, 1995.

53 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

Although the distribution of the work between the two is not clear, it seems that Sbarri was responsible solely for the figures on the bases, putti, nudes and caryatides, inspired by Michelangelo.

Antonio Gentili da Faenza (1519-1609) arrived in Rome around 1549-50 where he married in 1561. In 1563 he was the consul of the goldsmiths’ guild and became the finest exponent of this trade in the whole of the city, as was reflected in his biography: “Egli era valente orefice grossiere, e modellava da sculture eccelentemente, si come le sue belle opere lo dimostrano. Fece belli getti d’oro, e d’argento, e per tirar piastre d’argento, e formar figure, non ritrovossi pari, che in quel genio l’uguagliasse.

Questo virtuoso maestro fece lavori per Principi grandi, e ritrovossi a quel tempi, dove l’opere de virtuosi erano ben remunérate; ed egli portandosi egregiamente ne riportò utile, & honori” 62.

He was the successor to Manno Sbarri (+1576) and they both formed part of Guglielmo’s workshop, working on the master ’s designs and making castings of his models 63.

His first recorded work (1570) involved twelve bust-reliquaries for Pius V, based on designs by Guglielmo della Porta 64 .

Between 1574 and 1582 he executed the Cross and the two candlesticks in gilt-silver that Cardinal Alessandro Farnese had commissioned from Manno Sbarri, as we have already mentioned. To finish them, he was paid a sum of 13,000 scudi. They were donated for the high altar in the Basilica of St. Peter’s on 2 June 1582. Signed and dated on the right arm

by Antonio Gentili (1581) they are now part of the Sacristy Treasure. Gentili published an engraving with the text of the donation65. Both the cross and the candlesticks bear a series of scenes of the Passion that had been worked in rock crystal by Giovanni Bernardi da Castelbolognese (1494-1553) and sent in 1547 to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese by the artist66. Use was made of the Christ Guglielmo had sent to the Cardinal in 1571, which was similar to Maximilian’s 1569 model.

In 1576, he entered into a partnership with Orazio Marchesi and Gabriele Gerardi, with whom he operated a workshop on the Via Giulia in Rome.

Other works suyos son a silver and crystal reliquary for the Society of Jesus, 1578 (Lost)67; a cross for the charterhouse of San Martino, Naples; a silver reliquary for the skull of Santa Petronilla in St. Peter’s; and a silver Deposition from the Cross following a model by Guglielmo. As from 1584, he was assayer for the Papal Mint until 1602, when he was succeeded by his son.

54 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 29a. Detail of Venus.

62. “He was a bold silversmith and an excellent sculptor, as his pieces reveal. He made beautiful castings in gold and silver, and for casting sheets of silver and moulding figures, there was no one to rival such talent. This skilful master produced works for great patrons, living at a time when the work of fine craftsmen was well paid; and by conducting himself so honourably he was well served with work and honour”, BAGLIONE, 1649, p. 109; HAYWARD, 1976, pp. 140-143; BERTOLOTTI, 1881, I, p. 326 and II, p. 145.

63. GRAMBERG, 1960 and 1981.

64. GRAMBERG, 1960, pp. 31-52.

65. “Questo e il disegno della richissima croce d’argento nella quale vi sono di quatri ovati del posamento et i tondi delle teste de la croce sonno di cristallo intagliati con le istesse istorie che si vede. Et il piano de la croce e de lapis lazaro dell’istessa grandeza a punto che è l’opera con due candellieri simili, la quale dono a l’altare di Sa Pietro di Roma l’Illmo.

Card. Farnese di felice me. vita sua nell’anno 1582”. “This is the design of the rich silver cross which has four ovals in the base and the tondos in the head of the cross in carved glass with the same stories on view. And the foot of the cross is in Lapis lazuli of the exact same size than the work with the two similar candle sticks, which he donated to the altar of Saint Peter in Rome the honorable Cardenal Farnese in loving memory in the year 1582”.

66. VOLBACH, 1948 (with drawings of the Chigi codex that he attributes to Gentile).

67. VENTURI, 1937, X, III, p. 947.

Fig. 29. Giambologna. Allegory of Francesco deâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Medici. Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid.

BIOGRAPHY GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA IN ROME Rosario Coppel

According to Gramberg (1973), Gentili worked for the Medici over the years 1575-1581, creating silver and gold pieces, some which were sent to Florence “al Cattolicissimo Re di Spagna” as a gift68.

In this researcher’s opinion, Antonio Gentili should not be included amongst those sculptors with a creative talent, as has been done hitherto69. He was just a founder, as he himself readily admits at the trial in 1609: “In bottega mia io…ho bene li molto gessi et forme di molti valenti homini e di Michelangelo et d’alteri, che saria longo a raccontare”70.

Bastiano Torrigiani, “Il Bologna” (active in Rome from 1573 to 1596), a bronze sculptor, was employed in the workshop from at least 1573 onwards, although he could have been there a lot longer, possibly since the 1560s. He may be the one responsible for the castings of the antique statues that appear in Guglielmo’s sales catalogue. He took over the running of the workshop upon Guglielmo’s death and was guardian to his only son and heir, Teodoro.

He married Teodoro’s mother, whom Guglielmo had not finally wed.

A number of the pieces he executed after Guglielmo’s death survive: c. 1585, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, gilt-bronze, 87.6 cm. St. Peter’s Chapter.

1585-87, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, colossal bronzes to be placed on the top of the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius in the Vatican Square.

Other pieces by him are a bust of Gregory XIII (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum), which is reminiscent of those of Paul III by Guglielmo, with reliefs on the cope and on the base; three busts of Sixtus V (15851590), Berlin (Bodemuseum), Macerata Cathedral and London (Victoria and Albert Museum); and, most importantly, the Altar cross donated by Gregory XIII (1572-1585), in St. Peter’s Treasury. The Christ is a copy of the Maximilian model and of the other Vatican cross.

Jacob Cornelisz Cobaert, known as “Coppe Fiamingo” (circa 15351585). He arrived in Rome between 1552 and 1555, at the time of the construction of the monument dedicated to Paul III, Baglione noted: “In far piccolo era eccellente”71.

He was Guglielmo’s apprentice and assistant. He is mentioned in the letter to Ammannati sent in 156972 and he made clay originals of the models and drawings over the 1550-76 period73. He applies the characteristic style of the work by Guglielmo, similar to that of the reliefs on his masterpiece, Pope Paul III’s tomb in St. Peter’s. In the Metropolitan Museum in New York there are plaquettes with the subjects of the Story of Phaeton, The Wandering Marsyas and The Legend of Ganymede, which are octagonal shaped reproductions from the end of the 16th century and early 17th century.

56 COLL & CORTÉS

There are several other testimonials referring to Cobaert that were recorded during the lawsuit that Teodoro della Porta filed against some of Guglielmo’s assistants, as we shall see in due course. During this litigation, referring to the relief of the Descent, Teodoro describes it as follows: “Grande circa tre palmi (66.9 cm) di basso e alto rilievo, con molte figure dentro, scolpite eccellentemente per mano di mio Padre, nella qual’Historia ha lavorato anche il Coppa fiamengo”74.

In addition, he appeared as a witness at the hearing stating that he made the original terracotta models of the stories of the Metamorphose, of the Descent and a tondo with the gods and Jupiter inside: “l’avevo fatto io conforme alla volontà del signor Guglielmo prima dei Creta poi di gesso e poi di cera”75.

He therefore declares that he has nothing to do with the creation of the design, which could be by no other than the master himself, or with the working of the bronze and other materials76.

Following Guglielmo’s death in 1577, Coppe branched out on his own independently from the master, in whose house he continued to reside until he came under the influence of the Contarelli family and moved closer to St. Peter’s. It was for them that he sculpted a marble statue of Saint Matthew and the angel for the altar in the chapel of San Luigi dei Francesi in Rome.

He also made a gilt-bronze tabernacle for the high altar in that same church.

It was commissioned by the French Cardinal Matthieu Cointerel (Matteo Contarelli), who spent most of his wealth on his nation’s church (San Luigi dei Francesi), decorating the chapel dedicated to the patron saint, which was subsequently enriched with canvases by Caravaggio. Coppe died in 1585 when the tabernacle had yet to be gilded. It had still not been gilded in 1602.

The four prophets that were part of the tabernacle and had been dispersed have recently been identified and attributed by Montagu, who highlights their perfect finish and the detail of their chasing77.

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S LEGACY Guglielmo della Porta had four sons: Lysippus, who died at the age of 6 and was buried at Santa María della Rota, Myron, who was alive in 1555, Phidias, the eldest, and Teodoro, who was still a minor when his father died.

There is a great deal of documentary evidence about the sculptor’s inheritance. Guglielmo drew up two wills during his lifetime, the first in 156878 and the second in 1577. The latter named Teodoro as his universal heir79.

Furthermore, a few days after his death, on 5 February 1577, his son Phidias had an inventory made of the property that remained in the workshop80.

Teodoro della Porta (Rome, 1567-1638), Guglielmo’s fourth son, was born in Rome on 24 March 1567. His mother, Pamphilia Guazzaroni, had had another son with Guglielmo (who never married) called Myron, who died before 1577. When Guglielmo died, in January 1577, at their home on the Via Giulia, Teodoro was living with his stepbrother Phidias, his guardian. But in July that same year, this duty was assigned to her husband, Bastiano Torrigiani “Il Bologna” who was a sculptor and founder. In October 1578 a second inventory of Guglielmo’s property was drawn up at Torrigiani’s request81.

In 1586, while Teodoro was living with Torrigiani in Borgo, a robbery took place at the house on the Via Giulia, with numerous drawings and moulds for statues and bas-reliefs being taken. His stepbrother Phidias was accused of the crime and subsequently sentenced to death for it.

When Teodoro came of age in January 1589, he settled his financial affairs with his guardian, allowing him and his son Michelangelo to use the moulds that remained in his possession, the Descent from the cross; sixteen episodes from Ovid’s Metamorphosis and several Crucifixions82. At some time around this first year, 1589, Teodoro, acting on a court order, went to Antonio Gentili’s house to recover the mould of a Crucifixion, paying him 50 escudos, the price that Antonio had paid Phidias83.

In March 1609, there had a second lawsuit in which Teodoro accused Antonio Gentili and Sebastiano Marchini of the possession and unlawful use of some of Guglielmo’s moulds and models. Over the course of a protracted court hearing, Gentili declared that he had bought from Guglielmo a wax relief of the Descent for 50 scudi and one of his assistants declared that he had made the casting in secret. Teodoro objected because a silver casting was being made of a Descent for a prince, and he was being harmed because Gentili had already made numerous copies that he had sold to private collectors for a much lower sum. This was followed by the testimonies of other craftsmen, who affirmed they had seen use being made of Guglielmo’s moulds and designs of the Descent from the Cross, episodes from Ovid, circular tales of all the gods, and several crucifixions, but they all stated they knew nothing about the robbery.

As for the work by Teodoro della Porta as a sculptor, we know that at least on one occasion he tried to use or used original models (which caused the lawsuits described above). In addition, in 1593, the Farnese paid him 50 scudi for covering up the nakedness on the metal statue of Justice, on

Paul III’s tomb, for which Guglielmo had given his consent. He was also did the project for the tomb of Lucrezia Tomacelli, in marble and bronze, in the Colonna Chapel in San Giovanni in Laterano (St. John Lateran), which was modelled and cast by G. Laurenziano (1625) while, in 1602, he signed the relief of the Burial in gilt-terracotta, in the Galleria Spada, Rome.

In 1604 he was still appealing to the Farnese family for justice to be done, for everything that his father was still owed. In 1618 he advised the Duke of Mantua to buy a number of small marble pieces by a French artist. He was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Fine Arts and Letters of the Virtuosi al Pantheon (1633) and in 1634, at least, of the Accademia di San Luca. Some of the writings in the Düsseldorf sketchbook are probably his.

68. A presentation by Keutner that has never been published, Florence State Archive, Guardaroba 5.

69. GRAMBERG, Jarhbuch Hamburger Kunstsammlungen, 5, 1960, p. 31 ff, especially 33, 38 and 48.

70. BERTOLOTTI, II, pp. 136-37. “In my workshop... I have had many plasters and moulds of many brave men and of Michelangelo and of others, which would take too long to describe” 71. “His work on small pieces was excellent”, BAGLIONE, 1649, pp. 100, 101 and 348; GRAMBERG, 1960 72. GRAMBERG, 1964, p. 122 73. GOLDSMITH, 1939 74. “Almost three palms in size <66.9 cm> of high and bas relief, with many figures inside, beautifully sculpted by the hand of my father, with Coppe Fiamingo also being involved in this work”, BERTOLOTTI, 1881, II, p. 129.

75. “This I have done according to the will of Master Guglielmo first in clay, then in plaster and after that in wax”, BERTOLOTTI, 1881, II, pp. 138-143.

76. FICACCI, DBI, 26, pp. 424-426.

77. MONTAGU, 1996, pp. 35-46, fig. 56-69.

78. BERTOLOTTI, 1881, II, pp. 302 ff.

79. GUALANDI, 1845, P, 123.

80. MASETTI ZANNINI, 1972, pp. 299-305.

81. BERTOLOTTI, 1881, I, pp. 142. See the original in the documentary appendix, pp. 140-141.

82. MASETTI ZANNINI, 1972, p. 301.

83. BERTOLOTTI, 1881, II, pp. 122, 154.

57 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE ROSARIO COPPEL

christ crucified flagellation of christ mount calvary

CATALOGUE

IN MICHELANGELO’S SHADOW

F

rom the very first, Guglielmo della Porta’s professional career was overshadowed by the presence of Michelangelo.

The personality and major inf luence the genius brought to bear upon the artists of his time had an impact on the lives of each and every one of them. Michelangelo, who was unable to finish many of his works, who was enslaved by the caprices of his patrons, who could not fully dedicate himself to his true vocation, sculpting, had a far-reaching impact upon his peers.

When Guglielmo first started working in Rome, it was Michelangelo who gave him his first opportunity. Although there were other competent sculptors, such as Bandinelli, Cellini and Ammannati, none remained in the city, perhaps trying to avoid having to compete with Michelangelo. Even Leone Leoni, who remained his friend throughout his lifetime, sought to leave Rome, although he received commissions elsewhere thanks to the great master ’s intervention. It was in all probability the office of “Custode del Piombo” that stopped Guglielmo from abandoning the city like so many others. Once he had found his place in papal circles he was no longer short of work. Yet his ambition, which must have been great, soon brought him into conf lict with Michelangelo, who could not contemplate standing in the shadow of any other sculptor.

Guglielmo may have been appointed “Custode del Piombo” because Michelangelo could not even consider it being awarded to his long-standing enemy Benvenuto Cellini. Nevertheless,

60 COLL & CORTÉS

when Guglielmo received his life’s most important commission, the tomb for Pope Paul III Farnese, the sculptor believed he had reached his zenith and submitted a project of such grandiosity that it led to his fall from grace and marked the beginning of his misfortunes. From that moment onwards, although he managed to finish the tomb - with fewer statues than he would have liked and located in a place of lesser importance in the Basilica of St. Peter ’s - he was never again to execute grand monumental sculptures. It was at this time, adjudging himself to be the target of the jealousy both of Michelangelo and of other artists, that he sought refuge in his great interest, classical sculpture, and in the execution of small pieces in bronze and silver, becoming the city ’s foremost bronze sculptor. His sole competitors were Leone Leoni, who from his home in Milan cornered the market in large statues made of this material, and slightly later, Giambologna, who after his time in Guglielmo’s workshop - where he learnt more than has hitherto been thought - managed to take this artistic expression to its highest level.

We are dealing with a fully rounded artist, a Renaissance man, with a strong personality and a vocation for sculpting that filled his life. Guglielmo della Porta, who lived at one of Rome’s most fruitful times, was surrounded by some of the most inf luential personalities of his time, working for them and creating works that testify not only to his consummate artistic skill but also to his enthusiasm and creativity.

Fig. 30. Michelangelo Buonarroti. Atlante.

Accademia Firenze. Š Scala.

CATALOGUE

CHRIST CRUCIFIED Guglielmo della Porta (Porlezza, Como, c. 1515 - Rome, 157 7).

Rome, between 1569 and 157 7.

Gilt-bronze.

48 cm from the crown of the head to the feet; 46 cm from hand to hand.

T

his is a figure of Christ in death with his head leaning to his right and attached to the cross - which has not survived - by three nails. The loincloth is fastened on the right, after folding over the middle. The head, sunk deep down onto the chest , appears to be almost in line with the outstretched arms, which are bent at the elbow, with the right one being slightly raised towards the back. The torso is facing forwards and only the legs are turned slightly to the left , at the level of the knees, which are together. The right foot is resting on the left one. The hands are featured with the left thumb and ring finger together as a sign of blessing. It still has the four holes for the nails and another on the head, as well as two protrusions, indicating that it once had a crown of thorns and a halo.

The anatomical study is excellent and is executed in fine detail, showing off the muscles, ribs and veins, above all on the arms, as these are the limbs that withstand the greatest pressure when holding up the weight of the body (detail p. 65).

One side features the sign of the spear that was thrust into the dead body and the drops of blood and water that poured forth, as described in the Gospels. The feet also have drops of blood in relief.

The face is sculpted with great delicacy (detail p. 65), revealing defined features, with closed eyes and mouth, and there are no signs of suffering, such as furrows on the forehead or knitted eyebrows. This is consistent with the precepts of the Counter-Reformation that called for a depiction of Christ

62 COLL & CORTĂ&#x2030;S

without signs of pain. The hair (detail p. 65), arranged with a parting in the middle, falls forward on the right-hand side and down over the back, in the form of long, wavy locks. The figure has a moustache and a long divided beard. The loincloth, or perizonium, has a punched finish to render the texture of the material being presented. It is in excellent condition. There are traces of red paint on the side, hands, feet and forehead, simulating the blood f lowing out of the wounds caused by the spear, the nails and the crown of thorns, respectively, which are undoubtedly from a later date.

As noted in the introduction, Guglielmo della Porta was a greater admirer of Michelangelo, with whom he was in contact as from the time he first arrived in Rome, towards the end of the 1530s. The model for this figure is taken from his famous marble statue of Christ the Redeemer (1519-20), in Santa Maria sopra Minerva, which had such an inf luence on the sculptors of the time.

The study of the figures of Christ crucified by Guglielmo della Porta was initiated by Ulrich Middeldorf 1 , who brought to light a number of examples, and continued by Werner Gramberg 2 .

The key to attributing these pieces to Guglielmo is, besides the surviving documents, the comparison with his drawings.

1. 1977, pp. 82-84.

2. 1981, pp. 95-113.

CAPÍTULO SUBCAPÍTULO Autor

Details of the arms, hair and face.

65 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE CHRIST CRUCIFIED Rosario Coppel

Guglielmo della Porta’s sketchbook contains several drawings that depict the figure of Christ on the cross (fig. 31), sometimes alone and at others with the Blessed Virgin and St. John or other characters that were present at Calvary 3. In these drawings, the figure of the expiring or dead Christ has a small head, sunk deep down on the chest, and the arms are in an almost horizontal position, as in the model presented here. In both the drawing and the sculptures, the muscles are presented in an exaggerated manner. The original feature of these models is their long outstretched arms, which means that the figure is almost as wide as it is high, which is an exceptional feature in images of this kind. The physical features are very subtle and the hands and feet are extremely delicate. The manner in which the hair is portrayed, with long curly locks, like the beard and moustache, and the expression on the face conveying serenity, are typical of our sculptor. The perizonium, is also highly characteristic. Both its folds, and the way they hang and the subsequent chasing, show the great attention to detail dedicated to this feature, where the sculptor could express himself freely. In the case of this Christ, the punching touches are made with a small lathe that provides a minute stippling effect, such as the one that appears in other autograph pieces by Guglielmo, in the final working of the relief clothing in the Calvary and in the background of the plaquettes and paxes 4 .

The first information we have of Guglielmo’s work as a creator of crucifixes dates back to the spring of 1569 and appears in a letter sent by the sculptor himself to his friend Bartolomeo Ammannati, which is specially relevant in the present instance: “…Ho faticato ancora in diversi Cristi in Croce, il maggior de quali è di tre palmi (66,9 cm.). Ne ho gittato di metallo indorato et d’argento, et scolpitoli tutti co’l parere et giuditio de buoni Teologi, et fin qui non ne ho dato fuora se non uno à S. Santità <Pío V>, et questo ancora non è di li tre de quali mi sono più compiaciuto.

Penso mandare uno in coteste bande et non voglio dirvi per hora à chi. Il saprete poi, quando sia tempo…” 5 .

This interesting text tells us that at that time Guglielmo made at least four crucifixes in gold and silver and that he gave one of them to Pope Pius V as a gift. The second one, which at that

time he was not prepared to tell Ammannati who it was for, may have been the one he sent to the Emperor of Austria, Maximilian II, together with a letter dated 23 May 1569 in which he sought his patronage. ”…Onde con tutta quela humilità che devo mi son finalmente risoluto di presentarmi le innanzi con questa lettera, et con un picciolo Crucifisso che le mando cosi come è venuto dal getto per il Capn. Salustio Peruzzi; perchè regga in un tempo la mia devotione verso di lei, et insieme un saggio di quello che vaglio in questa professione, cosi circa il disegno, come circa il modo del gitare” 6.

This crucifix, which came to light in Vienna at the Geistliche Schatzkammer (see fig. 22 on p. 46), is made of silver and gilded, measuring 23.8 cm in height and 24 cm in width. It is, therefore, the first one recorded to have survived 7. Yet we are also made aware of another crucifix, when two years later, on 18 December 157 1, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese expressed his thanks with the following words of praise:

3. GRAMBERG, 1964, cat. no. 150 and 143.

4. See pp. 74-97, 98-111.

5. GRAMBERG, 1964, cat. no. 128 and 1981, p. 96. “I have turned my endeavours once again to several figures of Christ on the cross, the largest of which measures three palms (66.9 cm). I have cast them in gold and silver metal, and sculpted them according to the opinion and judgement of the righteous Theologians, and I have not given any away except for one to His Holiness <Pius V>, and this is not one of the three I have liked the most. I intend to send one of these..., but for the time being I do not want to say to whom. You will find out in due course, when the time is right…”.

6. Published by GRAMBERG, 1981, p. 96. See the beginning of the introduction to this catalogue, p. 47 “With all due respect I have finally decided to introduce myself to you …/… with this letter and a small crucifix that I am sending to you as it came out of the plaster via Captain Salustio Peruzzi. Because…at one time my devotion to your person, and together with an explanation on what I would like from this profession, about drawing, about the manner of casting”. (Salustio Peruzzi was Sebastiano Peruzzi’s son).

7. GRAMBERG, 1981, p. 96, fig. 1 and 6.

Fig. 31. Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing.

Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf.

66 COLL & CORTÉS

67 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE CHRIST CRUCIFIED Rosario Coppel

“Molto Reverendo Padre Il Crocifisso che vi piaciuto mandarmi ho ricevuto ed per esser l’opera tanto degna ed fatta con tanto studio ed diligentia da cosi perfetta mano come é la vostra, mi é stata tanto grata, quanto più saprei significarlo, ed in effeto non conosco che si potessi scolpir immagine con maggior magisterio ed più artificio di questa, onde quanto più posso ve ne ringratio…”8.

This is the silver Christ that is placed on the great Cross on the high altar at the Basilica of St. Peter ’s at the Vatican (see fig. 23 on p. 47), for it was donated - together with two candlesticks - by the cardinal on 2 June 1582. The actual cross and the candlesticks were made by the silversmiths Manno Sbarri and Antonio Gentili, perhaps from with designs by Guglielmo 9.

The same model of Christ appears once again on Gregory XIII’s altar cross (1572-1585), (see fig. 24 on p. 48) which was made by Bastiano Torrigiani, the founder who worked for Guglielmo at the end of his life. This piece, too, was donated by the Pope to the Basilica of St. Peter’s, where it is still to be found today 10.

These three figures of Christ, the one in Vienna and the two in St. Peter’s at the Vatican, share the same stylised male form, the slight twisting of the body, the almost identical loincloth, and the beauty of the face, which although sunk onto the chest can be seen clearly.

Continuing with the surviving documentation, the inventory of Guglielmo’s workshop, drawn up soon after his death in February 1577, lists the following: ”Un Crocefisso d’argento de carlini de grandezza de doi palmi et mezzo in circa netti <66.9 cm>, n. 1”.

Doij Crocefissi d’argento netti de uno palmo <22.3 cm>, n. 2.

1 Crocefisso de metallo adorato de uno palmo et mezzo circha <33.45 cm.> n. 1 Crocefissi sette de metalo renetati de grandeza uno palmo luno in circha <22.3 cm>, n. 7 Crocefissi sette parimenti de metallo renetati de grandeza de uno palmo 1/3 <29.7 cm>, n. 7/ …

Crucifissi de metallo non netati con soij gettj de grandeza uno palmo in giù <22.3 cm>, n. 40” 11 .

Overall, there were no fewer than 58 crucifixes of different sizes, with the largest one measuring 70 cm and the smallest one 22 cm. Only

68 COLL & CORTÉS

three were made of silver, with all the rest being in bronze, although most of these were unfinished. This provides us with an exceptional insight into the enormous activity going on in his workshop.

The second inventory, drawn up 20 months after the first one, in October 1578, mentions only one finished crucifix and 18 unfinished ones.

“Una cassa con 18 crocifissi di metallo con li gessi attachati non finiti. / Un Christo de metallo e doi palmi (44.6 cm.) con il gesso attachato”12.

We are therefore missing 17 finished pieces and 22 unfinished ones.

What happened to those pieces? One may well assume that the guardian to Teodoro della Porta - Guglielmo’s son and heir - Bastiano Torrigiani, sold them off as soon as he could when the sculptor died, as some of his properties even had to be sold due to a lack of funds (the Farnese still owed him a lot of money, as his son claimed in 1604). For this reason, Torrigiani must have sold everything he could, as seems to be the case when comparing the two inventories. It therefore seems that in his final years, and given the success

8. Naples, State Archives, Fascio Farnesiano 1324, published by GRAMBERG, 1981, p. 96. See also BORZELLI, 1920, p. 15. “Very Reverend Father: I have received the crucifix that it was your pleasure to send me and because it is a work of such merit and made with so much care and diligence by such a perfect hand as your own, it has pleased me so much, to the furthest extent to which I can express myself, and indeed I know not of any image that could be sculpted with greater mastery and more skill than this one, so the greater is my gratitude to you”.

9. RIEBESELL, 1998, p. 258.

10. GRAMBERG, 1981.

11. MASETTI ZANNINI, 1972, p. 303. “A crucifix made with the silver from carlini (a small silver coin) with a size of around two-and-a-half palms, clean. 1. / Two silver crucifixes with a size of one palm, clean. 2. / A Gilt metal crucifix measuring about one-and-a-half palms, n. 1. / Seven metal polished crucifixes with a size of about one palm each one, n. 7. / Seven metal crucifixes... likewise with a size of one-and-three-quarter palms, n. 7. / Metal without cleaning with its plaster measuring more or less one palm, n. 40”.

12. BERTOLOTTI, 1881, vol. I, p. 142. “A box with 18 unfinished metal crucifixes with the plaster still attached. / A metal Christ measuring two palms with the plaster attached”.

Fig. 32. Guglielmo della Porta. Silver crucifix. 漏 Antonio Trigo Arnal. (Inv. 52078).

Museo Arqueol贸gico Nacional, Madrid.

69 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE CHRIST CRUCIFIED Rosario Coppel

Fig. 33. Guglielmo della Porta. Crucifix.

Convent of Porta Coeli, Valladolid.

70 COLL & CORTĂ&#x2030;S

these pieces enjoyed, Guglielmo made a large number of crucifixes. Thereby establishing a veritable production line for these commercially viable items.

The only similar case we can find is Giambologna’s and Antonio Susini’s workshop, which at that time was operating at full capacity in Florence. This also explains why some of these pieces found their way to Spain.

During the reings of Philip II and Philip III, the Spanish court received numerous crucifixes from Italy. Given the strict religious climate prevailing after the Counter-Reformation, the crucifix became a popular diplomatic gift, not only for monarchs, but also for leading members of the nobility and clergy. In addition to the large-size ones, such as the one in marble by Benvenuto Cellini, and the bronze ones by Pietro Tacca, Domenico Guidi and Bernini, which would arrive at a later date for El Escorial13, we have documentary proof of the despatch of some small ones by Giambologna on the part of the Medici14. Yet there are still others, distributed amongst Spanish museums, convents and churches, which have not been catalogued due to a lack of documents, although in most cases they also come from Italy. Given that Pompeo Leoni was the foremost sculptor at the Spanish court for almost forty years, he has traditionally had attributed to him a number of gilt-bronze crucifixes of 35-40 cm in height. Amongst these are the one housed in the sacristy at Plasencia Cathedral15, the one of the Calvary at El Parral Monastery16, and the crucifix in the Lázaro Galdiano Museum17. Yet all these examples follow a very widely disseminated model from a private collection, which was attributed to Guglielmo della Porta by Middeldorf18, of which there is a magnificent silver version in Spain’s Museum of Archaeology19, 20 (fig. 32). Exactly the same type of Christ appears in the gilt-silver altarpiece-oratory donated to Philip II by Bianca Cappello, Duchess of Tuscany, now in the Monastery of El Escorial (see here cat. no. 3), and in the magnificent crucifix that belonged to Don Rodrigo Calderón and is now kept at the convent of Porta Coeli, in Valladolid21, 22 (fig. 33), as well as another two from the collection of the Counts of Lemos which are to be found in the convent of Las Clarisas in Monforte de Lemos (Lugo)23 (fig. 34).

Basing ourselves on his drawings, specially his sketch of the Crucified Christ, (see fig. 31 on p. 67) and on a comparative study with other crucified figures he made, we can conclude that because of both the similarity of the model and the style and excellent technical quality, the Christ we are introducing must indeed be an autograph piece by this sculptor. The facts that the documented versions used to belong to such noble personages, and that this is the largest of all the surviving examples, lead to the conclusion that this piece is of great rarity and extremely high artistic value.

Fig. 34. Guglielmo della Porta. Crucifix.

Convent of Las Clarisas, Monforte de Lemos, Lugo.

13. TORMO, 1925, pp. 117-145.

14. COPPEL, 2004, pp. 201-214.

15. The Blessed Virgin and St. John do not appear in the same set.

16. ESTELLA, 1993, p. 149, fig. 7 and 8; Exhibit. Cat. Los Leoni, 1994, no. 23.

17. COPPEL, 2001, no. 17. Inventory no. 5.000, measuring 40 cm in height.

18. MIDDELDORF, 1977, pp. 75-84, fig. 13 and 14.

19. GRAMBERG, 1981, pp. 95-114, fig. 3; CRUZ VALDOVINOS, 1982, no. 22. Inventory no.

52.078, of 37 cm in height from head to toes; 36 cm from hand to hand.

20. GRAMBERG, 1981, pp. 95-114, fig. 3; CRUZ VALDOVINOS, 1982, no. 22. Inventory no.

52.078, of 37 cm in height from head to toes; 36 cm from hand to hand.

21. Exhibit. Cat. Valladolid. Capital del la Corte (1601-1606). Valladolid, 2002, pp.139-142.

22. Exhibit. Cat. Valladolid. Capital del la Corte (1601-1606). Valladolid, 2002, pp. 139-142.

23. CHAMOSO LAMAS & CASAMAR, 1980, pp. 47, no. 12 and p. 94, no. 107.

71 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE

FLAGELLATION of christ Guglielmo della Porta (Porlezza, Como, c. 1515 - Rome, 157 7).

Rome, between 1569 and 157 7.

Octogonal gilt-copper base, with silver reliefs and figures.

Ebony veneered wooden frame with silver superimposed ornaments.

Overall size: 60 x 40 cm. Frame: 5 2 x 33.5 cm. Octogonal relief: 26 x 26 cm. Central scene: 24 x 17.5 cm.

T

he central part of the relief depicts a scene from the Passion of Christ (detail p. 76), The Flagellation. According to the description given in the Gospels: “And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Pretorium; and they called together the whole band and they clothed him with purple, and plaited a crown of thorns, and put it about his head (…) and they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him (Mark 15, 16-21).

The figure of Christ (8.6 cm) (detail p. 78) (fig. 35) is separately cast and free-standing and is bolted onto the centre of the scene.

The hands are tied behind the back and the figure rests against a half-column 1 , with the feet resting against the base. It is a stylised male model with a slender physique and slightly larger than all the other characters in the scene. The head is tilted slightly forwards, long hair falls over the shoulders in wavy locks, with a parting in the middle and a moustache with the tips turned upwards. The posture has a light and elegant contrapposto. The loincloth is fastened on the figure’s left-hand side. The anatomical study is detailed and the feet are very well defined. It does not feature any signs of suffering, following the guidelines of the precepts of the Counter-Reformation.

The group of characters on the left (10.7 cm) (detail p. 76) consists of four figures. The first two are an old Jew with a long beard possibly Nicodemus or one of the apostles - and St. John, resting his head on his shoulder, which are part of a relief inlaid from behind the gilt-copper back-plate. However, the other two, the lictors, have been cast apart separately, and each one has been bolted on, like the figure of Christ. Dressed as Roman soldiers, one holds a whip with

74 COLL & CORTÉS

leather straps (the f lagellum) and the other holds a bunch of twigs in his right hand, whilst he raises his left hand to his mouth in an expression of consternation. Both are wearing a Roman sandal with a high ankle support. The first pair gazes upon the scene passively, whereas the second is fully involved, with tense, forced postures.

The group of characters on the right (10.5 cm) (detail p. 76) consists of a further four figures. Two old Jews dressed in robes and with long beards, in relief and inlaid like the other two, and two free-standing lictors, bolted to the back, one covered by a turban and holding a f lagellum and the other in Roman clothing and carrying a rod. They have the same features as the two in the group on the left, although these are barefoot.

There are, therefore, five free-standing figures, Christ and four lictors, in the round and executed with great detail, whereas the figures in the background are depicted more loosely and somewhat smaller to simulate distance. The ornament where the figure of Christ is placed is also inlaid.

The background to the relief depicts a palace with columns on the first f loor and three balconies. The two side ones have two figures leaning on the balustrade and looking down upon the scene.

1. Following the Council of Trent, artists sometimes used a low column for the portrayal of the Flagellation, following a ballister shaped column that since the 13th century has been kept at the Basilica of Saint Praxedes in Rome, instead of the usual tall Jerusalem column.

Square detail of the central scene.

Fig. 49. Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing.

Museum Kunstpalast, D端sseldorf.

Detail of the figure of Christ at the Column.

Fig. 35. Guglielmo della Porta.Drawing.

Museum Kunstpalast, D端sseldorf.

Fig. 31.

Detail of the virtues: Faith, Charity and Prudence.

80

COLL & CORTĂ&#x2030;S

Fig. 36. Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing.

Museum Kunstpalast, DĂźsseldorf.

81

CATALOGUE FLAGELLATION of christ Rosario Coppel

The two on the left are an old monk and another with his head covered, whose distinctive feature is a prominent nose; those on the right are two young monks. The background to both balconies contains trees and a wall. The middle balcony is devoid of people, featuring only a tree and a coffin.

The ebony frame is richly decorated with silver reliefs. Firstly, there are four Virtues, one on each corner, inspired by the models

by Perino del Vaga. They follow the prototypes Guglielmo della Porta used on several pieces, with the most important being Paul III’s tomb. They are female figures of great beauty, in a mannerist style, with elongated bodies, carefully studied hair arrangements, and a highly stylised face, hands and feet. Their clothes cling to their bodies in the way that Vasari described for the statue of Abundance on Paul III’s funerary monument: “in modo vestita, che mostra l’ignudo sotto i panni” 2 . They are technically very detailed and executed with a swift, energetic modelling. The work on the fabrics involves a punched finish using a burin. With bespoke designs for this work, their postures fit in perfectly with the triangles formed by the outer side of the octagon, in terms of both size and postures, which are forced to fill the remaining space. The background to each one is a plate cut following the shape of the frame.

Faith (1 1 x 1 1 cm) (detail p. 80) is represented by a seated female figure, wearing a long robe and cloak that falls down behind over the head. Her hair is gathered up with a diadem. Her attribute is Christ’s cross, which she holds in the crook of her left arm, and the chalice of the Eucharist, which she holds aloft in her right hand.

Hope (8.5 x 10 cm) (detail p. 95) appears seated, looking towards the central scene, also wearing a robe and cloak, clasping her hands together in prayer. Her hair is partially gathered up and the rest hangs loose.

Charit y (1 1 x 9 cm) (detail p. 80) is a young female figure wearing a robe that is fastened at the waist and a free-f lowing cloak. She is holding two children, with one being seated on her right arm and the other is sitting astride her left knee. Her hair is gathered up with a diadem. Her raised left hand holds a heart in f lames that symbolises the burning heart of Charity.

82 COLL & CORTÉS

Prudence (8, 5 x 9.5 cm) (detail p. 80) is an older woman but of youthful appearance, who is wearing a robe and a full cloak that hangs behind off her shoulders. Her hair is gathered up with a diadem. Her right hand holds a mirror in which she is looking, whilst there is snake wrapped around her left arm, and she is holding its head in her hand.

The four silver figures of the Virtues are cast in a very fine high relief, like the other ornament that decorates the frame: a cherub’s head, a garland, volutes, two hermae on the side and a grotesque mask at the lowest point. They all follow the model in his sketches (fig. 36).

The cherub’s head (10 x 1 4 cm) depicts a child with chubby cheeks and curly hair in thick locks (detail p. 83). He has wings or volutes in the form of leaves. The garland on the upper part is in the shape of a modillion (4.5 x 9.5 cm). The hermae (detail p. 83) on the two sides ( 25.4 x 4 cm) consist of the heads of cherubs adorned with leaves, above a swollen bust also formed by leaves which terminate in a volute (detail p. 83). The grotesque mask (7 x 15 cm) (fig. 37) is a monster ’s head that is also present in Paul III’s tomb (figs. 38, 39 and 40).

The theme of the Flagellation had been depicted in reliefs since the beginning of the 16 th century. The most famous one is by Moderno (Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna) 3 . Yet perhaps the most immediate forerunner was the series of scenes of the Passion executed in rock crystal

by Giovanni Bernardi de Castelbolognese (1 494-1553) before 1547 for Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. Thirteen of these small reliefs were used by Antonio Gentili on the cross and two candlesticks at St . Peter ’s in the Vatican. Nevertheless, there is an emblematic piece that Guglielmo must have seen and admired when he arrived in Rome, namely, the fresco painting of The Flagellation of Christ by Sebastiano del Piombo

2. VASARI, 1568, MILANESI, VII, 1881, p. 547. “Dressed in such a way that her nakedness could be seen beneath her clothing”.

3. LEITHE-JASPER, 1986, pp. 125-127, no. 25.

Detail of the Hermae, Cherub’s head and mask.

Fig. 37. Guglielmo della Porta. Grotesque mask, Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

Figs. 38, 39 and 40. Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf.

83 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE FLAGELLATION of christ Rosario Coppel

(fig. 41) in the Borgherini Chapel at San Pietro in Montorio. The painter, Guglielmo’s predecessor as “piombatore apostólico”, created a beautiful nude, with no wounds, as recommended by the new iconographic rules, and following the drawing by Michelangelo (British Museum in London) 4.

Furthermore, the Flagellation is depicted in Guglielmo’s sketchbook with all its main features, in terms of both the characters and the perspective 5 . The movement, the postures, the anatomical study, the clothing, are all already present in the drawing.

Moreover, the female figures are a constant in his work.

They appear in his first monumental work, the tomb for Bishop Francisco de Solís. The bronze reliefs, which were later used for Paul III’s tomb, already define the models for classical matrons, dressed in an antique manner, with full robes closely fitting their bodies and fastened with a sash, their hair gathered up and held with diadems, sometimes completely, and at others leaving some locks loose to fall over their shoulders. The bodies are always highly stylised and their faces are of great beauty.

Vasari mentions, amongst Guglielmo’s most important works, the fourteen stations of the cross to be cast in bronze, describing each one in turn, as can be seen in the introduction to this catalogue 6. We also know that the artist was very familiar with the scenes of the Passion. Around 1556-1557, Guglielmo executed the drawings for the reliefs on the side doors for San Silvestro al Quirinale (St. Sylvester on Quirinal Hill) in Rome, which were made by Giovanni Antonio Dosio (1533-1609). A short time later, in 1560, he submitted the second project for the equestrian monument to Charles V, a template decorated with the fourteen stations of the cross, which was never made, although over the following years its models were offered to different personages such as Paul IV, Cosimo de’Medici, or Philip II, and cast in various materials, amongst which was a series for the door and altar in St. Peter ’s 7. In addition, amongst the works acquired by Pius IV in 1564, there were eight episodes from the life of Jesus Christ 8.

We also have a number of other important documents.

Firstly, a letter from the artist himself to Duke Ottavio Farnese, dated 15 March 1573 in which he describes his work as a

silversmith 9, and secondly, the inventory of 5 February 1577 that lists the following: “Tre paci de argento con li fondi de metalo indorato et una de metalo indorato, n. 4 / Istorie nove della vita de Jesu Christo de cera fatte per modelli, una sola finita, si è quella quando Nostro Signore portò la santa Croce et tutte queste con le sue forme di giesso in sima con le altre che sono in tutto n. 14. / cartelle de metallo longe palmi 4 doij putini a sedere sopra ese cartele n. 2” 10.

All this shows that at the time of his death Guglielmo was still working on gilt-metal and silver items, such as crucifixes, paxes and scenes from the Passion, amongst other things 1 1 .

There are several surviving versions of the relief of The Flagellation: two in bronze that follow exactly the same model as the one that appears in the sketchbook; one in a former State Museum in Berlin, where it was housed until 1923 12 and the other in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, in gilt-bronze 13

4. HIRST, 1981, fig. 75-80.

5. GRAMBERG, 1964, cat. no. 109 and 116.

6. VASARI, 1568, ed. MILANESI, VII, 1881, pp. 548-49. See p. 10.

7. GRAMBERG, 1964, cat. no. 225-226, 228, 200-201.

8. BERTOLOTTI, 1881, I, p. 135.

9. See pp. 140-141.

10. MASSETTI ZANNINI, 1972, pp. 303-305. “Three silver paxes with a gilt-metal back, and one in gilt-metal, n. 4. / Nine episodes from the life of Jesus Christ made in wax as models, only one of which is finished, which is when Our Lord carried the cross and all these have their plaster moulds and added to the others they provide a total of n. 14. / Two metal modillions of four palms in length with two putti seated on that modillion, n. 2”.

11. See the full inventory in the documentary appendix.

12 It measures 18.4 x 12.5 cm. BANGE, 1923, II, p. 57; GRAMBERG, 1959, p. 162, fig. 4; Ibid. p. 55; GIBELLINO, 1944, p. 57. Purchased in Italy in 1890.

13. Inventory A. I-1977.- 20.2 x 13.5 cm. Dated circa 1575. Acquired at Sotheby’s on 9-12-1976, lot 59, from Cyril Humphris in 1977. More finished than the one in Berlin, which is perhaps a sketch, although they both appear to come from the same mould according to Gramberg, 1964, no. 109.

Fig. 41. Sebastiano del Piombo. Flagellation.

San Pietro in Montorio, Rome. © Scala.

84 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 42. Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation. (A.1-1977). V&A Museum, London.

Fig. 43. Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation. Bargello Museum, Florence. © Scala.

(fig. 4 2); and two in silver, the first in the Bargello Museum, Florence, (fig. 43) whose provenance is the Carrand Collection, no. 753, with an ebony frame with silver filigree, lapis lazuli and carnelian inlays. The second, in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (fig. 4 4) has a German ivory frame dating from the same period 14 .

Fig. 44. Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation. LACMA, Los Angeles, Ca. © Scala.

14. Dated c. 1560, its provenance is a private collection. In 1980 with Black Nadau, Monte Carlo, Monaco, cat. nº 4. It measures 19 x 13 cm. MIDDELDORF, 1977, pp.

81-82, fig. 8.

87 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE FLAGELLATION of christ Rosario Coppel

Middeldorf has linked the model of Christ to a statuette of Christ at the column15, (fig. 45) from the Carrand Collection at the Bargello and to a relief also in contoured silver in the Bayerisches National Museum16. In addition, this same researcher attributes to Guglielmo a bigger statuette of Christ bearing the cross, in the Galleria Estense in Modena, (fig.46), measuring 40.6 cm in height, which had previously been attributed to Jacopo Sansovino. “Its complex and forced movement, its modelling in which the plain almost smooth areas alternate with clusters of details, for example near the knee and on the torso, the face and hair, the close-fitting and creased loincloth, are not reminiscent of Sansovino’s style, whereas they are of Guglielmo’s, as an interpretation of the Christ the Redeemer by Michelangelo towards mannerism”. The attribution is based on the bronze and silver crucifixes17.

There are another two pieces in a similar style. The pax of the theme of Christ risen appearing to his disciples, of which there are two magnificent versions, one in the Pitti Palace, in Florence, (fig. 47) and the other in the Metropolitan Museum in New York (fig. 48, see fig. 27 on p. 51 for full page illustration). Although the most common subject-matter for paxes was Christ on the cross between the Blessed Virgin and St. John, scenes from the life and Passion of Christ also appear.

The version in the Metropolitan Museum is in gilt-bronze18, whereas the one in the Museo degli Argenti in Florence is made of silver19.

They have different frames and although the scenes are meticulously finished, the clothing and hair are very soft and peaceful. The contours on the figures are simplified. The disciples’ profile is different20.

15. Carrand, no. 752, silver, 9.5 cm, tied to a gilt column.

16. It measures 7.7 x 6.5 cm. and is catalogued as Southern Germany, c. 1600 (WEBER, 1975, no. 528, I, p. 257 and II, plate 154).

17. 1977, p. 82, fig. 11 and 12.

18. It measures 21 x 30 cm. Walker, 1991.

19. Piacenti, 1968, p. 175, No. 820, 21 x 30 cm.

20. The LACMA version has been attributed by S. Walker (1991) to Teodoro della Porta, based on a model by Guglielmo, and dated to the beginning of the 17th century.

So is the version of the Risen Christ appearing to the disciples, in silver, in the Museo degli Argenti, Florence.

Fig. 45. Guglielmo della Porta. Christ at the Column.

Bargello Museum, Florence. © Scala.

88 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 46. Guglielmo della Porta.

Christ carrying the Cross Galleria Estense, Modena. Š Scala.

89 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE FLAGELLATION of christ Rosario Coppel

Fig. 47. Guglielmo della Porta. Pitti Palace, Florence. © Scala.

Fig. 48. Guglielmo della Porta. Christ risen appearing to his disciples. Metropolitan Museum, New York. © Scala.

90 COLL & CORTÉS

There are a number of differences between the altarpieceoratory of The Flagellation that is disclosed here for the first time, the drawing and the other versions (fig. 49).

Firstly, regarding the figure of Christ, both the model and the position, which is frontal, are different. It is placed before a half column, which reaches only to the waist, and the head is tilted downwards in resignation and in a passive attitude. The column in the drawing and in the other versions is a full one and Christ is leaning against it (see fig. 35 on p. 79).

In the group on the figure’s right, they are all male characters (except in the Bargello), whilst in the other versions there is a female figure, possibly the Blessed Virgin, and another that cannot be clearly distinguished. The lictor at the far end is carrying a rod, albeit in a low position, whereas in the others he has dropped the whip which lies on the ground beside his left foot, as if moving away. Furthermore, all the other versions have a fifth character, probably a Roman soldier who is leaning against the back of the column in an attitude of disgust at the scene.

The group on the left is similar in all the versions, with two lictors and two male onlookers. The first lictor, on the one in Madrid, is partially covered by the tunic that hangs down to the ground. The one behind is wearing a robe that reaches down to the ground, whereas on the Madrid version he is wearing a short tunic.

The perspective is completely different. In the Madrid version the scene is more extended, there is more space between the figure of Christ and his tormentors, who are not actually touching him. In the other versions, however, all the characters form a compact group around the tall column; furthermore, the scene reaches up to the windows and the column partially conceals the middle one, which is empty.

PROVENANCE An interpretation of the iconographic study leads the scent onto the trail of the “Compañía de Jesús”. The burning heart was the symbol of the Jesuits, while this religious order’s mission was essentially to spread the faith.

It is a devotional piece. The subject of the Flagellation is not common on items of this kind. The Virtues look upon the scene to reinforce Christ’s qualities or the doctrine manifested through His passion and death.

The ornament is all of a religious nature, in contrast to other pieces by Guglielmo that contain secular themes. The ebony enriches it, yet it is austere. Other similar works have much finer frames with cornelian, lapis lazuli, mother-of-pearl, etc. (Bargello). The piece is too small for a funerary chapel, whereby it can be deduced that it was commissioned for the private oratory of a man of the cloth or a nobleman.

The Society of Jesus, a religious order founded by Ignatius of Loyola in 1540, devoted to teaching, to the education of young people and to missionary work, soon became an extraordinary vehicle for the Counter-Reformation.

St. Francis Borgia (Gandia, 1510-Rome, 1572), 4 th Duke of Gandia, after being left a widower, entered the Society in 1546. In 1554 he was appointed Commissary-General in Spain. In 1561 Pius IV called him to Rome. In 1566 he became the third Father General or Superior General of the Society of Jesus, an office he was to hold until his death in 1572.

During his time as General, the Society spread throughout Europe and played an active part in church affairs, maintaining permanent contact with Pope Pius V, who held him in great esteem. He ordered the building of the Church of Sant’Andrea al Quirinale with an adjoining seminary and the Collegium Romanum of Saint Gregory. He founded the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and began the refurbishment of the church of Gesù, with the backing of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, with whom he had disagreements over the church’s positioning and design.

When Francis joined the Company he had an oratory cell built at the ducal palace in Gandia. The cell had a coffin-shaped ceiling that refers to the popular legend that says when he was ordered to take the coffin containing the body of Empress Isabella of Portugal to Granada, for burial in the crypt of San Juan de los Reyes beside the Catholic Monarchs, he had to identify the body, and when he saw the state of decomposition it was in, he decided to “never again serve a mortal master”.

91 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE FLAGELLATION of christ Rosario Coppel

Detail of the two figures in the right balcony and detail of the coffin in the middle balcony.

The piece we are introducing here alludes in several ways to its possible recipient. Firstly, the depiction of the Eucharist, a key motif for the Society, and Charit y with a burning heart, its symbol. Secondly, there are the monks that are looking upon the scene, something that is wholly usual in the depiction of The Flagellation of Christ, and which alludes to the status of its owner. One of them, located on the balcony on the right, is remarkable for the size of his nose 21 (detail above). We know from the death mask that is kept in Rome, in the chambers of La Casa Profesa of the Society of Jesus, that one of Francis’s more notable features was his large nose. This is how it is described by his first biographers: “…tall in body, with a long and handsome face …/ a broad forehead and a somewhat long and aquiline nose...” 22 . “…A small mouth, extremely red lips, but not thin. A fairly long nose...” 23.

Perhaps one of the first depictions appears in an engraving published by Ribadeneyra in “De vita Francisci Borgiae Societatis Iesu…”, in Rome in 1596.

There is also an oil painting by Domenico Gramática (unknown painter), in the church of Gesù, near the altar of St. Ignatius of Loyola, portraying the Pious Borgia at prayer before the Holy Sacrament 24 .

The convent of the Descalzas Reales in Madrid has a reliquary that features a portrait of Francis Borgia that Tormo understands was painted in life 25 .

Yet the most original aspect is the coffin that appears in the middle balcony (detail above), a motif that is linked to Francis Borgia’s religious calling, when he was still Marquis of Lombay and had to look upon the corpse of the Empress Isabel 26. It is significant that in all the other versions of the Flagellation executed by Guglielmo della Porta the middle balcony is empty but in this one it depicts a coffin such as the one in the Resurection drawing (fig. 50).

21. In a drawing kept in Stuttgart, at the Staatsgalerie, Graphische Sammlung, published by RIBESELL, 2011, p. 259, fig. 6, there are several portraits and, in the background, the profile of one with a very long nose, almost a caricature, which is highly reminiscent of this one on the relief of the Flagellation.

22. One of his first biographers, the Jesuit Pedro de Ribadeneyra, 1593, ed. 1945, Book IV, chapter XVIII, p. 808, featured in RINCÓN, 2010, p. 222.

23. CIENFUEGOS, 1726, pp. 459-60, featured in RINCÓN, 2010, p. 223.

24. BAGLIONE, 1649, p. 293.

25. Published by TORMO, 1944, pp. 119-122, plate XXIX 26. The saint’s attributes would later be a skull and a crown.

Fig. 50. Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing.

Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf.

92 COLL & CORTÉS

CATALOGUE FLAGELLATION of christ Rosario Coppel

A piece with such an original design must have been a personal commission from someone very close to Francis Borgia, who in turn would have been in direct contact with the artist, who undoubtedly suggested the iconographic motifs. Why did he choose the subject of the Flagellation? This ties in with Francis’s personality, since he was austere, humble, and on several occasions even refused a cardinalship, and it is likely that he defended the use of cilices, or hair shirts, for self-mortification and in order to draw closer to the image of Christ. Amongst the possible candidates there are two who fulfil both these conditions: Pope Pius V and Cardinal Alessandro Farnese.

Pius V (1565-1577) possessed the reliefs with the scenes of the Passion that Guglielmo had sold in 1564 to his predecessor, Pope Pius IV, together with a number of bronze statues of a secular nature. When he became pope, he returned the statues, as they had apparently not been paid for, but he kept the reliefs. The contact between the Pope and Guglielmo is proven not only by the office of “Piombatore apostólico”, which granted the latter access to the papal mint, but also by other projects in which he was involved, as can be seen in his biography.

For his part, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese (1520-1589) was one of the foremost patrons of Guglielmo della Porta, as in turn had been other members of his family, Pope Paul III and Ottavio Farnese. He was in permanent contact with Francis Borgia, as he was the backer for the church of Gesù in Rome. The fact he greatly appreciated the works of Guglielmo is proven by the fact that in 1582 he made a gift to Gregory XIII of the great cross and the candlesticks in the Vatican.

This is a unique piece, not only because of the scene of the Flagellation, which is different from all the other surviving versions, but also because of the design of the frame with the four Virtues, which are so typical of Guglielmo’s style and which are a common feature of his work, along with the grotesque mask.

These motifs, which derive from paintings by his master Perino del Vaga, already appear in his first work, the tomb for Bishop Solís, dating from 1547, in the form of reliefs, which were later to be used on his masterpiece, Paul III’s tomb in St. Peter ’s at the Vatican, it also featured the four Virtues on a monumental scale, whose design had been approved in 1551.

94 COLL & CORTÉS

The fact the depiction of the Flagellation is different from all the other known versions suggests it may have been specially adapted to suit its purchaser, with Borgia in mind as a recipient. As it was a commission for a noble personage, Guglielmo’s customer might have asked for the piece to be an exclusive one, as was common practice for bronze or silver items of the highest quality.

Detail allegory of Hope.

CATALOGUE

MOUNT CALVARY Guglielmo della Porta (Porlezza, Como, c. 1515 - Rome, 157 7).

Rome, between 1570 and 1575 1.

Gilt-bronze.

Scene: 41.5 x 28 cm.

Christ: 16 cm from head to feet; 16 cm from hand to hand; Cross: 34.8 x 19.5 cm.

Groups: Holy Women: 18.8 cm; Saint John: 19 cm.

S

cene of Mount Calvary, with Christ crucified in the centre and two groups of people on each side at the foot of the cross. On the left, there is the Virgin Mary ’s group with the holy women, and standing on the right is St. John accompanied by three others. In the background, beyond a treecovered landscape, stands a walled city, possibly Jerusalem, over which, on both sides of the cross, there are some naked figures suspended amidst some clouds. They are the souls of those saved or redeemed by Christ, who they look upon anxiously. In the midst of the landscaper there is a tiny figure walking towards the city.

In the upper part, in each corner, there is an anthropomorphic sun and moon and below the cross there is a skull.

The figure of Christ (detail of Christ crucified, p. 100) is freestanding and is bolted onto the cross. Each group was modelled separately to be cast later in a single relief, as can be seen at the rear.

The scene appears drawn in ink in Guglielmo della Porta’s second sketchbook (dated between 1555 and 1560) 2, and there is no doubt that it is the sketch for this piece, albeit with a number of minor variations. For example, in the drawing (fig. 51), the group on the left has three sorrowful female figures, whereas in the relief there is one more, probably Mary Magdalene, who is looking towards them 3. The group on the right, with four male characters, maintains from the sketch the figure pointing to Christ whilst turning towards St. John, who is beside the third one and almost completely hides the fourth one, which does not appear in the drawing. The sketch does not feature the background either, although the groups of nudes floating above the clouds can be seen in other designs by the artist 4 (fig. 52).

98 COLL & CORTÉS

The model of Christ, with the arms stretched wide apart and the head sunk down onto the chest, is attached to the cross with three nails and the fingers are arranged into a blessing. All this can already be seen in the drawing, as well as the depiction of the muscles and the veins and a loincloth with more movement than was later sculpted in the original. It is the Christ Guglielmo repeats in the surviving versions 5 .

The characters are wearing full robes whose edgings have been chased with a burin. A noteworthy aspect is the passivity of the group of holy women compared to the agitation amongst St. John’s group. Each one of the faces, of an admirable technical perfection considering how small they are, ref lects their feelings with the utmost realism. Highlights are the handsome features of both Mary Magdalene and St. John.

1. As dated by GRAMBERG (1973) for the first version in gilt-bronze, which he considered to be lost. The dating is based on the fact that in April 1575 mention is made of reliefs in this material (Ibid. 1964, cat. 200-201).

2. GRAMBERG, 1964, no. 154.

3. Ibid. No. 74, the fourth female figure.

4. Ibid. no. 160.

5. See pp. 62-73.

Detail of Christ crucified, landscape, and symbols of the Sun and Moon.

Fig. 51. Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing.

Museum Kunstpalast, D端sseldorf.

CATALOGUE MOUNT CALVARY Rosario Coppel

The souls of the saved (detail), depicted as highly stylised nudes, are posed in forced contrapposto. The group on the left of the cross consists of eight figures, although only two are presented with complete bodies. The rest are faces, or in one case an upper torso, with different expressions. On the right there are ten with the same characteristics. They are all f loating above the clouds with their veils f lying in the wind and they have curly hair in thick locks, very reminiscent of the well known figures depicted by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel.

The landscape background consists of trees and a city surrounded by mountains, in which there are several castles, circular temples, high towers and obelisks, all within the walls.

This part of the relief is cold sculpted, with burin punches. The cross shows the grain in the wood in great detail. The back has a soft chocolate- coloured relief.

Gramberg wrote of the silver replica at the El Escorial: “If it were compared to the plaques of the Metamorphosis by Ovid and other mythologies, one can appreciate the “horror vacui” characteristic of Guglielmo della Porta. The manner in which the architectural motifs are embedded in the landscape and the sculpted forms, such as the trees, are modelled, is identical” 6.

The subject was first mentioned in the second edition of Vasari’s Lives. This means that before 1568, the year it was published, the historian was able to see and admire the large sketches of the scenes of the Passion in Guglielmo’s workshop.

Only in this way could he have described them in such detail.

Amongst them was “…Cristo crucifisso, con diciotto figure…”, perhaps Mount Calvary, if he was also counting the figures of the f loating souls 7.

Some years later, on 29 April 1575, in a letter addressed to an unknown recipient at the Spanish court of Philip II, the sculptor once again refers to those scenes, now as being cast in gilt metal “…dele storie della passione di Iesu di metalle indorate” 8.

Although the relief of Mount Calvary is not listed in the first inventory of the works left by Guglielmo upon his death on 5 February 157 7, it does appear in the second one, dated 2 October 1578, as: “Un monte Calvario de metallo” 9.

102 COLL & CORTÉS

Detail of saved souls.

In 1586, when the robbery took place at the workshop that would twice give rise to litigation pursued by Guglielmo’s heir, his son Teodoro, at the first trial, which was held in 1589, mention is made in the margin on the documents as one of the stolen items: “altare di figure di N.S. Jesu Christo sul Monte Calvario” 10. According to Gramberg, Antonio Gentili appropriated it to the detriment of Guglielmo’s heir and must have used it (illegitimately?) to his own advantage” 1 1 .

6. He was referring to the one in the Monastery of San Lorenzo, El Escorial.

GRAMBERG, 1973, p. 453.

7. VASARI, 1568, MILANESI, VII, 1881, p. 549. “...Christ crucified with eighteen figures”.

8. GRAMBERG, 1964, cat. no. 200 and 201. “...stories of the Passion of Christ in gilded metal”. See pp. 37-39.

9. BERTOLOTTI, 1881, I, p. 142. “A metal Mount Calvary”.

10. “The altar of figures of Our Lord Jesus Christ on Mount Calvary”, Ibid. II, p. 154.

11. GRAMBERG, 1973.

Fig. 52. Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. Museum Kunstpalast, D端sseldorf.

103 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE MOUNT CALVARY Rosario Coppel

Figs. 53 and 54. Guglielmo della Porta. Bronze plaquettes of the group of Marys and group of Saint John the Baptist. (Inv. 2171 and Inv. 2177), Fundación Lázaro Galdiano, Madrid.

There are a number of surviving replicas of the Mount Calvary in different materials.

The Fundación Lázaro Galdiano Museum in Madrid has two giltbronze plaquettes depicting the two groups of figures at the foot of the cross12, 13 (figs. 53 and 54). The models are identical in both size and content, whereby it can be affirmed they come from the same mould. The only difference is their finish. In these two reliefs, the finish on the clothes

104 COLL & CORTÉS

is executed with a burin, with a very detailed depiction of the qualities and patterns on the fabrics. In contrast, the relief being introduced here has very plain clothing and only the edgings are chased with fringes. Yet the sculpting is of the highest quality and the same in both cases, and is undoubtedly by the hand of Guglielmo, although the finish on the plaquettes may have more silver working. Their provenance is the Lázaro Collection in Madrid14, and these two pieces were catalogued by Camps

Detail of the group of figures on both sides of the Cross.

Cazorla as “Fine Italian art from the middle of the 16th century”15, and

by Camón Aznar, who attributed them to the Spanish sculptor Nicolás de Vergara16. It was once again Gramberg who in 1973 published them as the first version in gilt-bronze executed by Guglielmo della Porta in Rome between 1570 and 1575. This scholar, unaware of another version in gilt-bronze, adjudged it to be the first, which had been cut and separated from the original model.

12. Group of Marys: 21.8 x 13 cm, Inv. 2.171, no. 6 painted in red on the back; Group of St. John: 21 x 13 cm, Inv. 2.177, no. 7 painted in red on the back.

13. Group of Marys: 21.8 x 13 cm, Inv. 2.171, no. 6 painted in red on the back; Group of St. John: 21 x 13 cm, Inv. 2.177, no. 7 painted in red on the back.

14. 1926, I, p. 114, no. 576 and p. 115, no. 577, as Vergara, 16th century 15. Inventory of the Lázaro Galdiano Museum, 1949-50, unpublished.

16. Short guide to the Lázaro Galdiano Museum, Madrid, 1951, p. 47

105 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE MOUNT CALVARY Rosario Coppel

As we have seen, the execution of the complete relief involved first modelling each group separately and then casting them onto a single setting. This meant there were moulds for the groups of the Marys and St. John that could be cast in the form of small plaquettes.

These pieces were highly prized as decorative motifs and tended to be placed on all kinds of objects, such as devotional books or liturgical furniture. Looking at the back, one can see that both the relief and the two plaquettes have been made using the same technique and metal alloys. The gilding is also very similar.

The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, has a slightly smaller bronze version, with no gilding 17 (fig. 55), which Venturi attributed to Antonio Calcagni from Recanati (1536-93). The attribution is based on the similarity in style with a relief by this sculptor called The lifting up of the brazen serpent, which is to be found in Loreto 18. The figure of Christ has disappeared. For Gramberg this is a piece by Guglielmo dated between 1575 and 1590, towards the end of his life or even after it 19. The relief is different from the others in a number of major aspects. The first is that the work is much less detailed; the second is that the landscape and buildings are more simplified, and, finally, the scene is cut off on both sides.

There was a terracotta model in a private Italian collection (Lugo di Romagna) that was published by Genari in 1938 20, although it has yet to be located.

However, the most important replica, because of both its high artistic and historical value is the one to be found at the monastery of El Escorial, specifically in Philip II’s chamber 21 (fig. 56). This magnificent version, cast in gilt-silver, retains the original ebony frame decorated with silver columns, though some extra silver ornaments were lost, perhaps in the Peninsular war; these were a coat of arms of Pope Gregory XIII with two supporters and a pelican with its three young in the nest (symbol of Piety) 22.

Its provenance is fully confirmed by the dedication located at the foot of the frame in which it states it was a gift from Pope Gregory XIII (1571-1585) to Bianca Cappello, Grand Duchess of Tuscany: “Questa imagine del Santissimo Crocifisso fu donnata in questo quadro per Gregorio Papa XIII alla Serenissima Signora Bianca Capello Medici Gran Ducchesa di Toscana con privilegio dell’indulgente e gratie infrascritte a Sua Alt. Ser. Concedute l’anno della salute MDLXXX…” 23.

Fig. 55. Attributed to Antonio Calcagni. Mount Calvary.

The Musuem of Fine Arts, Boston. © Scala.

17. Inventory no. 29 1026, 39.5 cm high.

18. VENTURI X, 2, fig. 620.

19. GRAMBERG, 1973, pp. 449-460.

20. GENARI, L’Arte, 1938, pp. 299-300. This author mentions another gilt example, attributed to Hans Reichle, in Bulletin des Musées Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, vol 24, 1964.

21. Patrimonio Nacional de España, inv. No. 1.409. The overall piece measures 71 x 45 cm; the relief: 42 x 27.2 cm; the figure of Christ: 16 x 16 cm.

22. GRAMBERG, 1973, p. 452.

23. “This image of the Most Holy Crucifix was given in this frame by Pope Gregory XIII to Her Serene Highness Bianca Capello Granduchess of Tuscany, with the privilege of the indulgences and graces listed below conceded to Her Serene Highness in the year of Salvation 1580…”.

Fig. 56. Guglielmo della Porta. Mount Calvary, gilt-silver.

(Inv. 10014408). Monastery of El Escorial, Madrid. © Patrimonio Nacional.

106 COLL & CORTÉS

107 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

CATALOGUE MOUNT CALVARY Rosario Coppel

In 1585, Francesco de Medici’s wife was forced to ask Philip II for a very special favour. As she and Francesco were childless, they wanted the Spanish monarch, who had to ratify each mandate of the Tuscan court, to acknowledge as their legitimate heir a child that Bianca Cappello had passed off as her own. She therefore wrote as follows to the Spanish king: “Come io non potreva dar li saggio più certo dell’osequio et de la mia servitù con lei, señor, con questo crocifisso ch’era la vita mia” 24.

Regarding its arrival in Spain and transfer to the monastery of El Escorial, there is a record in the inventories: “A small altarpiece that is eleven dozavos high and a little over half a vara wide with its panel, ebony mouldings and base of the same material. It is all in white silver in half relief and on the sides, two grooved, with plinths of the same material and bases and capitals in white silver: the capitals made with open foliage, with a frieze, cornice and frontispiece. An ebony base and in the middle of the panel, a large sheet, made with a Calvary with Christ crucified all in white silver and at the foot of the cross a skull and at the sides Our Lady and St. John and other figures in half relief and two choirs of angels on the sides and on high, the moon and the sun, and below, on the one hand Our Lady with another figure and on the other Saint John with other figures, all in relief, all in gilt-silver with the plaque on the cross in white silver” 25.

It continues with a description of the frame: “Ornate work in sculpted silver of which today it has been stripped, the coat of arms of Pope Gregory XIII with two figures holding it and a pelican with three chicks in the nest” 26.

It was one of the items shown at the European Historical Exhibition held in Madrid in 1893, being described in the catalogue as: “Oratory altarpiece in ebony, silver and gilt-bronze in mid-relief. Italian, end of the 16 th century. The inscription can be read on the plinth 27.

Published by Perera, who thought that the freestanding Christ was by another hand and that the background reliefs were inspired

by Cellini, such as certain plaquettes at the Lázaro Galdiano Museum of choirs of angels, whose sketches are in the Vatican. This author referred to Ambrosio Zoppa, who made paxes for the Popes, and to Antonio Gentili, although, in his view, he distanced himself from Cellini’s influence in his works 28.

108 COLL & CORTÉS

The design was attributed to Guglielmo della Porta by Gramberg and the casting and finish to Antonio Gentili (active in Rome from 1572 to 1609) between 1575 and 1581 29. Although some years later it was published by Martín 30 and in the exhibition catalogues for the centenary of El Escorial 31 and Palma de Mallorca 32 .

There are certain differences between the first version in bronze being introduced here and this one in silver. In the latter case, Christ’s head is less inclined and the landscape is different in certain areas. Furthermore, there are slight differences in the Sun and Moon and the cross does not have the wood grain engraved on it. Otherwise, the two pieces are of an extremely high technical quality and may serve as a point of departure for the study of other pieces executed by Gentili based on models

by Guglielmo.

Furthermore, there is a second altarpiece in the sacristy of the church in the monastery of El Escorial (fig. 57). It is a similar relief to the previous one, silver in colour, on dark stone (slate) and ebony wood 33. The basic difference with the other versions is that it lacks a background and that Christ is portrayed in death.

There appear only the two groups of people on the lower part on a landscape terrain and the Christ, whose model is closer to the crucifix in Vienna. It was also donated by Philip II to the Monastery of El Escorial 34 .

In Gramberg’s opinion, this piece is impossible to date, although he believes it to be from an early period 35 . According to the El Escorial exhibition catalogue, the figure of Christ is much more accomplished than in the previous altarpiece. The head falls lower down onto the chest and is in better proportion to the figures 36.

The relief of Mount Calvary we are presenting here is a key work for understanding Guglielmo’s style and dynamics, his ability to go from drawing to the sculpted forms of wax and end up perfecting the metal with a meticulous use of the burin. It is the only surviving version in gilt-bronze. It is therefore a unique piece, of great historical and artistic value and may be the lost original in bronze whose existence was signaled by Gramberg, from which the two examples in the El Escorial were made by other silversmiths.

24. “As I cannot furnish you with greater proof of my devotion and of my obedience to you, sir, than this cross that was my life”, Archivo General de Simancas, Estado, 946, fol. 300-301. Bianca Cappello to Philip II, Florence, 13 January 1584 (that is, 1585). MULCAHY, Exhibit. Cat. Felipe II, 1998, pp. 171-172, note 23.

25. ZARCO CUEVAS, 1930-31. pp. 113-114, no. 1595. The original text is in Spanish.

26. Budapest Museum, (inv. 51,927), GRAMBERG, 1984, p. 331, fig. 90.

27. Cat. Exposición Histórico Europea, Madrid, 1893, Hall XVI, no. 129, plate XXXVII. The photo is the other way around.

28. PERERA, 1969, pp. 68-70.

29. GRAMBERG, 1973, pp. 449-460.

30. MARTÍN, 1984, pp. 25-36.

31. Exhibit. Cat. Centenario del Monasterio de El Escorial, Madrid, 1986, pp. 158-159, no. PT 2.

32. Exhibit. Cat. El arte de la platería en las Colecciones Reales, Palma de Mallorca, 1995.

33. Patrimonio Nacional, inv. No.2.512. It measures 72 x 47 cm. Dimensions of the Christ: 14 cm, approximately.

34. ZARCO CUEVAS, 1930-31, fourth batch in 1584.

35. 1973, p. 452.

36. 1986, p. 159, no. PT 3.

Fig. 57. Guglielmo della Porta. Mount Calvary, silver.

(Inv. 10048054). Monastery of El Escorial, Madrid. © Patrimonio Nacional.

109 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO CHARLES AVERY

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO

T

he study of sculpture in the sixteenth century is fascinating because of the wealth and diversity of the ideas, forms and personalities which it comprises. In an age when the mass media on which we rely so heavily today for information, education and entertainment were unknown (with the exception of the printed word and engraved reproductions, and even those were still limited by technical shortcomings, comparative expensiveness and general illiteracy), the visual arts played a far more vital role than they are accorded today.

Sculpture enjoyed the great advantage over painting that it could be displayed out of doors without deteriorating appreciably: the durability of bronze and relative permanence of marble, other stones and even terracotta were clearly demonstrated by the survival of Greco -Roman and Etruscan sculpture from antiquity.

It was thus apparent to patrons, both laymen and ecclesiastics, that sculpture was the ideal medium in which to convey information or inspiration to, literally, the man in the street, let alone his betters.

Compared with the Western world today, there was a dearth of things to catch the eye, so that the images which were available had a correspondingly greater impact. A ruler or pope need only commission a portrait-statue for public display in the city centre to project his image far and wide, to identify himself physically with the city and to impress the ordinary citizen and passer-by with his importance, partly through the primitive suggestiveness of its sheer size, as well as the luxury of his apparel. Of all the colossal statues of the period, Michelangelo’s David, standing outside the seat of government in the centre of the city of Florence and commissioned as an allegory of liberty by the republicans about 1500, is the most obvious example of a “political” sculpture. Many others were to follow.

Actual portraits of individual rulers abounded in city squares, and the importance that was attached to them by ordinary people can be gauged from the eagerness with which they were

114 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 58. Daniele da Volterra. Michelangelo Buonarroti, bronze head.

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

destroyed in moments of revolution: one need only remember the fate of Michelangelo’s monumental bronze statue of Pope Julius II on the façade of San Petronio, Bologna, which survived only three years from the date of its completion in February 1508 until its destruction by a hostile mob in 151 1: so thorough was its destruction that we have no idea at all of its appearance.

In an age which thought in terms of symbolism, sometimes straightforward, sometimes so complex as to be all but incomprehensible today, public sculpture naturally followed suit and biblical heroes such as David, or mythological ones such as Hercules or Neptune, were pressed into service for the sake of their symbolic connections with patrons and rulers, which were generally understood.

As in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, so also in the sixteenth century, tombs were also a fruitful source of commissions for sculpture, especially in the three great centres of Florence, Venice and Rome. The tomb provided scope for at least three types of sculpture: a portrait of the deceased, either a full-length effigy (or sometimes a standing, seated or kneeling figure) or a bust; allegorical statues indicating the supposed

Fig. 59. Michelangelo Buonarroti. Tomb of Lorenzo de’ Medici.

Fig. 60. Guglielmo della Porta. Funeral monument of Paul III.

Chapel of San Lorenzo, Florence.

St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. © Scala.

virtues of the deceased; and sometimes panels in relief recording important events in his career (as on Pollaiolo’s bronze tombs of Sixtus IV and Martin V in St. Peter ’s, or Bandinelli’s pair of tombs for the Medici popes Leo X and Clement VII in Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome, and Guglielmo della Porta’s for Pope Paul III in St. Peter ’s) (fig. 60, see fig. 8 on p. 29 for full page illustration).

In the early years of the 16 th century, Michelangelo was famously commissioned to produce a monumental tomb for Pope Julius II in St. Peter ’s, while Andrea Sansovino executed a splendid matching pair of tombs for the Cardinals Sforza and della Rovere in Santa Maria del Popolo. Owing to the increasing power and wealth of the Vatican, the most spectacular tombs continued to be produced in Rome through the patronage of popes and cardinals: Ammanati’s mortuary chapel in San Pietro in Montorio for the Del Monte, the family of Pope Julius III, is one of the best integrated architectural and sculptural projects of the century, thanks in part to the benign supervision of the aged Michelangelo.

Michelangelo is generally regarded as the most important figure in the story of European sculpture (fig. 58): his extraordinarily powerful statues influenced certain types of sculpture in Italy. However,

there were several extensive fields of sculpture in which he was not interested and therefore had little or no influence. The latter part of this statement may come as a surprise, for the genius of Michelangelo is so deeply revered - and rightly so - that it is not often realized on what a narrow front it operated within the art of sculpture. In fact, Michelangelo concentrated almost exclusively on carving monumental statues in marble, and while this may coincide with the popular idea of a sculptor’s activity, a number of vital branches of sculpture are excluded: the whole field of modelled sculpture, whether made of clay or wax, or cast into bronze; the production of stories in relief; work on a small scale for domestic consumption (statuettes, medals, etc.); portrait-making in three dimensions; and decorative or ephemeral sculpture of all kinds. His followers (for he had few pupils in the normal sense of the word, owing to his crusty personality and potential for jealousy) were able to exploit the vacuum that he left in these fields, Della Porta being one of them.

But to deal first with Guglielmo’s most obvious debt to the older sculptor, one must start with his tomb of Pope Paul III Farnese in Saint Peter’s, executed between 1550 and 1555, and its eye-catching marble statues of recumbent virtues.

115 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

By then Michelangelo’s four reclining marble allegories of the Times of Day on the tombs of the Medici Capitani in the New Sacristy of San Lorenzo had been influential well beyond the confines of Florence from the moment that they were finished, indeed they were engraved by Battista Franco as early as 1536. A sculptor who had actually worked alongside Michelangelo in the chapel, Fra Giovanni Montorsoli, predictably adopted what was in essence the classical Greco-Roman river-god motif at face value, employing a series of such figures to decorate the basin of his Fountain of Orion at Messina (Sicily), about 1550.

After this, Guglielmo’s is the most obvious reference to the Times of Day: for on the new tomb, below a seated statue of the Pope in benediction cast in bronze, lie two female allegories in marble, Fidelity and Prudence, on elaborate consoles that rise towards the centre of the complex. The tomb was to have a chequered history, owing to lengthy disputes over its location in Saint Peter’s, and two similar allegories were eventually removed to the Palazzo Farnese. Not until 1549, with the death of Pope Paul, did Guglielmo trespass into dangerous territory that would bring him into rivalry - and eventually mortal conflict - with Michelangelo, who prior to this had been friendly towards the newly arrived sculptor from Genoa. This is because, when Guglielmo was commissioned to produce a monumental tomb for the pope, he chose to imitate Michelangelo’s initial idea for a freestanding mausoleum for Pope Julius II della Rovere, an idea that was positively megalomanic, whether it stemmed entirely from his own imagination or he was egged on by the egocentric warrior-pope. Its intended position at the centre of the crossing of St. Peter’s (then under construction) attracted opprobrium for its vaingloriousness. For this reason, as well as the sculptor’s disgracefully irresponsible behaviour in hardly carving any of the original forty statues, life-size or over, that had been initially projected, it was reduced by stages to a three-sided scheme backed against a wall. Eventually it was still further reduced to a wall-monument, more appropriate perhaps to a mere cardinal and - most hurtful - it was moved out of the Basilica altogether, to San Pietro in Vincoli. Guglielmo’s choice must have seemed presumptuous to Michelangelo, who had only erected the wall monument as recently as 1545. Notoriously it contained only three statues by him - the original Moses (fig. 61), flanked by the newly carved Rachel and Leah.

Simultaneously, Michelangelo had been distracted from his obligations

Fig. 61. Michelangelo Buonarroti. Moses.

San Pietro in Vincoli, Rome.

to the long-suffering heirs of the Della Rovere pope by the Farnese who insisted that he use his talents as a painter to fresco the walls of the Pauline Chapel (Cappella Paolina) in the Vatican.

The tomb of Paul III was a strange project from the start, for the sculptor was - presumably for the sake of economy on the part of the Farnese family to re-use the base of the tomb for Bishop de Solís that had been abandoned, which comprised some reliefs in bronze and some scrolls with putti for the angles. Guglielmo’s original intentions are recorded in two drawings (fig. 62). The pre-existing zone with its bronze reliefs, and scrolls (fig. 63), inspired by Pollaiolo’s bronze tomb for Pope Sixtus IV, was used as an elaborate plinth for a new seated statue of Paul, mediating between it and the architectural pedestal below, whose sides were to be enlivened with pairs of nude deities reclining on couch-like scrolls. These were of a more convenient shape than the convex segmental sections of broken pediments on which Michelangelo had placed his Times of Day. These statues were of current concern, for the New Sacristy had been brought to completion in the absence of Michelangelo by Tribolo and Montelupo only in 1545, so Michelangelo had good reason to feel touchy about the scheme to glorify Paul III, even though he was a patron of his.

Guglielmo’s drawing shows a pair of overly-muscular male nudes, one seen from in front, but the other from behind, with one of his legs bent in extreme contortion to support the radical turn of his body away from the viewer: they are seemingly engaged in earnest conversation.

Fig. 63. Guglielmo della Porta. Putto on scroll with mask, bronze (from the tomb of Bishop de Solis / Paul III).

Fig. 64. Guglielmo della Porta. Fidelity, marble. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

116 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 65. Fidelity, artist’s impression of its original appearance when nude.

Fig. 62. Guglielmo della Porta. Design for tomb of Pope Paul III. Formerly with David Peel.

At the left is shown another, similar figure in extreme foreshortening, lying on an outrageously bulging double-volute: this is presumably meant as one of the allegories of The Four Seasons initially proposed by Della Porta but which ultimately were rejected from the scheme, leaving only four female allegories of various Virtues. Only two of these - the more attractive ones - articulate the tomb as it was finally re-erected in the sanctuary of St. Peter’s, ironically - as in the case of Michelangelo’s Julius II, reduced to the humbler status of a wall-tomb. The other two were retired to the Palazzo Farnese as - rather inappropriate, uncongenial and indeed not at all attractive - items of interior decoration!

Guglielmo repeated Michelangelo’s contrast between a younger, beautiful woman and an older, sage but haggard creature. One was meant to be Guglielmo’s masterwork, Fidelity (fig. 64) (often misidentified as Justice or Equanimity), judging from the fact that he inscribed his signature prominently on a strap running across her chest - just as Michelangelo had in the case of his early Pietà for St. Peter’s. However, her beauty is hard to judge properly, for its sensuous, pagan-inspired, nudity proved to be too much for the extremists of the Counter-Reformation and in 1594 Guglielmo’s son Teodoro had to carve a dress for her out of coloured marble. The clever, multiple folds and fanned-out edges deliberately break the voluptuous silhouette and disguise the offending female forms beneath it. No-one has attempted to imagine its original appearance and so an artist’s reconstruction is shown here (fig. 65).

117 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

In any case, it is clear that the sculptor Vincenzo Danti, when called upon in 1564 (incidentally the year of Michelangelo’s death) to produce an honorific group of Duke Cosimo I between allegories of his (supposed) virtues, Fairness (Aequitas) and Strictness (Rigor) for the façade of the Uffizi, turned not only to the example of Michelangelo’s wall-tombs in the New Sacristy but also took note of Guglielmo’s Virtues for Pope Paul, for he copied their more comfortable-looking voluted daybeds, instead of repeating Michelangelo’s convex segments, off which the Times of Day look as though they might easily slide. Thus Danti’s attractive female nude of Fairness (fig. 66), while the crossing of her legs recalls Michelangelo’s Dawn (fig. 67), in the position of the upper body, head and arms, as well as the ornamental subsidiary detail of coiffure and attributes, is indebted to Guglielmo’s Fidelity. A strange difference between Guglielmo’s recumbent allegories and Michelangelo’s is that in all four cases he insists on having them rest their legs simply on top of one another, rather than vary their positions by flexing a knee, let alone crossing each other, as Michelangelo and Danti did.

As has been pointed out, Michelangelo’s exclusive concentration on monumental figure-sculpture in marble was highly unusual in an Italian Renaissance context, as compared with all major fifteenth-century and most sixteenth-century sculptors. Donatello had been highly versatile, using every conceivable medium and pushing it to its technical limits.

Verrocchio and Pollaiuolo had been the masters of thriving art workshops, producing everything from paintings to armour (real or pretended), from precious metalwork to designs for embroidery, quite apart from sculpture in the traditional media. Michelangelo’s obsession with a single medium left a vacuum in all the other, usual, fields of sculpture: Bronze, i.e. modelled and cast sculpture, which he dismissed as ‘additive and more like painting’; Small-scale (except for preliminary models in wax or clay), e.g. bronze statuettes, plaquettes, medals etc.; Relief, other than four early marble panels; Portraiture, other than idealized out of all recognition, according to contemporaries (e.g. the Medici Capitani) or generalized (e.g. Brutus).

Among many other sculptors, Guglielmo della Porta was quick to capitalize on Michelangelo’s failure to establish himself as a veritable master in any of these fields. As has been mentioned, his statue of Paul III and the reliefs and volutes for his tomb were cast in bronze (see fig.

63 on p. 117), while he made numerous casts after the Antique for the

118 COLL & CORTÉS

Farnese in this medium; he frequently worked on a small - if not a miniature - scale, with crucifixes, figurines and ornaments making up much of his repertory; he was obsessed with designing large panels of relief for monumental contexts, even if none of these projects came to completion, and cast several of them; and, finally, he executed several life-like effigies of the deceased on various tomb-commissions, as well as some impressive portrait busts of Pope Paul.

In his reliefs, a field of art normally adjudged to be more related to painting and graphic art than to sculpture proper, Guglielmo - in common with most other artists of his day - was overwhelmed by Michelangelo’s frescoes. Especially influential were the recent ones of The Last Judgment and the murals in the Pauline Chapel, with their frenzied over-crowding, dramatically rendered figures and groups in complex poses, and ‘kinetic’ effects in rendering movement of both body and soul.

This is especially apparent in the case of a bronze relief of The Deposition (or, perhaps more properly, The Lamentation) which was formerly in the celebrated collection of the American millionaire banker, John Pierpont Morgan, and is now in Ann Arbor Michigan (fig. 68.)1. It measures 53 x 37.5cm. Thus it is nearly the height of a standard unit of measurement used in Italy during the Renaissance, the braccio (58cm. approx.). The bronze panel, cast from Della Porta’s original model in wax or clay, is not well-known to art-historians in Europe, for it has been in the United States of America for a century. Even so, the composition is known in Italy from a beautiful version carved laboriously in alabaster that is now in Milan (fig. 69, see fig. 18 on p. 41 for full page illustration)2 .

1. See E. VERHEYEN, “A Deposition by Guglielmo della Porta”, in The University of Michigan Museum of Art Bulletin, IV 1969, PP. 3-9; Exhibited at Smith College Museum of Art, “Renaissance Bronzes in American Collections”, Northampton, Massachusetts, 1964, no. 24, with extensive earlier literature.

2. Museo di Castello Sforzesco (Bolognini Bequest, 1866), 50 x 35cm. see P. GARBERI, 1974, cat. n. 741, figs 78-82: its reduced size is accounted for partly by the absence of the rebated flange that surrounds the bronze in order for it to fit snugly into a frame, perhaps on a door, such as Guglielmo intended for his series of reliefs showing the Passion of Christ.

Fig. 66. Vincenzo Danti. Fairness (Aequitas), marble. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Avery.

Fig. 67. Michelangelo Buonarroti. Dawn, marble.

New Sacristy, San Lorenzo, Florence. Brogi photo.

Fig. 68. Guglielmo della Porta. The Deposition (or, Lamentation), bronze.

University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Fig. 69. Guglielmo della Porta. The Deposition (or, Lamentation), marble.

Museo di Castello Sforzesco, Milan.

119 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

Fig. 70. Michelangelo Buonarroti. The Conversion of St. Paul, fresco. Cappella Paolina (Pauline Chapel), Vatican City.

120 COLL & CORTÉS

There are also numerous casts of the composition in a variety of materials, including terracotta and papier-mâché, a carving in wood, and an aftercast (surmoulage) in bronze signed by Joseph de Levis, a bronze founder active in Verona during the late 16 th century 3. Their existence proves the popularity of Guglielmo’s agitated composition, at least as far afield from Rome as Verona. Perhaps it was the overtones of Michelangelo’s later paintings that aided this popularity: the motifs of the stooping man with his head near that of Jesus (Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea) and of the swooping curve of the shroud are clear reminders of the focal group in Michelangelo’s fresco of his Conversion of St Paul in which a servant is solicitously bending over and trying to pick up and guide the blinded Saul, outlined by his cloak against the neutral ground (fig. 70).

The way in which participants who should be in the middle ground - St. John the Evangelist and the Marys - are brought forward to the front plane of the relief also reflects Michelangelo’s abandonment of rational perspective in his Last Judgment: the Virgin actually appears to be floating in mid-air above the corpse of her son, for her knees are thrust forward so as to be physically in almost the same plane as his head. The near-repetition of similar heads - stooped in the case of three of the cowled, mourning Marys; or in profile in that of two witnesses at the right - is another trick learnt from Michelangelo, as a way of suggesting movement through slight variations in position, as is done in successive frames of a motion picture film. Such a homage by Guglielmo could have been triggered by the unveiling of the mighty frescoes in the Pauline Chapel in 1545, relatively soon after his stay in Rome.

This panel is the only one that survives of a sufficient size to have been embodied in a door, as was proposed by Guglielmo in desperation, many years after he had originally conceived a set of fourteen reliefs depicting The Passion to go on the elaborate pedestal for his equestrian monument to Charles V (fig. 71). Projected around 1555-56, the reliefs took the sculptor some four years to finish into full-scale wax models ready for casting, but the commission was cancelled sometime before 1564, presumably owing to a change in the diplomatic atmosphere. In that year Guglielmo was paid for wooden benches and easels for displaying “eight histories of the life of Jesus Christ…” (otto historie della vita di Gesà Xpo).

Fig. 71. Guglielmo della Porta. Sketch for the equestrian monument of the Emperor Charles V. Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf.

3. See C. AVERY, “Giuseppe de Levis of Verona, bronze founder and sculptor of the late sixteenth century, 2- Figure style”, in The Connoisseur, February 1973, pp. 87-97 (reprinted in C. Avery, Studies in European Sculpture, London, 1981, pp. 54-56, nos.

1-3, 5). The other eight versions will be listed in C. Avery, Joseph de Levis & Co., Renaissance bronze-founders of Verona [forthcoming publication], no. 45.

121 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

Fig. 72. Guglielmo della Porta. The Crucifixion, wax on slate. Borghese Gallery, Rome. Anderson photo.

122 COLL & CORTÉS

Vasari records that Pope Pius IV had intended to incorporate eight panels with scenes of The Passion into a bronze door for St. Peter ’s, but died before the project was realised, and so poor Guglielmo was frustrated yet again. Eight wax models remained in Guglielmo’s studio when he died and the very number suggests a connection “Item octo di historie di cera della passion di G[esù]C[risto]”.

Which door was intended we do not know, but Vasari called it simply a “porta”, i.e. one of normal size, and not - as he might have done for a great door or portal - a “portone”: therefore the panel of the Deposition, with its narrow, upright shape, might have been one of four, set two abreast and inserted into a substantial bronze frame on one leaf of a double-door, with the other four panels opposite: the whole cycle could have been read left to right in two rows of four across the pair of leaves when closed. Such a door might have totalled about a six feet (150cm.) across and the same in height, or rather more if one allows for a panel running across the bottom (with coats-of-arms, papal symbols and subsidiary scenes or ornament) to bring the lower row of narrative panels up to a height where they would be reasonably legible by a person standing upright 4 . Though much larger and of a generation later, the portals of the Basilica of the Holy House in Loreto, indicate how Guglielmo’s eight panels could have been arranged on a doubledoor and set off within a generous, ornamental framework.

Preliminary models in wax for similar panels depicting episodes from the Passion of Christ (perhaps eventually for domestic use in house-altars or side-chapels in a church), also exist that have been reliably attributed to Della Porta. Of these, the finest is a panel of the Crucifixion (68.5 x 47cm.), now in the Borghese Gallery, Rome (fig. 72). A close variant of this was formerly with Howing and Winborg in Stockholm (25.3 x 17.5cm.). Professor Middeldorf convincingly attributed these cognate designs to Guglielmo as long ago as 1935 5 . They are much more easily legible, because more logically arranged, than the Deposition just discussed and so may be of an earlier date.

In the Roman example, the scene is clearly divided, so that the figures are easily legible: in the foreground are two distinct groups separated by a hiatus directly below the central cross, a hiatus that serves to highlight the expressively extended hand of

one of the women gathered round the fainting Virgin Mary (on the left) and to separate that group of “the good” from another (to the right) of “the evil”, some Roman soldiers who are quarrelling over the division of their spoil, the seamless garment of Christ. Two of them are wrenching it in opposite directions and fighting over it face to face, with their other hands drawn back to gain momentum to buffet one another; while in front of them, a third soldier is stabbing another, whom he is pushing and kneeing to the ground in an unseemly mêlée. All of these figures are modelled in half-relief and the complex folds of their drapery cast strong shadows, whose patterns endow conf licting feelings to their wearers - agitation to the central mourning woman, but restrained sorrow to St. John the Evangelist who closes the scene on the left with his face turned up heavenwards and his hands clasped in prayer.

The row of figures gathered round the three crosses in the background, with those furthest away silhouetted against the dark slate, is separated by a neutral middle-ground of the rocky hillside of Golgotha, which is in fact barely visible owing to the plethora of participants in the foreground. All is action in the rear zone: the cross of Christ seems scarcely to have been erected, for a group of four sturdy men is steadying it, while two others, of whom only the one on the left is visible are still hauling it upright with taut ropes.

Several Roman centurions on rearing horses are pointing their lances towards Christ, while members of the Sanhedrin altercate among themselves; each individual’s role is carefully thought out by the sculptor. High above, silhouetted against the darkened sky, are the three victims of crucifixion: on the left, the Good Thief raises both his hands in an unusual gesture of supplication and surrender to the words of comfort just spoken by the Saviour; while opposite the Bad Thief, as was usual turning away from Christ, hangs limply from the cross, over which his arms are hooked.

4. Alternatively, of course, all eight panels could have been fitted into a single, larger door.

5. U. MIDDELDORF, “Two wax reliefs by Guglielmo della Porta”, in The Art Bulletin, XVII, 1935, pp. 90-96.

123 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

This highly-worked scene might have been made as a preliminary model on a small scale for one of the fourteen big panels that Guglielmo designed to be cast in bronze for the mausoleum of the Emperor Charles V. Its clarity and legibility would have suited it to such a “public” display, whereas the intensity and complexity of the surviving bronze panel of The Deposition /Lamentation in Michigan would have been inappropriate, and better suited to the more intimate context of a door in the Vatican. Its emphasis on Roman soldiery and rearing horses (not authorized by the bible story) would also have adapted it perfectly to its role as decoration of the pedestal of Della Porta’s rearing equestrian monument to the Holy Roman Emperor. In any case this rendering of the Crucifixion is a veritable masterpiece of imagination and skilful modelling.

Inf luence from Michelangelo on Guglielmo is to be found in another composition The Flagellation of Christ (fig. 73, see fig. 4 1 on p. 85 for full page illustration). The great master had long ago provided a design (modello) for this subject to his younger friend, the painter Sebastiano del Piombo (Guglielmo’s predecessor in the papal sinecure of Piombatore Apostolico).

This resulted from a commission from Michelangelo’s friend, the Florentine banker Pierfrancesco Borgherini, to decorate his family chapel in San Pietro in Montorio, for which the great painter, being too busy, recommended his amanuensis Sebastiano: “Combining Michelangelo’s powers of design with Sebastiano’s richness of surface effect and sombre chiaroscuro, the two attempted to combat Raphael’s increasing power and reputation.” 6.

Michelangelo’s drawn modello is lost, but while still in the ownership of Sebastiano around 1545, it seems to have been copied by his friend Giulio Clovio, in whose post mortem inventory it was listed as “Uno Xpo alla Colonna in lapis rosso con tre figure di Michelangniolo fata da D. Giulio”. Michelangelo’s preparations are also known from two drawings in the British Museum. The maestro set the gruesome scene in a solemn, columniated Roman hall with a niche in the back wall, whose semi-circular arch is calculated so as to encompass the figure of Christ, who is lashed to a column in the centre foreground. His legs straddle the column behind him and he strains forward against his bonds as four

124 COLL & CORTÉS

torturers rain blows on him by turns with leather scourges, almost seeming to dance round him and the column. In Sebastiano’s eventual fresco the scene is rendered all the more monumental and awesome by the close-up view that concentrates attention on just these five contrasted figures, depicted more or less at life-size. Michelangelo had however provided for a host of other bystanders in the courtyard of Pontius Pilate’s palace and had used one of the columns of the structure as the point of focus.

Giulio Clovio’s interest occurred at much the same date as Guglielmo had reason also to be involved with the subject, for it was a principal episode in his repeated attempts at producing a series of narrative panels of The Passion. As we have noted, he loved to enhance his stories with multiple participants and bystanders, in order to depict their conf licting reactions to the violent events. He also etiolated the figures, so as to be taller and slimmer than the classical canon, with bodies perhaps ten or eleven ‘heads’ high. The focal figure of Christ, all but nude and standing in a willowy posture of resignation, completely lacks the exhausted energy of Sebastiano’s monumental rendering.

Unlike Michelangelo’s scheme, the setting Guglielmo provides is not realistic, inasmuch as Christ is set forward on a semicircular platform protruding from a step running right across the panel, a platform which is cantilevered out on a corbel that projects from a sort of entablature below, whose purpose is undefined. The column is not set quite centrally on this platform, while behind it the next step is cut back into a concave semicircle. Hence the torturers would in reality have to negotiate several changes of level as they go about their task. The middle ground is suppressed, so that the scene takes place in front of a barely visible blank wall, which is however crowned with a fantasy Roman structure in the form of a hemicycle, but with its near ends bearing broken pediments. Behind balustrades across these two ends are to be descried two groups of witnesses earnestly discussing what is happening. They are on so small a scale as to indicate that they are in the far distance!

To the four assailants imagined by Michelangelo, Guglielmo adds a fifth, in the right foreground: dropping his scourge he has his hand to his mouth seemingly in horror, possibly as

Fig. 73. Sebastiano del Piombo. Flagellation. San Pietro in Montorio, Rome. © Scala.

the realisation of the victim’s innocence and true status as the Messiah overcomes him. Opposite, a resentful, cowled figure represents the scheming Jewish priests of the temple. At the far left and further back, two women in discussion are perhaps to be interpreted as some of the faithful women from Galilee who were among Jesus’s most ardent followers, and who might have been waiting and hoping to bind his wounds and comfort him after the torture was over.

Such is Guglielmo’s artistry, however, that these anomalies are barely noticed, for one’s eye is immediately caught by the figure of Christ, projected for contemplation in front of the foremost plane, and one’s attention is then captured by the frenzied activities of the torturers, with their arms, hands and instruments for inf licting

pain dramatically raised in silhouette all around the patient protagonist. The conf licting emotions and interests of all the various participants are cleverly expressed by their compression in tight groups within a claustrophobic space confined within the expected outer wooden frame. The construct has an artificiality that is characteristic of the Mannerist style that was promulgated by painters, sculptors and architects in the wake of Michelangelo, Guglielmo della Porta being one of the foremost.

6. Paul Joannides, Michelangelo and His Influence: Drawings from Windsor Castle, exh. cat., various locations, London, 1996, cat.no 34, p. 120.

125 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

christ crucified The figure is unusually large, which suggests that it was destined for a cross in the centre of an altar (like Bernini’s set for the side-altars of St. Peter’s of nearly a century later). For its size, it is light in weight, which betokens a high degree of skill on the part of its founder. The thinness of the wall of metal may be assessed by examining the holes drilled in the feet (detail) to accommodate the nail of crucifixion: the wall at that point is only about 3mm. thick. With a crucifix of this size it is probable that the arms were cast separately and then mechanically attached, but, as the thick gilding disguises any possible joints and patches, this could only be ascertained by radiography, or other even more modern technologies.

The ideal, athletic body of Christ and strong torsion in the pose are inspired by drawings of the subject made by Michelangelo late in life (fig. 74).

The relatively large size allows the sculptor ample scope to render all the details with loving precision, from the features of the face (detail), to the hair (detail), and to the knuckles (detail) and nails of the fingers and toes. The surfaces of the flesh are cleaned and chased to a uniform degree of smoothness, with minute traces of the abrasive tools used still being visible, to render the quality of skin, rather than being buffed to a high polish. Combined with the beautifully idealised and serene features of Christ’s face, the subtle restraint of the workmanship of the body, loincloth and extremities, makes this particular rendition of a well-explored theme a deeply moving focus for the devotional exercises that were encouraged by the Counter Reformation.

126 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 74. Michelangelo Buonarroti. Christ on the Cross, drawing. British Museum, London.

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

flagellation of christ Composit ion a nd tech n ique

Fig. 75. Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation.

(A.1-1977). V&A Museum, London.

128 COLL & CORTÉS

The figurine of the protagonist; the f lanking groups of torturers; the ornamental cartouche below; as well as the small scenes in low relief within the three arches of the background, have been cast separately and affixed ( presumably with solder) to the copper back-plate from behind, so as to show through holes of roughly the same shape.

The elaborate, classical structure of the palace in Jerusalem, where the event took place, which is rendered by the repoussé technique on a sheet of copper, is expanded from the more vertically shaped building that encloses Della Porta’s other, more compact , renderings of the scene in cast metal, either silver or bronze (fig. 75, see fig. 4 2 on p. 86 for full page illustration). As re -mounted here, the scourges of the f lagellators would in reality hardly reach Jesus. Together with a reduction in the number of surrounding figures, this changes the claustrophobic atmosphere of the other renderings (see below) to a slightly more serene one, that is perhaps more appropriate for a devotional focus on the figure and person of Christ .

In view of the source of the surrounding reliefs containing the torturers and bystanders, it comes as a surprise to note that the focal figure is not a cast of the corresponding one in the standard Flagellation scene (although a separate figurine of that model does exist in The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge) 1 , but a more contemplative, resigned figure, with only a minimal degree of contrapposto, of which other, separate, figurines also exist in private collections in New York 2 . The latter have been attributed to the “Circle of Della Porta” respectively by the present writer ( 2002), and then - following his proposal - by Leithe -Jasper and Wengraf ( 2004 ). The appearance of the calmer model in the present context , surrounded by other figures and reliefs of Virtues that can be independently and directly associated with Guglielmo, serves neatly to corroborate the attribution and to bring it to his own hand.

Figs. 76 and 77. Michelangelo Buonarroti. First (B&W) and second (color) version of Christ the Redeemer for Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome.

The present figurine, as has been remarked 3, is imbued with an “almost Michelangel-esque plasticity… that is typical of Della Porta and his successors”. This is borne out by the recent discovery of the latter ’s first version in marble (151 4-1516) of the statue of Christ holding the Cross for Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome (fig. 76) 4 . For the differences that have been noted between Guglielmo’s two compositions of Christ at the Column may ref lect his admiration for those life-size near-prototypes in marble by his great predecessor.

The present calm, classical figure is posed almost in mirrorimage with regard to Michelangelo’s earlier, more frontally orientated, statue (now in San Vincenzo Martire, Bassano Romano); while that in the relief of The Flagellation - while not directly derived in pose - exhibits the far greater torsion in posture that animates Michelangelo’s second version, the Christ the Redeemer in Santa Maria sopra Minerva (1519-21) (fig. 77).

This torsion is occasioned by the Saviour ’s arms being entwined about the vertical shaft of the respective attributes, here the column, there the cross. Guglielmo changed the weight-bearing leg and emphasised the sharply bent elbows of his little Christ

to correspond with Michelangelo’s well-known masterpiece. This new observation furnishes yet another, interesting example of the sculptor ’s complex and continuous relationship with both the early and the contemporary work and style of Michelangelo.

1. C. AVERY, Renaissance and Baroque Bronzes from the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, exhib. catalogue, Daniel Katz Ltd., London, 2002, no. 19: figurine of Christ, 8.4 cm. high; the fact that the casting is open at the back indicates that it was intended to be set against some sort of background.

2. C. AVERY, in E Giurescu Heller [ed.], Icons or Portraits? Images of Jesus and Mary from the Collection of Michael Hall, exhib. Catalogue, The Gallery at the American Bible Society, New York, 2002, no. 45: figurine of Christ, 8cm. high; M. LeitheJasper and P. Wengraf, European Bronzes from the Quentin Colleciton, exhib.

Catalogue, The Frick Collection, New York, 2004, no.9.

3. LEITHE-JASPER and P. WENGRAF, 2004, p. 116.

4. I. BALDRIGA, “The first version of Michelangelo’s Christ for S. Maria sopra Minerva”; and, S Danesi Squarzina, “The Bassano ‘Christ the Redeemer’ in the Giustiniani collection”, in The Burlington Magazine, CXLII, Dec. 2000, pp. 740-51.

129 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

T he Vir t ues mou nted rou nd t he f ra me The four high-reliefs of seated Virtues mounted in the angles that are created by the octagonal shape comment (like the chorus in a Greek tragedy) on the main drama. They are - seemingly unique variations on the classical theme of recumbent deities that was particularly beloved by Della Porta (one has only to recall the monumental statues of reclining Virtues that he carved in marble for the tomb of Pope Paul III in St. Peter ’s, two still in the Basilica and the other two in Palazzo Farnese). The two figures below, Hope and Prudence (detail right), have their legs pointed inwards and are seated upright on the ground, in poses which recall that used for a Virgin of Humility in Renaissance iconography. Those above (Faith and Charity) recline against the 45º slopes of the inner frame, with their bodies turned outwards, but faces directed inwards: this creates a strong torsion in their bodies and a corresponding visually arresting - play of folds in their all’antica drapery.

In the case of Della Porta, there are many works on a small scale and mostly in relief that cannot be individually documented, while none is signed. Therefore they can be identified only by stylistic and technical comparison (where possible with his major works, such as the reliefs and figures on his Tomb of Pope Paul III), or with his pen and ink sketches, or with one another. Fortunately, his style both in drawing and in modelling wax or clay prior to casting in metal is idiosyncratic and quite a large oeuvre has been assembled for him, piece by piece.

The attribution of the triangular reliefs of Virtues to Guglielmo may be verified by a consideration of the handling of drapery, in particular the eye-catching way in which swathes of fabric are caught by the wind, so as to billow out like sails behind the recumbent females - incidentally they recall the way in which the sail of the classical goddess Fortuna is often shown. The swirl of drapery that encompasses the shoulders of Prudence [lower right] may be precisely paralleled in the figure of Christ that is the focus of the bronze relief of Hope on the tomb of Paul III (fig. 78); while the ripples of the soft folds of her robe that define the lower edge of the figure resemble those of Hope too. The casually reclining figure of Peace on the same complex, with her clinging drapery

130 COLL & CORTÉS

and contorted pose, is also generically the prototype for the two Virtues in the upper corners of the frame.

But to return to the swirling drapery, encompassing either the head or the shoulders of a figure with an oval, linear pattern, this is used in an obsessive way to animate and to frame the participants in a very finely carved alabaster plaque showing The Deposition now in the Museo di Castello Sforzesco, Milan (fig. 69, see fig. 18 on p. 41 for full page illustration). This is especially obvious in the cases of St John the Evangelist at the foot of the central cross and of the converted Roman centurion, (St) Longinus, under the cross of the Bad Thief; while in the foreground the whole bending upper figures of Joseph of Arimathea and of Nicodemus are similarly enveloped.

The motif in question was certainly picked up by the young Della Porta from his painter-mentor Perino del Vaga, a pupil of Raphael, who used it to great effect in his frescoes in the Sala Paolina / Sala del Consiglio of Castel Sant’Angelo in Rome of 1545, for the pairs of attractive female figures seated over the doors, the Muses Erato and Thalia and - to a lesser extent - Religion and Faith. Probably because he was working in low relief, Guglielmo did not copy the mannered, criss-cross arrangement of the figures’ arms from Perino, for on the small scale this would have rendered his Virtues and their attributes less legible.

Guglielmo’s design for the “narrative” zone in the abandoned tomb of Bishop de Solis, with its spreading, curvaceous “legs” with masks and putti (which he later adapted for the tomb of Paul III), was clearly based on the bronze monument to Pope Sixtus IV of half a century or so earlier by Antonio Pollaiolo (fig. 81). This also provided a rich source for Renaissance variations on the classical theme of seated and reclining deities: Pollaiolo transformed them into allegories of the humanities and sciences in order to enliven the concave, irregularly shaped, panels f lanking the effigy of the pope. His panel depicting Astrology (fig. 79) might have been at the back of Guglielmo’s mind when he was imagining his figure of Hope: their faces look upward at much the same angle; their arms are bare and brought forward and upward (though for different purposes); and their dresses fall in folds that ripple about their seated bodies (though rendered

Detail Allegory of Prudence.

Fig. 78. Guglielmo della Porta. God’s Charity. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

Fig. 79. Antonio Pollaiolo. Astrology. Funeral monument of pope Sixtus IV. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

Fig. 80. Antonio Pollaiolo. Rhetoric. Funeral monument of pope Sixtus IV. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

in differing styles), just allowing their elegantly extended feet to peep out from beneath the hems. Similarly, Guglielmo’s relief of Faith (upper left) in some respects recalls Pollaiolo’s of Rhetoric (fig. 80): the neatly crossed ankles; the right hand raised to hold a chalice (where the prototype leafs through the pages of a book);

the left hand lowered, resting on the bent elbow and holding in the crook of the elbow a cross (where Pollaiolo’s allegory holds a heraldic branch of entwined oak, symbol of the Della Rovere family of Sixtus V); and the baring of one breast (where Pollaiolo’s figure is stripped to the waist).

131 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

Figs. 82 and 83. Manno di Bastiano Sbarri and Giovanni Bernardi, designed by Perino del Vaga. Farnese Casket.

As for the seated virtues, inf luence on Guglielmo from the great masters of the High Renaissance was mediated through his personal attachment to Perino del Vaga, whose frescoes contain several such figures of lightly clad, graceful women serving as allegories, as has been noted. But, to restrict our scope to sculptural precedents, Perino’s involvement with the Farnese Casket, for which he provided graphic designs to be cut in rockcrystal by Giovanni Bernardi, may also have extended to the design of the goldsmith-work of the little, quasi-architectural, structure, which is by Manno di Bastiano Sbarri: begun c.154348, owing to financial exigencies it was finished only c.1560 (figs. 82 and 83) 5 . While some scholars have suggested Salviati as the designer, others, including Armani - author of a recent monograph on Perino - have proposed the claims of Perino, working together with Guglielmo della Porta. In either case, it comes as no surprise that a connection with our sculptor is apparent in the rich, mannerist ornament of this fabulous example of craftsmanship (second in importance during the period in question only to Cellini’s Salt-cellar for King François I of France).

For present purposes, one need only glance at the pairs of lightly draped female figures who sit on the oval frames of the rockcrystal vitrines to recognise in their physique, drapery, facial expressions and elegant, languid poses a direct kinship with the

132 COLL & CORTÉS

four Virtues under examination here. Indeed all may have been produced within much the same span of years. Incidentally, the pairs of addorsed putti with huge cornucopiae seated below the ovals (functioning visually like stands) are in essence miniature cousins of the corner elements that Guglielmo made in bronze for the De Solis tomb and adapted for Paul III. This leads finally back to the similarity of these little silver Virtues to the bigger ones, rough-cast in bronze, that are the protagonists of Guglielmo’s narrative allegorical panels for the De Solis tomb, of which only a couple survive on the papal monument. In them one notes the complex torsions of the seemingly casual poses as they lounge in open landscapes that are populated with other participants on a smaller scale.

From these multiple and interlocking similarities between the silver corner-reliefs on the frame of The Flagellation and the established, documented oeuvre of Guglielmo the inevitable conclusion is that they are by his hand. Therefore, their recognition extends his known work significantly and most delightfully.

5. L. FORNARI SCHIANCHI and N. SPINOSA, I Farnese, Arte e Collezionismo, exh.

Cat., Parma/Munich/Naples, 1995, pp 148-51, no. 149.

Fig. 81. Antonio Pollaiolo. Funeral monument of pope Sixtus IV. St. Peterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cathedral, Vatican City.

133 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

mount calvary Tech n ique The panel is slush cast in a thin coating of wax (maybe 2mm. thick) from an assemblage in the casting-wax model of five moulded sections, as can be easily seen on its reverse: a matching pair with curving, inner, upper edges, nesting beneath the arms of the cross; a pair of groups of bystanders in deep relief below; and a central tall, spreading, one with the cross. From behind, the wax-to-wax joins between the four sections with figures and the fifth component, the sheet with the crucifix, are perfectly apparent, even retaining the brush marks where molten wax was poured on to seal the joins. Several sprues for feeding metal into the mould are also visible, e.g. at upper right and lower deadcentre. This is consistent with the technique of Della Porta as we know it from other castings, such as the Flagellation in the Victoria and Albert Museum. His expertise in achieving a perfect result, while economising with the metal used, is consistent with the best practise of gold- and silver-smiths when using precious metal (fig. 85). There was no need for even a single patch, as there were no f laws in the sheet of metal as cast. The label with the superscription “I.N.R.I.” is cast separately in silver and neatly bolted on from behind.

A n Appreciat ion The figure of Christ was separately cast and then attached by the three iron nails required by the iconography. On account of its small scale, which accords with the smallest size of Crucifix recorded in the posthumous inventory of the sculptor’s effects in 1577/78, which were serially produced, this may have simply been taken from his stock-intrade. Judging from its weight, it is more or less a solid cast. In common with the figures of bystanders in high relief, Christ’s facial features, hair and the nails of fingers and toes, are carefully detailed with incisions of the burin, while the fabric of the loincloth is striated in different directions with lines indicating the pull on its weave, as the cloth is creased and folded.

134 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 84. Guglielmo della Porta. Hope. Funeral monument of Paul III.

Detail of the Sun.

St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City.

A radiant sun with human face appears at top right, above the crossbar, framed in clouds (detail), while opposite appears the moon.

Unusually the latter is not defined by a crescent shape with a human female face in its concave curve, but appears as a cowled face in threequarters view within a complete circle. Her expression is solemn, even perhaps mourning in tears. The moon is also encircled by clouds. Her appearance suggests the darkness that covered the earth at the moment of the Saviour’s death. Guglielmo was probably inspired so to animate these heavenly planets by the example of Perino del Vaga, who used similar motifs in his drawings and paintings: for instance in the Stanza delle Metamorfosi of the Palazzo Doria in Genoa, a figure representing Theology extends in her right hand a golden triangle (for the Trinity) animated by a radiant cherub’s head (Parma, 1997, plates 168, 170). Guglielmo had represented the Trinity slightly differently, with three merged (‘triune’) heads, but within a radiant sun, above Christ, in his relief of Hope on the tomb of Paul III (fig. 84).

The unusual motif of ‘humanised’ sun and moon also suggests that Guglielmo must have been aware of an important composition of a cognate subject by the Florentine sculptor, and great (unsuccessful) rival of Michelangelo, Baccio Bandinelli (1488-1560). For Bandinelli had included in a rendering of The Deposition that he had presented to the

Emperor Charles V in Genoa in 15291, a Sun - with fiery, wavy, rays personified by a half-length human figure weeping and tearing its hair, as well as a Moon - with paler, straight rays and of slightly crescent shape - characterised by a similar, mourning half-length figure. This is defined as being female - the traditional, classical sex of the moon (Luna or Diana) - by falling locks of longer hair and a pendant breast visible through its tunic. As Kathy Weil-Garris has eloquently written, “The relief is also iconographically notable in its depictions of the mourning sun and moon, symbolic of the entire universe, who cover their eyes to signify the darkness that fell at Christ’s Crucifixion. The theme is common in eleventh and twelfth century Crucifixions but no longer in the early Cinquecento.

Perhaps Baccio stresses this motif in order to suggest a night scene, thus claiming for sculpture effects usually limited to painting2.”

1. U. MIDDELDORF, “A Bandinelli Relief”, in The Burlington Magazine, LVII, 1930, pp.

65-72 (reprinted in U. Middeldorf, Raccolta di Scritti, that is Collected Writings, I, 1924-1938, Florence, 1979, pp. 95-102, Fig. 84).

2. Exhibition catalogue, Founders Society, Italian Renaissance Sculpture in the Time of Donatello, Detroit Institute of Arts, 1986, no. 93, pp. 244-46.

135 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

GUGLIELMO DELLA PORTA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELANGELO C h a r l e s Av e r y

The loose hair and bosom of the Moon indicate an affinity with St Mary Magdalen, supposed at the time to have been a ‘loose woman’, who appears - seemingly - more than once below, seen from different angles as she mourns, maenad-like, behind the cross, as though the sculptor were tracking her distraught movements like a modern camera-man. The kinetic effect is distantly, but deliberately, derived by Bandinelli from the work of Donatello in the middle of the fifteenth century, as are several other motifs in his fascinating panel.

So impressed with this amazing work was the Holy Roman Emperor that he awarded the sculptor the rank of a Knight of Santiago, an order usually reserved for the nobility. The bronze version now in the Louvre was cast only in 1600 by Antonio Susini for Jacopo Salviati and so Guglielmo must have known the composition from another source, either the working stucco model now in the Museo di Stato of San Marino, or the finished product given to Charles. This is all the more likely, given that Guglielmo was involved in an (ultimately abortive) project some twenty years later for an equestrian monument to Charles V, with a monumental pedestal, which soon evolved into a chapel decorated with huge panels of relief in bronze showing scenes from the Passion of Christ.

Middledorf sagely notes of The Deposition, “The content of the relief could actually have been presented with considerably fewer figures.” He continues, “In attempting to make the meaning of the event clearer and more impressive by means of exaggerations, the style has lost itself in vagueness and ornamentations”. An over-reliance on Bandinelli’s frenetic approach to narrative composition may be the explanation for the generic horror vacui that is such a notable feature of the reliefs of Guglielmo, where figures are so often thrown together in turmoil and - ultimately - confusion.

But to return to The Crucifixion, Christ is flanked - rather unusually not by the twin crosses of the Good and the Bad Thief, but by two groups of naked adult human figures, mostly male, depicted in poses that are contorted, though graceful, and borne up by banks of cloud rendered by swirling, serpentine forms. These must be meant as human souls striving to reach the Saviour, to whom one in the front on the right raises his clasped hands in supplication. To enhance the ethereal effect, their sleek bodies are sensuously polished and set off against the foil of stippled clouds.

These compact groups of figures are clearly inspired by Michelangelo’s then recent frescoes in the Vatican - as was inevitable at the time - namely the groups of the elect with the cross and with the column from the upper

136 COLL & CORTÉS

Mount Calvary reverse.

arches of the Last Judgment (unveiled 1541) and the twin groups of nude souls accompanying God the Father, as he swoops down to convert Saul in the Conversion of St Paul (fig. 70, p. 120) in the Cappella Paolina (1542-50), which are contemporary with Guglielmo’s earliest works in Rome.

The parallels are more telling with the latter - slightly later - source, inasmuch as the respective groups on the left of the Deity both include one figure seen from three-quarters above, as though swimming, with his legs overlapping in the same way, his head turned forwards and down, and his buttocks clearly outlined. Disembodied heads peep out round these two figures in a similar way. On the opposite, right-hand, side of the bronze plaque the pose of Guglielmo’s nearly full-frontal nude who is further away is closely similar to that of Michelangelo’s figure borne up from the lower right, though their heads and arms differ. Guglielmo and his patrons could thus congratulate themselves on being ‘at the cutting edge’ of art, an art that was modern at the time, a novel - possibly shocking - style of Michelangelo’s old age, in which he was pushing the effects of pretended movement and drama to a heightened level.

However, Guglielmo made his figures slender, supple and full of grace, in the Raphaelesque tradition that he had picked up from working alongside Perino del Vaga. They are of a physical type that is identical to the figures in his pagan subjects, for instance on the plaques depicting scenes from

Fig. 85. Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation reverse. (A.1-1977).

V&A Museum, London.

Ovid’s Metamorphoses - notably The Fall of the Titans. Far more elongated and graceful than Michelangelo’s, they conform to the fashionable aesthetic of “La Maniera” (“Mannerism”), of which Della Porta was becoming a prime exponent in sculpture.

The curious way in which Guglielmo’s two cloud-borne groups appear to be self-contained within the sharp contours inscribed round the banks of cloud is perhaps a reflection of the way in which Michelangelo’s prototype groups of figures in flight are similarly outlined, owing to the divisions that were necessary in fresco painting between various, successive ‘day’s work’ (‘giornate’: the patch of wet plaster that was of a size to occupy the painter for a whole day, before drying off. The inevitable dividing lines were usually made to run along a contour, so as to be less visible).

Below are set symmetrical groups of four bystanders: on the left is the Virgin Mary, wringing her hands, which are lowered in front of her and project forwards towards the viewer, accompanied by St. Mary Magdalen and two of the other Marys from the bible story. On the right stands St. John the Evangelist (a powerfully modelled young man with handsome features, clad in heavy draperies and gesticulating with his out-flung left hand), with three older men behind him, the foremost of whom, with a bearded head (reminiscent of Michelangelo’s Moses) and prominent left hand is pointing to the cross and looking back to his almost hidden companions. The faces

of all these figures are individually characterised, even though they are on a tiny scale (c. 2cm. high), while the gestures of the long fingers of their hands play an important part in the expressiveness of the scene.

The outer and inner garments of these witnesses are carefully distinguished by diverse techniques of finishing the metallic surface polishing, striating, stippling - while the hems and fringes are also defined by strong incisions, so as to improve the legibility of the complex groupings.

The groups stand on conveniently projecting ledges of stratified rock, from the crevices of which grow tufts of grass and occasional shrubs. In the centre, below the foot of the cross, is set the skull after which the place of Christ’s crucifixion was named Golgotha. Its hard, bony structure is polished like the rocks around it. The wood of the cross is distinguished by swirling patterns of natural grain, while the tenon-joint between vertical and horizontal beams is fastened neatly with four dowels. Ever the consummate craftsman, Guglielmo here celebrates the role of the carpenter (perhaps recalling the alleged trade of Joseph, earthly “father” of Jesus).

Behind symmetrical coulisses of bare hilltops punctuated by stunted trees - possibly meant as olives - which define the foreground there opens up a vista of an elegant city with a mixture of buildings, meant as Jerusalem. Within a crenellated city-wall stand out some domed structures; towers of ashlar masonry with tiled roofs; occasional spires or obelisks and one column with a spiral scene (like Trajan’s column). Other buildings with steep, gabled roofs convey an impression of northern European - or at least Alpine - types of domestic building and these may have been derived from northern engravings, e.g. by Schongauer or Dürer. This makes a visually arresting - even if unhistorical - array, referring to the Roman empire and thus the date of the event, rather than to the appearance of Jerusalem itself.

It is a sign of Guglielmo’s skill as a narrator and as an artist that despite all of these details - the scene is easily legible, even from some distance away, with the focal trio of participants - Jesus, Mary and John duly emphasised by the degree of relief: for the protagonist is cast in the round, while the other two are in high relief, with just their heads and hands in full three dimensions. What could have been dull, neutral spaces either side of the stem of the cross are animated, “ma non troppo”, by the dramatically floating visions of human souls bound - thanks to Christ’s self-sacrifice - for Paradise. Guglielmo manages with the consummate artistry of a lifetime to weave all these disparate elements into a harmonious and homogeneous whole.

137 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

Documentary appendix SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Documentary appendix / SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Documentary appendix 10 June 1564 “10 giugno 1564…/… otto historie della vita di Gesù Xpo, cinque teste, et 4 statue di metallo, fatte per lui in Belvedere d’ordine di nostro signore et poste nelle tantie noue”1.

Inventory 5 February 15772 “298 r Die 5 februarij 1577 pro d. Fidia della Porta in actus datum.

Inventario delle robe lassate per il qm. R. Frate Guglielmo della Porta nella sua morte quale fu a di 6 di genario 1577.

In prima Se li trovò in una borsa sotto il capezale del suo letto con scutti 21 d’oro sono in moneta In moneta scutti 5 Item si cavo delli soij panni venduti al Judeo scutti vintiotti di moneta, sc. 28 Un Crocefisso d’argento de carlini de grandeza de doi palmi et mezzo in circa netti, n. 1 Doij Crocefissi de argento netti de uno palmo, n. 2 1 Crocefisso de metallo adorato de uno palmo et mezzo circha n. 1 Crocefissi sette de metalo renetati de grandeza de uno palmo luno in circha, n. 7 Crocefissi sette parimenti de metallo renetati de grandeza de uno palmo 1/3, n. 7 Un diamantino piccolo ligato in oro, n. 1 Una tazza de argento mediocra, n. 1 Doij cugiani et soijt forzine d’argento, n. 4 Doij anelli d’oro, una turchina et una fede, n. 2 Uno lanternino d’orocon una amándola, n. 2 Un Titto Imperatore de grandeza fra il petto la testa et peduzo palmo 1 ½ la testa de argento il petto de metallo indorato n. 1

140 COLL & CORTÉS

Item sette teste de Imperatori de argento de la medema grandeza di esso Titto, n. 7 Tre paci de argento con li fondi de metalo indorato et una de metallo indorato, n. 4 Undezi petti de Inperatori de metalo renetate de grandeza de uno palmo n. 11.

Item una testa de argento basso con una parte del petto de metalo indorato de palmi doij in circha, n. 1 Crucifissi de metalo non netati con soij gettj de grandeza uno palmo in giù, n. 40 (…) pitura del Scalviatto de alteza de palmi (…) scendente de croze, n. 1 Un altro quadro di pittura non finito de alteza una canna largo palmi 6, n. 1 Uno quadro de pittura de uno paeso, n. 1 Uno quadro de una Madonna sbozato de alteza palmi 5 largo palmi 3, n. 1 Quadretti quatro de pitura per devotione de tenere nelle camere, n. 4 Uno ritrato de pitura de esso qm. Frate, n. 1 Item doij cartelle de metalo longe palmi 4 con doij putini a sedere sopra ese cartelle, n. 2 Doij arpie overo satire de metallo de alteza palmi 3 di basso rilievo insiema con una historia di alteza palmi doij et ½ et larga palmi 3, n. 2 (v) Item uno modelo de uno altare principale de Sto. Pietro de cera con desi figure de palmi 2 ½ in circha.

Istorie nove della vita de Jesu Christo de cera fatte per modellj, una sola finita, si è quella quando Nostro Signore portò la santa Croce et tutte queste con le sue forme di giesso in sima con le altre sono in tutto n. 14 Imperartori de marmo sbozatti fatti per le mane del Tivalo sono alte palmi uno et mezo, n. 1 Una testa di 7mio (Settimio Severo) de metallo alta palmi uno et mezo, n. 1

Una historia de mettallo longa palmi 4 ½ larga palmi 3, n. 1 / 299r Forme di Dodici storiette d’Ovidio per adornare Tavole fatte per mano di coppo Modeli quarto di longezza de doij palmi n. 4 Della aurora, giorno et la notte / Forme de istoriette picole de doij palmi, n. 3 Li cavalli con li giganti de monte Cavalo de cera renetta de alteza 4 palmi l’opolo (…) di bel veder dela istessa grandeza l’ satiro de fernesse de minore grandeza uno Erchole picolo de cera símilmente Le forme delli dodezi Inperatori de grandeza de uno palmo et più / Doij petti de Inperatori de metalo de uno palmo in circha” 2 October 1578 Inventory ordered by Sebastiano Torrigiani, from Bologna, guardian to Teodoro, Guglielmo della Porta’s son and universal heir3.

“Una cassa con 18 crocifissi di metallo con li gessi attachati non finiti.

Un forziere con le infrascritte robbe, cioè doi croce de ebano, una testa de una donna de metallo, doi bottiglie de rame lavorate.

Doi imperatori de metallo.

Un Christo de metallo e doi palme con il gesso attachato.

Un monte Calvario de metallo.

Item doi cavalli de Monte Cavallo con sue statue di oro con le gambe rotte.

Item lo Hercole de Sancto Angelo poco

più grande di tre palmi di cera.

Lo Apolo di Belvedere in cera.

Lo Apolo di Belvedere in cera.

Lo Antinoo di Belvedere id.

Il satiro di Farnese di cera palmi 2 ½ .

Una casa de bicchieri con le forme de 12 imperatori pichole.

Un satiro di terra cotta.

Medaglie piccole del cardinal Farnese.

7 forme di cavalli de Monte Cavallo, dello Antinoo di Belvedere, dello Hercole.

Item octo di historie di cera della pasione di G. C. Doi modelli di Creta uno dello advento dello Spirito Santo et l’altro quando Xpo. Dette le chiave a San Pietro.

16 forme de historiette de Ouidio de circa un palmo.

Una forma de un Descendente de croce lunga due palmi in circa de basso rilievo.

12 forme de apostoli de doi palmi scarzi de tutto rilievo.

Molti pezzi di colonne e di marmo uno di tre carrettate et mezo”.

1. BERTOLOTTI, 1881, I, p. 135. “10 June 1564: eight

Descent from the Cross or Christ on the Cross made

episodes from the life of Jesus Christ; five heads

of wax, of more than one caña in length, and when

and four metal statues made by him in the

I saw that beautiful object he told me that the piece

Belvedere by order of our lord and placed in the

was in St. Peter’s, that it was to be cast in silver

new chambers”.

and I believe that he had had it since the time of

2. Rome State Archive, Notari A.C., atti Curto, vol.

the aforesaid Master Guglielmo, because they were

2227, f. 297r-300v, published in full by MASETTI

the greatest of friends, but I have seen it (sic) after

ZANNINI, 1972, pp. 303-305. A Roman palm is equal

the death of said Guglielmo in the house of said

to 22.3 cm.

Antonio and I do not know whether said Master

3. Rome State Archive, Not. Tarq. Severo, 1577-78, f.

Antonio had another one”.

754-55, published in part by Bertolotti, 1881, I, pp.

142-143. “A box with 18 unfinished metal crucifixes with their plasters. / A metal woman’s head. / Two metal emperors. / A metal Christ measuring 2 palms (44.6 cm) with its plaster. / A metal Mount Calvary. / Two horses of Monte Cavallo with their gold statues with broken legs. / The Hercules of Santangelo measuring a little more than three palms in wax. / The Belvedere Apollo in wax. / The Belvedere Antinous idem. / The wax Farnese satyr measuring 2½ palms. / A box of glasses in the shape of twelve small emperors. / A terracotta satyr. / Small medals of Cardinal Farnese. / Seven moulds of horses of Monte Cavallo, of the Belvedere Antinous, of Hercules. / Eight episodes

Trial of Teodoro della Porta. 21 March 1609 “…ho conosciuto Guglielmo della Porta da più di 40 45 anni fa…Io di queste robe ho visto in mano di Mº. Antonio da Faenza una pietà o Cristo in Croce cosa bellísima che era di cera longa più di una canna che vedendo io quella bella cosa mi disse che quella opera andava in S. Pietro, che se doveva getttar d’argento et questo credo che l’havesse al tempo di detto Mº Guglielmo, perchè erano amicissimi grandi, ma io l’ho viste (sic) dopo la norte di detto Guglielmo in casa di detto Antonio ed non so che Mº Antonio havesse altro”4.

in wax of the Passion of J. C. / two chalk models, one of the advent of the Holy Spirit and the other when Christ gave the keys to Saint Peter. / 16 moulds of the tales by Ovid measuring nearly one palm. / A wax mould of the Descent from the Cross measuring almost two palms in length and in bas-relief. // 12 moulds of the apostles measuring barely two palms all in relief. / Many pieces of columns and marble”.

4. BERTOLOTTI, II, p. 126; Gramberg, 1981, p. 97. “I have known Guglielmo della Porta for more than 40 or 45 years... among these things I have seen in the hand of Master Antonio da Faenza a most beautiful

141 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

Documentary appendix / SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ALIZERI, F. Notizie dei Professori del Disegno in Liguria dalle origini al secolo XVI, Vol. V. Scultura, Genoa, 1877.

BANGE, E. F. Die italiensichen Bronzen der Renaissance und Barock, II, BerlinLeipzig, 1922, nº. 8, 13.

BURANELLI, F. Exhibit. Cat. Palazzo Farnese, Dalle collezioni rinascimentali ad Ambasciata di Francia, (a cura di), Rome, 2011.

AVERY, C. Giambologna, The Complete Sculpture, London, 1987.

BANGE, E. F. “Die Bildwerke in Bronze” (Die Bildwerke des Deutschen Museums), Berlin and Leipzig, 1923.

CAMACHO MARTÍNEZ, R. and MIRÓ DOMÍNGUEZ, A. Importaciones italianas en España en el siglo XVI: el sepulcro de D. Luis de Torres, arzobispo de Salerno, en la catedral de Málaga, Boletín de Arte, Malaga University, 6, 1985.

AVERY, C. “Giuseppe de Levis of Verona, bronze founder and sculptor of the late sixteenth century, 2 - Figure style”, in The Connoisseur, February 1973.

AVERY, C. Icons or Portraits? Images of Jesus and Mary from the Collection of Michael Hall, exhib. Catalogue, The Gallery at the American Bible Society, New York, 2002, nº. 45. E. Giurescu Heller (ed.).

AVERY, C. Renaissance and Baroque Bronzes from the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, exhib. cat. London, 2002, nº. 19.

AVERY, C. L. “Sculptured silver of the Renaissance”, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, vol. V-VI, June 1947.

BAGLIONE, G. Le Vite de Pittori, Scultori et Architetti. Dal Pontificato di Grgorio XIII fino a tutto quello d’Urbano VIII, Rome, 1649, (ed.) by C. Gradara Pesci, Velletri, 1924.

BALDRIGA, I and DANESI SQUARZINA, S. “The first version of Michelangelo’s Christ for S. Maria sopra Minerva”; “The Bassano ‘Christ the Redeemer’ in the Giustiniani collection”, in The Burlington Magazine, CXLII, Dec. 2000.

142 COLL & CORTÉS

BARBOUR, D. and DEMING GLINSMAN, L. “An Investigation of Renaissance Casting Practices as a Means for Identifying Forgeries”, Studies in The History of Art, 4 1, Conservation Research, National Gallery of Art, Washington, Hannover and London, 1993.

BARRIOS PINTADO, F. (co-ord.), Francisco de Borja, Santo y Duque (15102010), Fundación Cultural de la Nobleza Española, Madrid, 2010.

BERTOLOTTI, A. Artisti lombardi a Rome nei secoli XV, XVI, XVII. Studi e ricerche negli archivi romani, 2 vols. Milan, 1881, (ed.). Burt Franklin, New York, 1972.

Bode, 1918.

BORZELLI, A. Il capolavoro di Guglielmo della Porta, Naples, 1920.

BRENTANO, C. “Della Porta, Guglielmo”, in Dizionario biográfico degli Italiani, Rome, 1989, vol. XXXVII. BULGARI, C. G. Argentieri, gemmari e orafi d’Italia, I, Rome, 1958.

CAMÓN AZNAR, J. Guía abreviada del Museo Lázaro Galdiano, Madrid, 1962.

CARO, A. Delle lettere familiari, (ed.).

CIENFUEGOS, A. La heroica vida, virtudes y milagros del Grande San Francisco de Borja, antes Duque Quarto de Gandía y después Tercer General de la Compañía de Jesús, Bernardo Peralta Printers, Madrid, 1726.

DANIELSZ, W and SCHOLTEN, F. Exhibit.

Cat. Willem van Tetrode, Sculptor (c. 15251580), Guglielmo Fiammingo Scultore, F. Scholten (Curator), Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; The Frick Collection, New York, 2003.

DICKERSON III, C. D. The “Gran Scuola” of Guglielmo della Porta, the Rise of the “Aurifex Inventor”, and the Education of Stefano Maderno”, 2008.

DONATI, V. and CASADIO, R. Bronzi e pietre dure nelle incisioni di Valerio Belli vicentino, Ferrara, 2004.

DE FABRICZY, C. “Manno, orefice fiorentino”, Archivio Storico dell’Arte, 1894.

FICACCI, L. “Jacob Cobaert”, DBI, 26.

FORNARI SCHIANCHI, L. and SPINOSA, N. I Farnese, Arte e Collezionismo, exh. Cat. Parma/Munich/Naples, 1995, nº. 149.

GABHART, A. “A Sixteenth century gold relief ”, The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, XXXI-XXXII, 1968-69.

GAUDIOSO, E. “I lavori farnesiani in Castel Sant’Angelo. Precisazioni ed ipotesi”, Bollettino d’Arte, LXI, 1976, nº I-II and “Documenti contabile (154 4-1548)”, III-IV. GENNARI, G. L’Arte, 1938. (Regarding a terracotta replica of the Calvary, Lugo di Romagna’s private collection, cited by Gramberg, 1973).

GIBELLINO KRASCENINNICOWA, M. Guglielmo Della Porta. Scultore Lombardo, Fratelli Palombi - Editori - Rome, 194 4.

GOLDSMITH PHILIPS, J. “Guglielmo della Porta: his Ovid Plaquettes”, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, XXXIV, 1939.

GRAMBERG, W. “Der veroneser Bildhauer Giuseppe de Levis und Guglielmo della Porta”, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, XI, 1937.

GRAMBERG, W. “Die Hamburger Bronzebüste Paul III Farnese von Guglielmo della Porta”, Festschrift für Erich Meyer, Hamburg, 1959.

GRAMBERG, W. “Guglielmo della Porta, Coppe Fiamingo und Antonio Gentili da Faenza”, Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsammlungen, V, 1960.

GRAMBERG, W. Die Düsseldorfer Skizzenbücher des Guglielmo della Porta, Berlin, 1964, 3 vols.

GRAMBERG, W. “Vier Zeichnungen des Guglielmo della Porta zu seiner Serie mythologischer Reliefs”, Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsammlungen, XIII, 1968.

GRAMBERG, W. “Das Kalvarienbergrelief des Guglielmo della Porta und seine Silber-gold-Ausführung von Antonio Gentili da Faenza”, Intution und Kunstwissenschaft. Festschrift für Hans Swarzenski, Berlin, 1973.

GRAMBERG, W. “Notizien zu den Kruzifixen des Guglielmo della Porta und zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Hochaltarkreuzes in S. Pietro in Vaticano”, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, XXXII, 1981.

GRAMBERG, W. “Guglielmo della Porta’s Grabmal für Paul III Farnese in S. Pietro in Vaticano”, Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, XXI, 1984.

GRAEVEN, H. “La raccolta di antichità di Giovanni Battista della Porta”, Mittheilungen des Kaiserisch Deutschen Archeaeologischen Instituts (Römische Abheitlung VIII), 1893.

GREGOROVIUS. Monumenti dei Papi, Huelsen, 1931.

GRONAU, G. “Über zwei Skizzenbücher des Guglielmo della Porta in der Düsseldorfer Akademie”, Jahrbuch der Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen, XXXIX, 1918.

GUALANDI, M. Memorie originali, VI, Bologna, 1845.

HAYWARD, J. F. Virtuoso Goldsmith and the Triumph of Mannerism, 1540-1620, London, 1976.

HAYWARD, J. F. “Roman Drawings for Goldsmiths’ Work in the Victoria and Albert Museum”, The Burlington Magazine, CXIX, 1977.

HIRST, M. “Perino del Vaga and his circle”, The Burlington Magazine, CVIII, 1966.

HIRST, M. Sebastiano del Piombo, Oxford, 1981.

HOWARD, S. “Pulling Herakles’ leg”, Festschrift für Ulrich Middeldorf, Berlin, 1968, I. JEDIN, H. A History of the Council of Trent, London, 1957. Spanish edition, 4 vol. University of Navarre, 1972-75.

143 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

Documentary appendix / SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

JESTAZ, B. “Le décor mobilier, la sculpture moderne et les objets d’art”, Le Palais Farnese, Rome, 1981.

JESTAZ, B. “Copies d’Antiques au Palis Farnèse. Les fontes de Guglielmo della Porta”, Mélanges de l‘école française de Rome. Italie et Méditerranée, Vol. 105, 1993.

JOANNIDES, P. Michelangelo and His Inf luence: Drawings from Windsor Castle, exh. cat., various locations, London, 1996, cat.nº. 34.

KRUFT, H. W. and ROTH, A. “The Della Porta Workshop in Genoa”, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, III, 1973.

DE LACHENAL, L. “La collezione di sculture antiche dellla famiglie Borghese e il palazzo in Campo Marzio”, in Xenia, 4, 1982.

LANCIANI, R. Storia degli scavi di Roma…, II, Rome, 1903; III, 1907, ad Indicem; IV, 1912.

LÁZARO Y GALDIANO, J and REINACH, S. La Colección Lázaro, Madrid, 1927.

LOTZ, W. “Antonio Gentili or Manno Sbarri?, The Art Bulletin, XXXIII, 1951.

MARTINELLI, V. and GALLAVOTI CAVALLERO, D. (eds.), Marmorari e argentieri a Rome e nel Lazio tra Cinquecento e Seicento: I committenti, i documenti, le opere, Rome, 1994.

MARTINO, L. Exhibit. Cat. I Farnese, Arte e Collezionismo, 1995.

MASETTI ZANNINI, G. L. “Notizie biografiche di Guglielmo della Porta in documento notarili romani”, (1577 Inventory). Commentari, XXII, 1972.

MASINELLI, A. M. Bronzetti e anticaglie dalla Guardaroba di Cosimo I, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Firenze, 1991.

MATTHIAE, G. “L’Attività romana di Guglielmo della Porta”, Capitolium, XI, 1935.

MCCLUNG, B. Italian Cardinals, Reform, and the Church as Property, Berkeley, 1985.

Marco Gallo (ed.), I cardinalli di Santa Romana Chiesa: collezionisti e mecenati, III, Rome, 2002.

LEITHE-JASPER, M. and WENGRAF, P. European Bronzes from the Quentin Colleciton, exhib. Catalogue, The Frick Collection, New York, 2004, nº. 9.

MIDDELDORF, U. “ Two wax reliefs by Guglielmo della Porta”, Art Bulletin, XVII, 1935.

LEITHE-JASPER, M and WIEN, R.H.M. Werke zbeiste. Scachkammer, Salzburg, 1987.

MIDDELDORF, U. “A Bandinelli Relief ”, in The Burlington Magazine, LVII, 1930.

144 COLL & CORTÉS

MIDDELDORF, U. “Two wax reliefs by Guglielmo della Porta”, in The Art Bulletin, XVII, 1935.

MIDDELDORF, U. “A Renaissance jewel…”, The Burlington Magazine, CXVIII, 1976.

MIDDELDORF, U. “In the wake of Guglielmo della Porta”, The Connoisseur, CXCIV, 1977, 780.

MONBEIG GOGUEL, C. Exhibit. Cat. Francesco Salviati (1510-1563) o la bella maniera, (ed.) Villa Medici, Rome. Louvre Museum, Paris, 1998.

MONTAGU, J. Gold, Silver and Bronze: Metal Sculpture of the Roman Baroque, Princeton, 1996.

O’MALLEY, J. W. (SJ), G. A. Bailey, and G. Sale (SJ) (ed.), The Jesuits and the Arts, 1540-1773, Philadelphia, 2005.

D’ONOFRIO, C. Castel Sant ’Angelo e Borgo tra Rome e Papato, Rome, 1978.

PAOLOZZI STROZZI, B and ZIKOS, D. (Curators). Exhibit. Cat. Giambologna, gli dei, gli eroi. Genesi e fortuna di uno stilo europeo nella scultura, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Firenze, 2006.

PARMA, E. (ed.), “Perino del Vaga: prima, dorante, dopo”. Atti giornate internazionali di Studio, Genoa, 2004.

PARMA ARMANI, E. Exhibit. Cat. Perin del Vaga: L’Anello mancante, , Genoa, 1986.

PETRAROIA, P. “Sebastiano Torrigiani”, M. L. Maddona (ed.), Roma di Sixto X, Rome, 1993.

PIACENTI, C. Il Museo degli Argenti a Firenze, Milán, 1968.

PICINELLI, R. Le Collezioni Gonzaga, il carteggio tra Firenze e Mantova (1554-1626). Milan, 2000.

PLANISCIG, L. Die Estensische Kunstsammlung in Wien, 1919.

PLON, E. Benvenuto Cellini, Paris, 1883.

PLON, E. Les maitres italiens au service de la maison d’Autriche. - Leone Leoni, sculpteur de Charles Quint, et Pompeo Leoni, Sculpteur de Philip II, París, 1887.

POPE-HENNESSY, J. Italian high Renaissance and Baroque sculpture, London, 1963, I; III. POPE-HENNESSY, J. “Review of Die Düsseldorfer Skizzenbücher des Guglielmo della Porta, by W. Gramberg”, Master Drawings, III, 1965.

PRECERUTTI GARBERI, M. Museo di Castello Sforzesco, 1974, cat. nº. 74 1.

PROSPERI VALENTI RODINÒ, S. “Officina Farnesiana”: disegni per oreficerie”, C. Monbeig Goguel, P. Costamagna, and M. Hochmann (eds.), Francesco Salviati et la bella maniera: Actes des colloques de Rome et de Paris, Rome, 2001.

RADCLIFFE, A. “Reviewing PopeHennessy Cellini, The Burlington Magazine, 130, nº. 1029, December 1988.

RIBADENEYRA, P. Historias de la Contrarreforma, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, sección V, Historia y Hagiografía 5, Madrid, 1945, Book IV. RIEBESELL, CH. Die Sammlung des Kardinal Alessandro Farnese. Ein “studio” für Künstler und Gelehrte, Weinheim, 1989.

RIEBESELL, CH. “La cassetta Farnese”, I Farnese. Arte e collezionismo. Studi, a cura di L. Fornari Schianchi, Milan, 1995.

RIEBESELL, CH. “Copia di candelabri per l’altare maggiore di San Pietro”, Exhibit. Cat. Francesco Salviati (1510-1563) ou la bella maniera, C. Monbeig Goguel (ed.), Villa Medici, Rome, 1998.

RIEBESELL, Ch. “Aspetti di Guglielmo della Porta a Roma”, Perino del Vaga: prima, dorante, dopo. Atti giorntate internazionali di Studio, Genoa, 2001, E. Parma (ed.), Genoa, 2004.

RIEBESELL, Ch. “Guglielmo della Porta”, Exhibit. Cat. Palazzo Farnese, Dalle collezioni rinascimentali ad Ambasciata di Francia, (a cura di Francesco Buranelli), Rome, 201 1.

RINCÓN, W. “San Francisco de Borja en la pintura española”, Francisco de Borja, Santo y Duque (1510-2010), F. Barrios Pintado (coord.), Fundación Cultural de la Nobleza Española, Madrid, 2010.

ROBERTSON, C. “Il Gran Cardinale”: Alessandro Farnese, Patron of the Arts, New Haven and London, 1992.

RONCHINI, A. “Manno Orefice fiorentino”, Atti e memorie delle R. R. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie modenesi e parmensi, vol. VII, Modena, 1874.

RONCHINI, A. “L’orefice Andrea Casalino”, Periodico di Numismatica e Sfragistica per la Storia d’Italia, vol. IV. ROSENAUER, A. exh. Cat. Founders Society, Italian Renaissance Sculpture in the Time of Donatello, Detroit Institute of Arts, 1986, nº. 93.

ROTONDI, P. “Tommaso della Porta nella scultura romana della Contrariforma”, Bollettino del R. Istituto di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, VI, 1933.

SALERNO, L.; SPEZZAFERRO, L.; TAFURI, M. Via Giulia, Rome 1973.

145 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

Documentary appendix / SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

SALOMON, X. “ The Goldsmith Pietro Spagna (1561-1627): “Argentiere” to Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini (157 1-1621)”, Papers of the British School at Rome, LXXIV, 2006.

VALONE, C. “Paul IV, Guglielmo della Porta and the rebuilding of S. Silvestro al Quirinale”, Master Drawings, XV, 1977.

VERHEYEN, E. “A Deposition by Guglielmo della Porta”, Bulletin of the University of Michigan Museum, IV, 1969.

SÁNCHEZ CANTÓN, F. J. “Inventarios Reales. Bienes muebles que pertenecieron a Felipe II”, Archivo Documental Español, X, 1956-1959.

VARIOUS. Exhibit. Cat. El arte de la Platería en las Colecciones Reales, Fundación La Caixa, Palma de Mallorca, 1995.

VERHEYEN, E. “Renaissance Bronzes in American Collections”, Northampton, Massachusetts, 1964, nº. 24.

VARIOUS. Exhibit. Cat. El centenario del monasterio de El Escorial, 1986.

SANGIORGI, G. “Opere di Antonio orifice faentino”, Bollettino d’arte, XXVI, 1932.

VARIOUS. Exibit. Cat. Exposición Histórico Europea, Madrid, 1893.

VOLBACH, E. F. “Antonio Gentili da Faenza and the large candlesticks in the Treasury of St. Peter ’s”, The Burlington Magazine, October, 1948.

SEYMOUR HOWARD, “Pulling Herakles’ leg, Della Porta, Algardi and others”, Festschrift für Ulrich Middeldorf, Berlin, 1968, vol. I; vol. II. Plates CLXXVI - CLXXVII.

VARIOUS. Exhibit. Cat. Fiaminghi a Rome, 1508-1608, Artistes des Pays-Bas et de la Principauté de Liège a Rome a la Renaissance, Palais des Beaux-Arts, Brussels; Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Rome, 1995.

SCHLOSSER, J. Die Kunstliteratur, Vienna, 1924; Spanish edition, A. Bonet Correa, Madrid, 1976.

STEINMANN, E. Das Grabmal Pauls III in St. Peter in Rom, Rome, 1912.

SYSON, L. and THORTON, D. Objects of Virtue: Art in Renaissance Italy, London, 2004.

THIEME, U.; BECKER, F. Künstlerlexikon, XXVII. TORMO, E. Treinta y tres retratos en las Descalzas Reales. Estudios Históricos, Iconográficos y Artísticos, Junta de Iconografía Nacional, Madrid, 194 4.

146 COLL & CORTÉS

VARIOUS. Exhibit. Cat. Italian Renaissance Frames, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1990.

VARIOUS. Exhibit. Cat. The Vatican Collection: The Papacy and Art, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, 1983-84.

VASARI, G. (ed. 1568), Le vite de più eccelenti pittore scultori ed architettori scrite da Giorgio Vasari, pittore aretino, con nuove annotazione e commenti di Gaetano Milanesi, vol. V. Firenze, 1880; vol. VII, 1881.

VENTURI, A. Storia dell’arte italiana, X, 3, Milan, 1937.

WALKER, S. “A pax by Guglielmo della Porta”, Metropolitan Museum Journal, XXVI, 1991.

WEBER, I. Deutsche, niederländische und französische Renaissance plaketten, 1500-1650, Munich, 1975.

WEIHRAUCH, H. R. Die Bildwerke in Bronze und in anderen Metallen, Munich, 1956.

WEIHRAUCH, H. R. Europäische Bronzestatuetten 15-18 Jahrhundert, Braunschweig, 1967.

WEINBERGER, M. “A sixteenth-Century restorer ”, The Art Bulletin, December 1945. nº. 27, 4.

WEITZEL GIBBONS, M. Giambologna.

Narrator of the Catholic Reformation, Los Angeles/ London, 1995.

ZARCO CUEVAS, J. “Inventario de las alhajas, relicarios, estatuas, pinturas, tapices y otros objetos de valor y curiosidad donados por el rey Felipe II al Monasterio de El Escorial. Años 157 1-1598 (I) y (II)”, Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, vol. XCVI-XCVII, Madrid, 1930-31.

147 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

LIST OF COMPARATIVE IMAGES

For the sake of the lay-out, the size of the image reproductions and the font of the footnotes the image credits have been reduced, omitted or altered. The following list displays the accurate photography credits.

Fig. 1.

Gian Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Baltasar del Río. Seville Cathedral. p. 15.

Fig. 1a.

Detail. Gian Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Baltasar del Río. Seville Cathedral. p. 19.

Fig. 1b.

Detail. Relief of the loaves and the fishes. Gian Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Baltasar del Río. Seville Cathedral. p. 20.

Fig. 1c.

Detail. Madonna and Child. Gian Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Baltasar del Río. Seville Cathedral. p. 21.

Fig. 2.

Guglielmo della Porta. Head of Cybo. Geneva Cathedral. p. 22.

Fig. 3.

Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Prophets Chapel of San Giovanni Battista. Geneva Cathedral. p. 22.

Fig. 4.

Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Prophets Chapel of San Giovanni Battista. Geneva Cathedral. p. 22.

Fig. 5.

Attributed to Guglielmo della Porta. Virgin of the Caves. University of Seville. p. 23.

Fig. 5a.

Attributed to Guglielmo della Porta. Virgin of the Caves. University of Seville. p. 23.

Fig. 6.

Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Bishop Solís. Malaga Cathedral. p. 24.

Fig. 6a.

Detail. Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Bishop Solís. Malaga Cathedral. p. 25.

Fig. 6b.

Detail. Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of Bishop Solís. Malaga Cathedral. p. 25.

Fig. 7.

Giacomo and Guglielmo della Porta. Tomb of the Marquis of Villanueva del Fresno. Convent of Santa Clara de Moguer, Huelva. p. 27.

Fig. 8.

Guglielmo della Porta. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence. p. 29.

Fig. 8a.

Detail of Justice. Guglielmo della Porta. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 34.

Fig. 9.

Farnese Hercules. Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples. © 2012. Photo Andrea Jemolo / Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 30.

Fig. 10.

Farnese Flora. Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples. © 2012. Photo Andrea Jemolo / Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 31.

Fig. 11.

Guglielmo della Porta. Portrait bust of Pope Paul III. Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples. p. 33.

Fig. 11a.

Guglielmo della Porta. Portrait bust of Pope Paul III. Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples. p. 33.

Fig. 12.

Michelangelo Buonarroti. Tomb of Lorenzo de’ Medici. Chapel of San Lorenzo, Florence. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 35.

Fig. 13.

Guglielmo della Porta. God’s Charity. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 36.

Fig. 14.

Guglielmo della Porta. The restitution of the church. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 36.

Fig. 15.

Guglielmo della Porta. Philosophy and the Liberal Arts. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 37.

Fig. 16.

Guglielmo della Porta. The Strength of Faith. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 37.

Fig. 17.

Anonymous, Italian. Largest Talman Album. © Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. p. 38.

Fig. 18.

Guglielmo della Porta. The Deposition (or, Lamentation), marble. © Museo di Castello Sforzesco, Milan. p. 41.

Fig. 19.

Guglielmo della Porta. Oval plaquette of the Metamorphosis. © Kunst Historisches Museum, Vienna. p. 42.

Fig. 20.

Guglielmo della Porta. Octogonal plaquette of the Metamorphosis. © Kunst Historisches Museum, Vienna. p. 43.

Fig. 21.

Guglielmo della Porta. Bust of Pius IV. Antonio Trigo Arnal. (Inv. 52859). © Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid. p. 45.

Fig. 22.

Guglielmo della Porta. Gilt-silver crucifix. © Geistliche Schatzkammer, Vienna. p. 46.

148 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 23.

Antonio Gentili. Silver crucifix. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 47.

Fig. 24.

Bastiano Torrigiani, based on a model by della Porta. Crucifix. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 48.

Fig. 25.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 52.

Fig. 26.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 50.

Fig. 27.

Guglielmo della Porta. Christ risen appearing to his disciples. Metropolitan Museum, New York. © 2012. Image copyright The Metropolitan Museum of Art / Art Resource / Scala, Florence. p. 51.

Fig. 28.

Perino del Vaga. Allegory. Paolina Hall, Castel de Sant’Angelo, Rome. p. 53.

Fig. 29.

Giambologna. Allegory of Francesco de’ Medici. © Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid. p. 55.

Fig. 29a.

Giambologna. Allegory of Francesco de’ Medici. Detail of Venus. © Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid. p. 54.

Fig. 30.

Michelangelo Buonarroti. Atlante. Accademia Firenze. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 61.

Fig. 31.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 67.

Fig. 32.

Guglielmo della Porta. Silver crucifix. Antonio Trigo Arnal. (Inv. 52078). © Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid. p. 69.

Fig. 33.

Guglielmo della Porta. Crucifix. Convent of Porta Coeli, Valladolid. p. 70.

Fig. 34.

Guglielmo della Porta. Crucifix. Convent of Las Clarisas, Monforte de Lemos, Lugo. p. 71.

Fig. 35.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 79.

Fig. 36.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 81.

Fig. 37.

Guglielmo della Porta. Grotesque mask, Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 83.

Fig. 38.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 83.

Fig. 39.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 83.

Fig. 40.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 83.

Fig. 41.

Sebastiano del Piombo. Flagellation. San Pietro in Montorio, Rome. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence. p. 85.

Fig. 42.

Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation. (A.1-1977). © V&A Museum, London. p. 86.

Fig. 43.

Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation. Bargello Museum, Florence. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 87.

Fig. 44.

Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation. LACMA, Los Angeles, Ca. © 2012. Digital Image Museum Associates/LACMA/Art Resource NY/Scala, Florence. p. 87.

Fig. 45.

Guglielmo della Porta. Christ at the Column. Bargello Museum, Florence. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 88.

Fig. 46.

Guglielmo della Porta. Christ carrying the Cross. Galleria Estense, Modena. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 89.

Fig. 47.

Guglielmo della Porta. Pitti Palace, Florence. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 90.

149 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

Fig. 48.

Guglielmo della Porta. Christ risen appearing to his disciples. Metropolitan Museum, New York. © 2012. Image copyright The Metropolitan Museum of Art / Art Resource / Scala, Florence. p. 90.

Fig. 49.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 77.

Fig. 50.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 93.

Fig. 51.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 101.

Fig. 52.

Guglielmo della Porta. Drawing. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 103.

Fig. 53.

Guglielmo della Porta. Bronze plaquettes of the group of Marys and group of Saint John the Baptist. (Inv. 2171 and Inv. 2177), © Fundación Lázaro Galdiano, Madrid. p. 104.

Fig. 54.

Guglielmo della Porta. Bronze plaquettes of the group of Marys and group of Saint John the Baptist. (Inv. 2171 and Inv. 2177), © Fundación Lázaro Galdiano, Madrid. p. 104.

Fig. 55.

Attributed to Antonio Calcagni. Mount Calvary. The Musuem of Fine Arts, Boston. © 2012. Image copyright Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. All rights reserved/Scala, Florence. p. 106.

Fig. 56.

Guglielmo della Porta. Mount Calvary, gilt-silver. (Inv. 10014408). Monastery of El Escorial, Madrid. © Patrimonio Nacional. p. 107.

Fig. 57.

Guglielmo della Porta. Mount Calvary, silver. (Inv. 10048054). Monastery of El Escorial, Madrid. © Patrimonio Nacional. p. 109.

Fig. 58.

Daniele da Volterra. Michelangelo Buonarroti, bronze head. © Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. p. 114.

Fig. 59.

Michelangelo Buonarroti. Tomb of Lorenzo de’ Medici. Chapel of San Lorenzo, Florence. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 115.

Fig. 60.

Guglielmo della Porta. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence. p. 115.

Fig. 61.

Michelangelo Buonarroti. Moses. San Pietro in Vincoli, Rome. p. 116.

Fig. 62.

Guglielmo della Porta. Design for tomb of Pope Paul III. Formerly with David Peel. p. 117.

Fig. 63.

Guglielmo della Porta. Putto on scroll with mask, bronze (from the tomb of Bishop de Solis / Paul III). p. 117.

Fig. 64.

Guglielmo della Porta. Fidelity, marble. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 117.

Fig. 65.

Fidelity, artist’s impression of its original appearance when nude. p. 117.

Fig. 66.

Vincenzo Danti. Fairness (Aequitas), marble. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Avery. p. 119.

Fig. 67.

Michelangelo Buonarroti. Dawn, marble. New Sacristy, San Lorenzo, Florence. Brogi photo. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence - Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. p. 119.

Fig. 68.

Guglielmo della Porta. The Deposition (or, Lamentation), bronze. © University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann Arbor, Michigan. p. 119.

Fig. 69.

Guglielmo della Porta. The Deposition (or, Lamentation), marble. © Museo di Castello Sforzesco, Milan. p. 119.

Fig. 70.

Michelangelo Buonarroti. The Conversion of St. Paul, fresco. Cappella Paolina (Pauline Chapel), Vatican City. p. 120.

Fig. 71.

Guglielmo della Porta. Sketch for the equestrian monument of the Emperor Charles V. © Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf. p. 121.

Fig. 72.

Guglielmo della Porta. The Crucifixion, wax on slate. Borghese Gallery, Rome. Anderson photo. p. 122.

Fig. 73.

Sebastiano del Piombo. Flagellation. San Pietro in Montorio, Rome. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence. p. 125.

Fig. 74.

Michelangelo Buonarroti. Christ on the Cross, drawing. British Museum, London. © 2012. Photo Scala, Florence. p. 127.

150 COLL & CORTÉS

Fig. 75.

Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation. (A.1-1977). © V&A Museum, London. p. 128.

Fig. 76.

Michelangelo Buonarroti. First (B&W) version of Christ the Redeemer for Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome. p. 129.

Fig. 77.

Michelangelo Buonarroti. Second (color) version of Christ the Redeemer for Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome. p. 129.

Fig. 78.

Guglielmo della Porta. God’s Charity. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 131.

Fig. 79.

Antonio Pollaiolo. Astrology. Funeral monument of pope Sixtus IV. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 131.

Fig. 80.

Antonio Pollaiolo. Rhetoric. Funeral monument of pope Sixtus IV. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 131.

Fig. 81.

Antonio Pollaiolo. Funeral monument of pope Sixtus IV. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 133

Fig. 82.

Manno di Bastiano Sbarri and Giovanni Bernardi, designed by Perino del Vaga. Farnese Casket. p. 132.

Fig. 83.

Manno di Bastiano Sbarri and Giovanni Bernardi, designed by Perino del Vaga. Farnese Casket. p. 132.

Fig. 84.

Guglielmo della Porta. Hope. Funeral monument of Paul III. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Vatican City. p. 135.

Fig. 85.

Guglielmo della Porta. Flagellation reverse. (A.1-1977). © V&A Museum, London. p. 137.

151 G U G L I E L M O D E L L A P O R TA . A C O U N T E R- R E F O R M AT I O N S C U L P T O R

COLL & CORTÉS C/ Justiniano, 3 28004 Madrid E S PA ÑA collcortes.com