Melchiorre Cafà: Maltese Genius of the Roman Baroque by Joseph Mizzi

MELCHIORRE CAFÃ&#x20AC; Maltese Genius of the Roman Baroque

Giuseppe Calleja, ‘Melchiorre Gafa’, in Arte, Issue 1, Malta, 1862

MELCHIORRE

CAFÀ

Maltese Genius of the Roman Baroque

edited by

KEITH SCIBERRAS

essays by

ALESSANDRA ANSELMI · JOHN AZZOPARDI MARIA GIULIA BARBERINI · GERHARD BISSELL ANGELA CIPRIANI · ELENA BIANCA DI GIOIA TUCCIO SANTE GUIDO · JENNIFER MONTAGU TOMASO MONTANARI · LOUISE RICE KEITH SCIBERRAS · TONY SIGEL

for the History of Art Programme University of Malta iii

Published by MIDSEA BOOKS LTD. 3a Strait Street, Valletta, Malta on behalf of the HISTORY OF ART PROGRAMME, UNIVERSITY OF MALTA supported by the VALLETTA REHABILITATION PROJECT

Literary Copyright π Keith Sciberras and the authors, 2005 Editorial Copyright π Midsea Books Ltd, 2006 Photography Copyright π authors, institutions, Daniel Cilia See Photo Credits on page x

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the previous written permission of the authors and/or rightful owners.

First published in 2006

Editorial Note Works by or attributed to Melchiorre Cafà do not include the artist’s name in the respective captions. All captions are in English. Due to the nature of this book some pictures are repeated in different essays. The colour plates are of the Maltese works. Bibliography is updated to January 2005.

Editor Keith Sciberras Editorial Assistant Edgar Vella

Design Joseph Mizzi Production Mizzi Design & Graphic Services Ltd Printing Gutenberg Press, Malta

ISBN: 978-99932-7-092-X HARDBACK ISBN: 978-99932-7-097-0 PAPERBACK

Contents

PREFACE................................................................................................................ vii INTRODUCTION – MELCHIORRE CAFÀ: MALTESE GENIUS OF THE ROMAN BAROQUE Keith Sciberras............................................................................................. 1 PLATES................................................................................................................... 19 MELCHIORRE CAFÀ NELLA STORIA DELLA CRITICA Maria Giulia Barberini................................................................................. 35 “CHI NON ESCE TALVOLTA DALLA REGOLA NON LA PASSA MAI”: MELCHIORRE CAFÀ A ROMA TRA 1660 E 1667 Elena Bianca Di Gioia................................................................................. 49 MELCHIORRE CAFÀ’S MODELS FOR ERCOLE FERRATA Jennifer Montagu.......................................................................................... 67 PER MELCHIORRE CAFÀ: APPUNTI DALL’ARCHIVIO STORICO DELL’ACCADEMIA DI SAN LUCA DI ROMA Angela Cipriani............................................................................................ 79 MELCHIORRE CAFÀ AT S. CATERINA A MAGNANAPOLI Gerhard Bissell.............................................................................................. 83 LA SANTA ROSA DI MELCHIORRE CAFÀ: ICONOGRAFIA E SIGNIFICATO Alessandra Anselmi....................................................................................... 89 v

MELCHIORRE CAFÀ’S BAPTISM OF CHRIST FOR THE KNIGHTS OF THE ORDER OF MALTA Keith Sciberras............................................................................................. 97 MELCHIORRE CAFÀ’S STATUE OF ST PAUL AT ST PAUL’S GROTTO, RABAT, MALTA John Azzopardi............................................................................................. 113 IL MATRIMONIO MISTICO E LA VISIONE DELLE ROSE DI SANTA ROSA DA LIMA: DUE RILIEVI DI CAFÀ ALLE DESCALZAS REALES DI MADRID Tomaso Montanari....................................................................................... 131 CAFÀ’S CONCLUSION Louise Rice................................................................................................... 139 SULLE CERE DI MELCHIORRE CAFÀ A MALTA Tuccio Sante Guido..................................................................................... 153 THE CLAY MODELING TECHNIQUE OF MELCHIORRE CAFÀ: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Tony Sigel..................................................................................................... 161 NOTES.................................................................................................................... 235 LIST OF WORKS Keith Sciberras............................................................................................. 255 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................... 267 INDEX OF NAMES.............................................................................................. 289

Preface

“… Little can be said about this great man, because he worked little, and lived little. But much can be said about his beautiful works, works which are immortal and which would have spoken had they been blessed with a voice. Rome awaited many great things from this artist, and many great things he would have produced, had death not taken him away so tragically young. Besides the talent that he had received from nature, his spirit was strong and such determination never fails to lead talented men to glory … Excellent was he in design, and similarly in the imitation of nature … he could model as skilfully as anyone else. In invention, he was second to none …” (translated from Pascoli, 1730-1735)

Melchiorre Cafà’s contribution to the story of Roman Baroque Sculpture has long attracted the attention of scholars and art-lovers, drawn by a combination of both respect and admiration for what the artist managed to produce in such a short working life. Over the last five decades, Cafà’s work was reassessed and research intensified into evaluating his independent genius in a Rome dominated by the power of Gianlorenzo Bernini and the legacy of Alessandro Algardi. The outcome of such research was variedly published in specific studies which formed an essential but unfortunately dispersed backbone for the study of the artist’s work; the artist was also the subject of University theses. In the widely published world of Italian Baroque Sculpture, a collective publication exclusively dedicated to this brilliant but short-lived sculptor - who passed most of his working life in Rome – was still a desideratum. The publication presented here is the first truly collective attempt to study the work of Melchiorre Cafà. In a variety of studies, it discusses specific and synoptic issues related to his oeuvre. These are especially concerned with placing the artist’s work within the wider contexts of stylistic and patronage patterns and includes important studies dedicated to the critical reception (or fortuna critica) reserved to his work, to bibliographic surveys, and to scientific, technical, and conservation aspects. It also presents a check-list of works by (or attributed to) the artist; this check-list aims at establishing a critical repertory of his oeuvre. Melchiorre’s Cafà’s few monumental works in marble (some of them completed by others), his wood-carved statues, and his small models in terracotta and wax (most of them vii

related to his larger sculptures), provide a clear impression of his genius and his crucial position between the High Baroque and Bernini and the Late Baroque of the turn of the century. Within this context, the story of Cafà’s large-scale work has been well charted and separately published. In terms of marble works, there is little disagreement on what is truly of his invention, even if difficulties exist in properly establishing the extent of work that he had actually carried out on some of them before his untimely death. On the other hand, while many of the small models in terracotta attributed to the artist are certainly by him, a number of attributions have over the years been made on less secure grounds and thus require clarification. The few drawings that have survived, as do his models, show a distinctive vision. This publication is largely the outcome of an international Conference (and a small exhibition) on the artist held in Malta in October 2003 and organised by the University of Malta and the Valletta Rehabilitation Project, with the help of Heritage Malta and other sponsors. It is the result of the communal effort of a select group of scholars who, for the past years, have researched, worked, discussed, and shared their insights on the artist. This research network was first brought together by Jennifer Montagu, Maria Giulia Barberini, Elena Bianca Di Gioia and the undersigned in 1999 for this specific purpose; the book sees light almost eight years later. The initial idea was even more ambitious, in that it aimed to set up a milestone exhibition in Rome (and elsewhere) of the artist’s bozzetti and small works. Despite much work in its preparation and the enthusiastic support of major museums, institutions, and private lenders, this project failed to fully attract the necessary sponsorships that are now required by the exhibition market and was thus shelved. This publication has contributions from leading international academics, scholars, and conservators in the field of Baroque Sculpture: Alessandra Anselmi, John Azzopardi, Maria Giulia Barberini, Gerhard Bissell, Angela Cipriani, Elena Bianca Di Gioia, Sante Guido, Jennifer Montagu, Tomaso Montanari, Louise Rice, Tony Sigel, and the undersigned. Jennifer Montagu, whose contribution to the study of the artist has been fundamental, was the driving force behind this work and its publication; the book would not have been the same had Jennifer Montagu not formed an essential part of the working group. In many ways, all the contributors feel that she was the pivotal figure in the many discussions over this research. In the publication of this work we are obviously indebted to many institutions, scholars, collectors, curators, archivists, and friends who have assisted us in our research. The sponsors and organisers of the Conference and accompanying Exhibition (National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta) held in Malta in October 2003 merit special mention. The main sponsor was Valletta Rehabilitation Project, together with the University of Malta (through the History of Art Programme) and Heritage Malta. Acknowledgement is also duly given to the Malta Council for Culture and the Arts, Vivian Corporation Ltd, Valletta Local Council, Philip Toledo Ltd, and Ballut Blocks Ltd for other sponsorships and also to the Parish Church of St Paul Shipwrecked, Valletta, the Dominican Priory Church, Rabat, the Parish Church of St Paul, Rabat, S.M.O.M. Fort St Angelo and the International Institute for Baroque Studies. Without the specific interest and support of Professor Mario Buhagiar, Dr Ray Bondin, Rev. Edgar Vella, and Dr Mario Tabone this initiative would not have materialized. This publication is due to the enthusiasm of Joseph Mizzi and Heritage Books (Midsea Books Ltd), together with support of the History of Art Programme, Faculty of Arts, University of Malta and the Valletta Rehabilitation project. viii

Thanks are also due to Professor Sergej Androsov, Daniela Apap Bologna, Professor Andrea Bacchi, Dr Paul Borg Olivier, Professor Bruce Boucher, Dott. Claude Busuttil, Rev. Alfred Camilleri, Antoinette Caruana, Fra John Edward Critien, Sandro Debono, Cynthia de Giorgio, Professor Denis De Lucca, Professor Roger Ellul Micallef, Antonio Espinosa Rodriguez, Professor Italo Faldi, Dr Stephen Fox, Professor Joe Friggieri, Dott. Francesca Galante Martinelli, Professor Ivan Gaskell, Vivian Gatt, Dott. Cristiano Giometti, Dott. Francesco Petrucci, Giuseppe Mantella, Fr Frans Micallef OP, Dott. Cristina Molinari, Dr Julia Poole, Rev. Louis Suban, Peter Toledo, Denis Vella, Teresa Vella, and Professor Ian Wardropper.

Keith Sciberras January 2006

Photo Credits We thank the following institutions and private lenders for their help and for the courtesies forwarded in publishing their works of art: Palazzo Chigi, Ariccia; Staatliche Museen, Berlin; The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; Städtische Galerie Liebieghaus, Frankfurt am Main; Museum fuer Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg; Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig; The British Museum, London; Dominican Priory, Lima; Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Alpheus Hyatt Purchasing and Friends of the Fogg Art Museum Funds, Cambridge MA; Patrimonio Nacional, Madrid; Dominican Church, Rabat, Malta; Rev. Edgar Vella, Malta; Heritage Malta; Parish Church of St Paul, Rabat, Malta; The Arthur M. Sackler Collections, New York; The Metropolitan Musuem of Art, New York; The Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, PA, Decorative Arts Purchase Fund; Musée du Louvre, Paris; Parish Church of St Michael, Pellio Inferiore; Italo Faldi, Rome; Francesca Galante Martinelli, Rome; Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome; Soprintendenza ai Beni Culturali, Rome; Soprintendenza Speciale per il Polo Museale Romano, Archivio Fotografico, Rome; Vittorio Sgarbi, Rome; Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, Malta; The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg; National Museum, Stockholm; Parish Church of St Paul Shipwrecked, Valletta; St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation, Valletta; Albertina Museum, Vienna. Colour plates, with the exception of Virgin of the Rosary, are by Daniel Cilia. Figures accompanying the essay ‘The Clay Modeling Techniques of Melchiorre Cafà: A Preliminary Assessment’ are copyright of Tony Sigel.

Introduction Melchiorre Cafà: Maltese Genius of the Roman Baroque

Keith Sciberras

Born in Vittoriosa, Malta, in 1636, Melchiorre Cafà was the ninth of ten children born to Marco and Veronica Gafa. Baptised on 21 January 1636 with the name of Marcello, in remembrance of a child born to the family in 1634 and who had died as an infant, the young boy came to be known as Melchiorre. By 1658, only five of the Gafa children survived; these were Giuseppe, Grazio, Gio Maria, Melchiorre, and Lorenzo. Very little is known about the father Marco Gafa, but he is often referred to as a maestro or craftsman, very probably practicing as a cobbler. 1 The harbour-side city of Vittoriosa, where the sculptor was born and raised, was cosmopolitan and directly related to maritime affairs. It had been, before the building of Valletta, the glorious ‘Convent’ of the Order of St John of Jerusalem during their first decades in Malta. In the mid-seventeenth century, together with the other harbour cities of Senglea and Cospicua, it was a hub for artisans and craftsmen and provided an ideal climate for budding artists. Marco Gafa had moved there in the 1610s, marrying Veronica née Spiteri in 1616.

In Malta, the family surname is known as Gafa but, in Rome, Melchiorre’s family name was almost immediately corrupted (or ‘italianised’) to Cafà or Caffà. This is how the sculptor is known in the international art world. He signed his name as ‘MELCHIOR CAFA MELITENSIS’ in the St Rose of Lima (S. Domingo, Lima, Peru), and similarly as ‘MELCHIOR. CAFA MELITENSIS’ in the bronze bust of Pope Alexander VII (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) (Fig. 1). The elaborate thesis print Tesi di Giovanni Francesco Rota is also inscribed ‘Melchior Cafa Meliten.e’. M e l c h i o r r e C a f à ’s s c u l p t u r a l production in Rome has attracted considerable scholarly attention. 2 He has been described as brilliant, as the most gifted of the young sculptors of his generation, and as the most significant figure in Italian Baroque sculpture in the generation after Bernini. He is credited with managing to fashion a distinctive style within the span of a single decade.3 He did not, however, live long and his untimely death in 1667 is certainly one of the most unfortunate circumstances in the story of Late Baroque art. Pascoli succinctly puts it as follows: Gran cose

Fig. 1

Fig. 1. Pope Alexander VII, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Detail

Fig. 2. Cappella Torres, Duomo, Syracuse. Detail

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 3. Cappella Torres, Duomo, Syracuse. Detail Fig. 4. Cappella Torres, Duomo, Syracuse. Detail

Fig. 2

aspettava Roma di questo artefice; e gran cose avrebbe fatto, se morte nimica tolto non l’avesse in eta troppo immatura dal mondo.4 Little is unfortunately known of Melchiorre Cafà’s first training in sculpture. His early artistic work in Malta is not documented, but contextual association can link him with the workshop of the Casanova family of sculptors, also from within the Harbour area. The Casanovas were largely scalpellini working in Maltese limestone, competent in decorative work but barely rising above mediocrity in figurative work. As a young teenager, Cafà is documented working with Michele, Antonio, and Damiano Casanova in a project for decorative carving undertaken in the Cathedral of Syracuse, Sicily. Payments dating to 1652 and 1653 document a Marcello Gaffar (Melchiorre Cafà) carving “the twelve putti and six heads of seraphim figures placed on the columns … and the four larger putti placed on the portals leading to the two sacristies” for the Cappella Torres within the Cathedral (Figs 2-4).5 The Chapel, built through a foundation of Bishop

Giovanni Torres in the mid-seventeenth century, survives in a considerably good state and shows carvings that are typical of mid-seventeenth century production found in Malta. The altar itself is a later addition but the carving work of the chapel is that of the early 1650s. The sculptural decoration, carved in relief, functions in relation to the architectural definition; putti, cherub heads, fruit, acanthus leaves, scrolls and hangings animate the architectural grammar in a skilful decorative play. The work is generally pleasing, even though modest and rather conservative in invention. The fresco cycle of the vault, executed by Agostino Scilla, similarly dates to the 1650s. The “four larger putti placed on the portals leading to the two sacristies” survive, in pairs of two respectively holding a central shield with the ar ms of Archbishop Torres. If the interpretation of the documents and stylistic reading is correct, these may well be Melchiorre Cafà’s first known works. Their proportions and chubby features

do seem to anticipate some of his later work, but in the circumstances it is difficult to propose them as a secure attribution. Cafà was only sixteen years old; the fact that it was he who was entrusted with the execution of figurative work is in itself an indication of his talent. This documented association with the Casanovas suggests that Melchiorre Cafà trained – and worked - in their bottega. However, very little is known of the work that the Casanova family executed in Malta in the 1650s. It is also significant that Melchiorre’s younger brother Lorenzo, who was to become Malta’s leading architect, is first documented as a stone carver. A r at h e r ro m a n t i c a c c o u n t o f Cafà’s early work is given in an early nineteenth century transcription of a lost manuscript compiled around 1740 by the Capuchin Padre Pelagio. 6 This account narrates the story of Cafa’s initial training in the bottega of the unknown sculptor Dozzinale in Vittoriosa. In this workshop, Cafà drew the attention of an unidentified Spanish knight who had requested some sculptures for the garden of his residence in Casal Paola from the said Dozzinale. Following the refusal of the latter to undertake the commission, it is said, the Spanish knight asked the young Melchiorre, who was still ten or twelve years old, to attempt executing the statues. Upon their completion, the Spanish knight was so impressed by their quality that he took Melchiorre under his protection and, later, “he sent him to Rome and placed him under influential protection”. This story cannot be proved. It is surprising how, in a stylistic backwater like Malta, Melchiorre Cafà showed such a prodigious outburst of talent in a context where Malta had no great master in sculpture who could nurture such up and coming talent. Yet,

Fig. 6

Fig. 5

Cafà’s first steps were done when Malta was preparing itself to be fully immersed in High Art and to witness the birth of a new mentality. The way in which the sculptor so readily became immersed in Roman Baroque art was also to reflect the readiness of the Maltese islands for a Late Baroque art, even if it had been late in absorbing the High Baroque spirit. I t h a s n o t ye t b e e n p r o p e r l y determined how and with whose help Melchiorre Cafà left Malta for Rome probably in 1658. 7 It is tempting to suggest that some kind of protection and assistance was extended through knights, ecclesiastical dignitaries or members of prestigious houses of the Italian nobility present in Malta; particularly when the young sculptor was advised to enter the bottega of Ercole Ferrata. It seems, however, that he was not enjoying an official ‘scholarship’ from the Knights of the Order of St John because Cafà is rather anonymously described by their Ambassador in Rome as un certo Maltese when he was first brought in for

Fig. 7

Figs. 5, 6 & 7. Details of Virgin of the Rosary, Dominican Church, Rabat, Malta.

Fig. 8

Fig. 8. Virgin of the Rosary, Staatliche Museum, Berlin

Fig. 9

Fig. 9. St Paul, Church of St Paul Shipwrecked, Valletta. Detail

Fig. 10

Fig. 10. St Paul, Church of St Paul Shipwrecked, Valletta.

consideration during the initial stages of the commission for apsidal termination of the Conventual Church of St John, Valletta, in 1665.8 Had he really been on their paylist, discourse would have certainly been different. On the other hand, suggestions for the possible intervention of Fabio Chigi, Pope Alexander VII, who had been Apostolic Delegate in Malta between 1634 and 1639 and residing in Vittoriosa are still hypothetical; even if Chigi’s concern for Malta and especially for Vittoriosa is well recorded. 9 Another possible intermediary could have been the Pope’s powerful nephew, the knight Fra Giovanni Bichi who was a long time resident of Malta, even if he had then been away from the island for some time. Fra Giovanni Bichi had, however, kept very strong diplomatic relations with the Order being, in many ways, one of its protectors in Rome. As General of

the Papal Galleys he was in Malta for a brief stay in September 1657; his Galleys accompanied those of the Order when the newly elected Grand Master Martin De Redin (1657-1660) returned to Malta to take up his office.10 Giovanni Bichi was again in Malta, similarly with the galley squadron of the Pope, for a few days in June 1659.11 Through his insertion within the bottega of Ercole Ferrata, Cafà obviously came in close contact with the stylistic and patronage context of Alessandro Algardi, who had died only a couple of years earlier. 12 This context was to shape his early years of activity in Rome. Stylistically, his first works, such as the processional statues of the Virgin of the Rosary (Dominican Church, Rabat) (Figs 5-7) and the St Paul (St Paul Shipwrecked, Valletta) (Figs 9-10) for Malta are akin to the tradition of the Bolognese master. The Virgin of the Rosary is derived from Algardi’s famous Virgin and Child, a statuette that he surely came in contact with through Ferrata’s workshop. Cafa’s processional statues are both carved in wood, a choice most probably conditioned by their use as processional pieces; their present polychromy is a later intervention. Whilst it is documented that the Virgin of the Rosary arrived in Malta in May 1661, there is very little documentation on the St Paul. It is known that the latter was commissioned by the Testaferrata family of Valletta, who donated it to the church later on in the seventeenth century, certainly before 1694.13 A remarkable bozzetto for the Virgin of the Rosary survives, (Staatliche Museum, Berlin) (Fig. 8) whilst a number of statuettes in Malta have been unreliably associated with the St Paul. The two statues set the standard iconography for the representation of the respective theme in Malta. As a bottega sculptor Melchiorre Cafà was extremely precocious, particularly

following his ‘introduction’ to largescale marble. This was late in his training years, that is, when the artist was already in his twenty-second year of age. He had, by then, never really practiced on working in the tradition of monumental sculpture (that is, producing a full size model) and had little or no experience with the choice of marble, its ‘blocking’, carving, use of the drill, and polishing. Pascoli refers to Cafà’s approach to carving in marble: ma nel lavorare il marmo gli bisogno alle volte l’assistenza del maestro, non perche lavorar non sapesse; ma perche troppo portato dal vivo fuoco, che aveva, voluto avrebbe tutto finire in pochi colpi. In less than two years, the artist obtained a mastery such that he could take on important independent work.14 It is significant how Cafà’s first major independent work in Rome came in 1660 for a church of great prestige; probably one of the most important commissions for marble statuary forked out in that year. This was the sculptured altarpiece of St Eustace in the Lion’s Den commissioned by Camillo Pamphili for the church of S. Agnese in Agone in Piazza Navona (Figs 11-12).15 It is almost obvious that it was Ercole Ferrata who introduced his talented ‘student’ to Camillo Pamphili; the latter admired Cafà’s work to such an extent that he entrusted him with the execution of this work even though the young sculptor had not yet ‘finished’ any monumental work in marble. This prestigious altarpiece was to be Cafà’s first important commission. It is not hard, at this stage, to imagine the surprise of many of the established sculptors in Rome just after news that Cafà obtained this commission spread through the art circles. Melchiorre Cafà was a total newcomer who had not yet proved his worth. Pamphili ‘gambled’ on the artist; he could recognise talent well enough. The amount of studies still extant for the St Eustace show how Cafà toiled hard

Fig.11

with the composition, modelling and perfecting his invention in clay (Figs1318). Algardi’s influence was still strong, but the freedom of composition, nerve and spontaneity manifest in his bozzetto launched Cafà as an important new player in the Roman scene. Pamphili’s enthusiasm with the modellos for St Eustace was so great that in 1663 he entrusted Cafà with the execution of another monumental work. This was the Charity of St Thomas for the family chapel in the Church of S. Agostino, just off Piazza Navona and in the heart of Rome (Figs 1920).16 In preparing for this work, Cafà exercised his inventive skills to produce a bozzetto of outstanding confidence and audacity, pushing his sculptured figures of the woman (Charity) and her children receiving the alms outsides the architectural parameters of the framing niche (Figs 22-23). Camillo Pamphili

Fig. 11. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Church of S. Agnese in Agone, Rome. Detail

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 12. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Church of S. Agnese in Agone, Rome Fig. 13. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Museo di Roma, Rome. Figures at bottom left

Fig. 14. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome Fig. 15. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome. Detail

Fig. 16

Fig. 14

Fig. 17

Fig. 18

Fig. 16. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Museo di Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome. Lion at bottom right. Fig. 17. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Carnegie Institute of Art, Pittsburgh. Figure at bottom left Fig. 18. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Liebieghaus, Frankfurt. Figure of St Eustace

was ever so impressed by Cafà’s modello and thus commissioned a print of it to be executed (Fig. 21); almost foreseeing that neither himself, nor the artist would live to see the work terminated, and that the work would not be finished according to the proposed invention. Cafà’s project had surprised his patron, and the print was meant to show signs of a new stylistic approach to the public in general. A s C a f à ’s a r t i s t i c p re s e n c e i n Rome grew stronger, he opened up to Gianlorenzo Bernini without, however, falling under his umbrella. The figure of St Thomas of Villanova is testimony of this. Cafà’s figures had, in such a brief span, undergone an important stylistic change, growing taller in proportion and more fugitive in movement. His drapery folds moved away from a typology largely derived from Algardi to a more palpitating rendition of broken folds. The typology used, for example, for the Virgin of the Rosary became a thing of the past. Above all, his invention grew stronger, astounding Rome with his boldness, as was the case of the modello for the Charity of St Thomas. He soon outshone his master Ercole Ferrata, but their relationship remained strong.

Fig. 15

As an independent master of up and coming success Cafà, however, remained working within Ferrata’s studio, possibly sharing tools and perhaps even assistants. This is what the spirit of their collaboration was all about. It was a relationship from which both gained; Cafà could use a long established workshop and benefit from workspace and contact with craftsmen, artisans, and art merchants, whilst Ferrata benefited from the young sculptor’s inventive talent. In fact, it seems that Ferrata eventually undertook work on inventions and bozzetti produced by the Maltese artist.17 The Maltese sculptor, however, also seems to have got a small independent team around him. In 1664, for example, the Sicilian sculptor Pietro Papaleo (1642-1718) was recorded as his student, 18 whilst the painter Michelangelo Marullo was living with him. 19 Cafà and Ferrata even shared residence and, between 1663 and 1667, Cafà is recorded living with the sculptor in Via Giulia within the parish of San Biagio della Pagnotta.20 In Malta, Melchiorre’s father Marco was making plans for securing a house for his son. In February 1662, Marco

Fig. 19

Fig. 20

Fig. 21

Fig. 22

On previous page: Fig. 19. Melchiorre Cafà and Ercole Ferrata, Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, Church of S. Agostino, Rome Fig. 20. Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, Church of S. Agostino, Rome. Detail Fig. 21. Engraved by Pietro del Po, Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta Fig. 22. Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta

Fig. 23. Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta

Fig. 23

Gafa bought a small house in Vittoriosa in favour of his sons Melchiorre and Gratio for the sum of 150 scudi; it could be that money had been sent from Rome. Situated near the town piazza, it is described as a Loco domorum situm et positum in Civitate Vittoriosa prope plateam consistentem in una intrata, stantia centimuli, scale, coquina in medio scale, sala, ed duobus gabinettis et cisterna.21 The acquisition of this house in his hometown in 1662, precisely when he was contracting for major work in Rome, should not be interpreted as an intention to return permanently on the island. In barely two years Melchiorre Cafà had taken Rome by surprise. In 1662 he was admitted as a member of the Academy of St Luke as also in the Pio 8

Sodalizio dei Virtuosi al Pantheon.22 His rise was meteoric, even though he had not yet unveiled any significant work for the church-going public. His first work for the Pamphilis, however, was enough to attract the attention of other patrons and his confidence enabled him to accept further work. The amount of incoming work is indicative that he had an efficient and well established working method, probably well advised by Ferrata himself. For the main apse of the Dominican church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, Melchiorre Cafà was commissioned, probably around 1662, a sculptured altarpiece representing the Glory of St Catherine of Siena (Fig. 24). 23 This was to be his great triumph, a work that set him on the highest ranks of sculpture in Rome and that is rightly regarded as one of the most important moments in the transition from High to Late Baroque in sculpture. For Wittkower, no other work is so close in spirit to Bernini’s Ecstasy St Teresa. Yet, it is obviously no copy or variant. Cafà’s work had encompassed the best of Bernini’s and Algardi’s tradition, combining them with his own inventive energy and innovative stylistic character to create a work that looked more like a painting than a sculpture. In the sculptured altarpiece, Cafà isolated the white marble against a background of various coloured marbles to make the saint seem to ‘float in the air’. The Dominican connection was strong, and in the very same period he was commissioned another important work, a statue of St Rose of Lima to take part in the celebrations for her beatification and to be sent to the church of S. Domingo at Lima, Peru (Fig. 27). 24 The exercise was not a simple one; a saint represented as dead or in the act of dying. Bernini’s St Theresa was again at the back of his mind, reworked and reinterpreted within the iconography of

the dying Saint. The final product was a success, an invention strong enough to be captured in small size versions in metal and to influence the great Bernini himself. The date and precise mechanics for the onset for this commission are not known; its completion is revealed by the dated inscription 1665 on the back of the work. In 1665, when Cafà was working on no less than four major monumental commissions, he was approached by the knights of the Order of Malta; approached because Bernini was away from Rome and because the Order’s Ambassador in Rome had heard that the young sculptor was the only sculptor who Bernini feared in Rome. 25 Cafà’s position was strong enough that he could afford to politely tell Grand Master Nicholas Cotoner to ‘wait for his turn’. After some initial hesitance, Cafà accepted the work and travelled to Malta to secure his project for a sculptural group of the Baptism of Christ for the Conventual Church of St John in Valletta. The group, which was to be worked in Rome, was to have a Gloria as a backdrop, an idea revamped from Bernini’s successful interpretation for the Cathedra in St Peter’s. The group was to be his first monumental commission in metal sculpture, a commission that was however never terminated because of his premature death. The visit to Malta in January 1666 gave Cafà the opportunity to see his homeland and family. He travelled together with his painter friend Michelangelo Marullo, who by then was one of his closest friends. In Malta, his brother Lorenzo was an up and coming architect, working for both the knights and the diocese. His other brother, Giuseppe, was a Dominican. In Malta, the sculptor stayed for a couple of months, perfecting his invention for the Baptism group and securing the enthusiastic interest of the knights of

Fig. 24

the Order of St John for his work. This period was long enough for Cafà to seek other commissions and to try to make the best out of what was turning out to be a fertile ground. He produced a design for the reredos of the Chapel of France in the Conventual Church of St John, and another for the choir end of the church of the Souls in Purgatory in Valletta.26 For the Grotto of St Paul in Rabat he was commissioned a marble statue of St Paul (later finished by Ercole Ferrata)27 (Figs 31-32) and, for the parish church of St Paul in the same town, a silver sanctuary lamp to adorn the altar of St Anthony for which Marullo was to paint the altarpainting (Figs 33-34);28 this picture is a ‘painted Cafà’, so close in spirit that it could be suspected to be the work of

Fig. 25

Fig. 24. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, Rome Fig. 25. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Private Collection

Fig. 26 (on opposite page). St John’s Co-Cathedral, Valletta, Malta

Fig. 27

Cafà himself. The sculptor is registered leaving Malta on 3 May 1666 together with the painter Marullo and a thirteen year old boy called Antonio Garsin.29 It is not clear what the Maltese teenager was doing with Cafà and his friend. Back in Rome by May 1666, his work on this Gloria for Malta was immediately followed by his participation in a project for another Gloria. This was a glory of rays and angels of gilded wood around a baldacchino for the miraculous image of the Virgin for titular of S.Maria in Campitelli (Figs 28-30). Cafà probably provided the invention, but his participation in the project was cut short by his untimely death. The work was directed by Carlo Rainaldi and Cafà was paid for a wax model in 1667. 30 Cafà’s interest in the rendition of glories of angels show how readily he was to respond to stimuli provided by Bernini and how he could carry Bernini’s style into a new phase. By mid-1667, Melchiorre Cafà was one of the busiest and most successful sculptors in Rome. Work on the projects for the Pamphilis had been delayed because of the marble blocks and of his Maltese soujourn, yet his St Catherine

Fig. 27. St Rose of Lima, Church of S. Domingo, Lima

and St Rose had been completed. On 1 January 1667, at the height of his career, he declined to show interest in his shortlisting for the post of Principe of the Academy of St Luke.31 Two wax statuettes of two Matyr Saints (National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta) (Figs 34-35) could refer to interest by Cafà in the project for the statues of the Vatican Colonnata, a project undertaken by Alexander VII.32 The two statuettes, polychromised at a later stage, fit within

Fig. 29

Fig. 30

Fig. 28. (project by), Glory of Angels, Church of S. Maria in Campitelli, Rome Fig. 29. (project by), Glory of Angels, Church of S. Maria in Campitelli, Rome. Detail Fig. 30. (project by), Glory of Angels, Church of S. Maria in Campitelli, Rome. Detail Fig. 28

Fig. 31. (finished by Ercole Ferrata), St Paul, St Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Grotto, Rabat, Malta Fig. 32. (finished by Ercole Ferrata), St Paul, St Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Grotto, Rabat, Malta. Detail

Fig. 31

Fig. 32

Fig. 33

Fig. 34

Fig. 33. Michelangelo Marullo, Virgin and Child with Saints, Church of St Paul, Rabat, Malta Fig. 34. Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta

On opposite page: Fig. 35. Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta Fig. 36. (attributed to), Agostino Omodei, Santa Maria della Vittoria, Milan Fig. 37. Pope Alexander VII, Palazzo Chigi, Ariccia

the general stylistic and iconographic pattern of the Colonnata statues of the 1660s and can be associated with a documented reference of 1667 wherein Cafà is mentioned in relation to similar work. The presence of drawings after these martyrs in a volume of drawings executed in Rome after works by Cafà suggests that the models should have been executed in Rome. On the other hand, the presence in Malta of a statue executed during Cotoner’s Magistry and obviously derived from one of the martyrs indicates that the statuettes should have been in Malta immediately after his death.33 M e l c h i o r r e C a f à ’s a c t i v i t y i n p o r t r a i t u re i s u n fo r t u n at e l y o n l y known through one outstanding example. This is the 1667 bust of Alexander VII, known through its two versions in bronze (Duomo, Siena; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) and through the terracotta in Palazzo Chigi, Ariccia (Figs 37, 41-44). Commissioned in gilt bronze by Cardinal Flavio Chigi, the artist received payment on 6 August 1667, less than a month before his death. Wittkower considered the bust as the most Berninesque papal portrait bust of the second half of the seventeenth century, capturing Bernini’s urgent concern to endow his portrait busts with the illusion of movement. Yet, t h e a r t i s t a l s o s o u g h t t o c a p t u re the sitter’s psychological attitude. It is apparent that Cafà worked on the portrait in a sitting that was in conjunction with that of a painted portrait commissioned from Gaulli, as derived from an entry of 19 December 1666 in the Pope’s own diary. 34 For the Duomo of Siena, probably in 1667, Cafà was commissioned a large marble statue of Alexander III (Fig. 47); this was, however, largely finished by Ferrata and his workshop. The

chapter regarding Cafà’s portraits still needs to rediscovered; the portrait of Alexander VII cannot be an isolated example. In this, an inventory entry of 1685 from the belongings of Cardinal Luigi Alessandro Omodei in Rome merits further study. The entry records five relief portrait roundels representing the brothers of Cardinal Omodei by Melchior maltese and probably refers to the models of similar roundels commissioned in the 1660s by Cardinal Omodei for the monuments to four (not five) of his brothers installed in the church of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Milan.35 These impressive bronze roundels, showing the figures in bust length with their heads turned in profile, are installed in the four pyramidal monuments (dating to 1665 and 1666) of Giovanni Giacomo III, Agostino III, Carlo Giovanni Battista III, and Francesco Maria Omodei and are generically attributed to the circle of Bernini (Fig.36). Their spirited execution and treatment of the drapery is, however,

Fig. 37

Fig. 35

Fig. 36

Fig. 38. St John the Baptist, British Museum, London

Fig. 39

Fig. 40

Fig. 39. Virgin and Child with St Rose of Lima and other Saints, Louvre, Paris Fig. 40. Virgin and Child with St Rose of Lima and other Saints, Albertina, Vienna

Fig. 38

very close to the manner of Cafà, even if there is unfortunately very little with which they can be compared. Whilst not wishing to eliminate them from the possibility of being the work of the Maltese sculptor, any attribution should remain cautious before a detailed and close up study is conducted. Similar research work on Cafà’s connection with Cardinal Omodei needs to be undertaken. Cafà’s invention has been heralded by many writers; his drawings were particularly appreciated by Pascoli. However, very few are the drawings that can be attributed to the artist with some degree of certainty.36 Two drawings of the Virgin and Child with the Blessed Rose of Lima and other Saints (Albertina, Vienna; Louvre, Paris) (Figs 39-40) are studies for the print of the subject engraved by Albertus Clouwet (Louvre, Paris). A robust red chalk drawing of St John the Baptist (British Museum, London) (Fig. 38), more of an academy drawing, is

attributed to the artist on the basis of an old inscription. This attribution is a difficult one because of the very limited corpus of drawings to compare it with, even though there are stylistic references and contextual considerations which make it certainly very plausible. In the same volume in which this drawing is bound is another drawing of a Male Nude that should belong to the same hand (Fig. 45). 37 A portrait of the artist (Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, Fig. 36) from the collection of Nicola Pio has a tradition of being a self-portrait; this is however difficult to ascertain, as also is the attribution. A series of drawings in the volume Rensi 6 (Museum der bildenden Kunste, Leipzig), drawn after models and sculptures by Cafà, can now be safely associated with the painter Michelangelo Marullo, the sculptor’s intimate friend. Other drawings elsewhere attributed to Cafà have been discarded by scholars. To this small corpus should be added the thesis print Tesi di Giovanni Francesco Rota engraved by Jean Girardin and Jean Couvay 38 and the print by Pietro del Po after Cafà’s model for the Charity of St Thomas. Melchiorre Cafà died unexpectedly in Rome on 4 September 1667 and was buried in the church of San Biagio della Pagnotta in Via Giulia.39 At the time of his death Cafà had a number of pending works. His first commission, that of St Eustace, was only terminated in the figure of the Saint and one of his sons, whilst the Charity of St Thomas was only completed in the figure of the Saint himself. He had completed most work on the full scale models of the Baptism of Christ. Whilst the first two works were finished by Ferrata and others, the latter were abandoned in the Vatican foundry. Yet, completion of Cafà’s work was undertaken in Rome only after a complicated process of litigation,

Fig. 43

Fig. 41

Fig. 44

Fig. 41. Pope Alexander VII, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Fig. 42. Pope Alexander VII, Duomo, Siena Fig. 43. Pope Alexander VII, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Fig. 44. After Melchiorre CafÃ , Pope Alexander VII, formerly Lepke Fig. 42

Fig. 45. Standing Male Nude, British Museum, London

Fig. 46

Fig. 46. Anonymous, Portrait of Melchiorre Cafà, National Museum, Stockholm

Fig. 45

particularly between the heirs of Cafà in Malta and his main patrons (i.e. the Pamphilis) in Rome. This litigation was primarily on the quantification of the sculptor’s unfinished work for the Roman family. The Knights were also roped in. The aspect of quantifying Cafà’s assets and the valuation of his uncompleted works were a matter of immediate concern for his heirs in Malta, also because what the Pamphilis eventually offered as compensation for Melchiorre’s work for the St Eustace and the Charity of St Thomas was deemed unacceptable. The Maltese family had taken legal measures to protect their interests and had resorted to the notarial nomination of procurators in Rome to take care of the matters arising from the sculptor’s death. In October 1667, Marco Gafa and his children Lorenzo, Gio Maria, and Grazio, as the heirs of Melchiorre, had nominated Fra Marc’Antonio Verospi, Receiver of the Order in Rome,

the Dominican friar Giuseppe Gafa, brother of Melchiorre, and Melchiorre’s artist friend Michelangelo Marullo, all resident in Rome, as their procurators.40 Fra Marc’Antonio Verospi played the most important role; his nomination had placed the family directly under the protection of the Knights. Only some months later, Verospi was promoted Ambassador of the Order of St John to the Holy See. Even though the Knights had not yet committed large sums of money on the Baptism, they was still eager to secure their own interests in the matter: Verospi ‘toiled to safeguard his [Cafà’s] belongings in the interest of the Treasury and the grotto of St Paul’.41 Thus, the Order was now involved in handling the unfinished productions of the sculptor in Rome. From the start Grand Master Nicholas Cotoner also intervened on behalf of Cafà’s family - volendo ancora porgere qualche sollievo a questi suoi afflitti parenti - and instructed Verospi to seize Cafà’s belongings so as to give them to his family; but not after making sure that the Order retrieved its share! The position of the Gafa family was somehow overwhelmed by the presence of the Order. In this context it is not difficult to imagine why the family never asked for an independent valuation of the work that Melchiorre Cafà had done on the Baptism, as they did with considerable vigour for the work that Cafà had executed in the two projects for the Pamphilis. They should have, at least, suspected that Melchiorre had done more work for the Order than that which was covered by the meagre payments that he had until then received. The Maltese family never took the Order to task, seeing in it an asset in their litigation with the Pamphilis. The litigation with the Pamphilis did not reach an immediate compromise and remained at a standstill by March 1668.

The Cafà family therefore returned to ask the Order for its intervention. Following their complaints, the Grand Master instructed Verospi to retrieve Cafà’s belongings, suggesting that he could get the help of Michelangelo Marullo. In the meantime, Verospi had to consign a gold chain that the Order had given Cafà and some other valuable things that also belonged to Cafà for immediate transport to Malta. These were to be deposited with the Treasury until their rightful ownership was ascertained.42 It transpires that some items were sent to Malta in May 1668; these included the gold chain, some silver artefacts,

Fig. 47

and other unspecified items.43 Amongst the latter there could have been bozzetti or small works, even though only a few small-scale works survive in Malta. It is in these strange circumstances that, probably, one of the most remarkable bozzetti of the Roman Late Baroque probably arrived in Malta. This is the terracotta bozzetto of the Charity of St T homas of Villanova in the National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta, a modello of his project for the Pamphili chapel in S. Agostino.44 The two wax Martyr Sanits could have similarly arrived in these circumstance. Similarly the wax relief of St Catherine, recently discovered in

Fig. 47. (finished by Ercole Ferrata), Pope Alexander III, Duomo, Siena

Malta,45 (Fig. 25) could have also been in the same consignment. But, most of the contents of Cafà’s studio seem to have remained in the workshop of Ercole Ferrata, as suggested by the inventory list of the latter’s studio drawn up in Rome in 1686.46 The dearth of Cafà works in Malta suggests that Verospi could not gain access to his workshop and that the few works that he managed to collect were probably conserved at Cafà’s residence. Melchiorre Cafà’s death threw the Knight’s Embassy in Rome in a tangled situation. On one hand, it tried to bargain with founders and sculptors for the eventual completion of the Baptism project whilst, on the other, it mediated with the Pamphili family on behalf of the Gafas in Malta. What had ensued was a two year long dispute during which the completion of the Cafà’s work in Rome by other sculptors was halted. A final contractual settlement was only reached

on 20 September 1669.47 His monumental work in Rome was finished by others. Ironically, the Baptism for Malta was abandoned. The only contemporary portrait of the sculptor is that in the drawing in Stockholm (Fig. 46). Lorenzo Gafa had a portrait of him in his collection,48 but this is not known to survive. In the midnineteenth century, the Maltese artist Giuseppe Calleja, published a litograph portrait showing Melchiorre Cafà with long hair over his shoulders and sporting a moustache. 49 It is not clear, however, whether Calleja was basing himself on a portrait of the artist, even though this is indeed probable because he does so in the case of other artists whose portrait he produced a litograph of. Pascoli describes him as follows: Era di bassa statura, di colore olivastro, magro piuttosto che grasso, pensieroso, e d’umor malinconico. Avea piccola fronte, occhi neri, ed incavati, capelli crespi, corti, e morati.50

Plates

St Paul, Church of St Paul Shipwrecked, Valletta

St Paul, Church of St Paul Shipwrecked, Valletta. Details

Virgin of the Rosary, Dominican Church, Rabat. Details

Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta

Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Details

Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta

Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Details

Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta

Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Details

(finished by Ercole Ferrata) St Paul, St Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Grotto, Rabat

(finished by Ercole Ferrata) St Paul, St Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Grotto, Rabat. Details

Sanctuary Lamp, Church of St Paul, Rabat

Sanctuary Lamp, Church of St Paul, Rabat. Details

Glory of St Catherine, Private Collection

Melchiorre Cafà nella storia della critica

Maria Giulia Barberini

A tutt’oggi le notizie biografiche dello scultore maltese sono parzialmente velate da dubbio, ad iniziare dalla trascrizione del cognome: Cafà, Caffà, Gafar, Cofà, Gafà, Caffar. La data ed il luogo di nascita sono stati un problema molto dibattuto: il biografo Leone Pascoli, dedicandogli nel 1730 una Vita, afferma che lo scultore era nato nel 1635;1 mentre in base ad un disegno con il suo ritratto nella collezione di Niccolò Pio, oggi al Museo Nazionale di Stoccolma, la data dovrebbe essere anticipata al 1631.2 Le ricerche d’archivio di Daniela Jemma, condotte nel 1980, riportano la data ed il luogo di nascita a Victoriosa nel 1638.3 Mentre quelle di Simon Mercieca, svolte attraverso i registri battesimali di Birgu, la pongono al gennaio 1636.4 Le opinioni dei biografi moderni sono state, nel tempo, discordi: Mariette accetta, almeno inizialmente, la data 1631; 5 Nagler, il 1630; Pollak riporta prudentemente le ipotesi 1630-31-35;6 Fleming accetta sia la data 1631 che quella del 1635.7 Faldi lo dice nato prima del 1635.8 Wittkower, Preimesberger e Bissel sostengono la data 1635;9 Schlegel opta ancora per la data 1631;10 ma nel 1996 Preimesberger, a seguito delle

ricerche della Jemma, accetta la data 1638 la quale entra decisamente nella storia biografica dello scultore.11 Questa data è confermata anche dagli Stati d’Anime della chiesa di San Biagio della Pagnotta dove, alla data 1662 si legge: Melchiorre Cafà Maltese 24 cresimato in Malta dal Padre Giuseppe Fava…12 Anche per la data della morte ci sono state molte incertezze determinate fin dall’inizio dal Pascoli che riferisce la data 1680 e dal Pio che riporta la data 1687. Incertezze che rimasero fino al ritrovamento da parte di Edward Sammut di una lettera dell’ambasciatore dell’Ordine di Malta a Roma, Caumons, al Gran Maestro Cotoner datata 10 settembre 1667: Il povero Melchior re Cafà nella cadente settimana se vi è passato all’altra vita. 13 I documenti d’archivio confermano oggi che la morte avvenne il 4 settembre del 1667.14 Po c h e l e n o t i z i e s e i c e n t e s c h e relative alla fortuna dell’artista dopo il suo arrivo a Roma: notizie che provengono da documenti d’archivio. Le prime informazioni che confermano l’indiscusso riconoscimento di stima di cui Cafà gode fin dal suo arrivo a Roma, si ricavano dall’analisi dei dati d’archivio 35

relativi alla bottega di Ercole Ferrata, presso cui Cafà si sistema intorno al 1660. Da un documento pubblicato dal Bertolotti, 15 si ha notizia che la casabottega di Ferrata era documentata nell’area limitrofa alla chiesa di Santa Lucia del Gonfalone, a partire dal 1662. E da quell’anno il nome di Cafà risulta essere il primo, dopo quello del Ferrata, nella lista dei residenti. Soprattutto per gli anni dal 1663 al 1667 gli Stati delle Anime della chiesa di San Biagio della Pagnotta – all’epoca parrocchia della zonariportano il nome di Cafà abbinato a quello di Ercole Ferrata . I due nomi sono collegati all’appellativo di scultori ad indicare la loro indipendenza e per distinguerli da un Francesco Peducci individuato come garzone di anni quindici (e solo nel 1668 promosso scultore), e da altri apprendisti quali Mechel Angelo Marcello (o Maruello, il cui nome compare solo nell’anno 1664), Stefano Frigoni e Antonio Lanzi, che compaiono, invece, rispettivamente nel 1666 e nel 1667.16 Nell’anno 1662, la sua firma appare per la prima volta nell’Accademia di San Luca. 17 Il 17 dicembre di quell’anno entra nel Pio Sodalizio dei Virtuosi al Pantheon. In questo caso notiamo che la proposta del suo ingresso viene presentata pochi giorni prima – l’8 di dicembre di quell’anno – da Giovan Battista Passeri, Mattia Preti e Domenico Rainaldi mentre normalmente si aspettavano due se non più congregazioni prima dell’effettivo ingresso.18 Ancora: in un registro di allievi dell’Accademia di San Luca, datato gennaio 1664, compare la fir ma di Pietro Passaleo scultore allievo di Melchiorre Cafà. Firma che sicuramente equivale a quella dello scultore siciliano Pietro Papaleo (Palermo 1642- Roma 1718).19 Un’indicazione importante sia perché rende giustizia al Cafà facendone un maestro, come del resto acutamente sottolineato già dal Pascoli che, a 36

proposito di Giuseppe Mazzuoli, affidato dal Ferrata alle esclusive cure del Cafà, aveva scritto: acciò gli avesse di continuo gli occhi addosso, e lo facesse continuamente applicare;20 sia perché fornisce un indizio per una continuità stilistica ancora da approfondire. E solo per inciso si ricorda che potrebbe esserci stata una iniziale, diretta, partecipazione del Papaleo all’impegno per portare a termine la programmata decorazione scultorea nel coro della concattedrale di San Giovanni a La Valletta, bruscamente interrotta in seguito alla morte di Cafà. Ipotesi che potrebbe essere avvalorata dalla notizia riportata nell’inventario di morte del Papaleo dove risultava Un Modelletto d’altare che si fece (per) la Tribuna di Malta e che dovrebbe rispecchiare uno dei progetti presentati entro la fine del 1695 in relazione al concorso concluso ufficialmente il 17 dicembre di quell’anno. Come si sa il lavoro fu successivamente portato a termine da Giuseppe Mazzuoli.21 Continuando a percorrere la folgorante carriera del maltese, nel 1665 lo troviamo coinvolto nella scuola del nudo dove acconcia il panno del modello: vale a dire che è implicato nella didattica dell’Accademia. Altra sorpresa offerta dai documenti per questi primi anni romani che giova alla ricostruzione della biografia dello scultore , sono i conti di Cristina di Svezia i quali attestano che nel 16621663 furono pagati a Melchior Cafà diversi scudi per modelli in creta e disegni. 22 Un tentativo di aggiudicarsi i servizi, a tutt’oggi sconosciuti, del giovane maltese e che vanno interpretati come un riconoscimento della sua notevole personalità artistica. Si tratta di notizie che vanno non solo connesse perché trasmesse in un contesto culturale e sociale specifico (bottega- Accademiamercato). Ma anche perché spie di un successo e di una riconosciuta dignità di

cui Cafà gode già all’epoca, cioè poco più di due anni dall’arrivo a Roma. La sua notorietà continua negli anni successivi ed in una lettera inviata il 25 maggio 1665, l’ambasciatore dell’Ordine di Malta scrive al Gran Maestro rivelando che essendomi stata data notitia che il Bernini si è sentito più volte a dire che un certo Giovane Maltese lo havrebbe passato nel mestiere per haver mostrato gran giudizio et attività in molti lavori da lui fatti. Un giudizio che riconosce la posizione di preminenza di Cafà nell’ambiente berniniano.23 Il successo viene definitivamente sottolineato nel 1667 con la proposta, da parte dell’Accademia di San Luca, di ricoprire la carica di principe. Quattro i papabili in ordine di chiamata: Pietro da Cortona, Ercole Ferrata, Melchiorre Cafà e Orfeo Boselli. I primi tre rifiutano – Ferrata e Cafà nello stesso 1° gennaio 1667 (data formale della rinuncia, che materialmente avviene invece nel dicembre del 1666). Orfeo Boselli viene nominato il 9 gennaio di quello stesso anno mentre il segretario designato è Giovan Pietro Bellori. 24 Pur costretto a pagare una multa di quindici scudi per non aver accettato la nomina – e questo avviene nell’agosto del 1667 – Cafà ottiene la carica, lo stesso 9 gennaio, di stimatore di scultura insieme al Ferrata. 25 Vale a dire che gli viene riconosciuto un incarico “tecnico” di grande importanza se si pensa che lo “stimatore” partecipava a tutte le liti, i processi, i contrasti economici per i pagamenti e stilava le perizie confermando o meno i valori delle opere. Non sappiamo quando e cosa Cafà abbia potuto stimare. Ma un esempio chiarisce questa attività: il 19 agosto 1669 Ferrata e Fancelli vengono chiamati per stimare la robba del maltese. 26 Cafà, come detto, muore nel 1667 e da questo momento assistiamo con evidenza al fatto che il suo nome viene

lentamente lasciato in disparte dalla letteratura artistica. Sfortuna nel XVII secolo Nel 1673 compare la Pinacotheca sive Romana Pictura et Sculptura, libri duo del padre teatino Giuseppe Silos il quale compone un epigramma per ciascuna delle quattro pale marmoree della chiesa di Sant’Agnese a Piazza Navona. Per la pala dedicata al Martirio di Sant’Eustachio il Silos, cui preme soprattutto sottolineare i valori pietistici e devozionali della storia rappresentata, non ricorda il nome dello scultore pur usando termini altamente elogiativi per l’opera: (…) Il marmo, che una mano operosa scolpì, rappresenta questa scena in modo egregio e l’arte ingegnosa muta le vicende…; (…) Potresti credere che Eustachio abbia aggiunto forte durezza alla dura pietra. E che il solido marmo abbia assorbito la forza dell’insigne atleta e del forte duce.27 Rimasto fuori dalle biografie tracciate da Giovan Battista Passeri, 28 ignorato da Giovan Battista Mola il quale ritiene, nel 1663, che la cappella (della chiesa di Sant’Agostino) ornata novam.te de marmi bianchi a man sinistra è disegno del d.o Bernino,29 e da Fioravante Martinelli nella sua basilare Roma ornata dall’Architettura, Pittura e Scoltura, redatta tra il 1660 e il 1663 dove invece l’entourage berniniano è menzionato per molte opere significative, 30 lo scultore viene ricordato solo da Filippo Titi nello Studio di Pittura, edizione del 1674, per Sant’Agnese a piazza Navona, Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli, Santa Maria in Campitelli – queste ultime due attribuite anche come progetti. 31 E un accenno alle sue sculture ritorna, certo a seguito del Titi, nella Description de Rome moderne, una guida manoscritta databile tra il 1677 e il 1681, di autore anonimo, probabilmente un viaggiatore francese, rigorosamente classicista. 32 37

Fig. 48. Filippo Baldinucci, Notizie dè Professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, Florence, 1728

Forse per questo motivo il giudizio che viene rivolto all’insieme dei pochi complessi dove opera Cafà è carico di critica. Un breve esempio riguarda l’interno della chiesa di Sant’Agnese in Agone: All’interno è tutta ricoperta di mar mi, i cui bassorilievi sono così grandi che in certo qual modo la loro ricchezza fa dimenticare la loro bellezza. E Cafà non è citato nemmeno nelle opere dei poeti accademici: l’Estasi di Santa Caterina da Siena viene direttamente inserita nell’elenco delle sculture berniniane da parte di Gabriello Baba che, nel 1678, scrive un elogio delle opere di Gian Lorenzo. 33 Letteratura erudita del secolo XVIII Nell’Abecedario Pittorico dell’Orlandi solo poche righe sono dedicate al Cafà e, dato il carattere dell’opera, non potremmo aspettarci di più.34 L’autore aggiunge erroneamente, al brevissimo catalogo dello scultore, l’informazione che Cafà morì a Roma lavorando il San Tommaso in san Agostino che poi fu finito da Ercole Ferrata. Tra il 1718 e il 1720 escono le Vite di Pittori, Scultori et Architetti di Nicola Pio. 35 Nella sua brevità e stringatezza, Pio sottolinea l’appartenenza di Cafà alla scuola di Bernini aggiungendo che l’allievo divenne quasi competitore del maestro. Significativa è anche la notizia che fu gran disegnatore et imitatore del suo famoso maestro. Le informazioni più articolate su Cafà partono da Filippo Baldinucci nelle sue Notizie dè Professori del disegno: (Fig. 48) che non gli dedica, però, un’intera Vita m a so lo u na b reve biografia inserita in quella di Ercole Ferrata, là dove vengono elencati i migliori allievi del comasco. La prima edizione è del 1728, posteriore alla morte dell’autore avvenuta nel 1696.

Fig. 48

Baldinucci scrive: Il primo fu Melchior Cafà Maltese, che riuscì insigne modellatore: ed oltre all’aver ajutato al maestro, condusse molte opere lodatissime… E dopo aver citato le sculture principali: una Santa Caterina da Siena, con tutto rilievo, per la Chiesa di Santa Caterina di Monte Magnanapoli; la statua di San Tommaso di Villanuova, che è in Santo Agostino, la quale alla morte dell’artefice rimase imperfetta, e dal Ferrata fu finita; il Santo Eustachio, cò figliuoli dati in preda à leoni, per la Chiesa di S. Agnesa, finiti pure dal maestro, avendo il Cafà fatti tutti i modelli, e ter minata di tutto punto la statua del santo; ma più che ogni altra bella sua opera fu stimata la statua della santa Rosa, che fu mandata nella città di Lima nel Perù, patria della Santa. Viag giò a Malta, chiamato dal passato Gran Maestro, per ricever gli ordini per fare il Battesimo di Gesù Cristo, dico la figura del Signore e di San Giovambatista, di tutto rilievo, per poi far l’opera in Roma; ma dopo averne condotti i modelli in piccolo ed in grande, finì di vivere: e fino a quest’anno veggonsi gl’istessi modelli nella Fonderia di San Pietro. Restò ancora alla sua morte un bel modello del ritratto di Alessandro VII che era servito per getto in metallo, che rimase in

Fig. 49

casa Chigi, del quale modello dicesi essersene dipoi for mati e gettati molti altri. Baldinucci continua dicendo: Conciofossecosachè fosse costante opinione degli ottimi professori che egli modellasse al pari dell’Algardi ed in alcune cose forse meglio. Fu nell’inventare e disegnare bravissimo; ma nel lavorare il mar mo, ebbe talvolta bisogno dell’assistenza del maestro, perché pel grande spirito, col quale operava, avrebbe voluto il tutto finire in un sol colpo, onde avea bisogno di qualche ritegno per non errare. Ha inizio da qui la tradizione della sua grande abilità tecnica, rivelata in un giudizio che non nasconde il dolore per la morte prematura: Se guì la morte di questo valente giovane nella sua età di trent’anni in circa. A ruota, negli anni ’30 del ’700, risale la Vita che gli dedica Lione Pascoli (Figs 49-50), arricchita da osservazioni puntuali e personali: potremmo dire ‘una piccola monografia’ con tanto di descrizione del carattere meditativo, sensibile, d’umore melanconico e nell’inventare e nell’abbozzare pieno d’estro e di vivo fuoco:37 (…) Poco ebbe a faticar con lui il maestro (Ferrata); perché era

tale, e tanta l’abilità sua, e l’apertura di sua mente, che appena aveva veduta fare una cosa, che così bene l’apprendeva, che avrebbe potuto insegnarla agli altri. Ricordate le opere dello scultore con l’aggiunta dei disegni per alcuni altari . Fecene uno per S.Maria in Campitelli, ed un altro per S. Caterina da Siena; ampliando le schematiche notizie offertegli dal Baldinucci, Pascoli ritorna sulla grande abilità nel disegnare: (…) Dise gnò perciò eccellentemente, ed eccellentemente altresì imitò il naturale; ed era solito dire, che non poteva mai tanto disegnare, che disegnar si potesse abbastanza. Due piccole precisazioni, a questo proposito. La prima riguarda il fatto che Cafà, quindi, si esercitava attraverso studi dal vero. E questo ‘naturalismo’, q u e s t a s p o n t a n e i t à l a r i t rov i a m o proprio nella terracotta raffigurante La Carità di S. Tommaso di Villanova (La Valletta. Museo), nel brano della figuretta della bambina con le braccia aperte verso il Santo: esempio unico nella scultura dell’epoca, al punto da anticipare, come giustamente suggerito dalla Nava Cellini, il naturalismo ottocentesco. Monumentale, invece, la donna che sorregge un bambino mentre il secondo le si affianca nella versione in marmo realizzata dal Ferrata a seguito della morte del maltese. Seconda precisazione: è significativo che il XVIII secolo sia proprio quello in cui viene sottolineata la dote di vivacità e raffinatezza perchè gli sviluppi settecenteschi dello stile “barocco” risentiranno dei suoi esiti innovativi. 38 L’osservazione del Pascoli circa la grande abilità di disegnare è ancora più importante se si pensa che di Cafà non si conosce alcun dipinto autografo, anche se nel ritratto della collezione di Niccolò Pio, oggi conservato al Nationalmuseum d i S t o c c o l m a , è r i c o rd at o a n ch e come Pictor. I disegni attribuiti sono attualmente un numero ridotto ma sappiamo che venivano raccolti dai

Fig. 49. Lione Pascoli, Vite dè Pittori, Scultori ed Architetti moderni, vol. I, Rome, 1730

La mancanza di memoria del XIX secolo e la fortuna nelle botteghe

Fig. 50

Fig. 50. Lione Pascoli, Vite dè Pittori, Scultori ed Architetti moderni, vol. I, Rome, 1730. Di Melchior Cafà

suoi contemporanei come dimostrato dall’inventario dei beni del Ferrata, dove è registrato un foglio del maltese.39 E oggi si può certamente sciogliere il dubbio se sia da identificare con il nostro scultore, quel “Micael Angelo Maltese” autore di decorazioni prospettiche sulla facciata di San Giacomo degli Spagnoli per i festeggiamenti per Filippo IV nel 1665. 40 A conferma, però, di questo interesse per la pittura, Pascoli ci ricorda che ebbe stretta amicizia con molti bravi professori, e spezialmente col pittore Baciccio, che teneramente l’amava. La disamina dei comportamenti espressi dalla letteratura artistica sei-settecentesca nei confronti della scultura del maltese finisce qui.

Bisognerà aspettare quasi un secolo per trovare ancora notizie, anche se appena accennate, sul nostro scultore: prima con D. Pietro Zani, nel 1820, che riporta però solo le date di nascita (1635) e di morte (1680);41 poi con Melchiorre Missirini nel 1823;42 (Fig. 51) e, a seguire, con Stefano Ticozzi nel suo Dizionario degli architetti, pittori, scultori del 1830 il quale rileva lo straordinario ingegno di questo giovane scultore con aggiunta una precisazione sui suoi maestri: scorgono gli intelligenti nella produzione del Cafà lo stile del Ferrata suo maestro che partecipa di quelli del Bernini e dell’Algardi”.43 Nel 1853 il Mariette riporta le qualifiche di ‘scultore, pittore ed architetto’ sotto il ritratto, già appartenuto a Niccolò Pio.44 Va a questo punto aperta una breve parentesi. Se la letteratura dimentica Cafà, la sua fortuna continua in altra sede: nelle botteghe degli artisti e nella raccolta dell’abate veneziano Filippo Farsetti, il cui inventario a stampa venne edito intorno al 1788. 45 I suoi bozzetti di terra o di cera sembrano essere stati assai ricercati non solo in quanto fonte di molteplici spunti quanto per la qualità del modellato come fanno fede le poche opere superstiti a lui direttamente riferite. Gli inventari post mortem di alcuni artisti rivelano un patrimonio a volte rilevante di modelli collezionati nelle botteghe, indice questo dell’apprezzamento delle piccole opere. Libere da vincoli del fidecommisso, queste collezioni venivano immediatamente immesse sul mercato ed oggi soltanto gli inventari ce ne restituiscono la consistenza. Nella casa - bottega del Ferrata erano rimasti molti pezzi appartenuti al maltese come dimostra il suo inventario , datato luglio 1686: 46 vi risultano ventiquattro tra bassorilievi e figure, comprese

alcune cere, di Melchiorre. E per l’apprezzamento che Ferrata rivolgeva alle terrecotte di Cafà, bisogna rivolgersi anche al passo del contratto stipulato nel 1669 dal comasco con Giovan Battista Pamphilj per il completamento della pala del Martirio di Sant’Eustachio, lasciata incompiuta alla morte del Cafà nel 1667, nel quale il Ferrata chiede al committente di poter trattenere (…) li modelli che lui dice trovarsi in sua casa per detta opera.47 La diaspora dello studio del Ferrata è di poco successiva alla morte del suo proprietario48 e diversi modelli o gessi approdano presso altri scultori: nell’ inventario dei beni di Pietro Papaleo (1718) compare una Venerina di Melchior Cafà. 49 Nel 1766, nella Descrizione ed Inventario delli Gessi, Legname ed altro ad uso di Scultore, di proprietà di Innocenzo Spinazzi e ceduti a Gioacchino Falcioni, compaiono Un Bassorilievo rap.e S Eustachio trà leoni di Melchiorre Maltese e Una figurina di gesso di Melchiorre. 50 Ed ancora: nell’inventario dei beni dello scultore Andrea Bergondi, stilato nel marzo del 1789 da Vincenzo Pacetti e Carlo Albacini, compaiono: un bassorilievo attaccato al muro del Melchiorre Maltese; un bassorilievo rap.e il Presepe del Melchiorre (citato anche nell’inventario del Ferrata); diversi bassorilievi in cera numero di dieci al muro di Melchiorre. 51 Vivo apprezzamento per i suoi modelli era certo espresso dallo scultore restauratore Francesco Antonio Fontana (1641-1700) nel cui studio si trovavano una sezione di studio del bassorilievo con Storia del martirio di sant’Eustachio per l’altare di sant’Agnese in Agone (1659-60) e un modellino per un Angelo dell’altare di san Tommaso di Villanova in Sant’ Agostino (1661-63). 52 Ed è significativa anche la Nota distinta ed altre collezioni del Cav. Bartolomeo Cavaceppi colli prezzi distinti che si pratticano ordinariamente in oggi fra negozianti: una lista di modelli in creta messi in vendita intorno al 1770 dal

famoso scultore - restauratore , dove ritornano: un bassorilievo di S.Eustachio che l’opera stà a santa Agnese, (modello che proviene dallo studio di Ercole Ferrata); 53 e il bassorilievo rappresentante il Presepio.54 Ricordiamo infine i numerosi modelli e bozzetti dello scultore maltese, solo in parte conservati nel Museo dell’ Ermitage di San Pietroburgo, e citati nell’Inventario a stampa della collezione veneziana dell’abate Filippo Farsetti. 55 La letteratura del novecento e dei nostri giorni Dopo il lungo periodo di scarsa notorietà, dobbiamo arrivare al 1911 quando troviamo l’importante appunto storico del Pollak che riaccende l’interesse sull’opera di Cafà.56 E in quello stesso anno il bozzetto per il Sant’Eustachio, oggi nel Museo di Palazzo Venezia, viene esposto alla mostra Retrospettiva di Castel sant’Angelo insieme con il bozzetto raffigurante la Santa Rosa da Lima allora creduto uno studio autografo del Bernini per l’Estasi di Santa Teresa.57 Nel Fig. 51. Melchiorre Missirini, Memorie per servire alla storia della Romana Accademia di San Luca, Rome, 1823

Fig. 51

1923-24 compare l’opera del Brinckmann in quattro volumi e nella quale vengono pubblicati alcuni bozzetti del Cafà, con attribuzione al Ferrata;58 mentre il primo studioso italiano ad occuparsi del maltese è Ozzola che pubblica un breve articolo sul Battesimo di Cristo a Malta, riferendogli anche il modello con uguale soggetto conservato in Vaticano.59 A questo articolo fa seguito Rudolph Wittkower che nel 1928-29 si rivolge nuovamente alla terracotta dei Musei vaticani e ad un certo numero di bronzi da questa derivati. 60 In termini più generali bisogna sottolineare che inizia con questo studioso l’interesse del mondo anglosassone per l’arte del Seicento e la scultura in particolare. Partendo dal testo del Baldinucci e passando per il Pascoli che, a proposito dell’incarico offertogli per il gruppo del Battesimo nella cattedrale maltese, scrive: tornò tosto a Roma per dar principio al lavoro; e subito arrivatovi vi mise mano. Stette continuamente applicato intorno à modelli, e condotti gli avea in piccolo, e in grande, e per maggior comodo ito era a lavorarli nella fonderia della Camera a Belvedere,61 Wittkower avanza l’attribuzione della terracotta al Cafà, certo suggestionato dalla notizia che i modelli si sarebbero trovati nella fonderia del Vaticano e basandosi anche su rapporti stilistici con le poche opere certe: l’Estasi di Santa Caterina e la Carità di San Tommaso da Villanova. Nel 1942 è la volta del Riccoboni che scrive nella sua importante opera Roma nell’arte l’elenco delle opere dello scultore assegnandogli tra l’altro la Gloria di Angeli di Santa Maria in Campitelli secondo l’attribuzione dichiarata a metà ‘700 da Carlantonio Erra.62 Nel 1947 è John Fleming ad occuparsi del maltese; e a lui va il merito di un commento attento sulle poche sculture monumentali e della pubblicazione della Santa Rosa da Lima, ora nella chiesa di San Domenico della città peruviana, con la citazione di notizie interessanti sulla sua commissione e sul 42

suo arrivo al porto di Callao, nel 1670.63 Il Fleming ne riporta anche la firma e la data (Melchor Cafà- malitenses- faciebat Roma A.de. 1669). Datazione che però ha generato dubbi e perplessità tra gli studiosi che avevano dovuto ammettere l’intervento del Ferrata e aiuti nel portare a compimento l’opera. L’articolo del Fleming è significativo però perché lo studioso ha posto in rilievo il carattere più berniniano – nell’impostazione spaziale trasversa e nella consistenza pittorica che ferratesco del maltese, giustificando tale carattere come assimilato attraverso i rapporti con il Baciccio. Questa impostazione viene però messa in discussione, nel 1956, da Antonia Nava Cellini, la quale la considera insufficiente a caratterizzare da sola il significato proprio dell’opera di Cafà nell’ottica più generale della scultura seicentesca. La studiosa ha quindi cercato di rilevarne la specifica singolarità.64 Partendo dall’ attribuzione dell’altare maggiore di Santa Maria in Campitelli, consacrato nel 1667, la Nava Cellini nota come l’accordarsi delle forme scultoree con l’architettura sia un motivo di origine berniniano, non plagiato e ripreso con un effetto meno spazialmente complesso . L’intima funzionalità con la struttura architettonica ritorna nella Santa Caterina da Siena; mentre l’ispirazione berniniana viene sottolineata nella Santa Rosa da Lima. E proprio sulla Santa Caterina il commento della Nava è particolarmente acuto: E’ evidente – scrive – che lo sfondo è ispirato a quelli dei rilievi sulle Logge delle Reliquie in San Pietro e che alcuni formalismi nelle figure e nei panneggi hanno precedenti ovvii nel Bernini. Ma altro e proprio è il sentimento che si esprime nella forma allungata e patetica della Santa Caterina, involta nel panneggio ricco di ritmi circolari e vibranti, nella sottile “correggesca” luminosità degli sfumati e dei lustri, nello stacco risentito dei chiaroscuri entro le singole asole delle pieghe, nell’affiorante

ruotare della composizione su un piano di colore, che divaria dal cupo lapislazzulo alle striature più leggere dell’alabastro … L’attento esame delle opere del Cafà, la porta a suggerire future linee per lo studio del maltese: studio che, partendo dall’ inventario del Ferrata con la ricerca dei disegni, delle cere e dei modelli noti o ancora sconosciuti e la definizione, nel medesimo tempo, della personalità dello stesso Ferrata, avrebbe potuto chiarire la distinzione di meriti tra i due permettendo di vedere più chiaramente all’inter no della scultura romana della fine del Seicento. L’importanza dell’articolo della Nava Cellini consiste ancora oggi anche negli spunti di studio relativi alla fortuna artistica del Cafà: per esempio, l’influenza romana nell’ambiente genovese. Non viene infatti trascurata la parentela tra la Santa Marta del Parodi nella omonima chiesa di Genova ed il rilievo di Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli.65 Un anno dopo questo stimolante contributo, esce l’articolo del Sammut che riassume la discussione in corso, ripercorre la produzione artistica inserendo le due sculture lignee di San Paolo per La Valletta e la Vergine del Rosario per Rabat (1659 e 1661); e si concentra sulla commissione per la decorazione in bronzo dell’altare maggiore della cattedrale di San Giovanni, progetto pensato nel 1664 e che vede coinvolto il Cafà per gli anni successivi. L’autore ricorda bozzetti e bronzetti preparati dallo scultore al suo ritorno a Roma dopo la visita a Malta del 1666 dicendo che la migliore delle diverse fusioni è quella oggi conservata nell’ospedale di Pirano. Fondamentale però è l’apporto delle lettere e dei documenti pubblicati, provenienti dall’Archivio dell’Ordine di Malta tra il 1665 e il 1667.66 Al 1958 risale la prima edizione del testo di Rudolf Wittkower.67 Lo studioso ricostruisce la vita e la sequenza delle

opere e offre un giudizio sintetico ma stimolante sia sulla Santa Caterina che sul San Tommaso, evidenziando come, pur risentendo degli stilemi berniniani, la nuova generazione di scultori fosse libera di usare proprio quelle formule artistiche che Bernini aveva inventato: il bel composto, la figura in azione, l’influenza della pittura sulla scultura. Sempre nel 1958 esce in Italia un piccolo ma prezioso testo a cura di Italo Faldi: La scultura barocca in Italia.68 Il contributo stimolante dello studioso consiste anche nell’avvertenza che la classificazione, comunemente operata, in ranghi divisi di berniniani e di algardiani per inquadrare gli scultori succeduti a quei grandi maestri debba considerarsi esteriore e convenzionale valendo, al più, come generalizzazione didattica. E questo perché può presentarsi il rischio di sottolineare una incomunicabilità tra l’uno e l’altro schieramento, mentre si verificò proprio il fenomeno contrario di continui passaggi, e commistioni senza, per altro, che artisti di personalità come il maltese perdessero la propria, personale, caratterizzazione. Lo stesso concetto viene ribadito da Rudolf Wittkower in un articolo apparso nel 1959 (Fig. 52) per introdurre il busto di Alessandro VII, un bronzo fir mato, acquisito dal Metropolitan Museum, 69 fuso da Giovanni Artusi e di cui possediamo anche un primo bronzo sulla porta d’ingresso della sala capitolare del Duomo di Siena e il modello in argilla nel palazzo Chigi ad Ariccia, entrambi citati da Vincenzo Golzio e da Valentino Martinelli. 70 Lo studioso sottolinea che si tratta di uno dei più importanti ritratti bronzei dei Seicento e che, nella resa di una introspezione allucinata e caricata, sembra rasentare le più alte esecuzioni berniniane. Cafà ha ritratto Alessandro VII nella spettrale magrezza dovuta alla malattia che segna il volto del pontefice e che lo condurrà presto alla 43

Fig. 52

Fig. 52. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, April 1959

morte. Il bronzo è firmato Melchior Cafa, melitensis Fac. An. Dom. 1667. Wittkower dava per certo che l’iscrizione non comparisse né nel bronzo senese né sulla terracotta: e così arrivò alla conclusione che il busto del Metropolitan e quello di Siena dovevano derivare da due diversi prototipi. Un anno dopo (1960) tocca di nuovo al Sammut ritornare su problema Cafà a Malta: in questo caso prendendo spunto da un bronzetto raffigurante il Battesimo conservato nella sacrestia della chiesa di santa Caterina a Zeitun.71 Nel 1964 esce un testo estremamente importante di Ljobov’ja Latt, in russo che ripercorre tutta l’opera del Cafà e presenta, per la prima volta criticamente, le terrecotte della collezione Farsetti dell’Ermitage con l’apporto delle prime

immagini fotografiche di quei modelli fino a quell momento ignote (cfr. nota 63). A questo studio si devono anche l’attribuzione della Carità di Berlino e la riconferma dell’attribuzione del San Giovanni Battista del Museo di Palazzo Venezia. E nel 1969 è la volta di Rudolf Preimesberger che riferisce in un dotto articolo il bozzetto della Santa Rosa da Lima del Museo di Palazzo Venezia al Cafà.72 L’ attribuzione di quest’opera, che era stata considerata, come abbiamo visto in precedenza, un bozzetto del Bernini per la statua della beata Ludovica Albertoni, venne accolta da tutti gli studiosi dello scultore maltese: Preimesberger si era fatto forte del fatto che anche nel bozzetto, prima idea del gruppo, era prevista la presenza dell’angelo del quale rimane appena accennata una gamba, in parte cancellata, dietro la santa. Bisogna aspettare però gli anni ’70 perché gli studi su Cafà diventino sempre più approfonditi e specialistici. R i c o rd i a m o l o s t u d i o d i Je n n i f e r Montagu sul gruppo del Battesimo: 73 la studiosa, tra i maggiori specialisti della scultura barocca romana, ritorna sull’attribuzione al Cafà avanzata dal Wittkower (1928) per il modello in terracotta conservato nel Museo Sacro Vaticano, confutandola. Oggetto dell’approfondito articolo era di rivedere quell’attribuzione, di verificare la correttezza delle ipotesi e di proporre Alessandro Algardi come autore più ve ro s i m i l e. M a n c a n d o d o c u m e n t i d’archivio sul modo nel quale Cafà avrebbe potuto impostare il tema della grande commissione del 1666 per la cattedrale di San Giovanni, l’analisi si muove tutta sul campo stilistico, utilizzando gli stessi esempi comparativi del Wittkower ma letti in altro modo. Smontata l’attribuzione al Cafà, partendo da una frase del Bellori che ricorda un gruppo in argento con il Cristo e San Giovanni Battista eseguito

per il pontefice Pamphilj e creati gli agganci stilistici con altre opere certe, la studiosa arriva a proporre l’attribuzione ad Algardi sia per la terracotta del Vaticano che per il Cristo del Museo de La Valletta. Nel 1973 Rudolf Preimesberger pubblica sul Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani la voce sullo scultore.74 Lo studioso ripercorre le fonti e le attribuzioni e ricostruisce i diversi progetti. Si tratta di un lavoro fondamentale ed è una svolta negli studi sul maltes in quanto lo studioso è il primo a considerare la personalità e l’opera dell’artista nella sua interezza e complessità. Per inciso, a lui si deve anche l’ipotesi di collegare la realizzazione dei rilievi laterali del presbiterio della chiesa di Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli, eseguiti da Pietro Bracci nel 1775 (Santa Rosa da Lima che adora il Bambino e Santa Agnese da Montepulciano) a quei rilievi in cera presenti nell’inventario dei beni di Ferrata. Supponendo così la lunga fortuna di quei disegni o modelli capaci di trasmettere ancora, dopo quasi un secolo, spunti di riflessione artistica. Qualche anno dopo esce ancora un suo studio critico, questa volta in coppia con Marc Weil (1975) per la storia dell’altare di San Tommaso di Villanova in Sant’Agostino con la pubblicazione di tutti i documenti d’archivio relativi.75 Lo scritto mette in evidenza anche il ferreo controllo esercitato da Camillo Pamphilj sui progetti scultorei del Ferrata e del Cafà. A seguire, è la volta del catalogo dello Staatliche Museum di Berlino, relativo alla scultura del XVII e XVIII secolo curato da Ursula Schlegel (1978), la studiosa che ha anche contribuito ad incrementare la collezione di scultura barocca romana di quel museo. Tre i modelli attribuiti al Cafà, - la Carità per l’altare di San Tommaso , forse quello citato nell’inventario dello studio di Ferrata; un bozzetto preparatorio in

terracotta per la statua lignea della Madonna del Rosario oggi nella chiesa di San Domenico a Rabat, spedita da Roma a Malta nel 1661; una Gloria, probabile modello, secondo la studiosa, della Gloria per Santa Maria in Campitelli. Opere descritte in modo impeccabile anche se , nel tempo, una di queste attribuzioni non ha retto al confronto. 76 Nel 1981 esce su Paragone77 il contributo di Daniela Jemma dal sintetico ma significativo titolo Inediti e documenti di Melchiorre Cafà che porta alla luce l’esplorazione a Malta di archivi e collezioni rettificando in primis l’anno di nascita e arricchendo l’esiguo corpus dello scultore . La studiosa ha avuto, infatti, l’opportunità di rintracciare in una collezione privata un bozzetto preparatorio in terracotta per la statua processionale in legno policromo di San Paolo naufrago nella chiesa di San Paolo a La Valletta. Nel 1984, sulla stessa rivista, esce l’articolo di Jennifer Montagu dedicata ai disegni con la deprimente considerazione che solo cinque gli potevano essere attribuiti e delle due incisioni a lui riferite, una era stata spostata ad altro artista. 78 E questo in controtendenza a quanto riferito dal Pascoli e qualora adoperar non poteva lo scarpello prendeva il matitatojo e disegnava. Nell’articolo viene affrontato tra gli altri il problema di un gruppo di disegni conservati al Museum der bildenden Kunste di Lipsia eseguiti, secondo la studiosa, da uno degli scultori presenti nello studio di Ercole Ferrata. Disegni probabilmente eseguiti dal vero su terrecotte e cere di mano del maltese: per alcuni dei quali si potrebbe pensare a copie degli angeli sopra l’altare di San Tommaso da Villanova in Sant’Agostino. L’ipotesi che i disegni potessero essere eseguiti da bozzetti e modelli in piccolo, piuttosto che dalla versione in marmo viene ripresa ed ampliata nel testo sulla professione 45

dello scultore, scritto dalla Montagu nel 198979 e che prende in considerazione tutti i principali problemi inerenti a quel tipo di arte. Grazie a questo testo Cafà non è più studiato in maniera isolata ma entra nel coro della grande produzione seicentesca , a dimostrazione che il culto della personalità , nel caso del Barocco che vede il trionfo del cantiere, può rivelarsi approssimativo. Nel 1988 era nel frattempo uscito un accurato studio inedito di Gerhard Schuster (poi Bissell) sull’altare della chiesa di Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli.80 Lo studioso è anche autore, nel 1997, della completa e problematica voce Cafà per il SAUR ,81 dove, tra le altre notizie, riporta la scritta incisa sul retro della statua di Santa Rosa, attenendosi ad una prudente trascrizione e non entrando in merito all’affermazione di Pinilla che vi avrebbe letto la data precisa 1665 e le lettere f.d. .82 Inoltre, riflettendo su tutte le opere mano a mano citate, Bissel inserisce, pur nell’ inevitabile linguaggio sintetico del dizionario, aggiunte importanti come la terracotta oggi conservata al Fogg Museum of Art di Cambridge, Massachusetts, raffigurante la Vergine con Bambino tra le nubi, collegandola ai disegni, alle incisioni, ai rilievi e modelli elaborati dal maestro maltese sul tema della Madonna e Santa Rosa . Nel testo viene sottolineato come la fortuna stilistica del Cafà continui con la Gloria di san Luigi Gonzaga di Pierre Le Gros (Roma, chiesa di Sant’Ignazio, 169899); e con la Santa Rosa con la Vergine e il Bambino di Bernardino Cametti (Superga, Torino, 1729). Fino a questo scorcio degli anni ‘80 sembra che siano stati pochi gli studiosi che si sono occupati di Cafà. Ma dopo le aperture degli esperti sopra indicati, la ricerca documentaria riparte grazie all’entusiasmo di una nuova generazione di ricercatori. Tra il 1984 e il 1994 gli studi sullo scultore 46

tornano in mani romane, grazie ai cataloghi di alcune mostre che hanno costituito delle tappe nella ricerca su singole personalità. Nel 1984, Elena Di Gioia, pubblica un frammento, già nella casa e studio di Francesco Antonio Fontana.83 Meglio dovremmo chiamare l’opera una sezione parziale per la zona inferiore a sinistra del Martirio di Sant’Eustachio, più sviluppata rispetto a quella che figura nel bozzetto del Museo di Palazzo Venezia e poi ulteriormente modificata nella redazione finale eseguita da Ercole Ferrata. 84 Nel 198685 la studiosa ritorna ad occuparsi del maltese pubblicando il modello di un Angelo reclinato su un semi-timpano triangolare: forse, come indicato dalle caratteristiche tecniche, uno studio per l’esecuzione dell’angelo del semitimpano di sinistra dell’altare di San Tommaso di Villanova. Risale a questi stessi anni il ritrovamento nei depositi del Museo di Castel Sant’Angelo, da parte di Bruno Contardi, della terracotta o meglio di una sezione di studio per il Martirio di sant’Eustachio,86 raffigurante un particolare della zona laterale destra del bassorilievo. Con l’aiuto di una fotografia datata 1981, lo studioso ha riconosciuto una parte di leone accucciato con il muso rivolto verso lo spettatore ed il profilo completo del leone ammansito che lambisce con la lingua i piedi del Santo. Si scorge anche un frammento del panneggio svolazzante di uno dei personaggi che affiancano Eustachio. L’opera conferma, nella sua alta qualità, la passione per il naturale dichiarato dal Pascoli; ed è stato giustamente messo in relazione con altre due sezioni non di mano autografa del maestro: quella raffigurante Sant’Eustachio, conservato alla Liebieghaus di Frankfurt am Main; e quella del Carnegie Institute of Art di Pittsburgh che raffigura invece il particolare laterale sinistro della pala,

con un giovane inginocchiato alle spalle del quale si intravede un leone (cfr. anche nota 61 di questo testo). Anche chi scrive ha esposto modelli in creta del Cafà e ha ricostruito la breve storia della sua fortuna artistica in due cataloghi datati 1991 e 1994.87 Al 1991 risale l’attribuzione al Cafà di un bozzetto riscoperto da Leandro Ventura. 88 Si tratta, secondo l’autore, di un modello per una Santa Caterina da Siena, 89 in collezione privata. L’ipotesi attributiva è sostenuta da una verifica tipologica con la Santa Caterina in estasi e con il riferimento ad un disegno con Santa in estasi conservato a Darmstadt. Lo studioso ritiene che il bozzetto possa essere ricondotto alle fasi preparatorie del rilievo di Magnanapoli. Posto in parallelo con l’altro - già in collezione Crozat e oggi noto grazie all’incisione ch e n e h a t r at t o S i m o n Fr a n c o i s Ravenet, pubblicata dal Mariette nel 1742 - Ventura propone che il bozzetto potrebbe testimoniare una proposta di Cafà di realizzare un complesso simile a quello della cappella di San Tommaso da Villanova. Si ipotizza la possibilità che il bozzetto possa essere un’idea per una statua a tutto tondo da inserire in una nicchia, facendo così pensare ad una contemporaneità di soluzioni proposte alla decisione della committenza. L’attribuzione del bozzetto è discussa anche in relazione ad opere di analogo soggetto realizzate da Ercole Ferrata negli stessi anni. Nel 1992 vengono esposte, prima a Roma e successivamente a Venezia, le terrecotte della collezione Farsetti, con catalogo a cura di Sergej Androsov.90 Riprendendo le precedenti attribuzioni della Latt, lo studioso presenta quattro modelli : un Leone per il rilievo in marmo del Martirio di Sant’Eustachio; l’Apostolo Andrea e Sant’Andrea da Avellino per la chiesa di Sant’Andrea della Valle; un Angelo da avvicinarsi a quelli per l’altare Pamphilj

della chiesa di Sant’Agostino. Su queste attribuzioni la critica è ancora piuttosto cauta e mentre accetta come autografi i modelli dei due Santi, esclude una diretta responsabilità dello scultore per gli altri modelli. Ma l’opera di Androsov è stata senz’altro meritoria per aver fatto conoscere ‘dal vivo’ le terrecotte Farsetti. Le ultime pubblicazioni relative alle opere del maltese datano alla fine degli anni ’90 . Prima la Scultura del Seicento di Andrea Bacchi (1996)91 con le vite degli scultori puntigliosamente ripercorse e aggiornate; poi il testo di Bruce Boucher, del 1998, estremamente utile, soprattutto dal punto di vista didattico, per i continui confronti e rimandi all’interno della scultura barocca. 92 Nello stesso anno Alessandro Angelini pubblica un testo su Bernini e i Chigi con riferimenti al Cafà per la figura di Alessandro III per il Duomo di Siena, realizzata nel 1667-74 da Melchiorre Cafà ed Ercole Ferrata. Ma soprattutto è Tomaso Montanari nel saggio compreso nel libro, a documentare che Cafà era all’opera per Cristina di Svezia su alcuni modelli di creta e disegni elaborati tra il 1662 e il 1663.93 Sottolineando la parte avuta dall’Azzolini nel processo di beatificazione di Rosa da Lima e forse nella stessa committenza della statua, Montanari ipotizza che alcuni modelli del maltese possano essere messi in relazione con un bassorilievo in argento citato nell’inventario di Cristina. Nel 1999, in occasione di un convegno dedicato al Bernini, Jennifer Montagu ha pubblicato il cosiddetto Fogg Silence,94 una terracotta a suo tempo creduta del maestro. La studiosa ha prima di tutto chiarito che si tratta del bozzetto per la figura in stucco sulla destra in controfacciata della chiesa della Vallicella. Chiarito che gli stucchi della volta erano stati disegnati da Pietro da Cortona e realizzati da Cosimo Fancelli ed Ercole Ferrata in due tempi: quelli 47

verso l’abside tra il 1648 e il 1651; tutti gli altri durante il 1664; e basandosi sulle Notizie dei professori del disegno di Filippo Baldinucci circa l’opera del Ferrata alla Chiesa Nuova, la studiosa suggerisce di attribuire a questo lo stucco e al Cafà la terracotta, caratterizzata da freschezza e velocità di modellato. Per dare più forza a questa proposta, vengono presentati esempi di confronto come il Martirio di Sant’Eustachio di Palazzo Venezia e l’Adorazione dei pastori , attribuita al Cafà ma la cui collocazione è a tutt’oggi ignota. Sempre al 1999 risale l’utile testo di Oreste Ferrari e Serenita Papaldo, punto di riferimento per la scultura del Seicento. 95 Si tratta di un viaggio completo nelle chiese e collezioni romane perché all’impostazione monografica si è preferita una trattazione topografica. C i a s c u n a o p e r a , o l t re a d e s s e re identificata e schedata, è arricchita da una ricca bibliografia che comprende anche le fonti. Al 2000 risale la mostra su papa Alessandro VII Chigi a Siena. L’occasione è importante per presentare, restaurato, il busto del pontefice collocato nella sala capitolare del Duomo di quella città. La scoperta della firma, stampata ‘a freddo’: Melchior Cafà melitensis fac. A.d. 1667 e l’abbinamento con un documento dei conti di Flavio Chigi, ha ribaltato l’ipotesi avanzata nel lontano 1958 dal Wittkower. L’opera viene infatti considerata dalla Butzek come il primo bronzo realizzato dal Cafà per quella committenza.96 In conclusione, non rimane che da citare l’impeccabile testo di Elena Bianca Di Gioia (2002),97 dedicato alla collezione di scultura del Museo di Roma. Nato dal lavoro di catalogazione scientifica delle opere di quel Museo, le opere sono individuate ciascuna da una ricchissima scheda puntuale per informazioni e riferimenti. Di Melchiorre Cafà vengono riprese in considerazione la sezione di studio per la pala del Martirio di sant’Eustachio e l’ Angelo adorante dell’altare 48

di san Tommaso di Villanova. Nel corpus vengono inoltre esaminate: un bronzetto raffigurante Santa Rosa da Lima, riferito ad un ignoto scultore da Cafà; ed una Madonna con il Bambino che appare a Santa Rosa da Lima, un rilievo in marmo attribuibile all’ultimo quarto del XVII secolo. Va n n o , i n f i n e , c i t a t i a l c u n i , recentissimi, contributi : il primo è la corposa scheda di Pietro Cannata nel catalogo relativo alla mostra Visioni ed Estasi tenutasi in Vaticano.98 Lo studioso, ripercorrendo la storia del bozzetto e quella di Santa Rosa da Lima, sottolinea come la terracotta sia precedente al mar mo poiché mostra uno stato di progettazione del gruppo anteriore a quello realizzato. E ricordando come sia stata forte su quest’opera l’influenza della Santa Teresa d’Avila con l’Angelo del Bernini, offre uno spunto per un successivo approfondimento trattandosi di un modulo iconografico di raffigurazione che, iniziato a Roma con la statua della Santa Cecilia del Maderno, nel 1599, arriva fino al Sant’Alessio del Bergondi, cioè alla seconda metà del XVIII secolo. Il secondo contributo, è l’articolo di Alfredo Marchionne Gunter dedicato all’attività di Pietro Papaleo e Francesco Moratti.99 Come suo solito, lo studioso p resenta c o p i o se d o c u m en taz i o n i estremamente chiarificatrici anche nel contesto dell’opera del maltese. Ed infine citiamo il testo di Keith Sciberras dove al maltese viene dedicato un contributo importante sia per le opere presenti a Malta con relativa analisi dei documenti – viene avanzata anche l’attribuzione di una lampada in argento e bronzo dorato per la chiesa di San Paolo a Rabat – sia la collaborazione con Michelangelo Marullo. Si tratta di una importante testimonianza da parte dello studioso maltese verso lo scultore che gran cose avrebbe fatto se morte nimica tolto non l’avesse in età troppo immatura dal mondo. 100

Melchiorre Cafà a Roma tra 1660 e 1667 “Chi non esce talvolta dalla regola non la passa mai”

Elena Bianca Di Gioia

In un passo della biografia di Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Filippo Baldinucci descrive i traguardi raggiunti dall’artista nel campo dell’architettura, della pittura e della scultura, brano che rispecchia verosimilmente l’opinione personale di Bernini sulla propria posizione nella storia delle arti visive: “(...) E’ concetto molto universale ch’egli sia stato il primo, che abbia tentato di unire l’architettura colla scultura e pittura in tal modo, che di tutte si facesse un bel composto; il che egli fece con togliere alcune uniformità odiose di attitudini, rompendole talora senza violare le buone regole, ma senza obbligarsi a regola: ed era suo detto ordinario in tal proposito, che chi non esce talvolta dalla regola non la passa mai; voleva però, che chi non era insieme pittore e scultore, a ciò non si cimentasse, ma si stesse fermo ne’ buoni precetti dell’arte”.1 La frase ha un preciso significato perché vi si afferma che l’artista non aveva semplicemente sperimentato l’impiego magistrale di pittura, scultura e architettura all’interno di uno stesso progetto, ma aveva stabilito tra esse un rapporto che presupponeva una concezione unitaria delle arti visive del tutto innovativa: quella che Domenico Bernini e Baldinucci definiranno, sulla

scorta delle osservazioni dell’artista, il “bel composto” o il “maraviglioso composto” delle arti.2 Come noto, questa nuova concezione delle arti visive non verrà formalizzata da Bernini in via teorica, ma è testimoniata dalle imprese artistiche della sua maturità, lungamente preparate da tutto il complesso dei lavori per la crociera della basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano degli anni 1624-1638 (dal Baldacchino al coordinamento dei lavori per le statue nei pilastri della crociera, alle Logge sovrastanti), dove per la prima volta, come ha osservato Lavin,3 un volume spaziale diviene luogo di un’azione drammatica che coinvolge lo spettatore sia fisicamente che psicologicamente (Figs 53-55). Lo studio della luce e delle fonti luminose, indagate da Bernini fin nei minimi dettagli, è parte fondamentale della strategia del “maravig lioso composto”. Se già nella Santa Bibiana del 1624-1626 (Fig. 56), con l’apertura di una finestra nell’arco sovrastante l’altare aveva determinato un fascio di luce verso cui si indirizza lo sguardo della Santa, saggiando la trasformazione della luce reale in luce trascendentale,4

Fig. 53

Fig. 54

Fig. 53. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Baldacchino, St Peter’s, Vatican City Fig. 54. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Longinus, St Peter’s, Vatican City

Fig. 55. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Loggia of the Relic of Longinus’s Lance, St Peter’s, Vatican City Fig. 55

Fig. 56

Fig. 56. Gianlorenzo Bernini, St Bibiana, Church of St Bibiana, Rome

la prima sperimentazione di un criterio compositivo unitario si avrà nella cappella Raimondi in San Pietro in Montorio, del 1640-1647, dove tutti gli elementi sono coordinati in un unico sistema. 5 Le membrature architettoniche di candido marmo bianco venato sono armonizzate con le tombe sulle pareti laterali e con il grande rilievo marmoreo sull’altare. Quest’ultimo, racchiuso entro una specie di tabernacolo a pianta semicircolare, asseconda con la sua forma concava la curva dell’abside, sottolineando il senso unitario dell’ambiente (Figs. 57-58). Il rilievo con l’Estasi di San Francesco (Fig. 57), ideato da Bernini ed eseguito da Francesco Baratta, è leggermente arretrato all’interno del tabernacolo e prende luce da due finestre laterali nascoste. Come ha osservato Lavin,6 il sensibile aggetto della figura al centro della composizione, intercettando i fasci di luce laterali, crea uno stacco illusorio che fa emergere dal fondo incurvato la visione mistica, accentuando l’effetto di fluttuazione del corpo abbandonato del Santo che, sostenuto dagli Angeli, si libra miracolosamente nell’aria. Bernini prosegue in questa pala marmorea la

sperimentazione iniziata con i rilievi e i tabernacoli concavi nelle nicchiereliquiari delle Logge nei quattro pilastri della basilica vaticana, ma anche in questo caso la struttura del rilievo è intimamente legata alla spazialità architettonica creata dal tabernacolo e dalla nicchia che lo contiene e alle sue calibrate fonti di luce. I vertici del “maraviglioso composto” si raggiungono nella cappella Cornaro in Santa Maria della Vittoria degli anni 1647-1652, dove il gruppo scultoreo della Trasverberazione di Santa Teresa, racchiuso nel tabernacolo dell’altare quasi trasformato in palcoscenico,7 è ambientato in un puro spazio di teatro (Figs. 59-60). La Santa Teresa e l’Angelo in candido marmo di Carrara, incastonati nella nicchia a pianta ovale rivestita di marmi preziosi e alabastro iridescente, entro un tabernacolo inquadrato da una coppia di lesene in verde antico e da colonne binate in breccia africana, sono il fulcro di una rappresentazione che coinvolge la configurazione dell’intera cappella: dalla volta dipinta e decorata con stucchi e dorature al pavimento di rari marmi intarsiati, spazio illusoriamente animato anche dalla presenza dei membri della famiglia Cornaro ritratti affacciati ai coretti laterali mentre assistono al miracolo dell’unione mistica dell’anima di Teresa con Dio. Le specchiature delle pareti e le membrature architettoniche in preziosi marmi colorati antichi fanno convergere l’attenzione dello spettatore sulla scena della Trasverberazione. Questa è ingegnosamente illuminata dall’alto da una “camera di luce” nascosta nella semicupola del taber nacolo che fa spiovere la luce naturale sul candido gruppo scultoreo: luce naturale che con ardita metamorfosi si solidifica in vibranti raggi di legno dorato, 8 accentuando l’effetto di levitazione a mezz’aria della grande nuvola che sostiene i due protagonisti della visione.

Vero e verosimile sono al sevizio della persuasione, ma l’illusione, la meraviglia sono raffinati strumenti di un discorso retorico9 che invitano lo spettatore ad una diretta partecipazione al miracolo in atto: l’unione mistica di Teresa con Dio; unione che si rinnova per il credente attraverso il sacramento della comunione commemorato nel prezioso rilievo in bronzo dorato su fondo di lapislazzuli raffigurante l’Ultima Cena sul paliotto dell’altare della cappella.10 S o n o q u e s t i i c a p o l av o r i c h e segneranno in modo profondo il giovane Melchiorre Cafà nel suo soggiorno romano, non ultimo la g randiosa “macchina” o “splendore” di luce, bronzo e stucchi dorati della Cattedra nell’abside di San Pietro in Vaticano del 1656-1666 (Fig. 61), dove, come ha osservato Wittkower, 11 la transizione dalla luce naturale al bassorilievo, all’altorilievo e infine alle figure a tutto tondo che penetrano profondamente nello spazio diviene parte di un entità indivisibile. Il suggerimento di Bernini ai giovani di non cimentarsi nelle novità del “bel composto” se non si era al tempo stesso pittori e scultori, sembra attagliarsi in modo particolare all’artista maltese, ricordato come: “PICTOR. SCULPTOR ET ARCHITECTUS” nel supposto autoritratto della collezione di Nicola Pio oggi a Stoccolma,12 che lo raffigura forse in atto di eseguire con il “matitatoio” uno schizzo architettonico su un foglio fissato al cavalletto o a parete, mentre nella mano sinistra impugna gli strumenti dello scultore: scalpelli e stecche per scolpire o modellare la creta o la cera. Quasi sintesi dell’eccellenza raggiunta nel campo dell’architettura (ancora tutta da approfondire nei futuri studi, ma riconosciuta da Filippo Titi, Nicola Pio e Lione Pascoli), del disegno (sottolineata dai biografi e indagata da Antonia Nava Cellini e Jennifer Montagu) e nell’arte di

Fig. 57. Francesco Baratta after Gianlorenzo Bernini, Ecstasy of St Francis, Church of San Pietro in Montorio, Rome Fig. 57

modellare e scolpire che gli riconoscono Baldinucci, Pio e Pascoli e gli artisti suoi contemporanei, che collezionano con passione i suoi disegni e bozzetti (da Ferrata a Francesco Antonio Fontana), senza tralasciare i suoi più tardi stimatori e collezionisti (gli scultori Pietro Papaleo, Innocenzo Spinazzi, Andrea Bergondi, Bartolomeo Cavaceppi e il collezionista veneziano Filippo Farsetti).13 Giunto a Roma prima del 1660 da Malta, 14 come giovane scultore dello studio di Ercole Ferrata e poi suo principale collaboratore, è introdotto nel vivo degli importanti cantieri promossi da Camillo Pamphilj a Sant’Agnese in Agone e in Sant’Agostino e, negli anni successivi, stimato dal cardinale Flavio Chigi, favorito con committenze prestigiose dall’ordine dei Domenicani e apprezzato da Cristina di Svezia, si accredita come uno delle personalità più importanti e innovative della sua generazione nella fucina artistica della Roma di papa Alessandro VII.15 Negli anni romani tra il 1660 e il 1667 Cafà testimonia con la sua opera non solo di essere un artista completo, ma di avere abbandonato più d’una volta le regole

Fig. 58. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Raimondi Chapel, Church of San Pietro in Montorio, Rome

Fig. 58

per tentare nuove strade nel campo della scultura. Fin dai suoi primi incarichi sperimenta novità tecniche e formali nella grande pala d’altare a rilievo di matrice algardiana, nel gruppo scultoreo a tutto tondo inserito in un altare di cappella gentilizia, per cimentarsi, in ultimo, in Santa Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli, anche nel “bel composto” berniniano delle arti che aveva intuito essere il più alto raggiungimento del genio del barocco romano. Ma non poche furono le difficoltà incontrate nell’imporre il suo gusto ai committenti e di queste fanno fede le prime opere romane per casa Pamphilj, ben indagate dagli studi: la pala marmorea in Sant’Agnese (Fig. 62) e il gruppo scultoreo con l’Elemosina di San Tommaso di Villanova (Fig. 78). 16 In entrambi i casi i suoi primi e più innovativi progetti furono scartati dal committente, mentre la morte improvvisa nel 1667 gli impedì di portare a termine il lavoro sui marmi che hanno sofferto di una sostanziale opera di completamento da parte di Ferrata e dei suoi collaboratori. Ercole Ferrata, eccellente maestro di formazione algardiana e di tendenze classiciste, nel completare il lavoro di Cafà riduce i sensibili e pittorici modelli del suo allievo entro il dettato del suo gusto. Riusciamo quasi a immaginarlo all’opera rileg gendo il passo della biog rafia di Pascoli dove si accenna al fatto che Ercole: “(...) quantunque non avesse tutto l’estro nell’inventare egli, che ben ne conosceva il difetto, faceva in ogni opera che intraprender doveva fare diversi disegni a’suoi scolari pi ù ab i l i , e l e v an d o n e i l su p e r fl u o e d aggiungendovi il manchevole e correggendone il difettoso li riduceva all’intero suo gusto”. 17 E Jennifer Montagu, nel suo contributo in questi Atti, ci ha ben illustrato cosa i n t e n d e s s e Fe r r at a p e r “ s u p e r fl u o, manchevole e difettoso” quando scolpirà alcune sue opere sulla base dei bozzetti del suo più geniale collaboratore.

Fig. 59

Fig. 59. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Transverberation of St Theresa, Church of S. Maria della Vittoria, Rome Fig. 60. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Cornaro Chapel, Church of S. Maria della Vittoria, Rome

Fig. 60

Ma lì dove i documenti per immagin e, i boz zet t i, i m odel l i e le fonti d’e poca ci consentono di ricostruire i progetti scultorei di Cafà prima dell’opera di “sfrondamento” delle parti più innovative imposta dal gusto del principe Camillo Pamphili o dall’intervento di Ferrata, riusciamo a cogliere a pieno la novità delle sue proposte. Novità che non erano sfuggite all’anziano Bernini che sembra abbia osservato in più occasioni:“(...) che un certo Giovane Maltese lo havrebbe passato nel mestiere per haver mostrato gran giudizio et attività in molti lavori da lui fatti”. 18 Il fatto di aver portato nel corso della sua carriera il confronto tra pittura e scultura ad un livello mai prima raggiunto e l’aver proposto, in quasi tutte le sue opere romane, un’originale interpretazione del linguaggio berniniano sul tema dell’Estasi o della Santa morte (statua e bronzetti di Rosa da Lima), della Gloria ( altar maggiore della chiesa di Santa Maria in Campitelli) (Fig. 64) o del ritratto (busto di Alessandro VII Chigi) (Fig. 63),19 lo colloca in una posizione molto avanzata e innovativa nell’ambito della situazione artistica romana della prima metà degli Anni Sessanta del Seicento, ma non così scontata come oggi potrebbe sembrare. Mentre Bernini è al culmine della s u a at t i v i t à c o m e “ re g i s t a ” d e l l a Roma di Alessandro VII, comincia a spirare nell’ambiente accademico un’aria di “ritorno all’ordine” che avrà riflessi fondamentali sulle arti a Roma nei decenni successivi. Ricordiamo che nel 1664, mentre era Principe dell’Accademia di San Luca il pittore Carlo Maratta, Giovan Pietro Bellori esporrà la sua “Idea del Bello”, manifesto dell’idealismo classicista che informerà la redazione delle sue “Vite de pittori, scultori e architetti moderni”, edita a Roma nel 1672, dove tra gli scultori avranno l’onore di una biografia solo

Fig. 61

Fig. 61. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Cathedra Petri, St Peter’s, Vatican City Fig. 62. Melchiorre Cafà and Ercole Ferrata, Martyrdom of St Eustace, S. Agnese in Agone, Rome

Fig. 62

Fig. 63

Fig. 64

Fig. 63. Pope Alexander VII, Palazzo Chigi, Ariccia Fig. 64. (project by), Glory, Church of S. Maria in Campitelli, Rome

Algardi e Du Quesnoy, con la clamorosa, ma prevedibile esclusione del Bernini.20 Nel 1665 il Cavalier Bernini, all’età di sessantasei anni, partirà per la Francia in missione diplomatica e artistica e ne tornerà sostanzialmente sconfitto (il suo progetto per il Louvre non sarà mai realizzato e il magnifico busto di Luigi XIV e, più tardi, il monumento equestre del Re Sole susciteranno tiepide accoglienze l’uno, aspre critiche l’altro). Nel 1666 viene fondata a Roma l’Accademia di Francia che parteciperà, negli anni a venire, di questo clima classicista. E non è un caso se, dopo anni di appassionata partecipazione all’attività didattica dell’Accademia di San Luca, tra il 1662 e il 1666,21 Cafà rifiuterà nel 1667 l’elezione a Principe dell’Accademia, non solo per la naturale riservatezza di carattere e per gli impegni

di lavoro assunti, ma forse per aver intuito i limiti di un clima culturale accademico lontano dai suoi interessi e dai suoi campi di ricerca . Ma vediamo di mettere a fuoco questi suoi interessi: Cafà giunge a Roma prima del 1660 poco più che ventenne, età non più di apprendistato per un artista dell’epoca, ma di perfezionamento e crescita professionale. A Roma – a giudicare dalle sue prime opere – giunge dotato di un bagaglio tecnico di tutto riguardo nel campo della scultura, con una spiccata propensione per il disegno e l’arte di modellare, intagliare il legno e scolpire il marmo. Tutta questa prima parte della sua formazione deve essere ancora indagata dagli studi. La sua disponibilità a fornire disegni per altari e cappelle (Pascoli) ci fa supporre che avesse appreso i principi del disegno e dell’architettura, ma la spiccata inclinazione per la scultura è chiaramente indicata dalla scelta di completare la sua formazione presso Ercole Ferrata. L’arrivo a Roma e il suo inserimento nello studio di Ercole furono fattori d e t e r m i n a n t i p e r l a s u a c re s c i t a professionale. Non solo ebbe modo di lavorare accanto ad un eccellente scultore, ma prese immediato contatto con Roma e con il fiore della scultura contemporanea anche attraverso i bozzetti e modelli in terracotta e in cera di Algardi, Du Quesnoy e Bernini, raccolti e collezionati da Ercole per interesse di studio e di lavoro.22 Ebbe inoltre la fortuna di sperimentare la “celebre disciplina del Ferrata”(come la definisce il Pascoli), in un momento decisivo dell’attività del maestro, mentre quest’ultimo era impegnato in cantieri berniniani e algardiani. Per Bernini aveva realizzato con Morelli e Raggi, tra il 1657 e il 1660, i modelli in piccolo e in grande dei Padri della Chiesa e Angeli per il primo progetto della Cattedra in San

Pietro in Vaticano, poi modificato nel 166123 e nel 1658 aveva eseguito i modelli in cera per la fusione dei crocifissi con il Cristo vivo e il Cristo morto per gli arredi in bronzo degli altari chigiani della Basilica vaticana (i cui cavi si conservavano nel suo studio).24 Tra il 1656 e il 1659 è al lavoro in Santa Maria del Popolo, dove esegue, su disegni di Bernini, due figure femminili allegoriche, due grandi Sante in stucco e un Angelo in marmo che sostiene la cornice dei dipinti nel transetto (anche di questo si conservava il modello in studio), mentre tra il 1662 e il 1663 esegue la statua di Santa Caterina da Siena per la berniniana cappella del Voto nel Duomo di Siena (Fig. 82).25 Sul versante della collaborazione con Algardi ricordiamo che nel 1658 aveva appena concluso la statua di San Nicola con il pane benedetto e il sovrastante rilievo con Dio Padre nell’altare maggiore della chiesa di San Nicola da Tolentino, ideato da Alessandro Algardi per Camillo Pamphili e realizzato, dopo la morte dello scultore nel 1654, dai suoi allievi prediletti, Ferrata e Guidi, su suoi disegni e modelli.26 Alcuni modelli di Algardi delle parti scultoree dell’altare si conservavano ancora nello studio di Ercole insieme ad altri bozzetti e modelli in piccolo dello scultore bolognese, primi fra tutti quelli per la pala di Leone Magno ed Attila;27 tutti materiali di straordinaria importanza sui quali Cafà avrà la possibilità di riflettere quotidianamente. Fu la collaborazione al cantiere algardiano in San Nicola da Tolentino ad aprire a Ferrata le porte della committenza Pamphilj in Sant’Agnese in Agone ed è in questo contesto che incontreremo per la prima volta anche il giovane Cafà al suo esordio romano come artista indipendente. Come ci conferma Bellori, Algardi prima di morire aveva realizzato più di un modello per una grande pala marmorea a rilievo destinata all’altar maggiore della chiesa di Sant’Agnese

su committenza del principe Camillo Pamphilj. La pala, raf figurante il Miracolo di Sant’Agnese, non fu mai realizzata ed il modello in grande, eseguito da Ferrata e Guidi nell’estate del 1654, fu poi destinato da Alessandro VII all’Oratorio dei Filippini. 28 La scelta del principe Camillo di decorare l’interno della chiesa di palazzo di casa Pamphilj con una serie imponente e sontuosa di cinque pale marmoree a rilievo fu probabilmente determinata dal successo e dall’ammirazione suscitati dalla grande pala marmorea di Leone Magno ed Attila. Eseguita da Algardi su committenza dello stesso pontefice tra il 1646 e il 1653 per l’ultimo

Fig. 65. Alessandro Algardi, Pope Leo the Great and Attila, St Peter’s, Vatican City

Fig. 65

altare della Basilica di San Pietro, fu giudicata dal Bellori “(...) scultura unica tra le moderne” (Fig. 65). Dopo la morte dello sculture bolognese nel 1654 e dopo il completamento dei lavori architettonici della chiesa, realizzati da Girolamo e Carlo Rainaldi con largo intervento di Francesco Borromini, il principe Camillo incaricò tra il luglio e dicembre del 1660 i più stretti collaboratori di Algardi, primo fra tutti il Ferrata, di portare a compimento il progetto decorativo del fastoso interno a pianta centrale (Fig. 66). Tra gli scultori prescelti, probabilmente su consiglio dello stesso Ercole, troviamo Giuseppe Peroni, Melchiorre Cafà, Giovan Francesco De Rossi e in seguito Antonio Raggi. 29 Il 16 dicembre 1660 Cafà sottoscrisse un contratto con il principe Camillo Pamphilj per eseguire il bassorilievo“(...) di Sant’Eustachio con tutte le figure et altro che dispone l’istoria di detto Santo e conforme al modello piccolo visto da S.E.”.30 Nel contratto si impegnava a realizzare il “modello in grande” del rilievo e a concludere il lavoro entro due anni, a partire dal gennaio 1661, per un compenso di Fig. 66. Church of S. Agnese in Agone, Rome. Interior

Fig. 66

mille scudi. La pala raffigurava uno degli episodi della storia del martirio di Sant’Eustachio nel quale il centurione romano, condannato con la famiglia ad essere divorato dai leoni nel circo, per intervento divino rimane illeso tra le belve che lo attorniano mansuete. Il modello in stucco a grandezza naturale fu realizzato piuttosto rapidamente, tra il 1660 e il 1661 e, posto in opera sull’altare di Sant’Agnese, vi rimase probabilmente sino al 1668. La lavorazione sul marmo subì notevoli ritardi e solo nel luglio 1665, nel 1666 e nel gennaio 1667 si registrano solleciti e pagamenti a favore del Cafà. Il 27 agosto 1667, poco prima della morte dello scultore, Giovanni Maria Baratta, architetto della fabbrica, è incaricato di procurare il marmo: “(...) che bisogna a Melchiorre per finire il suo lavoro”. Alla morte dello scultore, il 4 settembre dello stesso anno, il bassorilievo rimase incompiuto, ma a causa della controversia giudiziaria sorta tra il principe Giovan Battista Pamphilj, succeduto al padre Camillo, e gli eredi di Melchiorre Cafà, rappresentati dal “ricevitore dell’Ordine di Malta a Roma” frà Marco Antonio Verospi, i lavori dello scultore maltese furono più volte stimati dai periti. Una perizia di Paolo Naldini del maggio 1668, per conto degli eredi del Cafà, fornisce importanti notizie sullo stato dell’opera e sui criteri di valutazione del lavoro dello scultore quando dichiara in favore di un maggior compenso che: “(...) li modelli et altri studij fatti per l’opera”, “(...) le fatiche e gli studi”, per qualità e importanza, si sarebbero dovuti valutare per circa un terzo del compenso finale pattuito. Il giudizio non si doveva limitare alla valutazione dei due modelli in piccolo e in grande previsti dal contratto e al lavoro sul marmo, appena iniziato, ma avrebbe dovuto includere tutti gli studi preparatori, modelli, bozzetti, “prime idee” elaborati dallo scultore maltese come varianti

per la pala. La perizia non fu accolta e nel settembre 1669 una valutazione congiunta di Ercole Ferrata e di Cosimo Fancelli fu accettata dalle parti per il saldo delle competenze agli eredi. Da questa sappiamo che lo scultore aveva quasi finito di scolpire la figura di Sant’Eustachio e aveva abbozzato altri due settori non identificati del bassorilievo.31 I documenti lasciano aperti alcuni interrogativi sulla valutazione dell’intervento del Cafà sul rilievo marmoreo in Sant’Agnese (Fig. 67). Quest’ultimo sembra portato a termine più che dal Ferrata, che si impegna con un nuovo contratto del maggio 1669 a condurlo a “(...) total perfezione”, dal suo collaboratore Giovan Francesco De Rossi, attivo in Sant’Agnese nella pala di Sant’Alessio (Fig. 69) e negli stucchi con putti negli arconi.32 Il rilievo sembra la versione fredda e incompleta di un modello eccellente, eseguita da uno scultore lontano dal temperamento artistico di Cafà. 33 E’ importante sottolineare che nella pala marmorea, scolpita in più settori poi commessi tra loro, risultano non lavorate due zone mediane ai lati della figura centrale del Santo. In questi due settori del rilievo dovevano verosimilmente comparire alcuni particolari di fondamentale importanza per l’unità compositiva: gli spettatori del circo, i soldati armati a cavallo e gli elementi di paesaggio documentati dal modello in terracotta, con significative varianti, oggi al Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia (Fig. 68). La perdita di questi elementi, forse presenti nel perduto modello in piccolo e in grande approvati da Camillo Pamphili nel 1660, fu probabilmente subordinata dal figlio Giovan Battista alla rapida conclusione dei lavori e alla minor spesa possibile. Numerosi sono i bozzetti, i modelli, le sezioni di studio in terracotta e i disegni che documentano l’iter compositivo della pala. Alcuni sono di mano del Cafà,

altri furono probabilmente realizzati da allievi o seguaci sulla base di studi originali oggi perduti, ma nel complesso testimoniano non solo l’accurato lavoro preparatorio affrontato dallo scultore maltese per questo suo primo incarico, ma anche il vivo apprezzamento suscitato dai suoi bozzetti e modelli da parte degli scultori contemporanei, primo fra tutti il maestro Ercole che ne conservò numerosi nel suo studio; è grazie a loro se oggi possiamo ancora ammirare alcuni di questi fragilissimi materiali. Il più importante tra questi è il citato modello in terracotta dell’intera composizione proveniente dallo studio del Ferrata, oggi al Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia. 34 Con buona probabilità, corrisponde ad uno dei modelli in piccolo sottoposti da Cafà all’esame del committente, poi scartato dal principe Camillo in favore di un’altra versione che avrà rispettato le varianti documentate sul mar mo. Lavorato con grande sensibilità per la materia, è il punto di partenza per indagare il percorso che condurrà alla pala marmorea oggi in Sant’Agnese, dove sembra perduta la trama dei nessi Fig. 67. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Church of S. Agnese in Agone, Rome

Fig. 67

Fig. 68

Fig. 68. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome

compositivi tra l’elegante modellato ad altorilievo e gli schiacciati finissimi, fusi in una densa atmosfera agli elementi di paesaggio. Dissolti i rimandi formali così sapientemente tessuti sul modello (dove la composizione è impostata su diagonali e circonferenze), attenuate le notazioni psicologiche che distinguevano i vari gradi di partecipazione dei personaggi all’evento, al trionfante Eustachio, ispirato nel gesto e nell’espressione del volto al San Longino del Bernini, si sostituisce nella pala marmorea un’immagine del Santo dove devozione e formalismo sembrano appiattire ogni emozione. Alla concitata partecipazione di uomini, animali e natura al compiersi del miracolo in atto, che coglieva berninianamente il climax dell’evento, si sostituisce una composizione dove il tempo dilatato del

racconto concilia la pia devozione più che la viva partecipazione del credente al miracolo rivelato. Nella versione proposta nel modello in piccolo del Museo del Palazzo di Venezia, densa di colti rimandi alla pala di Leone Magno ed Attila dell’Algardi, ma anche all’invenzione berniniana dell’Androclo e il Leone per il medaglione dedicato nel 1658 ad Alessandro VII da Domenico Iacobacci, la salda matrice algardiana si stempera in una struttura compositiva: “(...) di rotante e labile movimento”(come osserva Antonia Nava Cellini), che esalta gli effetti atmosferici e pittorici ottenuti mutando continuamente il livello di aggetto del rilievo.35 La concezione del rilievo proposta da Cafà in questo modello in piccolo è sensibilmente diversa dalle coeve proposte in Sant’Agnese di Ercole Ferrata nella pala che raffigura un episodio del Martirio di Sant’Emerenziana (Fig. 70), riprese con accenti diversi da Peroni e Raggi nella pala con la Morte di Santa Cecilia (Fig. 71) e da Giovan Francesco De Rossi in quella del Ritrovamento del corpo di Sant’Alessio (Fig. 69). Se si esclude il rilievo dell’altar maggiore, cui era originariamente destinata la pala di Algardi con il Miracolo di Sant’Agnese, mai realizzata in marmo e al posto della quale solo alla fine degli anni Settanta fu scolpito il grande altorilievo di Domenico Guidi con la Sacra Famiglia, Santa Elisabetta, San Giovannino e Zaccaria (Fig. 66),36 quelli posti sopra gli altari nelle nicchie semicircolari dei quattro pilastri principali hanno tutti una forma lievemente concava che si armonizza con lo spazio architettonico in cui sono inseriti. Ma la concavità della pala viene sfruttata in modo diverso dagli scultori. Ferrata, Peroni-Raggi e De Rossi, memori della chiarezza d’impianto del Leone Magno ed Attila di Algardi, concentrano – con diversa gradazione- il massimo aggetto

delle figure sui lati. Qui affiorano anche le partiture architettoniche in prospettiva che suggeriscono un effetto di profondità visiva, lasciando al centro una cesura o uno spazio vuoto che dà maggior risalto al personaggio principale: la Santa Emerenziana lapidata (Fig. 70), leggermente decentrata sulla sinistra, o i corpi riversi dei Santi Alessio e Cecilia, ritratti in basso al centro (Figs. 69, 71). La costruzione spaziale delle scene, con le pause solenni che favoriscono la piana lettura dell’evento, è sostanzialmente in linea con il canone fissato da Algardi alla metà del secolo nella pala dell’Incontro di Leone Magno ed Attila (Fig. 65). In quest’opera, pur essendovi una complessa interazione delle figure all’interno del rilievo, vi è una nitida scansione spaziale che consente una chiara percezione della storia anche ad una certa distanza e in condizioni di luce non proprio ideali quali erano quelle dell’altare in Vaticano. 37 La composizione, costruita con un sapiente equilibrio di pieni e di vuoti, segue la logica di un discorso retorico perfettamente calibrato, comprensibile e convincente: vi è una limpida distinzione tra il bene, impersonato dal pontefice

con il suo seguito sulla sinistra, e il male, incarnato da Attila con le sue schiere armate sulla destra; tra ciò che attiene alla sfera del divino, rigorosamente riservato alla metà superiore e ciò che attiene alla sfera dell’umano e della storia nella parte inferiore. Anche la tecnica del rilievo segue logiche interne al discorso retorico e alle difficoltà di luce e visione dell’altare. Algardi, come osserva Wittkower, rinuncia ad una ar monica gradualità del rilievo per creare l’illusione della profondità e le figure di Leone Magno ed Attila, quasi a tutto tondo, sembrano balzare fuori dallo spazio illusivo della pala verso quello reale dello spettatore. Cafà esce dalla regola e tenta una strada nuova: si libera dalla griglia compositiva algardiana e, memore della pala berniniana delle Stimmate di San Francesco (Fig. 57), fa emergere al centro, in sensibile rilievo, la figura di Sant’Eustachio. La figura del Santo, come si nota chiaramente nel modello in terracotta del Palazzo di Venezia (Fig. 68), doveva intercettare la luce diffusa e lievemente angolata che spioveva dall’alto del tamburo della cupola e distaccarsi illusivamente dalla prospettiva della

Fig. 71

Fig. 69. Giovan Francesco de Rossi, The finding of St Alessio, Church of S. Agnese in Agone, Rome Fig. 70. Ercole Ferrata (finished by L. Retti), Martyrdom of St Emerenziana, Church of S. Agnese in Agone, Rome Fig. 71. Antonio Raggi, Death of St Cecilia, Church of S. Agnese in Agone, Rome Fig. 69

Fig. 70

Fig. 72. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Museo di Roma, Rome. Figures at bottom left Fig. 72

Fig. 73

Fig. 74

Fig. 73. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome. Lions at bottom right. Early 20th century photo. Fig. 74. Martyrdom of St Eustace, Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome. Lions at bottom right.

palizzata concava del circo oltre la quale si intravedono le teste appena accennate di spettatori, armati a cavallo, magistrali cenni di paesaggio e un vortice di nuvole e angeli che accentuano l’effetto di profondità della scena. La luce doveva dare risalto ad alcune parti ad altorilievo sapientemente studiate (dall’angelo in alto a destra al personaggio inginocchiato in basso a sinistra), che segnano i punti di riferimento delle diagonali e circonferenze sulle quali è intessuta l’intera composizione, sfiorando appena altre zone del modellato. Queste ultime emergono con una sensibilità pittorica dal fondo, scalando dal semplice tratto inciso allo schiacciato finissimo, al mezzo rilievo, al rilievo pieno in una gamma di gradazioni finalizzata alla fusione atmosferica di tutti gli elementi naturali, umani e divini in un turbine di concitato stupore di fronte al miracolo in atto. Novità, direi, straordinarie che portavano alla data del 1660 il rapporto tra pittura e scultura ad un livello mai prima raggiunto e tali da giustificare la scelta di una versione più moderata da parte del committente. Ciò

non toglie che la tiepida e incompleta redazione finale del marmo ci impedisce di valutare a pieno le qualità di questa sua prima opera che, pur con sostanziali varianti rispetto al modello del Museo del Palazzo di Venezia, doveva essere originariamente impostata su analoghi criteri compositivi. La qualità altissima del modellato della terracotta del Museo del Palazzo di Venezia e delle uniche altre due sezioni frammentarie di studio per la pala a mio avviso di mano di Cafà, oggi conservate al Museo di Roma (Fig. 72) e al Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo (Figs 73-74), 38 confermano l’interesse dello scultore Maltese a saggiare i rapporti tra disegno, pittura e scultura nel medium dell’argilla per trasporre poi nel marmo questi nuovi contenuti tecnici e formali. E di queste sperimentazioni può forse restare traccia nella singolare descrizione nell’Inventario dello studio di Ferrata di un “(...) disegno di creta cotta di bassorilievo” senza uno specifico riferimento,39 ma che sembra attagliarsi a perfezione, nella sua apparente contraddittorietà, ad altre due delicate terrecotte attribuite dagli studiosi a Cafà: L ’ Adorazione dei Pastori (Fig. 76) e il Cristo deposto (Fig. 75).40 Il virtuosismo dello scultore, sperimentando un travaso di tecniche, tende a dare alla scultura un effetto di illusione pittorica. Senza le sperimentazioni di Cafà nel campo del rilievo sarebbero impensabili i successivi raggiungimenti di Pierre Puget (nella pala dell’Assunta oggi a Berlino) o di Pierre Le Gros il giovane.41 Nel 1663, nel g ruppo scultoreo della Carità di San Tommaso di Villanova per l’altar maggiore della cappella Pamphili in Sant’Agostino (Fig. 78), Cafà fa un ulteriore passo in avanti nella sperimentazione dell’interazione tra sculture a tutto tondo che rappresentano “immagini sacre in azione” nello spazio di una cappella. 42 Ma, a giudicare da un suo più avanzato progetto scartato

da Camillo Pamphilj (Fig. 79) e dal magnifico modello in piccolo in terracotta conservato al National Museum of Fine Arts di Valletta (Fig. 77), solo in parte rispettato nella versione in mar mo completata da Ferrata nel 1669, Cafà in questa impresa sembra denunciare la difficoltà di lavorare sulla base di un modello iconografico prestabilito, senza poter intervenire in modo più organico nella regia complessiva dell’architettura della cappella.43 Partendo da un’attenta riflessione sulle due diverse soluzioni proposte da Algardi e Bernini alla metà degli anni Cinquanta del Seicento nell’altar maggiore della chiesa di San Nicola da Tolentino e nella cappella Cornaro in Santa Maria della Vittoria, ma anche sulla precedente proposta di Pietro da Cortona per l’altare maggiore della chiesa di San Giovanni dei Fiorentini,44 Cafà trova un terza originalissima via che, sfruttando le potenzialità dell’ambientazione architettonica dell’altare in Sant’Agostino, combinate con le fonti di luce, traduce l’illusione scultorea in un invito alla diretta partecipazione del credente al mistero della Carità divina, virtù teologale che, attraverso San Tommaso di Villanova, si fa carità attiva. Nella versione in marmo il Santo v escov o, in ampio piviale e mitra, chiaramente ispirato ai modelli in grande dei Padri della Chiesa della Cattedra del Bernini, è raffigurato nell’atto di fare l’elemosina ad una giovane donna che allatta al seno un bimbo, mentre un

Fig. 75

altro le si aggrappa alla veste. La figura femminile, di proporzioni naturali, è posta fuori dalla nicchia architettonica nella quale è ambientata la figura del Santo, quasi ad invadere con studiato effetto lo spazio reale dello spettatore. Il gruppo scultoreo in Sant’Agostino, di impianto fortemente innovativo, era originariamente illuminato dalla luce naturale di una finestra laterale che si apriva sulla sinistra dell’altare, ideato dall’architetto Giovanni Maria Baratta con l’apporto dello stesso principe Camillo Pamphili, “intendentissimo di architettura”, e il consiglio di Pietro da Cortona.45 Cafà, come documenta l’incisione presentata a Camillo Pamphili nel 1663 (Fig. 79), eseguita da Pietro del Po su

Fig. 75. Melchiorre Cafà (attributed to), Dead Christ, Private Collection, present whereabouts unknown

Fig. 76. (Attributed to), Adoration of the shepherds, present whereabouts unknown Fig. 76

Fig. 77. Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta Fig. 78. Melchiorre Cafà and Ercole Ferrata, Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, Church of S. Agostino, Rome Fig. 79. Engraved by Pietro del Po, Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta

Fig. 77

disegno del maltese, aveva proposto una diversa versione della cor nice architettonica della nicchia. Sopra la centina dell’arco, due Angeli dalle forme morbide e infantili, appena atterrati in volo sui pilastri laterali della nicchia, sostenevano l’uno un movimentato cartiglio a nastro con iscrizione e l’altro il giglio destinato al Santo, mentre sul lato sinistro si materializzavano tre teste di Cherubini, illuminate dal retro dal fascio di luce. La fonte di luce laterale che investiva il gruppo scultoreo accentuava l’illusione di verosimiglianza delle due figure principali, mentre la presenza delle teste dei Cherubini qualificava la natura divina di quei raggi di luce: la carità terrena di San Tommaso non essendo altro che un riflesso della carità divina, confermata dalla presenza di Dio Padre tra Angeli adoranti sopra il fastigio dell’altare e dello Spirito Santo in stucco al culmine del catino absidale. Ma anche per la figura femminile lo

Fig. 78

Fig. 79

scultore aveva proposto al principe Camillo una soluzione diversa e ben più riuscita di quella poi verosimilmente approvata dal committente. Nel National Museum of Fine Arts Valletta si conserva un magnifico modello in piccolo in terracotta (Fig. 77) che documenta, in tre dimensioni, le varianti della figura femminile della Carità delineata nell’incisione di Pietro del Po, poi scartata forse perché troppo innovativa e non rispondente all’iconografia della preesistente tela di Giovan Francesco Romanelli a cui lo scultore doveva attenersi: la donna che riceve l’elemosina dal Santo vescovo, dalla figura slanciata e languida, è semi inginocchiata e si volge di tre quarti verso lo spettatore. Il viso è illuminato da un sorriso che richiama quello della Verità di Bernini ed è rivolto insieme al braccio destro verso la mano di San Tommaso. Il gesto della donna sottolinea una delle diagonali salienti della composizione che dal piede sinistro della figura femminile arriva alla punta della mitra del Santo e si combina con l’altra diagonale che sale dal bimbo seduto alla spalla sinistra nuda della madre. Circondata da tre bambini in vari atteggiamenti, modellati da Cafà con una tenerezza e un realismo che confermano quella passione per il “naturale” che gli riconosce il Pascoli, è ideata come vera e propria incarnazione della virtù teologale della Carità, tradizionalmente accompagnata da tre fanciulli. San Tommaso di Villanova, dalla figura slanciata e f lessuosa, con il capo lievemente inclinato e un’espressione intima, discreta, quasi velata di tristezza, sembra modellato per emergere con maggior slancio dal cavo d’ombra della nicchia e sporgersi in diagonale a consegnare l’elemosina alla carnalissima e palpitante allegoria femminile della Carità, ben illuminata dal fascio di luce laterale (come ci conferma l’incisione) e collocata in quella zona ambigua tra lo

spazio della rappresentazione scultorea e quello della realtà che forza i confini tra vero e verosimile in termini mai prima sperimentati. A sottolineare la ricerca di unità tra l’azione rappresentata e lo spazio della cappella, Cafà delinea chiaramente nel bellissimo modello in terracotta del Museo di Valletta la sua idea di ambientazione del gruppo lì dove segna con una netta linea concava la base aggettante della modanatura dove insiste la figura femminile. 46 La concavità della nicchia centrale dove era la figura del Santo sarebbe stata ripresa dalla concavità del basamento sottostante dove era ambientata la figura della Carità, per ampliarsi idealmente alla concavità delle due ali laterali della cappella. Anche in questo caso il più raffinato progetto di Cafà non fu accolto e, prima di morire, lo scultore maltese riuscì a completare solo la figura del Santo, mentre la Carità, lasciata appena abbozzata, fu scolpita da Ferrata nel 1669 in for me decisamente meno innovative, quasi di spalle rispetto allo spettatore, con due soli bambini e il volto ritagliato di profilo che non lascia intuire l’espressione. Infine, i più tardi rilievi laterali di Andrea Bergondi oscureranno la fonte luminosa laterale, alterando irreparabilmente l’effetto del complesso così attentamente studiato dallo scultore maltese. Nella tribuna dell’altar maggiore della chiesa del convento domenicano di Santa Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli, “(...) disegno di Melchior Cafà maltese, come sottolinea l’informatissimo Filippo Titi nel 1674, la pala con la Gloria di Santa Caterina da Siena, “(...) sua opera ....scolpita in marmo”,47 è annoverata tra i capolavori della scultura barocca romana ed è forse l’unica impresa del maltese che lascia intuire una progettazione complessiva nel solco del “bel composto” berniniano delle arti, 48 seppure inter pretato e

rilanciato su un diverso piano d’effetti (Figs 80-81). La tribuna dell’altar maggiore, di grande impatto scenografico nello splendore dei rossi diaspri di Sicilia di cui è completamente rivestita, è costituita da una complessa architettura a due ordini (Fig. 81). Quello inferiore si articola in una vasta concavità centrale dove due coppie di colonne di nero venato affiancano il bassorilievo con la Gloria di Santa Caterina (Figs 80-81). Nell’ordine superiore, che ripropone gli stessi profili concavi di quello inferiore, una coppia di paraste incornicia una movimentata cornice plastica quadrangolare al centro della quale si staglia la candida colomba dello Spirito Santo dietro una gloria di raggi dorati a rilievo. In alto, sopra un timpano ad arco ribassato, Angeli e putti adoranti in stucco sostengono la croce, mentre nell’occhio del lanternino centrale della cupola, progettata ed eseguita da Giovan Battista Soria, volteggiano candidi Angeli in stucco che recano in mano palme e gigli. Alla base del cupolino vi sono quattro medaglioni in stucco dorato con i busti a rilievo dei santi domenicani Tommaso, Pietro Martire, Domenico e Antonio, mentre l’interno della lanterna è affrescato con Dio Padre, opera di Francesco Rosa. Filippo Titi nel 1674 ci informa che l’opera era stata da poco completata con il contributo della nobile suora Camilla Peretti, pronipote di Sisto V, che aveva destinato all’impresa 1000 scudi, mentre supervisore dei lavori fu il vescovo domenicano Ignazio Cianti, trasferitosi a Roma dopo il gennaio del 1662 e morto nell’aprile del 1667.49 Al di là di questi scarni dati, non si è trovata traccia documentaria dell’incarico a Cafà. La datazione del progetto dell’altare e della realizzazione del rilievo è incerta,50 ma è probabilmente da circoscrivere agli anni tra il 1662 e il 1665, prima del soggiorno dello scultore 63

Fig. 80. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Church of S. Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli, Rome

Fig. 81

Fig. 81. Tribuna and Glory of St Catherine, Church of S. Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli, Rome

Fig. 80

a Malta nel 1666. Sono anni in cui Ercole Ferrata, tra il 1662 e il 1663, lavora alla Santa Caterina da Siena per la berniniana Cappella del Voto del duomo di Siena, scolpita più nello spirito di Cafà che del Bernini nella sua forma prosciugata, nei panni sfogliati e nella composta elegia del volto (Fig. 82). Nello stesso periodo Cafà è impegnato anche su altri fronti con l’ordine dei Domenicani. Realizza a Roma, su probabile committenza del futuro arcivescovo domenicano di Caracas Antonio Gonzales de Acuña, procuratore nel processo di beatificazione di Rosa da Lima, la magnifica statua di Rosa da Lima e l’Angelo, con largo anticipo sulla conclusione del processo e ancora l’incisione con la Vergine il Bambino, Rosa da Lima e santi (di cui rimane anche un bel disegno preparatorio all’Albertina di Vienna). Forse su suggerimento del cardinale Decio Azzolino, relatore della causa di beatificazione di Rosa da Lima a partire dal 1663, realizza tra il 1662 e il 1663 per la Regina Cristina di Svezia modelli in creta e disegni probabilmente finalizzati ad un rilievo in argento su pietra venturina raffigurante La Vergine con il Bambino e Rosa da Lima, di cui si sono

ritrovate di recente alcune tracce.51 Sono tutte opere fondamentali per inquadrare stilisticamente questo capolavoro. Un dato interessante è che Cristina di Svezia, legata da particolare affetto verso il monastero di Santa Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli, vi soggiornerà in più di una occasione e particolare risonanza ebbe il suo ritiro spirituale nel convento tra il 12 e 16 agosto del 1663. 52 La pala a rilievo fu comunque condotta a termine da Cafà prima della sua morte, vista la perfetta unità e qualità stilistica dell’esecuzione, mentre da notizie d’archivio53 sappiamo che l’edicola entro la quale è inquadrata fu completata tra il 1671 e il 1672 e, solo dopo quella data, il rilievo fu definitivamente collocato. Le pareti laterali, mancando i rilievi forse originariamente progettati da Cafà,54 erano affrescate dopo il 1674 da Francesco Rosa, come ci informa Titi, mentre solo nel 1755 Pietro Bracci realizzò nello spirito dello scultore maltese i due rilievi con Santa Rosa da Lima con il Bambino e Sant’Agnese da Montepulciano. La pala d’altare con la Gloria della santa domenicana denuncia un gusto nuovo nell’ambientazione architettonica del rilievo scultoreo. La visione miracolosa a cui assiste lo spettatore non è imbrigliata da una cornice architettonica di forte matrice plastica, come nella cappella Cornaro, ma da una sottile cornice marmorea di giallo antico che non riesce a contenere l’espandersi nello spazio delle basse nubi pastose che sostengono la Santa e delle ali del grande Angelo in basso a sinistra che superano la cornice, quasi librandosi sopra l’altare. Il rilievo sembra invadere lo spazio del coro anche grazie alla forma lievemente concava, che richiama l’architettura della parte centrale dell’altare, e all’armonia tonale tra i diaspri variegati del fondo e i diaspri rossi che rivestono la tribuna.

Il colore gioca un ruolo determinante anche in rapporto alla scultura. Le figure e le nubi di candido marmo, lavorate con un rilievo più o meno accentuato e illuminate dalla luce naturale che spiove dall’occhio del lanternino della cupola del Soria, emergono delicatamente alla luce dal denso piano di colore del fondo, frutto di una raffinata combinazione di alabastri, diaspri rossi, bruni e lapislazzuli lavorati ad intarsio a fingere l’effetto dei vapori sulfurei, rosati e celestiali dai quali affiora la flessuosa e slanciata figura ellittica di Caterina da Siena. La Santa domenicana, avvolta da un mirabile panneggio che riassume ai massimi livelli le qualità della scultura di Melchiorre, stringendo al petto le mani in segno di vivo dolore, è sollevata al culmine della visione mistica verso il cielo su nuvole sorrette da angeli e putti. La sua candida figura si staglia quasi a pieno rilievo, intercettando la luce naturale che spiove dall’alto e si moltiplica nel riverbero dorato dell’alabastro del fondo che, fingendo di squarciare le nubi rossastre, imita raggi di luce. Come osserva magistralmente Antonia Nava Cellini: “(...) se lo sfondo è ispirato a quello delle Logge delle Reliquie in San Pietro in Vaticano di Bernini e la Santa in estasi rimanda ad un humus berninano, altro è il sentimento che si esprime nella forma allungata e patetica della Santa, avvolta in un panneggio ricco di ritmi circolari e vibranti, altro è lo stacco dei chiaroscuri (...) nell’affiorante ruotare della composizione su un piano di colore, piano ove non sono forzati i termini dell’illusivo e del pittorico, ma che restando nelle gamme sontuose della pietra dura e del marmo, pure arriva al suggerimento di un mobile velo d’atmosfera”. Anche se è tutta da chiarire la cronologia dei lavori di completamento del secondo ordine dell’altare e della decorazione del fastigio e dell’occhio della lanterna, che pure recano l’impronta di

una progettazione unitaria, certo Cafà nell’ideare la decorazione dell’altar maggiore ha tenuto conto delle condizioni di luce determinate proprio dalle aperture nel tamburo della lanterna. Come ha giustamente suggerito Bevilacqua, 55 la pala marmorea, con la sua tecnica raffinata del rilievo e la sua studiata gamma cromatica, sembra attentamente studiata per esaltare il ruolo divino della luce naturale che attraverso il cupolino illumina dall’alto il volto aggettante della santa in estasi che “più volte e da più persone mentre pregava fu vista sollevarsi da terra” nella perfetta unione della sua anima con Dio. Questo stato di unione spirituale con Dio durante l’estasi è narrato negli scritti di Caterina da Siena come un rapimento dell’intelletto nel fuoco della carità divina attraverso il quale ella riceveva quello che chiama il “lume soprannaturale” e giungeva all’eterna visione di Dio, alla verità e alla comprensione del mistero trinitario. L’intero altar maggiore (dal documentato ciborio della metà del Seicento con

Fig. 82. Ercole Ferrata, St Catherine of Siena, Chigi Chapel, Duomo, Siena Fig. 82

il Cristo crocifisso poi sostituito nel tardo settecento dal bellissimo ciborio di Carlo Locatelli, alla colomba dello Spirito Santo nel secondo ordine, fino alla luce che spiove dal cupolino che sembra promanare da Dio Padre affrescato) “partecipa di un unica simbolica ragione rigorosamente basata sugli scritti di Santa Caterina: la luce divina è sapienza e verità, disperde le tenebre del peccato e dell’eresia”.56 Attraverso la luce divina, contemplando il mistero della trinità e del sacrificio di Cristo sulla croce, Caterina raggiunge nell’estasi l’unione con Dio. L’architettura, il rilievo, il colore dei marmi, uniti allo studio accuratissimo

delle fonti luminose, esaltano l’unità dello spazio della tribuna che viene percepito dallo spettatore senza cesure né filtri. In questo grandioso spazio dilatato le diverse tecniche si uniscono nello spirito berniniano del “bel composto” per raggiungere un ben preciso traguardo: rendere viva e palpabile la dottrina cateriniana, che è dottrina intessuta di luce. “E che nell’altar maggiore si volesse proporre una versione figurata di questa dottrina è testimoniato inequivocabilmente dall’iscrizione posta in un cartiglio sulla sommità dell’arcone trionfale: “MARMORIS ARA DOCET/ QUO CATHARINA VOCAT”.57

Melchiorre Cafà’s models for Ercole Ferrata

Jennifer Montagu

Filippo Baldinucci, in his Life of Ercole Ferrata, claims that the sculptor was lacking in inventive power, and relied on his assistants for making models to give him ideas; he would then correct the best of these to conform to his own style.1 A couple of pages later, in writing of Ferrata’s numerous pupils, the same Baldinucci tells us that Cafà was extremely inventive, and an excellent draftsman, but so full of fire, and anxious to finish things quickly, that he often needed Ferrata’s assistance in the slow business of carving marble.2 Not surprisingly, there is a temptation to run these two statements together, and to imagine that any model for a work by Ferrata must have been made by Cafà. One should, however, remember that Baldinucci writes of models made by “suoi giovani” in the plural, so others besides Cafà should be borne in mind if we are seeking to find attributions for terracottas related to Ferrata’s sculptures.3 I propose to look first at some that have been generally accepted as being by Cafà. But then I shall consider not (as might be expected) the sculptures begun by Cafà, and finished after his

death by Ferrata, but rather other works related to the studio of Ferrata, where the connection with our Maltese sculptor is more tenuous, and problematical. Recently I published as by Cafà this terracotta (Fig. 83) in the Fogg Museum of Art, which is indubitably for the stucco figure of Silence (Fig. 84) that Ferrata made, probably in 1664, on the inner facade of Sta Maria in Vallicella.4 This seems to be generally accepted, and here I shall briefly repeat my reasons for the attribution, and lay out what I believe to be the characteristics of Cafà’s modelling style. The drapery, particularly the piece swinging out to the youth’s left, falls in meandering folds that twist and bend but never break, like those on Cafà’s bozzetto for St Eustace (Fig. 68), or indeed in his drawings, where his line is unbroken, as if his pencil never left the paper (Fig. 39).5 The feet are very long and narrow, with a high instep. The outlines are incised, and he uses a claw-tool on the background to set off the figure, as he does even more emphatically in the terracotta of the Adoration of the Shepherds, (Fig. 76)6 which I am sure can be attributed to him; however, this was not an uncommon

Fig. 83

Fig. 84

On previous page: Fig. 83. (attributed to), Personification of Silence, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts Fig. 84. Ercole Ferrata, Silence, Church of S. Maria in Vallicella, Rome

Fig. 85. (attributed to), St. Andrew Apostle, State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg Fig. 86. (attributed to) St. Andrea Avellino, State Hermitage Museum, St Peterburgh

Fig. 87

Fig. 88

Fig. 87. Ercole Ferrata, St. Andrew Apostle, Church of S. Andrea della Valle, Rome Fig. 88. Ercole Ferrata, St. Andrea Avellino, Church of S. Andrea della Valle, Rome

On opposite page: Fig. 89-91. (attributed to), St Andrea Avellino, Private Collection.

Fig. 85

practice. Usually his draperies die away in a point, but at other times, for example in the Virgin and Child at Rabat, they can be almost brutally slashed off – as becomes more apparent if one looks at the figure of Silence from below, as one does inevitably in its actual setting. It has long been accepted that two terracottas in the Hermitage are models by Cafà for Ercole Ferrata’s statues of the Apostle St Andrew (Fig. 87) and St Andrea Avellino (Fig. 88) on the façade of S. Andrea della Valle, set up in 1664. 7 One can point to stylistic comparisons in the Apostle Andrew (Fig. 85), in the way the cloak flows around his body in Cafà’s typical folds, and the legs and feet which are almost mirror images of those of the Silence, with one foot bearing the weight, and the other trailing, as in the finished marble version of St Eustace (Fig. 11). This terracotta has been copied exactly on the façade (with the addition of the cross). The other terracotta in the Hermitage represents St Andrea Avellino (Fig. 86), and recently another version of the St Andrea Avellino has appeared (Figs 89-91), rather larger, and with less attention paid to the face; 8 this too has been ascribed to the hand of Cafà,

Fig. 86

I believe rightly. On the church façade the St Andrea Avellino has been altered by bending his right arm to his breast, to fit better within the niche. Andrea Bacchi has suggested that Cafà made the model for the statue of Faith on Ferrata’s monument to Lelio Falconieri in S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini (Fig. 93),9 drawing attention to the fact that there were three models of Faith in Ferrata’s inventory, two listed as by him, and the other as by Cafà.10 There are at least six models for this figure known today, of very varying quality,11 but one (Fig. 92), now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, is markedly superior to all the others, and, uniquely, differs substantially from the marble, most obviously in that her right leg, rather than the left, is forward, and in the relatively small head of the putto.12 Apart from its undoubted quality, the drapery, with its long folds and the hollows over the thighs, is strikingly similar to that of the Apostle Andrew, and one could compare the putto with those on the wax bozzetto for the marble St Catherine of Siena (Fig. 122). Ferrata’s figure was set up in March 1669, after Cafà’s death in 1667, but the contract with Ferrata was probably drawn up in

Fig. 89

Fig. 92

1665, by which time he must at least have been thinking about the statue, and quite possibly making models (or at least getting his assistants to do so). So there is no problem, from the chronological point of view, in assuming that Cafà would have made this terracotta. One can g auge the per sistence of Cafà’s influence on the younger members of Ferrata’s studio by looking at the three stucco figures of youths supporting medallions to contain portraits of further members of the family (originally there were four, two by the tomb of Lelio Falconieri, and two by that of Orazio). They were attributed in Filippo Titi’s 1686 Amaestromento utile, e curioso di pittura, scoltura et architettura nelle chiese di Roma (p. 395) to Ferrata’s pupils Filippo Carcani, “Pietrino Senese” (most likely Pietro Balestra), Francesco 13

Fig. 90

Fig. 91

Fig. 92. (attributed to), bozzetto for Faith, Fitzwillian Museum, Cambridge Fig. 93. Ercole Ferrata (and others), Monument to Lelio Falconieri, Church of S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, Rome

Fig. 93

Aprile, and “Monsù Michele” (surely Michele Maglia).14 In particular, that to the right of Ferrata’s memorial to Lelio, attributed to Michele Maglia, 15 shows an exasperated version of his manner. 16 These are the only models I know that can be surely connected with works by Ferrata, and I shall now turn to more problematic matters: a group of eight wooden statuettes in the church of S. Michele in Ferrata’s native Pellio Inferiore,17 and a volume of drawings in the Museum der Bildenden Künste in Leipzig, known from its current pressmark as Rensi 6.18 I shall discuss them in this order, but in fact the two are very much intertwined. The presence of the statuettes in Ferrata’s birthplace is no doubt why it has been said that the sculptor “wished that they should be donated to his parish church”, 19 but there is no evidence for such an assertion. None the less they must, obviously, come from his studio, not only because of the models that they reproduce (as will be shown), but because in his inventory were “Una Madonna del Rosario con Bambino in braccio di legno alta due palmi inc.a”, and “Sette altre figure di legno alto un palmo e mezzo rappresentanti Apostoli et altri Santi”.20 There is no need to point out that the St Paul (Fig. 95) is a copy of the wellknown wooden statue by Cafà in the church of St Paul’s Shipwreck (Fig. 94),21 but I do not know of any model that could have served for the companion figure of St Peter (Fig. 96). 22 It looks stylistically quite similar, but the small bronze that Giuseppe Stefani paired with St Paul on the doors of the Cathedral in Mdina (Fig. 97) is very different,23 and this is the model that is always paired with the St Paul in the innumerable replicas to be found all over Malta. The Virgin and Child with the Rosary (Fig. 98) corresponds to the equally well-known

On opposite page: Fig. 94. St. Paul, Church of St Paul Shipwrecked, Valletta

Fig. 95

Fig. 95. Unkown Author, St. Paul, San Michele, Pellio Inferiore Fig. 96. Unkown Author, St. Peter, San Michele, Pellio Inferiore Fig. 97. Giuseppe Stefani, St. Peter, Cathedral of Ss Peter and Paul, Mdina

Fig. 97 Fig. 96

Fig. 98. Unknown Author, Madonna of the Rosary, S. Michele, Pellio Inferiore

Fig. 98

Fig. 99

Fig. 99. Virgin of the Rosary, Staatliche Museum, Berlin Fig. 100. Unknown Author, Virgin of the Rosary; St. John the Baptist, Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig

Fig. 100

wooden statue by Cafà in St Dominic’s in Rabat (Fig. 101). It was drawn twice in Rensi 6, from slightly different angles, proving that they were made from a threedimensional model.24 One of these sheets (Fig. 100) shows not only the Maltese Virgin and Child, but with it a St John the Baptist, which also appears in another drawing, 25 again from a different angle, and this too exists in Pellio (Fig. 102). It can be related to a terracotta in the Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia (Fig. 104), where it has long been recognised as the work of Cafà.26 There is only one obvious difference between the Roman terracotta and the Pellio statuette: during the more lengthy process of wood-carving the lamb has got tired, and decided to lie down, whereas in the drawings, as in the terracotta, he is standing. One might be tempted to say that the drawings were made from the terracotta, and that is possible; but I doubt that the terracotta was made as a model for the wooden statuette, since, as will become evident, the heterogeneous wooden figures in Pellio Inferiore (which include two versions of the Virgin) have all the character of ricordi.27 So it would seem that, whether or not he actually made it, Cafà (or possibly Ferrata) was at least intending to produce a statue of The Baptist. The figure of St James Major (Fig. 103) is problematic: it looks quite like Cafà, but there is no evidence on which to attribute the model. I have no suggestion to make for the other statuette of the Virgin, who is in the typical pose of a mourning figure accompanying a Crucifix. Nor do we have any evidence for the St John the Evangelist (Fig. 105), though this too was drawn twice in Rensi 6.28 That, however, is not proof of Cafà’s authorship of the model, since there are drawings after many other artists; I have long harboured a totally

Fig. 101

On previous page: Fig. 101. Virgin of the Rosary, Dominican Church, Rabat, Malta.

Fig. 102. Unknown Author, St. John the Baptist, S. Michele, Pellio Inferiore Fig. 103. Unknown Author, St. James Major, S. Michele, Pellio Inferiore Fig. 102

Fig. 104

Fig. 103

Fig. 105

Fig. 104. (attributed to), St. John the Baptist, Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome Fig. 105. Unknown Author, St. John the Evangelist, S. Michele, Pellio Inferiore

unfounded suspicion that the original of the Evangelist could have been a model for the figure Algardi was supposed to carve for the Lateran 29 – but that is pure speculation. However, that not all the statuettes in Pellio are necessarily after Cafà is proved by the St Andrew (Fig. 106), which is a copy of the famous marble by Francois du Quesnoy in St Peter’s (Fig. 107). That they came from the studio of Ferrata would seem beyond dispute, but who could have made them? This is hardly likely to have been Ferrata himself, since he is not recorded as ever having worked in wood. Of course Cafà is a possibility, especially given the existence of two wooden statues by him in Malta; but there is a great difference between an over life-size statue and these little figures of some 36 centimetres. In particular, it is hard to think of the fiery Cafà, too much in haste to complete a marble statue, working on these carefully detailed and highly refined statuettes. One might rather think of a sculptor like Michele Maglia, who arrived from France as an ivory carver. But the fact is that we know too little of Ferrata’s studio to say: there may well have been assistants in it who might have specialised in such work, and a study of Roman baroque wood sculpture has yet to be written. In the course of examining these wooden statuettes at Pellio Inferiore it has been necessary to take into consideration the drawings of Rensi 6, and it is evident that they have much to tell us about the work of Cafà. The volume contains several drawings that have been attributed to Bernini,30 one plausibly inscribed as by Camassei, and a number by various different hands. But the bulk appears to be by the same not very accomplished draftsman, who worked in black chalk, usually with a lot of white-chalk for heightening.31 Most of the drawings are certainly copies

Fig. 106

after sculpture, and the majority of those for which an original is known being after Cafà – apart from those discussed here, there are three sheets containing putti after the relief of The Ecstasy of St Catherine32 , and three with drawings of the two wax statuettes of Martyrs in the National Museum in Valletta33 – but others are after Finelli, du Quesnoy, Fancelli and Ferrata, and one is inscribed with the name of Algardi.34 One should, therefore, be cautious about falling into the temptation to claim that any drawing in this volume connected with a work by Ferrata indicates that the model was made by Cafà; however, one might be justified in slipping just a little. I have elsewhere identified a drawing of a putto (Fig.

Fig. 107

Fig. 106. Unknown Author, St. Andrew the Apostle, S. Michele, Pellio Inferiore Fig. 107. Francois du Quesnoy, St. Andrew the Aposle, St Peter’s, Vatican City

Fig. 108. Ercole Ferrata, Two Cherubs supporting a Medallion, Church of S. Andrea della Valle, Rome

Fig. 109

Fig. 109. Unknown Author, Cherub, Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig

Fig. 108

109) 35 as after the model that served for the cherub holding a medallion on the façade of S. Andrea della Valle (Fig. 108), commissioned in 1664. 36 There is no evidence to link it with Cafà, but it is almost identical to the putto he was to invent to place by the statue of Faith, which seems reason enough to assume that this too was his creation. Other drawings are related to more substantial works. It is known that when Giuseppe Peroni died in 1662, having apparently done nothing towards fulfilling his contract to make both the models and the marbles, Ercole Ferrata took over the execution of the Angels in S. Agostino over the Altar of St Thomas of Villanueva (Fig. 110), just as he completed the marble group within it after the death of Cafà. No less than five drawings in the Rensi volume are copied from these figures (Fig. 112), all from slightly different view-points and in a way that, without scaffolding, could not have been done from the marbles once they were set in place.37 Were these beautiful figures also modelled by Cafà? No one can say for certain, but I believe that they were,

as does Elena Bianca Di Gioia, who catalogued the terracotta sketch model in the Museo di Roma (Fig. 111) under his name. 38 However, we can be less certain about the finished models, and it must have been these, or the marbles before they were set up, which the Rensi 6 master copied. Whether or not such suppositions are correct, the author of the volume indubitably had a high admiration for the Maltese sculptor, and very possibly was close to him. But who was he?39 A clue was provided by Keith Sciberras, who recognised that two of the drawings in the volume were used in a painting by Michelangelo Marullo in Rabat. I do not want to anticipate the study that I hope he will write on this still rather mysterious “Michelangelo Maltese”, who accompanied the sculptor from Rome to Malta and back in 1666, and remained in the Eternal City for some time after Cafà’s death but this makes an attribution to Marullo highly likely. One should also consider a painting on the ceiling of a small chapel off a corridor in the complex of S. Agnese in

Fig. 110. Ercole Ferrata, Angel, Church of S. Agostino, Rome Fig. 110

Fig. 112

Fig. 111. (attributed to), bozzetto for an Angel, Museo di Roma, Rome Fig. 112. Unknown Author, Angel, Museum der bildenden KĂźnste, Leipzig

Fig. 111

Fig. 113. Unknown Author, St. Philip Neri in Glory before the Virgin, Church of S. Agnese, Rome Fig. 113

Fig. 114

Fig. 115

Fig. 114. Unknown Author, The Virgin[?], Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig Fig. 115. Unknown Author, Saint[?], Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig

Rome, that might, just possibly, be by Marullo (Fig. 113). Certainly I have been unable to find any documentary evidence as to who painted it, so perhaps Marullo is as good a candidate as anyone. What appears to be beyond dispute is that the figure of the Virgin is related to several drawings in Rensi 6 (Fig. 115),40 and this, taken together with Sciberras’s discovery concerning the painting in Rabat, could point to his authorship of the painting. But I am not here discussing Marullo. If the drawing on f.181 comes closest to the painting, it is not identical: it is as if the painter had worked from the same model, but seen from below. And that there was a three-dimensional model is evident from the two other drawings in the volume, showing, as it were, the same figure gyrating a little, and then a bit further, to her left. Apart from the fact that none of them shows the same da sotto in su effect as the S. Agnese ceiling, painters do not work in this way unless they are copying a three-dimensional model: if they want to try out another

angle for a figure of their own invention, they will adjust the drapery and other features to conform. But there is yet another drawing connected with the same model (Fig. 114): it is much sketchier, the woman now has a veil over her head, a less revealing garment over her breast, and a Cross on her lap, which seems to be supported by a cherub.41 Is this from a variant threedimensional model? I suspect not, and that the imprecisions of the drawing indicate that the draftsman was himself adapting the same figure to be used in another context. The model is not known, but both from its style, and from its use by Marullo, we should be justified in attributing it to Cafà; we might even wonder whether it was not made expressly for the painter. Maybe, in considering Cafà as making models for Ferrata, we are focusing too narrowly, and underestimating the influence of this major figure of the Italian baroque.

Per Melchiorre Cafà: Appunti dall’Archivio Storico dell’Accademia di San Luca di Roma

Angela Cipriani

In margine all’esauriente ricognizione critica e documentaria contenuta nel saggio di Maria Giulia Barberini che qui si pubblica, può forse risultare di qualche utilità una sintetica rassegna dei documenti che testimoniano i r a p p o r t i d i M e l ch i o r re C a f à c o n l’Accademia nei brevi anni del suo soggiorno romano. Molto spesso la lettura delle poche righe dei documenti antichi conservati nell’archivio sembra deludere le aspettative degli studiosi a causa della estrema essenzialità, al limite dell’ermetismo, delle notazioni riportate. Anche per Melchior re Cafà, mentre si sa da tempo della sua documentata presenza nell’Accademia di San Luca durante gli ultimi cinque anni del soggiorno romano, si potrebbe rimanere delusi dalla laconicità delle citazioni che si possono trarre dalla lettura dei verbali della Congregazioni accademiche come dagli elenchi degli Accademici o dei giovani allievi di quegli anni. Leggere invece quelle stesse poche righe all’interno del contesto generale della vita della struttura ‘accademia’, può forse meglio restituire la particolarità del contributo dello scultore maltese al dibattito artistico con-

temporaneo contribuendo ad individuarne il ruolo all’interno del complesso mondo romano di quei decenni. Nei registri dell’Accademia, il nome di Melchiorre Cafà compare per la prima volta nel verbale della Congregazione del 27 agosto del 1662. In questo documento si legge: “...nella qual Congregazione avanti d’ogni altra cosa, furono da diversi accademici proposti prima il sig. Carlo Maratta pittore, dopo il sig. Melchiorre Cafà scultore, et dopo il sig. Lorenzo Berrettino pittore per crearli accademici e furono eletti”.1 L’elezione di questi artisti è evidentemente molto attesa perché se ne discute prima di ogni altra cosa e, in particolare, subito dopo l’elezione del pittore Maratta, ci si preoccupa di accogliere la candidatura dello scultore Cafà, tornando solo poi a ragionare di nuovo di pittura per ammettere in questa classe anche Lorenzo Berrettini. Cafà è quindi in questo momento già così noto tra gli artisti accademici da essere proposto e votato subito dopo Carlo Maratta, pittore della linea ‘classicista’ in rapidissima affermazione nel clima romano ed accademico in particolare. 2 79

Dal momento della sua elezione, Cafà partecipa piuttosto assiduamente alle riunioni accademiche, ricoprendo cariche fin dal settembre dello stesso anno quando viene designato tra i ‘festaroli’.3 Nel 1663 manca alle riunioni tra marzo e giugno ed ancora a quella del 30 settembre, ma non è certo assente dalla vita dell’accademia anzi si schiera tra coloro che sostengono la necessità di disporre di uno spazio adeguato per tenere le riunioni accademiche e soprattutto, per lo Studio dei Giovani, contribuisce alla spesa dell’affitto di un locale per l’immediato e promette una sua opera per contribuire all’acquisto dello stesso 4 . L’anno seguente, nel 1664, la presenza dello scultore maltese in Accademia si fa ancora più significativa. Alla presa di possesso del principato da parte di Carlo Maratta, il primo gennaio 1664,viene indicato come probabile Camerlengo ma cede di fronte a Guidi che aveva quell’incarico già nel periodo precedente, ed è nominato ‘stimatore di scultura’ dal Principe insieme al Naldini. Nel registro dei giovani studenti, che si inizia a tenere proprio in quel primo giorno dell’anno, su undici scultori, sette non indicano alcun artista come riferimento fisso per la loro formazione, tre sono allievi del Ferrata, ma uno, Pietro Passaleo, si dichiara allievo del sig. Melchiorre Cafà.5 In poco più di un anno dalla sua elezione quindi, il giovane scultore è già individuato come specifico punto di riferimento all’interno del variegato panorama artistico romano, gli si riconosce cioè una personalità autonoma, matura al punto da avere propri allievi in grado di essere iscritti in Accademia.6 Assente dal dicembre del 1664 al gennaio dell’anno seguente, partecipa alla Congregazione del 26 gennaio 1665 7 nella quale si stabilisce che: “... per il 80

mese di febbraro acconcierà il panno il sig. Melchiorre Cafà... Naldini per marzo... Galestruzzi per aprile”. Lo scultore è così inserito nella prassi della didattica accademica come ulteriore testimonianza della stima di cui gode presso gli accademici per le capacità professionali ma anche per l’interesse dei giovani verso il suo lavoro. ‘Stimatore di scultura’ con Naldini,8 nell’ottobre è chiamato con Grimaldi ad: “...assistere nella chiesa durante la festa”.9 Nel novembre infine, gli accademici sono chiamati in Congregazione a votare per eleggere cinque accademici, tra i dieci proposti al voto, dal novero dei quali estrarre a sorte il Principe,10 mentre 18 accademici scelgono Grimaldi, Melchiorre Cafà riporta 14 voti, alla pari di Orfeo Boselli, 13 Pietro da Cortona e 12 Ercole Ferrata. E’ questa un risultato piuttosto singolare perché registra una affermazione della scultura del tutto inusitata, in singolare concomitanza con la nuova stesura degli statuti che proprio in questi mesi, oramai perfezionati, avrebbero dovuto essere ‘copiati in bona forma per dare a nostro signore’.11 Nei nuovi statuti, che in realtà non verranno mai promulgati e dei quali ci rimane solo una versione manoscritta raccolta in volumetto da Giuseppe Ghezzi nel 1676, 12 si ribadiva il ruolo centrale della scultura nella genesi stessa dell’Accademia in maniera del tutto inedita e, al di fuori di questa occasione, mai più ricordata. Assente dalle riunioni accademiche fino al giugno del 1666, e di nuovo dall’ottobre al febbraio dell’anno seguente, nel settembre, sotto il principato di Giovan Francesco Grimaldi, è di nuovo eletto ‘festarolo’.13 Nel dicembre di questo anno, per procedere alla designazione del Principe per l’anno seguente, vengono estratti nell’ordine i nomi di Pietro Berrettini, di Melchiorre Cafà e

di Ercole Ferrata che via via rinunciano alla carica, investendo di fatto di essa l’ultimo rimasto del gruppo, lo scultore Orfeo Boselli che diviene Principe dell’Accademia per il 1667.14 L’evidente affollarsi per Cafà degli impegni, anche lontano da Roma, gli impedisce di partecipare assiduamente, come in passato, alle riunioni accademiche. Nominato dal Principe ‘stimatore di scultura’ insieme al Ferrata, 15 sarà presente nei mesi di febbraio e marzo, poi a giugno. Ad agosto fa pervenire in Congregazione la somma dovuta come multa per non aver accettato la carica di principe per le mani di Pietro del Pò,16 e forse questa assenza è determinata da quella ‘breve indisposizione’, che lo condurrà di lì a poco ‘all’altra vita’.17 Per completare l’elenco dei documenti inerenti Melchiorre Cafà, conservati nell’archivio storico dell’Accademia, si può infine ricordare che dopo circa un secolo, nel 1756, la ricognizione dei beni dell’Accademia registra la presenza nell’ ‘Inventario dell’Armario a mano sinistra’, tra i modelli di Algardi e di Ercole Ferrata di: ‘Due modelli di creta cotta, cioè la Fede e la Carità, sedenti

sopra due frontespizi, di Mechior Maltese’ e ‘nella stanza delli modelli scielti e posti in cornice, nella facciata a sinistra della porta’ di ‘un modello di Melchior Maltese’,18 di cui non si avrà poi alcuna altra menzione negli inventari più recenti. Non si ricorda già più se sia stato un dono dello stesso Cafà per l’ingresso in Accademia o un lascito di qualche altro artista L’oblio che avvolge la figura dello scultore maltese è, a quest’epoca, lo stesso che ha ormai cancellato la memoria di quella singolare stagione di centralità della scultura nell’accademia romana degli anni sessanta del Seicento legata sicuramente all’affermazione forte della personalità del Bernini ma favorita anche dalla nuova ricerca di equilibrio, tra questa e la linea ‘classicista,’ espressa essenzialmente dal Cafà e dallo scultore e teorico Orfeo Boselli.19 L’improvvisa scomparsa di ambedue questi artisti, alla metà del 1667, tronca bruscamente quell’esperienza che verrà ripresa poi, dopo qualche decennio, in un clima storico e culturale completamente diverso, da presupposti e con esiti ovviamente diversi.

Fig. 116

Melchiorre Cafà at S. Caterina a Magnanapoli

Gerhard Bissell

For a long time considered as Cafà’s only sculptural project to be completed by himself 1 before his untimely death in 1667, the (Fig. 116)is central to our understanding of his work. Additionally, as Cafà is credited with the design of the main altar’s architecture into which his relief is embedded, a different aspect of his art emerges.2 The building of the monastery and church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli in Rome was started by Domenican tertiary nuns who used to live in the house where Saint Catherine of Siena, the founder of their group, died. After giving this up, they moved to the Magnanapoli site by 1574, finally building a church from 1628. The architect was Giovan Battista Sorìa. By October 1631 the chancel was the first part to be completed. In 1640 the church was consecrated, and 1641 onwards the facade was added.3 Inside (Fig. 117) we find a simple hall with a barrel-vault and shallow side chapels. Like those, the chancel is opened up to nearly the full height and width of the main space. Within the chancel we find a monumental altar architecture which, according to the first edition

of Titi’s Rome guide of 1674, was designed by Melchiorre Cafà. This statement, published only seven years after Cafà’s death, reads as follows: “L’Altar maggiore, che ultimamente si fabricò con la sopraintendenza di Monsig. Ignatio Cianti Domenicano Vescovo di S.Agiolo, è disegno di Melchiorre Maltese, come anche è sua opera S.Caterina scolpita in marmo; & il Dio Padre con Angiolini nel Cuppolino lo dopinse con buona maniera Francesco Rosa Rom.” 4

Fig. 116. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, Rome Fig. 117. Church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, Rome. Interior Fig. 117

Fig. 118

Fig. 119

Fig. 118. Church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, Rome. Interior, Cupolino Fig. 119. Church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, Rome. Interior, Chancel, Corner

This short description is all we have as a base for our investigation into the subject Cafà and Magnanapoli. A little more is to follow in later editions of the guide book. A few facts of this passage require to be emphasised: – The architecture of the altar has been completed recently - whatever the expression “ultimamente” might mean. – The altar’s architecture and the relief are treated as separate items. – The supervision of the architectural enterprise lay with the Dominican bishop Cianti. – Furthermore, there was a Dio Padre painted in the Cupolino above. Equally, it must be stressed what Titi does not say: – There is no word about the rest of the decoration, i.e. the many putti and angels as well as the four medaillons with Dominican saints 5 in the four corners of the cupola (Fig. 118). – Neither does the description of 1674 speak about the side walls of the chancel. From another source, the Libro delle Vestizioni of the monastery, we know that the funds for the “Statua di S.Caterina”, more than 1000 scudi, were provided by the nun Camilla Peretti,

grand-niece of Pope Sixtus V. She died in 1668, 50 years after entering the monastery. 6 The altar’s architecture is a very singular affair. It responds to the general colour scheme of the church and to the height of the main entablature. With its undulated appearance and two tiers organised with walls, columns, pilasters and voids, it is closely related to church façades. The space in the large concave middle bay, which would there be used for a door, is taken up by Cafà’s large relief, above it the Holy Spirit in front of a void evokes a window. The architectural resemblance is close enough that one scholar could describe this altar as a façade to the “Chiesa di Dentro” thereby referring to the nuns’ choir situated right behind it.7 Taking up the whole wall space, the top of the structure is peopled with putti and angels in an ambiguous zone connecting the altar and the cupola. One might expect this kind of architecture to end at the side walls, but we find the lower tier carried around the corners (Fig. 119). On the main wall, marble is used throughout but on the side walls we find the pilasters and entablature to be of stucco. This, together with the uncomfortable feeling the corner solution evokes, leads to the hypothetical conclusion that it might not have been Cafà’s original concept to extend the architectural system to the side walls. However, the reliefs by Pietro Bracci8 , added in 1755 and clearly referring back to Cafà’s main relief, are executed in marble and are placed in a marble frame. These frames, on the other hand, might well have been part of Cafà’s design. A decoration of the side walls is first mentioned in the second edition of Titi in 1686, twelve years after the first. Without editing the old text, there is the following addition between the description of Cafà’s relief and the

paintings in the cupolino: “… delle bande vi è dipinta S.Caterina, che presenta una Rosa al Bambino; e la Madonna portata da gl’Angiolini…”9 The plural form “dalle bande” suggests the existence of two paintings, one with St Catherine, one with the Madonna, although this is by no means the only way to interpret this description. Certainly, Cafà is by now long dead and might not have had anything at all to do with these subjects or, indeed, any decoration project for the side walls. But since he obviously was in charge of the whole chancel, it seems very unlikely he should not have thought about the side walls. The length of time passed between Cafà’s death in 1667, the absence of paintings on the side walls in 1674 and their first mention in 1686 seems to exclude Cafà’s involvement. But it is quite possible that the first edition of Titi appeared while the whole decoration was still being carried out. The passage “ultimamente si fabricò” could indicate that the architectural components were only finished just before or in 1674, rather than relating back to the time of Cafà’s death in 1667, which is only a relevant terminus ante quem for his relief. The frames might well have been there by 1674 and the execution of the paintings envisaged or even underway to be completed some time before 1686. Two reliefs of gilded bronze10 (Fig. 120) demonstrate Cafà’s involvement with suitable subjects for the lateral decoration of the chancel. One of them shows a nun offering a rose to the child Jesus sitting on his mothers lap, and generally matches the description given by Titi for the paintings in Magnanapoli. It is conceivable that Cafà intended a variation of these for the larger scale representation on the side walls of Magnanapoli. On the other hand, it is also possible that Bishop Cianti, in charge of the project, adopted some original Dominican designs

by Cafà for this project, just to round off an uncompleted scheme with a suitable theme. But let us now move on to the main relief (Fig.116). It shows St Catherine on a base of clouds carried towards heaven with the assistance of angels and putti. The region below the cloud is dark, while the area above it and particularly around her body is characterised by a bright gloriole. There is a marked distinction between the even, convavely curved background of differently coloured marble and the sculptural work in white marble but both parts interact to achieve an overall effect. While the background generally followes a symmetrical composition, the figural parts are kept in a dynamic equilibrium and rhythmical flow around a central, vertical axis. Dominant motives are kept in balance by a number of lesser ones which in turn receive a counterweight. We find Catherine’s body oscillating around the central axis with her head and shoulder shifted to one side, and a massive sweep of her cloak swinging out to the other. Using the added depth provided by the concavity of the ground, Cafà’s Catherine nearly appears to be a statue. Although we are meant to recognise a human body, only few elements of a body are identifiable: one leg, one hand and lower arm, finally one large coherent segment of head, shoulder, arm and hand. The rest of the figure is evoked with an immense mass of cloak determining her powerful appearance. By defining only fragments of a body, Cafà ensures that the saint would never achieve a firm stance. Indeed, the bending of the knee right next to an isolated, protruding bank of clouds suggests the image of a woman just rising from kneeling on a prie-dieu. By elongating the one visible leg Cafà creates only the minimum of optical stability. He further strengthens

Fig. 120

Fig. 120. St Rose of Lima’s Vision of the Roses, Descalzas Reales, Madrid

Fig. 121. Simon Francois Ravenet, Glory of St Catherine of Siena Fig. 122. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Private Collection

Fig. 121

Fig. 122

the impression of a restless longing to escape the heavy earthly constraints by widening the entire silhouette, not through substance, but through a void created by draperie which is freed from the laws of gravity. Furthermore, while her knee and the centrally placed corner of her cloak is protruding towards the foreground, her upper body is leaning backwards. If compared to the recently found bozzetto (Fig. 122) in a private collection 11 , the pur posefulness of Cafà’s approach becomes much clearer. Every aspect just mentioned can be seen there in a very reduced form. The body, albeit covered in a thick cloak, is far more articulated through a coherent, uninterrupted outline. The upper body is straight and well balanced with only the head leaning back. And even her head sits more clearly in the middle of the shoulders than in the marble. The draperie echoes around the body but generally feels heavier as gravity pulls it. Furthermore, instead of Catherine lifting off the cloud, her long scapular firmly anchors her to it. There are no voids except for deep gorges, and the whole figure is solid and stable. We see

a pyramid shaped mass, firmly placed on a firm ground. To modify this impression in the marble Cafà eliminates the connection with the cloud to some extent, particularly by shortening the scapular and organising the cloak in a different way. He retains the long sweep which accompanies her leg but takes all threedimensional qualities out of it, thereby retaining the width of the silhouette while lightening the mass of the body considerably. He clearly wants to retain the wealth of garment material but he makes the saint press it firmly onto her bosom, thus creating one of the most striking arrangements of the whole work with the emotional hands displayed like a coat of arms. The sheer weight suggested by the cloak in the bozzetto through long, voluminous folds is replaced by thin, short grates of a graphic nature and an arrangement in layers rather than in the round. Despite the plastic volume displayed in large areas, the whole altar relief works mainly in a pictorial way. It requires to be seen frontally, and Cafà does not allow many satisfying views from oblique angles. He does, however, take into account the shift of perspective from below which, unavoidably, is how a visitor would see the work. Bending back Saint Catherine’s upper body even enhances the feeling of seeing her sotto in su. It also helps to add more depth to the relief. Cafà is, in fact, employing two ways to convey a sense of depth and space. The first, factual one is clearly demonstrated by the elegantly lounging putto who sticks one foot right out of the scene. There is nothing fake about this space, the foreshortening is the real foreshortening of a plastic mass. The other, illusionistic way is perceivable in the large angel whose whole body is deceptive, from the wing overlapping the frame and penetrating the spectators’

space to the legs located in the depth of the image’s structure, with the foot further back also being clearly smaller in size than the one in front. To a large extent, the illusion of depth and space is created by the cloud. Anything but immaterial, it appears as a real, voluminous substance stretching to either side of the relief as well as into its deepest dimensions. The angel and the putti have to apply some effort in their attempt to move it. The cloud’s protrusion, out towards the beholder, is more insinuated by means of accumulating concave discs stacked in front of each other than achieved through actual depth. The putto’s leg sticking out right in front of its most elevated point is just the icing on the cake: illusionistic protrusion culminating in a real one. The cloud’s depth is achieved by suggesting that the white substance would continue around the saint’s body, and lead back to that side of the relief where it seemingly started. The cloud behind Catherine is very flat and, in fact, created in plaster rather than marble, but brushed in the same disc stacking way. In its horizontal arrangement the cloud counters Catherine’s vertical orientation and thus lends her strong support while at the same time working against her longing tendency to float towards the light up high. A detachment seems unavoidable. It is not the cloud which would lift her like an elevator, the real driving force for the upwards tendency lies within Saint Catherine herself. She is bound to overcome material restrictions, even those of a mere cloud. But we find two kinds of cloud in this image. The white cloud just described and, completely different in nature, the suggested dark cloud of the multicoloured relief ground. Again, this different substance is something Cafà only arrives at after the

bozzetto stage where he clearly intends the upper, non supporting clouds to take part in a phenomenal appearance of light, but still defines them as being an equally solid mass as the rest of the clouds. In the bozzetto the light is given as rays engraved into the surface of the relief. This suggests that the whole relief was, at that stage, conceived as a material unity, very much in the same way as for example Cafà’s S. Eustachio relief in Sant’Agnese was: everything is sculpted marble treated in an illusionary, painterly way. By abandoning this principle and combining the sculptural marble with what is ultimately a pattern of decorative marble, Cafà introduces a whole new dimension. Without having to use rays as a conventional symbol, he creates the impression of light through the material, not only understood by the beholder as a sign for light, but immediately experienced as the phenomenon itself. Cafà’s arrangement of the pieces of coloured marble at the same time embraces a multitude of interpretations. It expresses the theme of Catherine leaving behind the darkness as she ascends towards heaven, it emphasises the light bursting through the clouds ready to guide and receive her, and it also depicts the traditional motive of a halo around the saint’s head. The halo doubles up as the objective of her longing by displaying the brightest piece of coloured Giallo antico at the very top edge of the whole composition, cut by the frame, emphasised by neighbouring dark pieces of marble and, thus, distinctly standing out even from a distance. Yet, this is still not everything this comparatively small piece of plain marble evokes when guided by Cafà’s ingenious mind. The piece is also radiating out, continues the direction of Catherine’s longing gaze and transcends it beyond the visible realm. 87

Fig. 123

Fig. 123. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Monument for Suor Maria Raggi, Church of S. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome

In the bozzetto, on the other hand, the direction of the interaction is reversed and the rays of light seem to shower down onto Catherine. Only the finished marble relief allows us to perceive a guiding light leading the saint to the culmination of her longings. It is only fair to acknowledge Cafà’s debt to his predecessors and contemporaries. A number of ideas displayed in his relief draw their inspiration from other Roman works of the high baroque, particularly Bernini and his circle. We already find angels carrying a saint heavenwards for example in the St Francis relief in the Roman church of S.Pietro in Montorio (designed by Bernini, 1640s). Of course, there are any number of putti working with clouds. Nearly contemporary and close in style are those around the Cattedra Petri where the head of Cafà’s workshop, Ercole Ferrata, played an important role under Bernini. The figure of Saint Catherine is closely related to female saints produced by Ferrata and his workshop, from St Agnes in the Fire to Sant’Emerenziana to the statue of St Catherine in Siena Cathedral, all works to which Cafà himself as a workshop member possibly made significant contributions. We can trace Catherine’s hand position in the Magnanapoli relief back to Bernini’s monument for Suor Maria Raggi (Fig. 123) in S. Maria sopra Minerva from 1647, clearly adopted by Cafà in his bozzetto but in the marble arranged further apart. We even find

the use of coloured marble as a flat background already in the 1630s in the Loggie delle Reliquie embedded into the pillars of St Peter’s, again designed by Bernini. For the general theme of a saint in extasy on a cloud with light playing a dominant role there is, of course, Bernini’s St Teresa, again from the 1640s. There is no doubt that Cafà exploited these sources. But, after gathering all the elements in the bozzetto (here even the material rays of light point straight back to St Teresa), he sets out to achieve something completely new. Between the stages of the bozzetto and the finished altar piece Cafà intensifies his design, abandons the purely sculptural work and links it with the pictorial suggestion of a phenomenon which the spectator can’t fail but noticing. Cafà’s relief exerts some influence on later artists, particularly on Pierre Le Gros12 who, for his massive altar relief of S. Luigi Gonzaga, adopts a multitude of motives from the Magnanapoli altar piece and, in conjunction with motives from Cafà’s bozzetto, paraphrases them. For his St Filippo Neri Le Gros goes one step further and uses light itself as the background for a statue organised in a similar fashion to St Catherine. The ingenious creation Cafà left behind in Magnanapoli alone suffices to secure his prominence in the history of baroque sculpture and we can only muse what he could have achieved had he lived longer.

La Santa Rosa di Melchiorre Cafà: iconografia e significato

Alessandra Anselmi

La Santa Rosa (Fig.124) è certamente una delle più importanti sculture realizzate da Melchiorre Cafà. L’opera dal 1670 si trova in Perù, nella chiesa di Santo Domingo a Lima, dove è collocata nel transetto sinistro. Su un lato del basamento vi è la firma e la data: Melchior Cafa – Melitensis – Faciebat – Romae – A dni – MDCLXV (Fig. 125). La datazione 1665 è un dato acquisito solo recentemente grazie ad uno saggio di Ramón Mujica Pinilla pubblicato nel

1995.1 Lo studioso peruviano ha infatti avuto modo di osservare direttamente la scultura e correggere così l’errata datazione for nita da John F leming in un saggio pubblicato nel 1947. In questo saggio Fleming riportava la citata iscrizione ma con la data errata 1669.2 Dato che Cafà morì nel settembre del 1667, la datazione postuma al 1669 portava necessariamente ad ipotizzare che l’opera fosse stata terminata o comunque lucidata dopo la morte dello scultore,

Fig. 125

Fig. 124. St Rose of Lima, Church of S. Domingo, Lima Fig. 125. St Rose of Lima, Church of S. Domingo, Lima. Detail

Fig. 124

anche se, come osservato in un saggio di Elena di Gioia pubblicato nel 1987, “l’alta quanto inconfondibile qualità del marmo (a quanto si può giudicare dalle riproduzioni fotografiche) sembra escludere l’intervento deter minante di aiuti nell’esecuzione dell’opera”, 3 in relazione alla quale Preimesberger nel 1969 ha pubblicato un bozzetto in terracotta del Museo di Palazzo Venezia4 (Fig. 126) ed Elena di Gioia ha approfonditamente studiato i bronzetti da questo derivati (Figs 127-131). 5 Abbiamo dunque per l’esecuzione dell’opera un termine cronologico, per

l’appunto il 1665, che non solo concorda con i dati biografici di Cafà ma anche con i dati offerti da una relazione scritta in occasione della beatificazione di Rosa da Lima, avvenuta il 12 febbraio 1668. 6 La relazione riporta che alla cerimonia svoltasi nella basilica di San Pietro il 15 aprile 1668 fece seguito un festeggiamento, il 13 maggio, nella chiesa di Santa Maria sopra Minerva, ch i e s a d e l l ’ o rd i n e d o m e n i c a n o a cui apparteneva Rosa da Lima. La relazione, scritta da Domenico Lioni, dopo aver descritto il sontuoso apparato decorativo della chiesa, menziona al centro dell’altare maggiore una statua “di finissimo mar mo lavorato dalla mano di nobil artefice”. 7 La scultura esposta in Santa Maria sopra Minerva nel 1668 deve dunque essere la scultura di Cafà, poi inviata a Lima dove arrivò nel 1670.8 La scultura, realizzata in marmo di Carrara, raffigura Rosa da Lima in stato di completo abbandono, riversa su un piano roccioso da cui nasce una rosa rompicante, mentre un angelo collocato al suo lato le tocca gentilmente il capo e solleva un lembo delle manica sinistra dell’abito di terziaria domenicana (Fig. 132). Sotto il velo si intravede la corona di spine, particolare iconografico, che

Fig. 127

Fig. 129

Fig. 128

Fig. 130

Fig. 126

Fig. 126. St Rose of Lima, Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome Fig. 127. St Rose of Lima, Sgarbi Collection, Rome Fig. 128. St Rose of Lima, present whereabouts unknown Fig. 129. St Rose of Lima, A.M. Sackler Foundation, New York Fig. 130. St Rose of Lima, Museo di Roma, Rome

come vedremo, è molto importante per comprendere il significato dell’opera. Un’altra corona formata questa volta di spine e rose, è posta a fianco della scultura, dietro la testa di Rosa.9 Al lato del corpo è invece visibile un rosario, ed è questo un attributo ricorrente nelle raffigurazioni dei santi domenicani, la tradizione vuole infatti che sia stato San Domenico de Guzmán, ovvero il fondatore nel tredicesimo secolo dell’ordine domenicano, ad introdurre questa devozione. La posizione di Rosa, il suo volto con i lineamenti distesi, gli occhi socchiusi e le labbra semi aperte alludono invece ad uno degli episodi più rilevanti della sua biografia ovvero la morte, proprio come questa è descritta nella biografia della santa scritta dal già citato Domenico Lioni, pubblicata nel 1665, il quale scrive che dopo la morte Rosa “rimase bellissima con gli occhi aperti e non serrati e con la bocca mezzo aperta come se stesse ridendo”, quindi morta ma in uno stato di estasi.10 E’ qui importante ricordare che nella tradizione mistica vi è una stretta associazione fra estasi e morte: il dolore causato dall’amore spirituale verso Cristo è infatti concepito come una ferita e la ferita è mortale. La vita di chi ama spiritualmente è un continuo morire e la morte vera diviene l’unione definitiva tra amante ed essere amato; si muore per la fede, fede intesa come martirio mistico, che causa la morte e quindi apre alla vera vita,11 vera vita a cui l’angelo con le sue delicate movenze sembra per l’appunto volerla risvegliare. Un sonetto dedicato alla scultura, intitolato “A la estatua en mar mol de la beata Rosa limana, dormida y despierta a vista de un angel”, ovvero, “Alla statua di marmo della beata Rosa limana, addormentata e svegliata da un angelo”, pubblicato dal già citato Ramón Mujica Pinilla, sottolinea il significato mistico dell’opera realizzata

da Melchiorre Cafà. 12 Si tratta di un sonetto, scritto in spagnolo, ricco di metafore tipicamente barocche non immediatamente comprensibili, per tanto qui mi limito a citare i due versi che a mio avviso danno la chiave di lettura della scultura a cui il sonetto è dedicato: “Halló la muerte en su dolor ahora del sepulcro a la gloria abre la vida” (ovvero, “trovò la morte nel suo dolore, ed ora dal sepolcro a la gloria si apre la vita”). Questi versi compendiano l’essenza del pensamento religioso mistico, la sofferenza e la privazione fino alla macerazione delle

Fig. 132

Fig. 131

Fig. 131. St Rose of Lima, Faldi Collection, Rome

Fig. 132. St Rose of Lima, Church of S. Domingo, Lima. Detail

Fig. 133 Fig. 134

Fig. 135

Fig. 133. Spiked Crown of St Rose, silver, Sanctuary of St Rose of Lima (from Santa Rosa de Lima y su tempo, Lima, 1995) Fig. 134. Isaia da Pisa (attributed to), St Catherine of Siena, Church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, Roma Fig. 135. Guido Reni, Christ crowned with thorns, The Detroit Institute of Arts Fig. 136. La Mercedes, Monastery of Santa Rosa de Santa Maria, Lima (from Santa Rosa de Lima y su tempo, Lima, 1995) Fig. 137 Escala Espiritual, Monastery of Santa Rosa de Santa Maria, Lima (from Santa Rosa de Lima y su tempo, Lima, 1995)

proprie carni, ovvero l’Imitazio Christi portata alle sue più estreme conseguenze. Numerose sono le biografie di sante che parlano della loro esperienza mistica dove è quasi sempre presente anche una forte dimensione erotica, seppure sublimata. Le sante, nelle loro visioni, baciano appassionatamente le piaghe di Cristo e ne bevono il sangue, ne descrivono gli incontri, si sottopongono ad autopunizioni con cilicio, flagelli e digiuni che le fanno sentire più vicine a Dio. Questi elementi li ritroviamo nella vita di Giovanna d’Arco, Santa Teresa d’Avila, Santa Caterina 13 ed anche nelle biografie di Rosa da Lima14 ma si potrebbero citare molte altre sante ed anche santi, infatti “dai tempi delle persecuzioni della prima Chiesa il martirio rappresentava il supremo atto di fede e l’unica via assoluta alla santità”.15 Se questi che ho accennato, sono tratti che accomunano i santi o gli aspiranti tali, vi sono però poi anche delle importanti differenze sui loro comportamenti o visioni ascetiche ed è su queste che ora dobbiamo focalizzare l’attenzione per cercare di comprendere la Santa Rosa di Melchiorre Cafà. Occorre innanzitutto soffermarsi brevemente sulla biografia di Rosa,

la quale nacque a Lima il 30 aprile del 1586, da una famiglia della classe media. Il suo nome di battesimo era Isabella, ma stando alle biografie, all’età di tre mesi la madre lo cambiò in Rosa perché vide apparire tale fiore sul volto della figlia.16 Fin da bambina Rosa decise di prendere a modello la vita di Santa Caterina da Siena, santa domenicana,

Fig. 136

vissuta tra il 1347 ed il 1380 e canonizzata nel 1461. 17 Una scultura raffigurante la santa attribuita ad Isaia da Pisa è collocata a partire dal 1855 in prossimità dell’altare maggiore della già citata chiesa di Santa Maria Sopra Minerva (Fig. 134) 18 e non è da escludere che la statua abbia in certa misura ispirato l’iconografia di Cafà per quanto concerne l’idea di raffigurare la Santa giacente.19 Tra gli episodi della vita di Rosa che richiamano l’imitazione del modello di Santa Caterina uno ci interessa in particolare e riguarda la corona pungente con la quale Rosa segretamente si cinse la testa. Le biografie riportano che dopo aver visto un Hecce Homo, e richiamandosi all’esempio di Caterina, Rosa decise di fabbricarsi una corona con una lastra di stagno in cui piantò acutissimi chiodi e con la quale si cinse la testa. Al fine di evitare che i capelli attutissero la ferite dei chiodi li tagliò tutti. A questa prima corona ne fecero seguito altre, che le causavano sempre maggiori sofferenze, l’ultima delle quali era for mata da tre giri di trentatre chiodi (Fig. 133). Le fonti riportano che Rosa teneva la

Fig. 137

Fig. 138. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Transverberation of St Theresa, Church of S. Maria della Vittoria, Rome

Fig. 138

corona nascosta sotto il velo affinché la sofferenza fosse tutta sua e non fosse esibita e si sottoponeva anche ad altre auto mortificazioni che infine stremarono il suo fragile corpo, morendo così il 24 agosto 1617 all’età di soli 31 anni.20 Se la corona, attributo evidente nella scultura di Cafà ed elemento presente anche nei dipinti ed in un disegno di Lazzaro Baldi, 21 rimanda come modello all’Imitatio Christi (Fig. 135) e a Santa Caterina, abbiamo però dirette testimonianze che Rosa prese come modello anche un’altra grande mistica, ovvero Teresa di Gesù, vissuta tra il 1515 ed i 1582, canonizzata il 12 marzo 1622. Sappiamo che gli scritti di Teresa erano ben noti a Rosa attraverso Juan del Castello, uno dei suoi interlocutori privilegiati, medico ed intellettuale di Lima che proprio negli anni in cui si svolsero i suoi colloqui con Rosa, cioè dal 1614 al 1617, stava preparando un commentario della Vida y moradas di Santa Teresa, ovvero l’autobiografia della mistica spagnola nella quale ella descrive le sue estasi e le sue visioni. Il fatto che Rosa venne profondamente influenzata da Teresa è testimoniato dai suoi scritti e disegni olografi, scoperti nel 1923. Si 93

Fig. 139. St Rose of Lima, Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome

Fig. 139

tratta di due fogli con disegni e scritte, quindi una sorta di emblemi, un foglio si intitola Las Mercedes o Heridas del Alma (Fig. 136), ovvero Le Grazie o ferite dell’animo, e l’altro La Escala Espiritual (Fig. 137), cioè La scala spirituale. In questi fogli sono descritte e raffigurate le ferite d’amore causatele da Dio. Per esempio nel primo foglio, cioè nelle Mercedes, abbiamo un cuore ferito che reca al suo interno una croce ed intorno una scritta dove Rosa dice che si tratta della prima ferita ricevuta da Dio, più in basso abbiamo un cuore sormontato da una croce ed all’interno un bambino Gesù, con la scritta “aqui descansó Jesus abrasandome el corazón”, ovvero “qui riposò Gesù bruciandomi il cuore”, il terzo cuore mostra oltre alla croce, simbolo della ferita d’amore, delle ali e si legge “vuela para Dios”, ovvero “vola verso Dio”. Nel secondo foglio, noto come La Escala Espiritual, vi è al centro una scala con i quindici gradi dell’amore divino, e sono illustrati i diversi modi in cui questo si manifesta, per esempio il cuore trapassato da una punta di carta allude al cuore trapassato dal raggio dell’amore 94

di Dio, il cuore attraversato da un grosso chiodo, posto più in basso, reca invece la scritta “o dichoso corazón que recibiste en arras el clavo de la passión”, ovvero “o cuore fortunato che ricevesti il chiodo della passione”. Sul lato opposto vi è un cuore attraversato da una ferita e sopra la scritta “inferma estoy de amores o fiebre, que muero de ella”, ovvero “sono malata d’amore e di febbre e per questo muoio”.22 E’ dunque evidente che l’esperienza mistica descritta da Rosa corrisponde alle esperienze descritte da Teresa di Gesù, in particolare alla trasverberazione, cioè alla ferita d’amore che produce la morte. Tra Teresa e Rosa vì è però anche una profonda differenza: negli scritti di Teresa vi è infatti una forte componente erotica, ovviamente sublimata in chiave mistica, ma nel frasario di Teresa si allude frequentemente al congiungimento con Cristo in modo molto vivido, si tratta di un congiungimento spirituale che però è vissuto anche carnalmente e sensualmente, cioè con il coinvolgimento di tutti i sensi. 23 Negli scritti di Rosa i nve c e e n e l l e t e s t i m o n i a n ze ch e vennero raccolte su di lei per il processo di canonizzazione non vi è questa dimensione così carnale ed erotica e, soprattutto, è importante sottolineare che rispetto a Teresa in Rosa vi è un accentuazione, della imitatio Christi che si manifestò soprattutto nell’uso della già menzionata corona di spine.24 Quindi riassumendo brevemente quanto detto finora possiamo dire che Rosa, come attestano i suoi scritti e le testimonianze coeve, ebbe fondamentalmente due modelli Santa Caterina e Santa Teresa, da Santa Caterina deriva l’uso della corona e quindi il modello dell’imitatio Christi, che si manifestava anche in altre forme di penitenza quali il sospendersi ad una croce, mentre da Santa Teresa è ripresa l’esperienza mistica dell’amore verso Cristo, che produce profonde

ferite d’amore ma senza la componente erotica che contraddistingue gli scritti della mistica spagnola. Avere chiari quali furono i modelli spirituali di Rosa è molto importante perché ci aiuta a comprendere il significato dell’opera di Cafà e soprattutto le differenze rispetto ad un celeberrimo gruppo scultoreo con il quale è imprescindibile il confronto, mi riferisco alla Santa Teresa di Gian Lorenzo Bernini nella cappella Cornaro in Santa Maria della Vittoria a Roma (Fig. 140), iniziata nel 1647 e terminata nel 1651, opera studiata nel fondamentale ed affascinante studio di Irving Lavin.25 Melchiorre Cafà per la sua Rosa certamente trasse ispirazione dal gruppo berniniano, è infatti di Bernini l’idea di personificare l’amore divino con l’angelo che colpisce con il suo dardo la santa, anche se in realtà è più corretto dire che a Bernini spetta il primato di aver tradotto magistralmente in marmo ed inter pretato in modo personale un’iconografia che, come ha dimostrato Lavin, deriva dalle incisioni. Cafà dunque dovette studiare la Santa Teresa ed il fatto che si sia ispirato a Bernini è chiaramente dimostrato dal particolare dell’angelo, simbolo dell’amore divino, che, seppure con fattezze fisionomiche leggermente diverse, sembra una diretta citazione dell’opera realizzata dal più anziano ed affermato scultore. Anche il bozzetto in terracotta mostra che Caffa meditò sull’opera di Bernini, tanto che il piccolo modello è stato anche attribuito al più anziano maestro (fig.9). 26 Nel suo insieme tuttavia l’opera di Cafà certo non può dirsi una pedissequa imitazione né dal punto di vista stilistico né da quello iconografico. La Teresa di Bernini, con il corpo contratto, gli occhi rovesciati e la bocca gemente (fig.10) è attraversata da una ferita d’amore che ha anche un alto contenuto erotico, che trova rispondenza negli scritti di Teresa.

Inoltre sotto il panneggio si intuisce un corpo palpitante e vibrante. Completamente diversa è l’espressione e la posizione del corpo della Santa peruviana, Rosa nella finale realizzazione in mar mo, quindi a differenza del bozzetto di terracotta, giace riversa ed abbandonata, sempre per le ferite d’amore, a cui rimanda esplicitamente la corona, ma il suo abbandono non ha nulla di sensuale, aspetto che invece trapela dal bozzetto, come non hanno nulla di pronunciatamente erotico i sui scritti. Il suo corpo è rilassato e quindi il panneggio non è crepitante come nella scultura di Bernini. Differenza che corrisponde ad esigenze iconografiche ma certamente anche ad una diversa sensibilità artistica.27 Quindi se da un lato è indubbio il fatto che il giovane Melchiorre abbia tratto ispirazione dal più anziano e celebre maestro egli ebbe però la capacità di creare un’opera autonoma che iconograficamente è fedele al modello di santità impersonato da Rosa, ovvero si potrebbe dire facendo un paradossale confronto che sia la Santa, cioè Rosa da Lima, sia lo scultore, ovvero Melchiorre Cafà, Fig. 140. Gianlorenzo Bernini, Transverberation of St Theresa, Church of S. Maria della Vittoria, Rome. Detail

Fig. 140

pur rifacendosi a precedenti modelli giungono a realizzazioni, una come tipo di vita e l’altro come creazione artistica, indipendenti ed originali. Come attesta anche il fatto che la posizione del corpo di Rosa nella scultura di Cafà ricorda più che la Santa Teresa di Bernini l’iconografia della depositio Christi e come accennato sopra è anche possibile che si sia in parte ispirato alla Santa Caterina da Siena attribuita da Isaia da Pisa. Certamente per l’ elab o raz i o ne dell’iconografia Cafà venne aiutato d a l l ’ a m b i e n t e d o m e n i c a n o. N o n sappiamo con certezza chi gli commissionò l’opera ma tutta una serie di indizi, come ha già sottolineato Elena di Gioia, portano a pensare che il committente sia stato il domenicano Antonio Gonzales de Acuña, il quale nel 1657 venne inviato da Lima a Roma per seguire il processo di canonizzazione che venne riaperto nel 1663, l’incarico a Cafà deve essere avvenuto non molto dopo dato che la scultura nel 1665 era terminata.28 L’ipotesi che sia stato Antonio Gonzales de Acuña il probabile committente non è fondata solo sul fatto che fu il principale responsabile del processo di canonizzazione ma anche dal fatto che deve essere lui il committente di un’incisione raffigurante La madonna con il Bambino, Rosa da Lima, S. Domenico e tre domenicani i cui disegni preparatori sono stati ricondotti da Jennifer Montagu sempre a Melchiorre Cafà.29

Concludendo e riassumendo, abbiamo dunque visto che per quanto concerne questa straordinaria opera del giovane scultore maltese, non vi sono dubbi per quanto concerne la data di esecuzione e per quanto concerne l’attribuzione, l’iconografia ed il significato della scultura sono comprensibili in quanto riconducibili al modello di santità personificato da Rosa. Non vi sono assolute certezze riguardo la committenza ma è molto probabile che il committente debba essere identificato nel procuratore della causa di canonizzazione, ovvero Antonio Gonzales de Acuña. Molto meno chiare ed in parte misteriose restano invece le circostanze dell’invio a Lima. Il fatto che la scultura, realizzata nel 1665 sia arrivata nella citta natale della Santa solo nel 1670 porterebbe a pensare che non fosse stata pensata sin dall’inizio per essere inviata nella capitale del Viceregno dato che dovette rimanere a lungo a Roma,30 e non mi sembra che questa permanenza possa essere messa in stretta relazione con il processo di canonizzazione. Ovvero è pensabile che la scultura in un primo tempo fosse stata pensata per una delle chiese domenicane di Roma, forse S. Maria sopra Minerva, e che solo in un secondo tempo si sia deciso il suo invio a Lima. E’ questo dunque un aspetto che necessità di ulteriori chiarimenti e ricerche e forse anche di un viaggio in Perù.

Melchiorre Cafà’s Baptism of Christ for the Knights of the Order of Malta

Keith Sciberras

In Baroque art in Malta, in particular during the second half of the seventeenth century, there is a notable difference between the context for the production of paintings and that for the production of sculpture; paintings were largely produced in Malta whilst sculpture of good quality was, in its great majority, imported. For the last forty years of the seventeenth century, the painterly necessities of the Knights of the Order of St John were largely fulfilled by the knight and artist Mattia Preti (16131699). On the other hand, there was no resident sculptor who could compete with the achievements of Preti and thus dominate the art of sculpture as Preti did in painting. For sculpture of high quality, the Knights had to search out of Malta. The requirements of both quality and taste, inevitably, led to the importation of sculpture from Rome. It should be noted, however, that the story of Roman Baroque sculpture for the Order of Malta would have surely been different had it not been for the unfortunate twist of fate of the brilliant Maltese sculptor Melchiorre Cafà, Malta’s most talented artist, who did not return to work permanently in his

homeland after completing his Roman bottega training around 1660. Melchiorre Cafà did not live long and his untimely death in 1667 is certainly one of the most unfortunate circumstances in the story of Late Baroque art and even more in that of Roman Baroque sculpture for Malta. The sculptor died precisely when the Knights took interest in his work, indicating that they could have grown to become one of his most important patrons. 1 In all probability, the story of Baroque sculpture for Malta would have still been one of the importation of sculpture, but commissions would have been directed or produced by the Maltese sculptor residing in Rome. Melchiorre Cafà’s unexpected death created complications both in Rome and in Malta, primarily because of the amount of unfinished work that the artist had left behind him. The Knights, however, seem to have taken an easy way out following the sudden blow given to the completion of the monumental Baptism of Christ that had been commissioned for the choir of the Conventual Church of St John the Baptist in Valletta (Figs 141-142). This had been the Order’s 97

Fig. 141. St John’s Co-Cathedral, Valletta, Malta. Interior

Fig. 141

Fig. 142. St John’s CoCathedral, Valletta, Malta. Exterior

Fig. 142

largest single sculptural commission and, following Cafà’s death, it seems that the procurators of the Order’s Treasury ‘honourably’ relieved themselves of its rising financial burden by opting out of casting the models that the artist had almost completed, leaving the commission unterminated. The story of the statue of St Paul commissioned by the Knights for the Grotto of St Paul in Rabat is discussed hereunder by John Azzopardi, but Cafà’s death surely hampered two other projects for the Order. This was the decoration for the altar for the chapel of France in the Conventual Church, for which he provided a design, and the building of the choir of the church of the St Nicholas (known as of the Souls in Purgatory) in Valletta. For the latter Cafà had received a payment of 58 scudi for his designs.2 Little is however known of both commissions because nothing survives of his original invention.3 New insight has been recently given on another work by Melchiorre Cafà commissioned during his stay in Malta, even though not directly commissioned by the Knights. The work was a sanctuary lamp for the altar of St Anthony in the parish church of St Paul, Rabat (Figs 143-145). The commission, a private one, came from Donna Cosmana Cassar Navarra4 who, in one of her many wills, dated 19 November 1666, instructed her heirs to apportare il lampiere d’argento quale di commissione d’essa Signora testatrice sta facendo in Roma il Signor Melchiore Gafar. 5 The reference, as it stands, does not provide certainty that the work was terminated and sent over to Malta, but a large silver and gilt bronze pendant lamp belonging to the altar of St Anthony and still in use today can be plausibly identified as the Cafà lamp and thus suggest that it had been terminated prior to his death. Its assay mark shows the keys of Rome coupled with a yet unidentified maker’s

Fig. 144

Fig. 145

Figs. 143-45. Sanctuary Lamp, Church of St Paul, Rabat, Malta

Fig. 143

mark representing an olive branch. Dating from the marks is yet elusive but, at least, there is proof that it was manufactured in Rome. Stylistically, the lamp belongs to the period under study, with its design and invention being bold and very much in the spirit of Roman Baroque decorative art. It is a lamp that attempts illusion, which lights up to create a sense of movement even in the static material of metal. It is made more dramatic by the source of light itself, reaching remarkable qualities when lit by night. In Malta, the enthusiasm towards Roman Baroque sculpture was set off by Melchiorre Cafà’s short stay on the island in 1666, a year before 99

Fig. 145

100

his death. This was generated by the great interest over Cafà’s project for the large statuary group of the Baptism of Christ, a project which was the first truly important commission of Roman Baroque sculpture for the Conventual Church of St John in Valletta. The general outline of this commission has been exhaustively researched and well reconstructed.6 The scheme had to represent St John the Baptist baptising Christ, cast in bronze and set against a large Glory of the Holy Spirit to occupy the apsed ending of the choir of St John’s Church. Documents relating to it are numerous but, unfortunately nothing visual really survives of the original design, even if echoes of it are certainly reflected in Giuseppe Mazzuoli’s marble Baptism group and Giovanni Giardini’s Gloria which came to finally conclude the choir project in the very early years of the eighteenth century (Fig. 146). The history of Melchiorre Cafà’s commission started with initial contacts made with the artist in Rome in May 1665, this after the improbability of engaging Gianlorenzo Bernini to provide an invention because of his commitments in France. In brief, it appears that the invention that the Order wanted was initially for the design of a scheme that enframed an altarpainting of the Baptism and that the submission of a model with a sculptural group followed Cafà’s own initiative. The Order originally intended that all work was to be executed in Malta but, following the submission of Cafà’s complex group, it was decided to have it entirely executed in Rome. Cafà was initially reluctant to travel to Malta to discuss matters and to view the site because of his pending work for the Pamphilis and decided to travel only when reassured by the Grand Master that he would not be kept unduly on the island.

This story can be followed through the documents. The resolution of Order’s Council of State regarding the onset of the commission for the choir end of the Conventual Church was passed on 3 March 1664: Che la nicchia dell’altare di San Giovanni s’adorni riccamente di marmi facendo a questo effetto venir da Roma un disegno del Bernini o altro artefice eccellente, colorito per poter meglio comprendersi. Che li marmi e pietre che saranno necessarie tanto per detta nicchia come per la balaustrata si faccino venire da dove si giudicherà più a proposito: però l’opera et il lavoro di dette pietre e tutto quanto e’ necessario per la fabbrica deve travagliarsi qui a Malta.7 The extract does not, in reality, specify whether mention is being made of a statuary group or whether what was really needed was a spectacular marble clad choir reredos to enframe an altar painting. The indications are, however, that what was required were designs only for the general architecture and decoration of the apse, for which Maltese masons could execute the work. It was only later that the situation changed. This can be noted, for example, through an important letter of 12 September 1665 of Grand Master Nicolas Cotoner who, after seeing Melchiorre Cafà’s first models and designs, resolved to get Cafà over to Malta per effetuare quell’opera che colla sua presenza meglio si giudichera’ espediente, non havendo qui persona a ciò atta.8 This obviously implies that the Convent did not have sculptors or artisans capable of executing Cafà’s project. A n a c c o u n t o f wh at h a p p e n e d when instructions on the matter were sent to Rome is told by Fra Francisque Seytres-Caumons, Ambassador of the Order in Rome, in a vivid letter of 23 May 1665. Caumons described how he immediately tried to procure the required designs, abandoning first the

On opposite page: Fig. 146. Giuseppe Mazzuoli and Giovanni Giardini, Baptism of Christ with Gloria, St John’s Co-Cathedral, Valletta, Malta.

101

prospect of contacting Bernini because of his work for the Court of France and then that of pursuing architect Giovanni Maria Baratta who was too busy on other work, probably that for the Pamphilis. Caumons diverted his attention onto Melchiorre Cafà only after being told that Bernini himself had, on occasions, affirmed that the young Maltese sculptor had surpassed him in the profession. 9 Strangely enough, in the initial letters on the subject, Cafà is never identified by name but always referred to as ‘the Maltese sculptor’. Cotoner should have been surprised with this, assuming that he had not yet heard of Cafà’s up and coming success in Rome. Caumons narrated how he summoned the Maltese sculptor to his embassy10 and how he gave the artist ‘one of the designs with great secrecy’. This indicates that the Ambassador had designs of the site to provide to the artists with, even if the ‘great secrecy’ that Caumons thought necessary if somewhat perplexing. At this stage, it does not seem that Cafà was being considered as the only candidate because, whilst the Maltese artist was

Fig. 147. Matteo Perez D’Aleccio, Baptism of Christ, St John’s Musem, Valletta, Malta

102

Fig. 147

already working on designs for the project, Caumons informed Cotoner of his intention to contact other artists.11 By June 1665, Cotoner was expecting Cafà’s first designs, as also those of the other artists that Caumons had to contact. 12 By 18 July 1665, however, Caumons had not succeded into getting any further with any other artist and thus hoped that Cafà’s invention would satisfy the Grand Master. Caumons had, in vain, tried to obtain other designs for the commission ‘going personally at their homes many a time’.13 In a Rome sated with artist’s seeking work, it is somewhat strange that the Ambassador did not find a single other artist interested in the commission. In a way, this situation could be tentatively justified by the unfavourable conditions that the Order was trying to impose. Cafà is known to have produced two designs and two models,14 which, it appears, were sent to Malta in midAugust of the same year.15 The threedimensional models were apparently produced on Cafà’s own initiative; an indication arising from Caumons trying to explain to his Grand Master how models would serve the purpose of visualising the scheme much better than drawings on paper. In the mechanics of the Order’s patronage, the Grand Master did not have sole jurisdiction over the commission. This had to be discussed in Council; the models were presented to Council in the second week of September 1665. They were enthusiastically received, so much so that Cotoner immediately asked Caumons to persuade Cafà to travel to Malta so as to discuss the work on site. He had hoped that the artist, as a subject of the Order, would ‘work to the best that he could so as to give his homeland a distinct exemplar of his own artistic virtues’.16 A description of the two models that Cafà presented survives in a discorso on

the subject submitted by Melchiorre Cafà himself.17 This is an explanatory description that accompanied the models, in which the artist provided brief details on his proposals: facendo in un modello le statue di marmo invece del quadro del battesmo di San Giovanni (Fig. 147). The models had two different schemes, one was with a sculptural group, the other with an altarpainting. The invention for the termination with an altarpainting responds to what was originally asked for, whilst the other came through the sculptor’s own initiative. Cafà described the model with the altarpainting as less lavish; its advantage was that it could be largely worked in Malta by Maltese craftsmen following detailed plans and models sent from Rome. The model with the statues, for which he presented two different interpretations, was, on the other hand, grander and more magnificent. It seems that both models were conceived with an aedicule structure in mind, with the sculptural group or altarpainting installed within a n a rch i t e c t u r a l f r a m e wo rk w i t h pilasters, columns and entablature. Cafà, however, noted how the site, being too restricted in both its width and height, conditioned his invention: onde non hò potuto in tutto sodisfare la mia inventione. To minimise such limitations, he proposed to push forward his schemes and to raise the titular altar on five steps. The description of scheme for the altarpainting is slightly more detailed than the other; Cafà noted, for example, that two medallions held by putti were to be installed above two small side doors leading to the organs. The artist does not say much about the sculptural project, apart from the fact that the statues were to be carved in marble. It is, however, significant, how he fails to mention the Gloria which was to be inserted in a model that he presented to Council some time later.

In this discorso, the sculptor gave specific details about the scheme for the marble cladding, showing an interest in colour and polychromy that evidently reflects his admiration for Bernini. Cafà submitted various proposals for the chromatic ensemble, with the use of new and antique marbles and alabasters; Cafà mentions Bardiglio, Portasanta, Porto Vennere, Breccia di Francia, Diaspro di Sicilia, Ponsevera di Genova, Giallo Antico, and Africano. The discorso’s main intention was that of providing Council with valuable information on the availability of the marbles and on their cost, rather then on minutely describing the representation of his invention. The members of Council could obviously see this in the models themselves. At Council, Cafà’s models were a success and enthusiasm was so great that the Grand Master and his Grand Crosses thought that the sculptor could start work immediately, even though, at this stage, it is not clear which of the projects was earmarked. They were, evidently, unaccustomed to the patronage and working patterns of Rome. Council clearly wanted Cafà in Malta, and noted that in the case that he did not want to remain too long away from Rome bastera’ che egli dia principio all’opera, et istruttione ad altri maestri di qua per continuarla, si che in un par di mese potrebbe venir, e ritornarsene.18 It is unfortunately not easy to understand the scheme that Cafà was to work on, even though it seems that Council still thought it necessary for the work to be executed in Malta. In these circumstances, the artist was expected to travel to and from the island. At this stage, it was necessary for the sculptor to travel to Malta in order to discuss the conditions of the commission and to view the site of the project. Cafà’s voyage to Malta was not, however, a simple affair and it emerges that the sculptor needed pressure from the 103

Ambassador because he was obviously reluctant to leave his ongoing work in Rome. This reluctance, and Cafà’s eventual acceptance, is captured in a letter of Caumons to Cotoner, dated 17 October 1665: Quanto alla venuta costì dell’ Architetto Melchiorre Cafà devo con ogni humiltà dire a’ Vostra Eminenza che havendo io veduti i suoi riveriti ordini perciò in esecutione di essi feci subito avvisare detto Cafà che venisse in questa Casa perche li havevo da parlare, Onde venuto egli, li communicai quanto da’ Vostra Eminenza vien comandato, al che apportando esso molte scuse con dire che qui si ritrovava legato mentre haveva cominciate diverse opere per le quali haveva havuto caparra de’ denari massive dal Signor Principe Pamfilio per la Cappella di San Tommaso da Villanova in questa Chiesa di Sant’ Agostino; Io però li a pportai molte circonstanze per astringerlo, e vedendo pure irresoluto forse perche pensava che se una volta fosse venuto costà non si sarebbe lasciato partire se prima non havesse dato fine all’opera, li feci vedere la propria lettera di Vostra Eminenza accio’ egli maggiormente si fidasse della mia Persona per sua scusa, dicendomi che per quest mattina mi havrebbe data la risolutione; Si che essendo venuto puntuale e riportatami la lettera con esserne però tenuta copia, mi ha’ detto che egli sarà in’ ordine di venir’ a’ servire Vostra Eminenza per il primo di Gennaio prossimo; e che doppo dati costì gl’ordini necessarii per l’opera, se ne’ ritornarà a’ dar sodisfattione a’ chi deve, e poi bisognando ritornarà a’ servire Vostra Eminenza quante volte sarà bisogno. 19 From this letter, it emerges that Cafà did not really expect the Grand Master to want him to travel immediately to Malta. He does not seem to have had prepared himself for such an event; the sculptor was expected to travel to Malta for a brief initial period to onset 104

the work and to give instructions for sculptors employed by the Convent to continue it, only to return to a couple of months later. It is clear that Cafà succumbed to Caumons’ pressure only when he was shown the Grand Master’s autograph letter; faced with such a request from his Grand Master, he could do very little but comply. Cafà gave his consent, however, only after showing Cotoner’s letter to the Pamphilis or to Giovanni Maria Baratta, who were those who could grant him leave. In this context, it is significant how the Ambassador’s specific mention of the St T homas of Villanova for S. Agostino in Rome shows that Cafà was, during this month, concentrating more on this sculpture than on others that were already taken in hand. In the following ten weeks that Cafà gave himself before departing, he should have worked considerably with the intent of speeding up work so that his stay away from Rome would not delay beyond necessary the schedules established with his Roman patrons. The concer n that Cafà showed in respect of the possibility that the Grand Master could have wanted to impede his departure from Malta before terminating the commission is perhaps exaggerated. 20 This, probably, was more of an excuse. Moreover, Cafà’s promise that, once he had terminated his pending work in Rome, he would be in a position to return to serve the Grand Master as many a time as necessary is also somewhat overstated. Cafà obviously knew that there was enough work in Rome to keep him very busily occupied for the years to come. This was a promise which was meant to keep the Grand Master interested in his project until he was personally in a position to explain to him and to his Council that it was not possible to execute the work outside Rome. At this stage, the sculptor

did not want to loose what seemed to be a magnificent opportunity. The Grand Master responded well to the Ambassador’s account and, on 17 November, he wrote back instructing Caumons to assure Cafà that he will not be detained in Malta for any longer than that necessary to commence the work. 21 From this passage, it can be deduced that the project until now under discussion was not the one that was later accepted. Melchiorre Cafà left Rome for Malta in the first week of January 1666, carrying with him another unspecified model for the project. 22 It is very probable that Cafà travelled with his Maltese friend and assistant, the painter Michelangelo Marullo.23 Marullo was his companion in Rome and, in the Register of Patents for Travel from Malta, he is noted together with Cafà when the latter returned to Rome in May 1666.24 In Malta, the sculptor remained for a surprisingly long period of three and a half months, until 3 May. Work was taken in hand immediately and, on 23 January 1666, following initial consultations with the sculptor, Council directed the Prodomi and the Commission for the embellishment of the Church, to meet together with Mattia Preti and architect Mederico Blondel in order to consider the designs and models that had been presented by Cafà. They had to convene with the sculptor in the Conventual Church so as to better understand and to directly debate his views. Following this, the extended Commission was to draw up a report and present it to Council. 25 It appears that discussions were long and complicated and that, in all probability, the project was amplified or remodelled because the Commission delayed presentation of its report to 7 April 1666. Modifications on the project were probably the result of

Fig. 148

Cafà’s on-site impact with the church. Its interior in early 1666 was certainly different to what he had last seen of it and probably not what he had expected. Furthermore, the direct involvement of Blondel and Preti in the Commission should have had some consequence. The meeting of Council of State of 7 April 1666 gives an indication of what happened during the interluding weeks. Melchiorre Cafà had produced three separate working models for consideration, even though it cannot be ascertained whether the two models sent in August 1665 and the model that he brought with him in January 1666 are the three models in question.26 The Commissioners’ report noted that, of three projects that were submitted,

Fig. 148. (project by), Glory of Angels, Church of S. Maria in Campitelli, Rome. Detail

105

the third one was selected because it was più conspicuo, e di maggior decoro degli altri, come anco il più ricco, e più capriccioso d’inventione.27 The project as described should have indeed been spectacular and its invention was such that its execution could not be produced in Malta because of the difficulties in casting. It had, therefore, to be entirely executed in Rome. This was perhaps the card that Cafà played with the project that he got with him from Rome; a project which was too spectacular to refuse but also impossible to execute in Malta. The report provides a detailed description of this project and, for the first time, specifically identifies the parameters for the decoration of the apse. It is clear in its description of a statuary group of the Baptism of Christ and a Glory of the Holy Spirit. The idea of the Gloria is certainly picked up from Bernini even if, in the same period, Cafà was working on a project for another Gloria. This was that accompanying the image of the Virgin for the main altar of S.Maria in Campitelli, Rome, for which the sculptor is recorded producing a model precisely when he was working on the Maltese project (Fig. 148). The Commissioners’ report describes Cafà’s project both in terms of representation and of the materials intended to be used. The Baptism, accompanied by two angels, one on each side, together with the Glory of the Holy Spirit, was to be cast in metal. The draperies of the figures had to be gilt whilst the body was to retain a finish in natural metal.28 The Gloria and groups of adoring angels on clouds were also to be gilt. The general outline of the chromatic scheme for the decoration of the marble clad altar reredos can be also reconstructed. The altar was elevated on four marble steps, and was to be, in its larger parts, clad with breccia di cottonella and with a gradine in bianco 106

e nero antico. The altar front was to have a gilt metal medal of St John Preaching or of the Beheading of the Baptist, whilst the arms of the Order and of Grand Master Cotoner adorned the pedestal dados. Above the altar was the Sicilain jasper pedestal of the monumental group. The entire niche was to be clad in bigio and this had to serve as a background for the whole invention.29 The small doors on the sides had to be ornamented with coloured marbles. There was, however, one aspect of the project which the Commission did not approve. This was Cafà’s intention to include statues representing Saints Peter and Paul in the choir. The objection was that, for these statues, it would have been necessary to remove part of the choir stalls. This was certainly not acceptable. The Commissioners’ report also gave details on the mechanism for the execution of the project; the description itself sounding like an elementary explanation of the process of metal sculpture to people who know little about artistic techniques. It also laid down the conditions that Cafà had to observe. It should be remembered that Cafà had already secured an important consideration, that which read that quest’opera è di necessita farsi in Roma. This concerned not only the process of executing models and casting but also that of working the marbles for cladding. Work was to be terminated within three years at an estimated cost of circa 15,000 Roman scudi. Cafà was to receive payments whilst work was in progress, obviously because of his own remuneration to the number of artists and craftsmen that had to be involved in the various complex stages of the project. As was the norm, Cafà’s fullscale model had to be presented for consideration in Rome before the final commitment for casting was taken. The sculptor, however, had to sustain the

added burden of constructing the setting itself, that is a full scale wooden replica of the apsidal termination of St John’s, in which he had to insert the models of the statues. These were to be judged by experts selected by the Ambassador. This condition was, apparently, not included in the Commissioner’s report but was inserted by decree of the members of Council after approval of the report. Responsibility over supervision and other technicalities were in the hand of the Ambassador. With Council’s approval secured, Cafà was awarded a gold chain worth one hundred doubloons and had all the expenses for his return voyage covered. The sculptor did not, however, return to Rome immediately but remained in Malta for another month, leaving on May 3.30 Cafà returned to a Rome that was pending with work but, nonetheless, from June 1666 onwards he worked hard on the full-scale models and negotiated prices with the founders for casting in bronze. His pace was fast and, by September 1666, the Convent was already expecting models to be completed by that coming Christmas. Matters were, however, delayed and their completion, was eventually projected for the end of summer of 1667. From May 1666 onwards, correspondence between Convent and the embassy on the progress of the commission started with earnest. Some letters are a wonderful testimony of this story. On 1 May 1666, that is even prior to Cafà’s departure from Malta, Cotoner wrote to his Ambassador to inform him about the decisions of Council and on the procedures for managing the commission.31 Caumons was formally instructed to diligently supervise the work, consulting whenever necessary with experts in the field. Cotoner gave his own view of the project by noting his optimism that the project would be

satisfying: ci fà sperare una piena sodisfattione nelle sue fatiche, come l’habbiamo havuta in quanto è occorso fin’ ora qui. Caumons noted that he would duly execute what was decreed by Council in a return letter of 5 June 1666.32 Thereafter, Caumons started talks on the project with the various interested parties. Within the same week discussions were held with the Vatican founders who, it appears, were to be commissioned to cast the statues. The main object of discussion was the cost of metal which, according to Caumons, resulted to be much higher than that with which it could be obtained in Malta. He therefore suggested that it would be financially more convenient were it to be shipped over from Malta, rather than obtained in Rome.33 At a very early stage, that is by 12 June 1666, Melchiorre Cafà asked for a first instalment. This surprised Caumons and he thus asked for Cotoner’s advice. The Grand Master, through a letter of 7 July 1666, instructed that only small instalments were to be paid, and these only after ascertaining that work was progressing steadily.34 In the month of July, work on the models was recorded to proceed well. The Ambassador was still, however, awaiting a response from Malta regarding the supply of bronze before concluding his deal for casting the entire work with the founders.35 Melchiorre Cafà received two payments in the first week of September 1666; one of 100 scudi[?] for the unspecified work of a scarpellino and another of 50 scudi[?] for that of a carpenter.36 The artist was now pressing Caumons to close the deal with the founders, insisting, somewhat surprisingly, that the bronze needed for casting the statues could be required by Christmas of that year. This indicates that Cafà was, in those months, working almost exclusively on the Baptism group, thus leaving aside his other prestigious Roman works. By 16 October 1666, Caumons 107

Fig. 149. St John’s CoCathedral, Valletta, Malta. Titular Altar Fig. 149

was still impatiently awaiting instructions for the bronze from the procurators of the Treasury37 whilst, on that very day, the Grand Master put pen to paper in Malta to say that all bronze should be obtained from Rome.38 Obviously the letters took some three weeks to cross each other and arrive at destination. With this infor mation in hand, the Ambassador approached the founders in mid-November. By 20 November, he had a final price, which he communicated to Cotoner: bronze was at a cost of 16 baiocchi for each pound, whilst the alloy with tin was at 20 baiocchi. Considering that for the whole project the gross weight was calculated at 30,000 pounds, the corresponding cost for the bronze totalled 6,000 Roman scudi.39 The known documents unfortunately stop here and cor respondence on the subject is only resumed following Melchiorre Cafà’s death in September 1667. Little is known of what progress was achieved during the first half of 1667, 108

even though it transpires that the models were almost concluded. The contract with the founders, on the other hand, had not yet been fully stipulated. At this stage, the Ambassador was to take the situation in hand and to conclude the commission by negotiating the process of casting the models. The founders, however, now asked for a higher price than that which was originally negotiated through Melchiorre Cafà. The Order did not expect such a price hike and its Treasury obviously showed considerable concern. Scared by financial considerations they unexpectedly opted for an easy way out; the commission was thus abruptedly dropped and Cafà models were abandoned in Rome. Following Cafà’s death, the Knights of Malta, ironically, were the only patrons not to conclude a project that had been commenced by the brilliant Maltese sculptor. The tragic death of Melchiorre Cafà was announced to the Grand Master by a letter of the Ambassador dated letter

of 10 September 1667. In this letter, the Ambassador also spoke of the models, noting that Cafà had lasciato imperfetta l’opera, mà però le due statue di creta del Cristo e di San Giovanni sono in stato che ciascuno li puol finire. The work had, obviously, not been terminated but the clay statues of Christ and John the Baptist were such that they could easily be finished by any other sculptor. To conclude the commission, the Ambassador had summoned the founders to the embassy but negotiations failed because his offer of 5,000 scudi for both bronze and casting was far removed from the 7,000 scudi that the founders stayed firmly on. This meant that, notwithstanding Cafà’s original estimate of some 16,00018,000 scudi for the entire commission, Caumons reported that the project could only be completed with an escalated price of 25,000 scudi. The Gloria itself would cost 8,000 scudi.40 In Malta, the future of the project was discussed in a Council meeting of 1 October 1667. 41 The considerable expense to which the whole project now amounted to, in a period when the Treasury was certainly not flourishing, was the main concer n and should have animated a debate of which only the final decree is known. The new instructions sent to the Ambassador were clear. He was not to enter into any agreement for the project’s completion and he was to immediately take account of what had already been spent on the project. The full-scale clay models were to be taken under custody and the Convent had to be adviced on whether they could be transported to Malta or else sold in Rome. In simple words, the project was being aborted. Any slight hopes that Council could have had about the completion of the works in Malta, through their absurd request of transporting the colossal models to the island, were put aside when Caumons

Fig. 150

remarked that the statues, being of clay and thus very fragile, could not be moved without breaking into a thousand pieces. This was, moreover, precisely the reason why they could not even be sold in Rome; an irritated Caumons wrote that the statues non possono servire ad’altro che per l’effetto al quale sono state fatte.42 Following this, there is little recorded reference to the statues and it appears that the models were unceremoniously abandoned in Rome. The relatively ‘low’ cost which until then had been incurred by the Convent - specified by Caumons as being 900 scudi in payments to Cafà, the scarpellino, and the carpenter43 – should have been the reason why the statues were abandoned, even though they were certainly almost ready for casting. Any Roman sculptor could have easily been commissioned to terminate the project, as did eventually happen with Cafà’s other uncompleted works. This did not disturb the Convent and the models remained in the Papal Foundry and were

Fig. 150. Alessandro Algardi (cast after), Baptism of Christ, Church of St Catherine, Zejtun, Malta

109

Fig. 151. Antonio Raggi, Baptism of Christ, Church of S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, Rome Fig. 152. Anonymous, Baptism Fig. 151

still there around 1681, when they were noted by Baldinucci.44 The only relic of Cafà’s project could be the titular altar that still adorns St John’s Church (Fig. 149); the altar does not fit in precisely within the late 1690s scheme and should be the one noted in a document of the early 1670s. In August 1673, Council instructed on the installation of an altar of the Baptism of Christ in St John’s Church with marmi portati a quest’effetto.45 Even though there is no specific reference that shows that the marbles came from Rome, a separate reference could help in documenting their Roman provenance. In October 1670, the procurators of the Treasury registered a mandate of 100 Roman scudi from the procurators of the Grotto of St Paul, Rabat, in settlement for their part in the expenses incurred for the transport from Rome of alcuni marmi appartenenti alla Chiesa di San Giovanni et altri alla Grotta.46 The marbles are not specified but those for the Grotto should have 110

consisted of Ferrata’s completed statue of St Paul (originally commissioned from Cafà) and its respective altar, which arrived in Malta late in 1669.47 The great similarity in both type of marble and design between the mensa of St John’s and that of the Grotto suggests that the marbles for St John’s were probably those for the titular altar, since there is also no reference to the erection of other marbles in the church between 1670 and 1673. The marbles, however, do not precisely correspond with the documented description of Cafà’s project, even though this is not an insurmountable problem. The project for the Baptism group and the Glory of the Holy Spirit for the apse of St John’s Church was only completed at the turn of the century with the marble statues of Giuseppe Mazzuoli and the bronze Glory of Giovanni Giardini. In the process, a number of projects were begun and discarded, until its final completion in 1703. In the various stages, different artists and knights for med part of supervisory Commissions for its execution and many minds discussed and modified the invention. Through this process, something of the first project, entrusted to Melchiorre Cafà in 1666, seems to have been passed onto the completed work, but the quantification of this influence still rests on hypothetical ground. A small Baptism of Christ in terracotta at the Vatican Museum, together with a number of bronze casts derived from it (Fig. 150),48 now attributed to Alessandro Algardi, were in the mid20th century ascribed to Cafà and held to be his project for the Maltese Baptism group. First ascribed to Antonio Raggi by Brinckmann,49 it was later attributed to Cafà by Ozzola and Wittkower. 50 In reality, Wittkower had, however, expressed concer n on whether the

of Christ, present whereabouts unknown

Fig. 152

statuette was ever intended as a model for the large Maltese group. Nava Cellini later supported the attribution to Cafà;51 Schlegel suggested that Giuseppe Mazzuoli completed the large Maltese group from Cafà’s model.52 Vitzthum, on the other hand, suggested that Cafà’s model could have been inspired from a Baptism drawing by Algardi (Uffizi, Florence). 53 The attribution of this invention to Cafà was later dismissed by both Raggio and Montagu, who attributed the work to Algardi. 54 Montagu’s argument and stylistic considerations have been accepted by the great majority of later scholars.55 Of considerable interest is small bronze group of the Baptism of Christ, published by Nava Cellini but of unknown whereabouts (Fig. 152), which is noted to have an inscription ascribing it to Cafà.56 The group is only known through photographs and therefore there should be caution in associating it with the invention for St John’s. 57

The compositional arrangement, as it is in the photograph, is too wide to fit comfortably within the apse of the church, even though the fact that St John’s baptising hand is not directly above the head of Christ could indicate that the present arrangement of the base is not original and that the distance between the figures was smaller. The absence of angels may also cause problems with directly associating it with Cafà’s project for St John’s. The colossal marble Baptism group that Giuseppe Mazzuoli produced for St John’s shows considerable influence from Algardi’s small group. 58 This similarity was, in fact, what had justified the terracotta’s attribution to Cafà. The pose of Mazzuoli’s angel is very similar but it has moved place and brought the group closer and higher. Rather than in flight, the angel stands, a choice obviously dictated by the use of marble. Mazzuoli’s group, moreover, shows affinities with another great Baptism 111

group, that executed in the late 1660s by Antonio Raggi for San Giovanni dei Fiorentini in Rome (Fig. 151). Its general iconography is also inspired from the famous painting of the Baptism by Andrea Sacchi for the Lateran Baptistery in Rome. Giuseppe Mazzuoli’s Baptism group is a complicated derivation from different sources. This, moreover, without knowing much of Melchiorre Cafà’s original invention, which should have similary inspired the artist. The latter argument is given greater strength through documentary evidence that shows that the final project for St John’s was prepared in the late 1690s by Lorenzo Gafa, Melchiorre’s brother.59 Lorenzo’s project

112

had been approved by Council and it had to be, more or less, executed in Rome as approved in Malta, following models and plans that Lorenzo took up with him to Rome for the said purpose. In this respect, for example, the idea for a Gloria behind the Baptism was certainly picked up from Melchiorre’s original project; how much Giovanni Giardini’s magnificent bronze Gloria is actually indebted to Cafà is an unquantifiable issue. It should be expected that Lorenzo Gafa’s project, of which the models do not survive, gave due tribute to his brother’s original work. It was a splendid opportunity to conclude Melchiorre Cafà’s unfortunate project for the Knights of St John.

Melchiorre Cafà’s statue of St Paul at St Paul’s Grotto, Rabat, Malta

John Azzopardi

When Melchiorre Cafà visited Malta in 1666 (January to April) at the request of Grand Master Nicolas Cotoner mainly in connection with a commission for the Conventual Church of the Order in Valletta, he received two other commissions from Rabat, one from the Order and one from the Parish Church (Fig. 154). These were intended to embellish two independent but materially connected 1 churches which Melchiorre’s younger brother the architect Lorenzo was then actively involved in enlarging. Although the two churches belonged to different owners, the Order and the Diocese, the Grand Master and the Bishop, they have always constituted, as they still do, one extensive and homogeneous Pauline complex. The facade of this complex was designed in 1653 by the architect of the Order Francesco Buonamici of Lucca, and completed in 1683 by Lorenzo Gafà. At the time of Melchiorre’s visit to Malta, Lorenzo Gafà’s work on the Church of the Order had just been completed while his work on the Parish Church was in full swing.2 It must have been a pleasure for Melchiorre to visit Rabat where he could

Fig. 153. (finished by Ercole Ferrata), St Paul, St Paul’s Grotto, Rabat, Malta Fig. 153

see not only the Pauline complex with the new constructions of his younger brother, the architect Lorenzo, for the Diocese and for the Order, but also the Dominican Church and Priory, 113

Fig. 154

Fig. 154. Church of St Paul, Rabat, Malta. Facade

which had witnessed for eight years the exemplary ministry of his elder brother, the Dominican Fra Giuseppe.3 In fact, from 1658 to 1665, Fra Giuseppe had exercised therein his pastoral ministry as priest, master of novices and Prior and moreover had been privileged to receive Melchiorre’s statue of the Virgin of the Rosary.4 A tradition of wooden statuary for the Grotto St Paul’s Grotto had by then a fiftyyear old tradition of statuary (statues and relics in the form of half-busts and arms), ever since it had come under the control of the Spanish hermit Juan Benegas de Cordova in 1609. The latter had in fact commissioned from Naples two gilt wood statues, each seven palms in height, representing St Paul and St Luke as well as eight reliquaries in

114

the form of gilt wood statuettes. One author adds that Benegas had also commissioned from Naples a third statue of St Publius.5 From a close friend who was no other than Pope Paul V, the hermit also acquired a golden pectoral cross as well as a cross executed in ebony with silver ornaments, which used to be kept on the Pope’s desk. From the Palace of the Viceroy of Naples he also acquired a miraculous statue of Our Lady of the Temple, formerly held in veneration in the Spanish Castle of Roderigo. On 17 October 1609, eve of the Liturgical feast of St Luke, this collection of statuary and relics was carried in solemn procession from Valletta through Floriana to the Grotto. It is recorded that some 1200 persons participated, among whom the Grand Master and the Grand Prior as well as many Knights and the clergy of the Venerable Assembly. 6 More statues were soon added to the Grotto. The Acts of the Pastoral Visit of 1 October 1615 by Bishop Baldassare Cagliares, the last visit before the Grotto was ceded to the Order, record no less than seven wooden statues in the Grotto. Besides those of St Paul and St Luke, already mentioned, these included images of St Dominic, the Blessed Virgin, Christ at the Pillar, the Deposition and the Resurrection. Later documents mention a statue of St Francis. Writing in 1647, Gio.Francesco Abela states that St Paul’s Grotto possessed “molte statue et figure”.7 During the rectorship of Fra Pierre Viany, and precisely on 8 July 1684, two medieval statues, St James and St John the Baptist , were brought over to the Grotto. A few years later these were donated to the Parish Church of Dingli.8 The preference of wooden statues for the Grotto is explicable not only within the context of the culture of the Counter-Reformation, which was then

being promoted at the Grotto by the Spanish Hermit but more appropriately because in a humid cave like the Grotto statues are more durable than paintings. Also because within a cave, placing a statue is much easier than hanging a painting.

Promotion of the Grotto by the Order Once the Order of St John came into possession of the Grotto in 1617, it was in the Order’s interest to promote and embellish their new acquisition in the Mdina-Rabat area, the seat of the Bishoprick and the Maltese nobility. It was prestigious for the Order to promote the Grotto with its apostolic tradition, the cradle of Christianity in Malta, which the shipwrecked St Paul is said to have inhabited during his three month stay on the island. In doing so the Order was motivated both by devotional as well as by political reasons. Grand Master Aloph de Wignacourt, who sent his ambassador in Rome to thank and congratulate the Pope, immediately created from his own purse a rich foundation of landed property, mainly in Gozo, and entrusted it to a College of Chaplains. If properly administered and exploited by the Chaplains, this new foundation could provide enough funds not only for a decent living of the Chaplains but also for promoting and embellishing the Grotto and its adjacent constructions. It could cater for abundant works of art as sculptures, paintings, silver plate and embroidered vestments. The main attraction of the whole complex would remain the altar of St Paul within the Grotto (Fig. 153).

An early project for a marble statue (1651-1658) The first major project of the Wignacourt foundation was a commission for a marble statue of St Paul within an enlarged chapel in the Grotto. This would replace the wooden statue commissioned in Naples by Benegas in 1609. This marble statue would fit better within a more spacious construction beneath an over-standing enlarged upper church , dedicated to St Publius, all rebuilt in the new baroque style. In as early a date as 1651, the rector and procurator of St Paul’s Grotto, Comm. Fra Gio. Caillemer considering the poor remuneration offered by the Wignacourt foundation to the chaplains, discussed with the Grand Master the possibility of increasing the “tavola” of each chaplain by 10 scudi. The Grand Master agreed in principle but not before completing the already designed project in marble for embellishing the Grotto.9 In 1658, the year in which the young Melchiorre Cafà left for Rome, a design and measurements for this enlarged chapel of St Paul were being prepared by Mro Franco, probably the Mro Franco Caruana who is so often mentioned in the expenditure records of the period. Two years later in 1660 Mro Bartholomeo Bambagi, a sculptor in marble then active in Malta, together with a painter whose name is not recorded, visited the Grotto to prepare a report on a marble statue. The sculptor and the painter were entertained by the Chaplains. Some marbles were brought over to the Grotto and later taken to the residence of Fra Luca Bueno, Grand Prior of the Order (1650 – 1667; later Bishop of Malta). (Document No 1) No further details of this initiative are available: the administrative records of the period are brief and laconic10 as against those of later years, which are impressively

Fig. 155. Anonymous, St Paul, Church of St Paul, Rabat, Malta

Fig. 155

115

detailed. It seems however that nothing materialized as regards the 1658-1660 commission; otherwise there would not have been another commission for a marble statue by Melchiorre Cafà six years later. In the upper niche on the facade of the Grotto, there is however a prebaroque marble statue of St Paul (Fig. 155). Its provenance and authorship are unknown but the archaic mannerist statue is definitely much older than the present baroque facade, which was completed in 1683. It can be presumed that the statue had been in the possession of the Chaplains of the Grotto although not necessarily commissioned by them. The popular assumption that the statue was in the inner cave of the Grotto up to the year 1743 is untenable. It is true that in that year Grand Master Pinto donated a new statue, attributed to the school of Bernini,11 but the older statue was already in place on the Church façade when Bishop Melchior Alpheran de Bussan made his Pastoral visit on 7 April 1736. 12 Perhaps the statue was in the Grotto before the latter came into the possession of the Order. This hypothesis, however, is not confirmed by any document. The companion statue of St Peter on the other side of the Church façade above the cemetery area is a baroque statue in stone. Whatever the outcome of the early project for a marble statue with a consignment of marble brought over in 1660 and then taken to the Grand Prior’s residence, the only work executed during the early years of the 1660s, is a monument in stone in honour of Grand Master Aloph de Wignacourt. This monument, still extant, is located in a very prominent position as one gets down the steps of the Grotto. The date of this monument, 1661, is known from a Latin inscription beneath the half bust of the Grand Master.13 The monument supports 116

an upper structure. Its style is reminiscent of Buonamici’s design for the frontispiece of Giovanni Francesco Abela’s, Della Descritione di Malta, Malta 1647.14 An enlarged entrance to the Grotto for an enlarged upper church Between February and June 1665, the Chaplains were buying, from private owners, caves and land in front of the Grotto. Architect Lorenzo Gafà was entrusted with the major work of constructing a bigger church above the Grotto. A contractual agreement was signed between him and Mederico Blondel, architect of the Order, in Acts of Notary Nicola Allegritto of Rabat for the sum of 230 scudi, to be followed by an additional gift of 30 scudi on instructions from the Grand Master. The whole work was completed in five months. Only six months later, Lorenzo’s brother Melchiorre was in Malta and could receive the commission for the marble statue and possibly for other works in the Grotto. Cafà’s Commission When visiting the Grotto in 1666, Melchiorre Cafà could still see the two wooden gilt statues of St Paul and St Luke, brought over by Benegas in 1609, placed on their respective altars in the Grotto. The Order’s commission to Cafà was primarily a marble statue of St Paul replacing the wooden one on the altar but probably was to include other works. This can be affirmed on the basis of a letter of 27 July 1666, written by Grand Master Cotoner to his ambassador in Rome. This letter, first published by Sciberras, refers to a commission of “certe statue” to Melchiorre Cafà for St Paul’s Grotto (Document No 2).

Of all Cafà’s extant works in Malta, the Rabat alabaster statue of Paul (Figs 153-156) is the most completely documented at least as regards payments, inasmuch as the procurators of the Grotto kept very detailed administrative records, which often include duplications.15 Grand Master Cotoner’s letter of 27 July 1666 to his ambassador in Rome mentions an agreement with Cafà for 500 Maltese scudi for “certe statue”, but it was only in September 1669, that is three years after the letter and two years after the sculptor’s death, that a consignment was received from Rome. This consignment included not only the statue of St Paul (as completed by Ercole Ferrata after Cafà’s death) but also twelve loads of marble. These served for the altar of St Paul with its marble ‘suppedaneum’ and its elegant chancel in the for m of two kneelers. Nine months later, two pieces of marble where returned to Valletta as destined for the Conventual Church. On 19 November 1670, that is two months later, payment is recorded for a consignment of two holy water fonts; these fonts of coloured marble are still conserved in the upper church of St Publius above the Grotto. Seven payments to Rome were effected by the chaplains and these are recorded hereunder.16 As entered in the manuscript entitled Stato della Cassa, they help us understand better the Roman commission: 1. 26 October 1666 sc. 243. 9. directly for Cafà for the statue and other works 2. 22 March 1667 sc. 239. 0. 15 to the Treasury ( Bandinelli) for Cafà for “l’opera della Grotta” 3. 8 June 1667 sc. 159. 4. 10 to the Treasury (Bandinelli) for Cafà for ‘l’opera della Grotta” 4. 23 June 1667 sc. 79. 8. 5 to the Treasury ( Bandinelli) for Cafà for “l’opera della Grotta”

5. 16 September 1668 sc. 281. 8. 2 to the Treasury ( Bandinelli/Verospi) for Ercole Ferrata ( 100 Roman Scudi) for the statue and for the ‘scalpellino’ ( 76.74 Roman scudi) for other works for the Grotto 6. 26 September 1669 sc.162. 6. – to the Treasury ( Verospi) in full settlement to Ercole Ferrata ( 100 Roman scudi) for completing the Statue 7. 19 November 1670 sc. 60. 1. 10 to the Treasury ( Verospi) for two holy water fonts From the above it transpires that instead of 500 scudi , as accorded with Cafà by Grand Master Cotoner for “certe statue”, the Chaplains paid a sum of 1226.2.2 scudi in return for a statue, for the marbles of the Chapel with its chancel and for two holy water fonts in the upper church. From this sum of 1226 scudi, Cafà only received 721.10.10 Maltese scudi and these probably included payments to the scalpellino. Ercole Ferrata who finished the statue received 200 Roman scudi while the unnamed ‘scalpellino’ received another 76.74 Roman scudi. A note in a manuscript entitled Documenti A17 gives the total cost for the statue of St Paul as 759 . 9. –. scudi. Given that the two fonts cost 60.1.10 scudi, the twelve crates of marble must have cost 506.3.12 scudi. Documentary sources are also available for expenditure incurred in transporting the crates from Valletta to Rabat (Documents nos 4 and 5) as well as for settling accounts with the “Camera del Tesoro” of the Order (Document no 6). The marbles sent from Rome served to cover the stone of the altar of St Paul with rich marbles, especially its precious ‘scannello’ supporting the statue. The altar’s design apparently already included a setting for a roundel. The 117

the Beheading of St Paul on the front of the mensa of St Paul’s altar. Following Cafà’s untimely death in early 1666, the roundel had to wait until the year 1681 when it arrived from Naples as a cast of Algardi’s 1648 roundel at the Spada Chapel in San Paolo Maggiore in Bologna. Its cost is not known. Only a simple payment of 1.8. – scudi for its transport is recorded. The task of mounting the marbles was entrusted to Lorenzo Gafa (Document no 7). These marbles, however, were once again dismounted in 1671 for further rock excavation in order to enlarge the Grotto and provide ‘aerofori’ for additional lighting (Document no 8). The companion chapel of St Luke in the Grotto

Fig. 156

Fig. 156. St Paul’s Grotto, Rabat, Malta. Interior

118

two kneelers forming a sort of chancel to the chapel are equally made of rich marbles. The two beautifully sculpted coat-of arms of Grand Master Cotoner fixed on these chancels may be those commissioned to Bartolomeo Bambagi. The ‘suppedaneum’18 of St Paul’s altar forms part of the Roman consignment, whereas the pavement beneath the altar includes some old marble, which the chaplains had once acquired from a temple or a classical structure. Pieces of the same marble are to be seen on the outer steps of the churches of St Publius and St Paul in Rabat and the church of the Benedictine Nunnery of St Peter in Mdina. It is almost certain that the ‘certe statue’ mentioned by Grand Master Cotoner in his letter to his ambassador in Rome must have been a companion statue of St Luke for his altar and a roundel of

It was only in 1679 that the altar of St Luke was covered with marbles: “verde antico” marble, with inlaid coat-ofarms of Grand Master Cotoner and other marbles. On that occasion the whole chapel was enlarged with spacious “areofori” joining the two chapels to acquire the benefit of natural lighting in an underground area. On the same occasion Mro Bartolomeo Bambagio was commissioned to prepare a wooden model of the chapel of St Paul (Document no 9). On 18 July of the same year Bambagi was commissioned to decorate in marble, within one year and at a cost of 1,800 scudi, both the chapel and the skylight on a design drawn by the Knight Lete (Document no 10). Sixteen years later, in 1695, during the magistracy of Grand Master Perellos, a wooden, baroque statue of St Luke, commissioned to Pietro Papaleo (Fig. 157), was installed to replace the 1609 gilt-wood statue and on that occasion the chapel was further embellished.19 The name of the sculptor

is first recorded in a manuscript entry by the Capuchin Friar Padre Pelagio of Zebbug20 who gives interesting details on the statues adorning both altars (Document no 10). Padre Pelagio believes that the wooden statue was originally intended as a model for a statue in marble. Whatever the case, the statue remained on the altar for which it was destined up to the year 1919, when it was taken for restoration and eventually kept for exhibition at the National Museum of Fine Arts. 21 The bozzetto in terracotta of Papaleo’s statue is kept in the Arthur M.Sackler’s Collection, U.S.A. The present statue of St Luke in the Grotto is a copy in cement prepared by George Borg in 1930.22 Cafà’s commission for the Grotto was one of the first initiatives taken by the Chaplains to promote the sanctuary and forms part of a vast program of artistic commissions made possible, through the clever administration of the Chaplains, by the generous foundation established by Grand Master Aloph de Wignacourt for the Grotto. Finally, one should not underestimate the contribution of the very refined rector of the Grotto, Fra Pierre Viany (1663-1700), who was for merly the elemosiniere of the Grand Master and later the Grand Prior of the Order. During his long rectorship, which he retained even after being elected Grand Prior, Viany together with the Chaplains could enrich the institution with important works of art by the best artists then available. These works included constructions by Lorenzo Gafà, paintings by Alessandro Bambaci and Mattia Preti, sculptures by Melchiorre Cafa’, Alessandro Algardi and Pietro Papaleo as well as silverplate by Carlo Troisi, Dionisio Famuncelli, Luca Berti and Giovanni Mamo. Further more, Viany’s contribution towards the realization of the statuary of the Baptism of Christ for the Conventual

Fig. 157. Pietro Papaleo, St Luke, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta, Malta Fig. 157

Church of St John, first entrusted to Cafà, remains to be studied. A double commission from and for the adjacent parish church Lorenzo Gafà, for one, had the privilege to see that each of his two recent constructions, one for the Order and one for the Parish Church, was to be embellished by works of art commissioned to his brother Melchiorre. The Maltese benefactress and foundress of St Paul’s Parish Church, the noble Cosmana Navarra, on her part, would not miss the opportunity of Cafà’s presence in Malta and in Rabat without matching a similar commission to the artist for her parish church, then still under construction. It goes to the credit of the patrons of both churches that 119

Fig. 158. Pietro Papaleo, St Luke, A.M. Sackler Foundation, New York

Fig. 158

they were clever and prudent enough to create an architectural and artistic balance in the common Pauline complex by commissioning works of art to the same artists, whether architects or painters or sculptors. Since 1653, Cosmana Navar ra had been engaged in financing the construction of an enlarged parish church in the new baroque style of the period for the benefit of the expanding population of Rabat. To establish architectural harmony, she had entrusted its plan to the architect of the Order Francesco Buonamici, who had already worked in the area by designing, for the Order, the Canonica or residence of the Chaplains of the Grotto. When the latter left the island, she entrusted the completion of the work to Lorenzo Gafà, who was also enlarging the Grotto and its over-standing church dedicated to St Publius. As the Parish Church was still in construction it was probably too early to commission from Melchiorre Cafà a sculpture but instead Cosmana 120

commissioned from him a sanctuary lamp (discussed elsewhere in this publication) for the Church’s then only transept. 23 Cafà’s commission of this sanctuary lamp – first published by the present writer in 199924 – is documented in Cosmana’s last will, enacted in acts of Notary Nicola Allegritto on 29 November 1666, just a few months after Cafà’s return to Rome from Malta (Document no 12). The chapel of St Anthony the Abbot for ming the transept had just been completed and still needed an altarpiece. As if to compliment Melchiorre Cafà for accepting her commission, she entrusted the painting of this altarpiece to Melchiorre’s companion, the Maltese Michelangelo Marulli,25 with the result that we now have from him the splendid large canvas of St Anthony the Abbot with St Philip Neri, paying homage to the Blessed Virgin. This is one of the very few documented works of Marulli in Malta. The identification of the painter’s name is recorded in the Pastoral Visit of 1744 by Bishop Paul Alpheran de Bussan (Document no 13).

Appreciation of Melchiorre Cafà’s artistic commissions C o s m a n a ’s d e e p a p p re c i at i o n o f Melchiorre Cafà’s ability is clearly evidenced in her injunction to her universal heir, on 23 January 1687, to commission for the altar of St Stephen in the new transept, an exact replica of Cafà’s sanctuary lamp, if an artist of Melchiorre Cafà’s ability were to be found ( Document no 14). Cafà’s statue of St Paul in the Grotto, however, must have been so powerful and impressive in Cosmana’s perception, as to merit to be reproduced in copy in a most prominent place at the centre of the adjoining Parish cemetery. Cosmana wanted to embellish the very devout cemetery forming the church parvis with a baroque “Sacro Monte”, the only one of its kind in our islands. On top of it she produced a larger replica in stone of Melchiorre Cafà’s statue of St Paul in the Grotto. This she placed on a high pedestal containing several inscriptions. The monument was meant to commemorate the preaching of St Paul to the people of Malta and Gozo. St Paul is placed as looking towards the direction of the island of Gozo26 as if to indicate that the saint evangelized the people of both Malta and Gozo. The stone replica however has proved to be rather poor in quality and has been rendered much worse by the many layers of paint added on it through the centuries. At his feet, the artist sculpted a very large viper, recalling the miracle of St Paul recorded in the Bible (Acts of the Apostles, chapter 28); a detail not included in Cafà’s statue.

I would like to conclude this essay by quoting a few remarks by travelers-authors who during their Grand Tour visited St Paul’s Grotto. Louis de Boisgelin, a Knight of the Order and a visitor, wrote in 1805 as follows: ‘Near the city (Mdina) is the Grotto of St Paul, a cave divided into three separate parts by iron gates. The altar is in the part furthest from the entrance; in which is also a beautiful statue of St Paul, in white marble, the work of Caffa. The second resembles the nave of a Church… The entrance serves as a place of worship, in fact the primitive Christians themselves who inhabited Malta made use of it as a Church; and in 1507 27 a hermit having fixed his abode in the place, drew after him a great concourse of devout visitors”.28 An earlier visitor and author, Jean Houel, who visited in 1777, described and expressed his admiration for the statue but confused the name of its sculptor with that of the other statue donated by Grand Master Pinto and coming from the workshop of Bernini. Writing ten years later he said: “I was guided to the Grotto of St Paul by M.Favray, painter of the king of France and also magistral knight of the Order of St John. … To see the Grotto one has to visit a small subterranean chapel, which is situated underneath the Church of St Paul. The chapel possesses various sections. In the middle there is a breached section, which is therefore connected with the daylight. The daylight lights a statue of the Apostle. The people come here for contemplation and devotion. This sculpture is made by the knight Bernin, a sculptor from Rome, and is composed with passion. This artist hardly created better works”29

121

DOCUMENTS

Document no 1: 1658 Project for a statue of St Paul in marble for the Grotto (Conti C3, 1658-1660) 1658 ( January to December) (p.7v) piu’ a mro Franco per un pasto quando piglò le misure della cappella di Santo Paolo (p.8) a mro Franco per il disegno et misure della cappella 1660 (f. 26r) Speso il giorno che si portò il marmo della statua Per portatura del marmo in casa del Illustrissimo Signor Priore (f.26v) Per dar il pasto alli Pittori, et mro Bartholomeo per far la relatione della statua di marmo Per cavalcature per suddetti

2 - 4 - -

- 10 3 4 3 9 - 9 -

Document no 2: 27 July 1666. Letter from Grand Master Cotoner to Ambassador Verospi (AOM, Arch.1442, f.55v: published by Sciberras 2004, p. 211) Essendosi commesso a Melchiore Cafà scultore Maltese residente costì di far certe statue per questa Grotta di San Paolo, convenendosi seco il pagamento di cinquecento scudi di questa moneta gliele pagarete però voi costi quello, che importeranno delli denari del Nostro Comun Tesoro, al quale ci faremo qui rimborsare subito, che verrà il vostro avviso… Per far il suddetto pagamento a Melchior Cafa vi valerete della rimessa, che vi fa il Ven. Baglio Bandinelli colla congionta e non occorrerà per tanto impiegar a’ danari del Tesoro

122

Document no 3: Payments by the Chaplains of St Paul’s Grotto between 1666 and 1671 in connection with the marbles brought over from Rome (Archives of St Paul’s Grotto, Wignacourt Museum, Rabat) Conti (C ) vols 3,4

Stato della Cassa Libro Primo A, f.3r

C3 (Fra Paolo Bartolo, 1665-6) f.285 Item ho consegnato al Signor Rettore scudi doicento quarantatre, e tarì novi, per mandargli in Roma a Mro Melchiore Cafa in servitio della S.Grotta. 243. 9. –

a di 26 ottobre 1666 Il signor fr.Paulo Bartholo ha preso dalla cascia scudi doicento quarantatre a tari nove per fare dare a Roma a Melchior Cafà per la statua di S.Paulo e altre cose dico 243.9 fr. P. Viany Paulo Bartholo

Item per conferimento alla Valletta li 26 ottobre per pigliar denari dalla cascia per mandarli a Roma pagati per cavalcatura tari doi dico — 2 — C4, f.18v Giugno 1667

C4 (Fra Ignazio Carceppo 1667-8) f. 17v Marzo 1667 Item a di 22 detto mi discarrigo di scudi 239 e grani 15 consignati al Signor Baglio Bandinelli per la statua di S.Paulo 239. —.15

Item per conferirmi alla Valletta per usare denari della Cascia pagati per cavalcatura —. 2. –

Libro Primo A f.4 A di 22 marzo 1667 Fr. Ignazio Carceppo nuovo procuratore ha pigliato dalla cascia scudi doicento trenta nove grana quindeci per rimborsare al Signor B. Bandinelli per simile somma data a Melchior Caffa in Roma per l’opera della Grotta 239. 0. 15 fr Petrus Prior Ecclesiae et Rector F. Ignatio Carceppo Procuratore

123

Item a di 8 detto mi discarrigo di scudi 159.4.10 dati al Signor Baglio Bandinelli per la statua di S.Paulo 159.4.10

Item per conferirmi alla Valletta per uscire Denari dalla cascia —2–

C4 f.18v Giugno 1667 Item li 23 detto mi discarrigo di scudi 79.8.5 dati al Signor Baglio Bandinelli per la statua di S.Paulo 79. 8. 5

Item per andare alla Valletta per uscire denari dalla Cascia —. 2. –

C 4 f.27v, 28r A di 25 Settembre 1668 Eminentissimo Signore Havendosi compiacuto V.E. deputare per Commmissarii a noi infrascritti come decreto Di Vostra Eminenza spedito li 22 gennaio 1669 ……… L’esito fatto… inclusi scudi settecento cinquanta novi, tari novi e grani dodici mandati in Roma per la statua di S.Paulo Fra G.Coutron Fra Publio Theuma C 4 f.25v 124

Libro Primo A, f.4 r A di 8 di Giugn0 1667 F.Ignatio Carceppo procuratore ha pigliato dalla cascia scudi cento cinquanta novi tari quattro e grani 10 per valuta di 100 romani da restituirsi al Signor Baglio Bandinelli per simil summa presa da Merchior Cafa in Roma per l’opera di Marmo che fa fare per la Grotta di S.Pau lo 159.4.10 P.Viany Prior Ecclesiae et Rector Venerandae Cryptae F.Ignatio Carceppo procuratore

Libro Primo A, f. 5r A di 23 Giugno 1667 F.Ignatio Carceppo procuratore ha pigliato dalla cascia scudi settanta novi tari quattro (sic) e grani cinque per valuta di scudi cinquanta romani da restituirsi al Signor Baglio Bandinelli per simil soma presa da Melchior Cafa in Roma per l’opera di marmo per la Santa Grotta di S.Paulo, dico 79.8.5 Il Prior della Chiesa e Rettore della Grotta Fr. P.Viany F. Ignatio Carceppo procuratore

19 Settembre 1668 Item a di 19 detto mi discarrigo di scudi 281. 8. 2 dati al Signor Baglio Bandinelli per la statua di San Paulo 281. 8. 2

C 4 f.46r Denari depositati in Cascia A di 26 decembre 1669 Mi discarrigo di scudi cento sessanta doi e tari sei pagati nel Thesoro per scudi 100 Romani per pagarli al scultore Hercole per haver perfecionato la statua di S.Pau lo 162. 6. —

A di 19 Novembre 1670 Mi discarrigo di scudi sessanta tari uno, e grani dieci pagati al Thesoro e sono per compimento per li fonti di acqua benedetta, nolo, scicurta e casse di tutta l’ opera 60. 1. 10

Libro Primo A, f. 5r. A di 19 Settembre 1668 S’e’ preso dalla Cassa scudi ducento ottant’Uno tari otto grani due moneta corrente di rame valuta di sc. 176 e baiocchi 74 Romani cioe 76.74 per compimento del scarpellino per li lavori della Grotta di S. Paulo e sc. 100 pagati al scultore Hercole a bon conto di scudi 200 che se li devono dare per perfettionare la statua di S.Paulo conforme appare da una lettera e conto mandato dall’ Ecc.mo S. Ambasciator Verospi sotto li 18 Agosto 1668 Fr. P. Viany Prior della Chiesa F. Ignatio Carceppo procuratore

Libro Primo A, f. 6r A di 26 Decembre 1669 Ho preso dalla cascia scudi cento sessantadoi e tari 6 di moneta corrente per scudi Romani presi dal Thesoro per fargli pagarli a Roma per mano del Ambascitore Verospi al scortore Hercole per compimento di scudi 200 moneta romana che doveva havere per finimento per conto della statua di S. Paulo dico 162. 6. – fr Pietro Viany Prior della chiesa F. Ignatio carceppo procuratore

A di 19 Novembre 1670 Io sottoscritto confesso di haver pigliato dalla cascia scudi sessanta tari uno e grani 10 valuta di scudi trentasetti romani per imborsare il Thesoro pagati a Roma dal Ambasciatore Verospi per li doi fonti dell’acqua benedetta et altre spese fatte in servitio della medesima Grotta conforme pare nelli conti soi del Thesoro delli 2 Agosto 1670 60. 1. 10 fr P. Viany Prior della Chiesa F. Ignatio Carceppo procuratore 125

Document no 4: 1669-1670 Payments by the Chaplains for transporting to St Paul’s Grotto the marbles brought over from Rome. C 4, f.48r Settembre 1669 Item ho pagato alli pastasi che portorno la statua di S.Paulo e li altri marmi a caruana dalla casa della Semblea scudi quaranta come pare per atto del Notaro Nicola Allegritto Item al suddetto Notaro per atto, fede, e carta Item per 12 bordonari per haver portato 12 carrigi di marmo a ragione di tari doi, e grani 10 per carrigo Item alli pastasi per haver portato li suddetti marmi dalla marina per sino la casa della semblea dati ad Antonio Azopardo scudi cinque e tari’ 2

49 - - 2 1 2 6 -

5 2 -

C4, f.79r Maggio 1670 Item per haver mandato doi pezzi di marmo alla Valletta che furono dell’opera di San Giovanni

- 7 -

Agosto 1670 Item a di 20 per haver andato alla Valletta chiamato sopra li conti della statua di S.Paulo pagati per cavalcatura dico

- 2 -

Document no 5: 3 September 1669. Payments for carrying the crates from Valletta to Rabat (NAV R18, Atti Nicola Allegritto, vol. 22, 2v: contract between Fra Ignatio Carceppo procurator of St Paul’s Grotto and Francesco Xicluna of Tarxien ( published by Sciberras 2004, p.188) Et sunt dicta scuta 49 pro totitem dicto de Xicluna et aliis quindecim debitae per portatura di una statua di San Paolo e suo altare e scalinata dalla Citta Valletta alla detta veneranda Grutta di San Paolo. N.B. Magister Laurentius Gafar and Angelo Mifsud witnessed this deed.

Document no 6 : Settlement between the Chaplains and the Camera del Tesoro for transport expenses in connection with the marble consigment received from Rome (17 October 1670 : AOM 645: Camera del Comun Tesoro, vol. A, 1667-1678, p. 140) Ripartimento d’alcune spese fatte per la Chiesa di S.Giovanni e Grotta di S.Paolo. Essendosi fatte varie spese in casse, e noli per condurre da Roma in Malta alcuni marmi appartenenti alla Chiesa di S.Giovanni et altri alla grotta di S.Paolo et essendosi di quelle fatto un calcolo con ogni esatta distintione possible: li Venerandi Procuratori si son contentati di essere rimborsati di scudi 100 moneta romana per quello che spetta alla Grotta di S.Paolo.

126

Document no 7: 1669. Payments by the Chaplains for mounting the marbles (Conti vol. 4, f. 48r–51v: ‘Spesa fatta per fabricare li marmi nella Cappella di S.Paulo e ciangare la grotta e altri servizi’) f. 48r: decembre 1669 Item per ordine di Monsignor Priore ho pagato al marmoraro Mro Bartolomeo Bombacio per haver conciato le due arme di S.E. di marmo come pare per sua poliza scudi sette 7 - f.51r: decembre 1669 Item a Lorenzo Cafa per sua assistenza in fare tutta la suddetta opera e metter la statua al suo loco per ordine di Monsignor Priore ho pagato scudi 10 - -

C4, f.78r Mi discarrigo di scudi trenta uno tari dieci e grani dieci pagati a Lorenzo Cafa a conto della statua di S.Paolo et altri marmi come pare per sua ricevuta 31. 10. 10

Stato della Cassa A, f. 8r Io sottoscritto confesso di haver pigliato dalla cascia scudi 31. 10. 10 per dare a Lorenzo Cafa a bon conto della opera del marmo della Grotta di S.Paulo 31. 10. 10 fr P. Viany f. Ignatio Carceppo procuratore

Document no 8: 1671, Subsequent dismantling and re-assembling of the altar of St Paul in the Grotto. (Conti vol. 4 ff 110 v-111r: Spese per fabricare di novo l’altari di S.Paulo e S.Luca) (omissis) Item a Mro Pauluccio callus peritore per haver tagliato la rocca e ingranditio il spiraglio sopra la statua di S.Paulo Item a Mro Lorenzo Cafa per sua assistenza per ordine di Monsignor Priore Item per havergli dato da mangiare al suddetto Cafa tari’ otto in giorni tre

- 8 - 3 - 8 -

127

Document no 9: 1679. Embellishment with marbles of the altar of St Luke and commission of a wooden model of the chapel of St Paul in the Grotto. (C 4 ff 385-386) Aprile ( f.385r) Ho pagato alla carruana per haver portato dalla Valletta un avantaltare di marmo per San Luca Item alli bordinari per aver portato altri marmi Item a Mastro Giorgio Vella per haver murato il suddetto altare per giorni doi Item al suo manuale Item a Mastro Grazio Borg lavorante per giorni doi Item per calcina e terra giarna Item a Mastro Bartolomeo bonbagio marmoraro per la fattura del suddetto altare, e altri serviti per ordine di Mons. Priore scudi venti doi Item per chiodi di metallo per il suddetto altare Item per 100 fogli di carta reale per fare il modello della cappella di San Paulo al suddetto marmoraro scudi doi e tari sei Item per haver mandato il modello di legname della cappella di San Paulo allaValletta tari doi Item per haver dato al suddetto marmoraro da mangiare, in murare il suddetto altare tre volte Maggio ( f.386r) Item a mastro Pietruzzo Callus per haver ingrandito il spiraglio della grotta e tagliarla rocca fra San Paulo e San Luca per giorni 17 a ragione di tari 7 e grani dieci per giorno scudi quattro tari undici e grani dieci Item alli figlioli che hanno carregiato le pietre della rocca Item a mastro Domenico mamo per haver murato il spiraglio delal grutta per Giorni 5 e mezza a tari 5 per giorno Luglio ( f. 386r) Item per havermi andato alla Valletta per fare l’atto con il marmoraro per la cappella di San Paolo per cavalcatura

1 4 - 7 - - - -

6 1 15 7 3 15

22 - 2 4 2 6 - 2 1 6 -

4 11 10 - 9 2 3 10

- 2 -

Document no 10: 18 July 1679. Commission to Bartholomeo Bambaci to decorate in marble the chapel of St Paul in  the Grotto and its skylight. (Acts of Notary Tommaso Agius R 11/53, ff. 958r - 959r, with grateful thanks to Dr John Debono) Obligatio pro Ignatio Carceppo nomine contra Bartholomeum Bombaci Die xviij mensis Julij ij Ind. 1679. Constituto inanti me Notaro e Testimoni Infrascripti mro Bartholomeo bombaci del quondam Francesco di questa Citta Valletta conosciuto etc. spontaniamente have promesso, et obligatosi si come promette, e s’obliga al Rdo.signor fra Ignatio carceppo fra Cappellano del ordine di Santo Gioanne Gierosolimitano anche conosciuto presenti, e come procuratore del Ven. Colleggio della Ven. Grutta di santo 128

Paulo della Cita’ notabile stipolanti di adornare di marmo la Ven. Cappella, et il spiraglio della detta Ven. Grutta in opera scorniciata, liscia, et di basso rilievo, conforme il disegno fatto dal signor Cavalier le fe’, et per detto de bombaci visto, revisto, et ben considerato il tutto, che ci vorra’ per far detto adornamento lo dovera’ fare esso de bombaci a spesi suoi, qual opera esso de bombaci dovera’ farla con tutta quella perfettione, che dimanda tal opera, e darcila spedita fra il termine d’un anno da contarsi dal giorno, che sara’ portato il marmo in questo general porto inanti da contarsi senza contraditione veruna etc.  E cio per la somma di scuti mille, et ottocento di tt.12 per scuto moneta di rame di questa Isola di malta, qual somma di sc. 1800 detto signor de carceppo a nome sopradetto have promesso, et obligatosi, si come promette, e s’obliga di dare, e pagare ut bancus al detto de bombaci stipulanti in denaro de contanti in questa Cita’ Valletta travagliando, pagando, si che finita detta opera si dovera’ fare l’intiero pagamento di detta somma senza contraditione veruna etc.   Quae omnia etc.. Juraverunt etc.  Unde etc.. Actum Melitae in Civitate Valletta praesentibus d. fra matthia preti, et m. clerico Gaspare azuppard  testibus.

Document no 11: Padre Pelagio of Zebbug comments on the two statues of St Paul and St Luke and identifies the sculptor of the statue of St Luke . (National Library of Malta. Ms 142, vol.3 entitled ‘Relazione della Venerabile Grotta di S.Paolo Apostolo di Malta, par. XXXVIII.’) Due dell’anzidette statue cioè di S. Paolo e di S.Luca al tempo dell’Eminentissimo fr. Don Raimondo Perellos Gran maestro furono riformate; la prima cambiata in un’altra di marmo bianco artificiata con molto isquisito lavoro ed atteggiamento assieme con un’altra simile rappresentante il medesimo S. Apostolo predicante (e si venera nel Cimitero vicino ad una colonna con sopravì una Croce antichissima) l’una e l’altra opra del sopraccenato Melkiore Gafà. L’altra di San Luca fu cambiata in un’altra di legno che doveva servire di modello per farla piu’ anco in marmo, ma perche’ riusci di tutto gradimento tal qual era tuttavia persevera esposta, ed è opra di un scultore Palermitano denominato Papaleo. Con questa occasione furono più anco viepiù adornate le due capelline con pitture e marmi; e nella prima sono posti due brevi elogj uno per parte sopra la porta della sacrestia scritta sopra l’intonicatura di calce che copre il rosso della roccaviva, alla parte destra leggesi = Ubera lacte fluunt fidei in proprio sanguine dulcia = alla sinistra = Lac nivaeum mundi totus uber erat.

129

Document no 12: Commission of a sanctuary lamp from Melchiorre Gafà for the Chapel of St Anthony (Acts of Notary Nicola Allegritto, 29 November 1666.) Item voluit et mandavit dicta domina testatrix quod infrascriptus dictus eius heres universalis teneatur sitque obligatus apportare il lampiere d’argento quale di commissione di essa predetta testatrice sta facendo in Roma il signor Melchior Gafar voluitque et mandavit che detto lampiere cunctis perpetuis futuris temporibus inserviat et inservire debeat pro usu et servitio ac ornamento praedictae eius cappellae Sancti Antonii.

Document no 13: Commission and description of a painting by Michelangelo Marulli (Pastoral Visit of Fra Melchior Alpheran De Bussan , 1744) Magna icona illustris picturae delineata Romae a Michaele Angelo Melitensi referens in parte superiori imaginem Beatae Mariae Virginis cum puero Jesu et in parte inferiori Sancti Antonii Abbatis, a dextris Sancti Philippi Nerii genuflexi, a sinistris et in medio Animarum Sanctissimi Purgatorii.

Document no 14: Commission of a sanctuary lamp for the Chapel of St Stephen similar to that of the chapel of St Anthony commissioned to Melchiorre Gafà. (Acts of Notary Nicola Allegritto, 23 January 1687) …ed anco obliga al medesimo Signore suo erede di fare per la detta cappella un lampiere d’argento di bollo in quel disegno e grandezza che è il lampiere della suddetta cappella di Sant’Antonio Abate e se troverà persona che faccia e travaglia il detto lampiere come quello della cappella di Sant’Antonio il detto Signor suo herede sia obligato come s’obliga di fare un lampiere per detta cappella del valsento scudi mille di tari 12 per scudo moneta di Malta … entro due anni.

130

Il Matrimonio mistico e la visione delle Rose Di Santa Rosa Da Lima: due rilievi di Cafà alle Descalzas Reales di Madrid

Tomaso Montanari

Per merito di Jennifer Montagu, alcuni fra gli studiosi di scultura barocca romana già conoscono le opere di Melchiorre Cafà che questo contributo intende presentare pubblicandone per la prima volta le immagini.1 I rilievi – montati nelle cornici originali, sontuose e complesse – sono provati dal tempo,2 ma ancora in grado di esibire un’altissima qualità. Le figure e i pochi, sintetici elementi che caratterizzano le scene sono gettati in un metallo che sembra essere bronzo (ma che potrebbe anche essere una lega più leggera), e sono fissati ad uno sfondo ovale delimitato da una cornice in metallo dorato. I due fondali appaiono oggi diversi: in un caso (Fig. 159) il campo è una pietra azzurra, forse lapislazzulo, distesa su un supporto di legno (messo a nudo, nella parte bassa, da una caduta del materiale); nell’altro (Fig. 160) una pasta, o stucco, color azzurro imita verosimilmente un’analoga foderatura di pietra, andata perduta. Gli ovali sono inseriti in cornici rivestite d’ebano e impreziosite, al centro di ogni braccio, da applicazioni in metallo dorato. I quattro angoli che risultano dall’iscrizione degli ovali nei rettangoli sono invasi da rose fuse in

Fig. 159

131

On previous page: Fig. 159. Mystic Marriage of St Rose of Lima, Descalzas Reales, Madrid

metallo, e colorate naturalisticamente in verde e rosso: una rara natura morta scultorea costituita da un unico ramo, gettato quattro volte diritto, e altrettante in controparte. La cornici esterne sono larghe circa quarantasei centimetri e alte cinquantadue, mentre il diametro verticale dell’ovale misura circa trentanove centimetri e quello orizzontale circa trentadue.

Fig. 160. St Rose of Lima’s Vision of the Roses, Descalzas Reales, Madrid

132

Fig. 160

La lettura iconografica delle due scene appare di relativa semplicità. L’identificazione della santa con Caterina da Siena, data per pacifica negli inventari del monastero (il più antico che menzioni i rilievi risale, però, appena all’anno 1900)3 è giusta solo in quanto comprende che la protagonista indossa, come Caterina, le vesti del Terz’ordine femminile domenicano. Ma la profu-

Fig. 163

Fig. 164

Fig. 161

sione di rose, lungi dall’essere un casuale partito decorativo, indica che siamo di fronte a storie della consorella ed emula secentesca della mistica senese: Rosa da Lima, la prima santa del Nuovo Mondo. I rilievi sono puntuali raffigurazioni di momenti fra i più famosi dell’intensa esperienza trascendentale della domenicana peruviana: il matrimonio con Gesù bambino (Fig. 159), e la cosiddetta visione delle rose (Fig. 160).4 Ancor prima della beatificazione (1668) o della canonizzazione (1671) i due episodi erano entrati nell’iconografia scritta e visiva di Rosa, e per conoscerli non era necessario attingere alle esclusive carte del processo in corso, o al sostenuto latino della biografia ufficiale che aveva aperto la strada al processo stesso – la Vita mirabilis et mors pretiosa venerabilis sororis Rosæ de Sanctæ Mariæ Limensis del padre Leonard Hansen5 – ma bastava rivolgersi, per esempio, ad un libretto divulgativo come il Breve ristretto della vita meravigliosa della venerabile serva di Dio Rosa di Santa Maria, pubblicato a Roma nel 1665 dal confratello domenicano Giovan Domenico Leoni con lo scopo di descriv-

Fig. 162

ere le vicende della novella Caterina «in più basso stile e nella volgar lingua», per condurre «forse alla venerazione del suo nome maggior numero di devoti».6 Il Leoni descrive i due avvenimenti miracolosi con un’essenzialità paragonabile alla scarna eloquenza delle sculture spagnole. La visione durante la quale avverrà il matrimonio mistico ha luogo nella Cappella del Rosario del convento domenicano di Lima, ed è a questa ambientazione ecclesiastica che allude la sobria inquadratura architettonica del rilievo. Durante la processione della Domenica delle Palme, Rosa non riceve il suo ramo per trascuraggine del sacrestano, ma, interpretando questa privazione come un castigo divino, ella si reca a supplicare la venerata statua della Madonna del Rosario: Prostratasele innanzi nella Cappella del Santissimo Rosario [...], osservò che mostrava più del solito verso di lei allegro il volto. Onde, rallegratasi anch’ella, e preso animo di supplicarla che si compiacesse di darle essa più degna palma, vedde che, rivolta con amoroso sguardo

Fig. 161. Melchiorre Cafà and Ercole Ferrata, Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, Church of S. Agostino, Rome Fig. 162. Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Detail Fig. 163. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, Rome Fig. 164. St Rose of Lima, Church of S. Domingo, Lima

133

volle anche il divino Verbo (benché quivi sotto apparenza d’infante) felicitarle l’udito: «Rosa del mio cuore – perciò le disse – tu mi sarai sposa».7

Fig. 165

Fig. 165. Virgin and Child with St Rose of Lima and other Saints, Louvre, Paris

134

al suo divino figliolo, pareva che l’accennasse volerle dar lui, invece di palma. L’umana debolezza, solita intender solamente cose materiali, non ha voce per esprimere il giubilo che cagionò nell’animo di Rosa la consolazione spirituale di quello sguardo. Per grande, nondimeno, che fosse il suo indicibil contento, raddoppiossi in un subito, vedendo che anche il bambino Gesù, con la dolcezza medesima rimirandola, pareva che mostrasse d’acconsentire al voler della madre. Or, chi potrebbe degnamente intendere, non che spiegare, a quali eccessi arrivasse il suo contento, quando sentì chiamarsi sposa dal suo creatore? S’era smarrita quell’anima santa in un mare di celesti dolcezze, quando, non contento di haverle felicitato la vista,

Nel rilievo è fissato con commovente potenza l’atteggiamento di dono della Madonna, che sembra davvero voler offrire alla santa il Bambino al posto della palma: il contatto tra le mani di Rosa, quella di Maria (appena visibile, scorciatissima) e il braccio di Gesù, e insieme la bocca aperta di quest’ultimo, fermano la scena al momento culminante, quando viene in qualche modo celebrato lo sposalizio mistico. I due fori che appaiono nella pietra sopra la testa di Rosa inducono a chiedersi se qualche ulteriore figura (angelica) accompagnasse in origine la scena.8 Il secondo rilievo illustra – con fedeltà, anche se con una variante fondamentale – una visione avvenuta in un momento successivo della vita della santa: Facendo orazione nella solitaria sua celletta dell’orto, hebbe una mirabile visione [...]. Rapita in estasi vedeva tutto ricoperto di bellissime rose il suolo. Meravigliandosi di quest’insolita abbondanza di rose, le comparve il bambino Gesù, e le comandò di raccogliere tutte quelle rose, e se n’empiesse il grembo. Il che eseguito, si presentò al divino amante che, scegliendo la più bella di quelle rose e prendendola in dono, le disse: «Questa rosa sei tu medesima. Di questa io mi prendo cura. Sia tuo pensiero haver cura dell’altre». Assicurata Rosa in questa maniera d’essere nelle mani del suo sposo, non si scordò della salute dell’altre sue compagne, che stimò significate nell’altre rose. Fattone perciò bellissima corona, le pose in testa al bambino Gesù che, benignamente ricevutole, e data a Rosa la sua benedizione, disparve.9

Se dunque l’albero e il terreno alludono all’orto del monastero, e se lo scapolare colmo di rose e l’offerta del fiore al Bambino corrispondono perfettamente all’epilogo della visione, la presenza di Maria sembra invece dovuta ad una libera interpolazione da parte del committente, o dell’artista. Quest’ultimo, in ogni caso, ha saputo conferire alla figura della Madonna una sua necessità almeno compositiva, giacché essa, pur posta in secondo piano, riempie il centro dell’ovato ed abbraccia teneramente i due veri protagonisti, articolando la scena. L’evidenza stilistica indica che questi due splendidi oggetti d’arte (documentati nella loro sede attuale, il monastero carmelitano femminile delle Descalzas Reales a Madrid, solo dall’inizio del Novecento)10 furono realizzati a Roma nel terzo quarto del XVII secolo: e, anzi, la qualità elevatissima e le caratteristiche formali dichiarano senza ambiguità la paternità di Melchiorre Cafà. Il confronto più ovvio coinvolge l’opera più nota dello scultore maltese, la grande pala di Santa Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli (Fig. 163): identica l’idea di far navigare le figure del bassorilievo in un mare di pietra semipreziosa, con una raffinata rinuncia alla spazialità monumentale di Bernini in favore di una cifra decorativa, lineare e quasi astratta. Come Caterina nelle pieghe della veste di marmo, Rosa scompare nel panneggio metallico: solo il volto e i piedi, stilizzatissimi, ricordano che siamo di fronte a figure umane. I visi delle due sante, che il soggolo iscrive in un identico ovale, appaiono egualmente affidati agli stessi, economicissimi tratti; nello stesso modo sono sovrapponibili le mani affilate, e come perfettamente stese su un piano orizzontale (si confronti, per esempio, la destra della Caterina in marmo con quella della Madonna nel Matrimonio mistico).

Fig. 166

La composizione in tralice che caratterizza tutti e due i rilievi (più allentata nel Matrimonio, e come compressa lungo la diagonale nella Visione) ricorda da vicino l’originalissimo impianto della Carità di San Tomaso da Villanova per Sant’Agostino, e come lì si regge su un incontro di mani (Figs 161, 162). Molte sono poi le convergenze con singoli tratti della terracotta per la Carità conservata a La Valletta: il collo libero e liscio della Madonna della Visione evoca quello della popolana, e le gambe e le braccia, un po’ indistintamente cilindriche, dei due Gesù bambini spagnoli sono gli stessi dei tre putti di quel modello (Fig. 162). Non mancano, infine, le assonanze con la più famosa Santa Rosa di Cafà, e cioè con lo strepitoso marmo di Lima (Fig. 164): le rose e le rocce geometriche su cui si sdraia la grande santa scolpita

Fig. 166. Virgin and Child with St Rose of Lima and other Saints, Albertina, Vienna

135

per il Perù sono gemelle di quelle che le stanno ai piedi nella Visione di Madrid, ed anche l’angioletto che stende il braccio destro in quest’ultima composizione ricorda il monumentale collega che cerca di svegliare la santa nel marmo latinoamericano. Se questi confronti mi sembrano sostenere l’attribuzione a Cafà dei modelli all’origine dei rilievi spagnoli, altre ragioni parlano in favore di un suo intervento diretto, o almeno di una sua supervisione, anche nella fase della fusione, della rinettatura e dell’assemblaggio. Una cura e un’abilità di alto livello sono infatti messe al servizio della differenziazione delle superfici: nel Matrimonio mistico, ad esempio, la ruvida tunica della Madonna contrasta con il velo e il manto, lucidi e dall’apparenza serica. Così appaiono sorvegliatissimi i turbini che segnano le nuvole (le quali avrebbero altrimenti rischiato un aspetto indistinto, come spesso capita nella plastica secentesca di qualità mediocre), mentre la luce rimbalza con efficacia sui piedi e sulle mani che emergono, essenziali e sfuggenti, dai tipici panneggi di Cafà, continui ed illogici. Nella Visione un cesello instancabile ha distinto ogni foglia, ogni petalo e ogni piuma angelica: indugiando financo sugli eleganti ciuffi che escono dal velo della Vergine, ed evidenziando i pochi capelli infantili di Gesù, la cui pelle appare politissima e lucente. Anche nei rami di rose che circondano gli ovali si può apprezzare l’impegno a distinguere il legno del piccolo tronco, le venature delle foglie, i minuscoli fili verdi che circondano i boccioli, e gli ampi padiglioni dei petali, flessuosi, rilassati e già incurvati in un primo appassimento. Tutti questi dettagli rivelano una mano non certo inferiore a quella che rifinì magistralmente il busto bronzeo di Alessandro VII gettato su modello del Cafà (l’unico metallo figurativo sicuramente riconducibile, fino ad oggi, all’artista): 136

i due esemplari di Siena e di New York possono sfoggiare particolari meravigliosi nel trattamento della barba, della pelliccia della mozzetta e dei rami della quercia araldica che si intrecciano sulla stola. Il pagamento per questo busto, per quanto non privo di una certa ambiguità, dimostra che il fonditore (il celebre Giovanni Artusi) operò sotto lo stretto controllo di Cafà, e non esclude che anche quest’ultimo vi abbia messo le mani direttamente.11 Per tornare ai rapporti dei nostri rilievi con l’opera nota di Cafà, possiamo rilevare i contatti con le altre raffigurazioni di Santa Rosa dovute all’artista. Forse per un colpo di genio del domenicano peruviano Francisco Gonzales de Acuña – il vero regista della canonizzazione, e probabilmente anche dell’iconografia, di Rosa 12 –, Melchiorre divenne in effetti una sorta di ritrattista ufficiale della nuova santa. Oltre al marmo monumentale per Lima, e ad un suo modelletto replicato in varie versioni metalliche, sono noti due disegni (uno al Louvre ed uno all’Albertina) (Figs 165, 166) che preludono ad un’incisione dove Rosa è al cospetto della Vergine insieme ad alcune figure chiave del ramo peruviano dell’Ordine dei Predicatori.13 Se l’invenzione della Visione delle rose pare finora nota solo nell’esemplare madrileno, l’incisione appena citata presenta (nel nesso tra la Vergine col Bambino e Santa Rosa) non poche assonanze formali con il rilievo del Matrimonio mistico: ma non si tratta di un rapporto tra questi due pezzi in particolare, bensì dell’appartenenza di entrambi ad una serie di immagini il cui ordine logico e storico dev’essere ancora recuperato. Vicinanze ancora più cogenti, fino all’identità compositiva, legano al metallo spagnolo una terracotta della Galleria Nazionale d’Arte antica di Palazzo Barberini, un modesto marmo al Museo di Roma e una placca di bronzo

già in Santa Maria della Scala, sempre a Roma.14 Queste tre opere, pur senza aspirare all’autografia (se non forse per il bronzo, che può venire direttamente da un modello dell’autore), testimoniano la fortuna della composizione che il Matrimonio mistico di Madrid ci fa finalmente conoscere in una versione riconducibile alle mani di Cafà. Due voci dell’inventario stilato alla morte di Ercole Ferrata testimoniano in effetti che sopravvivevano: «due bassorilievi di cera di Melchiorre, che rappresenta [sic] Santa Rosa con la Madonna», nonché un altro «bassorilievo di una Santa Rosa, di Melchiorre».15 Come ha notato Jennifer Montagu, queste nutrite e variegate serie di piccole composizioni di soggetto sacro avevano spesso alla loro origine un esemplare in metallo prezioso (quasi sempre in argento), fuso e rinettato sotto la sorveglianza dell’artista.16 In questo caso un simile capostipite potrebbe essere attestato tra i beni della regina Cristina, la quale possedeva: «un ritratto di Santa Rosa e la Vergine Santissima con Nostro Signore in braccio, di gettito d’argento, il tutto sopra pietra venturina, alto palmi uno e mezzo, largo palmi uno et un quarto, con cornice d’ebbano filettata d’argento con porfido mischio, con quattro attaccagli d’argento fatti a rose in mezzo delle quattro parti di detta cornice».17 Nessun nome di artista accompagna questa voce inventariale, ma il fatto che i conti di Cristina registrino – tra l’ottobre 1662 e il luglio 1663 – il pagamento di sessantadue scudi «a Melchior Cafà scultore» per «modelli di creta» e per «disegni»,18 induce a pensare che quel rilievo d’argento fosse proprio di Cafà, e che fosse dunque in diretto rapporto con il Matrimonio di Madrid e con i tre rilievi romani. Se il metallo (argento), lo sfondo (in pietra venturina, o avventurina: una varietà di quarzo) e la cornice (in ebano, argento e porfido) escludono che la scul-

tura reginense si possa identificare con una delle due opere madrilene di cui ci stiamo occupando, è anche vero che si doveva trattare di un oggetto non troppo dissimile, come testimoniano anche le quattro applicazioni metalliche a forma di rosa che scandivano i bracci della preziosa cornice. La cronologia fornita dai registri contabili della Regina (1662-63) potrebbe valere anche per le due opere madrilene: se da una parte questa datazione si basa su ipotesi verosimili ma non verificate (e cioè che i pagamenti a Cafà riguardino il rilevo citato nell’inventario, e che esso sia il prototipo di uno dei due pezzi), dall’altra coincide perfettamente con gli anni in cui fu avviata, da parte dei domenicani, la massiccia offensiva promozionale che portò alla beatificazione e quindi alla canonizzazione di Rosa.19 A voler essere più prudenti, l’invenzione e la realizzazione dei due rilievi delle Descalzas si potrebbero datare al lustro tra il 1662 (data dell’arrivo a Roma di Gonzales de Acuña) e il 1667 (anno di morte del Cafà). Una relativa rarità fin dal Seicento, e la preziosità dei loro materiali, hanno fatto sì che oggi conosciamo pochissimi oggetti di questo tipo. Uno simile – oggi perduto, ma ben documentato – doveva essere il famoso esemplare in bronzo dorato della Pietà ottagonale di Alessandro Algardi che apparteneva al cardinale Francesco Barberini, e che era montato su un fondo di lavagna, e circondato da un festone in rame dorato. 20 Ma qual era la destinazione, la funzione, di simili oggetti? L’inventario di Cristina di Svezia registra il rilievo nella guardaroba, insieme ai fornimenti più preziosi dell’altare della cappella, lasciando dunque immaginare che nei giorni delle solennità liturgiche esso potesse essere esposto nella cappella del palazzo, con uno status a metà tra l’oggetto di collezione e quello di devozione. Non si 137

può escludere che all’origine della commissione al Cafà di quel rilievo potesse esservi l’alter ego di Cristina: il cardinale Decio Azzolino, potente attore nella causa di beatificazione di Rosa (egli possedeva proprio una raffigurazione della Visione delle Rose per mano di Lazzaro Baldi, che – come il Cafà in scultura, e seppure su un piano inferiore di qualità – definì in pittura l’immagine della mistica peruviana)21 grande amico di Bernini, nonché aggiornatissimo mecenate, e

138

collezionista assai vicino agli artisti pamphiliani, tra cui Cafà spiccava.22 Solo qualche ritrovamento documentario negli archivi reali iberici potrà aiutare a chiarire i tempi e i modi dell’arrivo a Madrid dei due rilievi, ma ad oggi non pare di poter escludere che essi giungessero alla corte di Spagna fin dal tempo della loro creazione, magari come doni diplomatici inviati dai domenicani, dal papa o dallo stesso Azzolino.

Cafà’s conclusion

Louise Rice

The thesis broadsheet of Giovanni Francesco Rota, commissioned on the occasion of his philosophy defense at the Dominican college attached to S. Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, is from an iconographic standpoint the most elaborate and ambitious invention that Melchiorre Cafà ever devised (Fig. 167). It is an imposing engraving over three-quarters of a meter high and with its arcane subject matter and its striking pictorial illusionism it demands of us a concentrated reading that takes into account the richness of its visual language.1 The event for which the broadsheet was commissioned took place in March 1663. Given the size and complexity of the composition, it is likely that the two engravers who collaborated on the project – Jean Couvay and Jean Girardin, both Parisians based in Rome at the time – took several months to prepare the copper plates. Presumably, therefore, Cafà produced the drawing from which they worked sometime in the previous year. How he came by the commission we do not know, but the artist clearly had important connections within the Dominican order and these

may have played a part. His brother Giuseppe was a Dominican friar and it was probably through this fraternal channel that Melchiorre came by a whole series of important commissions for Dominican clients.2 The year before, in 1661, he carved the wooden Madonna of the Rosary for the church of S. Domenico in Rabat; and later, two of his most important works were done for Dominican churches, namely, the St Rose for the Dominican church in Lima (1665) and the high altarpiece for S. Caterina a Magnanapoli in Rome (1667). In this connection it is also worth mentioning another print designed by Cafà, engraved by Albert Clouet in 1666, which represents the Madonna and Child with St Dominic along with Rose and three other Dominican candidates for sainthood, all of them with Peruvian connections; the print was commissioned by the Dominican friar Antonio Gonzalez, who was in Rome to promote the beatification of Rose (Fig. 168).3 The fact that the thesis broadsheet was made for a defense at the Dominican college fits perfectly, therefore, into the emerging picture we are forming of a far-flung network of 139

Fig. 167

140

Dominican patronage, to which Cafà, through his family connections, had privileged access. Giovanni Francesco Rota, or Ruota, the young nobleman who commissioned Cafà’s broadsheet, was born in Cremona in 1643, the son of Cipriano Rota and Lucia Feramoli. 4 His father sent him first to Bologna to study grammar and rhetoric at the Accademia del Porto, a boarding school for aristocratic boys, and then to Rome to continue his studies in philosophy and theology. Although Rota publicly defended philosophical theses at the Dominican college of S. Tommaso d’Aquino at S. Maria sopra Minerva, he was not himself a Dominican and was almost certainly not enrolled there but at one of the city’s other educational institutions, such as the Collegio Romano. 5 We know from his thesis broadsheet that he based his defense on the philosophical writings of Thomas Aquinas, but whether he was granted the exceptional privilege of defending at the Dominican college because of his special interest in Aquinas, or whether, on the contrary, he concentrated on Aquinas because he knew that he would be defending at the Dominican college, remains unclear. After his defense, he completed his education at the Sapienza, where he earned a law degree in 1665. He then took holy orders and entered the prelature. Clearly a man of considerable ability and energy, he went on to a successful career in the middle ranks of the Roman Curia, holding a succession of important secretarial and administrative posts. He served as a referendary of the two signatures, and beginning in 1670 as an abbreviator de parcu maiori, a position he held for the rest of his life, eventually becoming dean. Meanwhile he was appointed governor of Faenza in 1673, then of Rieti (1675), Sabina (1677), Norcia (1678), Sanseverino Marche (1689),

Fig. 168

Città di Castello (1689), Benevento (1692), Fano (1693), and Iesi (1697). Throughout these years he maintained a keen interest in science and literature and corresponded from his provincial posts with like-minded friends in Rome. His particular passion was astronomy but he was also a poet and was admired by his contemporaries for his ability to couch scientific findings in poetic language. He frequented the circle of Queen Christina of Sweden and was an active presence in Rome’s literary academies, first as a member and secretary of the Accademia degl’Infecondi, later as an Arcadian who went by the starry pseudonym Astreo Chelidorio. 6 His literary output included plays and poems in Latin and Italian, as well as volumes of “philosophical, mathematical, and astronomical observations,” unpublished at the time of his death and now lost.7

Fig. 168. Albert Clouet after Melchiorre Cafà, Madonna and Child with five Peruvian candidates for sainthood, 1666

On opposite page: Fig. 167. Jean Couvay and Jean Girardin after Melchiorre Cafà, Thesis broadsheet of Giovanni Francesco Rota, for his defense at the Collegio di S. Tommaso d’Aquino at S. Maria sopra Minerva, 1663

141

Fig. 169

Fig. 169. Jean Couvay and Jean Girardin after Melchiorre Cafà, Thesis broadsheet of Giovanni Francesco Rota, for his defense at the Collegio di S. Tommaso d’Aquino at S. Maria sopra Minerva, 1663. Detail

142

He died of apoplexy in 1706 at the age of 63 and was buried in S. Carlo al Corso, the church of the Lombards in Rome.8 Rota, who was twenty at the time of his defense, dedicated his conclusions to the Genoese cardinal Lorenzo Raggi (1615-87). The choice of dedicatee, like the choice of artist, suggests a network of Dominican connections at work behind the scenes. Raggi was associated with the Dominicans through his involvement with one of the most famous monuments in their church, the memorial to Maria Raggi by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, executed between 1647 and 1653.9 Maria Raggi was a distant relative of the cardinal’s. One of those Catholic-Reformation matrons revered for their extreme piety, she was born in 1552, married at the age of twelve, and the mother of four and a widow by the

time she was eighteen; she then moved to Rome and became a Dominican tertiary at a house for women attached to S. Maria sopra Minerva, where she lived a life of exemplary virtue and died in 1600.10 Efforts to have her beatified as a first step toward canonization began immediately after her death. The Dominicans saw obvious benefits to advancing one of their own; and the Raggi clan, eager to have a saint in the family, did what they could to promote her cause. Thus the decision to commission Bernini’s memorial and to erect it in the Dominican church where Maria Raggi had worshiped and was buried resulted from a shared agendum linking her order and her family. The money to pay for the monument was left by Lorenzo’s uncle, Cardinal Ottaviano Raggi. But Lorenzo was his uncle’s executor and was responsible along with Ottaviano’s brother Tommaso for overseeing the execution of the monument; his name and coat of arms appear prominently in the inscription. Apart from the Maria Raggi monument, there is other evidence of the cardinal’s close ties to the Dominican order. He regularly employed Dominicans as his spiritual advisors. 11 He also served as cardinal protector of the Confraternity of the Most Holy Name of Christ, a lay organization founded by a Dominican friar and based at the church of S. Maria sopra Minerva.12 Curiously, the confraternity’s chapel (third on the right of the nave), which had been assigned to it by Pope Pius IV with a dedication to the Holy Name of God, was taken away from it at some point in the mid-1660s and rededicated to Blessed Rose of Lima; the person in charge of the chapel’s redecoration was none other than Fra Antonio Gonzalez, who commissioned Cafà’s engraving of the Madonna and Child with Saints in 1666 and who must also have been intimately involved in the

commission for the statue of St Rose.13 Although these circumstances may be entirely coincidental, they illustrate just how interconnected were the circles of artists and patrons in the Dominican orbit in these years. After this brief introduction to the major players who had a role in the creation of Cafà’s broadsheet, let us turn now to the object itself. Thesis broadsheets, or “conclusions” as they were often called for lack of a more exact term, were commissioned by students on the festive occasion of their public academic defense. 14 They were distributed to the members of the audience at the outset of the event and served both as a program enabling those present to follow the progress of the disputation and as a memento once it was over. They usually consisted of three basic parts: an image of some kind, often heraldic in character; a dedicatory text; and the conclusions themselves, in other words, the theses that the student was prepared to elaborate and defend in response to objections posed by his examiners. The conclusions might be philosophical, theological, legal, or medical, depending on the student’s course of studies. The earliest thesis broadsheets were predominantly textual; the image was relatively small and confined to the top of the page. Over the course of the seventeenth century, however, there was a steady shift in emphasis. The image grew in size and importance relative to the text and eventually swallowed it up altogether. The text remained an essential element, naturally, but was increasingly embedded into the narrative framework of the image. Cafà’s broadsheet represents an extreme illustration of this evolutionary process. The image takes up the entire sheet. The dedicatory text is inscribed on a fictive marble tablet on which putti hang garlands of laurel, and as for the conclusions, the academic substance of the defense, they are boiled down

and condensed into a single statement that covers but in no way spells out the philosophical topics to be debated (Fig. 169). Chiseled onto the statue base, the text reads simply: CONCLUSION. That whatever St Thomas taught concerning Logic, Universal Natural Philosophy, and Metaphysics is true.15 Such brevity is unprecedented. Nor mally, thesis broadsheets list a series of specific topics; there may be twenty, fifty, or even a hundred or more conclusions arranged in two or three columns or incorporated into the design in some other way. Here, instead, a single conclusion embracing all of Thomist philosophy obviates the need for any others. It is a cunning device, for it implies the exceptional brilliance of the student, ready to defend any and every aspect of Aquinas’s philosophical writings, while at the same time it liberates the artist from the necessity of accommodating a cumbersome list of multiple conclusions within his pictorial invention. The effectiveness of Cafà’s design, with its broadsheet-within-abroadsheet construction, depends to a large extent on this radical reduction of its disputational content down to a single all-encompassing conclusion. Cafà’s composition both is and represents a thesis broadsheet. In other words, the design of the actual broadsheet centers on a fictive broadsheet, rendered illusionistically as though held aloft by a cluster of putti and by winged figures personifying Fame and Glory, the whole airborne formation superimposed over a distant landscape, which is itself enclosed within an illusionistic frame that surrounds the entire design. One of the engravers signs his name at the foot of the inner broadsheet, while the other adds his in the lower right corner 143

Fig. 170

Fig. 171

Fig. 170. Jean Couvay and Jean Girardin after Melchiorre Cafà, Thesis broadsheet of Giovanni Francesco Rota, for his defense at the Collegio di S. Tommaso d’Aquino at S. Maria sopra Minerva, 1663. Detail Fig. 171. Cornelis Bloemaert after Luigi Primo, The Raggi coat of arms, detail of a thesis print for a member of the Raggi family at the Collegio Romano, c. 1640

144

of the outer broadsheet, thus enhancing the effect of layered realities.16 It is the inner, or fictive, broadsheet that is, of course, the essential part of the composition, the rest functioning primarily as an elaborate framing device. Here, in the upper left hand corner, the great Dominican theologian St Thomas Aquinas is seated on clouds with a book (perhaps the Summa theologica, or his main philosophical text the Summa contra gentiles) open at his side. From the sun on his breast, which is his identifying attribute, emanate two sharply defined beams of light. One is directed down toward a statue of a semi-nude youth standing on a tall pedestal in the open courtyard below. The other is directed up and strikes the constellation Leo in the zodiacal band in the upper half of the composition. From there the beam is deflected downward at a right angle so that it too sheds light on the statue. Two putti directly below St Thomas hold a banderole inscribed with the phrase: “The Aquinine sun illuminates both by this lion and by this ray.” At the angle

of the convergence of the two beams, near the head of the statue, a second inscription reads: “by both rays” (Fig. 170). Many things are going on at once in this complex triangulation of light. To begin with, a putto holds a cardinal’s hat over the constellation Leo and thereby transfigures the celestial lion into the coat of arms of the dedicatee, Cardinal Raggi. The Raggi heraldry consists of a diagonal band superimposed over a lion rampant (Fig. 171). In Cafà’s print, the ray of light shooting out from Thomas’s sun becomes the diagonal band, Leo becomes the lion, and the two together for m an iconography in equal measure hagiographic and astrological in honor of the sponsor.17 Nor does the compliment end there. The ray of light alludes not only to Raggi’s heraldry but also to his name, since in Italian “raggio” means “ray.” The pun works best in Italian. When expressed in Latin, as in the phrase ab utroque radio (“by both rays”), the word still evokes the meaning of the patron’s name but

Fig. 172. Jean Couvay and Jean Girardin after Melchiorre Cafà, Thesis broadsheet of Giovanni Francesco Rota, for his defense at the Collegio di S. Tommaso d’Aquino at S. Maria sopra Minerva, 1663. Detail Fig. 172

is no longer so obviously homophonic. The play on words depends to a certain extent on the viewer automatically, even unconsciously, translating from Latin into Italian as he reads the text. The beams of light, the “raggi,” are clearly central to Cafà’s narrative. Both shine on the statue, one directly and one indirectly, and as they do the statue appears to respond. He turns toward St Thomas, and with his hand to his breast seems to speak the words inscribed next to his face: “[I am illuminated] by both rays.” Who is represented by this statue and what role does he play in the symbolic trigonometry of the design? The answer lies in the dedicatory text inscribed on the block of stone below St Thomas (Fig. 172). Here Rota addresses his patron: Your Eminence, my Memnon begs that you bend on him the ray of your favor. Under the Aquinine sun, he has learned to modulate his small voice, [but] dares not [speak] publicly, unless

strengthened by your patronage. If you look on these theses in a kind light, you breathe life in that hope and the very statues will speak of your goodness. Live long, etc. Your most humble and devoted servant, Giovanni Francesco Rota. The reference is to the famous statue of Memnon at Thebes in Egypt. According to ancient authors, this statue was said to utter strange murmurings, in other words to speak, when touched by the light of the rising sun.18 It was a legend much loved by seventeenth-century poets and antiquarians, who reveled in its allegorical connotations.19 Cafà and his iconographic advisers may have been particularly influenced by an earlier thesis print, in which the Memnon story is converted into an allegory of patronage. Commissioned by Guglielmo Dondidi for his philosophy defense at the Collegio Romano in 1623, the print situates the seated statue of Memnon at 145

Fig. 173. Theodor Krüger after Giovanni Lanfranco, The statue of Memnon at Thebes, from the thesis broadsheet of Guglielmo Dondini, for his defense at the Collegio Romano, 1623 Fig. 173

the center of an arcaded courtyard (Fig. 173). The coat of arms of the dedicatee, Cardinal Marcantonio Gozzadino, is carried overhead by Aurora, the goddess of the dawn. As she scatters petals to signal the start of day, light streaming through the upper arcade triggers the miraculous phenomenon. An inscription on the base of the statue seems to echo the words that the statue itself addresses to the rising sun: VOX MIHI DVM ADERIS (“I will have voice while you are present”). The idea expressed in the engraving is reiterated and expanded in the dedicatory preface to the poems published on the occasion of Dondini’s defense: “Like stony Memnon, who uttered sound when touched by the rays of the sun, I too, who for three years have studied Philosophy in silence, having now turned to your light, [...] in the illumination of your presence, I speak.” The statue is thus likened to the student; the sun to the dedicatee, Cardinal Gozzadino; and 146

the ray of light that elicits the miracle to the beneficent effects of Gozzadino’s patronage.20 Exactly the same conceit is at work in Cafà’s broadsheet, but with enhanced significance. For here the rising sun doubles as the attribute of St Thomas, whose philosophical writings are the basis of Rota’s disputation, while the rays of light that cause the statue (i.e. the student) to speak are the punning embodiment of Cardinal Raggi’s patronage. The iconographic density of the conceit is characteristic of thesis prints generally and we may be sure that Cafà, like other designers of such works, devised his composition in close consultation with a programmatic advisor. E ve r y b i t a s s t r i k i n g a s t h e s e iconographic intricacies are the formal complexities of the composition. Cafà delights in superimposing multiple layers of illusionistic reality. He surrounds the entire sheet with a fictive frame, which seems to exist primarily so that the

Fig. 175 Fig. 174

allegorical figures of Fame and Glory can overlap it with their wings, thus suggesting that they emerge from or are flying in front of this enframed space. Cafà does much the same things at S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, where once again it is the wings of the angel in the lower left that overlap the frame. Frames for Cafà, as indeed for many other baroque artists, do less to contain the design than to suggest the impossibility of containment: to imply, in other words, a free-flowing continuum between fictive and real space. Passing through the frame, our eye encounters an expansive landscape that leads back across a broad body of water toward a distant town (Fig. 174). In this composition where everything is so carefully calculated, the landscape too contributes to the meaning. The town is Cremona, the defendant’s birthplace. It is not, admittedly, a very exact portrait but it does feature Cremona’s salient landmark, its famous campanile. Called affectionately the torrazzo by those who live in its shadow, it is, at 111 meters, the tallest campanile in Italy (Fig. 175). Cafà also alludes to the surrounding topography of Cremona. The city is situated on the northern bank of the Po, just to the east of the confluence of the Po and the Adda rivers (Fig. 176).

Cafà brings the Po into the foreground, dramatizing its great width, while on the left he depicts the fork where the Po and the Adda mingle their waters. The veduta is the link between the outer and the inner broadsheets. Fame and Glory hold up Rota’s conclusion like a trophy of academic victory over the city of his birth, suggesting Cremona’s joy and pride at the accomplishment of her noble son. The torrazzo pointing up at the fictive broadsheet, almost but not quite brushing the curled-up lower edge with its pinnacle, underscores the connection. The sources for this type of pictorial illusionism are so numerous that we should probably not think of them as sources at all, but examples of a common interest in clever visual game-playing. Designers of thesis prints had a special fondness for this kind of thing. The thesis broadsheet commissioned a quarter of a century earlier by Lorenzo Raggi himself, for his own defense at the Collegio Romano, is a spectacular example of illusionistic engraving (Fig. 177). With its central scene in the form of a fictive tapestry held by living satyrs perched on marble her ms, and with ignudi and bronze tondi crammed into the margins, it recalls the witty complexities of Annibale Carracci’s Farnese ceiling.

Fig. 174. Jean Couvay and Jean Girardin after Melchiorre Cafà, Thesis broadsheet of Giovanni Francesco Rota, for his defense at the Collegio di S. Tommaso d’Aquino at S. Maria sopra Minerva, 1663. Detail Fig. 175. The torrazzo of Cremona

147

Fig. 176. After Antonio Campi, Map of Cremona and its surroundings, detail, 1595 Fig. 176

Another example, conceptually even closer to Cafà’s, is the thesis of Savo de’ Conti Marsciano, who defended in law at the Sapienza in 1646 (Fig. 178). In it the student’s conclusions are inscribed on a fictive broadsheet, i.e. a broadsheet within the broadsheet.21 But the most immediate precedents are not, in fact, thesis broadsheets, but a pair of commemorative broadsheets featuring the medal of Androcles and the lion, dedicated to Pope Alexander VII and engraved by Giovanni Battista Bonacina in 1659, one after a design by Bernini and the other after a design by Pietro da Cortona (Figs 179-180).22 Both involve the conceit of a broadsheet within a broadsheet. Form and content are conceptually merged; and the invention sets up a self-referential loop in which the work of art and the thing it depicts are one and the same. Cafà seems to have taken elements from both of these engravings. The allegorical figures of Fame and Truth who hold up the fictive broadsheet in Cortona’s design are echoed in the comparable figures of Fame and Glory in Cafà’s; the putti and the fat branch of Chigi oak in 148

Bernini’s design resemble the putti and laurel branch in Cafà’s invention. These similarities are, I think, too striking to be coincidental, especially given the fact that Cafà’s composition postdates the Androcles broadsheets by only three years. Nonetheless, however much Cafà’s design may be indebted to this earlier pair, in one respect it represents a significant departure. Whereas the fictive broadsheets in Bernini’s and Cortona’s designs consist primarily of text, the one in Cafà’s is largely pictorial and it is this that gives his composition its quirky visual effect. The insertion of a pictorial “broadsheet” into a pictorial composition involves the juxtaposition of contrasting systems of perspective and scale and evokes with dizzying logic an illusion within an illusion. If others had used the broadsheetwithin-a-broadsheet for mat before him, Cafà turned it to new advantage, exploiting the doubling of the form to celebrate two individuals instead of one. The design of the inner, or fictive, broadsheet could easily stand alone; it is a thesis broadsheet complete in all its parts, and typical of the

Fig. 177

genre its imagery concentrates on the dedicatee, Cardinal Raggi. The outer or actual broadsheet, with its view of his native Cremona, instead extols the student. Fame and Glory share their gifts between Raggi and Rota, while the branch of laurel alludes to both: to the dedicatee by punningly recalling his given name (lauro = Laurentius)23 and to the defendant by evoking the laurels (laurea) that are the symbol of academic achievement. Thus, without directly challenging the conventions of the genre, Cafà has found a way to make his thesis broadsheet as much about the student as his sponsor. In all three of these works by Ber nini, Cortona, and Cafà, there is yet another level of artifice to be

Fig. 178

considered. While most broadsheets were printed exclusively on paper, highend celebratory broadsheets like these tended to be issued not only on paper but also in a luxurious limited edition printed on satin silk. These deluxe copies were reserved for the dedicatee and a very small number of privileged recipients. Since the dedicatee was by definition the prime viewer, one could argue that compositions of this sort were ideally conceived for the medium of shimmering fabric, not of paper at all. We may think of them, then, as silken objects depicting paper objects depicting sculptural objects (the medal in the case of Bernini’s and Cortona’s designs, the statue in the case of Cafà’s). There is a certain irony here. The text in both

Fig. 177. Johann Friedrich Greuter after Gian Francesco Romanelli, Thesis broadsheet of Lorenzo Raggi, for his defense at the Collegio Romano, 1637 Fig. 178. Johann Friedrich Greuter after Gian Maria Colombi, Thesis broadsheet of Savo de’ Conti Marsciano, for his defense at the Sapienza, 1646

149

Fig. 179

150

Opposite page: Fig. 179. Giovanni Battista Bonacina after Gianlorenzo Bernini, Androcles and the Lion, 1659

Fig. 180. Giovanni Battista Bonacina after Pietro da Cortona, Androcles and the Lion, 1659 Fig. 180

151

Bernini’s and Cortona’s broadsheets makes specific reference to the paper on which they are printed; in a variant of a common poetic conceit, it suggests that these paper documents will outlast the medal they commemorate, although the medal is issued in the seemingly more durable materials of gold, silver, and bronze. The presence of Fame and Glory in Cafà’s design perhaps hints at the same idea. Memory outlasts all else; memory is embodied in words; and words are recorded in ink on paper. The apotheosis of the paper broadsheet depicted in each of these three works signifies the immortalization of the dedicatee’s memory.24 In his thesis print for Giovanni Francesco Rota, Cafà revealed his remarkable pictorial imagination and

152

proved that he was as adept at working in two dimensions as he was in three. At the same time, we can legitimately call this a sculptor’s print. It deals, after all, with a sculptural theme. The story of Memnon is not only a metaphor for the student who speaks out in defense of his theses. It is also a legend about a statue of stone that comes to life, a speaking likeness shaped by the artist’s skill and warmed by the beneficent generosity of a caring patron. Cafà, as far as we know, never designed another thesis print. In his one venture in this highly specialized and aristocratic genre, he crafted an allegory on the art of sculpture and the power it shares with paper to evoke the illusion of life and project the permanence of memory.

Sulle cere di Melchiorre Cafà a Malta

Tuccio Sante Guido

L’occasione rappresentata dal prossimo intervento di restauro sul bassorilievo in cera attribuito a Melchiorre Cafà e raffigurante la Gloria di Santa Caterina da Siena 1 (Fig. 185), con ogni probabilità uno studio preparatorio per il rilievo in marmo realizzato dall’artista per la Chiesa di Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli a Roma, ha consentito di elaborare alcune osservazioni preliminari, oggetto di questa nota, che possono peraltro ben estendersi per confronto a due statuette di Santi Martiri2 (Figs 181-182) anch’esse realizzate in cera ed attribuite all’artista maltese. L’intervento conservativo, 3 infatti, consentirà di raccogliere nuovi e più puntuali dati circa la tecnica e i materiali impiegati per la realizzazione d e l b a s s o r i l i e vo, r a p p r e s e n t a n d o così un’occasione particolar mente interessante d’indagine data la rarità di manufatti in cera a noi giunti rispetto alle centinaia di opere di questo genere prodotte sia in età rinascimentale sia in età barocca. Grazie alla sua versatilità, la cera fu utilizzata come medium artistico 4 per l’esecuzione di differenti classi di manufatti: per studio, mediante la realizzazione di piccole copie di

Fig. 181

153

Fig. 182. Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta Fig. 182

On previous page: Fig. 181. Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta

154

opere famose o per apprendere le regole dell’anatomia dei corpi e dello l o ro s v i l u p p o n e l l o s p a z i o ; c o m e momento creativo fondamentale per la realizzazione di bronzi a “cera persa”; per l’esecuzione di ex-voto, dal medioevo e per tutto il ‘500; 5 sempre dal XVI secolo per la realizzazione busti e ritratti con caratteristiche improntate alla massima veridicità dell’immagine, grazie alla possibilità di colorare facilmente la cera con terre naturali e pigmenti o diversamente decolorandola per farle assumere una tonalità molto simile a quella d e l l a c a r n a g i o n e u m a n a . Pe r t a l i caratteristiche, la cera pigmentata fu l’unico medium utilizzato dal XVII secolo in poi per la fabbricazione di cere anatomiche per lo studio della medicina e della chirurgia.

La cera venne inoltre largamente impiegata per la creazione di bozzetti e modelli grazie ad un’ulteriore e decisiva caratteristica di tale materiale: la sua totale reversibilità e lavorabilità nel tempo, che permette all’artista, specie nel caso la si utilizzi per piccole copie per studio o per bozzetti, sia di eseguire di getto un’idea sia di correggerla e di perfezionarla, sia di trasformarla, migliorarla e completarla anche ad intervalli di tempo molto lunghi, dandogli la libertà di lavorare oltre che sul manufatto anche sull’idea che sta sviluppando. In un importante articolo Charles Avery,6 illustrando vari esempi di bozzetti in cera cinquecenteschi, riporta una frase tratta da “il Riposo” di Borghini Sirigatti ben riassume tale caratteristica ed evidenzia le possibilità espressive permesse: “…la cera sempre aspetta …ad ogni ora si può rimuovere ciò che non piace…”.7 Sia Vasari sia Cellini, in più punti dei loro scritti si soffer mano nella descrizione della preparazione della cera come medium per la realizzazione di differenti tipi di manufatti. La materia utilizzata è la cera d’api che, ancora grezza, era fatta bollire in acqua per eliminare i materiali eterogenei in essa inclusi. A temperature superiori ai 60° C la cera galleggia sulla superficie del liquido e può essere asportata. Una volta asciugata e indurita, veniva disciolta con l’aggiunta dell’essenza di trementina, distillato della resina dei pini, per eliminare le ultime scorie ed impurità e renderla più omogenea e duttile. Per aumentarne ancor più la malleabilità si aggiungeva del grasso animale; al tempo stesso per renderla più resistente, una volta parzialmente solidificata con l’evaporazione parziale della trementina, si addizionava al composto fin qui ottenuto, della pece, derivato dal catrame distillato e da oli essenziali di trementina. La miscela assumeva una colorazione

bruna che veniva corretta con aggiunta di pigmenti per darle il tono rosso scuro tradizionalmente usato per realizzare bozzetti, modelli e fusioni, come quello delle tre opere attribuite a Cafà qui esaminate. Tale composto, che a temperatura ambiente ha una certa durezza e resistenza, sempre secondo il Vasari era infine disciolto a bagnomaria e, una volta ben amalgamato, fatto parzialmente raffreddare fino ad ottenere una sostanza ancora facilmente malleabile, con la quale si creavano pani, lastre, fogli o barre. Il punto di rammollimento della miscela così realizzata è attorno ai 3035° C, quindi con il solo calore delle mani è possibile ottenere un materiale duttile e malleabile. Questo è atto ad essere lavorato direttamente con le dita o con gli usuali strumenti da modellato, per la realizzazione di opere sia di dimensioni microscopiche quali quelle per la fabbricazione di oreficerie sia di grandi dimensioni come ad esempio il modello della Vergine con il Bimbo (151518) del Sansovino, oggi al Museo di Belle Arti di Budapest (h. cm 63) o il bozzetto del Perseo (1545) del Cellini al Bargello di Firenze (h. cm 74). Per tornare in un ambito cronologico più vicino ai bozzetti del Cafà, il modello (h. cm 60) del monumento equestre del duca Alessandro Farnese di Francesco Mochi, datato 1612 e conservato presso il Museo del Bargello a Firenze.8 Esempi così illustri, ai quali se ne possono accostare altri altrettanto importanti, 9 non devono trarre in inganno: i manufatti in cera giunti fino a noi sono in numero assai esiguo n o n o s t a n t e l a l o ro d i f f u s i o n e s i a comprovata dalle testimonianze del XVII secolo e dalle fonti letterarie come, ad esempio l’asserzione del Sandrart 10 che dichiara di aver visto nella bottega di Gian Lorenzo Bernini n o n m e n o d i 2 2 b oz ze t t i i n c e r a

per il solo San Longino. Le opere in esame (i due Santi Martiri e il bassorilievo della Gloria di Santa Caterina da Siena) rappresentano infatti le uniche t e s t i m o n i a n ze r i m a s t e d e l l ’ i n t e r a produzione di bozzetti e modelli in cera attribuiti al Cafà dalle fonti tra i quali quelli ancora conservati nel 1686 nello studio del Ferrata al momento del famoso inventario dopo la sua morte: come “un tritone in cera”, “un puttino in cera” un “Christo del calvario di Melchiorre di cera” ed “una Madonna in cera indorata” e “due basi rilievi di cera di Melchiorre che rappresenta S.ta rosa con la M.da”. Tale scarsità è dovuta, oltre alla dispersione e scomparsa di opere, specie in piccole dimensioni, con il succedersi dei secoli anche a due ragioni di carattere prettamente tecnico: la prima, legata alla cera come medium artistico, risiede nel fatto che essendo tale materiale facilmente riutilizzabile e sopratutto impiegato per eseguire bozzetti di prima ispirazione, una volta ultimata l’opera in materiali più duraturi (quali il bronzo, il marmo o la pietra) tali studi venivano sciolti per riutilizzare la cera per nuovi ulteriori bozzetti oppure per essere impiegata per fusioni a “cera persa”. La seconda ragione è dovuta alla natura stessa della cera, un materiale estremamente vulnerabile e sensibile alle condizioni di conservazione: specie gli sbalzi termici possono influire sulla durabilità dei manufatti. Temperature ambientali superiori ai 30° C provocano il rammollimento con conseguenti deformazioni plastiche e ridotta capacità di tenuta alle sollecitazioni statiche e quindi successiva formazione di cricche e incrinature che nel tempo tendono ad allargarsi e a lesionare i manufatti. Altra causa di degrado è la scarsa resistenza meccanica agli urti: specie se conservata a basse temperature, la cera tende ad irrigidirsi e sotto l’azione di un trauma,

Fig. 183

Fig. 184

Fig. 183. Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Detail Fig. 184. Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Detail

155

Fig. 185. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Private Collection

Fig. 185

Fig. 186. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Private Collection. Detail Fig. 187. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Private Collection. Detail

Fig. 186

156

Fig. 187

anche leggero, tende a fratturarsi e scagliarsi. È esattamente quanto si evidenzia nelle tre opere di Cafà oggetto di queste note. La figura di Santo imberbe (Fig. 182) presenta delle fratture dovute a deformazioni plastiche ed a fenomeni traumatici che hanno causato le piccole, ma numerose scagliature, soprattutto sulla base. Il bassorilievo della Gloria di Santa Caterina da Siena si presenta invece lesionato in tre principali frammenti più numerosi altri più piccoli, malamente adesi tra loro, sicuramente provocati da un colpo particolarmente violento (Fig.185). Il bassorilievo raffigurante la Gloria di Santa Caterina da Siena è stato, solo pochissimi anni or sono, sottoposto ad un intervento di verniciatura delle superfici che ha nascosto non solo il tradizionale, caldo colore bruno del materiale, ma ha anche ricoperto il modellato con uno spessore di circa mezzo millimetro che ha celato i moltissimi segni di lavorazione che avrebbero permesso d’individuare degli strumenti con cui le superfici sono state modellate e di riconoscere quanto invece prodotto con la sola pressione delle dita (Fig. 185). Nei pochissimi punti non coperti da tale vernice di un rosso vivace è però possibile osservare, con l’ausilio di lenti d’ingrandimento, la superficie originale del manufatto riconoscibile dai vibranti segni di un modellato nervoso e spigoloso. In una di tali piccole porzioni sembra potersi riconoscere l’uso di una sgorbia dai denti sottilissimi, caratteristica della produzione di Cafà, come appare anche in altri bozzetti in terracotta.11 Malgrado tale verniciatura, ci si trova di fronte ad un bellissimo bozzetto realizzato con l’immediatezza caratteristica della cera. Il bassorilievo ben manifesta le possibilità espressive dell’uso di tale materia, ove in alcuni punti si notano le conformazione delle singole piccole

porzioni di cera, riscaldata e resa morbida con la sola manipolazione, aggiunte grazie alla semplice pressione delle dita a “costituire” la morbidezza di alcune carnose rotondità, con i sapienti esili stiacciati, la vivace plastica del panneggio dagli spigoli vivi e dai bordi quasi “taglienti”, rese proprio possibili grazie alla consistenza e alla duttilità della cera “tiepida”. L’osservazione del retro (Fig. 188) evidenzia che il Cafà ha realizzato il bassorilievo servendosi di cera di due composizioni differenti: una miscela di colorazione bruna e dall’aspetto quasi sabbioso per la presenza di numerosi microscopici inclusi, forse per aumentarne la capacità di tenuta e la resistenza, permise la modellazione del nucleo interno dell’opera; quindi su questo venne steso un secondo strato, ben più sottile e depurato, contenente sostanze grasse e quindi più duttile e malleabile, usato per conferire alla plastica una maggiore morbidezza unita ad una maggiore facilità di lavorazione e fedeltà nella realizzazione delle sottili pieghe.12 È facile intuire che, trattandosi di un rilievo, si sia iniziata la lavorazione, partendo da una superficie piana e si sia aggiunto progressivamente del materiale per la realizzazione dei volumi aggettanti, con il concretizzarsi dell’idea. Il retro invece non presenta né una superficie piana né pochi piccoli punti d’appoggio ad un piano 13 , ma un’immagine al negativo dei volumi aggettanti sul fronte, più accentuati per quanto riguarda il modellato della Santa, meno profondi quelli riguardo gli aggetti minori, quali i tre teneri putti che sorreggono la nuvola e i cherubini nella parte alta della raffigurazione. (Fig. 185) Tali elementi possono testimoniare di come questo manufatto in cera, che differisce dall’opera finale in marmo per la Chiesa di Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli a Roma (Fig. 189) e quindi

Fig. 188

rappresenta non un modello ma uno studio preliminare della progettazione ultima, sia stato rielaborato con un lavoro d’asportazione del materiale sul retro in relazione al modellato, al fine di restituire uno spessore uniforme dello strato di cera. Quest’ultima lavorazione è tipica di una modellazione preparatoria ad una fusione. I lunghi segni lasciati dalla pressione delle dita sulle superfici interne evidenziano come, una volta ultimato il processo di asportazione della cera in eccesso che in fase di fusione avrebbe ispessito troppo lo strato finale di metallo, si siano lisciate le superfici con cera calda e morbida, ma anche più fine e raffinata per uniformarle. Lo spessore della cera, e conseguentemente del metallo, raggiunge 2,5 mm circa. Si tratta di uno spessore considerevole che permette di escludere che ci si trovi di fronte alla preparazione di una fusione in argento, quanto piuttosto alla

Fig. 188. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Private Collection. Back view

157

Fig. 189. Glory of St Catherine of Siena, Church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, Rome

Fig. 189

preparazione di una fusione di un bronzo o un ottone. Che il manufatto in esame sia stato destinato solo in un secondo momento come matrice per la fusione a “cera persa”, si evidenzia anche dal fatto che, sebbene molti dettagli siano occultati dallo strato di vernice sovrapposto, il modellato è estremamente minuto e dettagliato fino a rappresentare particolari che vengono realizzati sul bronzo solo con le lavorazioni finali a freddo con ceselli, bulini, lime e abrasivi. Ci si riferisce in modo particolare non solo alla realizzazione di pupille o ciocche di capelli, quanto al fare di certi panneggi dagli stiacciati così minuti e sottili da essere difficilmente realizzabili per fusione in metallo, se non con metalli preziosi e con tecniche più prettamente relative all’oreficeria. Il che è contraddetto dal discreto spessore della cera. Visto il grande successo delle opere di Cafà durante la sua breve vita tra i critici e gli artisti suoi contemporanei ed i molti ammiratori nell’epoca successiva, come testimoniato dalle fonti e dal successo collezionistico del suoi bozzetti e considerata inoltre la richiesta di 158

riprodurre in scala ridotta le sue opere più note, non stupisce che lo studio in cera della Gloria di Santa Caterina da Siena, sia stato rilavorato pensando ad una sua utilizzazione per una futura fusione, mai realizzata. L’utilizzazione o riutilizzazione di bozzetti in cera per realizzare opere più “preziose” è testimoniato dalla notizia, già riportata, della figura di “un Madonna di cera...” dell’inventario del Ferrata che venne sicuramente in un momento successivo alla realizzazione coperta di lamina metallica per fini diversi da quelli iniziali. Un caso simile alla Gloria di Santa Caterina è riscontrabile per la famosa statua della Santa Rosa da Lima e l’Angelo, come è stato indagato da Elena di Gioia, che fu riprodotta in più versioni come bronzetti a tutto tondo destinati a costituire oggetti di devozione privata in relazione alle vicende della canonizzazione della giovane dominicana peruviana, quali gli esempi conservati al Museo di Roma o alla Sackler Fondation di New York.14 Questo avvenne anche per altre “ideazioni” del Cafà, come i disegni raffiguranti la Madonna, il Bimbo, Santa Rosa a Santi domenicani 15 al quale si ispirarono o derivarono un bassorilievo in marmo, o ancora come avvenne per il disegno del Matrimonio Mistico di Santa Rosa da Lima, riprodotto in marmo ed ora conservato al Museo di Roma, soggetto del quale si ricordano inoltre le restituzioni in terracotta del Museo Nazionale di Arte Antica di Palazzo Barberini e ancora quella in bronzo, impreziosito da un’elaborata cornice ottagonale, già a Santa Maria della Scala a Roma.16 Sia quest’ultimo esempio in metallo, ma ancor più i due rilievi presentati in queste pagine da Tomaso Montanari e raffiguranti il Matrimonio Mistico di Santa Rosa da Lima e la Visione Mistica di Santa Rosa da Lima, 17 oggi conservati entro complesse e preziose incorniciature al

Monastero delle Descalzas di Madrid, sembrano poter costituire per analogia un possibile precedente per il progetto, non realizzato della cera oggi a Malta. Alla luce di tali esemplari e delle testimonianze documentarie riportate da Montanari circa opere molto simili presenti nella prestigiosa collezione di Cristina di Svezia,18 nonché considerato quanto ipotizzato dalla Di Gioia circa l’attività di Cafà che “… realizza tra il 1663 e il 1663 per la Regina Cristina di Svezia modelli in creta e disegni probabilmente finalizzati ad un rilievo in argento su pietra Venturina raffigurante la Vergine con il Bambino e Rosa da Lima…”,19 appare possibile che, una volta ultimata la pala d’altare della Gloria di Santa Caterina da Siena visto il grande successo si sia commissionato una versione in metallo, tipologicamente simile a quelli oggi a Madrid. Quest’ultimo doveva essere impreziosito da un’elaborata cornice, anche in relazione al fatto già osservato che nella lavorazione del retro della cera è stato completamente rimosso ogni punto d’appoggio piano, realizzando una superficie completamente irregolare in previsione, quindi, di una struttura di supporto. È noto che la Sovrana, raffinata collezionista, soggiornasse al monastero di Magnanapoli tra il 12 e 16 Agosto 1663, non appare quindi azzardato ipotizzare che possa aver visto sia disegni sia bozzetti del grande bassorilievo in marmo e avere dunque commissionato un prezioso manufatto ad esso ispirato, per il quale si decise di adattare il bozzetto oggi a Malta. I due Santi Martiri (Figs. 181-182), probabilmente bozzetti per l’esecuzione di statue di santi da mettere in relazione alla decorazione del grande colonnato ber niniano di Piazza San Pietro, presentano le superfici totalmente ricoperte da ridipinture. La colorazione della cera utilizzata è evidenziata dalle

piccole, ma numerose cadute sia di colore sia di frammenti, specie per quanto riguarda il Santo imberbe (Fig. 182). È infatti questo che presenta il peggiore stato di conservazione con, oltre alle piccole lacune già osservate, perdita di frammenti di maggiori dimensioni quali: parte della palma del martirio e dell’elemento naturalistico lungo la gamba destra, parti di panneggio del bordo della veste blu, del manto sulla spalla sinistra, di riccioli della capigliatura; inoltre, essendosi fratturato, porzioni del basamento, del panneggio del manto e delle gambe sono state malamente riassemblate con cera bianca e un collante di colore marrone scuro. Le teste che in entrambi i casi distaccate sono state riadese con cera e colla. Come già osservato, tutte le superfici sono state più volte dipinte forse ad occultare una più antica serie di piccole cadute di materiale. Gli strati di colore sovrapposti alla superficie in cera sono infatti almeno due: il primo, che riguarda ad esempio il bel volto del Santo imberbe (Fig. 182), presenta una migliore qualità con veristici intenti pittorici nella resa delle stesure di colore realizzati con colori ad olio. Tale colore emerge in altre piccole parti sotto lo strato più recente, realizzato a tempera, che ricopre con toni opachi e spenti, tipici di tale materiale, la totalità della figura sia del personaggio più giovane sia di quello con la barba. Le due figure 20 sono perfettamente lavorate su tutti i lati a rappresentare manufatti ideati a tuttotondo. Le dipinture non permettono di osservare segni di lavorazione e tracce di strumenti, benché sia possibile notare che le superfici siano state accuratamente lavorate in ogni parte, come nella minuta descrizione di alcuni particolari dei calzari, con lisciature e levigature delle pieghe, finanche nelle zone più interne, e leggeri passaggi di piani estremamente 159

Fig. 190. Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Back view Fig. 191. Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Back view

160

Fig. 190

Fig. 191

delicati e accurati. Come evidenziato dall’osservazione della base, lo spessore della cera raggiunge in più punti il centimetro; l’interno è cavo e venne quindi riempito di gesso ad aumentare il peso e la stabilità dei manufatti.21 La natura delle due cere emerge con più chiarezza se si esaminano alcuni dati, quali lo spessore del materiale ed il conseguente peso, le considerevoli dimensioni e, non ultima, l’accuratezza d’esecuzione, che conferma quanto già evidente nei bellissimi

disegni di Lipsia studiati da Jennifer Montegu. Dunque, piuttosto che bozzetti o lavori di studio, le due cere appaiono anche tecnicamente quali modelli, il che potrebbe avvalorare l’opinione che i Santi Martiri del Museo Nazionale di Belle Arti di La Valletta siano da connettersi con quanto commissionato al Maltese per il grande progetto del colonnato Vaticano, monumentale impresa al quale il giovane artista non poté partecipare a causa della prematura morte.22

The Clay Modeling Techniques of Melchiorre Cafà: A Preliminary Assessment

Tony Sigel

Introduction This is a “preliminary” study, as noted in the title, reflecting the fact that thus far I have had the opportunity to examine in depth only thirteen of the works in terracotta, from a possible oeuvre of twenty to thirty five that have been linked or attributed to Melchiorre Cafà1 . While some attributions made to this sculptor seem relatively secure, others are less clear. My initial purpose in such a minute technical study of these terracotta models is to gather information through direct observation, to form a better understanding of how they were made. I regard this understanding of the artist’s working method as an essential platform for developing attributions. It is only natural, once one has developed initial ideas of what the modeling habits of a particular artist might be, to continue to look for evidence and confirmation of these ideas in subsequent examinations. I have found the need to remind myself, however, that in searching for what has been seen before, I may miss what is actually there. Therefore, I have found it useful during my examinations, to hold these questions of attribution aside, and

observe and try to record as rigorously as possible the technical aspects of each piece on its own terms. In the technical entries for each work I will lay out as clearly as possible what I have found, and make comparisons with other works as they become clear. In the summary, I will try to draw the threads together and offer the conclusions I have been able to make. Depending upon the character of each piece, many features that describe the modeling process may be visible, and available for study. Bozzetti, with their rapid, sketchy approach to modeling and surfaces littered with tool-marks typically offer much more to be discovered and recorded from a technical point of view than highly finished modelli, with their carefully smoothed and integrated surfaces. Many of the works in this study, however, do not divide easily into these categories. In examining these thirteen works I have come to realize that many of them fall somewhere along a continuum from bozzetto to modello, and many contain aspects of both. A characteristic of almost all of the group examined in this study is that, with the exception perhaps of the Bishop Saint, in the Metropolitan 161

Museum, the sculptor has allowed the tool-marks from the modeling process to remain present, visually functional and active on the clay surface to varying degrees. This is of course a characteristic of bozzetti in general, but when found in a range of modelli reflects a definite esthetic, an approach to modeling that incorporates the process in the result. It is here, that, perhaps, we begin to meet Melchiorre Cafà. Though not unique in working this way, his approach to modeling shows something we might regard as one of his characteristics. The antithesis to this approach would be a modello in which the tool-marks and the traces of the sculptor’s labor have been effaced, smoothed out, the surfaces no longer vibrant and active. Almost all of the works in this study are not so modeled. Therefore, when examining a terracotta model of either type one must remember that when little technical information can be found because of its high level of integration and smoothing, that too is information about the choices and inclinations of the sculptor. Of course, restoration materials and surface coatings may also obscure technical information, while – paradoxically – damage and losses can often reveal much of technical interest that would be hidden if the sculpture were intact. This is particularly the case when breakage has revealed information describing how the original clay was assembled. I present my observations illuminated by photog raphs which I hope will demonstrate clearly to the reader what I am seeing, offering readers the evidence that has formed the basis of my interpretations. This also allows readers to make independent assessments and to draw their own conclusions. I hope that the discovery of these techniques and information is at the least entertaining; ideally, it will prove both useful and illuminating to those 162

engaged in the study of sculpture in clay. It is often possible to answer questions concerning additive versus subtractive modeling, ways of assembling clay, the use of certain tools, the sequence of modeling, and other aspects of sculpting, and there is some pleasure in these discoveries. Occasionally after looking at enough pieces thought to be by an individual artist, patterns reflecting an idiosyncratic or habitual, personal way of working, and perhaps something of the character of the individual – his artistic personality, if you will – can be discerned. In these cases I try not only to present the evidence, but also to interpret it, and to present my own conclusions. There is a risk in assuming such a knowledge of an artist when the group of works examined is limited as it is in this preliminary survey, and this should be borne in mind. Simply finding one or two technical aspects in common however, may not be sufficient evidence to associate one work with another, or to an individual artist. When evidence pointing towards a way of working the clay is only tenuous, but suggests an intriguing theory or hypothesis, I will present it labeled as such. When, as is often the case, the evidence points in no particular direction, my job is simply to gather the observations and present them for the viewer to interpret. While I will tr y to present the modeling of each work as a narrative, starting with the initial massing of clay and progressing to the later stages, this can only be a suggestion based upon whatever evidence I can find and document photographically. I think of it as trying to look over the shoulder of the sculptor while he worked, and in constructing such a narrative, hope that this will bring the reader closer to the hand and mind of the artist. I have found in fact that the process of creating a work of art from malleable, plastic clay

is often less than linear, as the artist may constantly refine and restate the forms as he develops his ideas. Occasionally his departure from an earlier scheme does not completely over-write the past, and the evolution of the design may be followed. Of course this happens more frequently in the bozzetto, or sketch format, which is both more experimental in intention and revealing by nature. Some thoughts on the universality and individuality of modeling techniques in clay, and the demands of the medium For all the freedom working in clay allows the sculptor, or perhaps because of it, it does appear that many sculptors working within the bozzetti and modelli forms share certain methods, means, and techniques. This is of course partially due to the workshop system in effect during the Baroque period, where every aspect of sculptural production was p as s ed down from master to apprentice 2 . The production of clay sculpture was ubiquitous and a frequent activity of the student: copying marble sculpture, copying terracotta models, and perhaps copying copies. Some of the techniques of working the clay are close to universal, and it demands a close scrutiny to find differences of practice and intention within them. Also, it would be unlikely for an individual sculptor to use exactly the same techniques from model to model, over a lifetime. It is clear, for example, that Bernini did not, when one examines his bozzetti for commissions such as the Altar of the Blessed Sacrament, St. Peters, or the Ponte Sant’Angelo. This, also, is an aspect of the artist’s personality expressed in the clay. The very idea of a bozzetto favors spontaneity over calculation3 . Areas of possible technical uniformity between artists include the

relatively short list of modeling tools the sculptors typically used, the limited ways in which they could be utilized, and the particular demands of the medium of clay itself. These basic demands are worth considering for a moment. They include keeping the assembled clay moist, plastic, and supported during the time it took to make the sculpture. The numerous fabric impressions found on these clay models testify to their being draped with a dampened fabric, both to be kept properly moist while the model was worked on, and to be kept in an adequately dampened state to regulate drying, to avoid shrinkage cracking from the differing thicknesses of clay drying out too rapidly. Complicating this is that certain modeling operations were reserved for times when the clay was at different moisture states, and levels of hardness. The time to maintain the clay in a soft, plastic, melting ice cream-like state was at the beginning of modeling, when a relatively large amount of clay had to be manhandled around, wedged, torn into pieces and assembled by the sculptor to form the basic masses of the sculpture. This was necessary not only because it is no fun to work the clay so aggressively if it is too hard, but also because of the need for adhesion, for the clay to stick together. Looking at some of the bozzetti in this study, it is clear that they were the work of only a few tens of minutes, single session pieces that were born in a day, where the creamy texture of the clay remains the same from the first stroke to the last. An artist might have a personal preference to working in such moist clay, as it suited his approach to modeling. I think Cafà did have such a preference, as this is a common aspect in all of the relief sculpture examined in this study, from the three complex Martyrdom of St. Eustace panels to the more simplified 163

treatment of the others. It is probably a characteristic of the bozzetto, or rapid sketch in general. Conversely, the St. John and the St. Thomas modelli were clearly worked on for an extended period, and the visible response of the clay to the tools describes a range from soft to leather-hard. Skilled, experienced sculptors knew well that the time for adding a certain level of detail to a modello, making crisp folds and linear or impressed decorations in drapery, refining features in the face and detailing the hair, was not when the clay was soft, sloppy, and liable to form a raised lip or rough edge, but when the clay was firmer and would give some resistance to the tool. At the beginning of a sculpting project, bozzetti or modelli, the clay would have been very plastic indeed as the sculptor assembled it to form a figure on the wood modeling platform, or a relief plaque on a flat panel probably tilted up to a comfortable working angle. I even suggest in this essay that the base and figure of St. Thomas from the Charity of St. Thomas of Villanova modello may have been modeled against such a flat surface, like a relief sculpture, as the separate angel bozzetto for this commission was. But the most common situation by far is that of a free standing bozzetto or modello sculpted in the round, and the initial problem to be solved is one of support – how to keep the soft clay torso from slumping, the extended arm from drooping. There are many ways to solve these problems; the most basic and often encountered is with the sculptor beginning the work by forming a vertical column of well wedged and integrated clay on which to base the figure, and adding additional clay, sometimes in an untidy heap, around the sides and back to form a supporting buttress. Although it is often left in place, the buttress may be trimmed away if desired later in the process, when 164

the clay has dried to a firmer more self supporting state. My study will show that this way of beginning the assembly was Cafà’s habitual approach. Another way to support the figure is with some kind of armature. This can take the form of a simple metal or wood rod projecting up into the clay from the modeling platform, or a vertical stand with a horizontal element entering the figure from the back. The use of buttress clay and a mechanical support are not mutually exclusive, and indeed both armature and buttress are found combined in the Apostle Andrew modello (see Figs 271, 272). Bernini used small wood props to support the upraised arm on several of his bozzetti4 , and certainly many others employed such devices. Wood has the advantage that it does not have to be removed and will simply burn out in the kiln during firing. Hollowing, removing excess clay to promote drying and firing without cracking, was generally carried out at the firmer, leather-hard stage. Thus, the creation of a highly refined modello would have been a ballet, not simply of assembly, shaping, detailing, and, smoothing, but one of choreographed timing, as the clay was shepherded through the optimum moisture levels for each phase of massing, support, modeling, and careful, regulated drying. These are but a few of the many practical technical challenges facing the sculptor of clay, which co-exist with the expressive challenges, stylistic, artistic, and compositional, that these artists set for themselves. The solutions to these challenges, particularly those that may be personal and idiosyncratic to individual sculptors of the Baroque period will become more apparent by the continuing technical study of their sculpture in terracotta. This knowledge will help us to identify their work, and to understand their development, aims, and artistic personalities.

The Examinations Note: The attributions of authorship listed below the title are those of the collection or owner. When discussing the location of a feature of a sculpture, I will use the simple ‘right’ and ‘left’ whenever possible to refer to the right or left of the sculpture, and not the viewer’s right or left. Where this may be unclear, I will use the convention ‘proper right’ or ‘proper left’. Example: “the saint’s right hand”, to refer to the hand on the viewer’s left, or “the tree to the proper right of the saint”, to refer to a tree to the viewer’s left. The works are divided into like groups to facilitate comparisons: relief sculpture, freestanding sculpture, and the single bust, the Alexander VII. 1. Martyrdom of St. Eustace Melchiorre Cafà Palazzo di Venezia Inv.10093 Condition: When first examined, the relief surfaces had been coated with a clear acrylic resin, which the author has removed. Losses (from clockwise) of original clay elements include the head of the angel at upper proper left, losses to the middle of the proper left edge of the panel that include the cockade of the centurion just below, the saint’s left hand and wrist, the drapery under the left arm of the bent over female figure below at outside proper left, the end of the lower left lion’s tail, the top edge of the helmet i n t h e fo re g ro u n d ( re s t o re d ) , t h e head (restored) and right hand of the centurion at the lower proper right, the saint’s right palm and fingers (restored), and the right wing and leg of the putto above and proper right

of the saint. The restorations are executed in a reddish material, and are carved rather than modeled. Tools used: Fine toothed tool, small and medium oval tip tools, stiff bristle brush. Fingerprints: One fingerprint was recorded on the top of the garland (see Fig. 354). General Impressions: The approach to modeling is one combining a background of completely detailed low and very low relief modeling and rapid drawing in the clay, with figures modeled in partial to full relief (Fig. 192). The sculptor worked in very wet, plastic clay. There is no evidence of working the clay at a ‘leather-hard’ stage, other than the drawing of a line around each leg of St. Eustace at mid calf, clearly added after the clay had dried somewhat. No fabric impressions were found, suggesting that this may have been a work executed in one session. The modeling is very sure, direct, and vigorous. If any changes or alterations were made during its creation, their traces have been entirely effaced. A notable feature of this bozzetto is its projection beyond the rectangular boundary of its ‘frame’. These elements include the lion’s paw hanging down below the front edge, the now missing plume of the centurion’s helmet on the middle right edge, and the extreme projection of the uppermost angels above, which would have been seen by the viewer of the finished commission as far outside the confines of the top edge. The relief thus echoes Cafà’s adventurous extension of sculptural elements into the viewer’s space exemplified by the modello of the Charity of St. Thomas in the National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta (see Fig. 291).5 Such projection is largely lacking in the completed marble of the Martyrdom of St. Eustace 165

Fig. 192 Overall view Fig. 192

in Sant’Agnese in Agone, with the exception of the outstretched hand of the centurion to the lower left. This commission was completed by E. Ferrata and G.F. Rossi after Cafà’s death. The relief panel has a concave shape, created in the initial forming of the slab of clay. The immediate lower foreground projects outward in a step representing the landscape with a rock outcropping upon which the Saint stands. The relief could not be removed from its current 166

backing, preventing an assessment of the formation of the clay (original massing) and the treatment of the edges. Technical Observations: The general sequence of construction and modeling of the relief appears to be as follows. The sculptor no doubt prepared the clay by wedging to drive out trapped air, then formed it into a slab, either by rolling out a homogeneous clay mass on a flat working platform

or by covering the working platform with handfuls of clay less completely integrated. He would then have been built up the concave shape in strips, as has been found on the other fragmentary ‘sezione’ of this subject that will be discussed later. It is also possible that such a slab was ‘draped’ over a concave working platform to establish the overall concave shape, which is suggested by the form of the current wood enclosure, but this is less likely. Fo l l o w i n g t h e f o r m a t i o n a n d smoothing of the slab surface, it is possible that the artist sketched the general outlines of the composition into the clay. Evidence for this is limited, but it is suggested by the calligraphic aspects of Cafà’s bozzetti modeling style, his frequent outlining of forms and sketching with the oval tip tool to draw low relief features into the clay, and his shading of low relief elements such as clouds with a fine toothed tool (Fig. 193). He suggested the tree foliage in the upper right corner with short arcs and commas drawn with a mediumsized oval tip tool, as well as stabbing

Fig. 193

Fig. 194

Fig. 194 Stabbing strokes next to paw with toothed tool

strokes with the tool held at a forty-five degree angle. Such use of the oval tip tool has its parallel certainly in the other versions of the St. Eustace relief, but also in the more loosely rendered Virgin and Child relief in the Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge (see Fig. 233). Also appearing in the foliage on the bottom edge of the relief and elsewhere, these sketching and stabbing marks appear to be a characteristic habit of the Cafà’s ‘drawing’ into the clay. The toothed tools he used were similar in design to a fine toothed stone carving chisel, and were used extensively in the final linear texturing of the landscape in the foreground and background areas, the sky, and clouds. He also used them with the same stabbing strokes found in the landscape and foliage areas (Fig. 194). Some of the low relief modeling was clearly undertaken before the attachment and completion of the high relief figures and elements that partially cover them, such as some but not all of the heads of the viewers lining the arena wall, and perhaps some of the clouds over which putti and other elements are superimposed. The clouds are formed of clay applied rather than modeled out of the slab, as several show gaps under their edges. It is not possible to know the exact sequence in which figures were modeled. Indeed, it is most likely that he worked back and forth, balancing and adjusting the composition as he went. We know

Fig. 193 Use of toothed tool in cloud, and short arcs and commas drawn and impressed with stabbing strokes from oval tip tool

167

from the other bozzetti that exist for this commission, that he experimented with other versions of this composition. It will suffice to describe the techniques he used to model the principal figure of St. Eustace and several angels, as they all share many aspects of his modeling techniques, and the level of finish has

Fig. 195

Fig. 195 Leg attachment joins under thigh (a), applied layers of drapery (b), brush smoothing around the completed legs (c), and along the applied skirt strips Fig. 196 Clay moved around the circumference to shape the legs Fig. 197 Arm attachment joins (a), and the joins of the added drapery showing at arrows The beard is also modeled of attached clay Fig. 196

Fig. 197

168

allowed the details of these techniques to be clearly seen. The sculptor modeled the body of the saint without drapery, assembling approximately shaped masses of clay with his hands and attaching these to the surface of the relief. Only after the anatomy of the arms, legs, torso, and head had been shaped with additions of clay to render the forms, using toothed tools and his fingers, did he dress the body. Looking at the formation and attachment of the torso and legs to the relief (Fig. 195) one can clearly follow the artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s modeling sequence: the attachment joins of the legs (a), the layers of the garment applied over them (b), the final smoothing with a brush around the leg forms (c), and along the applied skirt strips. Later he drew the sandal straps circling each calf when the clay was leather-hard. A side view of the legs illustrates another intermediate step: building out the anatomy of the legs with small amounts of clay added with the fingers and the oval tip modeling tool, and pushed around, rather than along the forms (Fig. 196). Looking further up the figure we can see the joins where he added the arm to the body over previously attached drapery (Fig. 197). He added and modeled the drapery with an oval tip tool to cover the upper arm and cross the body, the curaisse and right forearm. This angle also affords us a view of the bottom of the saintâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s chin, where the attachment of small bits of clay to form his beard can be seen. Viewing the head from the left allows us to visualize the sculptor at work (Fig. 198). He modeled the head from numerous small amounts of clay, applied to the slab and built one upon another. His fingerprints describe this additive process as he shaped and blended the layers of clay into one another to form the neck, head and hair, attached the

Fig. 198 The head modeled and attached with several small pieces of clay. The nose formed with added clay, and cheek shaped with a toothed tool Fig. 199 Small oval tip tool used to shape the beard, eyes, and mouth, a brush to smooth the cheeks and chest

Fig. 200

Fig. 200 Woman’s figure overlaps drapery, and was added after Saint. Spectators heads were probably drawn first Fig. 201 Knife trimming of toe, St Eustace Fig. 202 … And Centurion.

Fig. 198

Fig. 201

Fig. 202

Fig. 199

head to the relief surface, and added the beard. He added clay and used his fine toothed tool to form the nose and cheek. Compare this method of formation with the head of the personification of Silence (see Fig. 244). A frontal view shows the artist used his small oval tip tool to shape the beard, eyes, and mouth (Fig. 199), finally using a brush to smooth the cheeks and chest. Looking at the left side of the completed figure we can see that only after St. Eustace was completed did Cafà add the woman’s crouching figure to his

left (Fig. 200), as the clay forming her right elbow overlaps the saint’s drapery. He modeled the spectators’ heads with added clay and a few quick finger and tool strokes. Unfortunately, both of the saint’s hands are missing which deprive us of a useful comparative modeling subject. The feet are elongated and graceful, and are shaped similarly to and share technical characteristics with those found on the Personification of Silence in the Fogg Art Museum, the Apostle Andrew in the State Hermitage Museum, Leningrad, and St. Rose of Lima bozzetto in the Palazzo di Venezia. The toe spacing was defined by simple strokes with the edge of the oval tip tool, re-stated after the brush smoothing of the feet. The big toe of the left foot and the little toes of the right foot of the 169

Fig. 203 The toothed tool marks from shaping (a), the finger smoothing (b), brush textures (c), and final outlining of the body with the oval tip tool (d)

Fig. 204 Shrinkage cracks show underlying flat surface to which angel was attached (arrows)

170

Fig. 203

saint (Fig. 201), and the middle toes of the crouching centurion in the proper lower left corner of the relief (Fig. 202) are all trimmed to length with a simple vertical cut. The lions were modeled after the saint, as the lower right lion’s tongue and jaw are superimposed over the saint’s foot (see Fig. 201). The surface of the lower right lion indicates the sequence of steps taken to form this figure (Fig. 203). The artist built up clay on the slab to form the lion’s body. The shapes were refined with the toothed tool (a), and with his fingers (b). He smoothed the surfaces with a bristle brush (c), then used a small oval tip tool to outline the lion’s body (d) and to add details in the face and mane, drawing the eye as a circle and adding clay to form the

mane. He formed and attached the tail and tongue only after the surrounding background clay was detailed. The angel above the saint’s right arm was also attached, not modeled out of the slab. This is indicated by the shrinkage cracks where the angel’s body, while drying, has pulled away slightly revealing

Fig. 204

Fig. 205

Fig. 206

a continuous flat surface underneath (Fig. 204). The toothed tool drawing on the flat surface behind the angelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s left thigh impinges into the applied drapery; this tool was used both before and after the figure was modeled, attached, and draped. The artist attached the angelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arm and shaped it by pushing clay around the forms (Fig. 205), and attached the drapery swirling around its torso. The head shows a complicated, built-up structure with several pieces of clay forming the head, and hair. This image also shows the smoothing of the skin of the arm with a bristle brush. This and many other of the figures in relief are partially outlined with a small oval tip tool, a technique found on numerous relief bozzetti attributed to CafĂ , including the other versions of the St. Eustace in the Museo di Roma and the Castel S. Angelo, and the Virgin and Child, in the Fogg Art Museum.

Another angel modeled in high relief in the upper right hand corner shows its complete sequence of modeling and attachment when viewed from above (Fig. 206). The gaps between the shoulders and wings make visible the underlying slab to which the artist attached the figure (a). He modeled and attached the upper torso, then the left wing. Then he roughly shaped the low relief cloud above, adding clay with his fingertips (b). He applied a strengthening fillet of clay to join the back edge of the wing to the slab (c), and applied and articulated the drapery curling over the right arm and shoulder, pressing its end onto the left wing fillet (d). Finally he attached the right wing onto the drapery, built up the leading edge (e), and detailed the wing with the toothed and oval tip tool (f). Another photo (Fig. 207) looking down above the right edge of the relief shows the built-up modeling of the putti, palm, garland, and head of St. Eustace. Even the smallest elements, the two small heads projecting above the centurion in the lower left, are attached

Fig. 205 Arm attachment, clay pushed around the form, drapery attachment (arrows), and built-up structure of head Fig. 206 Entire modeling sequence visible: underlying flat surface (a), added cloud (b) and joining fillet (c) Attached drapery winds around the figure (d), wing edge built-up (e) wing detailed with oval tip tool (f)

Fig. 207 looking down from top of right edge at additive modeling of the putti, palm, garland (far right), and head of S Eustace (center)

Fig. 207

Fig. 208 Looking down on attached, built up, and outlined spectators heads

Fig. 208

171

Fig. 209 Smoothing brush textures on horse

low, medium and high relief elements were added, built up and detailed with small bits of clay. Other habitual techniques include his free, calligraphic sketching of low relief features, the outlining of attached forms, the use of tools in a stabbing manner to create deep contrasts, and a refusal to ‘over finish’ surfaces and details that allow all of these techniques to be observed. 2. Martyrdom of St. Eustace, section Melchiorre Cafà Museo di Roma Inv. 35750

Fig. 209

and modeled following the same general sequence (Fig. 208, seen from above). The similarity to the modeling of the small heads in the St. Eustace bozzetto in the Museo di Roma (see Fig. 217) is unmistakable. After his fingers, the artist used a bristle brush to smooth the clay, where such final smoothing has taken place. These areas include the majority of surfaces representing skin and drapery on the saint and all the principal figures, the horse (Fig. 209) and clouds. The bristles of the brush used were rather stiff, and it was often used with a painterly swirling rather than linear motion. On the figures, even those in low relief, the brush is used sweeping around rather than along the forms, to emphasize their three-dimensionality. Cafà’s modeling technique for this well-attributed relief contains many of what I have come to recognize are the characteristic working methods of this artist. The modeling can only be described as additive, as almost all of the

172

Condition: This is a fragmentary section from the lower left corner of a relief. There are many breakage losses to the edges and base, and to the heads and limbs of figures. Tools used: Large toothed tool, medium oval tip tool. Fingerprints: Many seen on surface, two recovered from the right edge, middle (see Fig. 355), and from behind the left shoulder of the left figure (see Fig. 356). General Impressions: This sketch is a variation of the lower left corner of the Martyrdom of St. Eustace relief panel at the Palazzo di Venezia, Rome. Its closest analog among the relief panels I have examined in this study is the relief section at the Castel S. Angelo, which displays similar assembly and modeling techniques but a slightly higher overall level of refinement and finish. This bozzetto is looser and more directly and rapidly modeled (Fig. 210). After completing the modeling, the artist drew a line down the proper left edge of the piece in the wet clay. Elena Bianca di Gioia has pointed out that this section of the relief was broken away from the remainder along this line, after drying but before firing.6 The thicker

lower section, which includes the haunch of a lion, was saw-cut, or its broken edge smoothed with a rasp. The top edge of the section also appears to have been saw-cut. It is therefore quite possible that the artist modeled a complete relief, of which this is a fragment or section. These divisions were certainly planned by the artist, and may have been undertaken to facilitate the firing of such a large composition. It may also be that elements of different versions of the composition were separated in this way so that they could be re-combined.

Technical Observations: The sculptor assembled smaller handfuls into a flat slab on the modeling platform (Fig. 212), constructed of verticallyoriented boards and incorporating a ledge at the bottom to secure the clay when tilted up to a comfortable working angle (Fig. 211). This process can be visualized from gaps in the imperfectly assembled clay on the back. The sheet of clay thus assembled was the basis upon which all further work was carried out; the formation and modeling of the

Fig. 210 Overall view. Note vertical line along left edge Fig. 211 Bottom of relief showing impression from wood ledge Fig. 212 Construction of relief slab from handfulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s of clay. Note vertical wood impressions from modeling platform

Fig. 211

Fig. 210

Fig. 212

173

relief was entirely additive (Fig. 213). He formed the concave shape of the relief, seen here from the top (Fig. 214) by adding strips of clay to build up the curvature. A lower foreground ledge, now broken away, was also added to the bottom. He modeled the figures from clay largely assembled, formed, and attached to the backing clay with his fingers, using the oval tip tool to integrate the attached figures (Fig. 215). He usually modeled with his fingers those areas representing exposed flesh. After this he used the oval tip tool to attach and loosely model the drapery with his fingers and a medium oval

tip modeling tool, leaving many gaps and rough edges (a). The oval tip tool was used throughout in ways I have come to find characteristic of CafĂ . Most prominent are the frequent, deep stabbing strokes used to create recesses and dark contrasts; such marks often capture the dimension of the tool (b), and outlining of forms (Fig. 216). His habits of brisk sketching of low relief design and outlining of forms can be seen in the calligraphic depiction of the

Fig. 215

Fig. 213 Backing slab (a) with added high relief lion at sawcut (b) Fig. 214 Looking down at top of relief showing built-up concave surface from clay (a) added to flat slab, saw-cut top edge Fig. 215 Torso modeled with fingers, drapery attached with oval tool (a) Characteristic deep stabbing strokes capture the dimension of the tool (b)

Fig. 216

Fig. 213

Fig. 216 Plunging oval tip tool-mark behind shoulder of upper figure (a), and outlining (b) Fig. 217 Calligraphic sketching of spectators, and attached clay heads Fig. 214

174

Fig. 217

Fig. 218 Overall view

Fig. 218

crowd on the top edge of the section (Fig. 217). Some of the heads of people are formed with simple button-like pieces of clay, attached and outlined (see also Figs 200, 208). A single toothed tool-mark in the background behind the shoulder of the lower figure is one of few uses of this tool found. Finally, the artist drew a line down the proper left edge of the composition in the wet clay as described above. The breakage and cutting along this line were done when the clay was dry, but unfired.

3. Section from the Martyrdom of St. Eustace Melchiorre CafĂ Museo di Castel S. Angelo Condition: The top and proper right edge are break edges, with losses. The remaining section is broken in two horizontally and joined across the upper third of the relief. The lionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s left leg, modeled in relief, has broken away from the surface over the break line. The 175

Fig. 219 Flat slab assembled from hand-fuls of clay

Fig. 220 Clay added to form edge and concave surface (a), broken at assembly join (b)

back of the relief has plaster of Paris remnants from an earlier restoration. Archival photos7â&#x20AC;&#x2030; show that the heads of two lions and other material, present at the time the photo was taken, are now missing (Fig. 218). Tools used: Medium toothed tool, medium oval tip tool Fingerprints: Three partial prints were recovered from the lower left front edge (see Fig. 375), and one under the chest of the lion (see Fig. 358), and one from the bottom, back left corner (see Fig. 359).

Fig. 219

Fig. 220

176

General Impressions: This is a loose, very rapid sketch from the lower proper left corner of what may have been a larger, complete relief, of which this is a fragment or section. Indeed, this work, the complete bozzetto in the collection of the Palazzo di Venezia, and the section in the Museo di Roma all describe three different versions, and there are additional sections or partial bozzetti for this composition in other collections which could not be a part of this study. The division of these reliefs into smaller sections may have been undertaken to facilitate the firing of such a large composition. It may also be that elements of different versions of the composition were divided so that they could be re-combined to form yet other versions. Technical Observations: The sculptor assembled large handfuls of clay to form a flat slab on a wood modeling platform. This process can be traced from the gaps between the imperfectly assembled clay on the back (Fig. 219). This flat sheet of clay was the basis upon which all further work was carried out; the formation of the relief was entirely additive. Next, he built the concave shape of the front surface by applying strips of clay to the outside edge of the sheet (Fig. 220). The

bottom portion of added clay has split away from the backing at the original join line (a). Where unbroken above, his smoothing and integrating finger strokes are preserved (b). The bottom ledge of clay was added in a similar manner, revealed by the same break line (Fig. 221). Having established the architecture of the scene, the artist carefully smoothed the backdrop clay above the ledge, and textured the ledge with a toothed tool. He then modeled and attached the lions. This sequence is revealed to us through some of the damage resulting in clay losses. On the lower left side of the relief, between the step and ledge, is an area where the lower lion head, extant in earlier photos, is now missing (Fig. 222). All that now remains under the ledge is a portion of the lionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mane (a). One can clearly see the imprint of the back of the lionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s head, impressed into the clay and flattening the toothed texture (b). The loss of the upper rear leg of the lion also gives us insight into the artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s working techniques. Scrutiny of the loss area (Fig. 223) shows us several things: that the background clay was carefully smoothed (a), that the clay of the leg was built up in layers (b), and most provocatively that the general outline of the figure of the lion may have been sketched onto this nicely smoothed surface before the artist modeled it in three dimensions. The evidence for this is minimal, but intriguing. Two parallel sketch lines were drawn into the clay at (c) which correspond reasonably well to the inner curve of the top of the thigh. The fact that two parallel lines were found in one of the locations argues against their resulting from an accidental toolmark. Another line at the back of the loss appears to follow the shape of the back of the leg (d). This line is less clear, being closer to the fracture surfaces and outer tool strokes. Other areas that might

Fig. 221 Bottom showing break line following clay join

Fig. 221

Fig. 222

Fig. 222 Remnant of lower lion mane (a), impression from attached head (b)

Fig. 223 Leg loss area; smoothed background clay (a), Two parallel sketch lines in front (b), and a third along the back (c), suggesting an initial sketch in the smoothed clay

Fig. 223

177

Fig. 224 Plant rendered with deep stabbing, and slashing strokes Fig. 225 Lion’s mane Fig. 226 Paw, with deep oval tool impressions

Fig. 224

178

Fig. 226

Fig. 225

reveal such ‘under-drawing’ and confirm this hypothesis were not found. Future disassembly of restoration glue joins to reveal inner surfaces might disclose more such marks. The sculptor completed the lion with finger smoothing of the body and face. He added clay to form the drapery above, and to form the mane – the clay curls applied and formed with a small oval tip tool, the modeling bold, deep and vivid. This tool was also used to integrate and outline the high relief forms. The plant at lower right was modeled partially of added clay using deep, slashing and stabbing strokes (Fig. 224). The artist modeled the drapery above the lion with his fingers and the oval tip tool after the lion was completed, as the tool strokes outlining the drapery interrupt those outlining the lion. A predominant characteristic of this and other bozzetti by Cafà is his use of deep, stabbing strokes with an oval tip tool. This is found often in hair curls (Fig. 225), drapery, and other areas to create, dark sharply contrasting tones

in the clay. Numerous other areas show the use of this technique: the fringes of hair along the lion’s belly, the plant at the lower right (see Fig. 224), and the lion’s paw (Fig. 226). 4. Virgin and Child Unidentified Artist Fogg Art Museum 1937. 74 Condition: The relief has cracks and repaired breaks that follow some of the original join lines of the clay assembled to form the relief. Spalling of the clay surface from crystallized soluble salts contamination has caused surface flaking losses in several areas; most severely on the drapery on the inside of the right knee and the lower left edge of the oval, where a crescent shaped section of clay is missing. The tip of her left foot is missing, and the clay in this area is also deteriorated. The back of the Virgin’s

and the Child’s head have surface spalling losses, and there is a section of the relief missing in the background slab behind the Virgin’s head that has been restored. A portion of the Virgin’s right upper sleeve is restored. Tools used: Medium oval tip tool, medium ball tip tool, and medium toothed tool. Fingerprints: One somewhat smeared but recordable print was found on the bottom, located near the left edge at approximately nine o’clock (see Fig. 360). One was found on the front at eight o’clock (see Fig. 361).

General Impressions: The bozzetto is modeled in low relief (Fig. 228), with much callig raphic sketching of outlines and drapery folds in the clay. The rapidity of execution and attenuation of detail is a hallmark of this bozzetto (Fig. 227). It was certainly modeled in a single session, over a short period of time. Technical Observations: The back of the relief shows details that describe both the beginning and the end of its creation (Fig. 229). The

Fig. 228

Fig. 227 Overall view in Raking light highlights calligraphic sketching and outlining Fig. 228 View from right side

Fig. 227

179

Fig. 229 Back view showing assembly from handfuls of clay, enlargement (arrows), and wire cut marks Fig. 230 Sketch lines establishing edge contours (a). Brush applied slip from under drapery (b)

180

Fig. 229

Fig. 230

artist assembled the basic slab from four or five handfuls of clay, not taking a great deal of trouble to integrate them as can be seen from the gaps remaining at the joins and subsequent shrinkage cracking. He then established the initial oval shape, cutting it out with a knife. At some point rather earlier in the modeling, before the addition of any clay to the lower surfaces, the artist decided to enlarge the composition by adding clay to the bottom of the oval. This view also shows the distinctive marks from the use of a wire to cut the relief free from the wood platform at the completion of modeling. The top surface was carefully smoothed before the artist set to work. A series of three concentric lines were found drawn into the clay near the left elbow at the two o’clock position (Fig. 230a). Echoing the oval shape of the adjacent edge of the relief, one can imagine that they are tentative lines drawn by the artist in the smoothed clay as he initially established the shape of the oval. Fabric impressions from a dampened draping fabric are found throughout. At seven o’clock the edge of the relief was trimmed with a saw,

after firing, probably to fit into a frame of some kind. The sculptor first modeled the figures and clouds directly on the oval slab with his fingers, assembling and smoothing larger masses and small finger-full’s of clay. He may have hatched the underlying clay and applied a watery clay slip with a brush to promote adhesion in some areas. This is indicated by a passage at the left elbow (b) where such brush-marks appear to emerge from under added clay. The cloud forms to the left of the Virgin’s left knee, and under her feet, are simple blobs of clay smeared into place with vigorous, directional finger and thumb pressure. He formed the heads of the Virgin and Child (Fig. 231) from balls of clay and attached them to the background with added clay blobs to support them squeezed and pinched into place leaving finger tip and nail prints in the clay of both heads (a). He then added strips and pieces of clay to enlarge the Virgin’s head and form the veil (b), smoothing with finger and tool to merge with the background on the left side where the veil was sketched. The right side of

direction, much as a pen with a flat, italic nib leaves a thin or fat ink line as its direction changes. The tool tip moved fluidly, displacing clay on each side, leaving a rounded-bottom line with slightly raised edges. The sculptor continued to reinforce forms, deepening contours, articulating folds, all as one would with a pen or pencil. He rendered the features, scooping out the mouths and eyes with circular, plunging strokes. Next he picked up the medium toothed tool, and used it in a repetitive, highly idiosyncratic manner, plunging it vertically into the clay, repeatedly forming deep linear marks to represent folds in the drapery and skin (Fig. 233). Fig. 231

her head, turned away from the viewer, is neither modeled in the round nor detailed. He modeled the head of the Child, pinching the face between thumb and forefinger to form the nose and cheeks, and then forming the eyes and mouth with three simple scoops of the oval tip tool (Fig. 232). Having built the three-dimensional architecture of the composition, and shaped and quickly smoothed the forms with his fingers, the artist changed gears completely, picking up his tools for the first time. From this point on he used only two tools to render linear details in the clay in very specific ways. First he used an oval tip tool, probably one with a rounded, or ball shaped tip, to completely outline the entire figure and sketch the veil and many of the drapery folds in a decidedly calligraphic manner, drawing freely throughout the relief (see Fig. 227). The likelihood that this tool had a rounded tip rather than a somewhat sharper oval tip is suggested by the uniform width of the lines left in the clay, maintained during directional changes (see Fig. 236). A standard oval tip tool would have left lines and marks that varied in width during changes in

Fig. 231 Heads applied with pinches leaving fingertip and nail prints (a), and enlarged with added clay (b)

Fig. 232 Plunging, scooping use of tool to render features Fig. 233 Vertical, plunging strokes of toothed tool in folds and fingers (a) Earlier finger layout with sharp tool (b)

Fig. 232

Fig. 233

181

Fig. 234 Toothed tool-mark behind virgin’s neck Fig. 235 Linear toothed toolmark, left knee Fig. 236 Horizontal and upward finger smears of clay (a), accidental fingernail mark (b), Possible original sketch line (c) Drapery folds drawn with ball-end tool Fig. 237 Possible sketch lines in the clay under the hand (a), and two impressed marks of unknown purpose in the palm (b)

Fig. 234

Fig. 235

Fig. 236

Even the fingers of the Virgin’s left hand are picked out in with this tool (a). A careful viewing of this detail shows that in front of these fingers, another earlier set of lines were drawn into the clay with the oval tip tool (b). This suggests the artist briefly ‘indicated’ the hand location with these few, knife-like strokes, and altered the position slightly afterwards. A crisp tool-mark from a medium toothed tool found behind the Virgin’s neck (Fig. 234) attests to the artist’s use of this tool in a more conventional way, perhaps earlier in the formation of the relief. His vigorous downward 182

Fig. 237

stroke served both to attach and trim the clay of her neck. (See Fig. 323 for a similar passage on the St. Rose of Lima terracotta.) He used this tool again below the Virgin’s left knee (Fig. 235). These two marks represent the only two areas where his use of a toothed tool in a conventional way can be found. The outstretched right hand was modeled robustly, reinforced from the back so that it could stand out from the background and even extend slightly over the edge of the plaque. The hand is bent up at the wrist, the thumb and fingers touching and forming a hollow in the center (Fig. 236). The artist smeared clay along and upward from the wrist and sleeve to attach the hand (a), inadvertently leaving a line above the wrist with his fingernail (b). A fragment of a line parallel to the outside edge of the arm appears in the underlying clay surface (c), and where the hand is joined to the surface of the relief, one can just see the ends of two lines in the clay underneath (Fig. 237). These lines may simply be hatching textures, made to promote the secure attachment of the clay. Another possibility is that they remain from an overall sketch of the composition made by the artist on the smoothed clay before he began the three-dimensional modeling. While the evidence is inconclusive, the lion modeled in the St. Eustace bozzetto in the Castel S. Angelo also displays similar clues. The idea that this sculptor made a linear, preparatory sketch in the

prepared clay should be discussed further. We have found lines suggesting that the oval was drawn out on the flat surface (see Fig. 230). We know that after an initial oval shape was cut out, it was enlarged at the bottom (see Fig. 229), and that this was done before the threedimensional modeling began. There are also several fragments of lines peeking out from under modeled areas (see figs 237a, and 236c), enough to advance the hypothesis that the composition was indeed sketched out, and that as he sketched he realized that the oval slab would have to be enlarged to incorporate the composition. Before we leave the right hand I will point out the two, sharp, clear impressed linear marks in the palm (see Fig. 237). I can offer no explanation for these. There are no other pointing or measurement marks to be found on the bozzetto, which these marks resemble, but it is unlikely that their close grouping and localized placement is accidental. Finally, no cloth or brush smoothing of any kind was undertaken at the finish of modeling.

5. Personification of Silence Melchiorre CafĂ Fogg Art Museum 1937.72

Fig. 238

Fig. 239

Condition: There are large losses to the lower corners of the relief. The left hand is missing from the wrist down, as are the peach and some of the leaves. Both lower corners have substantial chip losses. The left big toe is missing. Most of the clay

Fig. 238 Personification of Silence, stucco, S Maria Vallicella, Rome Fig. 239 Front view

183

surfaces have an eroded appearance; the texture of the clay is granular and riven by micro-fissures in a pronounced cracqueleur. Tools used: Large toothed tool in the background, small toothed tool in background lower left and drapery, oval tip tool throughout. Fingerprints: None recovered. General Impressions: This is a directly modeled bozzetto, in which little has been smoothed over and finished. The surfaces show fully the sculptorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use of modeling tools and the process of clay assembly, although the erosion effects mask some of the facture of the clay. The scale drawn along the full length of the right edge suggests that this bozzetto was used as a basis from which dimensions were taken for enlargement. The upper torso where it divides at the beltline seems curiously shifted to its right, so that it does not sit properly or comfortably on the lower section. The centerline of the upper and lower halves does not meet convincingly (Fig. 239). Also, the right shoulder is noticeably smaller than the left, despite the drapery that effectively enlarges it. The composition is based on a series of diagonals, from lower right to upper left. This is principally contained in the drapery design, and is reinforced by the angle of the right forearm and the downward gaze of the eyes. The modeling is in low to medium relief (Fig. 240), which is curious, as the finished stucco sculpture in S. Maria Vallicella, Rome is modeled fully in the round (Fig. 238).

Fig. 240 Side from right showing depth of sculptural relief Fig. 240

184

Technical Observations: The sculptor assembled the slab of clay to form the basis of the relief to a uniform thickness. The clay was well wedged and integrated; only a

few, small shrinkage cracks are visible on the back. Before beginning the modeling, he leveled the back with a large toothed tool, then flipped the slab, the tool-marks resting face down on a coarse grained wood platform (Fig. 241). This platform was inclined to a comfortable working angle, attested to by the impression of a ledge in the bottom edge. At some point thereafter, the artist added a strip of clay to enlarge the top edge (Fig. 242). One of the divisions in the incised scale along the length of the slab corresponds to the top of the head, therefore clay may have been added to the top of the relief allow the scale to end on a full division. It is interesting to speculate whether or not a companion bozzetto for the completed stucco figure of Disprezzo del Mondo (Disdain for the World), situated opposite the Silence within the vaulted ceiling in S. Maria Vallicella in Rome, was created at the same time as this bozzetto8â&#x20AC;&#x2030;. It is not difficult to imagine the artist wanting to compose these two figures simultaneously to establish their relationship with one another, and possibly forming the slab and modeling both at the same time. Substantial fabric impressions in the clay on the top and bottom edges (Fig. 243) give evidence that even though this rapidly executed sketch could have easily been completed in a day, it was kept in a moist state for some period of time. This draping may have simply been to regulate the drying to avoid shrinkage cracks, but I suspect that the deteriorated surface of the clay may be due to having been maintained in a wet state for some weeks or even months, allowing biological attack of the clay, as well as erosion through repeated cycles of partial drying and re-wetting. The top edge was filed down at some point, possibly to fit within a contemporary architectural model, or later frame.

Fig. 241

Fig. 241 Back view Fig. 242 Clay added to top to enlarge relief Fig. 243 Top edge with fabric impressions (left) and file marks (right) Fig. 242

Fig. 243

185

Fig. 244

Fig. 244 Head from left revealing assembly from small masses of clay

Fig. 245

Fig. 245 Gap indicating drapery was applied over right leg Fig. 246 Edge of recess defined with impressed marks from toothed tool Toe trimmed with diagonal slice

Fig. 246

The artist built the figure on the surface of the slab, first assembling the clay, shaping and finger smoothing the body and limbs, then ‘dressing’ the figure with drapery. This attachment of the drapery in sheets is demonstrated by the drapery covering the right lower leg, which shows a gap between its edge and the underlying clay where it was not completely joined (Fig. 245). Even rather

186

shallow drapery areas seem to have been attached rather than modeled from the existing clay. The drapery was shaped almost exclusively with the medium oval tip tool. The vertical line defining the shallow recess behind the right side of the figure was created by multiple impressions of the toothed tool, used in a vertical, stabbing way. This is still visible next to the right ankle (Fig. 246), despite considerable erosion of the clay. The recess behind the figure was excavated with the same tool. The artist modeled the undraped body, the hands, feet, face, and hair with his fingers and a small oval tip tool. Surfaces representing skin were modeled almost exclusively with his fingers. The toes are marked out with incised lines, and the right big toe trimmed to length with this tool (See Fig. 246). A view from the left side (Fig. 244) shows the additions of small masses of clay to form first the neck and then the head, the fingers gently molding the clay into shape, leaving prints. The features were created and the locks of hair detailed and integrated with rapid strokes of the small oval tip tool. The hand was added from small bits of clay, the fingers incised with the same tool. The view of the right side (Fig. 247) again shows how he used the small oval tip tool to carve out the eye sockets, define the jaw line with a downward curving tool stroke, and dress the hair, using several deep plunging tool-marks in front of and behind the ear to create dark contrasts. The particular form of the forehead, that of three well-defined facets, flat in the center, receding on each side to the temple, is found often in Cafà’s oeuvre including the St. John in the Palazzo di Venezia (see Fig. 288) and the Apostle Andrew in the State Hermitage Museum (see Fig. 274). There is a modest amount of outlining of the high relief figure visible in the background clay, but not

to the extent that this technique is used on other bozzetti in this study. It can be seen clearly around the left arm and the leaves. The artist smoothed some of the surfaces with a bristle brush, but only after the clay was quite hard, approaching dry. The scale was laid out in clay close to leather-hard, the artist or an assistant drawing a line from the top to the bottom of the right edge of the relief. Starting at the bottom, and working up the line, the larger unit was stepped off using a divider set to about 2.5 cm, which corresponds to the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;palmo romanoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. These divisions were then drawn horizontally from the line out to the edge of the clay to form the scale. Shorter, half unit lines were incised between these full lines. Close examination of the scale reveals many line and point marks from a divider- like tool found along its length (Fig. 248). 9â&#x20AC;&#x2030; Of particular interest is that these marks were made over a long period of time. Some of them display

the same kind of erosion effects as the surrounding clay (a), and therefore were made using the scale before the long storage. Some marks are fresher, crisper, and were clearly made after this erosion had taken place. Some are deep penetrations into what was fairly soft clay, and some are shallow pointmarks into harder clay (b). There are also single or repeated linear scratches into clay ranging between leather-hard and dry. Several of these longer marks have a curvature from the swing of the divider striking a line, and several of these are drawn from the right side of the scale, towards the figure. The main top-to-bottom line of the scale was redrawn after storage. This all attests to the fact that after modeling was completed, this bozzetto served a long useful life providing dimensions to those entrusted with enlarging it into a full-sized work. Where a scale is found, especially one showing evidence of use, there will also be corresponding traces of measurement

Fig. 249

Fig. 250

Fig. 249 Nexus of point marks and crossing lines on left ankle Fig. 250 Under right ankle

Fig. 247 From right showing use of fingers and small oval tip tool in eye, nose, jaw line, and hair Fig. 248 Eroded older marks (a), and newer, shallow marks in harder clay (b)

Fig. 247

Fig. 248

187

Fig. 251

Fig. 252

Fig. 253

Fig. 254

Fig. 251 Three lines under midsection drapery Fig. 252 Left shoulder Fig. 253 Left elbow Fig. 254 Two point marks and line on front edge of base Fig. 255 Measurement mark in drapery

taking found on the figure itself, unless these were erased, smoothed over, and repaired before the clay was fully hard. The Personification of Silence bozzetto has many such marks. A large grouping is found concentrated on the left ankle, a series of at least eight, short lines crossing about a hole in the clay made from a multiplicity of sharp points (Fig. 249). This location may have been a ‘nexus’ from which multiple measurements were made. There is a single short line in the right foot under the ankle (Fig. 250), and the underside of the sash-like drapery over the stomach shows at least three (Fig. 251). One linear mark is found on the left shoulder (Fig. 252) and one on the left elbow (Fig. 253). Two sharp point marks, one neatly bisected by a short line are found on the front edge of the base between the feet (Fig. 254), and another is located closer to the missing big toe of the left foot. The missing right hand would also have been a likely location for such a mark. A clear linear mark is found in the drapery opposite and slightly above the left knee (Fig. 255), which aligns with one of the divisions of the scale. This is interesting because it was not placed on one of the usual features – the knee, elbow, ankle, etc. – but in the middle of a drapery area. The upper-most division of the scale corresponds to the top of the head, and others line up with features such as the knee. Inscribed into the clay surface of the arch opposite the left knee is a circle,

Fig. 256 Inscribed circle

188

Fig. 255

Fig. 256

perhaps made with a compass or divider (Fig. 256). Its purpose is not clear, and the radius does not directly correspond to complete ‘palmi romani’ units of the scale. 6. Angel for the Charity of St. Thomas Melchiorre Cafà Museo di Roma MR 35742 Condition: Fracture losses of the head, both arms, the right foot, and parts of the wing, drapery, and supporting structural clay on the back. Tools used: Oval tip tool, medium toothed tool. Fingerprints: One partial print recovered from behind the angel’s knee (see Fig. 362). General Impressions: This is a ‘used’ bozzetto, with evidence of having lived three separate and distinct lives10 (Fig. 257). It was first a sketch model, a product of the search to establish the idea and form for the angel in its location on the cornice. This being realized successfully, it then became a source of information: its proportions were gathered and recorded using a set of dividers. The linear scale drawn into the clay on the front of the cornice (Fig. 258) was used to quantify these proportions, and a subsequent, enlarged scale was used later to produce a modello in grande in ephemeral materials, or for the actual carving of the marble angel itself in S. Agostino, Rome (Fig. 259). Its third life began after this, when the artist or someone associated with his studio took the step, unusual in a bozzetto, of ‘cleaning it up’. This was done by brushing many of the surfaces, front and back, with a thin clay slip to smooth them, imparting a creamy, somewhat softened finish. It can be seen

Fig. 257 Front view Fig. 258 Linear scale in cornice Fig. 259 Ercole Ferrata, Angel for the altar of St Thomas, S Agostino, Rome

Fig. 257

Fig. 258

to have pooled within the scale markings and toothed tool-marks (Fig. 260) and was therefore certainly applied after the scale was used, obliterating most of the pointing or measurement marks that may have remained in the clay. This suggests that the next life for the modello was one of appreciation of its sculptural qualities, as a studio model to be studied, copied, and collected. Unfortunately for the investigator, the clay slip also softens and obscures tool impressions and other details of modeling activities.11

Fig. 259

Technical Observations: The bozzetto was built upon a flat modeling platform, much as one would approach the creation of a relief sculpture. The platfor m was likely tilted up to a convenient working angle. 189

The artist built the architectural cornice on the wood backing first, from small handfuls of clay somewhat poorly assembled as can be seen from the back surface. Clay was added to the top of the cornice to build a backing surface for the body of the angel that supports its wing and the drapery billowing upwards from its left shoulder (Fig. 262). The sequence of modeling or fabrication of

the angel figure is not entirely clear, due in part to the obscuring clay slip, and the numerous losses, but also because such evidence is simply not always available. The artist built the largely unclothed figure from handfuls of clay and attached it to the cornice and backing, using additions of clay applied to the join and smoothed out to form fillets (Fig. 261), leaving some gaps between the two (b).

Fig. 260

Fig. 262

Fig. 260 Clay slip pooled in scale and toothed tool-marks

Fig. 263

Fig. 261 Fillet joining body to backing (a), and gaps (b) Fig. 262 Wing attached to vertical backing clay Fig. 263 Plunging, vertical marks in drapery around missing left arm from oval tip tool reveal the tool profile Fig. 264 Chest and applied drapery Note disturbed surface and vertical measurement line at neck Fig. 261

190

Fig. 264

It appears that some of the drapery of the right leg may have been modeled directly as the figure was shaped and assembled, while the remainder of the drapery around the chest, cornice, right arm, and behind the figure was attached in strips and sheets and shaped with the fingers and the oval tip tool. The artist detailed the drapery clay with this tool, and formed the folds gathered into or emanating from deep recesses with plunging, vertical strokes which reveal its profile (Fig. 263). These rapidly impressed tool-marks are found in many such passages of the works by Cafà in this study. It may be useful to compare an image of the angel’s chest and how the drapery is applied (Fig. 264), with similar passages in other similar works by Cafà, such as the Martyrdom of St. Eustace bozzetto section in the Museo di Roma (see Fig. 210). In general, there are many similarities of massing, assembly, and modeling between this bozzetto and the figures, angels, and putti attached to

Fig. 265

Fig. 266

the bozzetti relief sculpture mentioned above. The artist or his assistant laid out the scale across the cornice clay with a set of dividers. The dividers were moved across the clay, the pointed end inserted, the other drawing a short line into the clay, then the point set into the line and marking the next and so on. For some reason the scale was repeated twice. The graduations are 2.5 cm, and correspond to the ‘palmo romano’. The process of gathering dimensions is only suggested from the few marks left visible on the sculpture. A small, but definite linear mark is visible at the bottom of the throat, or the ‘Fontanella della Gola’(Fig. 264). This is a commonly used nexus for the gathering of dimensional information, and may have served so in this case 12 . The clay in this area appears disturbed, and perhaps other point marks here and elsewhere were covered later as the clay slip was applied. Another such mark was found on the drapery under the right knee (Fig. 265). Other parts of the bozzetto where one would normally expect to find such point marks, such as the arms, head, foot, and much of the wing, are now missing. The incongruous toothed tool-marks towards the upper part of the cornice and the oddly shaped clay element added below (Fig. 266) may yield their secret to this explanation. The hatching marks emerge from underneath this added element, and may have been intended as a hatching, or roughening step to promote adhesion (see Fig. 260). It was clearly added after completion of modeling, and is partially broken, covered in the same applied slip found elsewhere. I suggest it is the remnant of a temporary stabilizing foot, attached to help the relief remain upright after it was removed from its modeling platform during the course of taking measurements.

Fig. 265 Measurement line in drapery under right knee Fig. 266 Note bottom dressed with toothed tool. Element under tool-marks (a) may be the remnant of a stabilizing foot applied after modeling

191

Fig. 267 Front view Fig. 268 Apostle Andrew, Sant’ Andrea della Valle, Rome Fig. 267

Freestanding Sculpture 7. Apostle Andrew Melchiorre Cafà State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg Inv. no. 650 Condition: There are clay losses at the lower right rear corner of base where the lowermost end of one of the two tree trunks forming an ‘X’ cross was modeled. The break edges of the upper tree trunks are visible behind each shoulder. A drapery section descending from behind the right hip is broken and missing. Tools used: Medium and small toothed tool, medium oval (blunted) tip tool. Brush for smoothing. No indications of a system of enlargement such as pointing marks or a scale were found.

192

Fig. 268

Fingerprints: Two overlapping prints were recorded on the back of figure, adjacent to the knot on lower left tree limb (see Fig. 363). One print was recorded on the edge of the lower buttress clay on the back of the figure (see Fig. 364). General Impressions: This is a modello of very high quality, with great particularity given to features and details. The energy of the modeling has not been refined away through oversmoothing of the surfaces, which are active with the tool-marks and textures left as the artist worked the clay. The composition and the arrangement and articulation of the drapery agree closely with the carved travertine figure in its niche on the facade of Sant’ Andrea della Valle in Rome, albeit with some simplification of drapery passages (Fig. 267), (Fig. 268). The expression of the

face has subtle differences. The face in the terracotta is younger, simplified, more slender and softly rounded, and seems to have a more questioning, almost bewildered look. The face of Andrew in stone is that of an older man, cheeks hollowed, with the sinews closer to the surface. His mouth is slightly wider, and his expression more agonized and pleading. The anatomy of the torso is remarkably similar in detail, although the ‘V’ shaped sterno-cleido-mastoid muscles are more deeply drawn in the marble. The left heel of the terracotta is also raised slightly more than the marble, the drapery sitting lower on the ankle.

As with the St. John modello, the Apostle Andrew has not been hollowed, but the back of this modello was not closed and textured. Instead, the sculptor has left the back unfinished and partially open, with the structure of assembled clay visible (Fig. 270), as it is on the Charity of St. Thomas bozzetto (see Fig. 292). Visible shrinkage cracks are small, but more importantly vertically oriented (a), confirming that a central column of clay was used (as suggested by the features of the base) and that it was well wedged and compacted to drive out trapped air. The top of this column is still visible

Technical Observations: The bottom of the base (Fig. 269) shows that the artist began to build the figure by forming a roughly cylindrical column of clay (a). He added more clay to form the foreground under the apostle’s feet (b), and enlarged the left side of the base to support the outstretched left foot (c). These steps in the early formation of the base and figure are also found in the St. John modello in the Palazzo di Venezia, but in an opposite direction, as that figure leans the other way (see Fig. 282). The small triangular masses of clay at the rear corners are clay that was added to enlarge the buttress.

Fig. 269 Cylindrical column of clay (a), added foreground for the apostle’s feet (b), and enlargement supporting the left foot (c) Fig. 270 Unfinished back shows vertical shrinkage cracks (a), in exposed core (b) Added clay enlarges torso (c), and forms buttress (d). Strips of clay added to form drapery over shoulders (e) Fig. 269

Fig. 270

193

Fig. 271 Entry hole from support rod in lower back Fig. 272 … and right hip Fig. 273 Right foot, toes trimmed with diagonal cut Fig. 274 Features modeled and refined with a small oval tip tool, the beard and hair of clay attached and detailed with toothed and oval tipped tools Fig. 275 Drapery added, shaped with small and medium oval tip tools

Fig. 271

Fig. 272

Fig. 274

Fig. 273

from the lower back to the shoulders (b), extending up to and possibly including the neck. To this column the artist added additional vertically oriented rolls of clay (c) to enlarge and form the torso. He also added clay in small pieces and blobs, shaping and integrating them with numerous finger strokes to create the tree trunk forms and other elements. He pushed blobs of clay down the bottom half of the back of the modello with his fingers, making no attempt to integrate or smooth them, creating a stable, flaring buttress (d). Projecting features outside the ‘footprint’ of the original core were clearly added, including the base enlargements, the left leg and 194

Fig. 275

foot, the head, arms, limbs of the cross, and the drapery. This modello must be considered therefore a completely additive work of sculpture. At some point in the initial process of assembly, the artist formed the neck

Fig. 276

Fig. 277

from either existing or added clay, and attached and roughly formed the head. The back of the sculpture also shows very clearly how the drapery surrounding the shoulders was added in two strips, joining at the neck (e). The artist used an armature consisting of two vertical rods to stabilize the figure and prevent the soft clay from slumping during modeling. These were probably made of metal, and extended upwards at an angle from the working platform into the lower back (Fig. 271) and the right hip (Fig. 272) of the modello. In general the artist shaped and refined the body predominantly (but

not exclusively) with the small toothed tool, and the drapery with the oval tip tool. The right leg was carved out of the existing mass of clay; the left leg was formed and attached. The feet, which he modeled with fingers and the oval tip tool, are elongated and are similar in shape and technical execution to others in this study (Fig. 273). He defined the toes with careful strokes of the oval tip tool used on edge, and then trimmed the smaller toes on the right foot to length with a diagonal stroke of the same tool. The arms were attached, modeled, and joined together with clasped hands, modeled with simplified forms from one mass of clay. The somewhat surprising lack of detail of the hands is also a characteristic of the hands of the Charity of St. Thomas figures, and those of the Martyrdom of St. Eustace. In each, only frontally visible areas are detailed, and excess clay has been left behind the hands for reinforcement. He established the shape and angle of the head, and as he modeled and refined the features, he formed and attached small bits of clay to create the beard and head hair, detailing these areas with a small oval tip tool and small toothed tool (Fig. 274). He formed the drapery from separate pieces of clay and dressed the torso, shaping and integrating each area with small and medium oval tip tools (Fig. 275). The profile of this tool has been captured in the clay (Fig. 276). Gaps and shrinkage cracks at the points of attachment between drapery and skin illustrate this process (Fig. 277). Probably towards the end of the modeling, he attached and modeled the projecting (and therefore fragile) upper tree limbs, and partially excavated the lower left tree limb from the buttress clay with a fine toothed tool. Finally, he lightly smoothed just a few areas, mainly those representing skin, with a brush. The

Fig. 276 Tool profile captured in the clay Fig. 277 Gaps and shrinkage cracks illustrate attachment of drapery to body

195

Fig. 278

Fig. 278 Front The figure positioned over the left edge of the base Fig. 279 Note overall toothed tool finish on lower surfaces, and widespread shrinkage cracking

Fig. 279

tooled facture of the clay is still visible everywhere, and contributes to the freshness and vitality of the bozzetto.

8. St. John the Baptist Melchiorre CafĂ Museo di Palazzo di Venezia Inv.10355 Condition: The left arm is missing from below the elbow. The right has joins above the elbow, and below the shoulder. The right hand is missing. The head is 196

broken and reattached at the neck, and a shallow area of the surface is missing below the break that includes much of the back of the left shoulder. The hair in this area is also missing. The adhesive used to reattach the broken elements is dark brown, possibly shellac or animal glue. There is a loss to the trailing edge of the drapery under the left elbow. There are numerous large and smaller shrinkage cracks throughout the figure. The surfaces have a dark brown overall patina/coating which covers remnants of an incompletely removed dark green paint or coating. The composition of the brown coating is uncertain, but may be

a resin or tinted wax layer. No remnants of a gilding layer were seen. Remnants of a red pigmented coating were found between the front legs of the sheep, the front upper half and left side of the base, and around the right foot. An inventory number is painted in white paint on the drapery over the right thigh. The number, ‘102’, is barely visible under the patina/coatings.13 Tools used: Small oval tip tool, small fine toothed tool, and medium fine toothed tool. Fingerprints: Many fragmentary prints were found, but none complete enough for comparison. General Impressions: This is a modello of very high quality, brought to a very high level of finish (Fig. 278). The back is somewhat simplified and less finished, the lower half textured with a fine toothed tool. Unusual for a modello of this size, it has not been hollowed to prevent uneven shrinkage and cracking during drying and firing, and there are numerous such cracks throughout (Fig. 279). Technical Observations: The saint stands on a square base, the sides of which have been textured with a toothed modeling tool. Curiously, this texture was applied after the artist carefully smoothed the sides. A continuous line was then drawn into the front and sides using a tool with a rounded tip. Close examination of this line reveals that it is actually a scale (Fig. 280). The lower edge of the line has an applied mark in the center of the base, and there are eight evenly spaced shallow ‘dots’ impressed into the middle of the line with a fine pointed tool. Interestingly, no other marks or impressions from the use of this scale were found on the figure, suggesting that such marks were filled and smoothed before the clay completely

Fig. 280 Scale: the line has an applied mark in the center lower edge (arrow), and eight evenly spaced shallow ‘dots’ in the middle

Fig. 280

Fig. 281 gaps revealing the joining of the clay to the body (arrow), use of the toothed tool and small oval tip tool

Fig. 281

hardened, or that any use of the scale to record and transfer measurements was done post-firing. Examination of the bottom of the base reveals clearly that a central column or mass of clay was prepared and used to form the basis of the figure (see Fig. 282). At some point in the modeling process, the base was enlarged with additions of clay that shifted and slightly rotated the position of the figure relative to the front of the base. The artist enlarged the front of the base (b), and increased fully 1/3 again its width by adding clay to the right side (c). The large shrinkage crack visible in the back and top of the base signals this attachment through these finished surfaces. This addition was made early in the formation of the stance of the figure, to accommodate the right leg and foot. At the same time, clay was removed from the left side of the base. Viewed from the front (see Fig. 278), one can clearly see that the central mass of the figure is shifted to the far left edge of the base, allowing the lower right leg to form a strong diagonal compositional element

Fig. 282

Fig. 282 Central core of clay (a) with additions to front (b), and right side (c).

197

Fig. 283 Less finished area of drapery over shoulder Fig. 284 Loss reveals drapery placement sketched first with the toothed tool before modeling Fig. 285 Less completed on back Fig. 286 Right foot, elongated and completely rendered Fig. 287 Left foot Note traces of red pigment on base

Fig. 283

Fig. 286

Fig. 287

Fig. 284

Fig. 285

198

echoing the diagonal sweep of the rear drapery. These changes during the modeling process also rotated the figure slightly counter clockwise on the base and increased the overall dynamism of the now, less static figure. Even the sheep is forced to lean out over the left edge of the base, regarding the viewer with a perplexed expression and echoing the diagonals of the drapery and leg. Generally, the elements that project outside the footprint of the original core, including the enlargements to the base, the right leg and foot, the chest and head of the sheep, the arms, drapery, and possibly the head, were all attached, making this a completely additive work. The artist attached the animal skin drapery and then textured it, as can be seen in this photo (Fig. 281), where there are slight gaps revealing the joining of the clay to the body. He rendered the textures of the animal skin first with a small toothed tool, into which he used a small oval tipped tool irregularly, and at different angles to create deeper, more random effects. Some of these marks were simple stabbing strokes with this

Fig. 288 Remarkable quality of head. Note three faceted shape of forehead Fig. 288

tool, a technique we have encountered elsewhere in CafĂ â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s oeuvre. Another view of the drapery over the left shoulder looking down (Fig. 283) shows the use of these tools and the distribution of these marks in a less-completed area. A loss to the smooth drapery on the back of the figure (Fig. 284) reveals that the drapery placement was sketched first with the toothed tool before the

application of the clay, both establishing the drapery design and imparting a texture to help join the clay. Because the clay was not well adhered, this area became detached, providing us with an interesting example of the sculptor sketching the design in one dimension before modeling it. The head is a small, perfectly modeled gem (Fig. 288). The expressive qualities 199

9. The Charity of St. Thomas Melchiorre CafĂ National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta INV 347

Fig. 289 Lamb detailed using the same tools and techniques as those for the sheep-skin drapery

Fig. 290

Fig. 290 Proposed design of modeling platform with removable arch, based on wood-grain impressions in clay Fig. 291 Charity of St Thomas, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta

200

Fig. 289

are astonishing. The smallest details are rendered, including the deeply impressed pupils. That the artist used a toothed tool in the early stages is evidenced by its use in the hair. After this he modeled it, at least in the finishing stages, almost entirely with a small oval tipped tool. Some of the locks of hair, modeled in high relief, show evidence of being attached. The back of the head has not been brought to the same level of finish as the frontal areas (Fig. 285), and therefore one can still see the small commas of added clay shaped and detailed with overlapping strokes of the oval tip tool. The features of the face, after rendering with tools, were smoothed with a small brush, but carefully, to avoid over softening of the forms and details. Such brush smoothing is also visible on the skin areas of the arms and legs. The feet and toes are elegant and elongated, the toes completely modeled and toenails carefully delineated (Figs 286 and 287). The lamb was formed and detailed using the same tools and techniques as those the artist used for the sheep-skin drapery; a fine toothed tool texture punctuated with deeper, larger curls drawn with the small oval tip tool (Fig. 289).

Condition: The terracotta surface has an overall brown patina from age and handling, possibly also a result of an application of tinted wax. There are also remnants of a somewhat opaque gray-white coating in low relief areas overall, possibly blanched wax. These areas are stained with a mold-like organic material, possibly linked to the composition of the whitish coating. The seated child is missing both feet at the ankles, and his left hand from

Fig. 291

Fig. 293

Fig. 292

the elbow. The child in the arms of the woman is missing his left hand and arm at the elbow. There is a repaired break in the outside edge of the drapery of the woman behind her knees. The top and underside of the left corner of the plinth, or step, are chipped. Fingerprints: Numerous fingerprints were found, especially on the back and sides of the composition. Unfortunately, all were either obscured by deposits of coating and soiling materials, or were fragmentary or so distorted as to be unusable for comparison. General Impressions: This is a highly finished modello, of very high quality. The clay massing and assembly of components reflects a very organized and systematic approach to modeling. The work of the artist from the earliest stages of massing of the

Fig. 294

clay, the sequence of assembly, and final finishing can be clearly read from its front and back surfaces. Only intended to be seen from the front, the sides and back of the modello are completely unfinished to an unusual degree. The removal of excess clay from the back and base has revealed further information (Fig. 292).14

Fig. 292 Removal of excess clay from the back Fig. 293 Impression from assembled wood of modeling platform in clay shows board width, grain direction, and lip of clay formed over front edge (arrow) Fig. 294 Back edge of clay base: note vertical wood-grain impression from back of modeling platform

Technical Observations: Wood-grain impressions in the underside and back of the sculpture base give evidence that an ‘L’ shaped working platfor m was constructed of wood (Fig. 290). The flat part of the ‘L’ was constructed of two or more boards, their grain running parallel to the front edge of the composition (Fig. 293). In this photo, the board width and grain direction can be read. The upright back 201

Fig. 295 Stacking of clay sheets to build the base from the left… Fig. 296 … and right sides. Arrow shows vertical wood impression in front edge from arch Fig. 297 Shrinkage cracks and incompletely compacted layers revealed by hollowing Fig. 298 Hollowing at right shoulder reveals attachment of right arm to core

Fig. 295

Fig. 297

Fig. 296

Fig. 298

of the wood ‘L’ has left a wood-grain impression in the back edge of the sculpture base (Fig. 294). Such a platform would have supported the soft clay during modeling and assembly, and provided a safe means to move it around the studio from table to shelf. The completed modello was removed from it only when the sculpture was dried sufficiently to be leather-hard and safely handled. At that time the excess clay was carved away from the back of the base and figure with a wood carving gouge to prevent cracks forming from uneven shrinkage of thicker and thinner masses of clay as it dried completely. On the modeling platform, the sculptor applied the first or bottom layer of clay to form both the rectangular base and front step for the other figures. This is evident as the handfuls of clay assembled to form the first layer span the whole bottom surface of the sculpture. The small lip of clay (see Fig. 293) impressed by the front edge of the wood platform confirms that the platform was made uniquely for this piece, as the overall depth of the assembled wood was only slightly less than the sculpture itself. 202

The photos of both the left side of the base (Fig. 295), and the right side (Fig. 296), reveal that it was built up with a very regular stacking or layering of rectangular sheets of clay. This is clearly visible in the gaps that were left in the incompletely integrated and smoothed outer surface, and the shrinkage cracks that for med between layers during drying. Visible in these photos is the imprint of what I suggest was another element of the artist’s modeling platform: a detachable wood arch that defined the space within the niche in the church of S. Agostino (Fig. 301) for which the sculpture was designed. Close scrutiny of the front edges of the clay base on both sides reveals a vertical wood-grain impression, from the edges of such an arch. The companion wood-grain impression from the front of the arch is found in the back of the step, on the right side. Such an arch, constructed following the dimension of the niche, would have been invaluable as a template to assess and measure the ‘fit’ of the figures within and in front of the space. It also would

have allowed the artist to complete the modello, attaching the putti, banners, and other decorative elements to the arch as seen in the engraving made from this modello15 (Fig. 21), which follows its design very accurately. It is likely that this arch was made easily removable, so as not to interfere with the modeling. Cafà modeled the base and step apart from the central figure of St. Thomas, the woman, and the children. Examination of the central figure from the sides and back reveal that it was hollowed with a carving gouge after completion of modeling (Fig. 292). The inner surfaces reveal a pattern of shrinkage cracks and incompletely compacted layers (Fig. 297) that suggest that the torso, from feet to shoulders, was formed over a core of either spiral-wedged clay, or a series of

Fig. 300 Mitre constructed from small overlapping pieces of clay

Fig. 300

built up layers, or strips of clay, stacked front to back. The latter is of course how the base was formed as well. Seen from the back, the deeply excavated area under the right shoulder

Fig. 301

Fig. 299 Drapery clay added over core, mainly from the front Fig. 301 Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, marble, executed by Melchiorre Cafà and Ercole Ferrata, Sant’ Agostino, Rome Fig. 299

203

Fig. 302 The features are modeled with great delicacy, the three faceted shape of the forehead is emphasized by small gaps under the edges of the mitre Fig. 303 Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, marble (detail), executed by Melchiorre Cafà, Sant’Agostino, Rome Fig. 304 View from side, showing flatness of St Thomas. Note how all work has been carried out from the front and sides of the figure

204

Fig. 302

Fig. 303

has uncovered the interior join of the right arm to the clay core (Fig. 298). The artist then ‘dressed’ the central core with successive applications of clay in sheets, strips, and smaller blobs. Many layers were applied to form the contours of the body and mantle; from the sides and back the lack of integration and finish allow a visualization of the process (Fig. 299). Fine toothed tool-marks remain in some of the drapery contours indicating the artist used this tool in part to shape the drapery before smoothing. The saint’s undergar ments and the hair of the woman and children were all given final textures with this tool. The head, mitre, and other elements were added at this time. As the modeling of the head was refined, the mitre was built up from a number of clay sheets (Fig. 300). The face of the saint is sensitively modeled, and displays the forehead divided into three facets seen so often on Cafà’s oeuvre, emphasized by small gaps under the edges of the mitre (Fig. 302). The stylistic and expressive similarity of the face to that of the completed marble in S. Agostino, Rome is startling (Fig. 303). I think it likely that the artist built and modeled the figure of St. Thomas against a flat platfor m rather than

freestanding. This is suggested by the lack of roundness and depth when viewed from the side (Fig. 304), and the observation that most of the modeling work on the sides of the figure is made up of front-to-back and top to

Fig. 304

bottom clay applications (see Fig. 299). The figure might therefore have been modeled against the same ‘L’ shaped modeling platform, the layers of clay forming the core stacked against the vertical back surface. Surplus clay that held the figure slightly away from the wood support in back would have been removed when the back was hollowed, thus also removing the wood-grain imprint from the back – which might

Fig. 305

Fig. 307

Fig. 306

have provided evidence to confirm this hypothesis. Having modeled the St. Thomas and the rectangular base and front ‘step’, Cafà textured the top surface of the base with a fine toothed tool and attached the figure (Fig. 305). This sequence can be read, as the bottom edges of the figure cover the toothed textures in the top of the base (a). Finger-fulls of clay applied as fillets join the Saint and the female figure to base (b). He modeled the woman and children from numerous small pieces of clay, probably around a central core. Images

Fig. 305 Left rear corner: St Thomas attached over toothed textures of base (a), with clay added to secure both figures (b) Fig. 306 Woman’s figure, left, and St Thomas, completely unfinished from the back Fig. 307 Brush smoothed skin, toothed tool-marks in hair. Hands glove-like and only partially modeled

205

an adhesive, revealed where the right leg of the seated child has broken at the edge (Fig. 309).

10. St. Andrew Avellino Melchiorre CafĂ Private Collection, Rome (Martinelli) Condition: The upper third of the chest is restored descending from the collar and spanning the shoulders. On the back the fill descends to the top of the

Fig. 308

Fig. 308 Hands well shaped but only complete from frontal angle--her fingers are not rendered Fig. 309 Figures attached to step with clay slip, visible at break in childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leg Fig. 310 Front view

Fig. 309

of her completely unfinished back show these interior elements were then covered with clay to create the hair and drapery and to enlarge the forms (Fig. 306). The drapery and skin of the figures have been brought to a very high level of finish on the front, with most, but not all toolmarks effaced and smoothed. The artist likely used a soft brush, dampened with water (Fig. 307). Evidence of tool use is still visible on areas such as the textured architecture of the plinth, and in those areas of hair and clothing purposefully given texture with the toothed modeling tool. The left hands of St. Thomas and the woman are more fully rendered, while the right hands are not completed at the level one would expect (Fig. 308). The hands of the children are more suggested than modeled, glove-like and without fingers. Finally, the other f i gu res were attached to the ledge, with clay slip as 206

Fig. 310

hollowing aperture, and on the right side extends down to approximately the elbow level. The left front outer collar is restored. Other restored areas include the foreground of the base, lower drapery edges, and the left foot. A larger triangular section at the left rear corner of the figure is also a restoration. There are scattered smaller clay losses in the drapery, including portions of the right sleeve. The right hand and the tip of the nose are restored. There are several layers of surface coatings on the modello. These include remnants of paint, toning layers, and gilding.

Fig. 311 Back View Fig. 312

Fig. 312 Bottom

Tools used: Fine toothed tool in the drapery and hair, medium toothed tool to hollow the interior. Small oval tip tool used in the face and elsewhere. Fingerprints: None recorded. General Impressions: This modello is brought to a high level of completion and finish, and due to the extensive and careful hollowing was undoubtedly created as a presentation model. The fact that frontal areas were brought to a higher level of finish than elsewhere suggests that the work was intended to be seen frontally, in a niche. The considerable restorations and multiplicity of surface coatings obscure many technical details (Fig. 310).

Fig. 311

Technical Observations: The bottom of the base is largely hidden by restoration materials and labels, and its surface area is reduced by hollowing to the extent that it offers little evidence of how the clay was initially massed or assembled. There is a possibility that clay was added to extend the right edge of the base, but this could not be confirmed (Fig. 312). Because the modello was carefully hollowed from the back with a toothed tool, a network of shrinkage cracks and clay assembly joins are visible, but they form no meaningful pattern that might help to describe the initial assembly of the clay (Fig. 311). That the head was hollowed also was certain, as it is pierced 207

Fig. 313 Side under L hand: Earliest dark brown paint (a), Gilding (b) Fig. 314

Fig. 314 Extensive use of fine toothed tool on back Fig. 315 Brush and finger smoothing patterns, toothed tool-marks in hollows Fig. 313

from the top by a small hole. The means of hollowing it is not clear, but it appears possible that the head was added â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a hypothesis that could be confirmed with x-radiography. We are compelled to turn to the outer clay surfaces of the modello to look for information that might help us understand the working methods of the sculptor. These are somewhat obscured with restoration materials and coatings, limiting the ability to see the facture of the clay and evidence of its modeling. While a detailed analysis of the binding media, pigments and layering structure of these coatings is outside the scope of this essay, close visual examination allows the following observations. The earliest coating appears to have been a rather thick, opaque, black or dark brown paint, still visible in recesses despite widespread flaking loss (Fig. 313). This seems to have been painted all over the figure. Next a gilding layer was applied (b) over the remnants of the black layer; the remnants of this are visible in small

208

Fig. 315

areas throughout the figure. A bole preparation does not appear to have been used, therefore the gold leaf was probably attached over an oil size. There are traces of leaf and a red-pink color layer in the mouth of the saint (see Fig. 318), suggesting that at some point the areas representing skin were painted in a naturalistic polychromy. Sometime after these coatings, the major restorations were undertaken. The restoration fills

are painted in a burnt sienna color, while the rest of the figure, excepting the head, have been toned with a burnt sienna â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;glazeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to blend the original and restoration areas. A clear coating may then have been applied overall. Looking at the other bozzetti and modelli in this study, we have seen ample evidence that almost all of the drapery modeled on both has been applied, rather than sculpted out of a clay mass. Examining this modello, it is not at all clear that this is the case. Obscuring restorations and coatings aside, one reason may be that its very high level of final smoothing tends to hide such joins. Another is that the drapery design for this figure is relatively uncomplicated

and shallowly modeled in comparison with others, which lends itself to simpler and more direct subtractive rather than additive modeling. Certainly, some areas of the drapery were modeled and attached; the inner and outer collars of the robe could have been modeled in no other way. But even the larger serpentine folds descending from the clutch of the left hand, examined from underneath, do not display the characteristics of having been attached and modeled that are seen on the other terracotta sculpture in this study. The artist modeled the drapery with his fingers and a fine toothed tool, using a small oval tip tool in the smaller, tighter folds. The surfaces of the back of the

Fig. 316 Toothed tool marks remaining in drapery on front surfaces Fig. 317 Left hand engages the fabric, the fingers are rounded, knuckles dimpled, fingernails lightly evoked Fig. 318 Marks of fine toothed tool and oval tip tool still visible in the cheeks, hair and beard. Also note red paint and traces of gilding in mouth

Fig. 316

Fig. 317

Fig. 318

209

Fig. 319 Early shaping with toothed tool under neck, smoothed and refined above Fig. 319

modello retain much more tool-marks from the fine toothed tool (Fig. 314) than the front (Fig. 315). Finishing the work with his fingers and a brush, he spent more time smoothing the frontal surfaces than he did the rear. The toothed toolmarks that remain in the front are largely found in interstices and low relief areas (Fig. 316). He modeled the saint’s hand at the waist with long slender fingers that engage and gather the fabric, creating and directing the folds (Fig. 317). The pressing thumb forms the trough of one fold; another fold is held between the index and middle finger in a gesture that evokes a tactile response in the viewer. The fingers are carefully modeled to suggest roundness, their knuckles dimpled, fingernails lightly evoked. The head was modeled simply, and with attenuated details suggested rather than fully rendered (Fig. 318). Neither the pupil nor iris is rendered within the eyes, which were perhaps modeled to appear closed. The ears are simplified flat sketches, the right ear somewhat more realized than the left. The forehead is modeled with an attenuated but visible three-faceted shape, similar to that found on many other male heads in this study. As in the drapery, he did the initial shaping with the fine toothed tool, its marks still visible in the cheeks, hair and beard, and 210

then used a small blunted oval tip tool to model the features and to detail the hair and beard. The left side of the head shows the evolution of its formation, the early rough shaping with the toothed tool still visible in an area reaching from the neck below the chin to the back of head (Fig. 319, and compare with Fig. 274). Above, the artist has refined the surfaces somewhat, shaping with the oval tip tool and softening some surfaces with his finger tip. I found only slight traces of the use of a smoothing brush to soften, shape, or ‘clean up’ the features during my examination. The parallel, linear striations left by his fingerprints during smoothing were much more in evidence. A small, round hole was found at the crown of the head, made to vent gasses out of the hollowed interior to prevent breakage during firing. Another hole, more modern in appearance and for an unknown purpose, penetrates the back of the collar.

11. St. Rose of Lima Melchiorre Cafà Museo di Palazzo di Venezia, Rome Inv. 1210 Condition: When first examined, the terracotta had been coated in a modern transparent resin with an unpleasant, shiny appearance. This obscuring coating has now been removed by the author. The terracotta surfaces are somewhat worn, with fracturing and spalling to the surfaces and edges. This may be related to soluble salts contamination in the fabric of the clay, although there is no evidence of this now visible, such as a crystalline efflorescence. A sand-like material consisting of clear, white, and black grains is trapped in the interstices of modeling details and shrinkage cracks. It is

doubtful that this material is original. The dark brown patina of age and handling found in protected and undamaged areas, is uneven in appearance from wear and surface cleanings. No evidence of a previous paint layer or application of gilding was found. The angel which was a part of the composition is now missing, leaving several break surfaces at the points of attachment. There is a large loss of original clay at the back right lower edge of the base, under the right arm and drapery. There is evidence of fine scratching on the fired clay in some areas that can only be the result of a post-firing sanding or filing of the surface with a fine rasp. These scratches are found on the left arm (Fig. 321), the flat area behind the head, and elsewhere, and may be where break edges from the missing angel were reduced. Two penciled inscriptions were found: the number “1270” on the

back of the piece under the head, and a number and word on the bottom, difficult to read but possibly ‘castel 349’. Infra-red reflectography examination might reveal these inscriptions more accurately. Tools used: Small oval tip and medium and large toothed tool, smoothing brush and knife. Fingerprints: None encountered, due to the unusual care taken by the artist in smoothing, and the deterioration and wear of the surfaces.

Fig. 321

Fig. 321 Post-firing scratches found on left shoulder and elsewhere Fig. 320 Small head, elongated body, with stylized, angular folds

Fig. 320

211

surface textures are soft and ‘creamy’ in appearance. This smoothness may result from the intrinsic qualities of the particular variety of clay used, rather than an unusual level of brush smoothing by the artist after completing the modeling.

Fig. 322

Fig. 322 Initial central mass (a), with additions to enlarge base edges (b), and added sheet on back (c) Fig. 323 Toothed tool used to excavate back of head

Fig. 323

Fig. 324 Clay added to form the hair, cowl, and sleeve Missing angel attached left

Fig. 324

212

General Impressions: The composition has a stylized angular mode of representing the drapery folds (Fig. 320). The figure is elongated, with a small head. The extraordinary smoothness of the surface of this bozzetto makes it difficult to decode the process of modeling. Even the bottom

Technical Observations: Examination of the bottom reveals the initial massing of the clay, and shows that the sculptor began by assembling small handfuls of clay into a smaller, central mass (Fig. 322). As he worked he made additions to form the general shape of the composition, extending the footprint to accommodate the legs, drapery, and other elements (b), and adding a sheet of clay to enlarge the back (c). While some elements of the rocky support and figure were no doubt modeled directly from the original mass of clay, there is much evidence that the artist built the figure in an additive fashion, applying clay to form and shape many of the limbs and drapery areas. He used a toothed tool to excavate the head (Fig. 323), the toolmark and underlying technique similar to one found on the back of the Virgin’s head in the Fogg Museum’s Virgin and Child relief (see Fig. 234). He formed and shaped the arm (Fig. 324), and applied additional clay to form the hair, cowl, and sleeve. Gaps behind the drapery of the now-missing angel indicate that this figure was attached. He applied the drapery around and below the right arm, the joins clearly seen here from behind (Fig. 325) and below (Fig. 326). The extended left foot was attached, and draped with a thin sheet of clay (Fig. 327). The face was modeled with great subtlety, still visible despite damage and losses. Note the delicacy of the right eye (Fig. 328). The toes and fingers were defined with simple strokes of a sharp tipped modeling tool, the big toe terminated with a sharp diagonal, downward cut (Fig. 329). Such

Fig. 325 Join of attached drapery under right arm from behind … Fig. 326 … and below Fig. 327 Left foot draped with clay sheet Fig. 328 Unusual delicacy and finish in modeling the features, especially the right eye

Fig. 327

Fig. 329 Big toe trimmed with a diagonal, downward cut. Note fine incised layout lines at top of toes, and the four parallel marks lower right Fig. 330 Similar fine layout line at top of fingers Fig. 331 Outlining with the oval tipped tool. Note also plunging strokes; bottom center, and missing angel’s right leg at lower right

Fig. 325

Fig. 328

Fig. 326

Fig. 329

trimming to shape of toes with a sharp diagonal cut is also seen in the Apostle Andrew modello in the Hermitage (see Fig. 273) and the Personification of Silence (see Fig. 246). The artist made a series of short, fine lines, incised with the tip of a sharp knife between the toes of the left foot, on the front edge of the base (Fig. 329), and between the knuckles of the right hand (Fig. 330). These marks on the hand and foot, only 1 to 1.5 mm long, appear to be layout or guide marks to indicate the spacing of the fingers and toes. The purpose of the four parallel marks on the base, though similar in appearance, is unclear. It is curious that such marks

Fig. 330

Fig. 331

213

Fig. 332 Strip of clay added to cover previously modeled drapery fold

Fig. 332

were left visible, not obliterated by the overall smoothing of surfaces carried out at the end. The artist outlined the figure and drapery in several areas with the oval tip tool (Fig. 331). The right leg and foot of the missing angel are visible in the lower right corner of the image, as is the attachment point of its other, missing foot. Several of the plunging strokes from an oval tip tool found on the piece are also visible in this image. He revised a drapery passage in this area, adding a strip of clay to fill and cover a previously modeled fold that emerges from behind the remaining angelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leg (Fig. 332).

The attribute held in the saintâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s left hand, possibly a book, is missing. Portions of the serpentine drapery edge descending from the left hand are also missing. A repaired break circles the head, visible from the right cheek, through the mouth, and down to the left collar. The front corner of the left side of the base has a large chip loss. Tools used: Oval tip modeling tool, medium toothed tool, smoothing cloth and brush. No evidence was found of a scale or pointing/enlargement marks. Fingerprints: Several were found, but are either too fragmentary or obscured with paint to record for comparison.

12. Bishop Saint Melchiorre CafĂ Metropolitan Museum of Art 68.218

Fig. 333 Front view

214

Condition: The modello is covered with remnants of a least two off-white paint layers, which remain principally in the low relief areas. These paint layers cover a deep brown handling and soiling patina on the clay surface, and therefore are most likely not original. There are losses of original terracotta that include the left hand, forearm, and surrounding drapery, and the front right edge of the drapery from about 1.5 cm under the right hand to just above the ankle level.

Fig. 333

General Impressions: This is a highly finished, though rather small modello (Fig. 333). The clay is dense and fine grained. In comparison with the other clay models in this study, details have been somewhat attenuated and simplified. The level of smoothing, or cleaning up of tool-marks from the modeling process exceeds even the modello of the Charity of St. Thomas, Valletta. The back surfaces are only cursorily completed and finished to a much lower level than the front (Fig. 334).The Bishop Saint does not appear to have been hollowed, and therefore must have been assembled, dried and fired

carefully as very few shrinkage or firing cracks are visible. The absence of such cracks can also suggest an initial massing or formation of clay for the figure from a single, well wedged piece of clay. A steel loop has been attached to the back of the figure, seated in a bed of plaster of Paris. It is difficult to ascertain if this is original to the modello, but such loops are typically found on sculpture destined for niche locations. Viewed from the side, there is a certain flatness to the composition (Fig. 335) that is suggestive of a composition made to be seen from the front: within a niche for example. The cursory finish of the

Fig. 334 Back view Fig. 335 Side view Fig. 334

Fig. 335

215

Fig. 336 Excavated area on back, probably to remove a modeling stand. Tool use differs on each side Fig. 337 Base enlarged at (a) Fig. 338 Attachment of projecting drapery section under right hand

Fig. 336

Fig. 337

back of the figure with fingers and the medium toothed tool is interrupted by a triangular excavation into the center of the drape, created with two plunging, twisting strokes of a dull chisel-like tool (Fig. 336). Paint obscures a hole in the bottom of this curious feature. I believe it is evidence that a modeling stand was used to support the figure, which was removed afterwards. The deep, angular tool-marks in the back were made as the horizontal rod of the stand was pried out. This hypothesis is supported by the separation of the artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s marks in the clay to each side of this feature: smoothing with his fingers on the left, and with a toothed tool on the right. 216

Fig. 338

Technical Observations: That the artist built the figure over a central column or mass of clay seems indicated by examination of the bottom of the base (Fig. 337). At some point early in the modeling process, the base was enlarged with additions of clay to the right side and back corner (a) that increased its width by about one quarter. This was done early in the formation of the stance of the figure, to accommodate the extended right leg and foot. Later, clay was removed from the left side of the base, probably during the final tidying up and squaring off. Viewed from the front (see Fig. 333), one can clearly see that the central mass of the figure overhangs the left edge of the base, lengthening the diagonal sweep of the drapery from the lower right corner of the base to the upper left where it gathers at the waist. This long diagonal element contributes to the overall dynamism of the composition. The subtle contraposto of the upper body and shoulders is countered with the tilt of the figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s head and direction of his gaze, which echoes the angle of the lower drapery.

Fig. 340

Fig. 339 Strongly modeled face, but simplified and over smoothed. Crisp tool-marks in the beard were re-stated after smoothing Fig. 340 Right hand simplified, fingers squared off

Fig. 339

A close look into the interior of the drapery area under the right hand shows how the sheet of clay forming the outer drapery was attached to the inner garment with the fingertips and shaped with the oval tip tool (Fig. 338). The join would have been hidden if not for the losses to adjacent drapery clay, and the losses allow us to see how the drapery was applied. The clay is poorly integrated at the join, with gaps along the bottom edge where it attaches to the inner garment. While this area shows the attachment of clay to form drapery, it must be said that such evidence is less available than for other modelli in this study. The degree of ‘seamlessness’, the complete and careful smoothing and integration of this modello, far exceeds the Charity of St. Thomas in Malta, a work otherwise comparable in subject and level of surface finish. This may indicate that much of the work of this piece was more subtractive in nature than the St. Thomas and others. The edges of the drapery in general do not taper to a thin edge, as Keith Sciberras has pointed out can be found in other modelli

Fig. 341 Added fringe following incised guidelines

Fig. 341

attributed to Cafà, but are rather thicker and less delicate, somewhat ‘squared off’. The use of deep stabbing strokes to form recesses and create strong contrasts, another aspect of Cafà’s habitual use of modeling tools often found in bozzetti attributed to him, was not found on this figure, though many such areas are now obscured with paint. The face is modeled strongly, though with simplified details (Fig. 339). The prominent brow and cheeks create deep, shadowed eye sockets, the eyes only suggested by slight bulges. The forehead is gently rounded, and does not display the three faceted shape employed by Cafà on so many of the other male heads seen in this study. All evidence of tool use to model the face has been erased through the use of a soft smoothing brush, except for the beard, which is discussed below. The remaining hand, while well-proportioned, is less elongated 217

and simplified. The somewhat schematic, squared-off fingers show no effort to suggest details such as knuckles or fingernails (Fig. 340). Compare the hand with that of the St. Andrew Avellino (see Fig. 317). The artist added the fringe to the drape on the back of the figure by first drawing two lines along the edge with a small tool with a rounded, blunted tip (Fig. 341). The line closest to the edge (a) served as a guide from which he made a series of short, outward strokes to form the fringe. These strokes tail off at the bottom, leaving the undecorated guideline visible. In comparison to the highly specific and carefully rendered fringe on the sheep-skin drapery of the modello of St. John in the Palazzo di Venezia (see Fig. 281), the fringe on this modello is coarser and more simplified. The final finishing steps of this figure are noteworthy in that after the final smoothing of broader areas with a cloth wrapped finger and soft brush, the sculptor returned to work with the oval tip modeling tool to freshen and re-state tool-marks in certain areas, including the drapery and curls of the beard (Fig. 339). The degree of surface smoothing, attenuation of details, and elimination by the artist of most of the evidence of the sculpting of this modello have little in common with the other modelli in this study. The modeling of the features of the head and hand, while very well executed, are also generalized and do not follow the stylistic and technical aspects we have seen on other modelli by CafĂ . This terracotta has marked similarities of design and composition to a fragmentary modello of San Remigio Vescovo in the Pinacoteca Nazionale, Sienna, which has been attributed by Monica Butzek to Giuseppe Mazzuoli.16

The Alexander VII Bust 13. Alexander VII Melchiorre CafĂ Palazzo Chigi, Arricia Condition: The bust has been badly broken and reassembled, with restored losses of the head, the right and left collar, and extensive restored losses of the right and left sides of the cape. Several filled firing cracks were noted. The head has been reconstructed from many pieces, and includes joins crossing the face from the right temple, across the nose where there is also a small loss on the bridge, above the left eye, and back up to the left temple. Another join begins at the back of the right cheek and travels around under the nose, past the right side moustache tip which has been replaced, continuing to the right ear. Traces of a white coating remain in low relief areas, along with remnants of an

Fig. 342 Front view Fig. 342

218

Fig. 343

Fig. 344

earlier dark toned varnish.17 The white coating may have been applied overall, to imitate the appearance of a work in marble. There are areas of recent toning and inpainting. Tools used: Large and fine toothed tool. Medium oval tip tool. No clear measuring or pointing marks were found. Fingerprints: Several found, but none complete enough for comparison. Technical Observations: The early stages of the clay massing and modeling are hard to assess because of the quantity of obscuring restoration materials, and also because the bust could not be moved to allow examination of the back and undersides. The top of the head and the undecorated stole behind the peak of the left shoulder show the use of a large toothed tool for shaping, fairly early in the modeling process (Fig. 343). The clay from which the stole and cape are made is notable for its rough texture and inclusions, in particular that it was mixed with crushed straw or some other organic matter. This material has

burned out during firing, leaving the surface of the cape uniformly textured and pitted with largely rectangularshaped holes (Fig. 344). The clay of the camaura, or hat, face and beard is of a different quality, where a smooth, more refined clay was used showing almost no inclusions. The clay of the camaura, however, has a peeling, flaking texture in some areas. This suggests that perhaps the same, rough-textured clay was used throughout the modello, and in the latter stages the artist applied a fine, smoother clay layer, possibly in slip form, to the head and camaura. The artist modeled the skin, beard and moustache very precisely, extensively smoothing the surfaces and drawing the hair in a careful, linear manner, largely effacing the tool-marks in the smooth clay. The modeling is almost simplified, schematic. The eyes are large, their pupils and iris drawn as simple arcs in the clay (Fig. 345). The forehead and nose are modeled with a small oval tip

Fig. 343 Top of left shoulder with earlier underlying toothed tool-marks Fig. 344 Rough, pitted clay texture on stole Fig. 345 Highly finished surfaces, somewhat simplified representation of eyes and other features

Fig. 345

219

Fig. 346 Gaps visible under edge of applied moustache clay Fig. 347 Fur trimming the biretta detailed with oval tipped and toothed tools, joined to forehead with oval tip tool-strokes Fig. 349 Break line signaling possible join from hollowing of head Fig. 350 Clay loss at join, or gap left behind head to vent gasses

Fig. 348 Low relief decoration of the stole; excavating and adding moist clay to model the oak leaves with fingers and oval tipped tool

Fig. 266

220

Fig. 346

Fig. 347

Fig. 349

Fig. 350

tool, the lines of the face descending from the eyes in sweeping curves that collect in the jowls and chin. The moustache was applied to the face and detailed and integrated with an oval tipped modeling tool (Fig. 346). The face was then smoothed and textured with a brush, as the bristles appear quite stiff and have made crisp lines in the clay. These highly refined techniques used on the head contrast sharply with the sketchy, cursory modeling and rough clay textures of the cape and stole. It can only be assumed that the artist chose these materials with

their contrasting textures deliberately, to further enhance his sculptural intentions. The surface textures in the clay may therefore be an analog for the differing levels of texture and polish given to a bronze or marble bust to represent various materials.18â&#x20AC;&#x2030; There appears to be a clay join around the head following the lower edge of the camaura. It is now manifest as a break line through and behind the right ear (Fig. 349), and behind the head. The head was most likely wire-cut to open it approximately along the line of the camaura, hollowed, and re-closed. There are losses to this break-line, and a one to two cm. long gap is visible at the back of the head (Fig. 350). This rectangular hole between camaura and head at the back, while possibly a breakage loss, may have been left open intentionally to vent firing gases. The fur trimming the camaura would have served both to conceal and reinforce the join (Fig. 347). The clay was probably rolled out between the hands into rope-like form, and applied. The artist first cross-hatched the fur textures into the rolled clay with a toothed tool,

then used a smaller, oval tipped tool, making strokes along the bottom edge to integrate the fur trim with the skin. He added strips of clay to the cape to form the stole, and executed the low relief decoration, partially excavating, partially adding clay to model the oak leaves, branches and acorns, and the sun and mountain symbols of the Chigi family. He modeled these elements with his fingers and a medium oval tipped tool in very moist, plastic clay (Fig. 348). The parallel hatching textures of the ground between the elements resemble those created with a toothed tool, but these he sketched individually, after the modeling of the decorations (Fig. 351). The lines drawn in the beginning along each stole edge appear to have been restated at the end, as they overlap all others. The surfaces of the back and undersides of the bust are obscured with copious amounts of plaster of Paris, used as a reinforcement to the reconstruction during restoration. Some of the plaster has been tinted a terracotta color. Through some gaps in the plaster it appears that a broad, flat chisel like tool was used to thin the drapery and remove excess clay at the completion of modeling. At the drying stage approaching leather-hardness, a large, coarse bristled brush probably resembling a whiskbroom, was used in a generalized, ‘painterly’ fashion over the entire bust to smooth surfaces, soften edges, and remove clay ‘crumbs’. The deep, multidirectional scratch lines from the brush are visible throughout the sculpture, even on previously highly finished and carefully smoothed areas like the face. It seems to have been used as a last, brisk finishing step. The star on the left side of the stole (Fig. 352) bears evidence of this tool used in a multi-directional fashion. The scratches from this brush are also found on the forehead between

Fig. 351 Adding clay to model the oak leaves, branches, acorns, sun and mountain symbols of the Chigi family. The parallel hatch-lines were individually drawn Fig. 352 Coarse, multidirectional scratches on star

Fig. 351

Fig. 352

the eyes, nose, left cheek (Fig. 353), and throughout the drapery. It is unusual to find such a coarse tool used so generally as a finishing step, as it blurs details indiscriminately, blunts the crisp edges of tool-marks and leaves fairly deep scratches in the clay surface. It suggests a rather cursory attitude toward the final appearance of the sculpture, one more in keeping with the production of a sketch in which the artist had little investment rather than his usual carefully calculated finish. The sculptural surfaces of this modello have in consequence a rather 221

Summary of the Technical Examinations

Fig. 353

Fig. 353 Deep, multidirectional scratch lines from stiff brush visible on previously highly finished and smoothed areas like the face

222

generalized, muted appearance. We have seen in the other bozzetti and modelli in this study that Cafà carefully avoided an over-smoothed, over-finished appearance, and while he certainly finger or brush smoothed selected areas, he always allowed his tool-marks to contribute crispness and vivacity to the work. Perhaps this final step was the work of an assistant?19

I have divided the thirteen terracotta sculptures examined in this study into groups of similar type. I have found it helpful to consider them this way, as it is instructive to examine how the artist has solved the particular technical problems of each genre, and there is a greater likelihood of finding similar passages to compare with one another. Relief sculpture for ms the largest group, and includes the Martyrdom of St. Eustace in the Museo Nazionale di Palazzo di Venezia and its two ‘sezione’, or sections, in the Museo di Roma and the Museo Nazionale di Castel S. Angelo. I begin with the largest, the St. Eustace in the Palazzo di Venezia. As the most complex, it contains the most information of a technical nature, and its secure attribution makes it ideal to serve as a basis for comparison with the two smaller St. Eustace sections. I then turn to the Personification of Silence and the Virgin and Child, both of the Fogg Art Museum. Although the former has been convincingly attributed to Cafà by Jennifer Montagu, the latter is currently without attribution, and I will explain why I feel it is very likely that Cafà modeled this piece. The Angel from the Altar of St. Thomas of Villanova from the Museo di Roma will be considered a relief sculpture for pur poses of comparison, as it was modeled as one would a relief, and I will discuss what links these works from a technical point of view. The next group, the freestanding figures or groups, are all similar in scale and thus offer many aspects of their construction and modeling for comparison, both with each other, and with the relief sculpture. They include the St. John and the St. Rose of Lima in the Museo Nazionale di Palazzo di

Venezia, Rome; the Apostle Andrew in the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg; the Charity of St. Thomas of Villanova in the National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta; the Bishop Saint in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; and the St. Andrew Avellino, private collection, Rome. While many of these are of secure attribution, the latter two are perhaps less so, and I will address these questions. Finally I will discuss the bust of Alexander VII from the Palazzo Chigi, Arricia, as a separate, unique type, as there are not others with which to make comparative judgments. The Relief Sculpture: The three versions of the Martyrdom of St. Eustace relief share much in their technical genesis, and I have no doubt were modeled by the same sculptor, Melchiorre Cafà. Damage and losses have effectively revealed that the assembly of the backing clay and the sequence and methods of forming and modeling of the two smaller ‘sections’ sculpture agree with each other completely. While it was not possible to remove the Martyrdom of St. Eustace relief in the Palazzo di Venezia from its wood backing, it is likely that this relief shares these methods of assembly of the relief slab. The modeling techniques visible from the front are identical. These include the assembly of clay onto the surface of the relief to form all of the low and high relief elements; virtually nothing was modeled out of the clay of the slab itself. Thus they all share a completely additive approach to modeling, in which the high relief figures are systematically built, attached, dressed in drapery, and detailed with small clay additions. Each relief is expressive of having been modeled rapidly, with calligraphic drawing into the surfaces, and a minimum of finish smoothing – although it must also be said that each displays a slightly different

level of finish. The Museo di Roma work displays the least smoothing, while the Palazzo Venezia version seems somewhat closer to the idea of a modello than the others, bearing evidence of having been smoothed with a bristle brush, albeit in a very loose, painterly fashion. In all three, the freshness imparted by the activity of modeling has been maintained, regardless of their individual level of finish smoothing. The clay was extremely moist and plastic throughout the modeling process, and the many visible tool-marks show torn and raised edges of displaced clay. The types of tools used, and the manner with which they were employed are other areas where all three works strongly agree. The oval tip tool was used frequently, both to sketch linear designs and outline forms, and to create recesses and dark contrasts throughout with deep stabbing strokes. I have found these deep, often vertical strokes made most often with an oval tool but also with the toothed tool on many of the works in this study, and have come to recognize them to be a characteristic modeling habit of Cafà (see Fig. 194). Another is his habitual brisk, calligraphic sketching of low relief design and outlining of forms, which can be seen in the depiction of the heads of the crowd (see figs 200 and 208), the rendering of trees (see Fig. 193), plants (see Fig. 224) and clouds (see Fig. 217). I have also found evidence on the Castel S. Angelo relief that suggests that he may have made a preliminary sketch of the composition on the smoothed blank clay surface before beginning to add and model the forms (see Fig. 223). T h e s e s k e t ch i n g a n d s t a b b i n g techniques link the Virgin and Child relief in the Fogg Art Museum to the St. Eustace group. While the Virgin and Child relief is certainly a looser, more schematic, and much more rapidly executed bozzetto than the more completed and finished St. Eustace panels, they all share an exuberance in execution and a reliance 223

on g raphic, callig raphic modeling techniques. Sharing the linear sketching and the vertical stabbing techniques found with both oval and toothed tools (see Fig. 232), the Virgin and Child relief also contains indications suggesting that its author may have executed a sketch of the composition into the oval slab before beginning to model the forms (see Fig. 236). The cloud forms are added rather than formed from the underlying clay, both simple smears of clay, and the larger, thicker masses. The simplified attached heads and extensive outlining of this piece find their close analogs in the heads of the crowd scenes on the railing of the arena of the Martyrdom of St. Eustace in the Palazzo di Venezia and elsewhere. The use of simple, plunging tool-marks to describe deep folds and recesses with both oval and toothed tools, and the calligraphic sketching with the oval tip tool are ubiquitous in both models. The manner with which the toothed tool was used to trim and integrate the back of the Virgin’s head (see Fig. 234) has its analog in the St. Rose of Lima (see Fig. 323), where the same gesture with the same tool to accomplish the same function, has been employed. There are other stylistic similarities to the St. Rose, including the flattened, somewhat angular character of the drapery and attenuated details, and outlining of forms, although clearly the St. Rose is a much more highly finished and smoothed work. The way the heads are rendered, the Virgin’s dressed with added clay to form veil and hair also have their analog in similar passages found in the Martyrdom of St. Eustace panels in the Palazzo di Venezia and the Museo di Roma, and the St. Rose of Lima in the Palazzo di Venezia. On the other hand, the other relief studies, with the possible exception of the Personification of Silence, have 224

overall a more volumetric, high relief character than this relief. The extremely flat, simplified modeling of the forms has little in common with the other works in this study except, perhaps, the St. Rose of Lima. And while the other relief sculpture display a propensity towards linear, graphic drawing, none approach the attenuation of detail or employ graphic devices to the extent that this relief does. Considering these points within the limitations of this initial technical study of Cafà’s works, the preponderance of technical similarities make me consider it likely that this a work by Cafà. If so, the relief represents another class of his work altogether – a sketch model of such rapid formation and attenuated detail as to resemble such works by Bernini and Canova at their most fluid. The Personification of Silence relief in the Fogg Art Museum also shares certain of these modeling techniques. These include the additive modeling of the figure onto the slab, and the systematic application and modeling of drapery. Of note also are similarities with which the artist modeled anatomical features to the freestanding figures I will discuss later, which include the elongated feet, the toes marked out and trimmed to length with a characteristic, diagonal slice (see Fig. 246). The application of the hair, and the shaping of the forehead into three well defined facets, flat in the center, receding on each side to the temple (see Fig. 247) are also found often in other works in this study, including the St. John in the Palazzo di Venezia (see Fig. 288), the Apostle Andrew in the State Hermitage Museum (see Fig. 274), and the Charity of St. Thomas of Villanova (see Fig. 302). This formation is more attenuated but also present on the St. Andrew Avellino modello (see Fig. 318). The level of completion and finish smoothing is also similar in

intention to other relief sculpture in this group. Other elements I have found and discussed are less in evidence; there are a minimum of calligraphic marks and outlining, and clear, but somewhat less use of the toothed and oval tool in a impressed, or stabbing manner. There is also an anatomical awkwardness to the pose and a certain lack of fluidity or ‘stiffness’ in the design and modeling of the drapery, which differs in several details from the finished stucco . Nevertheless, I see no reason to doubt its attribution to Cafà. The last to be considered among the relief sculpture is the Angel for the Altar of the Charity of St. Thomas. Though fully modeled in the round, it was built against a wood support as were the three St. Eustace relief bozzetti, with which it has many aspects in common. Despite the overall ‘re-finishing’ of the surfaces with clay slip before firing, the technical methods of clay assembly, modeling, attachment of drapery, use of tools, and level of finish all correspond with great similarity to those angels, putti and larger figures attached to the Martyrdom of St. Eustace relief sculptures in the Palazzo di Venezia, and the sections in the Museo di Castel S. Angelo and the Museo di Roma. In particular, the method of modeling the drapery, and the use of the oval tip tool with plunging, vertical strokes should be noted (see Fig. 263). Its design corresponds closely with the finished marble in S. Agostino, and the incised scale and measuring marks were clearly used to guide its enlargement to a ‘modello in grande’, or to the completed marble (see Fig. 259). Freestanding Figures and Groups: T he A postle Andrew and the St. John modelli share many technical characteristics. They are both of very high quality, with great particularity

given to the formation of features and details. The energy of their modeling has not been refined away through over-smoothing of the surfaces, which are active with the tool-marks and textures left as the artist worked the clay. They were both modeled from a vertical column of clay, revealed through examination of the bases, and neither was hollowed. The bases of both were enlarged to the side as the sculptor formed the pose of the figure in a similar way, and the modeling of both was entirely additive. The sculptor composed each modello very methodically, establishing the overall posture, building the elements of the figure neatly and carefully, adding drapery, shaping, smoothing and applying finishing textures. The back surfaces of both were not completely finished: the Apostle Andrew to the extent that the top is open and excess buttress clay was allowed to remain at the bottom (see Fig. 270). The lower half of the back of the St. John is finished with generalized forms, and textured overall with a fine toothed tool (see Fig. 279). The St. John was in most respects brought to a slightly higher level of finish that the Apostle Andrew, with more careful smoothing of the drapery and anatomy. These methods of working are very close to those of the modello for the Charity of St. Thomas of Villanova, in the National Museum of Art, Valletta, also ultimately intended for a niche. Intended to be seen only from the front, the sides and back are completely unfinished to a degree even beyond the Apostle Andrew. The clay massing and assembly of components also reflects a methodical, additive approach to modeling, including the initial massing of the clay, the sequence of assembly, enlargement of the forms, attachment of drapery, assembly of figures to the base, and final finishing. 225

The base and central figure of St. Thomas appear to have been created from clay wedged, or stacked in sheets to form a core. Additional clay was added to form the arm, head, drapery, and other details. The layered build up of the forms from of small strips and bits of clay is visible from the back. Though hollowed, the method of formation agrees strongly with the Apostle Andrew modello. I believe a unique ‘L’ shaped wood modeling platform was used to support the piece during modeling (see Fig. 290), and that it probably incorporated a removable wood arch following the scaled proportions of the niche for which the sculptural group was intended. Used to assess and measure the ‘fit’ of the figures within and in front of the niche, it also could have allowed the artist to model and attach the putti, banners, and other elements of the altar (see Fig. 21). From the front, it is along with the St. Andrew Avellino and the Bishop Saint, one of the more highly finished of all the modelli in this study, smoothed with a soft, damp brush and possibly cloth. As with the St. Andrew Avellino and the Apostle Andrew, however, the articulated drapery contours and surfaces of skin and hair still retain some of the tooth and oval tip tool-marks from their formation. The saint’s inner garments and the hair of the woman and children were all given final textures with a fine toothed tool. Each of the figures and the base were modeled separately, then assembled together, the clay joins roughened with a toothed tool (see Fig. 305) and in at least one documented area and probably others, using clay slip as an adhesive (see Fig. 309). The completely additive modeling found throughout technically agrees with other works in this study. The hollowing of the back was carried out after modeling was completed and the elements assembled, 226

when the clay was leather-hard and self supporting. From here we turn to the St. Andrew Avellino and the Bishop Saint. Both of these modelli are more highly finished and smoothed on their exterior surfaces than the first two. The St. Andrew has been carefully hollowed, the Bishop Saint remains solid. Both, coincidentally, have surfaces partially obscured by later coatings, which has somewhat impeded their examination, as have the St. Andrew’s numerous restored areas. The initial clay massing for the St. Andrew could not be clearly established, but there are indications that clay may have been added to the base, to enlarge the ‘extended leg’ side as we have seen on the other figures; however, the evidence for this is not entirely clear or convincing. Some of the drapery may have been modeled subtractively out of the larger mass of clay, a feature that would differentiate it from the other works examined. Its forehead has the three-faceted design found on many other male figures, but in an attenuated form. Under the many surface coatings the figure does exhibit an intentional preservation of tool-marks from its creation, many of which remain after the final smoothing (see Figs 316 and 313). Such intentionally limited levels of finish smoothing are found both on the St. John, St. Thomas, and on the Apostle Andrew modelli. Most of the tool-marks that remain are from a fine toothed tool, a feature shared with the others. Fewer remain from the oval tip tool, which are found more widely on the St. John and Apostle Andrew modello. While the St. Andrew figure offers less evidence of commonality because of restoration, surface coatings, and general character, I am inclined to suggest a common authorship with the other two modelli. The level of finish smoothing and the ‘seamlessness’ of the Bishop Saint modello

exceeds all of the other modelli in this study, even the Charity of St. Thomas modello, a work comparable in terms of subject and detail. Less evidence of clay joins and drapery additions could be found, which could be an indication that more of the modeling of this piece was subtractive in nature than the St. Thomas and others. The initial massing and formation from a single column of clay is however demonstrated by the bottom, and by an enlargement of the right side of the base to receive the extended leg and shift the center of the torso over the opposite edge, are elements of fabrication technique and composition shared with the St. John and the Apostle Andrew. The back surfaces are finished to a much lower level than the front, and bear evidence suggesting a modeling stand was used. The edges of the drapery do not taper to a thin edge, as can be found in other modelli attributed to Cafà, but are rather thicker and ‘squared off’. The drapery fringe on this modello (see Fig. 341) is very much coarser and more simplified than similar passages found on the St. John modello (see Fig. 281). The modeling of the features of the head and hands, while very well executed, are also highly generalized and do not follow the stylistic and technical aspects we have seen on other modelli in this study. The forehead is rounded (see Fig. 339) rather than modeled in the three- faceted shape of so many of the male heads found in this study (see Figs 302, 288, and 247). The hand of the Bishop Saint is schematically represented, the finger with edges somewhat squared and less convincingly interacting with the drapery. In comparison, the left hand of the St. Thomas and the left hand of the St. Andrew Avellino are delicately and completely rendered, and convincingly engage the drapery. The St. Rose of Lima bozzetto in the Palazzo di Venezia is modeled with stylized and angular drapery, elongated

figure, and a small delicately modeled head (see Fig. 328). While not concealing all of the evidence of its formation, the surface of this bozzetto is smooth, or ‘softened’ to an unusual degree. Partially a result of the finish smoothing by the artist, this may also result from the particular qualities of the clay used. The surface has also suffered wear, abrasion, and spalling in some areas from possible soluble salts contamination. The sculpture was built from small handfuls to form a central mass of clay, with additions of sheets and smaller bits of clay to enlarge the base and form the general shape of the composition. Though partially modeled subtractively, the St. Rose figure was principally built from added clay, enlarging and clothing the forms in a manner reminiscent of the other works in this study. The figure of the angel is now missing; only her lower right leg remains. Several specific techniques are shared with other works in the study, including the use of a toothed tool to excavate and shape the back of the head (see Fig. 323), the modeling gesture and tool use also found on the Virgin and Child relief (see Fig. 234). The toes and fingers were defined with simple strokes of a sharp tipped modeling tool, the big toe terminated with a diagonal, downward cut (see Fig. 329). Such techniques were also observed in the Apostle Andrew modello in the Hermitage (see Fig. 273), the Personification of Silence (see Fig. 246), and several of the feet of the Martyrdom of St. Eustace relief sculpture from the Palazzo di Venezia (see Figs 201 and 202). The unique guide marks found in this area to lay out the fingers and toes of the St. Rose were not found elsewhere. Also of note on this modello is the alteration of a drapery passage where the sculptor changed his mind, and covered a previously modeled deep fold with a strip of clay (see Fig. 332). 227

The Alexander VII Bust: I have decided to consider this modello separately as the scale of a full-sized bust generally requires techniques that differ considerably from those used in smaller scale works, and therefore may not have much in common with the other works of this study. Heavily restored, and with the back and bottom surfaces inaccessible for examination, the bust was at first difficult to decode. The stole and cape contain textures from crushed straw or other organic material added to the clay, which have left the surfaces uniformly pitted (see Fig. 344). The clay of the cap-like camaura, face, and beard are, in contrast, relatively smooth and without such inclusions; the artist may have applied a layer of clay slip to these areas during the final stages of modeling. These alterations to the fabric of the clay were probably made by the artist to represent differences in the texture of the materials represented. The technical evidence suggests that the head was hollowed after the basic shape and features were established, probably by wire-cutting it in half in a line generally following the lower edge of the camaura (see Fig. 349). After excavating excess clay, the head was reclosed and the edges of the join covered and strengthened by the application of the camaura fringe. A gap at the back may have been left to vent gases during firing (see Fig. 350). As the clay dried to near leatherhardness, a large, coarse brush, like a whisk-broom, was used briskly over the entire bust. The deep, multi-directional scratch lines, blurred details and softened edges from the casual use of this tool are visible throughout the sculpture, including the face and other areas that had been previously finished and smoothed (see Fig. 353). This wholesale brushing had what can only be described as a deleterious effect to the appearance 228

of the sculpture, and suggests an attitude toward the its final appearance alien to Cafà’s nor mal, careful, selective approach to surface finishing. Few of the techniques I have come to feel are characteristic of Cafà that we have encountered in the examination of the other works in this study, most of which may be specific to the production of conventionally sized bozzetti and modelli, have revealed themselves during the examination of this bust. The modeling techniques are principally additive, but perhaps that is to be expected for such a large modello. One point of similarity could be suggested in the decoration of the stole. The low relief calligraphic sketching, impressed tool-marks (see Fig. 348), and low relief clay additions of branches, leaves, and acorns bear some technical similarities to the low relief passages of crowds foliage, and other like elements on the St. Eustace relief sculpture. In each are combined the attachment of small amounts of clay with finger shaping and deeply impressed tool-marks, with linear, calligraphic sketching of details (see Fig. 348). Comparing the fringe of the camaura (see Fig. 347) to the fringe of the sheepskin drapery edges of the St John (see Fig. 281) reveals a similarity of techniques and combination of toothed and oval tipped tool use. Conclusion As a result of looking so long and carefully at this group of bozzetti and modelli, I have come to have an idea of how Melchiorre Cafà went about sculpting in clay, and also of his artistic ‘personality’. We have seen that his modeling was consistently and completely additive in both relief and freestanding bozzetti and modelli. Virtually all elements were built up on

either the flat relief slab, or the wedged column which was the basis for his freestanding figures. The lateral extension of the base to accommodate the extended leg by adding clay to one side, however, while a feature of the St. John and the Apostle Andrew, and possibly the St. Andrew Avellino, also appears in the base of the Bishop Saint, which I think was probably not made by Cafà. This technique, therefore, rather than being something idiosyncratic or personal to Cafà, may be fairly typical when initiating a model in this way. Other habitual techniques of Cafà’s include his free, calligraphic sketching of low relief features, the outlining of attached forms, the use of tools in a stabbing manner to create deep contrasts, and a refusal to ‘over finish’ surfaces and details, thereby preserving the freshness and facture of his tool-marks. How and to what extent are these techniques similar or different from those of other baroque sculptors? My studies of Bernini’s clay modeling techniques have revealed that he, too, composed his bozzetti beginning with a single, wedged, column of clay. His techniques can also be described as additive in nature, as he built up the angels for the Ponte Sant’ Angelo and the Altar of the Blessed Sacrament, adding drapery, limbs, wings, and other details in much the same way as did Cafà. There is perhaps more in common between their basic techniques in this respect than there are differences. Another similarity is the wide range of levels of completion and finish with which they left their models; neither favoring a wholly refined, smoothed, and perhaps lifeless surface, but both instead leaving the surfaces of even refined modelli active with tool-marks, fingermarks, and directional brush smoothing. There are, of course, differences between them. The two Bernini relief sculptures I am familiar with – the Four Members of

the Cornaro Family, and the Allegorical Figure (both in the Fogg Art Museum20 ) – share neither Cafà’s habitual outlining nor his linear sketching or stabbing techniques, for example. Then, too, the Allegorical Figure was not modeled on a wood platform as Cafà so often did, but as a freestanding flat slab supported on a buttress of clay. I have, however, found evidence on the clay relief surfaces of both Cafà and Bernini that they may have sketched elements of the composition before modeling them21 . One rather fine, but important point is that none of Cafà’s terracottas, not even the remarkably simplified Virgin and Child relief, approaches the chaotic appearance and incomplete state with which Bernini was willing to leave some of his bozzetti. A good analogy would be that Cafà always maintained a certain level of ‘penmanship’, whereas Bernini could and did make mercilessly brutal scribbles and scrawls in search of an idea. One has only to look at his tangled pen-and-ink sketches for the Blessed Ludovica Albertoni, the Angels for the Ponte Sant’Angelo, and others, which are directly comparable to passages in some of his bozzetti, to get a sense of this. Even Cafà’s loosest bozzetti, the smaller St. Eustace relief studies and the Virgin and Child relief, show an internal consistency of approach and completion that Bernini apparently did not feel compelled to maintain. One senses that Bernini was perhaps more often ‘experimenting’ in clay, in contrast to the more linear approach, working directly, clearly rapidly, but not recklessly, that characterizes Cafà’s work. All of the works in this study were created from start to finish in moist fresh clay, and this, plus an internal consistency of approach and intention, suggests that they were executed in one or perhaps a very few consecutive sittings. From top to bottom, the large St. Eustace relief panel in the Palazzo 229

di Venezia was brought to the same level of completion, each element displaying the same characteristic approach, as if the sculptor were executing a carefully thought out plan. The smaller sections in the Museo di Roma and Castel S. Angelo, though less ‘finished’, also follow their own internal logic. Cafà was trying a variant on his idea, was quicker about it, but still modeled with clarity and care, and also with these maintained a consistency of approach from start to finish. The St. Rose of Lima modello is the only work in the study to show clear evidence of revision, albeit a tiny one – a small drapery fold covered over with a strip of clay. C o nve r s e l y, m a ny o f B e r n i n i ’s bozzetti appear to have been worked on intermittently, and perhaps returned to over a protracted period of inactivity. Along with displaying clear evidence of being returned to and re-worked, several of his bozzetti display numerous changes of mind, alterations, and revised passages.22 I would finally mention again that this study represents only a portion of those works in terracotta that may be

230

associated with Melchiorre Cafà, and that when the remainder and those of his baroque contemporaries have been examined, my ideas of what constitute his particular clay modeling techniques will probably both grow and be more specific. Errors of interpretation that I have made will no doubt need correction. My technical studies of terracotta sculpture are in their early stages, and young in comparison with studies by other researchers working in media for which there is a much longer tradition, such as the study of paintings, sculpture in bronze, and works of art on paper. Limited time and resources would not per mit x-radiographic analysis to be a part of this initial study – but hopefully will in the future. The organizational and financial obstacles to employing x-radiography can be considerable, but a carefully implemented campaign of systematic x-radiographic analysis 23 would certainly contribute to understanding the methods with which these terracotta sculpture were fabricated. I am looking forward to continuing this work, the study of these deeply personal and revealing objects.

Appendix: Fingerprints Eleven fingerprint impressions were recorded from the clay surfaces of the study group24â&#x20AC;&#x2030;. They were photographed with a one cm. long metal rod to provide a scale, under raking light with a six mega-pixel Nikon D 70 digital SLR camera, and a 55mm macro lens. The image files were opened in Adobe Photoshop CS, converted to gray scale and enhanced for clarity and detail with sharpening filters and brightness and contrast adjustments. Using direct visual comparative techniques to look for specific patterns and features, it was clear that most of the fingerprints were too fragmentary or smeared to be useful subjects. Those few that had sufficient quality for comparative purposes did not form any matches. They are reproduced in this publication at 1.5x actual size for the use of those wishing to continue such work. Martyrdom of St. Eustace Palazzo di Venezia, Inv.10093

Fig. 354 Top of the garland

Martyrdom of St. Eustace, section Museo di Roma, Inv. 35750

Fig. 355 Right edge, middle

Fig. 356 Behind the left shoulder of the left figure

231

Section from the Martyrdom of St. Eustace Museo di Castel S. Angelo

Fig. 357 Lower left front edge

Fig. 358 Under the chest of the lion

Virgin and Child Fogg Art Museum, 1937. 74

Fig. 360 Left edge, bottom at approximately nine oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;clock

Fig. 361 Front surface at eight oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;clock

Angel for the Charity of St. Thomas Museo di Roma, MR 35742

Fig. 362

232

Behind knee

Fig. 359 Bottom, back left corner

Apostle Andrew State Hermitage Museum, Inv. no. 650

Fig. 364 Edge of the lower buttress clay on back

Fig. 363 Back of figure, adjacent to the knot on lower left tree limb

233

Fig. 365 Charity of St Thomas of Villanova, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Detail

234

Notes

Introduction Melchiorre Cafà: Maltese Genius of Roman Baroque 1 The family tree of the Gafa family has been reconstructed by Mercieca 2002. The ten offspring are: Gio Angelo (1617), Lucia (1619), Maria (1620), Lucrezia (1621), Grazio (1625), Giuseppe (1628), Gio Maria (1631), Marcello (1634), Marcello (1636), and Lorenzo (1639). Bonnici Calì 1986, pp. 14-15 had drawn attention to the fact that Melchiorre was the boy born as Marcello in 1636. The Status Animarum records of Vittoriosa record, in May 1658, Marco, aged 65, Veronica, 63, and their children Grazio, 33, Gio Maria, 28, Melchior, 20, and Lorenzo, 18. See Scicluna 1978, p. 12. Giuseppe, who had been ordained priest had left the family residence. 2 For an exhaustive bibliography and an excellent survey account of studies on the artist see Barberini infra. For bibliographies, notes, and references cited in this introduction, the reader will be, in many instances, referred to the essays published hereunder. 3 Montagu 1989, p. 16; Wittkower 1982 ( 5th Ed.), p. 307; Preimesberger 1996, p. 376; Boucher 1998, p. 158. 4 Pascoli 1730, p. 256. 5 Agnello 1951, pp. 156-157; De Lucca – Thake 1994, p. 17. It should be remembered that Melchiorre Cafà was baptised Marcello. Agnello publishes five receipts from the acts of Notary Bartolomeo Gulizia. - Not. Bartolomeo Gulizia, 5 October 1652, fol. 69: Presens coram nobis Magister Marcellus Gaffar melitensis hic Syracusis modo repertus... sponte dixit et fatetur habuisse et recepisse a D. Hieronomo Catinella... uncias quatuor... et solvente uti bursario et fideicommissario cappelle SS.mi Sacramenti... quam cappellam olim edificandam ordinavit quondam Ill.mus et Rev.mus Dominus Don Joannes De Torres.. et per manus Petri Butararo... Et sunt in compitum... in scolpire l’intagli

della fabrica di ditta cappella et non aliter... - Not. Bart. Gulizia, 29 November 1652, f. 176v: ...Magister Marcellus Gaffar scultor melitensis... uncie 7 sunt in computum dietarum... per dictum de Gaffar factarum in scolpire l’intagli di pietra della fabrica di detta Cappella... - Not. Bart. Gulizia, 5 April 1653, f. 372v: ...magister Marcellus Gaffar scultor melitensis... uncias quinque... in scolpire l’intagli di pietra della fabrica di detta cappella... - Not. Bart. Gulizia, 5 April 1653, f. 372v: ...magister Marcellus Gaffar scultor melitensis... uncias quatuor... in scolpire l’intagli di pietra della fabrica di detta Cappella... - Not. Bart. Gulizia, 12 May 1653, f. 454: magister Marcellus Gaffar scultor melitensis hic Syracusis modo repertur... uncias decem et septem et tarenos viginti quinque in pecunia de contanti ad complementum unc. 37.27 inclusis reliquis unc. 20 dicto de Gaffar solutis vitute... sunt ad rationem tarenorum quinque singulo die per dictum de Goffar factis a die 9 Iunij 1652 usque per totum mensem Aprilis proximi preteriti in scolpire l’intagli di pietra della fabrica di detta cappella et unc. 12.12 per haver scolpito l’intaglio oltre le dette giornate 153 dodici puttini e sei teste di figure di serafini posti sopra le colonne di detta fabrica e quattro puttini grandi posti sopra le porte delle due sacristie di detta cappella... 6 NLM, Ms.1123, Uomini Illustri di Malta, pp. 8690. The volume was transcribed and augmented by Count Saverio Marchese in 1825 after a lost original compiled by Padre Pelagio. 7 Sammut 1978, p. 12. 8 For Cafà and the Baptism commission see the contribution by Sciberras infra. 9 B o rg 1 9 6 7 , p p. 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 . I n t h e m o n t h s immediately after his election to the papacy in 1655, Alexander VII personally intervened in the extensions made to the newly remodelled Inquisitor’s Palace in Vittoriosa and was kept duly informed of the works in progress. It is not clear what these works were or whether there was the need for some carving which could have brought the young Cafà in the limelight and there perhaps

235

noted by Inquisitor Mgr Giulio degli Oddi. 10 Sciberras 2004, p. 15; Dal Pozzo 1703-1715, p. 263. On this occasion, Council granted Bichi the title of Illustrissimo and awarded him the prestigious Magistral Commandery of Polizzi in Sicily, worth an annual rent of 5000 scudi, and a gold chain with a diamond embedded cross worth 2200 scudi. 11 Sciberras 2004, p. 15. After the death of Alexander VII, Giovanni Bichi returned permanently to the Convent, building his palace on the Salvatore hill in the Grand Harbour to the designs of Melchiorre’s brother Lorenzo. 12 For Cafà’s relationship with Ferrata see the contribution by Montagu infra. 13 See Sammut 1978, pp. 33-37. The Virgin of the Rosary is recorded by the historian of the Dominican Order in Malta Azzopardo as having arrived from Rome on 31 May 1661. The statue apparently arrived in Malta without its gilding and, probably, also without its polychromy. The gilding of the statue is documented to 21 May 1661: più ho dato uncie 4 al sig. Agostino Parnis per darli al Mastro doratore che ha dorato la vara nuova. CEM, Conti 187, Conti della Cong. SS. Rosario (1660-1731), f.12v. I thank Fr Michael Fsadni OP and Mr Dominic Cutajar for this reference. In c.1870, the statue was restored by Salvatore Barbara.The St Paul is recorded in an early eighteenth century transcription and annotation of the pastoral visitation of Bishop Molina (1680) as commissioned by Don Paolo Testaferrata at a price of 300 scudi. The same source mentions it being carried in procession in 1690. It is recorded in the Church of St Paul Shipwrecked Valletta in 1694. See Bonnici Calì 1986 for the identification of a bozzetto of the statue of St Paul; this statuette (National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta) is most probably executed after the Cafà’s statue by an unknown sculptor. The pedestal of the statue of St Paul carries the coatof-arms of the Sceberras Testaferrata family. See also Farrugia Randon 1996, pp. 43-46. 14 For a survey of Cafà’s work within the context of Baroque Rome and detailed bibliographies see the contribution of Di Gioia infra. 15 For the commission and detailed bibliography see Di Gioia infra. 16 For the commission and detailed bibliography see Di Gioia infra. 17 Montagu infra. 18 Cipriani infra. 19 Sciberras 2004, pp. 20-21. 20 Baberini infra. 21 Notarial Archives Valletta, R260/ 31, Notary Guliano Felice, 1662, ff. 157r-158r. 22 Cipriani infra. 23 For the commission and bibliography see Bissell infra. 24 For the commission and bibliography see Anselmi infra. 25 Sciberras infra. 26 Sciberras infra. 27 For the commission and bibliog raphy see Azzopardi infra. 28 Sciberras 2004, pp. 17-21. 29 Sciberras 2004, p. 68. 30 Di Gioia infra. 31 Cipriani infra.

236

32 Sciberras 2004, p. 67. For a condition assessment of the statues and a study of Cafà’s waxes see Guido infra. 33 The statue, of mediocre quality, is in the Oratory of the Onorati at the Jesuits church in Valletta. I thank Dr J. Montagu for pointing out the presence of this statue. 34 For a detailed biography on the bust of Alexander VII see Di Gioia infra. A third bust, formerly in the W. von Dirksen collection in Berlin, was sold at auction at Lepke in 1931. Its present whereabouts are unknown. References that it is at the Detroit Institute of Arts are incorrect. The bust, though obviously cast after the artist’s model, has some modifications in the Pope’s vestment. Known only through a B/W photograph (Fig. 44), it does not appear to be of the same quality. It is probably a later cast. For the reference to the Pope’s diary see Schlegel 1998, p. 77; Butzek 2000, pp. 187188: poi il C(ardinal) Chi(gi) fà finir la creta e la (...) del Maltese, e di Baciccio, Gaulli, del n(ostr)o ritratto di profilo. 35 Cinque bassi rilievi rappresentanti li sig.ri fratelli di S. E. di mano di Melchior maltese con cornice tonde dorate liscie, Inventory of Cardinal Luigi Alessandro Omodei (1607-1685), 2 May 1685, f .21, Getty Provenance Index. Transcript supplied from Archivio di Stato, Roma, (30 Notai Capitolini, Giuseppe Moro, uff. 15, ff.3-37) by Luigi Spezzaferro. I thank Dr Jennifer Montagu for pointing out the Omodei monuments in Milan. Thanks are also due to Dott. Andrea Spiriti. 36 Pascoli 1730, p. 258: disegno perciò eccellentemente. The most exhaustive study on the subject remains Montagu 1984. See bibliography therein. 37 Inv. 1981-11-7-223-8 38 This is discussed in detail by Rice infra. 39 Barberini infra. 40 For an account of this litigation and related bibliography see Sciberras 2004, pp. 20-24. The notarial record for the nomination of procurators is in Notarial Archives Valletta, R.391 Notary Natale Parmisciano, V. 27, f. 95. 41 Sciberras 2004, p.21; AOM, Arch 1443, f. 89v: Havendo inteso dalla vostra la morte del povero Melchior Gafar, e le diligenze che voi fate per mettere in sicuro I suoi effetti per l’interesse del Tesoro, e di questa Grotta di San Paulo, stanti l’haverli somministrato danari per le opere, che stava facendo habbiamo lodato le medesime diligenze. Ma volendo ancora porgere qualche sollievo a questi suoi afflitti parenti v’incarichiamo di poner in vostro potere tutto quello che havevà lasciato il medesimo Melchiore, affinche ricoperto l’interesse della Religione e della Grotta, si dia il rimanente alli deti suoi parenti. 42 Sciberras 2004, p. 21; AOM, Arch. 1443, f. 180v: [28 Mar 1668] Questi parenti del defonto Melchior Gafa ci hanno di nuovo fatto pregare di raccomandarvi I lor’ interessi nella ricuperatione degli effetti, che quello ha lasciato: il che facciamo volentieri per lor consolatione, e perche sappiamo le vostre occupationi, potrete commetterne le diligenze a quel Michel’Angelo pittore, gia camerata del detto Melchiore, mentre essi se ne contendano, e di piu per cautela tanto del Nostro Comun Tesoro quantod’altri interessati, potrete consgnare all’Imbasciatore Caumons la catena d’oro, et altre cose di qualche valore, che si trovano in vostro potere appartenenti al medesimo Gafa, accio al suo ritorno le porti seco, e si depositano in Tesoro fintanto che si veda a chi apparteneranno.. 43 Sciberras 2004, p. 21; AOM, Arch. 1443 , f. 192v.

44 The terracotta entered the Museum collection in 1926/ 27. Its previous provenance has still to be properly ascertained but it appears to have been in a Maltese collection. 45 The statuette was discovered by Rev. Edgar Vella. See Bissell infra, and for a condition assement Guido infra. The wax statuette is an exact version of the terracotta formerly in the Crozat collection, Paris, and published by Mariette 1742, pl. 118: S.te Catherine de Sienne. D’Après le bas relief de Melchior Caffa qui est dans le Cabinet de M.r Crozat. De la même grandeur de l’Estampe gravée par Simon Francois Ravenet. The image size (437 x 275 mm) corresponds to that of the wax in Malta, and thus one might be a cast after the other. The Crozat relief is described as being in terracotta by Mariette, p.16: modele de terre très-terminé que M. Crozat a apporté d’Italie. 46 Golzio 1935, pp. 64-74. See Montagu infra. 47 For a full bibliography see Di Gioia infra. 48 Magna Curia Castellania, Mdina, Reg. Inv. Bon. Vol 1 (1700-1715), f.97v. The inventory of belongings in the house of Lorenzo Gafa, drawn up on 24 March 1703, includes due quadri senza cornice con il retratto del fu Melchiore Gafa. I thank Francesca Balzan for this reference. 49 Calleja 1862 50 Pascoli 1730, p.258.

Melchiorre Cafà nella storia della critica 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

Pascoli 1730, pp. 256-258; id. 1992, pp. 354-358 Clark 1967, v, p.12 Jemma 1981, 379, pp. 50-61. Mercieca 2002, pp. 278-288. Mariette 1853, p. 242. Oskar Pollak 1911, p. 347. Fleming 1947, pp. 85-89 Faldi 1958, pp. 67-68. Wittkower 1999, vol. II, pp.122, 123; Preimesberger 1973, pp. 230-235; id. 1996, pp. 376-378; Bissel 1997, pp. 493-495. Schlegel 1978, pp. 46-53. Bacchi 1996, pp. 791, 792; Wardropper – Androssov 1998; Boucher 2002; Di Gioia 2002. Archivio Vicariato Roma [AVR], Stato delle Anime, Parrocchia di San Biagio della Pagnotta, anni 1662, 1663, 1679. Sammut 1957, pp.117-139. AVR, San Biagio della Pagnotta, Libro dei morti, vol I, c.6r.: “ (…) Die 4 eiusdem (settembre) 1667. Melchior Gaffa melitensis etatis annos 31 degens in via Julia Ecclesie sacramentis receptis animam Deo reddidit eius cadauer sepultus fuit in hac eccl.”. Il documento è pubblicato in Marchionne Gunter 2003, nota 11, p. 113. Golzio 1935, pp. 64-74; Bertolotti 1881, vol. II, pp. 170-171. La pubblicazione integrale dell’inventario di Ferrata in: Dose 1996, pp. 3436. AVR, Stati delle Anime della Chiesa di San Biagio della Pagnotta, anni 1662-1679. La presenza di Cafà nello studio di Ferrata può essere accertata fino al 1667. Negli anni successivi, compaiono Carlo Baini nipote dell’Hercole (anni 1668 1674) ; Michele Maglia (anni 1670-71); Leonardo Retti (1672)-. Cfr. Pedroli 1992, pp. 354-355, nota 2. Archivio Accademia di San Luca [AASL], vol.43,

f.134; Missirini 1823, pp. 123-124 18 Devo questa informazione a Vitaliano Tiberia, presidente della Pontificia Accademia Artistica dei Virtuosi al Pantheon, che ringrazio. Si chiamavano congregazioni le riunioni di quel sodalizio. Toberia 2005 19 AASL, vol. 66, 1664, Nomi, cognomi e maestri dè Sig. ri Professori e Giovani del Disegno che intervengono a studiare nell’Accademia di San Luca di Pittura, Scultura et Architettura. Al proposito cfr. Cipriani - Valeriani 1988, vol. I, pp. 189-191: Passaleo, p. 190. Su questo scultore, cfr. Enggass 1976, vol.I, pp. 7376, vol. II, figg. 16-19. La bibliografia su Papaleo è riassunta nell’ articolo sull’artista da Marchionne Gunter 2003, p. 114, n. 21. 20 Pascoli 1730-1736, p. 931. 21 Marchionne Gunter 2003, p. 85. Lo studioso ritiene di poter riferire al gruppo di studi connessi con l’impresa maltese un modello in terracotta riproducente un altare con rilievo raffigurante il Battesimo di Cristo, oggi nei depositi del Museo di Palazzo Venezia, (inv. 13268) che tuttavia escludo possa essere di Papaleo. 22 Montanari 1998, p. 370. Lo studioso ha ipotizzato che alcuni dei modelli e disegni di Cafà possano essere messi in relazione con un bassorilievo in argento citato, senza il nome dell’autore, nell’inventario dei beni di Cristina di Svezia nel palazzo Riario alla Lungara. Cfr. anche Di Gioia 2002, scheda n. 22, p. 179 e note 2 e 10. 23 Sammut 1957, doc. 1, p. 131; Jemma 1981, p. 53 e nota 5. 24 AASL, vol. 43, f. 181. Il documento è pubblicato in Fiaschi 1999, pp. 43-53, doc. n.4 e 5. Su Orfeo Boselli, Volpi Orlandini 1971, pp. 69-96; Fortunati 2000, pp. 69-101; Di Stefano 2002; Cipriani, 2004 pp. 325-329.. 25 AASL, vol. 42 A f.76. A dimostrazione di questa importante attività, si ricorda che proprio nella delicata controversia giudiziaria sorta tra il principe Giovan Battista Pamphilj e gli eredi di Melchiorre Cafà i lavori dello scultore maltese furono più volte stimati e valutati dai periti Paolo Naldini, Ercole Ferrata e Cosimo Fancelli. 26 Fiaschi 1999, p. 51, doc. n.6. 27 Silos 1673, ristampa anastatica 1979, I, p. 183. Epigramma xxix. Cfr. Simonetta, Gigli, Marchetti, 2003, pp. 115-118 28 Passeri c.1673. 29 Mola 1663 p.135. 30 Martinelli 1660-1663; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. XXX. E’ interessante notare però come il Martinelli rivolga la sua attenzione, per esempio, all’opera di Orfeo Boselli. Cfr. Fortunati 2000, pp. 75-76. 31 Titi 1674-1763. 32 Connors – Rice 1991, pp. 78-79, 111, 215. 33 Gabriello Baba, La statua equestre di Luigi XIV re di Francia.Panegirico. Il testo è datato nella premessa 1 maggio 1678, ma realmente venne edito a Venezia nel 1679. Cfr. Ferrari 1997, pp. 151-161. E’ interessante notare che la compunta critica romana del tempo criticava il vecchio Bernini e quando lo celebrava, usava stereotipi letterari. Sintomi, per gli anni ’70 , di un nuovo clima che si andava affermando. 34 Orlandi 1704, p. 932. 35 Pio 1724, pp. 111-112. 36 Baldinucci 1681-1728, vol. 13, pp. 452-453.

237

37 Pascoli 1730-1736. 38 Nava Cellini 1982, p. 95-97. 39 Dose 1996, pp. 34-36; Bergstrasser 1969, pp. 88-89. 40 Preimesberger 1973, pp. 230-235; Clark 1967, p. 12, n.6; Montagu 1984, pp. 50-61; Pedroli 1992, p. 358, nota 13; Fagiolo dell’Arco- Carandini 1977, pp. 214, 218. Devo a Tomaso Montanari la segnalazione che questo Michelangelo Maltese è persona diversa da Melchiorre Cafà. Infatti è autore, nel 1670, della decorazione del mappamodo nella tomba di Alessandro VII a San Pietro, dove l’isola di Malta è raffigurata grande quasi come tutta l’Italia. Cfr. Montanari 2000, pp. 592-598, anche in Waddy, 1990 p. 259 e nota 370, p. 399. 41 Zani 1820, vol. V, parte prima, p. 198. 42 Missirini 1823, pp. 123-124. 43 Ticozzi 1830, pp. 244-245. 44 Mariette 1853, t. I, p. 242. 45 Numerosi modelli e bozzetti dello scultore maltese della collezione Farsetti sono oggi conservati all’Ermitage di San Pietroburgo, citati nell’inventario a stampa edito intorno al 1788. Al proposito, Androsov- Nepi Scirè 1991. 46 Dose 1996, pp. 34-36. 47 Per la trascrizione del contratto, Di Gioia 1984, pp.48-67; Di Gioia 1986, pp. 171- 222. La studiosa ipotizza che gli allievi del Ferrata si esercitassero su modelli e disegni del Cafà, documenti indiretti delle varie fasi di elaborazione dell’opera. Cfr. Di Gioia 2002, p.126 e nota 24. 48 Borghini 1984, pp.76-79. 49 Marchionne Gunter 2003, doc. 10, n. 67, p. 153, e nota n.51. Lo studioso fa riferimento ad una Venerina de Medici citata nello studio del Ferrata , responsabile del restauro, da Golzio 1935, pp. 64-75. Nello studio di Ferrata sono presenti, nel 1686, una delle Venere de Medici; una testa di Venere di gesso antica; una detta d’una Venere di gesso la Venere de Medici; una testa di Venere di gesso antica; la punta d’un piede d’una Venere. 50 Carloni 2001, pp. 95-118. 51 Zaccaria 1999-2000. L’informazione che il Bergondi fosse in possesso di così tanti studi del Cafà è importante alla luce del fatto che è lui l’autore dei due rilievi laterali in stucco nella cappella di San Tommaso da Villanova (1760-63), eseguiti su commissione del principe Girolamo Pamphilj. Già la Nava Cellini 1982, aveva notato come Bergondi avesse mantenuto un’armonia con il gruppo centrale del Cafà, carattere poco usuale per la scultura di quegli anni. 52 Di Gioia 1997, pp. 663-667; Di Gioia 2002, introduzione, p. 26-27 e schede13 e 14 e con bibliografia precedente. 53 Golzio 1935, p. 64. 54 Barberini – Gasparri 1994, pp. 115-137. I bozzetti e modelli raccolti dal Cavaceppi passarono agli inizi dell’ Ottocento in proprietà del marchese Giovanni Torlonia ed in seguito pervennero in collezione Evan Gorga. Acquisiti dallo Stato, sono oggi conservati nel Museo di Palazzo Venezia ed in quello di Castel Sant’Angelo . Al proposito, cfr. anche Contardi 1989. 55 Androsov – Nepi Scirè 1991, pp. 15-21; 140 ss., in part. pp. 146, 148, 150 – 152; Androssov 1998, schede 28-29. Lo studioso ritiene autografa anche la terracotta raffigurante un Leone, messo in relazione con la pala di Sant’ Eustachio. At-

238

56 57

58 59 60

61 62 63

65 66

67 68 69 70

71 72

tribuzione scartata per motivi stilistici da Di Gioia 1986, p. 194, nota 30; Di Gioia 2002, p. 130, nota 24 ; da Contardi 1989, p.33, nota 23; da Ferrari – Papaldo 1999, p. 6 (cfr. più avanti nel testo e relative note). Pollak 1911, p. 347; aggiornamento in Bissel 1997, pp. 493-495. Ozzola 1911, 88 e 86. I bozzetti, tre dei quali sono nelle collezioni del Museo di Palazzo Venezia, furono pubblicati da Santangelo 1954, p. 83,88,91. La Santa Rosa venne pubblicata da Hermanin 1948, con l’attribuzione a Bernini ed è stato registrato come modello per la Santa Teresa. Brinckmann 1923-24, vol. I, 116, tav. 49; vol. II, 92, tav. 45. Ozzola 1926-27, volume primo, pp. 131-135. Pollak 1911, p. 347; Wittkower 1928-29, pp. 227-231. La terracotta era stata attribuita, precedentemente, da Brinckmann 1924, p .90-91, ad Antonio Raggi, modello per il marmo di San Giovanni dei Fiorentini. Pascoli 1730-1736, p .354. Riccoboni 1942, pp. 225-226; Erra 1750, p. 58; Erra 1759-1760, I. Fleming 1947, pp. 85-89. Studi successivi hanno accreditato l’ipotesi che il lavoro possa essere stato affidato direttamente al Cafà dall’ordine dei Domenicani della provincia del Perù. Cfr. per la bibliografia relativa: Di Gioia 2002, scheda 21 e nota 5. Nava Cellini 1956, pp. 17-31. I diversi articoli della studiosa dedicati alla scultura del ‘600 sono poi confluiti nella sintesi dedicata appunto alla Scultura del Seicento, Torino 1992. Magnani 1992, p. 299. Sammut 1957, pp. 117-139. Per il bronzetto di Pirano, Morpurgo 1924, pp. 458-463. L’attribuzione al Cafà è stata respinta da Montagu 1972 pp. 64-77; Montagu 1985. II, p. 312 scheda 8/C 8; Rotondi Briasco 1962, p. 42 e nota 39, pp. 69-70, attribuisce al Parodi il bronzetto di Pirano considerandolo una prova degli studi svolti da questo scultore sui modelli del Cafà nella bottega del Ferrata. Sul bronzo di Pirano, Barberini 2005; Berberini-Fossà 2005, pp. 172-175, 209-215. La terracotta raffigurante San Giovanni Battista, oggi nel Museo di Palazzo Venezia, era stata pubblicata dal Brinckmann 1923, vol.I, pp. 116-117 come opera di Ferrata e ritenuto in rapporto con il Sant’Andrea della facciata di Sant’Andrea della Valle. In seguito Santangelo 1954, p.88 e fig. 95 la attribuì al Cafà, accostandolo ai modelli del Battesimo. Probabilmente risultava nella raccolta di Bartolomeo Cavaceppi come “ un Santo colle mani giunte S.G.B.” Questa dicitura si doveva riferire alla figura ancora integra. Una replica di quest’opera, in legno, facente parte di una serie di Santi che il Ferrata donò alla chiesa parrocchiale della città natale di Pellio, conferma la posizione delle mani. Al proposito cfr. Spiriti 2000, p.104; Ferrari – Papaldo 1999, p. 504. Wittkower 1999, II pp.122-123. Faldi 1958, pp. 67-68. Wittkower 1959, pp. 197-204. Golzio 1939, p. 302, Martinelli 1955, nota 49, p. 52. Sul bronzo di Siena, cfr. Butzek 2000, scheda n. 109, pp.187-188. Sammut 1960, pp. 27-30 Preimesberger, 1969, pp. 178-183.

73 Montagu 1972, pp. 64-78. 74 Preimesberger 1973, pp. 230-235. 75 Preimesberger – Weil 1975, pp. 183-198; FerrariPapaldo 1999, p. 15. 76 Golzio 1935, p. 67; Schlegel 1978, schede n. 15,16,17; Ferrari – Papaldo 1999, p.15; Boucher 2001, scheda 61: modello per una Gloria, attribuito a Roman Sculptor, Late Seventeenth century. 77 Jemma 1981, pp. 53-58. La data di nascita individuata dalla Jemma sarà considerata da molta parte della critica moderna. Cfr. Appendice. Documenti. Anche Bacchi 1996, pp. 791-792 78 Montagu 1984, pp. 50-61 79 Montagu 1989, pp. 16, 18, 70, 90, 94, 206-207 n.3, 208 n. 50. 80 Schuster 1988, Uno studio approfondito dell’intero edificio con un aggiornamento bibliografico sull’altare maggiore è stato realizzato da Bevilacqua 1993, pp.97-103. 81 Bissell 1997, pp. 493-495. 82 Mujica Pinilla 1995, p. 156. Nel testo si fa riferimento ad un’analisi diretta della scultura, fino a quel momento conservata in una teca di vetro sotto l’altare della cattedrale di san Domenico a Lima. 83 Di Gioia 1984; Di Gioia 1986 [i], pp.151-160. 84 Di Gioia 1984, pp. 48-67; Di Gioia 1986 [ii], scheda 15, pp. 189-195. 85 Di Gioia 1986 [ii], scheda 16, pp. 195-200. 86 Contardi 1989, pp. 25-33; Di Gioia 2003, pp. 124-127. 87 Barberini 1991, pp. 43; Barberini– Gasparri pp. 130, 131. 88 Ventura 1991, n.45, pp. 77-884. 89 Il bozzetto era conservato nella collezione Crozat a Parigi e oggi è noto grazie all’incisione che ne ha tratto Simon Francois Ravenet, pubblicata dal Mariette nel 1742. Cfr. Ventura 1991. p 78, fig. 8, nota 4. 90 Androsov- Nepi Scirè 1992, schede 31-34, pp. 80-84. Due terracotte, il Leone e l’Apostolo Andrea vengono riproposte in Androssov 1998, pp. 98-99, scheda 28; pp. 100-101, scheda 29. 91 Bacchi 1996, pp. 791- 792. 92 Boucher 1998, pp. 158-162. 93 Montanari 1998, pp. 178-185; e soprattutto pp.370-375. 94 Montagu 1999 [i] pp. 128-132. 95 Ferrari- Papaldo 1999, cfr. sotto autore. 96 Butzek 2000, scheda n. 109, pp. 187-188. 97 Di Gioia 2002, pp.119-130; 131-138; 165-175; 176-181. 98 Cannata 2003 scheda n. 66, p.229. 99 Marchionne Gunter 2003 100 Sciberras 2004, pp. 11-31.

4 5 6 7

8 9 10

Melchiorre Cafà a Roma tra 1660 e 1667 1 Baldinucci 1682, p.140. 2 Sull’argomento si rimanda al fondamentale testo di Lavin 1980 e ancora a Ferrari 1991, pp. 39 ss.; Fagiolo dell’Arco 1999, pp. 17-36, in part. pp.24-28; Ferrari 1999, pp.XLVII ss. 3 Lavin 1980, pp.19-22, in part. p.21; per il Baldacchino si rimanda al recente contributo di Schütze 1994, pp. 213-287 ed ivi bibliografia

precedente; Chandler Kirwin 1997; Ferrari Papaldo 1999, pp. 548-549; per il complesso dei lavori della crociera della basilica vaticana e il suo significato si rimanda a Lavin 1968 con bibliografia precedente; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. 550-554; Lavin 2000, pp. 177-236 e agli studi di Rudolph Preimesberger, tra i quali, i più recenti : Preimesberger 1992, pp. 247-268; Idem 1993, pp. 473-482 ; Idem 2001, pp. 95-111, con bibliografia precedente; sull’argomento si veda anche Dombrowski 2003, pp. 45ss. Lavin 1980, pp. 35 ss., in part. p. 37; Ferrari 1991, p.39; Tiberia 1999, pp. 13-17; Tiberia 2000, pp. 24ss. in part. pp. 47-62. Lavin 1980, pp.23-53; Ferrari 1991, pp.39-40; Ferrari 1999, pp.XLVII; Ferrari –Papaldo 1999, 374-375. Lavin 1980, pp.35-40; sull’argomento si veda ancora Fagiolo Dell’Arco 1987 (ediz. italiana 1993), pp.163-234, in part. pp.222-223. Wittkower - Wittkower 1977 (ediz. italiana 1985), pp.201 ss., in part. pp.207-214; Lavin 1980, pp.83-152; Ferrari 1992, pp. 39-42; Fagiolo dell’Arco 1987 (ediz. Italiana 1993), pp. 190-191; 222-223 dove nota alla p. 222 come: “(…) Lo scultore barocco conosce il valore della camera di luce, della luce di quinta, della luce riflettore: è insomma debitore al metodo teatrale per le sue complesse elaborazioni (nei documenti del tempo gli altari si trovano definiti “teatri”). Si plasma la sorgente luminosa come si plasma il marmo o lo stucco: la Santa Teresa di Bernini (in questo senso plateale), ambientata nella cappella Cornaro in Santa Maria della Vittoria, sperimenta le diverse qualità della luce e dell’ombra nella messinscena globale.” ; Idem, 1999, pp, 25-26; Ferrari in Ferrari-Papaldo 1999, pp. 354-356 con vasta bibliografia precedente e i recenti contributi di Carloni 1999, pp. 37-46; Bernardini 2001, pp. 129-151, in part. pp. 138-140. Lavin,1980, in part. pp. 113-116, ma si veda anche Carloni 1999, pp. 42-43. Si rimanda al fondamentale saggio di Argan 1955, pp. 9-14. Lavin 1980, pp.137-138; Martinelli 1987[i], pp.181-232, in part. p.186, nota 22, con bibliografia precedente e figg.18-22 alle pp. 296298 Wittkower 1958 (ediz. italiana 1972), p.138; Idem 1958 (rev. Ed. 1999), vol.II, p. 16. Sulla Cattedra si veda il fondamentale saggio di Battaglia 1943 e i contributi di Schütze 1994, pp. 213-287, in part. nota 166; Avery 1997, pp. 108-113; Ferrari – Papaldo 1999, pp. 555-556 con vasta bibliografia precedente; O’Grody 1999, pp. 133-143 e Sutherland Harris 2001, pp.113-128; Dombrowski 2003, pp. 53ss. Montagu 1984, pp. 50-61, in part. pp.55-56, nota 23; il disegno si conserva allo Stockholm National Museum, inv. 604/1863. Titi 1674-1763 (ediz. 1987), vol.I, pp.49,106,146,211; Baldinucci 1681-1728 (ediz. 1812), vol.XIII, pp. 452-453; Pio 1724 (ediz. 1977), pp.111-112; Pascoli 1730-1736 (ediz. 1992), pp. 354-358. Per gli esordi di Cafà scultore e la sua attività nella bottega degli scultori maltesi Michele, Antonio e Damiano Casanova nella Cappella Torres della Cattedrale di Siracusa, negli anni 1652-1653, si vedano le

239

notizie riportate da Sciberras 2004, p.15. Per Cafà architetto si vedano ancora le notizie d’archivio riportate da Sammut 1957, pp.130, 133 ss. e i recenti apporti critici e documentari di Sciberras 2004, passim. Per Cafà disegnatore: Nava Cellini 1956, pp. 17-31; Montagu 1984, pp. 50-61. Per la fortuna critica di Cafà e il suo apprezzamento da parte degli scultori e collezionisti si veda il contributo di M.G. Barberini in questi stessi Atti. 14 Non si sono rintracciati fino ad oggi documenti d’archivio che attestino la data esatta dell’arrivo dello scultore Maltese a Roma. Dalle notizie rintracciate da Daniela Jemma nello Status Animarum del 1658 della parrocchia di Vittoriosa in Mdina ( Jemma 1981, pp. 53-58, in part. pp.53;57), Melchiorre Cafà registra ancora la sua presenza a Malta in quell’anno, mentre il primo atto che documenta la sua attività a Roma è il contratto stipulato il 16 dicembre 1660 con Camillo Pamphilj per l’esecuzione della Pala di Sant’Eustachio per la chiesa di Sant’Agnese in Agone ( Archivio di Stato di Roma A.S.R., Hieronimus Simoncelli, busta 6679, anno ff.446 r/v). Edward Sammut (cit. in Sciberras 2004, p.14 nota 57), nella sua inedita M.A. Dissertation del 1978 ipotizza che Cafà sia partito per Roma nello stesso anno 1658 (Sammut 1978, p. 12). Qualche discordanza permane ancora nelle notizie d’archivio riguardanti la sua data di nascita. Il documento ritrovato da Jemma, dove Melchiorre risulta nel 1658 “di anni 20 ” nello Status Animarum della Parrocchia di Vittoriosa Mdina ed un recente riferimento rintracciato da Giulia Barberini a Roma negli Stati delle Anime del 1662 della Parrocchia di San Biagio della Pagnotta, dove il giovane risulta a quella data “di anni 24 ”, sembra accreditare la sua nascita a Malta nel 1638 ( si veda in proposito anche il contributo di Giulia Barberini in questi stessi Atti che riassume la vicenda critica sull’argomento), mentre recentemente Vincent Borg e Simon Mercieca hanno evidenziato nei registri dei Battesimi della parrocchia di Birgu (Vittoriosa) riferimenti che sembrano indicare la nascita dello scultore a Birgu il 21 gennaio 1636 e quella del fratello Lorenzo, noto ed apprezzato architetto maltese, nel 1639 (Mercieca 2002, pp. 278-288, in part. pp. 284-285). 15 Per le committenze Pamphilj: Preimesberger 1973, pp.230-235,ed ivi bibliografia precedente; Preimesberger - Weil 1975, pp. 183-198; Di Gioia 1984, pp.48-68; Idem 1986, pp. 189-195, Contardi 1989, pp. 25-35; Bissel 1997[i], pp. 493-495; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp.6-7; 15-16; Barberini 2001, pp.46-47; Boucher 2001, pp. 214-216; Di Gioia 2002, cat. n. 13, pp.119-130. Per le committenze domenicane: Sammut 1957, pp. 117-139; Preimesberger 1973, pp.230-235; Montagu 1984, pp 50-61; Di Gioia 1987, pp. 39-53; Bevilacqua 1993; Barberini 1996, pp. 72-73; Boucher 2001, pp.210-213; Di Gioia 2002, cat. nn. 21-22, pp. 165-181; Mercieca 2002, pp.286 ss.; Cannata 2003, cat.n. 66, p. 229; Pampalone 2003, cat.n. 20, pp. 201-202; Rice, in questi stessi Atti; per i rapporti con i Chigi: Sammut 1957, pp. 120-121; Wittkower 1959, pp. 197-204; Preimesberger 1973, pp. 233 ss.; Petrucci 1993, pp. 91-92; Angelini 1998 [ii], pp. 180-183; Schlegel 1998, pp. 76-77; Butzek

240

2000, pp. 187-188; per i rapporti con Cristina di Svezia e il cardinale Decio Azzolino si vedano Montanari 1998, pp. 370-373 e Di Gioia, 2002, cat.n. 22, pp. 176-181 e il contributo di Tomaso Montanari in questi stessi Atti. Si segnala anche il recente contributo di Sciberras (2004 , pp. 11-80), che approfondisce i rapporti intercorsi tra Cafà e l’Ordine dei Cavalieri di Malta, con novità critiche e documentarie anche in rapporto alle committenze romane. Per la pala in Sant’Agnese: Montagu 1972, pp. 64-78 passim; Preimesberger 1973, in part. pp. 231-232; Preimesberger - Weil 1975, in part. pp.197-198; Jemma 1981, pp. 55-56; Nava Cellini 1982, pp. 95-96; Di Gioia 1984, pp.48-68; Di Gioia 1986, pp.189-195; Contardi 1989, pp. 25-35; Barberini 1991, p.43; Pedroli 1992[ii], nota 8, p.357; Barberini - Gasparri 1994, p.130; Bissel 1997[i], p.493; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. 6-7; Boucher 2001, cat. 53, pp. 214-216; Di Gioia 2002, pp. 119-130; per la cappella Pamphilj in Sant’Agostino: Nava Cellini 1956, pp. 22-25, nota 14 pp. 29-30; Sammut 1957, p. 122; Preimesberger 1973, p.232 ; Preimesberger - Weil 1975, pp. 183-198; Montagu 1984, p. 52; Di Gioia 1986, pp. 195-200; Pedroli 1992[ii], nota 7, pp. 356-357; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp.15-16; Di Gioia 2002, cat. n. 14, pp. 131-138; Sciberras nella breve guida della mostra Melchiorre Cafà. Maltese Genius of the Roman Baroque, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta, 24 october- 14 november 2003, pp. 2,8. Pascoli 1730-1736 (ediz. 1992), in part. p. 354. Per Ercole Ferrata si vedano Nava Cellini 1982, pp. 99-102 con bibliografia precedente; Borghini 1984, pp. 77-79, Montagu 1989, passim; Pedroli 1992[i], pp.327-338 ; Schlegel 1994, pp. 279-284; Bacchi 1996, pp. 802-804; Casale 1996, vol. 46, pp. 760-764; Ferrari - Papaldo, 1999, ad vocem, con bibliografia precedente; Montagu 1999 [i], pp. 128-132; Di Gioia, 2002, cat. 17, pp. 147-151, nota 6 e il contributo di J. Montagu in questi stessi Atti. Il commento è tratto da un brano di una lettera del 23 maggio 1665 dell’ambasciatore di Malta a Roma, Frà Francesco Caumons, al Gran Maestro Nicola Cotoner, pubblicata in Sammut 1957, pp. 125; 131 Per la statua di Rosa da Lima si rimanda ai contributi di Fleming 1947, pp.85-89; Nava Cellini 1956, pp. 21, 31 nota 22; Wittkower 1958 (ediz. italiana 1972), p.262 ; Preimesberger 1973, p.234; Preimesberger 1969, pp. 178-183; Montagu 1984, pp. 50-61; Di Gioia 1987, pp. 39-53; Barberini 1991, p. 46; Pedroli 1992[ii], pp.354-356; Barberini 1996, pp. 72-73; Zanuso 1996, p.791; Bissel 1997[i], pp. 493-494; Boucher 1998, pp.11,14, 143,158; Pampalone 2000, pp. 137-139; Boucher 2001, cat. nn.51-52, pp. 210-213; Di Gioia 2002, cat.n. 21, pp.165-175; Cannata 2003 [ii], cat.66, pp. 229; Pampalone 2003, cat. n. 20, pp. 201-202 e al contributo di Alessandra Anselmi in questi stessi Atti. Per l’altare di Santa Maria in Campitelli: Nava Cellini 1956, pp. 19-20; 21-22; Salerno 1959, pp. 145148: Spagnesi 1964, pp. 237-238; Contardi 1977, p. 142; Fagiolo dell’Arco-Carandini 1978, vol. 2, pp. 89-90; Montagu 1986, pp. 9-30, in part. pp. 9-10; Montagu, 1989, pp.94-95; Pedroli 1992[ii],

21 22 23

27 28

pp.354-255 nota 4. Per il busto di Alessandro VII: Golzio 1939, pp.301-302; Martinelli 1955, p.52, nota 49 ( Martinelli è il primo studioso a collegare la notizia d’archivio pubblicata dal Golzio nel 1939 al busto in bronzo di Alessandro VII nel Duomo di Siena, fuso sulla base del modello in terracotta conservato in Palazzo Chigi ad Ariccia, che lo studioso attribuisce correttamente a Cafà); Wittkower 1955, pp. 227, 242-243; Martinelli 1956, pp. 45-46 e note 91-92; Nava Cellini 1956, p.22; Sammut 1957, pp.120-121; Wittkower 1959, pp. 197-204; Preimesberger 1973, p. 233; Tantillo Mignosi 1990, Pedroli 1992[ii], pp. 354, 358 nota 11; Petrucci, 1993, pp. 91-92; Angelini 1998[i], pp. 184-192; Angelini 1998[ii], pp. 180181; Schlegel 1998, pp. 74-77; Butzek 2000, pp. 187-188. Previtali 1976, pp. XXIII ss.; Angelini 1998 [ii], pp. 272-327; Ferrari in Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. XXIII-XXIV, XXXI e ancora il saggio di Barberini 2000, pp. 121-129.Per i più tardi contatti tra Bellori e Bernini alla fine degli Anni Settanta del Seicento, complice Cristina di Svezia, si vedano i contributi di Montanari 1998, pp.330491, in part. pp. 418-419; Idem, 1999, pp.103-132 , in part. p.114. Si veda l’esauriente profilo dell’attività del Cafà all’Accademia di San Luca nel contributo di Angela Cipriani in questi stessi Atti. Golzio 1935, pp. 138-145; Preimesberger 1973, pp. 230-235. Battaglia 1943, pp. 159-160, doc. nn. 17-19, 162; Wittkower - Wittkower 1977 (ediz.italiana 1985), pp. 211-218, in prt. Pp. 214-217 ; Avery 1997, pp. 108-113; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. 555-556 con bibliografia precedente; O’Grody 1999, pp. 133143; Sutherland Harris 2001, pp.115-129 in part. p.128, nota 29 dove cita i documenti pubblicati da Battaglia dai quali apprendiamo che nel 1659 Antonio Raggi ed Ercole Ferrata lavoravano ai “ modelli dei Dottori gregi”. Schlegel 1981, pp. 37-42; Worsdale 1986, pp. 9698; Martinelli 1987 [i], pp. 187ss.; Marchionne Gunter 1997, pp. 167-209; Ferrari - Papaldo, 1999, p. 576 ; Di Gioia 2002 [i], cat.nn. 18a-b, pp. 84-87. Per le sculture in Santa Maria del Popolo: Montagu 1989, pp. 134-137 ed ivi bibliografia precedente; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. 302-309 ; per la statua di Santa Caterina da Siena nella Cappella del Voto del Duomo di Siena: Borghini 1984, pp.76-79; Angelini 1998[ii], pp. 173-175; Ferrari - Papaldo, 1999, p. 69; Butzek 2000, pp. 409-412; il modello in grande in gesso patinato per la statua, rintracciato da Gabriele Borghini in Santa Caterina da Siena in Via Giulia e assegnato a Ferrata, è stato attribuito da Schuster (poi Bissel) al Cafà (Schuster 1988, pp. 73 ss; Bissel 1997[i], pp.493-495). Montagu 1970, pp. 282-291; Eadem, 1985, cat. 66; Eadem, 1999[ii], cat.40-42, pp. 180-185; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. 364-365; Cannata 2000, cat.n. 15, p.393; Barberini 2001, in part. pp. 48-49; Di Gioia 2002, pp. 97-103; Cannata 2003, cat. n.22, pp. 202-203 Montagu 1985, vol.II, nn.61e ss., pp. 359-364 Montagu 1985, vol.II, cat. 45 A.B.3 con bibliografia precedente; Eadem 1999[ii], pp. 186-187; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp.5, 346.

29 Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. 2-8 con bibliografia precedente; Simonetta, Gigli, Marchetti 2003, pp. 107-118. 30 Per la trascrizione del contratto, già segnalato da Eimer 1971, p.496, n.172; Garms 1972, doc. 54 e Preimesberger 1973, pp.231,235 si rimanda a Di Gioia 1984, pp.48-67, in part. pp.64-65. 31 P re i m e s b e rg e r 1 9 7 3 , p p. 2 3 1 , 2 3 5 e d i v i bibliografia precedente; Di Gioia, 1984, pp.4868; Idem, 1986, pp. 189-195, Contardi 1989, pp. 25-35; Bissel 1997[i], pp. 493-495; Ferrari Papaldo 1999, pp.6-7; Barberini 2001, pp.46-47; Boucher 2001, pp. 214-216; Di Gioia 2002, cat. n. 13, pp.119-130; Sciberras 2004, pp. 21-24. 32 Per l’intervento di Giovan Francesco De Rossi in Sant’Agnese: Golzio 1933-1934, p. 310; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. 2, 6-7 . 33 Per l’intervento del De Rossi nella Pala di Sant’Eustachio, Wittkower 1958 (ediz. it. 1972), p 274, nota 13, Nava Cellini 1956, p. 22; Eadem, 1982, pp. 95-96; Di Gioia 1984, in part. pp.56-58, note 17-21 e per la trascrizione del contratto tra Ferrata e G.B. Pamphilj per il completamento della pala di Sant’Eustachio ivi, Appendice 2, p. 66; Eadem, 1986, cat. n. 15, in part. pp. 191192; Ferrari - Papaldo, 1999, pp. 6-7. Come rammentano Ferrari e Papaldo ( 1999, p. 7) nel 1688 Pietro Baini, erede di Ferrata, era ancora in credito di 800 scudi per il completamento dei lavori della pala marmorea. La vertenza, come ha precisato Montalto 1957, pp.47-68, in part. pp. 57-68, si risolverà solo nel 1712. 34 Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia, inv. 10093, terracotta cm. 51 x 41 x 5; per il modello si rimanda a Di Gioia 1984, pp. 58 ss., nota 22 con bibliografia precedente; Eadem, 1986, cat. n. 15, pp.189-194; Contardi 1989, pp. 25 ss. ; Barberini 1991, p.43; Barberini 1994, p.130; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. 6-7; Montagu 1999[i], pp. 128-132; Boucher 2001, cat. n. 53, pp. 214216; Di Gioia 2002, cat.n. 13, pp. 119-130. 35 Per le osservazioni critiche di Nava Cellini si veda Nava Cellini 1956, p. 22. Per il medaglione dedicato ad Alessandro VII da Domenico Jacobacci con il verso decorato con Androclo e il leone, fuso da Gioacchino Francesco Travani nel 1659 su probabile disegno di Bernini, si rimanda a Fagiolo dell’Arco 1999, cat. nn. 172-174, pp. 414-415 con bibliografia precedente. 36 E’ interessante notare - come ci rammenta Ferrari ( Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, p.5) - che dopo la morte di Algardi, sfumata l’ipotesi di tradurre in marmo il modello in grande della pala con il Miracolo di Sant’Agnese, Ercole Ferrata fu incaricato da Camillo Pamphilj, tramite il suo ministro abate Malvicini, di lavorare a qualche modello in piccolo per una pala d’altare destinata all’altar maggiore, ma con un diverso soggetto: il “Battesimo di S.Giovanni Battista” (Montalto 1957, doc. nn.VII, VIII, XXIV). Dai documenti pubblicati da Lina Montalto, tra le note dei lavori eseguiti da Ferrata per i Pamphilj tra il 1661 e il 1672 vi sono tre modelli in terracotta: “(...) per servitio dell’altar maggiore”, che egli dichiara di avere presso di sé e che nel 1712 sappiamo esser stati a suo tempo venduti a Carlo Antonio Clementini, detto degli Occhiali, perché l’incarico non aveva più avuto seguito. I modelli non sono stati fino ad oggi rintracciati. Il coinvolgimento

241

39 40

42 43

242

di Ercole Ferrata nei modelli per la pala dell’altar maggiore in Sant’Agnese, oltre agli incarichi per la statua di Santa Agnese sul rogo e per la pala del Martirio di Santa Emerenziana, sottolineano il suo ruolo di scultore principale nel cantiere panfiliano . Per il rilievo di Domenico Guidi: Ferrari Papaldo, 1999, p. 5 con bibliografia precedente. Wittkower 1958 (ediz.it.1972), pp. 224-225; Montagu 1985, vol I, pp. 135-156; vol.II, cat. 61, pp. 358 ss.; Preimesberger 1994, pp. 257265; Preimesberger 1998, pp. 621ss.; Ferrari Papaldo 1999, p. 567 con bibliografia precedente; Montagu 1999[ii], pp.13-14 e cat. nn. 36-38. Per la sezione di studio del Museo di Roma: Di Gioia 2002, cat. n. 13, pp.119-130 con bibliografia precedente; per quella del Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo: Jemma 1981, in part. pp.55-56, tav. 68; Contardi 1989, pp. 25-35; Di Gioia 2002, cat. n. 13, pp. 125 ss; nota 19, pp. 129-130. Golzio 1935, p. 67 Per il rilievo con l’Adorazione dei pastori, già nella collezione di Evan Gorga, oggi di ignota ubicazione, si veda Montagu 1999[i], pp. 128-132, in part. pp. 130-132, con bibliografia precedente; per il Cristo deposto, pubblicato da Brinckmann nel 1923, vol.I p.22 con l’attribuzione ad Ercole Ferrata, anch’esso di ignota ubicazione, si rimanda a Jemma 1981, in part. pp. 56-57; per i riflessi del bozzetto con il Cristo deposto sull’opera di Giuseppe Mazzuoli ed in particolare sul Cristo deposto dell’antepedio dell’altar maggiore della chiesa di Santa Maria della Scala a Siena, scolpito a Roma nel 1673, si rimanda a Gentilini – Sisi 1989, vol. II, cat.n.73, pp. 268-271;cat.n.100, pp. 347-350. Nava Cellini 1956, in part. pp. 26 ss.; Preimesberger 1973, in part. pp.230-231; Boucher 1998, pp.158160; per Pierre Puget e gli influssi dell’opera di Caffà sullo scultore francese si rimanda a Schlegel 1978, cat. n.19, pp. 62-70; per l’opera di Puget in generale il saggio di Herding 1995, pp. 22-35; per Pierre Le Gros II si rimanda all’esauriente monografia di Bissell 1997[ii]. Ferrari 1999, pp.XLVI-XLVII. Le vicende relative alla fabbrica dell’altare sono state dettagliatamente ricostruite da Preimesberger e Weil sulla base delle fonti documentarie c o n s e r vat e n e l l ’ a rch i v i o D o r i a Pa m p h i l j (Preimesberger - Weil, 1975, pp. 183-198). Camillo Pamphilj, patrono e mecenate dell’ordine degli agostiniani (Barbieri 1983, pp. 25-34), aveva preso accordi nel 1660 per sistemare la cappella da dedicare a San Tommaso di Villanova nella chiesa di Sant’Agostino in Roma. Il progetto, scaturito forse da una sua idea perfezionata con la collaborazione dell’architetto Giovanni Maria Baratta e i consigli di Pietro da Cortona, prevedeva in un primo momento l’impiego di marmi e dipinti, in seguito sostituiti da gruppi scultorei. Il 15 aprile 1661 il principe stipulava una convenzione con l’architetto Baratta, già impiegato nella fabbrica panfiliana della chiesa di San Nicola da Tolentino e in quella di Sant’Agnese in Agone, dove stabiliva in dettaglio i lavori da eseguire. L’architetto nel Capitolo 4 : “(..) promette e s’obbliga di far fare li bassirilievi del Padre Eterno et Angeli e Putti con la statua di S.Tomasso et un’altra figura denotante la

Carità con due Bambini, uno in braccio e l’altro più grandicello per mano che chiede la carità a detto Santo inginocchioni, tutte a sue spese e posti in opera, con far fare li modelli a gusto di S.E.e di far fare le statue principali da uno delli quattro che fanno e lavorano li quattro bassirilievi che vanno nel tempio di S.Agnese in Navona ( cioè gli scultori Ercole Ferrata, Giuseppe Peroni, Giovan Francesco Rossi e Melchiorre Cafà n.d.r.) centinati di bellezza e a paragone come sopra” (Archivio Doria Pamphilj, scaff.88, n.5, interno 8 , c i t . i n N av a C e l l i n i 1 9 5 6 , p p. 2 9 - 3 1 , Preimesberger, 1973, p.232; Preimesberger - Weil, 1975, pp. 188 ss.). Nel Capitolo 7 è specificato: “(...)promette e si obbliga detto Gio.Maria far fare tutta l’opera e lavori suddetti in conformità delli due disegni fatti da esso Baratta e firmati da S.E. e dal medesimo Baratta sottoscritti e di mettervi le pietre in conformità del modello di legno da farsi dal detto Baratta con le figure e le sorti di pietra secondo che sarà il colorito et a piacere et intera soddisfazione di S.E. e a spese tutte di esso Baratta perché così”. Il Capitolo 8 stabilisce un compenso complessivo di 6000 scudi ed il termine di due anni per il completamento dei lavori. In una minuta della stessa convenzione, di mano del segretario di Camillo Pamphilj, Niccolò Angelo Cafferi, si legge : “(...) Cap. 6. Prometto e m’obligo di fare tutte le concernenti secondo il modello che esso Baratta deve far fare, come sopra a soddisfazione e a total gusto di S.E., colorito di legno con le statue di creta et angioli di cera rossa con tutte quelle sorti di pietra che vi sarà il colorito di maggior bellezza a piacere di S.E. a spese tutte di esso Baratta”. Sulla base dei disegni approvati e sottoscritti da Camillo Pamphilj, committente esigente che desiderava mantenere uno stretto controllo sull’ideazione e l’esecuzione dell’altare, Baratta era dunque incaricato di far eseguire un modellino architettonico in scala in legno dipinto con i particolari plastici in terracotta - verosimilmente il gruppo scultoreo dell’Elemosina di San Tommaso e quello del Padre Eterno - mentre gli Angeli sulla cornice dei semi timpani dovevano essere modellati in cera rossa. Di lì a poco, con un contratto stipulato il 5 maggio 1661, Baratta incaricava lo scultore Giuseppe Peroni (1626 circa - luglio 1662) di eseguire: “(...) due modelli della statua del Padre Eterno con putti e cherubini per la cappella di S.Tommaso di Villanova(...) et ancho li due Angeli grandi circa otto palmi, che vanno sopra li frontespitii dell’altare, quali modelli dovranno essere uno in grande e l’altro in piccolo conforme al disegno fatto da esso Gio. Maria esistente appresso il detto Ecc.mo Sig. Principe et a total gusto e soddisfatione di quello e come meglio a S.E. parerà e tutte le dette figure poi scolpire in marmo in quella grandezza e proporzione che comporterà il sito della Cappella e che parrà a S.E. bene e con ogni diligenza e senza rappezzi” (Archivio di Stato di Roma, notai dell’A.C. H.Simoncelli, busta 6682, 5 maggio 1661, ff. 44r/v). Giuseppe Peroni, allievo dell’A lg ard i, già all’o pera p er lo s tes s o committente fin dal luglio 1660 per il modello del bassorilievo raffigurante la Morte di S.Cecilia, destinato ad uno degli altari della chiesa di Sant’Agnese in Agone ( poi finito da Raggi dopo la sua morte), si impegnava a finire il lavoro in un

anno per un compenso di 500 scudi. Le fonti d’archivio tacciono singolarmente sull’affidamento del gruppo dell’Elemosina di San Tommaso di Villanova ad uno degli scultori attivi in Sant’Agnese. Ma, poco dopo la stipula del contratto fra Baratta e il principe Pamphilj del 15 aprile 1661, il modello architettonico in scala della cappella con i modelli in piccolo di tutte le sculture fu di certo realizzato da Baratta con la collaborazione di uno o più scultori, tanto che si ha notizia che un modello in piccolo per il gruppo di San Tommaso di Villanova fu inviato da Camillo Pamphilj a papa Alessandro VII nel luglio 1661 per l’approvazione (Preimesberger - Weil 1975, p.191, nota 28; ricordiamo che Tommaso di Villanova era stato canonizzato proprio da papa Chigi il 1 novembre del 1658 e tutti gli aspetti legati alla sua iconografia ufficiale dovevano essere attentamente vagliati e approvati). Peroni morirà nel luglio 1662 lasciando il lavoro per il Dio Padre ad Angeli incompiuto e nell’ incarico subentrerà Ercole Ferrata, anch’egli all’opera nel cantiere di Sant’Agnese fin da 1660 per la pala marmorea raffigurante il Martirio di S.Emerenziana e per la statua di Sant’Agnese sul rogo. Con il Ferrata Baratta stipulerà un nuovo contratto il 23 agosto del 1662 (A.S.R., Notai dell’A.C., H.Simoncelli, busta 6689, ff. 640r/v). Dalla difficoltosa lettura del documento d’archivio sembra che il lavoro di Peroni non fosse neppure iniziato, visto che Ferrata si impegnerà ad eseguire il bassorilievo con il Padre Eterno e i due Angeli, compresi i due modelli in piccolo e in grande, secondo le modalità stabilite nel precedente contratto con il Peroni, per un compenso invariato di 500 scudi. Il lavoro doveva essere concluso entro un anno, mentre Baratta era tenuto a consegnargli il marmo necessario nello studio. Un modello in piccolo in terracotta con i riporti in scala attribuito a Cafà, raffigurante l’Angelo adorante sul semi timpano di sinistra dell’altare panfiliano in Sant’Agostino, oggi al Museo di Roma (per il quale si vedano Di Gioia 1986, cat.n. 16, pp. 195-200; Montagu 1989, pp. 18,36; Bacchi 1996, p.263; Di Gioia 1997, p. 661; Ferrari - Papaldo, 1999, p.514; Di Gioia 2002,cat. n. 14, pp. 131138 e il contributo di J. Montagu in questi stessi atti), sembra suggerire l’intervento dello scultore maltese nell’ideazione degli Angeli affidati al maestro Ferrata e comunque confermerebbe un suo precoce - seppur indiretto- coinvolgimento nei lavori dell’altare fin dall’estate del 1662 (ricordiamo che un analogo ruolo svolgerà Cafà nell’ideazione dei modelli in piccolo per i Santi Andrea Apostolo e Andrea Avellino per le statue nella facciata di Sant’Andrea della Valle, assegnate a Ferrata tra il 1663 e il 1664, per le quali si rimanda a Ferrari - Papaldo, 1999, p.33 con bibliografia precedente e all’intervento di Montagu in questi stessi Atti). Da un’ anonima descrizione a stampa della cerimonia di dedicazione della cappella e dell’altare Pamphhlj in Sant’Agostino sappiamo che nel luglio 1663 i lavori architettonici erano quasi conclusi, ma del gruppo scultoreo principale con l’Elemosina di San Tommaso era stato realizzato il solo modello in grande in stucco dorato (Preimesberger – Weil 1975, p. 194). Quest’ultimo è da assegnare ad un autore ignoto, a meno di ipotizzare l’intervento

precoce di Melchiorre Cafà che, dai documenti d’archivio di casa Pamphilj riguardanti la causa intrapresa dagli eredi del maltese per stabilire i crediti residui per i lavori lasciati incompiuti alla sua morte, sappiamo aver realizzato sia i modelli in piccolo che in grande del gruppo statuario. Dalla stima dei suoi lavori effettuata da Paolo Naldini nel 1669 apprendiamo che un suo modello in grande della Carità di San Tommaso di Villanova era in opera nella cappella in Sant’Agostino ( si vedano Ferrari - Papaldo, 1999, p. 15 e il recente riepilogo documentario della vicenda di Sciberras 1994, pp. 21-24). La redazione marmorea del gruppo scultoreo sarà affidata ufficialmente pochi mesi dopo al Cafà con un contratto stipulato il 23 ottobre 1663 ( A.S.R.Notai dell’A.C., ivi, busta 6696, ff. 777 ss.). Nel contratto Cafà si impegna con Baratta: “(...) di fare la statua di San Tomaso di Villanova con tutte le figure che rappresentano la Carità, che fa fare l’Eccellentissimo Signor Principe Don Camillo Pamphilio per l’altare di detto Santo nella Chiesa di S.Agostino, conforme al modello già fatto, o in altra miglior forma e modo e come più piacerà al detto Eccellentissimo Signor Principe(...)”, frase che lascia intuire una possibilità di apportare al modello preesistente piccole varianti, purché gradite al principe Camillo. E’ forse in questa fase che Cafà dedicherà a Camillo Pamphilj la bella incisione con il gruppo della La Carità di San Tommaso di Villanova, realizzata da Pietro del Po’ su disegno di Melchiorre, presentando forse contestualmente il modello in piccolo in terracotta oggi al National Museum of Fine Arts di Valletta. Le varianti proposte dallo scultore, troppo innovative e costose, non furono probabilmente accolte. Il lavoro sul marmo era nel pieno del suo svolgimento nell’autunno del 1665 (Sciberras 2004, p. 65), ma nel settembre 1667 apprendiamo dalle perizie sullo stato dei lavori lasciati incompiuti alla sua morte che Cafà aveva quasi concluso la statua di San Tommaso e appena abbozzato quella della Carità. Quest’ultima sarà portata a termine dal Ferrata nell’estate del 1669, quando il gruppo scultoreo fu definitivamente collocato sull’altare (Preimesberger - Weil, 1975, p. 196, nota 36; per il completamento dei lavori da parte di Ferrata: Nava Cellini 1956, pp. 22, 29-30 nota 14; Montalto 1957, documenti alle pp. 57-68; Di Gioia 1984, pp. 65-66). 44 Per l’altare di San Nicola da Tolentino, commissionato ad Algardi dal principe Camillo Pamphilj nel 1651 e condotto a termine su suoi disegni e modelli da Giovanni Maria Baratta, Ercole Ferrata, Domenico Guidi e Francesco Baratta si rimanda al fondamentale saggio di Montagu 1970, pp.282-291; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp.15-16 con bibliografia precedente; Di Gioia 2002, cat. n. 9, pp. 97-103. Per il progetto e il modello in grande dell’altare Falconieri in San Giovanni dei Fiorentini: Lavin 1980, pp. 37-38 e nota 46; Salerno, in Salerno – Spezzaferro Tafuri 1975, pp. 245 ss.; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, p. 132. 45 Wittkower 1958 (ediz.it. 1972), pp. 262-263; Preimesberger - Weil, 1975, in part. pp.192 ss. 46 Per osservazioni critiche sul gruppo della Carità di San Tommaso di Villanova: Nava Cellini 1956,

243

47 48

244

pp.22 ss., nota 14, pp. 29-30; Preimesberger 1973, p.232; Preimesberger - Weil, 1975, in part. pp.195 ss.; Montagu 1984, p.52; Pedroli 1992[ii], pp.356-357 nota 7; Boucher 1998, pp. 160-163; Ferrari - Papaldo 1999, pp. 15-16, XLVI-XLVV; Di Gioia 2001, cat. 14, pp.131 ss.; Sciberras 2004, pp 21-24. In una vecchia foto pubblicata da Wittkower (Wittkower 1958 (ediz. a cura di J.Connors, J. Montagu, 1999), vol.II, p.123, fig. 151), che presenta una diversa visuale del modello in terracotta del National Museum of Fine Arts di Valletta (cm. 48,7 x 29,1 x 20), si nota con maggior chiarezza l’impostazione spaziale della base modanata sulla quale insiste la figura della Carità. Titi 1674-1763 (ediz. comparata, 1989), vol. I, p.146. Sulla pala con la Gloria di Santa Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli: Nava Cellini 1956, pp.18-21; Faldi 1958, pp.125-128; Salerno in Lavagnino, Ansaldi, Salerno 1959, pp. 135-138; Wittkower 1958 (ediz. a cura di J.Connors, J. Montagu, 1999) vol.II, pp.122-123; Preimesberger 1973, pp. 233; Preimesberger - Weil 1975, p.196; Montagu 1984, pp. 50-51; Rossi 1988, p. 464; Schuster (poi Bissel) 1988, passim e per la datazione dell’opera le pp. 26-29; Ventura 1991, pp.77-84; Pedroli 1992[ii], pp.355-356; Bevilacqua 1993, pp.97103; Boucher 1998, pp. 158-160; Ferrari 1999, pp. XLVI, XLVIII, 67-68; Sciberras 2003, p.7. Quest’ultimo studioso ha presentato nella mostra che si è svolta al National Museum of Fine Arts di Valletta dal 24 ottobre al 14 novembre 2003, un inedito modello in piccolo in cera con patina rossa della Gloria di Santa Caterina, ritrovato a Malta in collezione privata. Le varianti presenti nel delicato modello in cera (cm. 42 x 31) suggeriscono che possa essere uno dei modelli intermedi realizzati da Cafà prima di giungere alla versione finale del rilievo e lo pongono in rapporto con l’altro perduto modello del Cafà per la pala di Santa Caterina, già conservato nel XVIII secolo nella collezione Crozat a Parigi, documentato nell’incisione edita nel 1742 a Parigi da S.F.Ravenet (P.J.Mariette, 1742, p.47, tav.CXVIII). Per tutte le problematiche critiche riguardanti l’opera si rimanda al contributo di Bissel e Sante Guido in questi stessi Atti. Per le notizie su Ignazio Cianti e Camilla Peretti, che morirà tra gennaio e febbraio del 1668, si vedano Ventura 1991, pp.79 ss. , note 10-13 e Bevilaqua 1993, pp. 45, 97 con bibliografia precedente. Per le diverse opinioni sul grado di coinvolgimento di Cafà nell’ideazione dell’altare della chiesa di Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli si vedano le importanti osservazioni di Nava Cellini (1956, p. 19) che suggerisce di limitare il suo intervento al registro inferiore e centrale della parete di fondo della chiesa “(...) restando oggetto di un’indagine particolare lo stabilire quanto sopra vi fu aggiunto quando fu completata l’intera decorazione del coro fino alla cupola, e più tardi, nel 1755 dai lati, quando furono posti a fianco gli altri due rilievi di Pietro Bracci” , mentre Ferrari (Ferrari, Papaldo, 1999, p. 67) suggerisce che la progettazione possa aver riguardato l’intero complesso della tribuna e M.Bevilacqua (1993, pp. 67-68, 97-103), attraverso un’accurata

55 56 57

analisi della fabbrica e del cantiere della Chiesa tra Seicento e Settecento, scorge nella tribuna un’unità tematica complessiva che, pur nei diversi tempi di realizzazione delle singole componenti, sembra suggerire un’originaria, organica regia dell’insieme. Si veda ancora il contributo di Bissel in questi Atti. Per tutte le opere citate si rimanda a Montagu 1984, pp. 50-61 ed ivi bibliografia precedente e ai recenti contributi di Montanari 1998, pp.370373, note 139-141; Boucher 2001, cat. nn. 51-52, pp. 210-213; Di Gioia 2002, cat. nn. 21-22, pp. 165-181 e ai contributi di Alessandra Anselmi e Tomaso Montanari in questi stessi Atti. Per il soggiorno di Cristina di Svezia nel monastero di Santa Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli si vedano le fonti riportate da Bevilacqua 1993, p. 23. Bevilacqua 1993, p. 97, nota 7 cita il documento rintracciato nell’ Archivio Segreto Vaticano, S.Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli, vol. 11, ff. 163-164, dove sono ricordati i conti saldati agli artigiani incaricati della costruzione dell’edicola dell’altare negli anni tra il 1671 e il 1672. Nella seconda edizione del Titi del 1686 sono citati sulle pareti laterali della tribuna i due affreschi di Francesco Rosa raffiguranti Santa Caterina che presenta una rosa al Bambino e la Madonna portata dagli Angioli, poi sostituiti nel 1755 dai rilievi di Pietro Bracci di diverso soggetto. Preimesberger (1973, p. 233) si interroga sulla possibilità che Cafà possa aver progettato originariamente anche due rilievi per le pareti laterali della tribuna e suggerisce di collegare a questa impresa i due bassorilievi in cera del maltese raffiguranti Santa Rosa da Lima e la Madonna ed uno, forse in terracotta, raffigurante Santa Rosa, citati nell’inventario dello studio del Ferrata nel 1686; si vedano su questo argomento anche Schuster (poi Bissell) 1988, pp. 26 ss; Bevilacqua 1993, pp. 97-102; Ferrari - Papaldo, 1999, p. 67; Di Gioia 2002, cat. 22, pp.176-181; Bissel e Montanari in questi stessi atti. La lettura critica qui riproposta si basa sulle considerazioni di Bevilacqua 1993, pp. 98-100. Bevilaqua 1993, p. 99. Bevilacqua, 1993, ivi.

Melchiorre Cafà’s models for Ercole Ferrata 1

“Nell’invenzione non ebbe gran felicità; ma conoscendo egli in questo suo debole, procurò di supplire a tal difeto con far fare, per apertura della propria mente, a’ suoi giovani, per ogni opera invenzioni diverse, alle quali egli poi togliendo il difettoso o cattivo, e l’ottimo aggiugnendo dava compimento di suo gusto.” (Baldinucci 1845-47, V, p. 390). It is evident throughout this ‘Life’ that Baldinucci knew the sculptor well. 2 “Fu nell’inventare e disegnare bravissimo; ma nel lavorare il marmo ebbe talvolta bisogna dell’assistenza del maestro, perchè pel grande spirito, col quale operava, avrebbe voluto il tutto finire in un sol colpo, onde aveva bisogno di qualche ritegno per non errare.” (Baldinucci 1745-46, V, p. 392).

3 According to Baldinucci (1745-46, V, p. 392), Michele Maglia “operva molto” on the fountain for Portugal – a fact I omitted to mention in the article Delaforce, Varela Gomes, Montagu and Soromenho 1998. Since the only ‘invention’ is in the Tritons, and the terracotta model for one of these in the Palazzo Venezia is too heavy and lumpish to be ascribed to Maglia, his assistance to the elderly sculptor is likely to have been in carving the marble. 4 Montagu 1999 [i] 5 See Montagu, 1972, especially p. 67. 6 Published by Brinckmann 1923, pl. 48; it was then in the Gorga collection, but has since disappeared. 7 For the Apostle Andrew, see most recently From the Sculptor’s Hand, 1998, cat. 100, pp. 100-101. For Andrea Avellino, see Alle origini di Canova, 1991, cat. 13, p. 83. Both entries are by Sergei Androsov. 8 See Schlegel 1994, pp. 281-3. 9 A. Bacchi [i] 1996, p. 8. 03. 10 Golzio, 1935, pp. 67 and 73 (Ferrata), and 71 (Cafà) Golzio made some (usually minor) mistranscriptions, and my quotations are from the original archival document. The transcription published by R. Dose (1999, pp. 34-36) corrects (partially) only one of Golzio’s errors, includes none of his omissions, and does not even indicate (as he had done) where he made them. 11 Six are listed by Bacchi 1996, p. 803, pls. 381-3. See also Fagiolo dell’Arco 1996, pp. 26-30, for a photograph of that which Bacchi lists as in the possession of Massimo Vezzosi in ca. 1992. 12 In Ferrata’s inventory the version ascribed to Cafà is described as “sopra un piedestallo”, which might refer to the unusual base modelled in one with the figure in the Fitzwilliam terracotta. But the meaning is unclear, and I should not want to insist on this as proof of his authorship, especially as the same feature is to be found in the version in the Kunstgewerebemuseum in Hamburg. 13 Salerno 1973, p. 249; no contract wth Ferrata is known, but that for Guidi’s companion tomb was signed on 29 December 1665 (ibid., p. 251). 14 In the 1763 version of his guide, p. 424, he is identified as “Monsù Michele Anguier piccardo”, which is impossible. 15 Marchionne Gunter [ii] 1997, note 93, p. 343. There is a bozzetto for this figure in the Hermitage (Alle origin di Canova, cat. 38, pp. 90-91). 16 Perhaps mischievously, I should just like to point out that the Accademia di San Luca had in its now regrettably dispersed collection “due Modelli del Melchior Maltese, della Fede e Carità”( S. Bordini, 1991, p. 193). Is it possible that the Falconieri wanted to impose some unity on these memorials, and that both Virtues were originally to be made by the same artist? If so, no sign of any stylistic relationship to Cafà remains in Domenico Guidi’s very differently executed Charity; moreover, there is no evidence to suppose that the figures in the Academy were a pair. 17 See Cavarocchi 1976, pp. 1-8. On p.4 he quotes G. B. Lanfranconi, 1958, p. 29, who states that there were originally fifteen, but that seven were taken by the “Commissari di Napoleone”; however, Cavarocchi adds that he does not know where Lanfranconi got this information. Cavarocchi states that in 1910 the mourning Virgin “mysteriously disappeared”, and is no longer

19 20 21

23 24

25 26

27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39

there (p. 4); yet a photograph of it was used to illustrate a short article on the Museo della Valle Intelvi (F. Cavadini, 1966, p. 252), and I saw all eight statuettes some years later. Although these remain the property of the church, they are (to the best of my knowledge) now in the Museo della Valle Intelvi. On the drawings collected by Francesco Antonio Rensi (or Renzi) and acquired by Leipzig in 1714, many of them coming from the former collection of Queen Cristina, see Kroker 1914. Cavarocchi 1976, p. 2. R. Preimesberger goes further, and says that they were “donata” by Ferrata. (1973, p. 234). Golzio 1935, p. 70. This would seem to make it unlikely that there were ever more than eight (c.f. note 17). In Ferrata’s studio was not only a “San Pauolo di gesso di Melchiorre” (Golzio 1935, p. 71), but also “Una figurina di San Pauolo di Melchiorre di gesso (Ibid., p. 71), which indicates that a small version of the Maltese statue was available. There were anonymous models of St. Peter in Ferrata’s studio, as of other saints reproduced in these statuettes; but, as there is no evidence as to what they looked like, or who made them, I shall not refer to them. I owe to Monsignor Azzopardi the information that these bronzes were modeled by Stefani, and cast by Luca Menville, in 1702. Ff. 176, 185. On the latter sheet it appears with another very similar model of the same subject, which corresponds to a terracotta in Berlin which Ursula Schlegel has now attributed to Cafà on the basis of this drawing, an attribution with which I think no one would quarrel (Schlegel 1978, cat. 15, pp. 47-53). No folio number. Ascribed to Ferrata by Brinckmann 1923, pp. 116-7, it was attributed to Cafà by Santangelo ( Santangelo 1954, p. 88). See most recently Barberini 1991, p. 45. They may have appeared less heterogeneous had there really been fifteen of them; see above, note 17. Ff. 144r, 145v. There also are two drawings for another St. John the Evangelist (ff. 143r, 145r) holding a book supported by a flying putto, which looks much less Algardesque. See Montagu, 1985, p. 115. See Gian Lorenzo Bernini, regista del barocco 1999, catalogue entries 186a-b / 187a-b (by Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco); Giovanni Morello, 2002, p. 6. He may have also been responsible for the few drawings in pen and ink (apart from those ascribed to Bernini). Folios 146, 164 and 166. Folios 154, 157, and 158 See Montagu 1985, p. 93. Folio 158. Montagu1989, p. 16. Ff. 140v, 168r, 160r, 149r, 167r; f. 163r includes a variant of the angel a the right See J. Montagu, 1989, pp. 16-18. Di Gioia 2002, no. 14, pp. 131-38. They have been ascribed to Giuseppe Rusnati by Roberta Dose (1999), who claims, on the basis of the misleading translation of the Italian edition of my book, that I had already done so; I had merely

245

said (in the English edition) that they must be by an artist such as Rusnati, i.e. one who worked in Ferrata’s studio and was assiduous in copying the models there, as well as works by Ferrata in Rome (J. Montagu, 1989, p. 16). Rusnati’s is a name that should be borne in mind when looking at the many anonymous models in Ferrata’s inventory, or for example, the many terracotta versions of the Falconieri Faith. 40 Ff. 181, 182, 183. 41 F. 170v; although there appears to be a Cross, it is also possible to see the Angel as holding an arrow – in which case the drawing would represent St. Teresa. There is a variant of this figure in an even sketchier drawing (f. 142v), concentrating on the falling cloak. After this paper was completed, my attention was drawn to a book published in the year of the conference, where the ceiling of the chapel of S. Filippo Neri was attributed to Francesco Allegrini, with the date 1663. No evidence was cited and as yet I have been unable to check this. See G. Simonetta, L. Gigli and G. Marchetti, Sant’Agnese in Agone a Piazza Navona, Bella proporzione armonia nelle fabbriche Pamphili, Rome, 2003.

Per Melchiorre Cafà: Appunti dall’Archivio Storico dell’Accademia di San Luca di Roma 1 2

5 6

7 8 9 10 11

246

Archivio Storico Accademia San Luca, Roma (d’ora in poi A.S.L.),vol.43, ff.133v.-134 v. e vol.28, ad annum. Carlo Maratta sarà principe dell’Accademia per un biennio, nel 1664-1665 ed alla fine del secolo, sarà eletto principe perpetuo, carica creata appositamente per lui,dal 1699 al 1713. Oltre al 27 agosto 1662, Cafà è presente in questo anno alle Congregazioni del 3 settembre (A.S.L. vol.43, f.136), dell’8 ottobre (ibidem, f.138), 26 novembre (ibidem,f.139) e 3 dicembre (ibidem, ff.140v.-141). Nel 1663 è presente il 14 e il 20 gennaio, il 17giugno, il 2 settembre, l’11 novembre , il 2 e il 9 dicembre (A.S.L., vol.43, ff 142-153). Il 22 aprile ed il 27 maggio è nell’elenco di coloro che contribuiscono alle spese per l’affitto e poi nella lista dei sottoscrittori che promettono un’opera lista questa che appare chiaramente arricchita di firme di adesione anche dopo la data della Congregazione nella quale per altro Cafà non risulta presente. A.S.L., vol.66 ad vocem Nella consuetudine del tempo si iscrivevano in Accademia giovani che avessero già conseguito una prima formazione lavorando presso qualche artista accademico e che avessero dimostrato di poter utilmente seguire la didattica accademica. A.S.L., vol.43, f.170v.; vol.44, f.25v. A.S.L., vol.43, f.169v.; vol.44, f.23v. A.S.L., vol.43, f.173; vol.44, f.27v. A.S.L., vol.43, f.173v.-174v.; vol.44, f.29 Nel verbale della Congregazione dell’11 gennaio 1665 si legge: “…Maratta Principe, Sbringa, Guidi, Boselli, Cozza, si esibiscono

13 14 15 16 17 18

di raccomandar la causa che essendo stati letti i statuti e approvati, s’ordina che si faccino copiare in bona forma per dare a nostro signore e che per ciò si spenda quel che è di dovere.” A.S.L., vol.43, f.170; vol.44, f.24. Di questa volontà collettiva così chiaramente espressa rimane in archivio la copia manoscritta: Statuti e Privilegi dell’Accademia di San Luca composta di Pittori, Scoltori e Architetti e d’altri Artefici dipendenti e aggregati in Roma già eretta et hora riformata e stabilita nell’anno santo MDCLXXV. Precede questa copia una nota del segretario Giuseppe Ghezzi , datata 20 luglio 1676, con l’elenco completo degli accademici e degli aggregati viventi ed un esonero dalla ronda per sede vacante del 30 luglio 1676. In fondo è legato il Breve di Clemente X Ad futuram rei memoriam, stampato dalla Camera Apostolica nel 1671. a proposito dei nuovi statuti, ancora nella Congregazione del 16 settembre 1673 si legge: “…Circa li statuti sono in mano del sig. Carlo Maratti per darli di nuovo al sig. card. Carpegna al quale è bene sbrigare il suo quadro”; e, ancora in data 26 novembre 1673: “…Circa li statuti, sono ancora in mano del sig. Carlo Maratti onde è bene risolvere chi deve dipingere nel quadro del sig. card. Carpegna acciò se li possino dare per fare confermare da N.S.”. L’ attesa si prolunga e gli statuti che saranno approvati nel 1715 saranno ovviamente diversi, formulati secondo mutate esigenze. Caratteristica peculiare di questa stesura mai pubblicata, a differenza di tutte le altre , è la citazione, nella breve storia dell’Accademia anteposta agli statuti medesimi, non dell’antica Università dei Pittori ma del Breve di Paolo III Farnese del 3 marzo 1539, con il quale si riconosce la diversa specificità che contraddistingue gli Scultori dagli Scalpellini. cfr. A. Cipriani 2004. A.S.L., vol.43, f.179; vol.44,f.34. A.S.L., vol.43, f.181; vol.44,f.37v.. A.S.L., vol.43, f.181v.; vol.44, f.38 A.S.L., vol.42/a, f.76 cfr. documento 10 settembre 1667 in: K. Sciberras 2004, pag. 215; A.S.L.Inventario delli Disegni di Pittura e Architettura, delle Stampe, Libr e Modell che esistono entro li due Armarij e Canterano nel Salone dell’Accademia di S.Luca di Roma. Sotto il reggimento del sig.re Pietro Bracci Principe di detta Accademia l’anno 1756 [indicata correntemente come ‘Rubricella’]; Inventario dell’Ar mario a mano sinistra, ff.26v-27 e Nota delli modelli che al presente si trovano nelle stanze e coretti dell’Accademia di San Luca. Stanza delli modelli scielti e posti in cornice, ff. 43v. – 47v., n.33; su Orfeo Borselli teorico cfr.: Ph. Dent Weil 1978; A. P.Torresi – M.Fagiolo dell’Arco 1994; D.L.Sparti 1998, pp.60-131; M.C.Fortunati 2000, pp.69-101; E. Di Stefano 2002.

Melchiorre Cafà at S. Caterina a Magnanapoli 1

The long standing assumption of the statue of Santa Rosa in Lima cathedral being left unfinished

2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11

by Cafà and completed by others was based on a completely wrong transcription of the signature and date on the statue. My first attempt to give a correct, albeit incomplete, reading of the signature and date is published in Bissell [i] 1997. See also my previous approach to the subject: Schuster1988. The conclusions in the present paper differ slightly from my results then. For the history of the building see: Zucchi 1938; Buchowiecki 1967, pp. 514-519; Bevilacqua 1993. See also: Cannizzaro 1978, pp. 22-26. Titi 1674, p. 314. The exact text with all the changes through the several updated editions are compared in: Titi 1987, I, p.146. These have not yet been studied in depth. As far as my attempts of identification go, they might be St. Thomas Aquinas representing scholarship, presumably St. Dominic standing for faith and chastity, St. Peter Martyr, and the last one with a mitre representing high church office, possibly Albertus Magnus. See Zucchi 1938, p. 239, and Bevilacqua 1993, p. 97. Cannizzaro 1978, p. 23. The subjects are S. Agnese da Montepulciano and S. Rosa da Lima. Titi 1987, I, p. 146. Jennifer Montagu found them in Madrid and links them to Cafà or his circle on stylistic grounds. The bozzetto is possibly identical with the one documented by an 18th century engraving as then being in the collection of Pierre Crozat in Paris (fig. 121). For Le Gros see: Bissell [ii] 1997.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28

La Santa Rosa di Melchiorre Cafà iconografia e significato Devo un particolare e sentito ringraziamento per la loro gentilezza ed il loro aiuto a Keith Sciberras, Giulia Barberini, Gerhard Bissell, Vivian Gatt, Elena Di Gioia, Jennifer Montagu ed Antonella Pampalone. 1 Mujica Pinilla 1995, p.156. 2 Fleming 1947, n. 529, p.86. 3 Di Gioia 1987, p.41. 4 Preimesberger 1969, pp.178-183. 5 Di Gioia 1987, pp. 39-53, le schede in Boucher 2001, pp.210-213 e Di Gioia 2002, pp. 165-175. Il bronzo nella collezione Sgarbi a Roma è stato segnalato da Keith Sciberras. 6 Sulla sua beatificazione e canonizzazione, avvenuta il 12 aprile 1671, cfr. Hampe Martínez 1998, Hampe Martínez 2000, pp. 215-232 e Di Gioia 2002, pp. 165-166. 7 Lioni 1671, pp.271-272 (Biblioteca Casanatense, Banc. G 131) citato da Di Gioia 2002, p. 168. Mujica Pinilla 1995, p. 156 cita un altro documento relativo a questa cerimonia dove si dice che al centro dell’altare effimero venne collocata “una estatua de már mol de la B. Rosa durmiendo, con un ángel en ademán de despertarla, tan perfectamente acabada que haze hermosa competencia a las más plausibles de Roma” (ovvero “dove si collocò una statua di marmo della beata Rosa dormente, con un angelo in procinto di svegliarla, tanto perfettamente

29 30

terminata che fa concorrenza alle più belle sculture di Roma”) però non riporta la fonte. Mujica Pinilla 1995, p.156. Ringrazio Gerhard Bissel per avermi fatto notare questo particolare visibile nelle fotografie da lui fatte a Lima, di cui mi ha gentilmente dato copia. G. D. Lioni 1665, p.88 v. Lavin 1980, p.124 cui si rimanda anche per la specifica bibliografia sull’argomento. Mujica Pinilla 1995, p.157. Craveri 1980. Mujica Pinilla 1995, pp.53-211. Lavin 1980, pp.125-126 Mujica Pinilla 1995 sul significato del nome si veda anche quanto osserva Pampalone 2000 [ii], p.139. Hampe Martínez 1998, Hampe Martínez 2000, R. Mujica Pinilla 1995, pp.74-89, e Di Gioia, 2002, p. 175 nota 25. Palmerio – Villetti 1989, p.168. Boucher 2001, p.210. Sulle altre possibili fonti d’ispirazione di Cafà, cfr. Di Gioia 2002, p. 170. Mujica Pinilla 1995, p.85. Cfr. l’accurata scheda di Pampalone 2000 [ii], pp.137-139, cui si rimanda anche per la precedente bibliografia dell’autrice. Mujica Pinilla 1995, pp.89-107. Lavin 1980, pp. 124-136. Mujica Pinilla 1995. Lavin 1980, pp.83-175. Di Gioia 1987, pp.47-48 e Di Gioia 2002, pp 170-171, cui si rimanda anche per la precedente bibliografia e per ulteriori osservazioni sull’Angelo. Si veda anche quanto osservato in Di Gioia 1987, pp.48-50 e in Boucher 2001, p.210. Di Gioia 1987, pp.42-44, Pampalone 2000 [ii]e Di Gioia 2002, pp 165-175. Montagu 1984, pp.50-61. Non essendo note le circostanze e la data dell’invio ovviamente non è possibile neanche stabilire esattamente quanto tempo la scultura sia rimasta a Roma.

Melchiorre Cafà’s Baptism of Christ for the Knights of the Order of Malta 1 This essay is largely based on the relevant chapter in my recent publication on Roman Baroque Sculpture in Malta, where I discuss the commission in detail. See Sciberras 2004, pp 51-80. The documents cited in the footnotes hereunder are all transcibed from Sciberras 2004, to where the reader is referred. In order to avoid repetition references to Sciberras 2004 are generally omitted. 2 Noted in Sammut 1978, p. 69: Scudi 58 dati di regalo all’ingegniere Melchiore per disegno del detto choro. 3 Micallef 1848, p. 16, describes the decoration of the altar area of the chapel of France, of which nothing survives following the Nazarene remodeling, as: ingombra di grossi massi di pietra rappresentanti degli angeli in attitudini improprie, staccato su d’un figurato cielo nuvoloso e nell’istesso temp stellato. Micallef is, in general, very prejudiced against baroque art. 4 The Noble Donna Cosmana Cassar Navarra was one of the most important benefactors of

247

the church of St Paul, Rabat. She was largely responsible for building the church and had a particular devotion for the altar of St Anthony. 5 NAV, R 18/16, Notary Nicola Allegritto, 16661667, ff.263v- 264r: Item voluit et mandavit dicta Domina Testatrix quod infrascriptus dominus eius heres universalis teneatur sitque obligatus apportare il lampiere d’argento quale di commissione d’essa Signora testatrice sta facendo in Roma il Signor Melchiore Gafar voluit que et mandavit che sopradetto lampiere cunctis perpetuis futuris temporibus inserviat et inservire debeat pro usu et servitio ac ornamento praedictae euis Cappellae Sancti Antonii. The lamp and its assay marks were published by Sciberras 2000, pp. 20-22 and Sciberras 2004, pp. 17-20. This reference had been idependently discovered by John Azzopardi in the Archieves of St Paul’s Grotto, Wignacourt Museum, Rabat, and is discussed by Azzopardi infra. 6 Vide: Sammut 1957, pp. 8-25; Sammut 1978; Some documents were transcribed by Zammit 1978, pp. 35-41, Sciberras 2004, pp. 51-80. 7 AOM, Arch. 261, Liber Conciliorum Status, 16641672, f. 15; noted in Sammut 1978, p. 58. 8 AOM, Arch. 1441, Corrispondenza GM N.Cotoner, 1665, f. 74; noted in Sammut 1978, p. 108. 9 AOM, Arch. 1284, Corrispondenza Ambasciatore Santa Sede, 1665-1666; noted in Sammut 1978, p. 106: Sicche essonsendosi data notitia che il Bernini si è sentito più volte a dire che un certo Giovane Maltese lo havrebbe passato nel mestiere per haver mostrato gran giudizio et attivita in molti lavori. 10 Sammut 1978, p. 106: feci chiamare detto Maltese, e datoli uno dei disegni con tutta segretezza. 11 Sammut 1978, p. 106: che stando io procurando di farne fare qualch’altro da Architetto pur di stima. 12 AOM, Arch. 1441, f.51, 14 June 1665; noted in Sammut 1978, p. 107: Restiamo aspettando i disegni che dite d’haver commesso di fare per questa Chiesa sì a cotesto Giovane Maltese stimato tanto valoroso nel mestiere, come ad altri, per scieglierne poi il migliore. 13 AOM, Arch. 1284, f. 128v: et a quello del Signor Principe Pamfilio non ho possuto mai parlare ancorchè io sia andato di persona diverse volte per vederlo in casa. 14 AOM, Arch. 1284, f. 128v, 18 July 1665; noted in Sammut 1978, p. 107: sperando che da detto Maltese si habbia ad incontrare il gusto di Vostra Eminenza giachè da lui si fanno doi disegni e doi modelli. 15 AOM, Arch. 1284, ff. 139v-140, 15 August 1665. 16 AOM, Arch. 1441, f. 74: il detto Melchiorre come suddito nostro sarà per impiegarsi in quest’opera con ogni affetto, e diligenza, come ancora per lasciare una degna memoria della sua virtù alla sua patria. 17 AOM, Arch. 6551, Discorsi e Pareri sopra le Fortificazioni, ff. 104-106. This important document was discovered by the author in 2001. It was discussed extensively with Dr Jennifer Montagu in the context of the studies on Cafà and was also the subject of discussion during lectures delivered at the University of Malta and the Istituto Italiano di Cultura in Valletta. It was published independently by Moira Pisani in 2003 and in Pisani, 2004. 18 AOM, Arch. 1441, f. 74. 19 AOM, Arch. 1284, ff. 164v-165r. 20 Reference should here be however made to Preti’s own claims that he was being forced to remain on the island. 21 AOM Arch. 1441, f. 85v: Aspetteremo di veder comparire qui Melchiore Cafà per il tempo promesso, e in

248

tanto potrete assicurarlo, che non sarà trattenuto qui per maggior spatio di quello che bisognerà a principiar l’opera, conforme à quanto vi significiamo già con nostra lettera e potrà poi tornarsi subito alle sue facende. 22 AOM, Arch. 1284, f. 193r, 2 January 1666: l’ Architetto Melchiorre Cafà, il quale però pensa partire frà tre ò quattro giorni, se pure il tempo sarà buono per viaggare, portando seco un’ altro modello per maggiormente incontrare il gusto di Vostra Eminenza. 23 For Michelangelo Marullo vide Sciberras 2004, pp. 20-21. 24 Sciberras 2004, p. 66. 25 AOM, Arch. 261, f. 42, noted in Sammut 1978, p. 110: considerando tutti li disegni fatti dal suddette Cafà per ornamento dell’altare di San Giovanni et intendano sul luogo la di lui opinione, e di tutto quello, che in tal materia stimeranno conveniente, referiscano al Venerando Consiglio. 26 Uomini Illustri di Malta, NLM Ms.1123, op. cit., p.90, notes the following: Il Cafà aveva mandato il modello in Malta delle statue del Battesimo di Cristo datogli da S. Gio. Piacque sommamente ma non fù eseguito, a riflesso che il Cavalier Mattia, considerata l’Eccelenza dell’Opera, e dubitando che senza meno avrebbe oscurato la sua Pittura fatta nella volta della Chiesa con obligar gli occhi di riguardanti il gruppo del Cafà, e non questo diede a sentire che l’idea non era proporzionata a Luogo. Onde Egli ne fece un altro modello, e questo fù messo in opera, e quello del Cafà, cosi com’era fù da Monsignor Priore della Chiesa (naturalmente Fra Pietro Viani Provenzale che viveva in quest’ Età) fù mandato in Aix a suo fratello Priore di Aix. The validity of the latter claim cannot be ascertained. 27 AOM Arch. 261, f. 42; transcribed in Sammut 1978, p. 111. 28 Rame, rather than bronze is mentioned. 29 This was, in fact, taken up in Mazzuoli’s project, where grey marble is utilised for the background panels. 30 Vide supra in the biographical account. 31 AOM, Arch.1442, Corrispondenza GM N. Cotoner, 1666, f. 29v: si che la presente sarà solo per incaricarvi la diligente esecuttione di quanto viene espresso nel congionto decreto intorno all’opera, che dovrà prima abbozzare costì lo scultore Melchiore Gafà, il quale se bene ci fà sperare una piena sodisfattione nelle sue fatiche, come l’habbiamo havuta in quanto è occorso fin’ora qiu, che però il soggetto ci è riuscito molto grato, tuttavia dovrà da voi invigilarsi all’opera, e ne chiamarete ancora la consulta delle persone più intendenti. 32 AOM, Arch. 1284, f. 242r: devo dire humilmente a Vostra Eminenza che havendo io ricevuto anche il decreto intorno all’opera che dovra’ prima abbozzarsi dal detto Cafà’, esseguiro’ puntualmente I riveriti cenni di Vostra Eminenza e quanto in esso decreto si contiene, e di quello che si andara’ facendo daro’ il dovuto avvisio all’ Emminenza Vostra. 33 AOM, Arch. 1284, f. 243r: et havendo io voluto sapere da loro quanto si dovrà pagare la libra il bronzo, mi hanno detto che si pagerà 16 in 17 baiocchi la libra senza dogana e con la dogana 18 in 19, Si che fatti da’ me I conti vedo che per la prattica che tengo del prezzo che si vende costa il bronzo essendosi dal Tesoro pagato 4 tari il rotolo, et il rotolo fa due libre e mezza di queste, non essendo ciascuna libra più che 12 oncie, quando si potesse mandare da’ costì anche se fossero cannoni o’ altri pezzi rotti, sarebbe un gran risparmio, già che al suddetto conto che mi hanno fatto detti fonditori a’ prezzo di qua ci andarebbono da’ 7[000] scuti per la quantita del bronzo

che ci bisogna. 34 AOM, Arch. 1442, f. 49r: In quanto al somministra danaro allo scultore Melchior Gafa, l’andarete facendo à poco à poco, vedendo che l’opera camini inanzi. 35 AOM, Arch. 1284, f. 257r, 31 July 1666: Dal Scultore Cafà si sta tuttavia lavorando e si fa anche lavorare il modello con la sollecitudine possibile et io li assisto di tutto affinche habbia a’ finir presto per darne poi a suo tempo il denaro […?] Vostra Eminenza. Quanto al bronzo staro’ aspettando di sentire la risoluttione e quanto di piu’ mi vorra’ commandare l’Eminenza Vostra. 36 AOM, Arch. 1284, f. 263v, 4 September 1666: Il scultore Melchior Cafà mi ha dimandato nella cadente settimana dei ordini quali già ho fatto pagare dal Ricevitore Verospi l’uno di 100 per il scarpellino, e l’altro di 50 per il falegname, e di piu mi ha detto che credeva che per le feste del Santissimo Natale prossimo facilmente si havra bisogno del Bronzo per gettare le statue. 37 AOM, Arch. 1284, f. 281v: Starò aspettando gli ordini che Vostra Eminenza mi fa gratia accennare, de’ Ven. Procuratori del Tesoro circa il bronzo per poterlo io comunicare a questi fonditore delle statue per cotesta Chiesa Conventuale. 38 AOM, Arch. 1442, f. 69v: Già fù risoluto dai Venerandi Procuratori del Tesoro che il Bronze per le statue di questa Chiesa si proveda da voi costì. 39 AOM, Arch. 1284, f. 293r: In questo punto che si stava chiudendo il presente dispaccio e’ venuto a dirmi il Mastro Fonditore delle statue che il bronzo assoluto costa 16 baiocchi e mezzo la libra, che tanto l’ha pagato la fabrica di San Pietro, ma’ con la lega di stagno costera’ 20 baiocchi, Si che andandovene da 30 mila libre la spesa ascendera’ alla somma di sei mila scuti di questa moneta. 40 AOM, Arch. 1285, Corrispondenza Ambasciatore Santa Sede, 1667-1668, f. 98r, 10 September 1667; noted in Sammut 1978, pp. 77, 78, 119, 120: io nella settimana passata feci chiamare in questa casa i fonditori ad effetto di concludere con essi il prezzo del metallo e fonditura, e sebbene cercai farli contentare per 5 mila scudi stettero però saldi nel volerne 7 mila, per il che non si concluse cosa altra. Devo però dire humilmente a Vostra Eminenza che sebbene Melchiorre disse che la spesa non sarebbe più di 16 in 18 mila scudi, sento però adesso che se si vuol fare secondo il di lui disegno ce ne vanno a in 25 mila perchè la Gloria solamente importerà 7 o 8 mila. 41 AOM, Arch. 261, f. 78v; noted in Sammut 1978, pp.77, 120: ...non faccino partiti con altri, diano avviso del denaro che si sarà sborsato a detto Cafà per cominciare detta opera, ricuperino quello, che havesse già lavorato, e principalmente le due statue di Cristo, e San Giovanni che si dice haver lasciato di creta; riferendo se potran esser di servitio col portarli qui, e qual modo dovrebbe tenersi nella portatura, ò pure se sarà meglio venderli in Roma, et à qual prezzo potrebbe trovarsi. 42 AOM, Arch. 1285, f. 140r; noted in Sammut 1978, p. 121. 43 AOM, Arch. 1285, f. 140r: Quanto al denaro che feci somministrare per detta opera gia notificai a Vostra Eminenza essere stato nella somma di scudi 900 tra esso Cafà, scarpellino e falegname. 44 Sammut 1978, p. 78; Baldinucci 1681-1728: ma dopo averne condotti I modelli in piccolo ed in grande, fini di vivere e fino a questo anno veggonsi gl’istessi modelli nella fonderia di San Pietro. 45 AOM, Arch. 262, f. 15v, noted in Zammit 1978, p.42: fu da Sua Eminenza e Venerando Consiglio unanimi voto ordinato, che si fabrichi l’altare del battesimo di Cristo Nostro Signore, che sta nel coro della Nostra Maggiore Chiesa Conventuale con li marmi portati a quest’effetto.

46 AOM, Arch. 645, Registro dei Decreti della Camera del Tesoro, 1607-1678, p. 140, 17 October 1670. 47 Sciberras 2004, p. 70. 48 Montagu 1985, pp. 310-314. 49 Brinckmann 1924, pp. 90-91. 50 Wittkower 1928-29, p. 230; Ozzola 1926-27, pp. 131-135. 51 Nava Cellini 1956, p. 25. 52 Schlegel 1967, p. 395. 53 Vitzhum 1963, pp. 75-98. 54 Montagu 1972, pp. 64-78. 55 Cannata 1999, p. 162. 56 Nava Cellini 1956, p.25, plate 18a. 57 Montagu 1972, pp. 71-72. The g roup is reproduced as figure 17. 58 Well noted by scholars: vide Montagu 1972, p. 73. 59 For an exhaustive discussion of Lorenzo Gafa’s role in the commission see Sciberras 2004, pp.7276.

Melchiorre Cafà’s statue of St Paul at St Paul’s Grotto, Rabat, Malta 1 T he material connection was through an underground passage and staircase. 2 St Paul’s Grotto formed one juridical entity with the over-standing parish church up to the year 1609 when by Papal authority the Grotto was severed from the Parish and entrusted to the Spanish hermit Benegas de Cordova who later, also with Papal approval, ceded it to the Order. The latter soon created a ‘Collegium’ or College of chaplains to administer it. It was only in 1962 that the two entities with their additional constructions were once more juridically reunited and the whole complex elevated to a Collegiate Church, canonically erected. 3 For more information on the Gafà family and their origins in Malta, vide Mercieca 2002, pp.278-288. 4 Fra Giuseppe Gafà was ordained priest on 21 September 1652 (CEM, RO 5, f.113) . In the Libro dei Consigli of the Rabat Priory, he is documented as forming part of the community, in 1662 as Prior, in 1663 as lector, prior and master of novices, in 1664 as lector. He left Rabat in 1665. Information kindly supplied by Fr Michael Fsadni O.P. 5 National Library of Malta, Library 142, vol. 3: Padre Pelagio, Relazione della venerabile Grotta di San Paolo Apostolo di Malta, p. 15. 6 Gatt Said 1863, pp.132-135, quoting the Cabreolum Volumen , Treasury B, 305 of the National Library of Malta. 7 Abela 1647, p.349 8 Of the two statues, only that of St John the Baptist is still extant. 9 Conti 2 ( 1651-7), p. 4: ‘I poveri fratelli della s.Grutta malamente possono campare con il presente stipendio colà su ove bisogna trasportare dalla Valletta qualunque cosa necessaria per vivere, per lo che….trattai in quest’ultimi anni coll’Eminentissimo mio defunto Signore per accrescergli per ognuno dieci scudi di tavola, al che non ripugnò S.E. ma solo ne differirla concesse, finchè s’havesse potuto fare quell’abbellimento di marmo dissegnato nella Santa Cappella di San Paolo nella Grutta” 10 The administrative records for 1661, for example,

249

are completely wanting. 11 The statue carries this inscription: S.Paulo Apostolo Melitensium /et Gaulensium Patrono / Fr. Emmanuel Pintus Melitae /et Gaulos Princeps/ D.D.D. 12 “Duae collaterales arcuatae portae eadem architectura dorica exornatae, una quae in sinistro latere est ducit ad Ecclesiam Sancti Publii supra quam eminet in theca ovali existens simulacrum Sancti Pauli in albo marmore insculptum; altera quae in dextro latere patet ad cemeterium et in simili ovata tribuna extat simulacrum S. Petri Apostoli.” AAM, Visitationes Pastorales, Alpheran II, p.61 13 The full text reads: E.mo ac R.mo D.no Fratri Alophio de Wignacourt S.R.H. Magno Magistro et Insularum Melitae et Gaulos Principi meritissimo, qui Sacram Pauli Cryptam in Collegium erexit atque dotavit anno Domini MDCXIX, Idem Collegium benefactorum non immemor Fundatori monum. pos. anno sal. MDCLXI 14 as remarked by Dr Conrad Thake. 15 Much more than for the Statue of St Paul in Valletta or the Madonna of the Rosary for the Dominican priory of Rabat. 16 T hese documents were forwarded by the present author to the late Dr Edward Sammut who transcribed them in his unpublished 1978 dissertation entitled The Life and Works of Melchiorre Gafà and published in 1980 by the present writer in Il-Festi Taghna (Rabat-Malta). 17 Archives of St Paul’s Grotto, Documenti A, p. 481: La statua sola di S. Paulo venne a costare scudi 759.9.12. The first digit could possibly read 859, in which case the cost of the marbles would be 406 and not 506. 18 It should be noted that the marble ‘suppedanea’ of the altars of St Luke and St Trophimus were commissioned by the Chaplains only in the 1960’s, together with eleven funerary marble slabs for the members forming the first Collegiate Chapter. 19 The work took eight weeks and the total expence , including a silver sanctuary lamp, amounted to over 427 Maltese scudi: “ Mi discarigo di scudi 427.10.7 spesi nella fabrica della Cappella di S.Luca, ferramenti, vetriate, fornimenti di detta cappella et altare, lampiere d’argento, manifattura della tapezzeria nuova, arme, ricamo, et altro come pare meglio nelle seguenti liste di spesa.. 427.10.7” (Conti, vol. 6, f.171v) 20 First published by Azzopardi 1980. 21 It is to be regretted that at the Fine Arts Museum recording there is not even a caption regarding its original provenance. 22 Cfr Montanaro 1990, pp. 157-168 23 This was the Church’s then only transept because Grand Master Nicholas Cotoner had refused to cede to Cosmana the garden behind the Church of St Publius which would have made possible the construction of the other transept of the parish church. This property was however ceded to Cosmana by Cotoner’s successor, Fra Gregorio Carafa, on the very same day of his election. 24 Azzopardi 1999[i], p.9; Azzopardi 1999[ii] p.18. The document is in the Archives of St Paul’s Grotto, Wignacourt Museum, Rabat. In the same year, the document was independently discovered in the Notarial Archives Valletta by Dr Keith Sciberras. It is also discussed supra by Sciberras. 25 Marulli or Marullo is not a common surname in Malta. The Marriage records of Birgu include the following three names: Paolo Marullo father of Battistina , who got married on 10.2.1575;

250

27 28 29

Dottor Onofrio Marullo married to Isabella on 21.12.1596 and Lorenzo Marullo married to Adriana on 17.07.1604. Information kindly supplied by Dr Simon Mercieca. In Xewkija, Gozo, a statue of St Paul was placed in the Parish Square, with an inscription recalling the preaching of St Paul to the people of Malta and Gozo. This statue has recently been transferred to one side of the new Parish Church. Erroneous date. It should have been 1607. Boisgelin 1805, vol. 1, p.27 as quoted by Freller 1996, p.125. Houel 1787, vol. IV, p.110 as quoted by Freller 1996, p.283.

Il Matrimonio mistico e La visione della Rose di Santa Rosa da Lima: Due Rilievi Di Cafà alle Descalzas Reales Di Madrid 1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Con la sua consueta generosità, Jennifer Montagu mi inviò nell’estate del 1998 le fotografie di questi due rilievi, che le parevano (a ragione) in qualche relazione con un’opera, riconducibile proprio a Cafà, che la mia tesi di dottorato (della quale ella era correlatrice) documentava nella collezione di Cristina di Svezia. A darne per prima notizia per iscritto è stata (sempre su segnalazione di Montagu) Di Gioia 2002, pp. 180-181. È naturalmente con l’amichevole consenso di queste due studiose – le ringrazio vivamente –, che pubblico le opere in questione. Sono grato a Jennifer Montagu anche per aver voluto leggere questo saggio, migliorandolo con consigli e critiche. Oltre alle gravi cadute del materiale dello sfondo, e alla probabile perdita di qualche elemento figurativo – di cui si fa cenno più oltre nel testo –, una buona parte dei perni che fissano le parti metalliche sembra troppo visibile e invadente per essere originale. Secondo quanto comunicato da Ana Garcia Sanz, conservatrice del Monasterio de las Descalzas Reales. Cfr. Schenone 1992, II, pp. 679-699. Uscito a Roma nel 1664. Così nell’indirizzo iniziale, con pagine non numerate. Leoni 1665, pp. 54-55. Una possibilità avvalorata dalle derivazioni di cui parleremo più sotto. Leoni 1665, pp. 199-200. Cfr. nota 3. Il documento (pubblicato da Golzio 1939, p. 302) attesta che l’Artusi venne pagato per «la rinettatura, pulitura, cisellatura, indoratura della stola»: dove ci si può chiedere se la specificazione «della stola» riguardi solo la doratura, o voglia limitare a quel particolare settore anche le altre operazioni menzionate. Il fatto che Cafà non chieda un pagamento specifico per sé ma si rimetta alla generosità del committente (il cardinal nipote Flavio Chigi), potrebbe far pensare che egli abbia avuto compiti di direzione e soprintendenza. Montagu 1991, p. 70, sembra propendere per questa interpretazione, mentre M. Butzek 2000, pp. 187-188, pare credere ad un impegno diretto

dello scultore. 12 Cfr. Montagu 1984, pp. 50-61. 13 Significativamente il disegno viennese reca un incidatur firmato proprio da quel padre Leoni grazie al cui libretto su Santa Rosa abbiamo decifrato precisamente l’iconografia dei nostri rilievi (cfr. Montagu 1984). 14 Per un’ampia e competente discussione del problema, cfr. Di Gioia 2002, pp. 176-181. 15 Golzio 1935, pp. 64-74 (70, 72). 16 Cfr. Montagu 1996, pp. 5 e sgg. 17 Pubblicato in Montanari 1998, p. 370. 18 Ibidem. 19 Cfr. Di Gioia 2002, pp. 165-181. 20 Cfr. Montagu 1985, II, p. 342. Jennifer Montagu ritiene che questi oggetti fossero meno rari di quel che si potrebbe pensare, e mi ricorda, tra gli altri esemplari analoghi, l’Estasi della Maddalena algardiana con il fondo di lapislazzulo, sempre a Madrid (cfr. ivi, p. 365) e la superba Agonia nell’orto degli Ulivi di Giovanni Giardini (cfr. Montagu 1996, p. 129). 21 Cfr. Montanari 1997, pp. 187-264 (241). Per il coinvolgimento di Baldi nell’iconografia di Santa Rosa vedi M. G. Bernardini 1997, pp. 213-222, e la bibliografia lì citata. 22 Cfr., per tutto questo, Montanari 1997, e Montanari 1998, p. 370.

Cafà’s conclusion 1

Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ed. 35a, I, pp. 122-23; 76 x 59.7 cms. On the banderole below St. Thomas: Hocque LEONE, hoc et RADIO SOL fulget AQVINAS. To the left of the statue’s head: Ab utroque RADIO. On the tablet below St. Thomas: Eminentissimo et Reverendissimo Principi S.R.E. Cardinali LAVRENTIO RAGGIO. RADIVM tui favoris, Eminentissime, orat sibi meus MEMNON. Sub AQUINATE SOLE aliquantulam vocem didicit inflectere, propalam non audet, nisi tuo firmetur praesidio. Si benigno has THESES lumine aspexeris, in illam spem animabis, et tuam vel ipsae STATVAE loquentur benignitatem. Vive diu, et Christiano Orbi, tibique, et Vale. Eminentissimae et Reverendissimae D. T. Humillimus et Divinctus Ser[vus] Io[annes] Franc[iscus] Rota. On the statue base: CONCLVSIO. Quicquid docet D. Thomas in Logica, Universa Philosophia naturali, et Metaphysica verum est. Disputabitur publice in Conventu S. Mariae super MINERVAM a Io. Francisco Roti Cremonen. sub assist. Fr. Antony Franc. Fracassi Ord. Pred. Romae anno 1663 Men. Martij. At the lower edge of the fictive broadsheet: Io. Girardin Parisinus Sculp.; in the lower left corner: Melchior Cafa Meliten. In. et Delin.; in the lower right corner: I. Couvay Parisinus sculp. The print was first published by Jennifer Montagu (Montagu 1984) and her thorough and insightful analysis is the point of departure for the present essay. See also Meyer 1990, pp. 110-11. 2 Born in 1628, ten years before Melchiorre, Giuseppe Cafà entered the Dominican order and was ordained priest in 1652, at the age of twenty-four. He was assigned to the Dominican monastery in Rabat, Malta, in 1656, but in 1674 he requested and was granted permission to transfer his affiliation to the monastery of S. Maria la Grande in Catania, where he may have

been resident since 1665. He seems to have been active primarily as a teacher within the monastic schools. There is no evidence that he traveled to Rome, but even if he did not he or his superiors may well have written to their Roman brethren to recommend Melchiorre. For Giuseppe’s career, see Forte 1977, pp. 316-17. Additional information was kindly provided to me by Father John Azzopardi. 3 Montagu 1984, pp. 52-54. 4 On Rota, see Ciampini 1691, pp. xlvii-xlviii; Crescimbeni 1720, II, pp. 116-21; Arisi 1741, III, pp. 146-48. 5 The College of S. Tommaso was established for the education of Dominican friars; the very fragmentary records of the college contain no evidence that lay students were ever admitted there. See, for example, in the archives at S. Maria sopra Minerva (Archivio Domenicano Minervitano), II. 32, “Liber Collegii Sancti Thomae de Aquino Ordinis Praedicatorum ... Romae in Conventu Sanctae Mariae super Minervam ad religionis Dominicanae decus & incrementum erecti,” which lists matriculants for the period 1603-1646. 6 Rota joined the Accademia degli Arcadi in 1691, nine months after it was founded. 7 Crescimbeni 1720, II, pp. 120. 8 His tombstone, which can still be seen in the church, reads as follows: D.O.M./ IOANNES FRANCISCVS/ E MARCHION. DE ROTA CREMONEN./ VTR. SIG. REFER. ABBR. PARC. MAIOR DEC./ DOCTRINA MORIBVS PIETATE/ OMNIBVS CARVS/ AMICORUM AMANTISSIMVS/ ERGA PAVPERES MVNIFICENTISSIMVS/ ASTRORVM CONTEMPLATIONE CLARVS/ HVIVS ECCLESIAE PRIMVS CUSTOS/ AD AETHEREA CONVOLAVIT/ DIE XXIII MARTII AN. SAL./ MDCCVI/ AETATIS SUAE ANN. LXIII. See Forcella 1874, V, p. 356; Le lapidi di San Carlo al Corso, 2002, pp. 88-89. 9 Bernstock 1980; Gian Lorenzo Bernini: regista del barocco, 1999, pp. 349-50. 10 Taurisano 1958. 11 After his personal theologian and confessor, the Dominican friar Antonio Santacroce, was elevated to the cardinalate, Raggi retained other Dominicans—Fra Ambrogio Viola, Fra Giovanni Battista Lanci—to fill these roles. See AGOP, XIV.17 bis, p. 47; Fontana 1670, p. 367; Fontana, 1675, p. 655. 12 Gigli 1994, II, p. 577. The confraternity was founded by the Spanish Dominican Fra Diego di Vittoria “per isradicare [...] l’esecrabile abuso delle bestemmie, e dei spergiuri.” See Piazza 1698, part 1, pp. 496-98. 13 Ibid.; Gonzalez de Acuña 1670, pp. 102-3. The redecoration of the chapel was completed between 1668, the year of Rose’s beatification, and 1671, the year of her canonization; the altarpiece and other paintings are by Lazzaro Baldi. 14 For the defense in Seicento Rome, see Rice 1998; 1999; 2004. 15 See note 1 above. 16 The position of the signatures would seem to imply that Girardin engraved the inner broadsheet and Couvay the outer one. Since the print is pulled from two copper plates, with the seam horizontally bisecting both the real and the fictive

251

18 19 20 21

22 23 24

broadsheets, the engravers could have worked contemporaneously, one on the upper half, the other on the lower half, switching plates half way through the process. Speed was presumably an issue, and this arrangement would have allowed them to complete the broadsheet in half the time it would have taken a single engraver. Another possibility, suggested by Montagu (1984, pp. 5051), is that Girardin did most of the work, while Couvay engraved only the landscape, presumably after the rest was completed. Inventors of thesis prints often used the imagery of the constellations to allude to the dedicatee’s heraldry. Cafà’s invention is particularly close to the 1653 thesis broadsheet of Giovanni Calvo, designed by Alessandro Algardi and engraved by Francois de Poilly, which features a similar zodiacal band arching into the upper part of the composition, with one putto holding a cardinal’s hat over Leo and another thrusting a quince branch into the lion’s paw, to form the coat of arms of Cardinal Federigo Sforza (see Montagu 1984, p. 59, n. 7; Montagu 1985, I, p. 180, and II, fig. 180; Lothe 1994, pp. 208-09). The presence of a river god in the lower left corner of both compositions further supports the idea that Cafà was familiar with Algardi’s work, as does the fact that both broadsheets feature Egyptian themes. Montagu points out that Raggi was born on 15 July 1615, under the sign of Leo (Montagu 1984, p. 59, n. 4). Strabo, Geographia 17.1, 46; Pliny, Naturalis historia 36.58; Tacitus, Annales 2.61. See Oechslin 2002, pp. 7-47. The print is discussed in more detail in Rice 1999, pp. 160-63. Savo de’ Conti Marsciano was “president” of the Accademia degli Intrecciati, an elite student association based at the Sapienza, and the print, which features the emblem and motto of the academy, was reused multiple times by subsequent holders of the office. Varriano 1985-86, pp. 54-55; L’Ariccia del Bernini, 1998, pp. 102-106; Gian Lorenzo Bernini: regista del barocco, 1999, pp. 414-15. Montagu 1984, p. 59, n. 4. Sadly, although paper is indeed a resilient medium, silk is not. It tends to react with ink and crumble. No copies on silk of any of these three broadsheets have survived.

Sulle cere di Melchiorre Cafà a Malta 1 Il bassorilievo in collezione privata è oggi montato all’interno di una cornice a sportello. Misura cm 43 in altezza, cm 32 in larghezza e un’aggetto massimo di cm 3.5 circa. Si desidera ringraziare Don Edgar Vella proprietario del manufatto, Teresa Vella e Denis Vella, Direttori del Museo Nazionale di Belle Arti di La Valletta, Keith Sciberras al quale si deve l’idea, l’energia, la diplomazia ed il lavoro di organizzazione sia il convegno sia della mostra, (La Valletta, dal 24 ottobre al 14 novembre 2003) dedicati a Melchiorre Cafà ed infine Jennifer Montagu ed Elena Bianca Di Gioia che hanno incoraggiato e voluto queste brevi note. Questo bassorilievo

252

in cera è al momento l’unica testimonianza del lavoro preparatorio per l’opera marmorea in quanto è andato perduto l’altro modello documentato nel XVIII secolo nella collezione Crozat a Parigi riprodotto in incisione edita da S.F.Ravanet nel 1742 (Mariette 1742, p. 47, tav. CXVIII). 2 Le due statuette sono conservate presso il Museo Nazionale di Belle Arti di La Valletta. Il manufatto raffigurante il giovane imberbe misura cm 23 x 18; alto cm 42; il manufatto raffigurante un martire con la barba, misura cm 22 x 15; alto cm 44. 3 Circa il restauro di manufatti in cera si rimanda a Boddi – Crescioli – Danti 1994, pp.121-127. 4 Sulla cera come medium artistico si rimanda ai fondamentali riferimenti: Von Schlosser 1911, pp. 171-258; Pyke 1973; Congresso 1977. 5 Per una bibliografia aggiornata si rimanda a Bisogni 2002, 1, pp. 1-15; Ex Voto 2001, pp. 66-91. Circa le cere votive nel XV e XVI secolo a Firenze si rimanda a Masi 1916, pp. 124-142; Lightbown 1970; inoltre Lightbown 1981, pp. 60-74. 6 Avery 1984, n.265, pp.166-176. 7 L’argilla, appare ai nostri occhi vista la grande quantità di bozzetti e modelli in terracotta giuntici, prevalentemente utilizzata rispetto alla cera al fare dell’arte. Invece proprio per la caratteristica di quest’ultimo materiale, in pochissime parole descritta nella citazione del Sirigatti, sembra esser stata volutamente preferita dagli artisti in quanto meglio rispondente dell’argilla alla realizzazione di un idea creativa e la suo concretizzarsi nel tempo. L’argilla, infatti, tende in un breve lasso di tempo a seccarsi anche utilizzando l’espediente di tener umido il manufatto con panni bagnati. L’uso dell’argilla necessita inoltre di una conseguente cottura, vista la fragilità della terracruda, operazione a seguito della quale, si hanno delle modificazioni rispetto al manufatto originale quali, prima tra tutte, la riduzione delle dimensioni di circa il 10-12%. Inoltre se la lavorazione non viene eseguita in modo coretto, durante la cottura si possono verificare inconvenienti che possono compromettere l’intera realizzazione di un opera quali la formazione di fessurazioni, lesione, esfoliazione e distacchi. È quanto accaduto ad un altr’opera del Cafà: il bozzetto in argilla raffigurante San Tommaso di Villanova distribuisce le elemosine, conservato presso il Museo Nazionale di Belle Arti di La Valletta, ove sono presenti alcune fessurazioni ed esfoliazioni dovute a fenomeni di ritiro durante la cottura. Le esfoliazioni sono in particolar modo causate dalla veloce tecnica di esecuzione con la quali l’artista ha aggiunto argilla per realizzare i volumi e i panneggi. Tali annotazioni sono state possibili durante l’intervento di restauro eseguito dallo scrivente in vista dell’allestimento della mostra tenutesi presso il Museo di Belle Arti di La Valletta. Oltre alle esfoliazioni si hanno fenomeni di distacco di intere porzioni di modellato come nel caso delle “sezioni di studio per la pala del martirio di sant’Eustachio” di Cafà al Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo pubblicate da Elena di Gioia ove, grazie a raffronti con una vecchia foto, risulta ad oggi completante mancante la figura di sinistra

del leone, probabilmente distaccatesi in quanto non perfettamente adesa alla lastra in argilla che finge da fondo. Vedi Di Gioia 2002, pp.119-130 ed in particolare p.124. Si rimanda circa la differenziazione del processo creativo e l’elaborazione d’un’idea da parte di artisti rinascimentali e barocchi ed inoltre circa al dibattuto argomento l’importanza che bozzetti e modelli assunsero dalla metà del XVI secolo quali opera d’arte assestanti, al breve ma esaustivo articolo di Lavin 1967, pp. 93-105. 8 Opere di tali dimensioni necessitano di una armatura interna di sostegno. Ad esempio, per il cavallo del Mochi sono a vista nella zona presso gli zoccoli del cavallo, sottili fili di ferro intrecciati intrecciati a barre più pesanti. Avery, nel già citato articolo, pubblica una radiografia di un bozzetto di Giambologna Firenze trionfa su Pisa (1565) conservato al Victoria and Albert Museum , ove si osserva un pesante perno interno sebbene il manufatto non superi i cm 22 di altezza. 9 Ad esempio di osservi, anche se di epoca precedente a quanto qui analizzato, il bozzetto di Ercole e Caco opera di Baccio Bandinelli (1525) lato cm 73, oggi conservato presso il Skulpturensammlung del Staatliche Museen di Berlino. 10 Peltzer 1925, p.286. 11 Si rimanda alla già citata opera di Di Gioia 2002, ed in particolare le pagine 119-138. 12 Maggiori informazioni e chiarimenti emergeranno durante le fasi dell’imminente restauro per il quale è prevista la rimozione della moderna verniciatura che metterà in luce le superfici originali nonché di eliminare alcune piccole reintegrazioni in gesso e di far riaderire i tre frammenti già precedentemente assemblati con collante da falegnameria. Inoltre sono stati effettuati sul retro due piccoli prelievi di materiale circa i quali siamo in attesa delle risposte di laboratorio. 13 Attualmente il perimetro del manufatto è definito da un pessimo telaio in sottile listelli di legno sicuramente da mettere in relazione al sistema di montaggio della teca-cornice, che potrebbe essere ottocentesca. 14 Cfr Di Gioia 2002, pp.165-175. Si coglie l’occasione per ringraziare Elena Bianca Di Gioia per il concreto aiuto con segnalazioni e utili consigli, nella stesura di queste pagine,. 15 I due noti disegni sono conservati la Museo del Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins e all’Albertina di Vienna. Si rimanda al fondamentale studio sui disegni di Melchiorre Cafà di Montagu 1984, pp.57-61; e con bibliografia più aggiornata a Di Gioia 2002, pp.176-181. 16 Cfr Di Gioia 2002, pp.176-181 17 Si veda a riguardo l’intervento in questi atti di Tomaso Montanari che ha per titolo esattamente tale argomento. T.Montanari, Il matrimonio mistico e la visione delle rose di Santa Rosa da Lima: due rilievo di Cafà alle Descalzas Reales di Madrid. 18 Con particolare riferimento a quanto espresso da montari in queste pagine circa l’inventario dei beni di Cristina di Svezia ed inoltre in Montanari 1998, p. 370. 19 Si veda a riguardo l’intervento in questi atti di Di Gioia che ha per titolo Melchiorre Cafà a Roma tra il 1660 e 1667.

20 Sciberras 2003 ed inoltre dello stesso autore: Sciberras 2004, pp.67-68. 21 Sarebbe auspicabile un’indagine radiografica per escludere la presenza di perni in ferro o altro metallo, al fine di assicurare una migliore conservazione delle due statuette. 22 Sciberras 2003; Sciberras 2004, pp.67-68; Falaschi 1987, pp.28-30, in particolare p.28, Ove la studiosa pubblica, con data 10 Marzo 1667, il preventivo dei costi della prima parte dei lavori ed i nomi di coloro che avevano già eseguito alcuni lavori e di coloro ai quali sarebbe stato richiesto di eseguire altre statue per il Colonnato: tra i numerosi nomi di scultori compare quello di Melchiorre Cafà. Le riguardoveli dimensioni (altezza circa 40cm) appaiono in perfetta relazione proporzionale con il modello in legno conservato del Morelli conservato presso il Museo di Roma, come segnalatomi da Elena Di Gioia.

The Clay Modeling Techniques of Melchiorre Cafà: A Preliminary Assessment 1

2 3 4 5 6

I am most grateful to the American Academy in Rome and the National Endowment for the Arts, for the Rome Prize fellowship that made this work possible. I would like to acknowledge the remarkable assistance I have been given in conducting these examinations, which are considerably more involved and time consuming than simple viewing. In particular, Maria Giulia Barberini of the Museo Nazionale di Palazzo di Venezia and Elena Bianca di Gioia of the Musei Capitolini have been extremely generous with their time, support, and advice. Their own studies of these terracottas, and their comments during many of my examinations have greatly illuminated this work. This project would have been impossible without their friendship. Jennifer Montagu offered much advice, and she and Francesca Bewer were kind enough to read and comment on the text. I am also indebted to the following people who assisted me in many ways: Sergei Androsov, Paula Artal-Isbrand, Larry Becker, Fiora Bellini, Angela Chang, Ivan Gaskell, Kathleen Kennelly, Irving Lavin, Marina Lella, Rossella Leone, Henry Lie, Nancy Lloyd, Francesca Martinelli, Michael Mezzatesta, Jack Soultanian, Claudio Strinati, Francesco Petrucci, Timothy Potts, Andrew Sigel, Keith Sciberras, Shelly Sturman, Marie Elise Tittoni, Theresa Vella, Dennis Vella, Ian Wardropper, Malcolm Warner, Mark Weil and Phoebe Dent Weil. And a very special thanks to Jennifer Clarvoe, who provided crucial assistance with the text, and in so many other ways. Di Gioia 2002, Barberini 1991, 1994, 2001, Lavin 2004, Montagu 1986, 1989, 1996, Sciberras 2004, Walker 1998. Or as Irving Lavin put it, “Calculated Spontaneity” in Lavin, 1978. Sigel, 1999, p. 92. The marble relief in S. Agostino, Rome was completed by E. Ferrata. See Di Gioia 1986[i], and 2002[i]. for a full

253

discussion of this terracotta and its discovery. 7 Contardi 1989, p.26. 8 Montagu, 1999(i). 9 For a discussion of how Bernini may have used such enlargement techniques, see Sigel, 1999, pp.67-8, 77-80, 86-88, 99. 10 See Di Gioia 1986[i], and 2002[i], for a full discussion of this terracotta and its discovery. 11 See De Gioia 2002i, pp.131-8, Montagu 1999i, pp. 128-132 and Sciberras 2004, pp. 19-24 for discussions of these commissions. 12 Weil, 1978. I am grateful to Phoebe Dent Weil for pointing out this convention. 13 Maria Giulia Barberini has pointed out that this number corresponds to no. 102 in the Cavaceppi inventory, a carved olive-wood St Giovanni the Baptist in the desert, by Ercole Ferrata. Michael Mezzatesta has suggested that this terracotta modello may have been painted in the past to resemble olive-wood. 14 See De Gioia 2002i, pp.131-8 Montagu 1999i, pp. 128-132 and Sciberras 2004, pp. 19-24 for discussions of these commissions. 15 Engraving, Charity of St. Thomas of Villanova,

254

by Pietro del Po, NMFA, Valletta, inv. 16041. 16 Angelini 1998ii, Gian Lorenzo Bernini e I Chigi tra Roma e Sienna. Sienna 1998, p.155. 17 I am told by Francesco Petrucci that the bust was at one time painted to appear as a bronze. I am also indebted to Michael Mezzatesta for sharing his advice and observations during the examination of this piece. 18 Michael Mezzatesta has also proposed that the coarse surfaces of the cape would have provided a textured ground to receive subsequent toning/ paint layers. 19 Jennifer Montagu has suggested that if this bust was used as the model for the casting of the bronze versions of this bust, its current appearance may be a result of repairs to the clay after this process. 20 Sigel, 1999, pp. 107-109, 109-113. 21 Sigel, 1999, p.111, fig.111. 22 Sigel, 1999, p.59 fig. 22, pp. 64-67, p. 70 fig. 34, p.115 fig’s. 122,123. 23 Sigel, 1999, pp. 48-118. 24 For a full discussion of the technique of recording and comparing fingerprints, see Lloyd, 1999, pp. 119-124.

List of Works Works are listed in alphabetical order according to their attribution status. Dates are given only for documented or securely dated works. Measurements are given in centimetres.

AUTOGRAPH AUTOGRAPH Angel from Altar of St Thomas Museo di Roma, Rome terracotta 1662-63 Inv. MR 35742 h. 18.2, w. 19.8

AUTOGRAPH Charity of St Thomas of Villanova National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta terracotta   1663 Inv. 247 h. 48, w. 28

AUTOGRAPH (with Casanova family) Decorative Carving Cappella Torres, Duomo, Syracuse Stone 1652-1653

AUTOGRAPH Faith Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge terracotta       Inv. M.6-1988 h. 36.3, w. 32, d. 17

AUTOGRAPH Glory of St Catherine of Siena Church of S. Caterina a Magnanapoli, Rome marble       ?1662-1667

AUTOGRAPH

255

Glory of St Catherine of Siena Edgar Vella Collection, Malta wax     c.1662 h. 42, w. 31

AUTOGRAPH Martyr Saint National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta wax   Inv. 245 h. 45, w. 20

AUTOGRAPH Martyr Saint National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta wax   Inv. 249 h. 42, w. 22

AUTOGRAPH Martyrdom of St Eustace Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome terracotta 1660 Inv. 10093 h. 51, w. 41.5

AUTOGRAPH Martyrdom of St Eustace (figures at bottom left) Museo di Roma, Rome terracotta 1660 Inv. MR35750     h. 28.1, w. 13.6

AUTOGRAPH Martyrdom of St Eustace (lion at bottom right ) Museo di Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome terracotta     1660 h. 29, w. 22 256

AUTOGRAPH

Martyrdom of St Eustace (detail) Carnegie Institute of Art, Pittsburgh terracotta   1660 Inv. acc. No. 69.34.4 h. 29.9

AUTOGRAPH Martyrdom of St Eustace (figure of St Eustace) Liebieghaus, Frankfurt terracotta   1660 Inv. 793 h. 36.5

AUTOGRAPH Pope Alexander VII Palazzo Chigi, Arricia terracotta       1667 Inv. 748 h. 76, w. 81, d. 42.5

AUTOGRAPH Personification of Silence Fogg Art Museum terracotta   Inv. 1937.72 h. 16.63

AUTOGRAPH St Andrew Apostle State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg terracotta   Inv. 650 h. 44

AUTOGRAPH St Andrew Avellino State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg terracotta   Inv. 648 h. 42 257

AUTOGRAPH

St Andrew Avellino Martinelli Collection, Rome terracotta     h. 48.5, w. 17.7

AUTOGRAPH St John the Baptist British Museum, London red chalk on paper   Inv. 1981-11-7-223-8 h. 42, w. 28

AUTOGRAPH St John the Baptist Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome terracotta   Inv. 10355 h. 42.5

AUTOGRAPH St Paul Church of St Paul Shipwrecked, Valletta wood carved       c. 1659

AUTOGRAPH St Rose of Lima Church of S. Domingo, Lima marble       1665 h. 82, w. 147

AUTOGRAPH St Rose of Lima Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Rome terracotta c.1663 Inv. PV 1210 h. 15.3, w. 25

258

AUTOGRAPH Standing Male Nude

British Museum, London red chalk on paper   Inv. 1981-11-7-223-9 h. 42, w. 27.5

AUTOGRAPH Virgin and Child with St Rose of Lima and other Saints Albertina, Vienna black chalk on paper       Inv. 1041 h. 41.7, w. 28

AUTOGRAPH Virgin and Child with St Rose of Lima and other Saints Louvre, Paris black chalk on paper   Inv. 9599 h. 49.6, w. 37.5

AUTOGRAPH (engr. A. Clouwet) Virgin and Child with St Rose of Lima and other Saints Albertina, Vienna print   Inv. Romische Stucke, vol. LXX, no. 92213 h. 50, w. 40.7

AUTOGRAPH Virgin of the Rosary Staatliche Museum, Berlin terracotta   c.1660 Inv. 3110 h. 34.4

AUTOGRAPH Virgin of the Rosary Dominican Church, Rabat, Malta

259

wood carved       1660-1661

AUTOGRAPH (finished by Ercole Ferrata) Charity of St Thomas of Villanova Church of S. Agostino, Rome marble       1663-1669

AUTOGRAPH (finished by Ercole Ferrata) Pope Alexander III Duomo, Siena marble       AUTOGRAPH (finished by Ercole Ferrata) St Paul St Paul’s Grotto, Rabat, Malta marble       1666-1669

AUTOGRAPH (finished by Ercole Ferrata, Giovan Francesco de Rossi) Martyrdom of St Eustace Church of S. Agnese, Rome marble       1660-1669

AUTOGRAPH (engr. J. Girardin, J. Couvay) The Doctrine of St Thomas Aquinas Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris print 1663 Inv. Estampes, Ed. 35a, vol. I pp.12 h. 79, w. 59.7

AUTOGRAPH (engr. P. del Po) Charity of St Thomas of Villanova National Museum of Fine Arts, Malta print 260

1663 Inv. 16041 h. 45, w. 30     AUTOGRAPH INVENTION Glory of Angels Church of S. Maria in Campitelli, Rome gilt stucco

CASTS CAST Pope Alexander VII The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York bronze 1667 Inv. 57.2 h. 78.7, w. 81.3

CAST Pope Alexander VII Duomo, Siena bronze 1667     h. 75 (with pedestal 96)

CAST AFTER Pope Alexander VII formerly Rudolf Lepke, Berlin bronze     CAST Sanctuary Lamp Church of St Paul, Rabat silver and gilt bronze     1666h. 68, w.56 CAST St Rose of Lima Museo di Roma, Rome bronze Inv. MR 1098

261

h. 15, w. 27.5

CAST St Rose of Lima Faldi Collection, Rome bronze       h. 13.2, w. 28, h. 14

CAST St Rose of Lima Sgarbi Collection, Rome bronze

CAST St Rose of Lima A.M. Sackler Foundation, New York glit bronze and silver h. 11.5, w. 27.4

CAST St Rose of Lima Sgarbi Collection, Rome gilt bronze

CAST St Rose of Lima unknown bronze N.A.

CAST Mystic Marriage St Rose of Lima Descalzas Reales, Madrid bronze     h. 39, w. 31.5 CAST St Rose of Lima Vision of the Roses Descalzas Reales, Madrid bronze     h. 39, w. 31.5 262

CAST AFTER Virgin and Child with St Rose of Lima formerly Santa Maria della Scala, Rome bronze

CAST AFTER St Andrew Apostle State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg terracotta   Inv. 649 h. 38.5

CAST AFTER St Andrew Avellino State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg terracotta   Inv. 647 h. 38.5

PROBABLE PROBABLE Martyrdom of St Eustace (lion) State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg terracotta   Inv. 640 h. 24

PROBABLE Adoration of the Shepherds unknown terracotta       PROBABLE; CAST Baptism of Christ unknown bronze       PROBABLE Dead Christ

263

Unknown terracotta   h. 0.26 w. 0.30

PROBABLE Male Head (veiled priest) Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg terracotta       Inv. 1958.4 h. 18

PROBABLE Male Head (young soldier) Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg terracotta       Inv. 1958.5 h. 13.5

PROBABLE St Augustine formerly Church of S. Agostino, Rome (stolen 2003) terracotta       h. 55.5, w. 22, d. 15

PROBABLE; CAST Giovanni Giacomo III Amodei Santa Maria della Vittoria, Milan bronze

PROBABLE; CAST Agostino III Amodei Santa Maria della Vittoria, Milan bronze

264

PROBABLE; CAST Carlo Giovanni Battista III Amodei Santa Maria della Vittoria, Milan bronze

PROBABLE; CAST Francesco Maria Amodei Santa Maria della Vittoria, Milan bronze

IMPROBABLE IMPROBABLE Angel State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg terracotta   Inv. 644 h. 34.5, w. 24

IMPROBABLE Bishop Saint Metropolitan Museum terracotta       Inv., 68.218 h. 35.5

IMPROBABLE Charity State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg terracotta   Inv. 634 h. 37

IMPROBABLE Charity Staatliche Museum, Berlin terracotta   Inv. 7231 h. 22.3 265

IMPROBABLE Glory of Angels Staatliche Museum, Berlin terracotta   Inv. 2192 h. 38.5, w. 26.6

IMPROBABLE Justice State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg terracotta   Inv. 643 h. 45

IMPROBABLE Self-Portrait National Museum, Stockholm black chalk, white gouache   Inv. 604/1863 h. 27, w. 18.5

IMPROBABLE St Paul National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta terracotta     Inv. 4431 h. 45

IMPROBABLE Virgin and Child Fogg Art Museum terracotta Inv. 1937.74

266

Bibliography

Abela 1647 Giovanni Francesco Abela, Della Descrittione di Malta, Malta, 1647 Martinelli 1660-1663 Fioravante Martinelli, ‘Roma ornata dall’Architettura, Pittura e Scoltura’, ms., 1660-63, ed. Cesare D’Onofrio, Roma nel Seicento, Florence, 1969 Mola 1663 Giovan Battista Mola, Breve racconto delle miglior opere d’Architettura, Scultura et Pittura fatte in Roma, Roma, 1663, Karl Noehles ed., Berlin, 1967 Leoni 1665 G. D. Leoni, Breve ristretto della vita meravigliosa della venerabile serva di Dio Rosa di Santa Maria, di Lima nel Perù ne l’America meridionale, religiosa del Terzo Ordine di San Domenico, Rome, 1665 Leoni 1665 G. B. Leoni, Breve ristretto della vita meravigliosa di Santa Rosa da Lima, Rome, Nicol’Angel Tinassi, 1665 Fontana 1670 Vincenzo Maria Fontana O.P., De Romana Provincia ordinis Praedicatorum, Rome, 1670 Gonzalez de Acuña 1670 Antonio Gonzalez de Acuña O.P., Summarium privilegiorum Ordinis Praedicatorum..., Rome, 1670 Lioni 1671 G. D. Lioni, Breve ristretto della vita meravigliosa della gloriosissima sposa di Christo Rosa di Santa Maria…, Roma, Nicol’Angelo Tinassi, 1671, (Biblioteca Casanatense, Banc. G 131) Passeri c.1673 Giovan Battista Passeri, Le Vite dè Pittori, Scultori et Architetti che hanno lavorato in Roma, morti dal 1641 al 1673, (c.1673), Jacob Hess ed., Leipzig and Vienna, 1934 Titi 1674-1763 Filippo Titi, Studio di Pittura, Scoltura, et Architettura nelle chiese di Roma (1674-1763), 267

Bruno Contardi - Serena Romano eds, Florence, 1987 Fontana 1675 Vincenzo Maria Fontana O.P., Monumenta Dominicana breviter in synposim collecta, Rome, 1675 Baldinucci 1681-1728 Filippo Baldinucci, Notizie dè Professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, Firenze 16811728 , voll. IV-XIV, in Opere, 14 voll., Milan, 1808- 1812 Baldinucci 1682 Filippo Baldinucci, Vita del Cavaliere Gio.Lorenzo Bernino, Firenze 1682, Sergio Samek Ludovici ed., Milan, 1948 Titi 1686 Filippo Titi, Amaestromento utile, e curioso di pittura, scoltura et architettura nelle chiese di Roma, Rome, 1686 Ciampini 1691 Giovanni Ciampini, De abbreviatorum de parco maiori ... dissertatio historica, Rome, 1691 Piazza 1698 Carlo Bartolommeo Piazza, Eusevologio romano overo delle opere pie di Roma, Rome, 1698 Dal Pozzo 1703-1715 B. Dal Pozzo, Historia della Sacra Religione Militare di S. Giovanni Gerosolimitano detta di Malta, Verona, 1703-1715 Orlandi 1704 Fra Pellegrino Antonio Orlandi, Abecedario Pittorico dei Professori più illustri in Pittura, Scultura e Architettura (1704), ed. Florence, 1788 Crescimbeni 1720 Giovanni Mario Crescimbeni, Notizie istoriche degli Arcadi morti, 2 vols., Rome, 1720 Pio 1724 Nicola Pio, Le vite di Pittori, Scultori et Architetti, 1724,Catherine and Robert Enggass eds, Vatican City, 1977 Pascoli 1730 Lione Pascoli, Vite dè Pittori, Scultori ed Architetti moderni, vol. I, Rome, 1730 Pascoli 1730-1736 Lione Pascoli, Le Vite de’ Pittori, Scultori ed Architetti moderni, 1730-1736, Valentino Martinelli ed., Electa Editori Umbri, Perugia, 1992 Arisi 1741 Francesco Arisi, Cremona literata, seu in Cremonenses doctrinis, ac literariis dignitatibus illustres ab anno MDCI ad MDCCXLI, 3 vols., Cremona, 1741 Mariette 1742 Pierre Jean Mariette, Récueil d’estampes d’après les plus beaux tableaux et d’après les plus beau dessin (…), Tomo II, Paris, 1742 Erra 1750 Carlantonio Erra, Storia dell’Imagine e Chiesa di Santa Maria in Portico di Campitelli, Rome, 1750 Erra 1759-60 Carlantonio Erra, Memorie dè religiosi per pietà, e dottrina insigniti della Congregazione della Madre di Dio, Rome, 1759-1760 Titi 1763 268

Filippo Titi, Descrizione delle pitture, sculture e architetture esposte al pubblico in Roma, ed., Rome, 1763 Houel 1787 Jean Houel, Voyage pittoresque des isles de Sicile, de Malte et de Lipari…, Paris, 1787 Boisgelin 1805 Louis de Boisgelin, Ancient and Modern Malta, London, 1805 Zani 1820 D. Pietro Zani, Enciclopedia metodica critico-ragionata dell’abate Zani, Parma, 1820 Missirini 1823 Melchiorre Missirini, Memorie per servire alla storia della Romana Accademia di San Luca, Rome, 1823. Ticozzi 1830 Stefano Ticozzi, Dizionario degli architetti, scultori, pittori, I, Milan, 1830 Baldinucci 1845-1847 Filippo Baldinucci, Notizie dei professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua …, F. Ranalli ed., Florence, 1845-47 Micallef 1848 Salvatore Micallef, Descrizione della Chiesa di San Giovanni Battista, Malta, 1848 Mariette 1853 Pierre Jean Mariette, Abecedario, Paris, 1853 Calleja 1862 Giuseppe Calleja, ‘Melchiorre Gafà’ in Arte, Issue 1, Malta, 1862 Gatt Said 1863 Giovanni Gatt Said, La Grotta di S. Paolo a Malta, Malta, 1863 Forcella 1869-1884 Vincenzo Forcella, Iscrizioni delle chiese e d’altri edicifi di Roma dal secolo XI fino ai giorni nostri, 14 vols., Rome, 1869-1884 Ozzola 1911 Leandro Ozzola ed., Guida generale delle Mostre retrospettive di Castel Sant’Angelo, Bergamo, 1911 Pollak 1911 Oskar Pollak, sub voce ‘Melchiorre Cafà’ in Thieme-Becker, Allegmeines lexikon der bildenden Kunstler, Bd.V, Leipzig, 1911 Von Schlosser 1911 J. Von Schlosser, ‘Geschichte der Portrat-bildnerei in Wachs: ein Versuch’, in Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhochsten Kaiserhauses, XXIX, pt.1, Vienna, 1911, pp.171-258 Kroker 1914 Er nst Kroker, ‘Ein Sammlung von Handzeichnungen in der Leipziger Stadtbibliothek’, in Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. XXV, 1914, pp. 118-124. Masi 1916 G. Masi, ‘La coroplastica a Firenze nel secolo XV-XVI e la famiglia Benintendi’, in Rivista d’Arte, IX, 1916, pp.124-142 Brinkmann 1923-1924 Albert Erich Brinkmann, Barock-Bozzetti. Italienische Bildhauer, Frankfurt am Main, Vol. I-II, 1923-1924 Morpurgo 1924 Enrico Morpurgo, ‘Il Battesimo di Cristo nell’Ospedale di Pirano’, in Dedalo,

269

December 1924, pp. 458-463 Peltzer 1925 A.R. Peltzer ed., Joachim von Sandrarts Accademi derB au-,Bild- und Mahlerey-Kuennnste von 1675..., Munich, 1925 Ozzola 1927-27 Leandro Ozzola, ‘Il Battesimo di Cristo di Melchiorre Caffà a Malta’, in Dedalo, a. VII, 1926-27, Vol. I, pp.131-135 Wittkower 1928-29 Rudolf Wittkower, ‘Eine Bronzegruppe des Melchiorre Caffà’, in Zeitschrift fur bildenKunst, 1928-29, pp. 227-231 Golzio 1933-1934 Vincenzo Golzio, ‘Storia dell’arte e ricerche archivistiche. Documenti Berniniani’, in Archivi d’Italia, I, 1933-1934, pp. 138-145 Golzio 1935 Vincenzo Golzio, ‘Storia dell’arte e ricerche archivistiche. Lo “Studio di Ercole Ferrata”’, in Archivi d’Italia, II, 1935, pp. 64-74 Zucchi 1938 Alberto Zucchi, Roma domenicana. Note storiche, Florence, 1938 Golzio 1939 Vincenzo Golzio, Documenti artistici sul Seicento nell’Archivio Chigi, Rome, 1939 Riccoboni 1942 Alberto Riccoboni, Roma nell’arte. La scultura nell’evo moderno, Rome, 1942 Battaglia 1943 Roberto Battaglia, La Cattedra berniniana di San Pietro, Rome, 1943 Fleming 1947 John Fleming, ‘A Note on Melchiorre Caffà’, in The Burlington Magazine, LXXXIX, 1947, pp. 85-89 Agnello 1951 Giuseppe Agnello, ‘Architetti e scultori ignorati nella cappella Torres a Siracusa’, in Arhivi vol. xviii, fasc. 2-3, 1951, pp. 143-161 Santangelo 1954 Antonino Santangelo, Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Catalogo delle sculture, Rome, 1954 Argan 1955 Giulio Carlo Argan, ‘La “ Rettorica” e l’arte barocca’, in Enrico Castelli ed.), Retorica e Barocco, Atti del III Congresso internazionale di Studi Umanistici, Venezia 15-18 Juneo 1954, Rome, 1955, pp. 9-14 Martinelli 1955 Valentino Martinelli, ‘Capolavori noti e ignoti del Bernini. I ritratti dei Barberini, di Innocenzo X e di Alessandro VII’, in Studi Romani, III, January-February 1955, pp. 647-666 Scicluna 1955 Hannibal Scicluna, The Church of St John, Valletta, Rome, 1955 Wittkower 1955 Rudolph Wittkower, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Oxford, 1955 Martinelli 1956 Valentino Martinelli, ‘I Ritratti di pontefici di Gian Lorenzo Bernini’, Istituto di Studi Romani, Rome, 1956 Nava Cellini 1956 270

Antonia Nava Cellini, ‘Contibuti a Melchior Caffà’, in Paragone, VII, 83, 1956, pp. 17-31 Montalto 1957 Lina Montalto, ‘Ercole Ferrata e le vicende litigiose del bassorilievo di S.Emerenziana’, in Commentari, VIII,1957, pp. 47-68 Sammut 1957 Edward Sammut, ‘Melchior Gafà Maltese Sculptor of Baroque. Further Biographical Notes’, in Scientia, XXIII, 1957, pp. 117-139 Faldi 1958 Italo Faldi, La scultura Barocca in Italia, Milan, 1958 Lanfranconi 1958 G. B. Lanfranconi, La Valle d’Intelvi, 1958 Taurisano 1958 Innocenzo Taurisano, La serva di Dio Suor Maria Raggi da Scio terziaria domenicana (1552-1600), Rome, 1958 Wittkower 1958 Rudolph Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Italy. 1600-1750, Harmondsworth 1958; Italian ed., Turin, 1972 Lavagnino-Ansaldi-Salerno 1959 Emilio Lavagnino, Giulio. R. Ansaldi, Luigi Salerno, Altari barocchi in Roma, Rome, 1959 Salerno 1959 Luigi Salerno, ‘L’altar maggiore di Santa Maria in Campitelli’, in Emilio Lavagnino, Giulio.R.Ansaldi, Luigi Salerno, Altari barocchi in Roma, Rome, 1959, pp. 145-148 Wittkower 1959 Rudolph Wittkower, ‘Melchiorre Cafa’s Bust of Alexander VII’, in The Metropolitan Museum Art Bullettin, XVII, 8, 1959, pp. 197-204 Sammut 1960 Edward Sammut, ‘A bozzetto by Melchior Gafà for the Church of St. John, Valletta’, in Annales de l’Ordre Souverain Militaire de Malte, a. XVIIIeme, 1960, pp.2730 Rotondi Briasco 1962 P. Rotondi Briasco, Filippo Parodi, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Arte dell’Università di Genova, n. 3, 1962 Vitzhum 1963 Walter Vitzhum, ‘Disegni di Alessandro Algardi’, in Bolletino d’Arte, Vol. XLVIII,1963, pp. 75-98 Spagnesi 1964 Giovanni Spagnesi, Giovanni Antonio De Rossi, Rome, 1964 Cavadini 1966 Fernando Cavadini, ‘Il Museo della Valle Intelvi’, Arte lombarda, IX, 1966, pp. 249-256 Borg 1967 Vincent Borg, Fabio Chigi, Apostolic Delegate in Malta (1634-1639): An edition of his official correspondence, Vatican City, 1967 Buchowiechi 1967 Walther Buchowiecki, Handbuch der Kirchen Roms, I, Vienna, 1967 Clark 1967

271

Anthony Clark, ‘The Portraits of Artists Drawn for Nicola Pio’, in Master Drawings, v, 1967, pp. 2-23 Lavin 1967 Irving Lavin, Bozzetti and Modelli. Notes on Sculptural Procedure from Early Renaissance through Bernini, in Stil und Überlieferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes. Akten des 21. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin 1967, vol. 3, pp. 93-104. Schlegel 1967 Ursula Schlegel ‘Some Statuettes of Giuseppe Mazzuoli’ in The Burlington Magazine, 1967, Vol. CIX, pp. 388-395 Lavin 1968 Irving Lavin, Bernini and the Crossing of Saint Peter’s, New York University Press, New York, 1968 Bergstrasser 1969 G. Bergstrasser, ‘Un dessin inconnu de Melchiorre Caffà’, in Revue de l’Art, 6, 1969, pp. 88-90 Preimesberger 1969 Rudolph Preimesberger, Ein Bozzetto Melchior Cafa’, in Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, XXII, 1969, pp. 178-183 Lightbown 1970 Ronald W.Lightbown, ‘Le cere artistiche del Cinquecento’, in Arte Illustrata, 2-3,1970 Montagu 1970 Jennifer Montagu, ’Alessandro Algardi’s Altar of S.Nicola da Tolentino and Some Related Models’, in The Burlington Magazine, CXII, 1970, pp. 282-291 Eimer 1971 Gerhard Eimer, ‘La fabbrica di S.Agnese in Navona’, Römische Architekten, Bauherren und Handwerken im Zeitalter des Nepotismus, Stockholm, 1970-1971 Volpi Orlandini 1971 Marisa Volpi Orlandini, ‘Annotazioni in margine alle tendenze classiciste nella cultura artistica romana tra il 1607 e il 1672’, in Annali delle Facoltà di Lettere, Filosofia e Magistero dell’Università di Cagliari, vol. XXXIV, 1971, pp.69-96 Garms 1972 Jörg Garms, Quellen aus dem Archiv Doria-Pamphilj zur Kunsttätigkeit in Rom unter Innocenz X, Rome-Wien, 1972 Montagu 1972 Jennifer Montagu, ‘Le Baptême du Christ d’Alessandro Algardi’, in Revue de l’Art, XV, 1972, pp. 64-78 Preimesberger 1973 Rudolph Preimesberger, sub voce ‘Cafà Melchiorre’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana diretta da Giovanni Treccani, vol. 16, Rome, 1973, pp. 230-235 Pyke 1973 E.J. Pyke, A biographical dictionary of wax modellers, Oxford, 1973 Salerno – Spezzaferro – Tafuri 1973 Luigi Salerno, Luigi Spezzaferro, Manfredo Tafuri, Via Giulia, una utopia urbanistca del 500, Rome, 1973 Preimesberger – Weil 1975 Rudolf Preimesberger, Mark Weil, ‘The Pamphilj Chapel in Sant’Agostino’, in Romische Jahrbuch fur Kunstgeschichte, XV, 1975, pp. 183-198

272

Salerno – Spezzaferro – Tafuri 1975 CHECK DATE : IT IS 1973 Luigi Salerno, Luigi Spezzaferro, Manfredo Tafuri, Via Giulia. Un’utopia urbanistica del ‘500, Rome, 1975 Cavarocchi 1976 Franco Cavarocchi, ‘Ercole Ferrata scultore barocco intelvese’, Como, II, 1976, pp. 1-8 Enggass 1976 Robert Enggass, Early Eighteenth- Century Sculpture in Rome, An illustrated catalogue raisonne, I, The Pennsylvania State University - London, 1976 Previtali 1976 Giovanni Previtali, ‘Introduzione’, in Giovan Pietro Bellori, Le vite, Evelina Borea ed., Torino 1976, pp. IX-LX Congresso 1977 Congresso Internazionale sulla ceroplastica nella scienza e nell’arte: Atti del I Congresso, Florence, 1977 Contardi 1977 Bruno Contardi, La retorica e l’architettura barocca, Rome, 1977 Fagiolo dell’Arco – Carandini 1977 Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco, Silvia Carandini, L ’ Effimero Barocco, I, Rome, 1977 Forte 1977 Stefano Forte O.P., ‘Gregorio Areylza O.P. Visitatore (1650-51, 1659-62) ed il suo ‘Registrum Provinciae Siciliae O.P.’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XLVII, 1977, pp. 247-385 Wittkower – Wittkower 1977 Rudolph and Margot Wittkower, Sculpture. Processes and principles, London, 1977; Italian ed., Turin, 1985 Cannizzaro 1978 Giovanna Cannizzaro, ‘La chiesa e il convento di S. Caterina a Magnanapoli’, in Alma Roma, 19,1978 (5-6), pp. 22-26 Fagiolo Dell’Arco - Carandini 1978 Maurizio Fagiolo Dell’Arco, Silvia Carandini, L’Effimero Barocco, II, Rome, 1978 Lavin 1978 Irving Lavin, ‘Calculated spontaneity: Bernini and the terracotta sketch’, in Apollo, 107, 1978, pp. 398-405 Sammut 1978 Edward Sammut, The Life and Works of Melchiorre Gafà, University of Malta, 1978 Schlegel 1978 Ursula Schlegel, ’Die italienischen Bildwerke del 17. und 18.Jahrhunderts in Stein, Holz, Ton, Wachs und Bronze,’ Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Die Bildwerke der Skulpturengalerie Berlin, Berlin, 1978 Weil 1978 Ph. Dent Weil, Osservazioni sulla scultura antica: dai manoscritti Corsini e Doria e altri scritti, Firenze, 1978 Zammit 1978 W. Zammit, ‘The Cotoner Decades: A golden age for the Conventual Church’ in J. Azzopardi ed., The Church of St John in Valletta 1578-1978, Malta, 1978, pp. 35-41 Azzopardi 1980 273

John Azzopardi, ‘Il-Knisja ta’ San Pawl fir-Rabat fl-1680’, Il-Festi Taghna (Rabat), Malta, 1980 Bernstock 1980 Judith Bernstock, ‘Bernini’s Memorial to Maria Raggi’, Art Bulletin, LXII, 1980, pp. 243-255 Craveri 1980 M. Craveri, Sante e streghe. Biografie e documenti dal XIV al XVII secolo, Milan, 1980 Lavin 1980 Irving Lavin, Bernini and the Unity of Visual Arts, Oxford University Press, New York 1980; Italian ed., Bernini e l’unità delle arti visive, Rome, 1980 Jemma 1981 Daniela Jemma, ‘Appunti inediti e documenti di Melchiorre Caffà’, in Paragone, 1981, 379, pp. 50-61 Lightbown 1981 Ronald W.Lightbown, ‘I quaderni dell’Antiquiariato, collana di arti applicate’, Alvar Gonzàlez-Palacios ed., Ambre, Avori, Lacche, Cere, Milan, 1981, pp. 60-74 Schlegel 1981 Ursula Schlegel, ‘I crocifissi degli altari di San Pietro in Vaticano’, in Antichità Viva, XX, 6, 1981, pp. 37-42 Nava Cellini 1982 Antonia Nava Cellini, La scultura del Seicento, Storia dell’Arte in Italia diretta da Ferdinando Bologna, Torino 1982 Barbieri 1983 P. Barbieri, ‘San Nicola da Tolentino in Roma: documenti sui Pamphilj, la chiesa, l’organo’, in Amici dell’organo,1983, pp. 25-34 Avery 1984 Charles Avery, ‘“la Cera sempre aspetta”: Wax Sketch-Models for Sculpture’, in Apollo, 119, n.265, 1984, pp.166-176 Borghini 1984 Gabriele Borghini, ‘Nota sul Modello in grande per la “Santa Caterina” di Ercole Ferrata nel Duomo di Siena’, in Antologia di Belle Arti, n.s., nn. 21-22, 1984, pp. 77-79 Di Gioia 1984 Elena Bianca Di Gioia, ‘Un bozzetto di Melchiorre Caffà per il bassorilievo di S.Eustachio in Santa Agnese in Agone’, in Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma, XXXI, 1984, pp. 48-67 Montagu 1984 Jennifer Montagu, ‘The Graphic Work of Melchior Cafà’, in Paragone, 413, 1984, pp. 50-61 Bertolotti 1985 Antonino Bertolotti, ‘Artisti lombardi a Roma nei secoli XV, XVI, XVII. Studi e ricerche negli archivi romani’, II, Milan, 1881, reprint Milan-Forni, 1985, vol. II, pp.170-171. Montagu 1985 Jennifer Montagu, Alessandro Algardi, New Haven and London 1985 Varriano 1985-1986 John Varriano, ‘A Drawing by Bernini for a Print dedicated to Alexander VII’, in Master Drawing, XXIII-XXIV, 1985-86, pp. 54-55

274

Bonnici Calì 1986 Rafel Bonnici Calì, ‘Identification of the Bozzetto of Saint Paul’s Statue Enshrined in Valletta’, in Proceedings of History Week 1984, Malta, 1986 Di Gioia 1986 [i] Elena Bianca Di Gioia, ‘Casa e bottega del Cav. Francesco Antonio Fontana: materiali dallo studio di uno scultore romano della seconda metà del ‘600’, in Archeologia del centro storico. Apporti antichi e moderni di arte e cultura dal Foro della Pace, Rome, Castel Sant’Angelo, 1986, pp. 151-160 Di Gioia 1986 [ii] Elena Bianca Di Gioia, ‘Bozzetti barocchi dallo studio di Francesco Antonio Fontana’, in Archeologia del centro storico. Apporti antichi e moderni di arte e cultura dal Foro della Pace, Rome, Castel Sant’Angelo, 1986, pp. 171- 222 Montagu 1986 Jennifer Montagu, Disegni, Bozzetti, Legnetti and Modelli in Roman Seicento Sculpture’, in Entwurf und Ausführung in der europäischen Barockplastik, Beiträge zum Internationalen Kolloquium des Bayerischen Nationalmuseums und des Zentralinstituts für Kunstgeschichte, Munchen, 24. bis 26. Juni 1985, Munchen 1986, pp. 9-30 Worsdale 1986 Marc Worsdale, ‘Crocifisso con il Cristo vivo, Crocifisso con il Cristo morto e candelieri’, in The Vatican Splendour, 1986 , pp. 96-98 Bresc-Bautier – Ceysson – Fagiolo dell’Arco – Souchal 1987 Geneviève Bresc-Bautier, Bernard Ceysson, Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco, François Souchal, Histoire d’un Art. La Sculpture du XVe au XVIIIe siècle, Geneva, 1987; Italian ed., Modena, 1993 Di Gioia 1987 Elena Bianca Di Gioia, ‘Un bronzetto della Santa Rosa da Lima di Melchiorre Caffà al Museo di Roma’, in Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma, n.s., I, 1987, pp. 39-53 Fagiolo dell’Arco 1987 Maurizio Fagiolo Dell’Arco, ‘Il Barocco. Enigmi della luce’ in Geneviève BrescBautier, Bernard Ceysson, Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco, François Souchal, Histoire d’un Art. La Sculpture du XVe au XVIIIe siècle, Geneva, 1987; Italian ed., Modena, 1993, pp.163-234 Falaschi 1987 Laura Falaschi, ‘Organizzazione del cantiere: ruolo del Morelli, tecnica di esecuzione’, in Valentino Martinelli ed., Le statue berniniane del Colonnato di San Pietro, Rome, 1987, pp. 28-30 Martinelli 1987[i] Valentino Martinelli, ‘La “Imago Christi” secondo Bernini’, in L’Ultimo Bernini 1666-1680. Nuovi argomenti, documenti e immagini, Rome, 1987, pp.181-232 Martinelli 1987[ii] Valentino Martinelli ed., L’Ultimo Bernini 1666-1680. Nuovi argomenti, documenti e immagini, Rome, 1987 Titi 1987 [1674-1763] Filippo Titi, Studio di Pittura, Scoltura, et Architettura nelle chiese di Roma (1674-1763), Bruno Contardi, Serena Romano eds, I-II, Florence, 1987 Cipriani - Valeriani 1988 Angela Cipriani, Enrico Valeriani eds, I disegni di figura nell’Archivio Storico 275

dell’Accademia di San Luca, Rome, 1988 Giunta 1988 Diega Giunta in Diega Giunta, Lidia Bianchi, Iconografia di Santa Caterina da Siena , I, Il tema della Gloria, Rome, 1988 Rossi 1988 Paola Rossi, ‘Melchiorre Cafà, Gloria di Santa Caterina da Siena’, in Diega Giunta, Lidia Bianchi, Iconografia di Santa Caterina da Siena, volume I, L’immagine, Rome, 1988 Schuster [Bissell] 1988 Gerhard Schuster [Bissell], Das Hochaltarrelief der Kirke S.Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli von Melchiorre Cafà, Magisterarbeit, Friedrich-Alexander Universität, Erlangen-Nürberg, 1988 Contardi 1989 Bruno Contardi, Giovanna Bandini, (with L. Donelli), Due terracotte romane del Seicento, Roma Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome, 1989 Delaforce – Varela Gomes – Montagu – Soromenho 1998 Angela Delaforce, Paulo Varela Gomes, Jennifer Montagu, Miguel Soromenho, ‘A Fountain by Gianlorenzo Bernini and Ercole Ferrata in Portugal’, The Burlington Magazine, CXL, 1998, pp. 804-811 Gentilini – Sisi 1989 Giancarlo Gentilini, Carlo Sisi, in Collezione Chigi-Saracini. La scultura. Bozzetti in terracotta, piccoli marmi e altre sculture dal XVI al XX secolo, Siena, Palazzo ChigiSaracini, 1989-1990, Exh. Cat., Siena, 1989, voll. I-II Contardi 1989 Bruno Contardi, ‘Melchiorre Caffà. Sezione di studio per la parte inferiore destra del bassorilievo marmoreo con storia del martirio di Sant’Eustachio’, in Bruno Contardi ed., Due terracotte romane del Seicento, Rome, 1989, pp. 25-35 Montagu 1989 Jennifer Montagu, Roman Baroque Sculpture. The Industry of Art, Yale University Press, New Haven - London, 1989 Palmerio – Villetti 1989 G. Palmerio, G. Villetti, Storia edilizia di S. Maria sopra Minerva in Roma 1275-1870, Rome, 1989 Meyer 1990 Véronique Meyer, ‘Les frontispices de thèses: un example de collaboration entre peintres italiens et graveurs français’, in Seicento. La peinture italienne du XVIIe siècle e la France, Paris, 1990, pp. 105-123 Montanaro 1990 Eugene Montanaro, ‘The Sculptures at the Grotto of St Paul’ in John Azzopardi ed., St Paul’s Grotto, Church and Museum at Rabat-Malta, Malta, 1990 Tantillo Mignosi 1990 Alma Maria Tantillo Mignosi, in ‘I Chigi ad Ariccia nel ‘600’, in L’arte per i papi e per i principi nella Campagna Romana. Grande pittura del Seicento e del Settecento, Exh. Cat., Rome, 1990, pp. 69-114 Waddy 1990 Patrizia Waddy, Seventeenth Century Roman, Palaces: Use and the Art of the Plane, New York 1990 Androsov – Nepi Scirè 1991 276

Sergej Androsov, Giovanna Nepi Scirè ed., Alle origini di Canova. Le terrecotte della collezione Farsetti, Rome, Venice, 1991 Barberini 1991 Maria Giulia Barberini ed., Scultura in terracotta del Barocco romano, Rome, 1991 Bordini 1991 Silvia Bordini, ‘I Libri di modelli nell’ Inventario del 1756 nell’Accademia di San Luca in Roma’ in Collezionismo e ideologia (Studi sul Settecento romano), 7, 1991, pp. 177-204 Connors – Rice 1991 Joseph Connors, Louise Rice eds, Description de Rome Moderne, Italian ed. Specchio di Roma barocca. Una guida inedita del XVII secolo, Rome, 1991 Ferrari 1991 Oreste Ferrari, ‘Bernini’, in Art e Dossier, n.57, Florence, 1991 Montagu 1991 Jennifer Montagu, La scultura barocca romana. Un’ industria dell’arte, Turin, 1991 Ventura 1991 Leandro Ventura, ‘Un bozzetto barocco riscoperto: una nuova attribuzione per Melchiorre Caffà’, in Ricerche di Storia dell’Arte, 45, 1991, pp. 77-84 Magnani 1992 Lauro Magnani, ‘La scultura dalle forme della tradizione alla libertà dello spazio barocco’, in Genova nell’età barocca, Exh. Cat., Genoa, 1992, pp. 291-302 Pedroli 1992[i] Mariella Pedroli, ‘Di Ercole Ferrata’, in Lione Pascoli, Le Vite de’ Pittori, Scultori ed Architetti moderni, edizione critica dedicata a Valentino Martinelli con introduzione di Alessandro Marabottini, Perugia, 1992, pp.327-338 Pedroli 1992[ii] Mariella Pedroli, ‘Di Melchior Cafà’, in Lione Pascoli, Le Vite de’ Pittori, Scultori ed Architetti moderni, edizione critica dedicata a Valentino Martinelli con introduzione di Alessandro Marabottini, Perugia, 1992, pp. 354-358 Preimesberger 1992 Rudolph Preimesberger, ’Maiestas loci. Zum Kuppelraum von St.Peter in Rom unter Urban VIII. (1623-44)’, in Berliner Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft e.V. Jahrbuch, 1992, pp. 247-268 Schenone 1992 H. H. Schenone, Iconografia del arte colonial, Buenos Aires, 1992 Bevilacqua 1993 Mario Bevilacqua, Santa Caterina da Siena a Magnanapoli. Arte e storia di una comunità religiosa romana nell’età della Controriforma, Rome, 1993 Petrucci 1993 Francesco Petrucci, ‘Notizie d’archivio su alcuni busti marmorei chigiani’, in Bollettino d’Arte, LXXVIII, 1993, pp.91-98 Preimesberger 1993 Rudolph Preimesberger, ‘Skulpturale Mimesis: Mochi’s Heilige Veronika’, in T.W.Gaehtgens ed., Künstlerischer Ausausch-Artistic Exchange. Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongress für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, 1993, pp. 473-482 Barberini 1994 Giulia Barberini in Maria Giulia Barberini, Carlo Gasparri eds, Bartolomeo Cavaceppi scultore romano (1717-1799), Exh. Cat., Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia,

277

Rome, 1994 Barberini – Gasparri 1994 Maria Giulia Barberini, Carlo Gasparri eds, Bartolomeo Cavaceppi scultore romano (1717-1799), Exh. Cat., Museo del Palazzo di Venezia, Rome, 1994 Boddi – Crescioli – Danti 1994 R. Boddi, A. Crescioli, C. Danti, ‘Manufatti storici in cera: note sulla tecnica e sul restauro’, in OPD Restauro, 9, 1994, pp.121-127 De Lucca – Thake 1994 Denis De Lucca, Conrad Thake, The Genesis of Maltese Baroque Architecture: Francesco Buonamici, Malta, 1994 Gigli 1994 Giacinto Gigli, Diario di Roma, M. Barberito ed., 2 vols., Rome, 1994 Lothe 1994 José Lothe Gonzalez de Acuña, L’Oeuvre gravé de François et Nicolas de Poilly d’Abbeville, graveurs parisiens du XVIIe siècle, Paris, 1994 Preimesberger 1994 Rudolph Preimesberger, ’Eine Peripetie in Stein? Bemerkungen zu Alessandro Algardis Relief der Begegnung Leos des Großen mit Attila’, in Aachener Kunstblätter, LX, 1994, pp. 397-416 Schlegel 1994 Ursula Schlegel, ’Arbeiten in Terracotta von Alessandro Algardi und Ercole Ferrata’, in Studi di Storia dell’Arte in onore di Mina Gregori, Cinisello Balsamo, Milan, 1994, pp. 279-284 Schütze 1994 Sebastian Schütze, ’Urbano inalza Pietro e Pietro Urbano, Beobachtungen zu Idee und Gestalt der Ausstattung von Neu-St.Petere unter Urban VIII’, in Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 1994, pp. 213-287 Torresi – Fagiolo dell’Arco 1994 A.P.Torresi, M. Fagiolo dell’Arco, Osservazioni sulla scultura antica: i manoscritti di Firenze e di Ferrara, Ferrara, 1994 Herding 1995 Klaus Herding, ‘Puget scultore’, in Lauro Magnani, Giovanna Rotondi Terminiello eds, Pierre Puget (Marsiglia 1620-1694). Un artista francese e la cultura barocca a Genova, Exh. Cat., Palazzo Ducale Genova 1995, Milano, 1995, pp. 22-35 Mujica Pinilla 1995 R. Mujica Pinilla, El ancla de Rosa de Lima: Mística y Política en torno a la Patrona de América, in Santa Rosa de Lima y su tiempo, Lima, 1995 Bacchi 1996[i] Andrea Bacchi (and Susanna Zanuso), Scultura del ‘600 a Roma, Milan, 1996 Bacchi 1996[ii] Andrea Bacchi, sub voce ‘Ercole Ferrata’, in Andrea Bacchi (and Susanna Zanuso), Scultura del ‘600 a Roma, Milan, 1996, pp. 802-804 Barberini 1996 Maria Giulia Barberini, in Shelley E. Zuraw, Maria Giulia Barberini eds, Masterpieces of Renaissance and Baroque Sculpture from the Palazzo Venezia, Rome, Exh. Cat., Georgia Museum of Art, Athens,Georgia, 1996 Casale 1996 Gerardo Casale, sub voce ‘Ferrata Ercole’ in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 278

Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana diretta da Giovanni Treccani, Vol. 46, Rome, 1996, pp. 760-764 Dose 1996 R. Dose, ‘La formazione romana di Giuseppe Rusnati’, in Arte lombarda, 116, 1, 1996, pp. 34-36 Fagiolo dell’Arco 1996 Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco, ‘Scultura barocca romana (2) Due bozzetti di Ercole Ferrata e Michel Maille’, Fimantiquari, IV, no. 9, 1996, pp. 26-37 Farrugia Randon 1996 Robert Farrugia Randon, ‘The Statue and Pedestal of St Paul at St Paul Shipwrecked Church in Valletta’, in Melita Historica, Vol. XII no. 1, Malta, 1996 Freller 1996 Thomas Freller, St Paul’s Grotto and its Visitors, Malta, 1996 Montagu 1996 Jennifer Montagu, Gold, Silver and Bronze. Metal sculpture of the Roman Baroque, New Haven and London, 1996 Preimesberger 1996 Rudolph Preimesberger, sub voce ‘Melchiorre Cafà’, in The Dictionary of Art, Vol. V, 1996, pp. 376-378 Rinaldi 1996 S. Rinaldi, Tecnica e restauro della scultura lapidea nelle fonti dal barocco al neoclassicismo: antologia di testi 1650-1802, Roma, 1996. Zanuso 1996 Susanna Zanuso, sub voce ‘Melchiorre Cafà’ in Andrea Bacchi (and Susanna Zanuso), Scultura del ‘600 a Roma, Milan, 1996, pp. 791-792 Avery 1997 Charles Avery, Bernini. Genius of Baroque, Thames and Hudson, London, 1997 Bernardini 1997 M. G. Bernardini, ‘Lazzaro Baldi’, in A. Lo Bianco ed., Pietro da Cortona, 15971669, Milan, 1997, pp. 213-222 Bissell 1997[i] Gerhard Bissell, sub voce ’Melchiorre Cafà’ in Saur Allgemeines Künstlerlexicon, Vol. XV, München-Leipzig, 1997, pp. 493-495 Bissell 1997[ii] Gerhard Bissell, Pierre Le Gros. 1666-1719, Reading, 1997 Chandler Kirwin 1997 William Chandler Kirwin, Power Matchless. The Pontificate of Urban VIII, The Baldachin and Gian Lorenzo Bernini, New York, 1997 Di Gioia 1997 Elena Bianca Di Gioia, sub voce ‘Fontana Francesco Antonio’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Istituto per l’Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Treccani, Vol. 48, Rome, 1997, pp. 663-667 Ferrari 1997 Oreste Ferrari, ‘Poeti e scultori nella Roma seicentesca: i difficili rapporti tra due culture’, in Storia dell’Arte, 90, 1997, pp. 151-161 Marchionne Gunter 1997 [i] Alfredo Marchionne Gunter, ‘Documenti della Fabbrica di San Pietro su Crocifissi, opere bronzee berniniane e altri lavori per l’arredo barocco della basilica Vaticana’, 279

in Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria, CXX, 1997, pp. 167-209 Marchionne Gunter 1997 [ii] Alfredo Marchionne Gunter, ‘Scultori a Roma tra Seicento e Settecento: Francesco Cavallini, Franceseco Aprile e Andrea Fucigna’, Storia dell’Arte, 91, 1997, pp. 31566 Montanari 1997 Tomaso Montanari, ‘Il cardinale Decio Azzolino e le collezioni d’arte di Cristina di Svezia’, in Studi Secenteschi, XXXVIII, 1997, pp. 187-264 Rice 1997 Louise Rice, The Altars and Altarpieces of New St. Peter’s. Outfitting the Basilica 16211666, Cambridge University Press, 1997 Androssov 1998 Sergej Androsov, ‘Catalogue’ in Ian Wardropper ed., From the Sculptor’s Hand. Italian Baroque Terracottas from the State Hermitage Museum, Exh. Cat. The Art Institute of Chicago, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1998 Angelini 1998[i] Alessandro Angelini, ‘Il busto marmoreo di Alessandro VII scolpito da Gian Lorenzo Bernini nel 1657’, in Prospettiva, 89-90, gennaio-aprile 1998, pp. 184-192 Angelini 1998[ii] Alessandro Angelini (with essay by Tomaso Montanari), Gian Lorenzo Bernini e i Chigi tra Roma e Siena, Siena, 1998 Boucher 1998 Bruce Boucher, Italian Baroque Sculture, London, 1998 Hampe Martínez 1998 T. Hampe Martínez, Santidad e identidad criolla. Estudio del proceso de canonización de Santa Rosa, Cuzco, 1998 Montanari 1998 Tomaso Montanari, ‘Bernini e Cristina di Svezia. Alle origini della storiografia berniniana’ in Alessandro Angelini, Gian Lorenzo Bernini e i Chigi tra Roma e Siena, Siena, 1998, pp. 330-491 Preimesberger 1998 Rudolph Preimesberger, ’Bilder des Papstums vor un nach 1648’, in K. Bussmann-H. Schilling eds, 1648. Krieg un Frieden in Europa, Münster-Osnabrück 1998-1999, vol.II, München 1998, pp. 619-628 Rice 1998 Louise Rice, ‘Pietro da Cortona and the Roman Baroque Thesis Print’, in Pietro da Cortona 1597-1669. Atti del convegno internazionale (Roma e Firenze, 12-15 novembre 1997), Rome and Milan: Electa, 1998, pp. 189-200 Schlegel 1998 Ursula Schlegel, ‘Melchiorre Caffà, Busto di Alessandro VII’, in Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco, Francesco Petrucci eds, L’Ariccia del Bernini, catalogo della Mostra, Exh. Cat., Rome, 1998, pp. 76-77 Sparti 1998 Donatella Livia Sparti, ‘Tecnica e teoria del restauro scultoreo a Roma nel Seicento, con una verifica sulla collezione di Flavio Chigi’, Storia dell’Arte, 1998, n.92, pp. 60-131 Walker 1998 Dean Walker, ‘Surveying the History of Collecting Italian Sculptural Medals’, in 280

Ian Wardropper, Sergej Androssov ... Wardropper – Androssov 1998 Ian Wardropper, Sergej Androssov, From the Sculptor’s Hand. Italian Baroque Terracottas from the State Hermitage Museum, Exh. Cat. The Art Institute of Chicago, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1998 Azzopardi 1999[i] John Azzopardi, ‘Mattia Preti. L-opri tieghu fil-Kollegjata ta’ San Pawl, Rabat u l-Muzew Wignacourt’, Il-Festi Taghna (Rabat), Malta, 1999 Azzopardi 1999[ii] John Azzopardi, ‘Mattia Preti nel Complesso Paolino di Rabat’, in 1699-1999. Nel terzo centenario della morte di Mattia Preti, Museo Civico di Taverna, Bollettino no 2, 1999 Cannata 1999 Pietro Cannata in Jennifer Montagu ed., Algardi L’altra faccia del barocco, Rome, 1999 Carloni 1999 Livia Carloni, ‘La Cappella Cornaro in Santa Maria della Vittoria:nuove evidenze e acquisizioni sulla “men cattiva opera” del Bernini’ in Claudio Strinati, Maria Grazia Bernardini eds, Gian Lorenzo Bernini Regista del Barocco. I restauri, Milan, 1999, pp. 37-46 Fagiolo dell’Arco 1999 Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco, ‘Bernini “regista” del Barocco. Ragioni e percorso di una mostra’, in Maria Grazia Bernardini, Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco eds, Gian Lorenzo Bernini regista del Barocco, Exh. Cat. Rome, Milan, 1999, pp. 17-36 Ferrari – Papaldo 1999 Oreste Ferrari, Serenita Papaldo, Le sculture del Seicento a Roma, Rome, 1999 Ferrari 1999 Oreste Ferrari, ‘Introduzione. Le basi storiografiche’, in Oreste Ferrari, Serenita Papaldo eds, Le sculture del Seicento a Roma, Rome, 1999, pp. XX-XXXII Fiaschi 1999 Marco Fiaschi, ‘Ercole Ferrata: nuovi documenti e nuove attribuzioni’, in Studi Romani, a. XLVII, nn.1-2, 1999, pp. 43-53 Sigel 1999 Tomy Sigel, ‘The Clay Modelling of Gian Lorenzo Bernini’ and ‘Technical Observation and Petrographical Analysis’ in pp. 48-72, 73-118. Gaskell – Lie 1999 Ivan Gaskell, Henry Lie eds, Sketches in Clay for Projects by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Harvard University Art Museum Bullettin, Spring 1999 LLoyd 1999 Nancy Lloyd, ‘Figerprints’, in Ivan Gaskel Sketches in Clay for Projects by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Harvard University Art Museum Bullettin, Spring 1999, pp. 119-124. Montagu 1999[i] Jennifer Montagu, ‘The Fogg Silence: Bozzetto by Melchiorre Cafà’, in Ivan Gaskell, Henry Lie eds, Sketches in Clay for Projects by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Harvard University Art Museum Bullettin, Spring 1999, pp. 128-132 Montagu 1999[ii] Jennifer Montagu in Jennifer Montagu ed., Algardi. L’altra faccia del Barocco, Exh. Cat., Roma, Palazzo delle Esposizioni 21 gennaio-30 aprile 1999, Rome, 1999 281

Montanari 1999 Tomaso Montanari, ‘Pierre Cureau de La Chambre e la prima biografia di Gian Lorenzo Bernini’, in Paragone Arte, L, nn. 24-25, Marzo-Maggio 1999, pp. 103-132 O’Grody 1999 Jeanine O’Grody, ‘Bernini’s St.Ambrose for the Cathedra Petri: A Model and a Metamorphosis of a Figure’, in Ivan Gaskell, Henry Lie eds, Sketches in Clay for Projects by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Harvard University Art Museum Bullettin, Spring 1999, pp. 133-143 Rice 1999 Louise Rice, ‘Jesuit Thesis Prints and the Festive Academic Defense at the Collegio Romano’, in The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts, 1540-1773, J. O’Malley et al. eds, Toronto, 1999, pp. 148-69 Sigel 1999 Tony, Sigel, ‘The Clay Modelling of Gian Lorenzo Bernini’ and ‘Technical Observations and Petrgraphical Analysis’ in Ivan Gaskell, Henry Lie, pp. 48-72, 73-118 Tiberia 1999 Vitaliano Tiberia, ‘Santa Bibiana’ in Claudio Strinati, Maria Grazia Bernardini eds, Gian Lorenzo Bernini regista del Barocco. I restauri, Milan, 1999, pp. 13-17 Wittkower 1999 Rudolph Wittkower, ‘Art and Architecture in Italy’, (revised by Joseph Connors and Jennifer Montagu), New Haven, 1999 Barberini 2000 Maria Giulia Barberini, ‘Giovan Pietro Bellori e la scultura contemporanea’, in Evelina Borea, Carlo Gasparri eds, L’idea del bello. Viaggio per Roma nel Seicento con Giovan Pietro Bellori, Exh. Cat., Roma, Palazzo delle Esposizioni 29 marzo-26 giugno 2000, Rome, 2000, Vol. I, pp. 121-129 Butzek 2000 Monika Butzek, ‘Giovanni Artusi su modello di Melchiorre Cafà, Busto di Alessandro VII’, in Alessandro VII Chigi (1599-1667). Il Papa senese di Roma moderna, Siena, 2000, pp. 187-188 Cannata 2000 Pietro Cannata, ‘Alessandro Algardi, San Nicola da Tolentino, terracotta,’ in Evelina Borea, Carlo Gasparri eds, L’idea del bello. Viaggio per Roma nel Seicento con Giovan Pietro Bellori, Exh. Cat., Roma, Palazzo delle Esposizioni 29 marzo-26 giugno 2000, Vol. II, Rome, 2000, cat. n. 15, p.393 Fortunati 2000 Maria Cristina Fortunati, ‘Il trattato Osservationi della Scoltura Antica di Orfeo Boselli (1657-1661)’, in Storia dell’Arte 100/2000, pp. 69-101 Hampe Martínez 2000 T. Hampe Martínez, ‘Santa Rosa de Lima y la identidad criolla en el Perú colonial: ensayo de interpretación’, in J.A. Mazzotti ed., Agencias Criollas: la ambigüedad colonial en las letras hispanoamericanas, Pittsburgh, 2000, pp. 215-232. Lavin 2000 Irving Lavin, ‘Bernini in San Pietro’, in Antonio Pinelli ed., La Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano, Modena, 2000, pp. 177-236 Montanari 2000 Tomaso Montanari in Antonio Pinelli ed., ‘Mirabila Urbis’ La Basilica di San Pietro 282

in Vaticano, Modena, 2000 Pampalone 2000[i] Antonella Pampalone, in Alessandro Angelini, Monica Butzek, Bernardina Sani eds, Alessandro VII Chigi(1599-1667). Il Papa senese di Roma moderna, Exh. Cat., Siena Palazzo Pubblico e Palazzo Chigi Zondarari, 23 settembre 2000-10 gennaio 2001, Siena, 2000 Pampalone 2000[ii] Antonella Pampalone, ‘Lazzaro Baldi, Passione e estasi di Santa Rosa da Lima’, in C. D’Afflitto, D. Romei eds, I Teatri del Paradiso. La personalità, l’opera, il mecenatismo di Giulio Rospigliosi (Papa Clemente IX), Exh. Cat. Pistoia, Palazzo Comunale, 21 ottobre 2000-7 gennaio 2001, Siena, 2000 Sciberras 2000 Keith Sciberras, Roman Baroque Sculpture for the Order of Malta, Unpublish Ph.D. University of Malta, 2000 Spiriti 2000 Andrea Spiriti, ‘Ercole Ferrata tra Milano e Roma. Novità e considerazioni’, in Storia dell’arte, 100/2000 Tiberia 2000 Vitaliano Tiberia, ‘Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Pietro da Cortona, Agostino Ciampelli’ in Santa Bibiana a Roma- I restauri, Perugia, 2000 Zaccaria 2000 Cristina Zaccaria, Andrea Bergondi (1721-1789) scultore romano, Tesi di laurea Università degli studi di Roma La Sapienza, anno accademico 1999-2000, relatore prof.ssa Orietta Rossi Pinelli Bisogni 2001 ‘Ex Voto e scultura in cera nel Tardo Medioevo’, in Andrew Ladis, Shelley E. Zuraw eds, Vision of Holiness: Art and Devotion in Renaissance Italy, (Issues in the history of arts), University of Georgia, 2001, pp. 66-91 Bernardini 2001 Maria Grazia Bernardini, ‘L’estasi in Bernini e il sentimento religioso nel XVII secolo’, in Maria Grazia Bernardini ed., Bernini a Montecitorio, Ciclo di conferenze nel quarto centenario della nascita di Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Camera dei Deputati, Roma 2001, pp. 129-151 Barberini 2001 Maria Giulia Barberini, ‘Base or Noble Material? Clay Sculpture in Seventeenth an Eighteenth Century Italy,’ in Bruce Boucher ed., Earth and Fire. Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, Exh. Cat, The Museum of Fine Arts Houston, Victoria and Albert Museum London, 2001, pp 43-59 Boucher 2001 Bruce Boucher ed., Earth and Fire. Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, The Museum of Fine Arts Houston, Victoria and Albert Museum London, 2001 Carloni 2001 Rossella Carloni, ‘Una società tra scultori romani del Settecento. Gessi, bozzetti, frammenti di Innocenzo Spinazzi nella bottega in comune con Gioacchino Falcioni’, in Elisa Debenedetti ed., Studi sul Settecento Romano, Sculture romane del Settecento, I, La professione dello scultore, Rome, 2001, pp. 95-118 Preimesberger 2001 Rudolph Preimesberger, ‘Il San Longino del Bernini in San Pietro in Vaticano: 283

dal bozzetto alla statua’, in Maria Grazia Bernardini ed., Bernini a Montecitorio, Ciclo di conferenze nel quarto centenario della nascita di Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Camera dei Deputati, Roma 2001, pp. 95-111 Sutherland Harris 2001 Ann Sutherland Harris, ‘La Cattedra di San Pietro in Vaticano. Dall’idea alla realizzazione’, in Maria Grazia Bernardini ed., Bernini a Montecitorio, Ciclo di conferenze nel quarto centenario della nascita di Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Camera dei Deputati, Roma 2001, pp.113-128 Bisogni 2002 F. Bisogni, ‘La scultura in cera nel Medioevo’, in Iconographica, 2002, 1, pp.1-15 Di Gioia 2002[i] Elena Bianca Di Gioia, Museo di Roma. Le collezioni di scultura del Seicento, Rome 2002 Di Gioia 2002[ii] Elena Bianca Di Gioia, ‘Gian Lorenzo Bernini, disegno e modello, Ercole Ferrata, modello per la fusione, “Cristo vivo” e “Cristo morto”’ in Elena Bianca Di Gioia, Daniela Gallavotti Cavallero, Francesco Federico Mancini, Raccolte della città di Perugia, Collezione Valentino Martinelli, Perugia, 2002, cat.nn. 18a-b, pp. 84-87 Di Stefano 2002 Elisabetta Di Stefano, ‘Orfeo Boselli e la nobiltà della scultura’, in Aesthetica Preprint, Centro Internazionale Studi di Estetica, Università degli Studi di Palermo, April, 2002 Mercieca 2002 Simon Mercieca, ‘From Rural Livelihood to a Cosmopolitan Vocation: Tracing the Origins of the Gafa Family’, in Melitensium Amor Festschrift in Honour of Dun Gwann Azzopardi, Malta, 2002, pp. 278-288 Morello 2002 Giovanni Morello, Il reliquiario della Vera Croce, Museo Diocesano di Osimo, 2002 Oechslin 2002 Werner Oechslin, ‘Memini-Memoria-Memnon’, Scholion, II, 2002, pp. 7-47 Cannata 2003[i] Pietro Cannata, ‘Alessandro Algardi, Visione di San Nicola da Tolentino’, in Giovanni Morello ed., Visioni ed Estasi. Capolavori dell’arte europea tra Seicento e Settecento, Roma Città del Vaticano, Braccio di Carlo Magno, 14 ottobre 2003-18 gennaio 2004, Exh. Cat., Milan, 2003, cat. n. 22, pp. 202-203 Cannata 2003[ii] Pietro Cannata, ‘Estasi di santa Rosa da Lima’, in Giovanni Morello ed., Visioni ed Estasi. Capolavori dell’arte europea tra Seicento e Settecento, Roma Città del Vaticano, Braccio di Carlo Magno, 14 ottobre 2003-18 gennaio 2004, Exh. Cat., Milan, 2003, cat. n. 66, p. 229 Dombrowski 2003 Damian Dombrowski, Dal trionfo all’amore. Il mutevole pensiero artistico di Gianlorenzo Bernini nella decorazione del nuovo San Pietro, Rome, 2003 Marchionne Gunter 2003 Alfredo Marchionne Gunter, ‘L’attività di due scultori nella Roma degli Albani: gli inventari di Pietro Papaleo e Francesco Moratti’, in Elisa Debenedetti ed., Studi sul Settecento Romano. Sculture romane del Settecento, III. La professione dello scultore, 2003, pp. 67-146 284

Pampalone 2003 Antonella Pampalone, ‘Lazzaro Baldi, Passione ed estasi della beata Rosa da Lima’, in Giovanni Morello ed., Visioni ed Estasi. Capolavori dell’arte europea tra Seicento e Settecento, Roma Città del Vaticano, Braccio di Carlo Magno, 14 ottobre 2003-18 gennaio 2004, Exh. Cat., Milan, 2003, cat.n. 20, pp. 201-202 Sciberras 2003 Keith Sciberras, Melchiorre Cafà. Maltese Genius of the Roman Baroque, National Museum of Valletta, 24 october- 14 november 2003, exhibition pamphlet, Malta, 2003 Simonetta-Gigli-Marchetti 2003 Giuseppe Simonetta, Laura Gigli, Gabriella Marchetti, Sant’Agnese in Agone a Piazza Navona. Bellezza Proporzione Armonia nelle fabbriche Pamphilj, Rome, 2003 Cipriani 2004 Angela Cipriani, ‘Un’inedita ‘storia’ della romana Accademia di San Luca – consapevolezza critica della scultura nella seconda meta del siecento’, in Studi sul Barocco romano. Scritti in onore di Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco, Milan, 2004, pp. 325330 Lavin 2004 Irving Lavin, ‘Bozzetti e Modelli, Notes on Sculptural procedure from the Early renaissance through Bernini’, in Essays on Style & Meaning in the Art of Gianlorenzo Bernini, London, 2004 Pisani 2004 Moira Pisani, ‘Melchiorre Gafà’s Discorso about the Designs and Models for the Main Altar of St John’s Co-Cathedral, Valletta’, in Baroque Routes, International Institute for Baroque Studies Newsletter N.5, Malta 2004, 11-19 Rice 2004 Louise Rice, ‘The Philosophy Defense of Ilario Frumenti’, in A. John ed., Domenico Allegri, Music for an Academic Defense (Rome, 1617), Madison WI, 2004, pp. vii-xvii, xx-xxii Sciberras 2004 Keith Sciberras, Roman Baroque Sculture For The Knights Of Malta, Fondazzjoni Patrimonju Malti, Valletta, 2004 Barberini 2005 Maria Giulia Barberini, Battesimo di Cristo da Pirano, scheda in Capolavori restaurati dall’Istria e dal Duarmaro, da Paolo Veneziano a Tiepolo, Paolo Casadio e Francesca Castellini ed., Soprintendenza per i BAPPSAE del Friuli Venezia Giulia, Milano, 2005 (in corso di stampa)

EXHIBITIONS Archeologia nel centro storico. Apporti antichi e moderni di arte e cultura dal Foro della Pace, Rome, Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo 1986, Exh. Cat., Maresita Nota, Francesco Giovanetti, Elena Bianca Di Gioia, Otto Mazzucato eds, Palombi, Rome, 1986 The Vatican Splendours. Masterpieces of Baroque Art, Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada 1986, Exh. Cat., Catherine Johnston, G. Vanier Shepard, Marc Worsdale eds, 285

Ottawa 1986 Due Terrecotte Romane del Seicento, Rome, Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo 1989, Exh. Cat., Bruno Contardi ed. (with Laura Donelli), Rome 1989 Collezione Chigi-Saracini. La scultura. Bozzetti in terracotta, piccoli marmi e altre sculture dal XVI al XX secolo, Siena, Palazzo Chigi-Saracini 1990, Exh. Cat., Giancarlo Gentilini, Carlo Sisi eds, Siena, 1989 Alle origini di Canova: le terracotte della collezione Farsetti, Exh. Cat., Venice, 1991 Sculture in Terracotta del Barocco Romano. Bozzetti e modelli del Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia, Rome, Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia 1991-1992, Exh. Cat., Maria Giulia Barberini ed., Rome, 1991 Bartolomeo Cavaceppi scultore romano (1717-1799), Rome, Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia 1994, Exh. Cat., Maria Giulia Barberini, Carlo Gasparri eds, Rome, 1994 Pierre Puget (Marsiglia 1620-1694). Un artista francese e la cultura barocca a Genova, Genoa, Palazzo Ducale 1995, Exh. Cat., Lauro Magnani, Giovanna Rotondi Terminiello eds, Milan, 1995 Masterpieces of Renaissance and Baroque Sculpture from the Palazzo Venezia, Rome, Georgia Museum of Art 1996, Exh. Cat., Shelley E. Zuraw, Maria Giulia Barberini eds, Athens, Georgia, 1996 From the Sculptor’s Hand: Italian Baroque Terracottas from the State Hermitage Museum, Exh. Cat., Chicago, 1998 L’Ariccia del Bernini, Ariccia, Palazzo Chigi 1998, Exh. Cat., Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco, Francesco Petrucci, eds, Rome, 1998 Algardi. L’altra faccia del Barocco, Rome, Palazzo delle Esposizioni 1999, Exh. Cat., Jennifer Montagu ed., Rome, 1999 Gian Lorenzo Bernini regista del Barocco, Roma, Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia 1999, Exh. Cat., Maria Grazia Bernardini, Maurizio Fagiolo dell’Arco eds, Milan, 1999 L’idea del bello. Viaggio per Roma nel Seicento con Giovan Pietro Bellori, Rome, Palazzo delle Esposizioni 2000, Exh. Cat., Evelina Borea, Carlo Gasparri eds, Vol. I-II, Rome, 2000 Alessandro VII Chigi(1599-1667). Il Papa senese di Roma moderna, Siena, Palazzo Pubblico e Palazzo Chigi Zondarari 2000-2001, Exh. Cat., Alessandro Angelini, Monica Butzek, Bernardina Sani eds, Siena, 2000 Earth and Fire. Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston 2001-2002, Victoria and Albert Museum, London 2002, Exh. Cat., Bruce Boucher ed., Yale University Press, 2001 Le Lapidi 2002 Le lapidi di San Carlo al Corso, Rome, 2002 Visioni ed Estasi. Capolavori dell’arte europea tra Seicento e Settecento, Rome, Vatican City, Braccio di Carlo Magno 2003-2004, Exh. Cat., Giovanni Morello ed., Milan, 2003

286

287

Fig. 366 Martyr Saint, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. Detail

288

Index of names

This Index refers to names in main text only. Authors of the 19th century and later are excluded. Numbers in italics refer to figures and plates. References to Melchiorre CafĂ are excluded.

Abela Giovan Francesco, 114, 116 Albacini Carlo, 41 Algardi Alessandro, 4, 5, 6, 8, 39, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 75, 110, 111, 118, 137; 55, 109 Allegritto Nicola, 116, 126 Alpheran de Bussan Melchior 116 Alpheran de Bussan Paul, 120 Aprile Francesco, 71 Artusi Giovanni, 43, 136 Azzolino Decio, 64, 138 Azzopardi Antonio, 126 Baba Gabriello, 38 Baldi Lazzaro, 93, 138 Baldinucci Filippo, 38, 39, 42, 48, 49, 51, 67, 110; 39 Balestra Pietro, 69 Bambagi Bartholomeo, 115, 118, 122, 127, 128 Bandinelli (Bailiff), 117, 122, 123, 124, 125 Baratta Francesco, 50; 51

Baratta, Giovanni Maria, 56, 61, 102, 104 Barberini Francesco, 137 Bartolo Paolo, 123 Bellori Giovanni Pietro, 37, 53, 55, 56 Benegas de Cordova Juan, 114, 115, 116 Bergondi Andrea, 41, 48, 51, 63 Bernini Domenico, 49 Bernini Gianlorenzo, 1, 6, 8, 9, 13, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 75, 81, 88, 95, 96, 101, 102, 103, 106, 116, 121, 135, 138, 142, 148, 149, 152, 155, 164, 224; 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 88, 93, 95, 150 Berrettini Lorenzo, 79 Berti Luca, 119 Bichi Giovanni, 4 Bloemart Cornelis, 144 Blondel Mederico, 105 Bonacina Giovanni Battista, 148; 150 Borg Grazio, 128 Borromini Francesco, 56 Boselli Orfeo, 37, 80, 81 289

Bracci Pietro, 45, 64, 84 Buonamici Francesco, 113, 116, 120 Bueno Luca, 115

Dozzinale (sculptor), 3 Du Quesnoy Francois, 53, 54, 75; 75 Erra Carlantonio, 42

Caillemer Giovanni, 115 Calleja Giuseppe, 18 Callus Pietruzzo, 128 Camassei Andrea, 75 Cametti Bernardino, 46 Campi Antonio, 148 Canova Antonio, 224 Carcani Filippo, 69 Carceppo Ignazio, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 Carracci Annibale, 147 Caruana Franco, 115, 122 Casanova (family of sculptors), 2, 3 Casanova Antonio, 2 Casanova Michele, 2 Casanova Damiano, 2 Cassar Navarra Cosmana, 99, 119, 121 Caumons Francisque Seytres, 35, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 109 Cavaceppi Bartolomeo, 51 Cellini Benvenuto, 154, 155 Chigi Fabio (Pope Alexander VII), 4, 11, 13, 38, 43, 47, 48, 51, 53, 58, 147, 165, 218, 228, 229, 230 Chigi Flavio, 13, 48, 51 Christina of Sweden (Queen), 36, 47, 51, 64, 137, 138, 141, 159 Cianti Ignazio, 63, 84, 85 Clouwet Albert, 14, 139; 141 Colombi Gian Maria, 149 Cortona Pietro da, 37, 47, 61, 80, 148, 149, 152; 151 Cotoner Nicolas, 9, 13, 35, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 113, 117, 118, 122 Coutron G, 124 Couvay Jean, 14, 139; 141, 142, 144, 145, 147 Crozat Pierre, 47

290

De Conti Marsciano Savo, 148 Del Po Pietro, 14, 61, 62, 81; 7, 62 De Redin Martin, 4 De Rossi Giovanni Francesco, 56, 57, 58, 166; 59 Dondidi Guglielmo, 145, 146

Falcioni Gioacchino, 41 Famuncelli Dionisio, 119 Fancelli Cosimo, 47, 57, 75 Farsetti Filippo, 40, 41, 44, 47, 51 Fava Giuseppe, 35 Favray Antoine, 121 Feramoli Lucia, 141 Ferrata Ercole, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 18, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 76, 80, 81, 88, 110, 117, 137, 155, 158, 166; 7, 12, 17, 31, 32, 59, 62, 65, 67, 68, 69, 76, 77, 113, 133, 189, 203 Finelli Giuliano, 75 Fontana Francesco Antonio, 41, 46, 51 Frigoni Stefano, 36 Gafa Gio Maria, 1, 16 Gafa Giuseppe, 1, 9, 16, 114, 139 Gafa Grazio, 1, 8, 16 Gafa Lorenzo, 1, 3, 16, 18, 112, 113, 116, 118, 119, 120, 126, 127 Gafa Marco, 1, 6, 16 Gafa Veronica, 1 Galestruzzi Giovan Battista, 80 Garsin Antonio, 11 Ghezzi Giuseppe, 80 Giardini Giovanni, 101, 110, 112; 100 Girardin Jean, 14, 139; 141, 142, 144, 145, 147 Gonzales de Acuna Antonio, 64, 96, 137, 139, 142 Gozzadino Marcantonio, 146 Greuter Johann Friedrich, 149 Grimaldi Giovan Francesco, 80 Guidi Domenico, 58, 80 Hansen Leonard, 133 Houel Jean, 121 Iacobacci Domenico, 58 Isaia da Pisa, 93; 93 KrĂźger Theodor, 146

Lanfranco Giovanni, 146 Lanzi Antonio, 36 Le Gros Pierre, 46, 60, 88 Leoni Giovan Domenico, 133 Lioni Domenico, 90, 91 Locatelli Carlo, 66 Louis XIV (King), 54 Maderno Stefano, 48 Maglia Michele, 71, 75 Mamo Giovanni, 119 Maratta Carlo, 53, 79, 80 Mariette Pierre Jean, 35, 47 Martinelli Fioravante, 37 Marullo (Marulli) Michelangelo, 6, 9, 11, 16, 17, 36, 40, 48, 76, 78, 105, 120, 130 Mazzuoli Giuseppe, 36, 101, 110, 111, 112, 218; 100 Mifsud Angelo, 126 Mochi Francesco, 155 Mola Giovan Battista, 37 Moratti Francesco, 48 Morelli Lazzaro, 54 Naldini Paolo, 56, 80 Navarra Cosmana, see Cassar Navarra Cosmana Omodei Agostino, 13 Omodei Alessandro, 13, 14 Omodei Carlo Giovanni Battista, 13 Omodei Francesco Maria, 13 Omodei Giovanni Giacomo, 13 Orlandi Pellegrino, 38 Pacetti Vincenzo, 41 Pamphili (family), 8, 11, 16, 17, 18, 52, 102, 104 Pamphili Camillo, 5, 45, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61 Pamphili Giovanni Battista (Pope Innocent X), 44 Pamphili Giovan Battista, 41, 56, 57 Papaleo Pietro, 6, 36, 41, 48, 51, 80, 118, 119, 129; 119, 120 Parodi Filippo, 43 Pascoli Leone, 1, 5, 14, 35, 39, 42, 45, 46,

51, 52, 54, 62; 39, 40 Passeri Giovanni Battista, 36, 37 Paul V (Pope),114 Peducci Francesco, 36 Pelagio (Padre), 3, 119 Perellos Ramon, 118 Peretti Camilla, 63, 64 Perez Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Aleccio Matteo, 101 Peroni Giuseppe, 56, 58, 76 Pinto de Fonseca Emmanuel, 116, 121 Pio NiccolĂ˛, 35, 38, 39, 40, 51 Pius IV (Pope), 142 Preti Mattia, 36, 97, 105, 119 Puget Pierre, 60 Raggi Antonio, 54, 58, 110, 112; 59, 110 Raggi Lorenzo, 142, 147 Raggi Maria, 142 Raggi Ottaviano, 142, 144, 146, 149 Rainaldi Carlo, 11, 56 Rainaldi Domenico, 36 Rainaldi Girolamo, 56 Ravenet Simon Francois, 47; 86 Reni Guido, 92 Retti Leonardo, 59 Romanelli Giovan Francesco, 62; 149 Rosa Francesco, 63, 64, 84 Rota Cipriano, 141 Rota Giovanni Francesco, 1, 139, 141, 145, 146, 147, 149, 152 Sacchi Andrea, 112 Sandrart Joachim von, 155 Sansovino Jacopo, 155 Scilla Agostino, 2 Silos Giuseppe, 37 Sirigatti Ridolfo, 154 Sixtus V (Pope), 84 Soria Giovan Battista, 63, 83 Spinazzi Innocenzo, 41, 51 Stefani Giuseppe, 71; 71 Testaferrata (family), 4 Theuma Publio, 124 Titi Filippo, 37, 51, 63, 64, 69, 83, 84, 85 Torres Giovanni, 2 Troisi Carlo, 119 291

Vasari Giorgio, 154 Vella Giorgio, 128 Verospi Marcâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Antonio, 16, 17, 18, 56, 117, 122, 125 Viany Pierre, 119, 123, 124, 125 Wignacourt Aloph de, 115, 116, 119 Xicluna Francesco, 126

292

List of Contributors Angela Cipriani Accademia di San Luca, Rome Alessandra Anselmi UniversitĂ della Calabria John Azzopardi Wignacourt Collegiate Museum, Rabat Maria Giulia Barberini Museo Nazionale del Palazzo di Venezia, Rome, Soprintendenza Speciale per il Polo Museale Romano Elena Bianca Di Gioia Musei Capitolini Rome Gerhard Bissell University of Reading Tuccio Sante Guido Sante Guido Restauro Jennifer Montagu The Warburg Institute, University of London Tomaso Montanari UniversitĂ degli studi di Roma Tor Vergata Louise Rice New York University Keith Sciberras University of Malta Tony Sigel Straus Center for Conservation, Harvard University Art Museums Edgar Vella Cathedral Museum, Mdina

293