.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This bronze is an exceptional example of the work of master Renaissance sculptors Giambologna (1529-1608) and his principle assistant Antonio Susini (fl. 1580-1624). Many of Giambologna’s most celebrated compositions are believed to have been executed by Susini, combining the former’s ingenious compositions with the latter’s unparalleled technical ability in bronze production. Their combined talents are exemplified in this cast of the Cesarini Venus which records the overall, mannered, posture of the figure alongside fine details such as the plaits of hair, her elongated fingers and her carefully delineated toenails.
Tabletop bronzes like the present lot were in high demand among wealthy patrons in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and were often given by the ruling Medici family as diplomatic gifts. To meet this demand, Giambologna trained a series of assistants who assimilated his style and were able to execute bronzes from the master's models. Antonio Susini is known to have trained and worked in Giambologna’s foundry between circa 1580 and 1600, and specialised in preparing moulds of Giambologna’s models for casting and finishing these statuettes when cast (Avery, 1978, op. cit., p. 157). After 1600 he left to work independently, becoming successful in his own right. He continued to cast bronzes from models by his former master in addition to creating his own original compositions. Even after he set up on his own, Susini’s style remained very close to that of Giambologna meaning that it is not always easy to distinguish between the sculptures of the assistant and those of the master as their works are both stylistically and compositionally intertwined.
The composition of the present lot is related to a marble figure carved by Giambologna in Florence in the period 1580-1583, today known as the Cesarini Venus. A letter dated 28 July 1580 records that Grand Duke Francesco I de' Medici promised Giangiorgio II Cesarini, Marquis of Civitanova, that he would allow Giambologna - the most brilliant artist of his court - to undertake the carving of a marble statue for the Villa Ludovisi, Cesarini's palace in Rome, as soon as the sculptor had completed all his existing commissions (Wengraf in Seipel, op. cit., p. 118). On 9 April 1583 the Duke of Urbino’s ambassador Simone Fortuna wrote to Duke Francesco Maria II della Rovere, stating that the sculptor had the figure of Venus in hand (‘fra mano’), suggesting that the sculpture was then in the process of being carved (Radcliffe, 1996, op. cit., p. 60). Presumably completed in 1583, it was installed in the Villa Ludovisi. It eventually found its way to another Ludovisi property, the Villa Margherita, today the home of the American embassy, where it stands today.
The dating of this group of bronzes, and their relation to Giambologna’s marble figure, has long been the subject of debate. They come in two distinct sizes: a group of smaller examples including the signed bronze in Vienna which measures 24.8 cm, and a larger size – including the present bronze – which measures between 33 and 34 cm. In 1584, Giambologna's biographer Raffaello Borghini described a diplomatic gift from Cosimo I de’ Medici to Emperor Maximillian II in 1565 of ‘una figurina pur di metallo’ which von Schlosser associated with the bronze model of Venus Drying Herself in Vienna (Schlosser, loc. cit.). This assumption led scholars to conclude that the bronzes had to pre-date the marble Venus and that for Cesarini’s commission Giambologna transformed a small model he made twenty years earlier into a life-size marble. This would be in direct contrast to his usual practice, which involved the creation of small bronzes based on his large-scale marbles (Radcliffe, 1996, loc. cit.). However, as Radcliffe has argued (ibid.), at the time of Cesarini’s commission Giambologna was exceptionally busy and re-working an earlier model would have been a significant time-saving device.
Some scholars have continued to question whether Giambologna would have been content to reproduce an old model for one of his more important commissions. Previous translations of Borghini’s note of ‘a female figure also of metal’ (Wengraf in Seipel, op. cit., p. 118) may also be misleading, as ‘figurina’ literally translates into English as 'figurine’ and is therefore not gender specific. It should also be noted that the signed Venus in Vienna only appears with certainty in an inventory of 1730, though it may be identifiable with entries in very early seventeenth-century inventories.
Although the early provenance for the present lot is not known there are several descriptions of the composition in sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century inventories which could describe the present bronze. For example, in 1586 Ferdinando de’ Medici sent Emperor Rudolf 'Una Venere di mano di Giovanni Bologna, simile a quella del S.or Cesarini’ (‘a Venus from the hand of Giambologna similar to that of Signor Cesarini’). By the 1607-1611 inventory of Rudolf’s Kunstkammer, the Emperor had seemingly acquired a second cast. A third cast of this model is also recorded in inventories of the Villa Medici in 1588 and 1671 (Wengraf in Seipel, op. cit., pp. 118-120).
It has been argued that, stylistically, the model for the ‘Cesarini’ Venus fits best into Giambologna’s oeuvre in the 1560s (Leithe-Jasper in Seipel, op. cit., p. 203, and Radcliffe, op. cit.). However, there is a general consensus that the larger group of bronzes of this subject was probably cast by Antonio Susini and the model was therefore created around the time of the carving of the large-scale marble – that is, in the 1580s (ibid., p. 199). Some believe that the larger model represents an evolution of the composition, with its slightly more elongated proportions and greater sense of torsion.
As noted by Avery (op. cit., no. 52, p. 259), this model was among Giambologna’s most popular compositions and there exist many examples from later foundries of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Wengraf and Leithe-Jasper have discussed the variant models and divided them into types ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. The present bronze corresponds broadly to type ‘C’, that is, the larger model but on a square plinth. Other examples from this group include the bronze from Anglesey Abbey (National Trust, Fairhaven Collection) and the example in the Quentin Collection (Leithe-Jasper and Wengraf, op. cit., p. 146). Although the authors suggest that most of these bronzes probably date from the second and third quarters of the seventeenth century, there is an important distinction to be noted regarding the present example. As discussed in the entry of the Quentin bronze, the marble example of the Cesarini Venus was originally displayed outdoors and was badly damaged at some point before 1616 (Radcliffe, op. cit., p. 70). During the restoration, which was largely confined to the lower sections but also the top of the head, the area of the hair within the circular section formed by the intertwined plaits was altered from a central parting with hair combed out to both sides, to hair combed directly down from the front of the head to the back. They argue convincingly that the rare number of bronzes with the central parting must pre-date the restoration of the marble, which took place before 1624 (ibid., p. 154). The much more common bronzes with the hair combed from front to back therefore post-date the restoration. This would place the bronze offered here among the rare examples cast in the late sixteenth and very early seventeenth centuries. The relative freedom of details such as the naturalistic curls of hair framing the forehead of this figure would suggest a relatively early dating in Susini’s time with Giambologna – perhaps in the 1580s or 1590s; his later casts seem to become more rigid and goldsmith-like in their finishing.
With its lustrous reddish-gold patina and its exquisite details, the present bronze represents an exciting discovery in the world of late Renaissance bronzes. It is perhaps notable that it has appeared from a collection in Austria, where the Habsburg dynasty represented one of Giambologna’s greatest and most enduring patrons.
Tabletop bronzes like the present lot were in high demand among wealthy patrons in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and were often given by the ruling Medici family as diplomatic gifts. To meet this demand, Giambologna trained a series of assistants who assimilated his style and were able to execute bronzes from the master's models. Antonio Susini is known to have trained and worked in Giambologna’s foundry between circa 1580 and 1600, and specialised in preparing moulds of Giambologna’s models for casting and finishing these statuettes when cast (Avery, 1978, op. cit., p. 157). After 1600 he left to work independently, becoming successful in his own right. He continued to cast bronzes from models by his former master in addition to creating his own original compositions. Even after he set up on his own, Susini’s style remained very close to that of Giambologna meaning that it is not always easy to distinguish between the sculptures of the assistant and those of the master as their works are both stylistically and compositionally intertwined.
The composition of the present lot is related to a marble figure carved by Giambologna in Florence in the period 1580-1583, today known as the Cesarini Venus. A letter dated 28 July 1580 records that Grand Duke Francesco I de' Medici promised Giangiorgio II Cesarini, Marquis of Civitanova, that he would allow Giambologna - the most brilliant artist of his court - to undertake the carving of a marble statue for the Villa Ludovisi, Cesarini's palace in Rome, as soon as the sculptor had completed all his existing commissions (Wengraf in Seipel, op. cit., p. 118). On 9 April 1583 the Duke of Urbino’s ambassador Simone Fortuna wrote to Duke Francesco Maria II della Rovere, stating that the sculptor had the figure of Venus in hand (‘fra mano’), suggesting that the sculpture was then in the process of being carved (Radcliffe, 1996, op. cit., p. 60). Presumably completed in 1583, it was installed in the Villa Ludovisi. It eventually found its way to another Ludovisi property, the Villa Margherita, today the home of the American embassy, where it stands today.
The dating of this group of bronzes, and their relation to Giambologna’s marble figure, has long been the subject of debate. They come in two distinct sizes: a group of smaller examples including the signed bronze in Vienna which measures 24.8 cm, and a larger size – including the present bronze – which measures between 33 and 34 cm. In 1584, Giambologna's biographer Raffaello Borghini described a diplomatic gift from Cosimo I de’ Medici to Emperor Maximillian II in 1565 of ‘una figurina pur di metallo’ which von Schlosser associated with the bronze model of Venus Drying Herself in Vienna (Schlosser, loc. cit.). This assumption led scholars to conclude that the bronzes had to pre-date the marble Venus and that for Cesarini’s commission Giambologna transformed a small model he made twenty years earlier into a life-size marble. This would be in direct contrast to his usual practice, which involved the creation of small bronzes based on his large-scale marbles (Radcliffe, 1996, loc. cit.). However, as Radcliffe has argued (ibid.), at the time of Cesarini’s commission Giambologna was exceptionally busy and re-working an earlier model would have been a significant time-saving device.
Some scholars have continued to question whether Giambologna would have been content to reproduce an old model for one of his more important commissions. Previous translations of Borghini’s note of ‘a female figure also of metal’ (Wengraf in Seipel, op. cit., p. 118) may also be misleading, as ‘figurina’ literally translates into English as 'figurine’ and is therefore not gender specific. It should also be noted that the signed Venus in Vienna only appears with certainty in an inventory of 1730, though it may be identifiable with entries in very early seventeenth-century inventories.
Although the early provenance for the present lot is not known there are several descriptions of the composition in sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century inventories which could describe the present bronze. For example, in 1586 Ferdinando de’ Medici sent Emperor Rudolf 'Una Venere di mano di Giovanni Bologna, simile a quella del S.or Cesarini’ (‘a Venus from the hand of Giambologna similar to that of Signor Cesarini’). By the 1607-1611 inventory of Rudolf’s Kunstkammer, the Emperor had seemingly acquired a second cast. A third cast of this model is also recorded in inventories of the Villa Medici in 1588 and 1671 (Wengraf in Seipel, op. cit., pp. 118-120).
It has been argued that, stylistically, the model for the ‘Cesarini’ Venus fits best into Giambologna’s oeuvre in the 1560s (Leithe-Jasper in Seipel, op. cit., p. 203, and Radcliffe, op. cit.). However, there is a general consensus that the larger group of bronzes of this subject was probably cast by Antonio Susini and the model was therefore created around the time of the carving of the large-scale marble – that is, in the 1580s (ibid., p. 199). Some believe that the larger model represents an evolution of the composition, with its slightly more elongated proportions and greater sense of torsion.
As noted by Avery (op. cit., no. 52, p. 259), this model was among Giambologna’s most popular compositions and there exist many examples from later foundries of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Wengraf and Leithe-Jasper have discussed the variant models and divided them into types ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. The present bronze corresponds broadly to type ‘C’, that is, the larger model but on a square plinth. Other examples from this group include the bronze from Anglesey Abbey (National Trust, Fairhaven Collection) and the example in the Quentin Collection (Leithe-Jasper and Wengraf, op. cit., p. 146). Although the authors suggest that most of these bronzes probably date from the second and third quarters of the seventeenth century, there is an important distinction to be noted regarding the present example. As discussed in the entry of the Quentin bronze, the marble example of the Cesarini Venus was originally displayed outdoors and was badly damaged at some point before 1616 (Radcliffe, op. cit., p. 70). During the restoration, which was largely confined to the lower sections but also the top of the head, the area of the hair within the circular section formed by the intertwined plaits was altered from a central parting with hair combed out to both sides, to hair combed directly down from the front of the head to the back. They argue convincingly that the rare number of bronzes with the central parting must pre-date the restoration of the marble, which took place before 1624 (ibid., p. 154). The much more common bronzes with the hair combed from front to back therefore post-date the restoration. This would place the bronze offered here among the rare examples cast in the late sixteenth and very early seventeenth centuries. The relative freedom of details such as the naturalistic curls of hair framing the forehead of this figure would suggest a relatively early dating in Susini’s time with Giambologna – perhaps in the 1580s or 1590s; his later casts seem to become more rigid and goldsmith-like in their finishing.
With its lustrous reddish-gold patina and its exquisite details, the present bronze represents an exciting discovery in the world of late Renaissance bronzes. It is perhaps notable that it has appeared from a collection in Austria, where the Habsburg dynasty represented one of Giambologna’s greatest and most enduring patrons.