a proposed attribution to alessandro algardi: maria cerri capranica at...

117 | Bacchi and Hess: A proposed attribution to Alessandro Algardi doi:10.3828/sj.2011.12

Work by better-known artists can become confused with work by lesser-known

ones, and this has been the case with portrait sculpture by Alessandro Algardi and

Giuliano Finelli. This confusion has various causes, not least the need for more

research on seventeenth-century Roman sculptors other than that of the towering

figure of Gian Lorenzo Bernini. In the past scholars have struggled to focus on the

stylistic points of contact between Algardi’s and Finelli’s work. Although Bellori’s

claim that Algardi held a sort of primacy among Roman seventeenth-century

sculptors may be overstated, it is precisely Bellori’s biography that contributed to

the notion of the Bolognese sculptor as an antagonist of Bernini and, thus, the

major representative of a classicism that one would contrast in radical terms with

the baroque of Gian Lorenzo.

This critical approach has impeded the consideration of the strong connections

that could unite Algardi with Bernini’s main follower, Giuliano Finelli. Indeed,

Algardi and Finelli are too often seen as simply partisans of opposing camps. In

1985, Jennifer Montagu demonstrated that, rather than being strictly classical,

Algardi’s sculpture could be compared to the ‘Baroque’ painting of Pietro da

Cortona.1 Thus, one might more easily understand a relationship between Algardi

and Finelli which, in turn, helps explain the frequent attributional confusion of

their work. This confusion exists almost exclusively in the area of portraiture,

which should not be surprising: it is precisely the need for a realistic depiction

implicit in portraiture that brings a sort of masking of the stylistic characteristics

of each artist, hindering convincing attributions. The situation can be further

hampered by the absence of precise documentary references.

When considering Finelli’s career as a portraitist vis-à-vis that of Algardi, one

should keep in mind two primary facts. First, the most important nucleus of

Finelli’s Roman busts roughly date between the years 1629 and 1634, during which

time Algardi produced only one bust, that of Costanzo Patrizi of the 1620s. All of

Algardi’s other busts appear to post-date 1635. Secondly, Finelli and Algardi were

in contact by the late 1620s. Around 1629 both were working on the sculptural

decoration of the Bandini chapel in San Silvestro al Quirinale – Finelli executed

the bust of Cardinal Ottavio Bandini (c. 1629),2 while Algardi created the stucco

statues of San Giovanni and the Magdalene3—and in 1630 they worked together

on the catafalque of Carlo Barberini.

There are many portrait busts whose attributions have vacillated between

Finelli and Algardi, and in most cases it is the work of Finelli that has been

A proposed attribution to Alessandro Algardi: Maria Cerri Capranica at the J. Paul Getty Museum

Andrea Bacchi and Catherine Hess

118 | Sculpture Journal 20.2 [2011]

misattributed to the more famous Bolognese sculptor. Moreover, until recently,

Roman Baroque sculpture without an attribution was given primarily to one of

two artisits: Bernini and Algardi. The slow process of finally recognizing the

activity of Finelli as a portrait sculptor began in 1957 when, on stylistic grounds,

Antonia Nava Cellini correctly attributed to Giuliano Finelli the bust of Francesco

Bracciolini (London, Victoria & Albert Museum) formerly thought to be by

Algardi. Nava Cellini’s hypothesis was later confirmed by seventeenth-century

documentary sources.4 In 1960, Nava Cellini also attributed to Finelli the bust of

Domenico Ginnasi (Rome, Galleria Borghese) formerly attributed to Algardi.5

Recently, Montagu has made great progress in clarifying this attributional picture.

She recognized Finelli’s hand for the busts of Cardinal Montalto (c. 1630–35; below,

p. 274) and Prince Michele Damasceni-Peretti (c. 1630–35, Berlin, Bodemuseum),

the figures of Manuel de Fonseca y Zuñiga, Conde de Monterrey (1634–37) and

Doña Leonor de Gúzman de Monterrey (1634–37, Salamanca, Agustinas Recoletas;

fig. 2), the bust of Scipione Borghese (1632, New York, Metropolitan Museum), that

of Orazio Scotti (c. 1630–35, Piacenza, San Giovanni in Canale), and the portrait of

a Gentleman (1630s, Bologna, Montebugnoli Collection).6 However, the change

of attribution of the bust of a Gentleman, sometimes identified as Laudivio

Zacchia (Berlin, Bodemuseum), from Algardi to Finelli, as has been proposed by

Dombrowski, remains unconvincing.7 The stylistic similarities of the Berlin bust

to Finelli’s secure work, such as the bust of Francesco Bracciolini, also a

distinguished man of late middle age, are not persuasive. Although both men

wear fur cloaks, neither the idiosyncratic texture nor the draping of the material

is similar. The same can be said for the very

particular small beards of the two men: Bracciolini

has pierced strands of haphazard hair, while the

beard on the Berlin bust is neatly rendered in

overlapping tufts. The opportunity to view these

busts together for the first time at the Getty

Museum – side by side, at the same height, and in

the same light – was critical in clarifying these

differences. This same circumstance helped to

illuminate a relationship between the Getty

Museum’s bust of Maria Cerri Capranica and Algardi’s

bust of Antonio Cerri, shown in the exhibition next

to one another for the first time.

Ever since its appearance on the art market in the

twentieth century, the attribution and identification

of the Getty’s bust have been elusive (fig. 1). The bust

first appeared at the sale of Sir Robert Abdy of

Cornwall in May 1936 at Sotheby’s in London. The

work was acquired by William Randolph Hearst

through his agent William Permain. A published note

of March 1939 located the bust at St Donat’s Castle,

Wales, one of Hearst’s properties, and mentioned that

it was offered for sale at Sotheby’s the following

1. Alessandro Algardi, Maria Cerri Capranica, c. 1640, marble, h: 90 cm; early twentieth-century photograph. Fondazione Federico Zeri Archives, Mentana(photo: Fondazione Federico Zeri Archives, Mentana)

119 | Bacchi and Hess: A proposed attribution to Alessandro Algardi

month.8 However, no evidence of the bust appearing at a subsequent sale has

come to light. The bust next appeared in a November 1952 advertisement in

Connoisseur magazine, where it was offered by the dealer Mary Bellis, Charnham

Close, Hungerford, Berkshire. At the same time as the advertisement appeared,

Carlos de Beistegui purchased the bust from Bellis through the art dealers Leggatt

Brothers, London. De Beistegui, a wealthy oilman and aesthete born in Mexico,

displayed the sculpture in Palazzo Labia, his eighteenth-century Venetian

residence, at least until 1964. The ownership of the bust passed to de Beistegui’s

nephew, Juan, who also took possession of the Château de Groussay at Monfort

l’Amaury, outside Paris, which his uncle had acquired in 1939. It was from this

château that the work was sold in 1999 to Daniel Katz, London, who sold it to the

Getty Museum in 2000.9

As can happen, published information regarding the identification of the bust

was erratically maintained. On its first appearance in print, the subject was

tentatively identified as ‘possibly Isabella Celsi’.10 However, it was not certain the

socle belonged to the bust since the two had been separated, perhaps when the

bust moved from Palazzo Labia to the château at Monfort l’Amaury. At the time of

the Château de Groussay sale, the socle was stored elsewhere in the château,

having been replaced with a black and grey socle, as was the case with other busts

in the collection, apparently to fit a unified decor. As it happened, a version of the

Getty bust appeared at auction in late 2003. The discovery of the second bust was

exciting for several reasons, not least of which was the confirmation that the bust

and socle belonged together, making possible, finally, a secure identification of

the sitter.11 Immediately evident was the similarity of the socle of the Getty bust to

that of Algardi’s bust of Antonio Cerri (Manchester City Art Gallery, pl. 1). Further

scrutiny made clear that the trees on the coat-of-arms were identical, and that

what appeared to be a member of the Celsi family was actually a Cerri. The

misidentification probably originates in confusion between the families’ similar

coats of arms, both featuring single trees, though the former is meant to display a

celso, or mulberry tree, and the latter a cerro, or turkey oak.

Archival research, conducted by Luca Chiarini, turned up the marriage of

Bartolomeo Capranica to Maria Maddalena, the daughter of Antonio Cerri, on

15 October 1637.12 These documents also revealed that Maria and Bartolomeo

resided in the Roman parish of San Salvatore in Campo, and that their only child,

Dianora, was born on 4 June 1638. On 3 October 1643 Maria died at the age of 25,

and was buried in Santa Maria sopra Minerva in the Capranica chapel, on the right

of the main chapel.13 Bartolomeo lived for a few years ‘alone with his servants’,14

before remarrying in 1647 Lucrezia di Maddaleni, the daughter of Pompeo di

Giulio Maddaleni Capodiferro. On 26 June 1689 Bartolomeo died and was also

buried in Santa Maria sopra Minerva. Finally, the identification of the coat-of-

arms and the identity of the sitter were secured.15

The critical history of this bust began only ten years ago, in 2000, and it is

understandable that following the studies of Antonia Nava Cellini, Jennifer

Montagu and Damian Dombrowski, Finelli was immediately thought of as the

sculptor of this anonymous Roman bust.16 Now, thanks to the identification of the

sitter, this attribution is out of the question. In 1634, three years before Maria


Cerri was married, Finelli left Rome for Naples and

did not return until 1652, nine years after Maria

Cerri’s death. He did execute a bust for a Roman

patron during those years, that of Domenico Ginnasi

for the chapel of the family’s palace in Rome, but it

was made between 1640 and 1645 in Naples, and then

sent to Rome.17

Given the masterful carving of the sitter’s hair,

beads and lace, it is not surprising that the bust was

attributed to Finelli, arguably the most virtuoso

marble carver of his day. However, in addition to the

fact that Finelli was not in Rome when the bust was

made, stylistic comparisons with the portrait of a

similarly young woman – the above-mentioned

figure of Leonor de Gúzman de Monterrey in

Salamanca – further undermine the attribution.

Finelli created the Monterrey figure a few years

before the probable date for the Cerri bust. Taking

account of the fact that the Monterrey statue had to

be conceived for a distant vantage point, which was

not the case for the Cerri bust, nonetheless the

Monterrey portrait provides no significant

comparisons to the bust of Maria Cerri, either in the

rendering of the facial features or in the treatment

of the hair. Moreover, although the hair on the top

of Maria Cerri’s head is coiffed in a similar way to

that of the Condessa de Monterrey, the hair itself is rendered very differently:

rather than the orderly and rather shallow carving, with more attention given to

fine wisps of the hair on the Cerri bust, the Condesa de Monterrey’s hair is

rendered with deeply excavated rows between which the hair appears more fluffy

(fig. 2). Furthermore, other than that both are carved with great virtuosity, the

bust of Maria Duglioli Barberini (Paris, Louvre), executed by Finelli in Bernini’s

workshop around 1627, does not share many features with the Cerri bust. The

regular, snail-like curls and unpierced lace of the Cerri contrast with Maria

Duglioli’s animated, haphazard curls, and the nervously virtuoso carving of her

dress and its myriad details.18

There are, however, many reasons supporting an attribution of the bust of

Maria Cerri Capranica to Alessandro Algardi. Although undocumented, the bust of

Antonio Cerri has been universally accepted as a major work by Algardi.19 The

similarity of their socles suggests that the two busts were conceived to be displayed

together, although it is possible that the Antonio Cerri bust was an earlier and the

Maria Cerri bust a later commission. In addition, the figural pendant worn by

Maria Cerri recalls a type of relief that was produced in Algardi’s workshop. For

example, the relief of the Madonna and Child and St Joseph (Cambridge,

Fitzwilliam Museum) displays a similar format, disposition of the figures and

stylistic details, such as the treatment of St Joseph’s head and the beard.20

2. Giuliano Finelli, Doña Leonor de Guzmán y Zúñiga, Condesa de Monterrey (detail), 1634–37, marble. Agustinas Recoletas, Salamanca. (photo: Luis Manuel Sánchez, Salamanca)


Apart from their socles, the busts of Maria and Antonio Cerri can be linked

chronologically. The bust of the daughter must have been executed between 1637,

when she married Bartolomeo Capranica, and some point probably not long after

her death in 1643. Her father’s bust probably post-dates 1640, although whether its

carving was begun before or after his death in 1642 has not been determined. In all

likelihood, the occasion for producing a portrait bust of the daughter was Maria

Cerri’s demise at a young age. It is not surprising that almost all of the busts of

young subjects, particularly those of women – such as Laura Frangipane, Maria

Duglioli, Elisabetta Contucci Coli, Giacinta Sanvitale, but also Virginio Cesarini and

Prospero Santacroce – were commissioned for funerary contexts. The most

noteworthy feature of their lives, it appears, was the fact that their lives were short.

Moreover, it is extremely rare to find female portrait busts that are anything but

tomb monuments, noteworthy exceptions being Bernini’s bust of Costanza

Bonarelli (1636–38, Florence, Museo del Bargello) and the bust of Olimpia

Maidalchini (Rome, Galleria Doria Pamphilj) executed around 1650 by Algardi.

Thus, a date immediately after 1643 seems the most probable for the portrait of

Maria Cerri, not only from a historical point of view but also on grounds of style.

Naturally, the bust of Maria Cerri Capranica (pl. 2) is not easily compared to

that of her father given that the subjects are not only of different genders, but of

very different ages. When compared to Algardi’s other busts of young people,

however, similarities jump into view. For example, the bust of Elisabetta Contucci

Coli (Perugia, San Domenico), executed by Algardi around 1648 (fig. 3), displays a

very similar conception to the Capranica Cerri bust.21 Both wear a similarly

patterned lace-trimmed collar, a short necklace of beads from which hangs a relief

pendant by a small ribbon, and both are draped with a diagonal swath of cloth.

Most telling, however, is the similar coiffure rendered

in a similar manner: the hair on the top of the head is

combed back in a rather regular and neat fashion,

except for a small curl in the middle of the forehead

that is combed gently forward. Moreover, the curls on

the sides of the head are carved in the same snail-like

forms, and are adorned with an almost identical satin

ribbon (figs 4 and 5). One can also find noteworthy

similarities with the bust of Maria Cerri Capranica in

that of Prospero Santacroce (Rome, Santa Maria della

Scala, fig. 6).22 Again we see soft ribbons in his hair as

well as a similar fixed and rather distant expression

in his face. Like Maria, he wears a finely rendered lace

collar of an almost identical pattern that is only

partially pierced. Moreover, the collar gently

undulates across his chest in a similar manner to that

of the Cerri Capranica bust (fig. 7 and pl. 2).

Another of Algardi’s busts that shares

characteristics with that of Maria Cerri Capranica is

the portrait of Giacinta Sanvitale (Parma, San Rocco),

which displays similar soft ribbons in her hair and a

3. Alessandro Algardi, Elisabetta Contucci Coli, c. 1648, marble. San Domenico, Perugia. (photo: Sandro Bellu, Perugia)


short necklace of beads at her neck (fig. 8). Most

distinctively, the way her gorget, closed by a small

ribbon at her collar, shows small folds of tension at

the closure and subtly reveals the forms of her dress

beneath is similar to the treatment of Maria Cerri’s

lace collar. Although this portrait is today considered

an early work of Domenico Guidi,23 it should more

properly be attributed to Algardi, in which case it

would constitute an important point of comparison

with the Cerri bust. Giovan Pietro Bellori describes

the bust of Giacinta Sanvitale as the work of Algardi

in his biography of the sculptor,24 while Baldinucci in

his biography of Domenico Guidi included in the

Zibaldone writes, ‘[Guidi] made the portrait of

Signora Duchessa di Poli from Algardi’s model when

he was in the Algardi’s workshop’. After the discovery

of this manuscript, scholars seem to have neglected

Bellori’s testimony, insisting on the qualitative

differences between the marble in Parma and the

terracotta (Rome, Museo di Palazzo Venezia, fig. 9),

which is commonly accepted as the work of Algardi.25

In reality, as can be seen in the fine photograph taken

on the occasion of this conference (fig. 8), the Parma marble appears quite close to

the terracotta, including the same proud and distant gaze. The only real

differences occur in the depiction of the clothing, whose decorative motifs and

lace are more summarily suggested in the terracotta. However, each fold of the

drapery is repeated in both versions and these folds are not, as one might expect,

less animated in the marble. In fact, the hair appears more life-like and the large

collar that encircles the subject’s shoulders seems to follow her anatomy more

closely in the marble than in the terracotta. The comparison between terracotta

and marble does not reveal the same difference in quality that separates, for

example, two other of Algardi’s works, namely the terracotta bust of Cardinal

Paolo Emilio Zacchia (London, Victoria & Albert Museum) and its realization in

marble (Florence, Museo del Bargello).26 Bellori describes the marble – included

in Algardi’s after-death inventory of June 1654 – as ‘non finito’ and Montagu

convincingly conjectures that Guidi was the one to execute the portrait in

marble.27 Comparison of the two versions reveals noteworthy differences between

the two busts. Other than the slight compositional variations, one notices

immediately the different skill levels of the sculptors in rendering the

psychological component of the subject, whose facial expression appears vital

and penetrating in the terracotta – a sort of response to Bernini’s ‘speaking

likeness’ – while in the marble, the cardinal’s facial features seem to lack the sense

of energy and liveliness found in the terracotta.

Giacinta Sanvitale died in 1652, and it is probable that the execution of her

tomb monument was already well underway before Algardi’s death two years

later. It is known that the cenotaph in Santo Stefano a Poli in which the terracotta

4. Alessandro Algardi, Maria Cerri Capranica (detail), c. 1640, marble, h: 90 cm. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. (photo: J. Paul Getty Museum)


bust was to be placed was completed in 1653,

suggesting that the marble was also finished in that

year.28 The information on the bust in Parma

contained in the Zibaldone biography is credible

since it was Guidi himself who informed the

biographer.29 One wonders why Guidi would

have claimed authorship of Algardi’s bust. It is known

that he played an important role in the realization of

the Parma monument for which he executed two

angels in bronze, still extant, and probably also the

two putti in marble that were probably lost in the

eighteenth century.30 It is possible that, with the

passage of time, he amplified his role in the

enterprise and transformed a likely collaboration on

the execution of the marble bust into a project for

which he alone was responsible, even though it

began with his master’s model. As has been noted,

the case of the bust of Paolo Emilia Zacchia shows

how Algardi’s conception in terracotta can become

more reductive when executed in marble by his

student. The case of the Sanvitale bust may be similar

as would be that of the relief of Pope Leo and Attila

(St Peter’s Basilica, Vatican), of which Guidi must have

executed a large proportion, but under the strict

guidance of his master.31

Once one sees the marble bust in Parma as the work of Algardi, it is easier to

recognize also the Maria Cerri bust as his, even though it predates it by a few

years. There is the same fixed gaze in both that perhaps has something to do with

their funerary settings. It is this flat and distant expression that might lead one to

doubt Algardi as the author of the Maria Cerri bust. Nevertheless, it is also

possible that this aspect might result from the intervention of one of Algardi’s

assistants, since other parts of the portrait display the subtle and expert carving

that is completely in line with some of Algardi’s best works. For example, the

rendering of the collar is masterful: not only does it include within the lace

pattern – of rings through which pass sprigs of stylized foliage – a possible

reference to the Cerri arms, but also it provides the sense of pliability of the fabric

as it folds softy around the elements of clothing beneath it. This is an idea of a

reserved virtuosity that is far from Finelli’s bold and flashy technical mastery.

Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that once Innocent X Pamphilj

ascended the pontifical throne in 1644, Algardi’s professional obligations

multiplied, obliging him to make more use of workshop assistants. It was at this

time that his principal collaborators, Ercole Ferrata and Domenico Guidi, enter the

scene. With regards to portraiture, it is pertinent to mention the famous letter

sent from Rome in 1650 from Cardinal Rinaldo d’Este to his brother Francesco I,

Duke of Modena, who wanted to have his portrait done in marble by a Roman

sculptor. A passage in this letter states that:

5. Alessandro Algardi, Elisabetta Contucci Coli, c. 1648, marble. San Domenico, Perugia. (photo: Sandro Bellu, Perugia)


the sculptor cavalier Algardi receives 150 scudi

for each portrait in marble, meaning a half-

figure bust, in addition to the marble, that is

either consigned to him or paid for [. . .] he has

two people below him who are less adept at

the profession from whom one could have the

work done for half or even less than half the

price.32

The text of the letter does not reveal whether the

‘half-price’ busts would have been the work of

Algardi’s collaborators, identified as Ercole Ferrata

and Domenico Guidi, or whether Algardi produced

the model that the collaborators would then have

executed. In any event, this does not seem to be the

case with the Maria Cerri bust. As it was probably

carved soon after her death in October 1643, it could

not have been produced by either Ferrata or Guidi,

not only because their work is not at all comparable

in style to the bust but also because they only entered

Algardi’s workshop years later, around 1647. Little is

known of Algardi’s working methods for the period before 1647. It is possible that

Giuseppe Perone, born around 1625, entered Algardi’s workshop soon after 1640.

Passeri attributed to Perone the execution of one of the two allegorical figures of

the Leo XI monument,33 carved between 1640 and about 1644. His participation in

this project is uncertain, however, while, given the paucity of Perone’s known

work, it is difficult to recognize his style. Another important sculptor, Antonio

Raggi (1624–86), passed through Algardi’s workshop in the 1640s, and it is possible

that in 1646 he was engaged to restore ancient marble sculpture for the Villa

Pamphilj.34 The bust of Maria Cerri Capranica, however, does not compare

convincingly to Raggi’s known works of that period.

The commissions for the busts of both Antonio and Maria Cerri date, as has

been established, to the same period, the years around 1640. At that time, the

Cerri family was engaged in the decoration of the family chapel in the church of Il

Gesù, Rome. Antonio Cerri acquired the second chapel in the left nave in April of

6. Alessandro Algardi, Prospero Santacroce, c. 1643, marble. Santa Maria della Scala, Rome. (photo: Arrigo Coppitz, Florence)

7. Alessandro Algardi, Prospero Santacroce (detail), c. 1643, marble. Santa Maria della Scala, Rome. (photo: Arrigo Coppitz, Florence)


that year, and work was begun to redecorate it, following designs by Pietro da

Cortona that were meant to complement the existing frescoes by il Pomarancio.35

Cerri had allocated 6000 scudi, nearly two-thirds of which had already been spent

on his death in 1642. The work was completed in 1657 by his sons Francesco and

Carlo. It is not known whether Algardi’s bust of Antonio Cerri was planned to be

included in the chapel – that the head is slightly bent forward might suggest as

much – or whether the bust had been intended for display in the family palace in

front of the Chiesa Nuova. It was a copy of Algardi’s original marble, executed by

Domenico Guidi, which was installed in the chapel, where it remains today. The

copy is less fine and more summarily carved than Algardi’s portrait, which

displays an exquisite rendering of the man’s physiognomy and dress: the fine

wrinkles around the eyes, the wispy hair, the pleats of the cotton surplice, and

finely drilled tassle and lace. In like fashion, the bust of Maria Cerri Capranica was

executed with great attention to detail – such as the virtuoso carving of the jewels,

hair and lace – suggesting that the bust was meant to be viewed up close, though

it is also true that the niches in the Cerri chapel are low, reaching just above eye

level.

The characteristics of the socle, as has been seen, connect the bust of the

young woman with that of her father. It is, furthermore, difficult to imagine that

her bust would have been commissioned by her husband, Bartolomeo Capranica,

who remarried in 1647, a few years after her death. As has been mentioned, Maria

was buried in Santa Maria sopra Minerva in the Capranica chapel but, it seems,

without any tomb monument that could have accommodated a bust. It is

altogether possible, therefore, that the commission of the bust of Maria Cerri

Capranica was undertaken in connection with the work being done for the Cerri

chapel in Il Gesù.

As observed in the case of Giacinta Sanvitale, it is possible that two funerary

monuments – each with tomb, cenotaph and separate bust – could be dedicated to

one person. Sanvitale’s husband was content with a cenotaph including a bust in

terracotta, while her family erected a sumptuous monument with a bust in

marble. It follows that even after her marriage, Maria Cerri would have desired to

be recorded with a bust in the chapel of her own family, and it would not be

surprising that the Cerri family, originally from Pavia and settled only a few years

earlier in Rome, would have wanted to display their ties with one of the most

prestigious aristocratic families in Rome, the Capranica.

Pietro da Cortona (1596–1669) designed four tombs in the chapel for members

of the Cerri family, each originally to be surmounted by relief medallions which,

at some point, possibly in 1645, were changed to portrait busts. In 1657 the bust

realized by Guidi of Antonio Cerri was installed there.36 The bust of Antonio’s son,

Cardinal Carlo Cerri (1611–90) was placed in the chapel several decades later, while

several decades after that the chapel was furnished with the third Cerri bust, that

of another family member named Carlo (d. 1726), which was executed by Filippo

della Valle around 1729. Finally, the fourth position was filled by a bust of a

woman named Rosa Bianca Galloni Martinetti who died in 1838; Pio Pecchiai

writes that since this nineteenth-century bust was made ‘in the same style as the

three preceding examples, it can only be an imitation added for symmetry’. Might


this final spot have been originally intended for Maria? Or perhaps the matching

socles of the effigies of father and daughter suggest the sculptures were to be

placed near one another in Palazzo Cerri? In either case, Algardi seems to have

created them both.

1 J. Montagu, Alessandro Algardi, 2 vols, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1985.

2 D. Dombrowski, Giuliano Finelli: Bildhauer zwischen Neapel und Rom, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 1997, pp. 323–24; Bacchi, in A. Bacchi, T. Montanari, B. Paolozzi Strozzi and D. Zikos (eds), I marmi vivi: Bernini e la nascita del ritratto barocco (exh. cat.), Florence, Giunti, 2009, p. 144.

3 On Algardi’s sculpture in the Bandini chapel, see Montagu, as at note 1, p. 358; and Bacchi, as at note 2, pp. 144, 162. In 1630 Giuliano Finelli’s letter to Michelangelo Buonarroti the younger, whom he had just portrayed in a bust, thanks him and sends him good wishes from certain artists in Rome including ‘Ligardi’; I. Lavin, ‘Five new youthful sculptures by Gianlorenzo Bernini and a revised chronology of his early works’, Art Bulletin, 50, 1968, p. 227; Dombrowski, as at note 2, p. 472.

4 A. Nava Cellini, ‘La scultura alla Mostra del seicento europeo’, Paragone. Arte, no. 8, 1957, p. 67; Nava Cellini, ‘Un tracciato per l’attività ritrattistica di Giuliano Finelli’, Paragone. Arte, 11, 1960, pp. 19–20. See, also, Dombrowski, as at note 2, pp. 88–90, 330; A. Bacchi, in A. Bacchi, C. Hess and J. Montagu (eds), Bernini and the birth of Baroque portrait sculpture (exh. cat.), Los Angeles, Getty Publications, 2008, pp. 203–05. Already in 1954, Santangelo had noticed the similarities between the portraits of Algardi and those of Finelli; A. Santangelo, Museo di Palazzo Venezia, Catalogo delle scul-ture, Rome, 1954, pp. 58–59.

5 For the bust of Domenico Ginnasi in the Galleria Borghese, see Nava Cellini 1960, as at note 4, pp. 15–16; Dombrowski, as at note 2, pp. 316–17; Montagu, as at note 1, p. 474; and Bacchi, as at note 2, p. 146.

6 For the busts of Montalto Peretti, see Montagu, as at note 1, pp. 475–76; Dombrowski, as at note 2, pp. 337–38; and Bacchi, as at note 2, pp. 146, 149. For the figures of the Conde and Condesa de Monterrey, see Montagu, ibid., p. 475; Dombrowski, ibid., pp. 342–434; and Bacchi, ibid., p. 155. For the bust of Scipione Borghese, see Montagu, ibid., pp. 472–73; Dombrowski, ibid., pp. 68–70, 332, 473; and Bacchi, as at note 4, pp. 213–15. For the Orazio Scotti monument, see Montagu, ibid., p. 476; Dombrowski, ibid., pp. 339–40; and Bacchi, as at note 2, p. 147. For the bust of a Gentleman in the Montebugnoli collection, see Montagu, ibid., pp. 476–77; Dombrowski, ibid., pp. 319–20; and Bacchi, as at note 4, pp. 290– 92.

7 Dombrowski, as at note 2, pp. 76–77, 315–16; Bacchi, as at note 4, pp. 207–09.

8 M. Levkoff, ‘The little-known American provenance of some well-known European sculptures’, in G. Bresc Bautier (ed.), La sculpture en Occident. Etudes offertes à Jean René Gaborit, Dijon, 2007, pp. 295, 303; M. Levkoff, Hearst the collector, New York, 2008, pp. 99, 104.

9 At some point, perhaps before being in Sir Robert Abdy’s possession, the bust was in Paris; a photograph in the Federico Zeri Archives (fig. 1) is inscribed on the reverse: ‘Lewis et Simmons, 622 place Vendôme’. J. Auersperg, in Stuart Lochhead (ed.), Daniel Katz, European Sculpture, London, 2000, n. 32; M. Cambareri, in P. Fusco and P. Fogelman with M. Cambareri, Italian and Spanish Sculpture. Catalogue of the J. Paul Getty Museum Collection, Los Angeles, 2002, pp. 208–16.

10 Connoisseur, 130, November 1952, p. 37.

8. Alessandro Algardi, Giacinta Sanvitale Conti, Duchessa di Poli, c. 1653, marble. San Rocco, Parma. (photo: Giovanni Amoretti, Parma)9. Alessandro Algardi, Giacinta Sanvitale Conti, Duchessa di Poli, c. 1653, terracotta, h: 63 cm. Museo Nazionale di Palazzo di Venezia, Rome. (photo: Museo Nazionale di Palazzo di Venezia)


11 For this bust, see Bacchi and Hess in Bacchi et al., as at note 4, p. 224 fig. 5.7.1.

12 Archivio Storico del Vicariato di Roma: S. Stefano in Piscinula (S. Cecilia in Montegiordano), matri-moni, p. 62 recto and verso.

13 The Capranica chapel was dedi-cated to the Madonna del Rosario in the sixteenth century following the battle of Lepanto. The chapel contains various monuments to the Capranica family, the first of which is that of Cardinal Domenico who, around 1470, obtained the patronage of the chapel that already included the funerary monument of St Catherine of Siena, partially removed and then reassembled above the main altar in 1855; J. J. Berthier, L’Église de la Minerve a Rome, Rome, 1910, pp. 207–13. The chapel contains no trace of a tomb for Maria Cerri Capranica.

14 Archivio Storico del Vicariato di Roma: S. Salvatore in Campo, Stati delle Anime 1635–1645, morti 1635–1674; S. Marco, Stati delle Anime 1644–1646.

15 Archivio Storico del Vicariato di Roma: S. Marco, p. 357 recto; S. Maria sopra Minerva, morti, 1665–1692, p. 13; Bacchi and Hess, as at note 11, p. 223.

16 Auersperg, as at note 9, n. 32.17 For the bust of Domenico

Ginnasi (Rome, Palazzo Ginnasi, chapel), see Dombrowski, as at note 2, p. 369; and Montagu, in Bacchi et al., as at note 4, fig. 28 on p. 50.

18 For the bust of Maria Duglioli Barberini, see Bresc Bautier, in Bacchi et al., as at note 2, pp. 242–45; Montanari, in ibid., p. 110; and Bacchi, in ibid., pp. 141–42.

19 For the bust of Antonio Cerri, see Montagu, as at note 1, pp. 422–23; Montagu (ed.), Algardi: L’altra faccia del barocco (exh. cat.), Rome, De Luca, 1999, pp. 150–51; and Hess, in Bacchi et al., as at note 4, pp. 218–19.

20 For the relief in Cambridge, see Montagu, as at note 1, p. 307.

21 Nava Cellini strongly defends the attribution (1960, as at note 4, p. 67), although Jennifer Montagu considers that the ‘finicky lack of life’

suggests ‘that the carving is not entirely autograph; we are reminded of the Modena correspondence, and those busts which could be carved at half-price by Algardi’s assistants’ (as at note 1, p. 425). Its new photography draws attention to the subtlety of the bust’s execution, corroborating the belief that it is, indeed, an autograph work of the artist.

22 Montagu, as at note 1, p. 442.23 Montagu, as at note 1, p. 443;

Cristiano Giometti, Domenico Guidi 1625–1701: uno scultore barocco di fama europea, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2010, pp. 141–42.

24 Giovan Pietro Bellori, The lives of the modern painters, sculptors, and architects, trans. Alice Sedgwick Wohl, ed. Hellmut Wohl and Tomaso Montanari, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 301.

25 Montagu, as at note 1, pp. 443–44; Giometti, as at note 23, pp. 141– 42.

26 Montagu, as at note 1, pp. 447–48.

27 Ibid., p. 234

28 Santangelo, as at note 4, pp. 58–59; Bruno Contardi, Due ter-recotte romane del Seicento: Castel Sant’Angelo 24 giugno-23 settembre 1989, Rome, Fratelli Palombi, 1989, p.10.

29 Giometti, as at note 23, p. 15.30 Montagu, as at note 1, p. 443;

Giometti, as at note 23, pp. 141–42.31 Giovanni Battista Passeri, Vite

de’ pittori, scultori ed architetti, che anno lavorato in Roma: morti dal 1641 fino al 1673, trans. and ed. Jacob Hess, Leipzig and Vienna, H. Keller, 1934, pp. 203–04; Montagu, as at note 1, pp. 359–60.

32 Montagu, as at note 1, p. 259 n. 3.

33 Ibid., pp. 218, 434–36.34 Ibid., p. 218.35 Pio Pecchiai, Il Gesuì di Roma,

Rome, Societaì Grafica Romana, 1952, pp. 95, 254, 282, 290; Montagu, as at note 1, pp. 424–25.

36 Giometti, as at note 23, pp. 146–47.

a proposed attribution to alessandro algardi: maria cerri capranica at...

Documents