the bozzetti of gian lorenzo...
TRANSCRIPT
THE BOZZETTI OF GIAN LORENZO BERNINI
by
Alycia L. So
Supervised by Tod A. Marder
An Undergraduate Honors thesis for the Department of Art History
at
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
FALL 2012//SPRING 2013
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude and appreciation to my
advisor, Dr. Tod A. Marder, for his continued support throughout this process. Thank you,
Professor Marder, for providing me with the opportunity to embark on this incredibly fulfilling
and intellectually challenging journey. Without your reassurances and expertise, this thesis
would not have been possible.
I would also like to thank Dr. Catherine Puglisi for taking time out of her exceptionally
busy schedule to serve as my second reader. Dr. Puglisi, I truly value your opinions and feel
privileged to have you read my thesis.
In addition, I would like to thank the best, most optimistic teaching assistants, Melissa
Yuen and Kathleen Sullivan, for their unrelenting encouragement. Your tireless positivism, even
in the most frustrating of circumstances, and constant support were integral to the completion of
this thesis. You both truly made this adventure worthwhile and, dare I say it, fun!
Also, to Geralyn Colvil, thank you for being so incredibly kind and helpful to an overly
ambitious, slightly frantic Busch campus transplant. I have come to you panicked and confused
more times than I am proud to admit, and in each instance, you have provided me with guidance
and encouragement. For believing in me, I cannot thank you enough. Without you, this thesis
and this major would not have been possible.
Finally, I would especially like to thank my wonderful sisters and parents for expressing
only mild shock and concern when I announced my intention of completing an honors thesis.
You guys believe in me when I forget to believe in myself, and without your love, I would not be
who and where I am today. I love you guys!
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Chapter I: Bernini and the Ponte Sant’Angelo ………………………………………………….. 7
Gian Lorenzo Bernini …………………………………………………………………… 7
The Ponte Sant’Angelo ………………………………………………………………….. 9
Chapter II: Bozzetti …………………………………………………………………………….. 18
The Extant Models for the Ponte Sant’Angelo ……………………………………….... 25
Chapter III: Early Chronological Histories for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and Angel
with the Superscription…...…………………………………………………………………….. 29
Mark S. Weil …………………………………………………………………………… 29
Charles Avery ….………………………………………………………………………. 32
Bruce Boucher …………………………………………………………………………. 35
The Metropolitan Museum of Art …………………………………………………….... 38
Chapter IV: An Analysis: Introduction and Origins ………………………………………...…. 44
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..… 44
The Stylistic Origin of the Angels of the Ponte Sant’Angelo ………………………….. 45
Chapter V: An Analysis: The Dual-Phase Design Process …………………………………..… 51
The First Phase …………………………………………………………………….…… 52
The Second Phase ……………………………………………………………………… 55
The Angel with the Crown of Thorns …………………………………………... 58
The Angel with the Superscription ……………………………………………... 63
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………... 69
3
Image List …………………………………………………………………………………….... 74
Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………………... 87
Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………… 93
4
INTRODUCTION
As the Tiber River meanders through the Roman cityscape, the serene, crystalline
expanse of its surface contrasts with the narrow, congested streets of the metropolis. At the heart
of the city, cradled in the rounded crook of the river’s path, an ancient bridge straddles the calm
current of the river and connects the center of Rome to the Vatican City. Adorning this structure,
now known as the Ponte Sant’Angelo, are ten angels swathed in swirling drapery that gracefully
alight atop the bridge’s balustrades. Each angel, designed by Baroque virtuoso Gian Lorenzo
Bernini (1598-1680), grips an object of Christ’s Passion and externalizes grief in the frozen
agony of his face. It is with the Ponte Sant’Angelo and these otherworldly beings that we take
interest. As it bridges the riverbanks to join the Roman Borgo to the Vatican City, the Ponte
Sant’Angelo and her angels persist as a link between the past and the present, a channel that
connects the devout spirit to the Christian faith and the modern viewer to the grandeur of
Bernini’s Rome.
In the field of Art History, the canonical sculptures of Bernini have long commanded the
attention of scholars. The aesthetic, iconographic, and historical facets of his masterpieces have
been meticulously analyzed and thoroughly discussed. Recently, however, scholars have begun
to study the terracotta figures, or bozzetti, that facilitated the creation of his works. As
intermediary objects, these clay models are the vestiges of Bernini’s design process, tangible,
three-dimensional representations of the creative metamorphoses of his works. There is now a
growing body of scholarship that endeavors to distill from these figures a more nuanced
understanding of the mechanisms of Bernini’s genius. My thesis will seek to contribute to this
corpus of scholarly analysis, further elucidating the interplay between Bernini the sculptor and
5
the bozzetti that aided in the realization of his masterpieces.
Of the bozzetti that survive for Bernini’s sculptures, twelve remain that capture the
creative transformation and evolution of the angels commissioned for the Ponte Sant’Angelo.
Remarkably, eight of these models exist as a series that visually trace the progressive
development of two angels, the Angel with the Superscription (Fig. 1) and the Angel with the
Crown of Thorns (Fig. 2), now housed in Sant’Andrea delle Fratte in Rome. The extraordinary
existence of this lineage provides scholars an opportunity to extrapolate larger conclusions
regarding Bernini’s methodology. In the following discussion, I aim to correctly establish the
sequential progression of these bozzetti, contextualizing each work in the larger timeline of the
conception and realization of the composition. My analysis approaches the material multi-
dimensionally, acknowledging the relationship between the sculptures as members of a shared
evolutionary chronology while exploring each model stylistically and compositionally as an
isolated creation. Furthermore, I seek to resolve the incongruities between earlier investigations
by various scholars to formulate a more comprehensive account of the significance and
functionality of the angel bozzetti. Using this multifaceted approach, I hope to advance the
understanding of the underlying methodologies that guided the genesis, development, and
execution of Bernini’s famous sculptures.
The structure and research scope of my paper tapers progressively. I begin by broadly
examining the life and career of the illustrious Bernini, recounting the implications of his
training on the integration of clay modeling in his sculpting methodology and his meteoric rise to
fame. I subsequently move into a discussion of the Ponte Sant’Angelo, specifically its historical
presence and transformation in the hands of Bernini. I then introduce my analysis of the extant
bozzetti for the Angel with the Superscription and Angel with the Crown of Thorns by
6
considering noteworthy scholarship that has previously attempted to chronicle the bozzetti for the
Superscription and the Crown of Thorns. In particular, I will discuss relevant works by Mark S.
Weil, Charles Avery, Bruce Boucher, C. D. Dickerson and Anthony Sigel. Finally, I specify the
overarching themes of my investigatory approach before embarking on a more nuanced analysis
of the surviving models for the Ponte Sant’Angelo. The culmination of my research will
illustrate the significance of bozzetti in the design metamorphoses and realization of Bernini’s
sculptures and, in doing so, further our appreciation for his calculated, stepwise modus operandi
that produced a collection of the most magnificent sculptures in the history of art.
7
CHAPTER I
BERNINI AND THE PONTE SANT’ANGELO
1.1 Gian Lorenzo Bernini
Gian Lorenzo Bernini: the consummate sculptor of the seventeenth century, the principle
papal architect, the premier embodiment of the Baroque, the infamously passionate man. In the
history of Rome, Bernini stands as the dominant, transformative force in the seventeenth-century
Baroque period. Though frequently heralded for his dynamic sculptures that resonate with
vibrant passion and expressive emotionality, Bernini’s talents rippled beyond the realm of
sculpture to shape and lay the foundations of modern-day Rome. In his career, he would revive
all aspects of the Roman cityscape to rechristen the city as an epicenter of culture and one
worthy to cradle the core of Christianity. In the metamorphic enhancement and restoration of
Rome, Bernini would forge an immense legacy whose prominence and magnificence is
incontestable in the history of art and architecture.
Though Bernini’s distinctive style was undoubtedly symptomatic of an innate artistic gift,
the fundamental basis from which his genius flourished was laid in the studio of his father. On
December 7, 1598, Gian Lorenzo Bernini was born in Naples, Italy into auspicious
circumstances that encouraged and developed his talents as a sculptor and an artist.1 The son of
skilled Mannerist sculptor Pietro Bernini (1562-1629), Gian Lorenzo demonstrated a natural
proclivity for form and modeling, and his promise was quickly recognized by his father.2 Pietro
Bernini was, by all accounts, a supportive, loving man who did naught but encourage his son’s
1 Rudolf Wittkower, Gian Lorenzo Bernini: The Sculptor of the Roman Baroque (Phaidon Press: London, 1997), 13.
2 Ibid., 19.
8
talents by providing early guidance and training. As the younger Bernini’s skill became more
apparent, Pietro seemed to delight in his son’s genius. For example, when asked whether he felt
distraught that the younger Bernini may soon surpass him in expertise and success, he replied,
“in this game the one who loses wins.”3 As his father’s pride and joy, Gian Lorenzo was
assuredly a welcomed presence in the workshop where he enjoyed a childhood among clay,
marble, chisels, and drills, the very tools that would come to build one of the most brilliant and
prolific careers in art history. With his most formative years spent under his father’s guidance,
the skills that would later transform Rome and comprise the very essence of the Baroque derived
from an inborn ability that was consciously and deliberately nurtured by a father who foresaw
the magnitude of his son’s talent.
In Rome, Bernini swiftly and decisively established his dominance as the papal sculptor
and architect, and his career soon skyrocketed with an impressiveness rivaled only by the
magnificence of his masterpieces. In approximately 1605, Pietro and his family relocated to
Rome, enticed by the promise of employment in a city undergoing massive architectural growth.
Upon arriving, Pietro became involved in the embellishment of the Pauline Chapel in Santa
Maria Maggiore.4 It was this fortuitous engagement that brought the skills of the younger Bernini
to the attention of Pope Paul V Borghese (r. 1605-1621) and his nephew Cardinal Scipione
Borghese (1577-1633). From this meeting developed a long professional relationship between
Gian Lorenzo and Cardinal Borghese, for whom he created masterpieces like the Aeneas,
Anchises, and Ascanius; Pluto and Proserpina; Apollo and Daphne; and David. These Borghese
sculptures, as they have been described by scholars, proclaimed Bernini’s distinctively dramatic,
innovative style and began the flurry of papal patronage that he would enjoy throughout his
3 Franco Mormando, Bernini: His Life and His Rome (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2011), 11.
4 Wittkower, Gian Lorenzo Bernini 13.
9
career.5 While Bernini’s extensive patronage by the powerful patrons of Rome secured his
standing as the city’s preeminent sculptor, he too would command the future of the Roman
landscape.
Though Bernini as a sculptor of the highest regard was undisputed in the seventeenth
century, the ascension of a new pope transformed his role, and he became in charge of
redecoration projects in and around St. Peter’s Basilica. In 1623, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini was
elected to the papal throne as Pope Urban VIII (r. 1623-1644), and Bernini was appointed the
“Architect to St. Peter’s” shortly thereafter. The ensuing period of construction and
ornamentation under Bernini’s direction remains unmatched in ferocity and productivity in the
history of art.6 In just over a half-century, Bernini and his multiple papal patrons endeavored to
make manifest the rejuvenated spirit of the reformed church in the Vatican. Included in his
repertoire are the monumental Baldacchino at the crossing of St. Peter’s, the Cathedra Petri in
the apse, the tombs of Urban VIII and Alexander VII, and St. Peter’s Square. This encompassing
program was unsurpassed in scope, and it is unsurprising that the breadth of Bernini’s
uninhibited genius would eventually turn towards the Ponte Sant’Angelo, the very gateway to the
mother church of Christianity.
1.2 The Ponte Sant’Angelo
At the center of a crowded metropolis, the Ponte Sant’Angelo (Figs. 3a and 3b) connects
the bustling core of the Roman city to the beating heart of the Christian faith. As a visitor
approaches the ancient bridge from the Roman Borgo, he is met by a striking panorama of
ethereal imagery that radiates from a towering stone cylinder. Continuing towards the southern
5 Mormando, Bernini: His Life, 40-51.
6 Wittkower, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 120.
10
entrance of the bridge, which kisses the edge of the city, the monumental effigies of Saints Peter
and Paul stand in greeting as they have since the year 1534.7 As principal pillars of the Christian
faith whose martyrdoms occurred within the city, these figures salute visitors at the start of their
physical and spiritual journeys to salvation. Beyond the saints, the impassioned emotions of two
angels atop the balustrades crowning the bridge’s piers entice the viewer further forward. From
this point on, the path across the Tiber River is punctuated by paired angels, each one a
delicately beautiful creature frozen in anguish and despair, that call out to the visitor. Since its
construction, the Bridge of Angels has stood as a symbolic celebration and literal demarcation of
the beginning of an individual’s pilgrimage towards piety and deliverance, a structure that is
forever entwined in the historical and social fabric of Rome.
Though modern additions to the city have since dwarfed its architectural monumentality
and lessened its functional significance, the Ponte Sant’Angelo remains a rich historical treasure
embedded in the Roman landscape. To the majority of visitors, the bridge would seem to have
origins in the Baroque period as much of its current decorations can be traced to the mid-
seventeenth century.8 In actuality, however, the ancestry of the Ponte Sant’Angelo is rooted more
deeply in the Rome of antiquity, and it was originally constructed under the Emperor Hadrian
(Publius Aelius Hadrianus) in 134 AD.9 The Pons Aelius, as it was previously christened in
reverence to its patron, was erected in tandem with the construction of the Mausoleum of
Hadrian, the modern Castel Sant’Angelo that once-served as the imposing, two-story
monumental tomb for the emperor and his family.10
The bridge, a remarkable feat of Roman
architectural ingenuity, served a dual purpose. Functionally, it permitted direct axis to the
7 Charles Avery, Bernini: Genius of the Baroque (New York: Bulfinch Press, 1997), 164.
8 Robert Burn, Ancient Rome and its Neighborhood (New York: George Bell and Sons, 1895), 179.
9 Irving Lavin, “Bernini at St. Peter’s,” in St. Peter’s in the Vatican, ed. William Tronzo (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005), 182. 10
Thorsten Opper, Hadrian: Empire and Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), 208.
11
mausoleum from the city center (Fig. 4). Aesthetically, standing in the shadow of the imperial
crypt, it augmented the grandeur of the overall design and, accordingly, the reign of Hadrian by
visually emphasizing the mausoleum: the formidability and solidity of the bridge’s architecture
contrasts the fluidity of the Tiber River, which draws the eye across before ushering it down its
length and depositing the gaze at the base of the monument. Fulfilling its original purpose, from
138 AD to 212 AD, the Mausoleum of Hadrian served as the final resting place for the emperors
of Rome.11
However, as increasing threats of invasion necessitated more secure defenses, the
Mausoleum and the Ponte Sant’Angelo were gradually integrated into the city’s fortifications,
further reinforcing their prestige as landmarks of the Roman cityscape.
As supremacy in Rome shifted from the imperial crown to the papal throne, the ancient
mausoleum and bridge of Hadrian became significant as essential facets of the defense system
and organizational network of the city. With an inherent strength and massiveness, the
mausoleum quickly took on a protective function, and the Ponte Sant’Angelo, though initially an
adjunct of the larger mausoleum project, too, became integral in Rome’s defenses.12
As
documented in his comprehensive historical survey of the Ponte Sant’Angelo, Weil notes that the
mausoleum, likely renamed the Castel Sant’Angelo in the fifteenth century to honor the
miraculous visions of the Archangel Michael, was first used defensively during the invasion of
the Goths in 400 AD. To aid in the protection of the city, a wall was constructed at the interface
of the mausoleum and the Tiber River, creating a blockade at the north entrance of the Ponte
Sant’Angelo. Three centuries later, an invasion by a fleet of Saracens from the African coast
catalyzed the building of the Leonine Walls under the patronage of Pope Leo IV (r. 847-885).
These twelve addition yards of fortification separated Rome into two sectors: on the left bank of
11
Mark S. Weil, The History and Decoration of the Ponte Sant’Angelo (University Park: Penn Press, 1974), 21. 12
Burn, Ancient Rome and its Neighborhood, 177-179.
12
the Tiber, the old Aurelian walls defined the borders of the former imperial city while, on the
right bank, the newly-erected walls surrounded the “Leontine City,” an area that approximated
modern-day Vatican City.13
This compartmentalization of the city established the Ponte
Sant’Angelo as a fundamental element of the city’s architecture, an essential link between the
internal districts of Rome that united the Vatican and the city’s center.14
The significance of its
location soon became paramount when, in the fourth century, the bridge stood as the only
remaining crossing of the Tiber River15
after the destruction of the Pons Neronianus, a bridge
once located downstream of the modern-day Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II.16
Thus, in the history of
Rome, the functionality of the Ponte Sant’Angelo transformed in response to an often-fluctuating
sociopolitical climate, and, with each metamorphosis, the bridge became more significant as a
vital component of the city’s layout.
As a unifying element, the bridge inevitably assumed religious and social roles. As
aforementioned, the papal forces’ re-appropriation of the mausoleum as a strong point in the
city’s defenses transformed the Ponte Sant’Angelo into a linkage between city sectors. Its role as
a geographical link was also accompanied by an increasing function as a communicative conduit
between the papacy and the Roman people. For example, in anticipation of the Jubilee Year of
1300, Pope Boniface VIII divided the narrow bridge longitudinally, separating the two carriage
lanes by a row of shops and encouraging the use of the bridge as both a roadway and an
economic and social center. Furthermore, under certain leadership, the function of the bridge
expanded, and it became a center for tribunal proceedings. For instance, during the papacy of
13
Stefan Grundmann, The Architecture of Rome (Fellbach: Axel Menges, 1998), 101. 14
Monique Lamontagne, “Rome: Ponte and Castel Sant’Angelo,” In International Dictionary, vol. 3, ed. Trudy
Ring, Robert M. Salkin, and Sharon a Boda (London: Routledge, 1995), 588. 15
Hendrik W. Dey, The Aurelian Walls and the Refashioning of Imperial Rome (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2011), 177-178. 16
Carmelo G. Malacrino, Constructing the Ancient World: Architectural Techniques of the Greeks and Romans (Los
Angeles: Getty Publications, 2010), 205.
13
Sixtus V, executions were carried out in the piazza adjoining the Ponte Sant’Angelo, and the
heads of the executed were often hung on the bridge as a warning to the larger public; at times, it
was said that the bridge had more heads on display than melons in a marketplace.17
Hence,
throughout Roman history, the Ponte Sant’Angelo became increasingly integrated in the skeleton
of the city, serving as a military stronghold as well as a hub of social and economic activity.
Though time has since erased all but the piers of the ancient Pons Aelius, the construction
of the former bridge can be approximated using a bronze medal coin (Fig. 5) from the Hadrianic
period. Believed to have been created during the third consulship of Emperor Hadrian, the
reverse of the medallion depicts a diagrammatic representation of the ancient Pons Aelius that
permits a crude reconstruction of the bridge as it may have stood in the second century.18
From
the design, the original span across the Tiber River consisted of seven arches: three large, equally
wide openings beneath the main length of the bridge with two smaller openings on either side
supporting ramps that led to the riverbank. The borders of the roadway appear to have been
delineated by parapets with eight monumental figural sculptures that sit in pairs atop each of the
four piers. Additional smaller sculptural elements demarcated both entrances of the bridge, and
inscriptions along each arch completed the decorative profile of the bridge. The hypothesized
reconstruction of the Pons Aelius is substantiated by the authenticity of the coin’s origins, which
is confirmed by a profile image of Hadrian and inscribed motto “HADRIANVS AVG. COS. III.
P.P.” on the obverse of the coin. In addition, the design of the bridge is further validated by the
current state of the Ponte Sant’Angelo, whose arches and foundation loosely recall the original
construction, as well as excavations that have uncovered the ramps illustrated on the medallion.19
Throughout the course of its history, the changing sociopolitical atmosphere of Rome would
17
Torgil Magnuson, Rome in the Age of Bernini, vol. 1 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiskell International, 1986), 5. 18
John Henry Middleton, The Remains of Ancient Rome, vol. 2 (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1892), 369. 19
Weil, The History and Decoration, 19.
14
impact and transform the structure and decorative program of the Ponte Sant’Angelo.
As the Ponte Sant’Angelo became a centerpiece of Roman society, its appearance was
adapted to suit its role as a multifunctional, heavily-used structure under the ever-changing papal
leadership. In the centuries since its construction, various aspects of its decorative program have
been added, subtracted, elaborated, and abbreviated as a continual metamorphosis of style has
transformed and obscured its original design. Of the stylistic elements that varied throughout its
lifetime, the leveling of the bridge was among the first major alterations to the bridge.
Commissioned by Pope Boniface VIII in preparation of the Jubilee Year of 1300, the bridge
ramps were raised to match the level of the city pavement, an example that illustrates the
functional modifications to the appearance of the Ponte Sant’Angelo. Though its aesthetics and
form were often symptomatic of its functions, the bridge was also altered during repair work.
One of the most dramatic instances occurred in 1450. Following the cancellation of the
ostentation of the Sudarium, a relic of St. Veronica, a stampede of people flooded the narrow
bridge.20
In the tumult of bodies that rushed to cross, one hundred and seventy-two people
perished and significant damage was done to the parapets. In response to the tragedy, Pope
Nicholas V (r. 1447-1455) ordered the destruction of the gates guarding both ends of the bridge
and replaced them with two square towers flanking the entrance to the Castel Sant’Angelo.21
Though this remains one of the most tragic and transformative moments in the bridge’s history,
in the years approaching Bernini’s restoration of the Ponte Sant’Angelo, other decorative
attributes of the structure would continue to be modified.
Under the pontificate of Pope Clement IX (r. 1667-1669), the Ponte Sant’Angelo
underwent an impressive restoration that gave rise to its current construction and decoration. The
20
Michael McDonnell, Lost Treasures of the Bible (Raleigh: Lulu Publishers, 2007), 26. 21
Weil, The History and Decoration, 23.
15
late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries in Rome are celebrated as a glorious age of
architecture, a period of progressive urbanism that rejuvenated the city and rebuilt its
infrastructure following the Sack of Rome by mutinous soldiers of the Holy Roman Empire in
1527. Under the popes of the latter half of the sixteenth century, Rome was restored to its former
status as a center of culture, an illustriousness that manifested in the magnificent sculpture and
architecture of its landscape.22
The election of Pope Clement IX in June of 1667 did little to slow
the beautification of the city and occurred just after the construction of the elliptical Piazza San
Pietro between 1656 and 1667 under the pontificate of Pope Alexander VII (r. 1655-1667).23
As
the only entryway into the Vatican during the seventeenth century, the Ponte Sant’Angelo was a
natural inclusion in the papal projects. The critical importance of the Ponte Sant’Angelo
restoration to the new Pope Clement IX is revealed in surviving records that trace the payment
history for the commission. According to the documents, three months after the election of
Clement IX, the first payments were made for the purchase of eight marble blocks from which
the angels of the bridge would be carved.24
In the tradition of the popes before him, the execution
of this ambitious project fell to the leadership of Bernini, the established papal architect of the
seventeenth century.
As the primary architect in the Ponte Sant’Angelo re-fabrication, Bernini’s
responsibilities were multifaceted, and the scope of his aspirations mirrored the variety of his
tasks. While it is commonly acknowledged that Bernini personally sculpted the Angel with the
Crown of Thorns and the Angel with the Superscription housed in Sant’Andrea delle Fratte, it is
less known that he also planned and sketched rudimentary designs for the remaining angels
before assigning them to selected sculptors to ensure a degree of uniformity and harmony
22
Montagne, “Rome: Ponte and Castel Sant’Angelo,” 588-589. 23
Michael Collins, The Vatican (New York: Dorling Kindersley Limited, 2011), 83. 24
Wittkower, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 287.
16
between the works. Furthermore, though much scholarly attention has been rightly devoted to the
angels of the bridge, the span of Bernini’s ambitions extended beyond the sculptural program of
the Ponte Sant’Angelo; included in his projects were the clearing of the neighboring Piazza di
San Celso of unnecessary buildings, the lengthening of the bridge, the designing of additional
decorative elements, such as parapets and pedestals, and the widening of the north end of the
bridge.25
Irving Lavin suggests that the degree of Bernini’s thoroughness and attentiveness to all
nuances of the bridge’s reconstruction was such that he consciously lowered the parapets of the
bridge to provide travelers the opportunity to enjoy the flowing waters of the Tiber River
below.26
As a part of the revitalization of the Vatican City, Bernini transformed all facets of the
Ponte Sant’Angelo’s appearance to match the rejuvenated spirit of Rome and the Vatican City.
As the main passageway to St. Peter’s, the Ponte Sant’Angelo was crucial to the
decorative program of the Vatican, and the presence of the monumental angels augmented its
function as a gateway to the heart of Christianity. The angel statues perched along the borders of
the bridge comprise a strikingly passionate composition that spiritually prepares visitors for the
splendor of the Vatican City. In sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Rome, there was an
extensive, encompassing enterprise to enhance religious devotion and reclaim the glory of the
Christian faith. As Rudolf Wittkower describes, the period was characterized by a “total
subordination of architecture, sculpture, and decoration to an overriding spiritual conception.”27
Fittingly, in the spirit of this reformative architectural program, the angels clutch the instruments
of Christ’s Passion with overwhelming sadness conspicuously written in their anguished
expressions and, in their misery, reach out to pilgrims as they begin their journey to St. Peter’s.
This design intensified the individual’s religious experience by placing the viewer in the shadow
25
Weil, The History and Decoration, 40. 26
Lavin, “Bernini at St. Peter’s,” 197. 27
Wittkower, Gian Lorenzo Bernini¸ 121.
17
of the physical and emotional immensity of the angels, encouraging contemplation of Christ’s
sacrifice and feelings of solemnity and piety. An alternative interpretation is offered by Mark S.
Weil, who argues that the angels served a more multidimensional purpose and suggests that the
decision to feature angels as the principle adornment for the bridge was under discussion during
the preceding pontificate of Pope Alexander VII. Of their multifaceted function, he specifically
states that the figures were meant to recall the vision by Gregory the Great of the Archangel
Michael, which bestowed the modern names upon the bridge and Castel Sant’Angelo, and to
anticipate three relics relating to the Passion that are housed in St. Peter’s. Additionally, he
proposes that the image of angels carrying the instruments of the Passion was a familiar
contemporary iconography and would be easily consumable as decorations for the masses.28
Hellmut Hager instead argues that the angels re-appropriated the bridge, Christianizing the
ancient structure in a manner akin to the ancient obelisks erected during the pontificate of Sixtus
V.29
Despite these reasonable hypotheses, the primacy of the bridge’s function as the single
gateway to the Vatican City and its role as a meditative tool are likely the predominant
determinants of its decoration. It is in the preparation, development, and execution of this highly
conspicuous and critical ornamental program that the bozzetti for the Angel with the Crown of
Thorns and Angel with the Superscription were created and remain today as manifestations that
speak to Bernini’s creative methodology.
28
Weil, The History and Decoration, 92. 29
Hellmut Hager, “The History and Decoration of the Ponte Sant’Angelo by Mark S. Weil,” Review of The History
and Decoration of the Ponte Sant’Angelo, by Mark S. Weil, The Art Bulletin 58, 4 (December 1976), (September 23,
2013).
18
CHAPTER II
BOZZETTI
Bernini’s masterpieces were realized through a multifaceted process that advanced
gradually through successive terracotta models, preparatory sculptures that developed
progressively in complexity and size. A man as passionate as he was talented, Bernini was
notorious for his incendiary personality that overflowed into his workshop, permeating each
stroke, each gouge, each chip with vigor and intensity.30
The ferocity with which he approached
his work was, in turn, mediated by a meticulous, sequential process in which a composition
matured over three stages: bozzetti, modelli, and full-sized models. Constituting the very
foundation of his creative methodology, bozzetti were the earliest tangible manifestations of an
evolving composition, and their name, derived from the word abbozzare (to sketch, outline, or
rough out), aptly describes their significance in the creative process.31
At approximately two
palmi32
in height, they were the smallest, most rudimentary of the models and captured the very
earliest essence of a project.33
From the bozzetti stage, a composition grew in size and intricacy
in subsequent modelli, and a larger intermediary figure facilitated this transition, serving as a
30
Weil, The History and Decoration, 37-38. 31
Colette Czapski Hemingway, “Of Clay, and the Initial Stages of Sculpture,” in Sketches in Clay for Projects by
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, vol. 3, ed. Ivan Gaskell and Henry Lie (Cambridge: Harvard University Art Museums, 1999),
31. 32
The architect Vitruvius, in the first chapter of the third book of his treatise on architecture, declares that
proportions can be defined in terms of the human body. The basic unit of his proportional system is the palm: four
fingers constitute a palm, four palms constitute a foot, six palms constitute a cubit, four cubits constitute a man,
etcetera. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, “De Architectura,” in The Proportions of the Human Figure, ed. Joseph Bonomi
and John Gibson (London: Dryden Press, 1872), 8. Scholars have since quantitatively defined the antiquated system,
determining that one palm equates to 0.2235 meters. Philip Sohm, “Introduction,” in Painting for Profit, ed. Richard
E. Spear and Philip Sohm (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 27. 33
Maria Giulia Barberini, “Base or Noble Material? Clay Sculpture in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Italy,”
in Earth and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, ed. Bruce Boucher (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2001) 49.
19
guide to ensure the accurate enlargement of the composition.34
In these larger modelli,
approximately two to three palmi in height, the frenetic energy of a bozzetto was replaced by a
deliberate execution that produced models of a more refined quality. Finally, certain exceedingly
intricate compositions evolved in full-sized models that were often used in the carving of the
final sculpture or in situ to orient the placement of the completed work.35
Thus, though the
dramatic dynamism of his finalized works unquestionably manifests the impassioned nature of
his creativity, a methodical progression of steps funneled his passionate energy to capture it in
marble.
The significance of modeling in Bernini’s work was rooted in both circumstance and
tradition. Before settling in Naples, the young Pietro Bernini (1562-1629) spent his early years
training under the Florentine Ridolfo Sirigatti until approximately 1578. A painter and sculptor,
Sirigatti embraced the theory of art and conferred on his pupils the importance of drawing and
modeling in sculpture. Under his tutelage, Pietro gained an early appreciation for fundamental
forms and the importance of design, principles that would be solidified as a professional painter
at the Villa Farnese in Caprarola.36
The emphasized centrality of design and, correspondingly,
modeling and drawing as the basis of sculpting in the formative stages of his professional
training influenced Pietro’s process as an established sculptor in his own right. The modeled
fluidity of his works, such as the softly falling hair of the marble effigy of St. Bartholomew (Fig.
6), suggests a sustained prevalence of models in his career. As his father’s young pupil, Gian
Lorenzo would have been exposed early on to his working methods and would have certainly, as
a child and a budding sculptor, striven to emulate facets of his father’s process. In his later years,
34
Jennifer Montagu, Roman Baroque Sculpture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 36. 35
Hemingway, “Of Clay,” 31-32. 36
C. D. Dickerson, “Bernini at the Beginning: The Formation of a Master Modeler,” in Bernini: Sculpting in Clay,
ed. C. D. Dickerson, Anthony Sigel, and Ian Wardropper (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013), 5-8.
20
working alongside his father on commissions such as the splendid Bacchanal: A Faun Teased by
Children (Fig. 7), the value of sketches and models impressed upon him as a child would have
been more deeply embedded in the theoretical basis of his methodology.37
While Pietro’s early
influence undoubtedly initiated his appreciation for clay and the utility of modeling in the
creation of a sculpture, Bernini was becoming remarkably sophisticated as a sculptor and
required instruction from a more accomplished and skilled master.
As his proficiency as a sculptor rapidly developed, Bernini sought out the expertise of
Stefano Maderno (1576-1636) to master the techniques of modeling. In 1606, his father Pietro
was commissioned by the reigning pope Paul V to carve the large relief of the Assumption of the
Virgin for the Pauline Chapel in Santa Maria Maggiore. As previously discussed, Pietro’s work
on the basilica, including the execution of this relief between 1607 and 1610,38
facilitated the
historic meeting between Pope Paul V, Cardinal Scipione, and Pietro’s son, laying the seeds of a
relationship between the papacy and Bernini that would blossom into the half-century
revitalization of the Vatican City.39
Pietro’s engagement in the decoration of the Pauline Chapel
had additional significance in Bernini’s maturation as a sculptor as it serendipitously coincided
with the work of Stefano Maderno, a successful sculptor of known modeling finesse in Rome.
Their chance meeting at Santa Maria Maggiore began a years-long relationship between Pietro
and Maderno,40
a closeness that is apparent in surviving documents that record events such as
37
Ibid., 4. The authorship of this work has not yet been confirmed. It is not assuredly known to what degree either
Pietro or Gian Lorenzo Bernini participated in the construction and execution of this sculpture; this work could have
been the result of an individual effort or the product of collaboration between father and son. For more information
regarding the indeterminate authorship of this work, see Ian Wardropper, “Highlights of the Collection,” European
Sculpture: 1400-1900 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2011), 114-116. 38
Ibid., 9. 39
Avery, Bernini: Genius, 15. 40
Franco Mormando, notes of The Life of Gian Lorenzo Bernini, by Domenico Bernini and Gian Lorenzo Bernini
(University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011), 274.
21
Maderno witnessing Pietro’s purchase of a house.41
The friendship between Pietro and Maderno
evidently transcended generations, and Maderno was often sought out by Gian Lorenzo as a
collaborator on monumental projects, such as the Baldacchino.42
His influence on Bernini’s
modeling style is evident in stylistic and compositional parallels in extant works. For example,
Bernini’s Model of the Moor (Fig. 8a) is, in finish and execution, comparable to Maderno’s
Hercules and Antaeus (Fig. 9a). Specifically, in both sculptures, wide, oval marks carve out the
curls of hair while striations on the skin record similar brushstrokes (Fig. 8b and 9b).43
Additionally, the Fontana del Tritone by Bernini (1642 and 1643) (Fig. 10) in the Piazza
Barberini and the Eagle Fountain by Maderno (c. 1611-1612) (Fig. 11) in the Vatican confirm
the intimate relationship between the sculptors’ methodologies. Bernini’s fountain, which
features a giant Triton seated atop four dolphins, blowing water from a shell, derives its
distinctive iconography from Maderno’s work, which presents a similar Triton figure astride a
dolphin, also spewing water from a shell. More specifically, the fountains share figures with the
same facial features, orientations of the arms, and positioning of the shells.44
This compositional
mimesis further reinforces the likelihood that there was an exchange of ideas and, presumably, a
sharing of skills between the two sculptors. As he served as a source of iconographic inspiration,
Maderno also likely functioned as a trove of modeling experience and expertise from which
Bernini drew.
While his father and Stefano Maderno were the most significant and immediate
influences in incorporating the presence of clay models in his creative process, Bernini, as a
modeler, participated in a fluctuating tradition of using preparatory media in sculpture.
41
Dickerson, “Bernini at the Beginning,” 11. 42
Mormando, notes, 274. 43
Dickerson, “Bernini at the Beginning,” 11. 44
Marvin Pulvers, Roman Fountains: 2000 Fountains of Rome: a Complete Collection (Rome: L'Erma di
Bretschneider, 2002), 175-176.
22
According to a historical account by Lavin, the modeling process began as a technique in
antiquity, and the significance of clay as a medium changed over time. Of the origins of
modeling, the presence of blemishes on surviving unfinished pieces of Roman statuary speak to
the existence of a “pointing-off system” used to copy Greek statues. These marks, scored into the
stone flesh of the ancient figures, resemble those found on the Ponte Sant’Angelo bozzetti and
suggest an inheritance of copying and enlarging techniques through the ages. In the subsequent
centuries, there is a return to the ancient Greek technique of direct carving until the advent of the
Italian Renaissance in the fourteenth century.45
From the mid-fourteenth to the mid-fifteenth
centuries, amidst an increasingly fluid hierarchy of visual media,46
clay becomes significant as
an artistic medium in its own right, reaching the apex of its status and use in the hands of masters
like Ghiberti and Donatello.47
Surviving examples of terracotta sculptures from this period
corroborate the role of contemporary models as isolated, distinct works of art. The lack of
physical evidence on extant works that would suggest extensive handling, such as the presence
of pointing marks, implies that the clay sculptures of the early Renaissance served more as
previews of the final works as opposed to studies through which compositions were explored,
tested, and resolved.48
The prestige and visual significance of clay would be short-lived, however, as the mid-
fifteenth century saw the medium shed its aesthetic value, demoted to a utilitarian purpose and
relegated to the role of a sketch-model. With the arrival of the sixteenth century, the preparatory
role of terracotta sculpture was firmly established in the sculpting process; one Neapolitan
45
Irving Lavin, “Bozzetti and Modelli: Notes on Sculptural Procedure from Early Renaissance through Bernini,” in
Visible Spirit: The Art of Gianlorenzo Bernini, vol. 1, ed. Irving Lavin, (London: Pindar Press, 2007), 34-36. 46
Barberini, “Base or Noble Material? Clay Sculpture,” 42. 47
Bruce Boucher, “Italian Renaissance Terracotta: Artistic Revival or Technological Innovation?” in Earth and
Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, ed. Bruce Boucher, (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2001), 1. 48
Lavin, “Bozzetti and Modelli,” 47.
23
scholar wrote of its significance, stating, “By means of the model, one observes potential errors
and corrects them before executing the work […] one will finish the work more quickly if there
is a model to follow.”49
It is by the distinguished sculptor, architect, and painter Michelangelo
Buonarroti (1475-1564) that we are presented with the first models that possess the sketchy
qualities of bozzetti, and their existence confirms the integration of clay sculptures as functional,
intermediary pieces in sculpture. As identified by Lavin, a bozzetto for the two-figure sculptural
group Hercules and Cacus (Fig. 12) and a clay torso (Fig. 13) by Michelangelo exhibit the
graphic, unfinished “quality of directness” that classifies these models as the first truly three-
dimensional sketch.50
As the golden age of the Renaissance drew to a close and the dawn of the
seventeenth century was accompanied by the drama and grandeur of the Baroque, models were
thoroughly rooted in their roles as integral facets of the creative transformation in sculpture.
The trajectory of Bernini’s career is silhouetted against the integrated union of modeling
and sculpture in which preparatory terracottas became indispensable to the sculptor’s craft. The
seventeenth century in Italy was a period characterized by a taste for opulence and drama, an age
of grandeur in which sculptures became its prevailing hallmark. With the rising intricacies of
commissions, sculptors began to increasingly rely on ever-expanding workshops to contend with
the mounting complexities of the execution process. Models became the unifying backbone of a
workshop, a means through which a degree of homogeneity in form and a consistency in design
were maintained between the successive stages of development.51
The Colonnade of St. Peter’s
Square commissioned in 1656 is but one example that demonstrates the magnitude of a large-
scale commission and the extent to which models played a role in preserving the integrity of a
49
Anonymous as quoted in Bruce Boucher, “Italian Renaissance Terracotta,” 16. 50
Lavin, “Bozzetti and Modelli,” 52. 51
Montagu, Roman Baroque Sculpture, 134.
24
composition.52
According to documentation, Bernini presented a wooden model carved with the
papal crest and adorned with fifty wax figurines to Pope Alexander VII at the earliest stages of
the commission. Subsequently, he produced several bozzetti, a fraction of the ninety-nine
sculptures that would later ornament the balustrade. The existence of these terracottas and the
sheer scale of the commission support the notion that Bernini created these small sculptures as
templates for the larger, monumental designs before delegating the remaining work to a team of
sculptors. Additional evidence shows the creation of large-scale models for the central figures of
the North arm of the colonnade by Roman sculptor Lazzaro Morelli (1608-1690).53
These
models and the recorded participation by a lesser-known sculptor reinforce the importance of
modeling in sculpture and the division of labor in elaborate projects.
The Equestrian Monument of Louis XIV, for which a bozzetto created between 1669 and
1670 survives, further exemplifies the prevalence of models and secondary sculptors in Bernini’s
work. In a letter to the French Minister, Bernini writes, “I shall first make a clay model of the
said work in my own hand, then shall continually supervise my assistants so that they imitate the
said model, instructing them in every aspect to which they must conform.”54
He is, in so many
words, acknowledging his role in preparing the basic forms of the work for assistants and
confirming his abbreviated hands-on intervention in the sculpting process. Though his reliance
on a clay model can be attributed to his advanced age of seventy, nonetheless, the circumstances
of the equestrian statue’s creation, in addition to those of the execution of the figures of the
Colonnade, define the role of models as templates in a period that demanded brilliance and
lavishness in sculpture.
While terracotta models were functionally significant as guides for employed sculptors,
52
Ibid., 53. 53
Ibid., 41. 54
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, as quoted in Montagu, Roman Baroque Sculpture, 41.
25
clay sculptures were also crucial to Bernini’s own creative methodology. Since the unveiling of
his earliest work, Bernini’s final sculptures—polished, perfected, and fixed in stone—have been
admired as the truest manifestations of his genius. While their magnificence is undeniable,
Bernini’s masterpieces were products of a deliberate, meticulous experimentation process in
which clay permitted the investigation, alteration, and evolution of compositions. For example,
the gradual realization of the St. Longinus statue (1629-1638) in St. Peter’s represents the
function of clay models in the investigation of the specific nuances of a composition. When
Joachim von Sandrart, a German painter and art historian, visited Bernini’s studio, he counted
twenty-two bozzetti and models of varying designs.55
The abundance of models and variance in
detail suggest that they functioned as conduits through which Bernini explored different
orientations and arrangements for the figure. While Sandrart’s account testifies to Bernini’s use
of models, only two of the recorded twenty-two survive. In contrast to the truncation of the
timeline for the St. Longinus statue, for the Angel of the Superscription and Angel with the
Crown of Thorns now in Sant’Andrea delle Fratte, eight models endure as testaments to
Bernini’s methodology. It is through the analysis of these extant works that we can endeavor to
more fully resolve the paradoxical nature of his process in which his wild, passionate genius was
mediated by an exhaustive thoroughness in the progressive genesis, development, and execution
of a design.
The Extant Models of the Ponte Sant’Angelo
For the angels of the Ponte Sant’Angelo, twelve bozzetti survive, ten of which can be
attributed to Bernini. The Angel with the Superscription is represented in five models: one is
housed in the Palazzo di Venezia, Rome (Fig. 14); two in the Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge (Fig.
15 and 16); one in the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth (Fig. 17); and one in the State
55
Ibid., 49.
26
Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Fig. 18). For the Angel with the Crown of Thorns, five
models chronicle its creation: one in the Louvre Museum, Paris (Fig. 19); two in the Fogg Art
Museum (Fig. 20 and 21); one in the Kimbell Art Museum (Fig. 22); and one in the State
Hermitage Museum (Fig. 23).56
Of the remaining angels that ornament the Ponte Sant’Angelo,
the Angel with the Scourge (Fig. 24) in the Fogg Art Museum is the only extant model
representing the preparatory stages of their creation that can be attributed to Bernini. The Angel
with the Cross (Fig. 25) is represented by a sole terracotta sculpture by Ercole Ferrata now
housed in the State Hermitage Museum. The following is a possible account of the provenance of
the bozzetti as compiled by the Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition catalog Bernini:
Sculpting in Clay.
For the five models housed in the Fogg Art Museum, documentation identifies their
origins in the collection of Bartolomeo Cavaceppi. Upon the death of Cavaceppi in 1799, the
models were left to the Academy of Saint Luke in Rome from whom they were purchased by
Giovanni Torlonia, Vincezo Pacetti, and Giovanni Valadier in 1800. Through a court ruling, the
models then became the property of Giovanni Torlonia (1810-d. 1829) and were later acquired
56
There is contention amongst scholars regarding the attribution of the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and Angel
with the Superscription bozzetti in the State Hermitage Museum. According to the Metropolitan Museum catalog,
the unique construction, precise execution, and fastidious detailing of the Hermitage model for the Angel with the
Crown of Thorns sequester the figure from the larger corpus of Bernini’s work, identifying it as one created by a
commissioned sculptor, likely Paolo Naldini. See Dickerson and Sigel, Bernini: Sculpting in Clay, 331. Conversely,
Rudolf Wittkower argues that the works were by Bernini himself in planning the second set of sculptures of the
Angel with the Crown of Thorns and Angel with the Superscription for the Ponte Sant’Angelo. See Wittkower, Gian
Lorenzo Bernini, 290. For the Angel with the Superscription, the sense of immediacy and spontaneity in the handling
of clay complicates the establishment of its authorship. The Metropolitan Museum authors cite visual remnants of
the model’s construction that suggest sculpting techniques characteristic of Bernini as evidence that the work was
modeled in its entirety by the master. The authors also suggest that the scale notched into the clay was likely incised
by sculptor Giulio Cartari during the course of his sculpting process in which he used the terracotta functioned as a
template in the enlargement of the composition. See Dickerson, Sigel, and Wardropper. Bernini: Sculpting in Clay,
327-329. Contrastingly, Mark Weil suggests the bozzetto was created through a joint effort by Bernini and Cartari.
Acknowledging its coarse aesthetic that recalls the unrefined quality of the Fogg bozzetti, Weil suggests the front of
the model was molded by Bernini while the back of the sculpture was finished by Cartari. See Mark Weil, “Bernini
Drawings and Bozzetti for the Ponte Sant’Angelo: A New Look,” in Sketches in Clay for Projects by Gian Lorenzo
Bernini, vol. 3, ed. Ivan Gaskell and Henry Lie (Cambridge: Harvard University Art Museums, 1999), 148-149.
27
by his relation Alessandro Torlonia (d. 1886). The models subsequently fell into the possession
of Giovanni Piancastelli of Rome at a time before 1905. In 1905, documents record their
purchase by Mrs. Edward D. (Mary B.) Brandegee in whose possession they remained until they
were procured by the Fogg Art Museum in 1937.
The Palazzo di Venezia model of the Angel with the Superscription shares the beginnings
of its lineage with the Fogg models, paralleling their provenance until the death of Alessandro
Torlonia in 1886. Documentation records subsequent ownership by Gioacchio Ferroni.
Following the death of Ferroni in 1909, the Palazzo di Venezia acquired the model at auction on
April 20, 1909.
The earliest records cite ownership of the Kimbell bozzetti for the Superscription and
Crown of Thorns by Alexander (d. 1951) and Erika von Frey (d. 1934). Upon the death of Mrs.
Alexander (Erika) von Frey, the models were purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Richard S. Davis. The
terracottas remained in the Davis collection until they were purchased by the Kimbell Art
Foundation in 1987.
The bozzetto for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns in the Louvre Museum can be traced
to the collection of Paul-Albert Besnard. Upon his death in 1934, the sculpture was then sold at
auction to the Galerie Charpentier of Paris on May 31st before being acquired by the Louvre
Museum on June 1st, 1934.
The bozzetti for the Angels with the Superscription and Crown of Thorns in the State
Hermitage Museum are first documented in the collection of Filippo Farsetti (d. 1774). Likely by
descent, the models subsequently came into the ownership of his cousin Daniele Farsetti (d.
1787). Upon his death, the models were acquired by his son Anton Francesco Farsetti, in whose
possession they would remain until 1799 when they were gifted to reigning Czar Paul I of Russia.
28
The bozzetti remained as a deposit at the Academy of Fine Arts in Saint Petersburg before their
relocation to the State Hermitage Museum.
A single model exists for the Angel with the Cross by Roman sculptor Ercole Ferrata. Its
attribution is suggested by the documentation of “a small model in terracotta of the Angel for the
Ponte by Signor Ercole” in the posthumous inventory of the sculptor’s studio. Its authorship is
further affirmed by the calm cascades of drapery and peaceful aura of the angel that are
uncharacteristic of Bernini’s dynamic, emphatic works. The distinction of the model as an
intermediary sculpture draws on the dissimilarities between the final marble work and the
terracotta, particularly the modified drapery and position of the angel’s feet.57
These stylistic
incongruities indicate that the bozzetto was created prior to the completion of the finalized
sculpture and likely functioned as a tool through which Ferrata reasoned and resolved the
composition.
57
Bruce Boucher, “Bernini’s Models for the Angels of the Ponte Sant’Angelo in Rome,” in Earth and Fire: Italian
Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, ed. Bruce Boucher (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001) 66.
29
CHAPTER III
EARLY CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORIES FOR THE
ANGEL WITH THE CROWN OF THORNS AND
ANGEL WITH THE SUPERSCRIPTION
The bozzetti for Sant’Andrea delle Fratte’s Angel with the Crown of Thorns and Angel
with the Superscription are particularly invaluable to the study of art history as they present a
unique wealth of information that can further elucidate the nuances of Bernini’s creative process.
The exceptionality of these clay figures is the survival of eight bozzetti that culminate in a visual
legacy of the conception and metamorphosis of each of the sculptures, functioning as perceptible
markers that trace the evolution of Bernini’s artistic methodology. The correct ordering of these
works, then, provides scholars the opportunity to extrapolate a broader understanding of
Bernini’s modus operandi that imparted shape, volume, and mass to an amorphous idea and
crystallized the intangible musings of his imagination.
3.1 Mark S. Weil
The correct sequence of the Ponte Sant’Angelo bozzetti has long been a point of
contention amongst Bernini scholars, many of whom have offered various hypotheses contrived
through a multitude of approaches. In Mark S. Weil’s 1974 text The History and Decoration of
the Ponte Sant’Angelo, he proposes one of the earliest comprehensive chronologies. In the
construction of his sequence, Weil relies principally on the formal analysis of the individual
bozzetti in conjunction with comparisons of each clay model to the earliest drawings as well as
30
the final sculptures that flank the ends of the timeline. Weil later revisits his earlier chronology,
however, and published a revised order of the bozzetti58
in the 1998 Harvard bulletin “Sketches
in Clay: Projects by Gian Lorenzo Bernini.”59
In his more recent essay, Weil adheres to his
previous method of separating the extant material into two groups but presents a restructuring of
these divisions; the first grouping once again assembles the preparatory material that more
closely resembles the only existing rough sketch, or pensiero, for the angels, that of the Angel of
the Crown of Thorns in the Museum der bildenden Künste in Leipzig (Fig. 26), while the second
grouping unites the remaining items that more closely relate to the style and composition of the
final marble works in Sant’Andrea delle Fratte (Figs. 1 and 2). In addition to the organization of
his analysis, Weil also reasserts his earlier supposition that the paired angels flanking the bronze
reliquary of the Cathedra Petri in Saint Peter’s Basilica (Fig. 27) are the inspirational source for
the Ponte Sant’Angelo sculptures. The basis of his claim rests on the aesthetic similarities
between the serpentine poses and physical complementariness of the Cathedra Petri angels and
those of the initial designs for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and Angel with the
Superscription.60
Weil’s dependence on stylistic parallels that guide his determination of the
Cathedra Petri angels as the aesthetic inspiration for the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels is carried into
his analyses of the extant preparatory material and largely shapes the grouping of the bozzetti.
While the structure of Weil’s argument and determination of the inspirational source for
58
For a visual representation of Mark S. Weil’s ordering of the bozzetti, please see Appendix A. 59
The sequence by Mark S. Weil is misquoted and incompletely referenced by Maria Giulia Barberini in her
contribution to the Earth and Fire exhibition catalog. She incorrectly segregates the preparatory materials, wrongly
placing the Fogg model for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns in the first grouping as an earlier model while
positioning the Louvre and Palazzo di Venezia bozzetti in the second grouping as later models. Furthermore,
Barberini includes the bozzetto for the Angel with the Superscription in the State Hermitage in the second group of
sculptures, despite Weil’s exclusion of the piece from both groups. Additionally, she omits a discussion of the
remaining two bozzetti in the Fogg Museum. Barberini, “Base or Noble Material? Clay Sculpture,” 52-53. 60
Wittkower, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 74-75. Since its initial proposition by Rudolf Wittkower, the notion that the
Angel with the Crown of Thorns and the Angel of the Superscription were originally conceived as complements has
long been upheld by scholars, such as Irving Lavin and Mark S. Weil. See Irving Lavin, “The Bozzetti of
Gianlorenzo Bernini,” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1955) and Weil, The History and Decoration, 33-44.
31
the angels remain unchanged, the distribution of the preparatory sketches and bozzetti into two
groups does not. Weil begins by identifying the Leipzig pensiero for the Crown of Thorns as the
origin of the design process, as it mimics the curved poses and waistline pattern of the drapery of
the Cathedra Petri angels. Having established the sketch as the earliest manifestation of
Bernini’s initial design for the angels, Weil links the drawing to the ink-wash sketch of the Angel
with the Superscription in Rome’s Istituto Nazionale, noting that the curved stance and diagonal
undercurrent of its drapery are also reminiscent of the Cathedra Petri angels. Weil then classifies
the bozzetti for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and the Angel with the Superscription in the
Louvre (Fig. 19) and Palazzo di Venezia (Fig. 14), respectively, as transitional models that
simultaneously reflect attributes of the earlier design while prefiguring elements of the final
composition. For example, the Louvre bozzetto exists as the only surviving realization of
Bernini’s original plan for the physical complementariness of the angels. As a contrast, both the
Louvre and Palazzo di Venezia terracottas foreshadow a growing expressive intensity that would
fully manifest itself in the marble sculptures, and this trend is most evident in the frenzied
undulation of drapery in the Louvre’s Angel with the Superscription and the tightening curls in
the Palazzo’s Angel of the Crown of Thorns.61
In the second grouping, Weil lists the two-figure study for the Angel with the
Superscription in the Istituto Nazionale, the remaining four bozzetti in the Fogg Museum, and the
two bozzetti in the Kimbell Museum. In his discussion, he attempts to contextualize the figural
study for the Superscription (Fig. 28) by relating the depicted pose to its purported predecessor,
the Palazzo di Venezia bozzetto. Specifically, he suggests that its attenuated proportions, a rather
curious characterization of a relatively stocky figure, predict the lithe musculature of the later
61
Mark S. Weil, “Bernini Drawings and Bozzetti,” in Sketches in Clay for Projects by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, ed.
Ivan Gaskell and Henry Lie, (Cambridge: Harvard University Art Museums, 1999), 147.
32
Fogg and Kimbell bozzetti. To situate the remaining bozzetti in the timeline for the Angel with
the Superscription, Weil relies on an analysis of the evolution of the drapery. In particular, he
notes that the mimetic axes of drapery in the headless Fogg (Fig. 20) and Kimbell (Fig. 17)
bozzetti elaborate on the lines that transect the figure in the Istituto Nazionale sketch, the
schematic marks of the drawing metamorphosing into a tumbling cascade of fabric that courses
diagonally over the angel’s torso and through her legs in clay. The intensifying dynamism of the
drapery climaxes in the remaining Fogg bozzetto for the Superscription (Fig. 16), which Weil
implicitly identifies as the last clay figure in the stepwise evolution for the Angel with the
Superscription. In his discussion of the Angel with the Crown of Thorns, he argues that the nude
bozzetto in the Fogg Museum (Fig. 20) was created concurrently with the Istituto Nazionale
sketch as a correctional study of the proportions and form exhibited in the preceding Louvre
bozzetto. He further suggests that the bozzetto precedes the Kimbell (Fig. 22) and remaining
Fogg bozzetti (Fig. 21) for the Crown of Thorns, as it depicts indications of drapery that would
be elaborated on in the succeeding sculptures. Of the remaining bozzetti in the Kimbell and Fogg
Museums, Weil classifies the former as the final sculpture in the progressive realization of the
Angel with the Crown of Thorns, surmising that, like the Fogg bozzetto for the Superscription,
the extreme dynamism and explosiveness of its drapery suggest that the bozzetto was the product
of the graduated expressiveness of the earlier bozzetti.62
Though Weil’s analysis is undeniably
methodical and exhaustively comprehensive, he suggests a flawed chronology dependent upon
superficial, problematic categorizations and identifications of figural proportions and form.
3.2 Charles Avery
In his 1997 text Bernini: Genius of the Baroque, Charles Avery introduces a radically
62
Ibid., 147-149.
33
different hypothesis for the ordering of the bozzetti, various elements that would stand alone in
the scholarship on Bernini and others that would be adopted by later art historians.63
Unlike Weil,
who suggests a comparable prevalence of sketching and clay modeling throughout the
development of the angels, Avery proposes that drawings were significant primarily in the initial
stages of the creative process and identifies the Istituto Nazionale two-figure sketch for the
Superscription as the earliest of the preparatory material. In his analysis of the work, Avery notes
that the distinctive masculine physiognomy of the figure suggests that the composition was
derived either from a live model or from a fragmented statue of an athlete by the ancient Greek
sculptor Praxiteles. Avery goes on to propose that the drawing functioned as a study of the
composition’s balance and arrangement as Bernini explored different means of organizing the
asymmetrical figure about a vertical axis. Of the two figures, both in contrapposto, Avery
identifies the completed figure on the left as the earlier figure, a supposition largely based on his
perception that the more dramatic contrapposto of the uncompleted body on the right is more
comparable to the basic pose and centers of gravity exhibited in the final statues.64
Following the
Istituto Nazionale drawing, Avery places the Leipzig sketch, which he suggests was scratched
out as a quick study of the mirroring pose for the Crown of Thorns.65
Avery’s investigation of the
surviving two-dimensional material then segues into an in-depth exploration of the extant models.
Avery divides his discussion of the bozzetti into separate analyses of the Crown of Thorns
and the Superscription. Beginning with the Crown of Thorns, he identifies the Fogg’s nude
bozzetto as the start of the sequence. Its chronological location is the result of the angel’s
distinctly masculine anatomy, which Avery uses as justification that Bernini used a live model
during the sculpting process. Avery further supports the characterization of the nude work as the
63
For a visual representation of Charles Avery’s ordering of the bozzetti, please see Appendix B. 64
Avery, Bernini: Genius, 165. 65
Ibid., 165-166.
34
starting point for the Crown of Thorns by noting that Bernini worked in the classical manner of
sculpting in which the basics of the figure’s form in space were resolved prior to the overlaying
of drapery.66
The nude model is followed by the Louvre bozzetto, whose relationship to the
earlier Leipzig sketch, particularly its attenuated body, is used to determine its placement in the
early stages of the creation process. The Kimbell bozzetto and the second Fogg bozzetto
comprise the terminus of Avery’s proposed order for the Crown of Thorns. In establishing their
relationships to the other bozzetti as the realizations of the final steps in the genesis of the angel,
Avery states that the increasing emotionality of their compositions more closely relates the clay
sculptures to the final marble works.
Though Avery does separate his discussions of the Crown of Thorns and Superscription
bozzetti, he acknowledges the interrelatedness of the works, suggesting a parallel advancement of
the compositions. However, he also proposes that the tandem progression of the clay figures
starts with the Kimbell sculptures and radically begins his ordering of the Superscription bozzetti
with the Kimbell clay model, a hypothesis that would remain unique to Avery’s analysis. He
goes on to assert that the underdeveloped musculature of the angel’s body and the similarity of
its pose to those depicted in the preceding Istituto Nazionale and Leipzig sketches identify the
model as the earliest manifestation of the development of the Superscription.
Following the Kimbell sculpture, Avery places the headless Fogg bozzetto, citing the left
arm of the angel as evidence of a conscious move towards more developed musculature. The
Fogg model is succeeded by the Palazzo di Venezia bozzetto based on the increasing sinuosity of
its form and dramatized embellishment of the folds transecting the abdomen of the angel. It is
interesting to note that Avery is one of few art historians who do not temporally pair the
modeling of this work with that of the Louvre bozzetto for the Crown of Thorns. He is also the
66
Ibid., 165.
35
only scholar to suggest that this bozzetto may be among the later models for the Superscription.
Further analyzing the metamorphosis of drapery, Avery concludes his sequence with the second
Fogg bozzetto for the Superscription, noting that the billowing ribbon of drapery across the torso
of the angel introduced in this sculpture is retained in the final marble work. 67
This identification
of the Fogg bozzetto as the last bozzetto in the evolution of the Angel with the Superscription
would be echoed years later by the curators of a revolutionary exhibition at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. Thus, with a heavy reliance on formalism, Avery proffers a significantly
dissimilar chronology for the bozzetti of the Ponte Sant’Angelo in which certain facets of his
argument will be challenged and others upheld.
3.3 Bruce Boucher
Bruce Boucher, curator of the Earth and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from
Donatello to Canova exhibition hosted by The Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, Texas and the
Victoria and Albert Museum in London, hypothesizes a fundamentally divergent order for the
Ponte Sant’Angelo bozzetti.68
In the exhibition catalog published in 2001, Boucher presents a
more typical linear chronology for the genesis and development of the angels. Employing a
comparative technique similar to Weil, Boucher relies primarily on an analysis of proportion and
form to formulate the basis of his discussion. He begins by identifying the Leipzig pensiero for
the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and the Istituto Nazionale sketch for the Angel with the
Superscription as the earliest preparatory works for the Ponte Sant’Angelo commission on the
accepted belief that Bernini customarily began with quick sketches to record his initial
brainstorm. Like Avery, he surmises that Bernini looked back to antiquity; however, Boucher
67
Ibid., 166-168. 68
For a visual representation of Bruce Boucher’s ordering of the bozzetti, please see Appendix C.
36
offers an alternative to the sculptor Praxiteles, suggesting that the contrapposto stance in the
illustration for the Angel with the Superscription instead references the pose of the fifth-century
Greek statue Apoxyomenos by Lysippus (Fig. 29). Boucher goes on to propose that the Fogg’s
nude bozzetto for the Crown of Thorns was constructed at a stage midway between the two
sketches. He suggests that the figure, with bulky proportions similar to the hulking body in the
Istituto Nazionale drawing,69
functioned as a study in which Bernini experimented with an
alternative position for the crown, situating the object in arms extended at a more obtuse angle
than in the Leipzig drawing.70
It would seem, then, that Boucher conjectures that the earliest
stages of Bernini’s design were captured in the following order: the Istituto Nazionale drawing as
an initial figural sketch, the Fogg bozzetto as a tool to reason out the angel’s stance, and lastly,
the Leipzig sketch as a study of drapery. This segment of Boucher’s timeline marks the most
significant departure from the theories presented by Weil, who places the Istituto Nazionale
sketch among the more advanced stages in the angels’ metamorphosis, and by Avery, who
separates sketches and clay sculptures as distinctive stages in Bernini’s working methodology.
Of the various tenets of Boucher’s analysis, the early integration of sketching and modeling is
one of the most notable advancements towards a more precise and appropriate ordering of the
Ponte Sant’Angelo bozzetti.
Boucher situates the Louvre’s bozzetto for the Crown of Thorns after the preliminary
sketches and Fogg model. Like Weil, Boucher associates this clay figure with the Palazzo di
Venezia bozzetto for the Superscription, once again characterizing the pair as companion pieces
that capture the same stage in the evolution of the angels’ design. According to Boucher, these
69
Bruce Boucher, “Bernini’s Models,” in Earth and Fire: Italian Renaissance Sculpture from Donatello to Canova,
ed. Bruce Boucher (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 61-62. 70
Bruce Boucher, catalog of Earth and Fire: Italian Renaissance Sculpture from Donatello to Canova (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2001), 194.
37
figures represent an exploration of proportion and drapery, the first three-dimensional
articulations of the drapery pattern depicted in the Leipzig sketch. Additionally, they represent
the first tangible realizations of the elongated anatomical proportions that would be retained
throughout the remaining development of the composition.71
He goes on to suggest that the stage
of the Louvre and Palazzo di Venezia bozzetti was followed by a reversal of the stance for the
Angel with the Crown of Thorns and cites the Kimbell bozzetti as exceptional examples that
conspicuously illustrate the repositioned legs of the Angel with the Crown of Thorns to mimic
rather than mirror the legs of the Angel with the Superscription.72
Boucher goes on to assert that
the Kimbell bozzetti for the Superscription and the Crown of Thorns comprise, as a related pair
in time, the terminus of the sequence. According to Boucher, their classification as the most
mature of the sketch models is predicated upon their predictive mimesis of the diagonal slant of
the main axes of drapery and the placement of the figures’ feet that are later replicated in the
final figures.73
With a discussion largely centered on the formal analysis of the bozzetti, Boucher
presents a timeline that reiterates facets of previous theories while introducing elements unique
to his own discussion.
Following his designation of the Kimbell bozzetti as the most developed of the terracotta
figures, Boucher moves into an analysis of Bernini’s clay-sculpting techniques, considering the
bozzetti as isolated sculptures and disjoining them from the investigatory perspective as
interrelated parts of a broader timeline. In doing so, he abruptly terminates his study of the
bozzetti as manifestations of the progressive realization of the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels,
excluding from his discussion the Fogg’s two bozzetti for the Angel with the Superscription.
Though the discussion mounted by Boucher is less complete than the investigations previously
71
Boucher, catalog, 198. 72
Boucher, “Bernini’s Models,” 62. 73
Boucher, catalog, 202.
38
undertaken by Weil and Avery, he more logically develops his discussion by tracing the
evolution of multiple progressive trends manifested in the aesthetics of the clay figures. Where
Weil trudges through an exhaustive, meticulous exploration of every extant bozzetto for the
Ponte Sant’Angelo and depends solely on the questionable identifications of the angels’
proportions, Boucher, like Avery before him, marries an analysis of mass, volume, and form to a
study of the metamorphosing aesthetic of the models’ drapery to establish the basis of his
chronology.
3.4 The Metropolitan Museum of Art
The curators of the recent Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition Bernini Sculpting in
Clay postulate yet another alternative sequence for the compositional metamorphoses of the
Angel with the Superscription and Angel with the Crown of Thorns.74
Regarding the origins of
Bernini’s sculptural project, in their recently published exhibition catalog, authors Dickerson and
Sigel echo Avery and Boucher’s suggestion of a classical source as Bernini’s inspiration for the
Ponte Sant’Angelo angels and further affirm the theory first proposed by Rudolf Wittkower that
Bernini often drew inspiration from antiquity.75
In identifying the exact stylistic source, the Met
authors deviate from Boucher’s theory and instead reiterate Avery’s earlier suggestion that
Praxiteles was the principle influence on the form and style of Bernini’s angels. However, rather
than repeat Avery’s vague nod to a non-specific work by the Greek sculptor, the Met authors
specifically point to the Belvedere Antinous (Fig. 30), the famous marble sculpture debatably
74
For a visual representation of Dickerson and Sigel’s ordering of the bozzetti, please see Appendix D. 75
Rudolf Wittkower, “The Role of Classical Models in Bernini’s and Poussin’s Preparatory Work,” in Studies in the
Italian Baroque, ed. Rudolf Wittkower (London: Thames and Hudson, 1975), 110.
39
identified as a Hadrianic copy of a bronze by Praxiteles.76
They, in particular, cite the torso and
positioning of the figure’s legs in contrapposto as the most obvious visual evidence that the
ancient sculpture was the primary influence on the anatomical forms of Bernini’s two angels.77
Contrasting the uncertainty regarding the inspirational source for the angels, there seems
to be a greater consensus for the origins of the design process, as many scholars agree that two-
dimensional sketches were the characteristic beginnings of Bernini’s creative methodology.
Dickerson and Sigel once again parallel Avery and Boucher’s conclusions and begin their
chronology of the Ponte Sant’Angelo bozzetti with the two-figure nude study for the Angel with
the Superscription. They similarly hypothesize that the figural sketch functioned as a means of
contemplating the fundamental attributes of the angel’s pose and drapery.78
Building on
Boucher’s earlier conclusions, Dickerson and Sigel challenge Avery by resolutely affirming that
the partiality of the rightmost figure predicates its precession of the leftmost, completed figure.
They go on to propose the possibility that Bernini created a similar study for the Angel with the
Crown of Thorns. Following their suggestion of the existence of a now lost sketch for the Crown
of Thorns, Dickerson and Sigel segue into their analysis of the bozzetti. Once again matching
Boucher’s earlier work, they suggest that the Fogg’s nude bozzetto for the Angel with the Crown
of Thorns captures the next stage of the stepwise creation of the angels, essentially functioning as
a three-dimensional realization of the basic principles of pose and stance depicted in the
preceding sketch.79
Employing a laborious, meticulous examination of the style and form the
76
Francis Haskell and Dr. Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500-1900
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 141-142. 77
C. D. Dickerson and Anthony Sigel, catalog of Bernini Sculpting in Clay (New York: Metropolitan Museum of
Art, 2012), 289. 78
The authors acknowledge the Leipzig ink-wash pensiero as a possible predecessor to and cite Weil and other
authors as alternate chronologies that include the sketch. For more information, see C. D. Dickerson and Anthony
Sigel, notes to the Catalog of Bernini: Sculpting in Clay, edited by C. D. Dickerson, Anthony Sigel, and Ian
Wardropper (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013), 385. 79
Dickerson and Sigel, catalog, 289.
40
terracotta, Dickerson and Sigel conclude that its unusually large size, noticeably diminished
struts, and highly finished, textured surface identify the Fogg bozzetto as the most incipient of
the angel bozzetti whose purpose was to rationalize and confirm the final pose for the Angel with
the Crown of Thorns. Additionally, the existence of a multitude of fingerprints and palm prints
suggest that the model was heavily manipulated. The granular appearance of its surface was most
likely due to a damp cloth that was repeatedly draped atop the model to preserve its pliability and
function as a reference throughout the design process.80
Like the Crown of Thorns sketch
previously, Dickerson and Sigel propose that a similar clay study, now lost, was created for the
Angel with the Superscription. Such a model would, like Avery had surmised earlier, imply the
concurrent geneses of the Superscription and Crown of Thorns angels.
According to the Dickerson and Sigel, the resolution of the pose and stance of the angels
at a stage captured by the figural sketch and Fogg bozzetto was followed by the Louvre bozzetto
for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and the Palazzo di Venezia bozzetto for the Angel with
the Superscription. However, unlike earlier chronologies by Weil and Boucher, Dickerson and
Sigel do not couple the bozzetti as a pair sculpted in tandem and, instead, like Avery,
differentiate temporally between these creations. They very reasonably suggest that the Louvre
bozzetto preceded the Palazzo di Venezia bozzetto as the earliest study of drapery and movement.
They further surmise that the Louvre terracotta was created after the Leipzig sketch for the
Crown of Thorns, an innovative, perceptive proposition that relates the drapery pattern in the
sketch to the later three-dimensional sculpture. Of the similarities between the two works, the
billows of cloth that unfurl to reveal the left leg of the angel are particularly similar in both
media.81
The discussion then moves to the next stage of the design process, a transitional step
80
Ibid., 291. 81
Ibid., 293.
41
supposedly represented by the Palazzo di Venezia bozzetto for the Superscription. According to
Dickerson and Sigel, this clay figurine manifests an intermediary phase in the expressiveness of
drapery, the lower half of the angel’s skirts recalling the gentle, linear cascade of the Louvre
angel while the mushrooming fold of cloth at the waist of the angel anticipates the more
emphatic, dynamic drapery in later models.82
The later stages of the designing process are characterized by the presence of certain
elements that would be retained in the final marble pieces. The authors suggest that the final
stages began with the Kimbell bozzetti for the Superscription and the Crown of Thorns.
Confirming previous scholarship that relates the two terracottas as chronological pairs, the
authors specifically cite historical and qualitative attributes as evidence of the figures’
siblinghood. They conclude that the shared early provenance of the bozzetti, whose coupling was
maintained for centuries despite changes in ownership, speaks to the extent of their affiliation as
a temporal pair. Furthermore, in addition to their linked ownership histories, similarly elongated
proportions and comparable technical qualities that suggest analogous modes of construction
affirm the companionship between the terracottas.
In deducing the function of these bozzetti, Dickerson and Sigel acknowledge that the
Kimbell models capture the major compositional change that transformed the angels from mirror
images to physical parallels. Though Boucher similarly argues that the Kimbell terracottas are
representative of the major compositional reversal, he superficially references the Kimbell
models as demonstrative examples of the compositional change. In contrast, the Met authors
conclusively state that the bozzetti were created at the very stage in which Bernini altered his
design, functioning as tools to give form to his new concept.83
82
Ibid., 302-303. 83
Ibid., 306-311.
42
From the Kimbell bozzetti, the catalog then proposes that Bernini returned to the matter
of drapery, using the now headless Fogg bozzetto for the Angel with the Superscription to
explore the draping of the lower half of the angel. In particular, the gathering of cloth at waist-
level and the drapery that swirls at the feet of the figure seemed to be the foci of Bernini’s
attention. The close relation between the Fogg bozzetto and the preceding Kimbell bozzetto as
adjacent models in the timeline of the composition is indicated by the retention of details such as
the angels’ bare left arms, the transecting ribbon of cloth at their waistlines, and their flatfooted
left legs. Additionally, the attenuated proportions of the Kimbell and Fogg bozzetti for the
Superscription are more characteristic of Bernini in the latter stages of his career. Therefore, with
the added presence of stylistic elements that are retained in the final sculpture, Dickerson and
Sigel confirm the Kimbell models as descendants of the Palazzo di Venezia bozzetto.
The Metropolitan chronology for the Angel with the Superscription and the Angel with
the Crown of Thorns concludes with the remaining two Fogg bozzetti. In the evolution of the
Angel with the Superscription, the authors, like Weil decades earlier, determine that the Fogg
bozzetto (Fig. 16) exists as the latest, most developed model for the composition. Of the various
predictive attributes of the bozzetto, the cascade of cloth that flows through the angel’s legs,
enshrouds the left knee, and finally curls over the cloud formation is the most indicative of its
place at the end of the Superscription order. Furthermore, the high-finish of its surface speaks to
the care taken in its construction while the presence of measuring marks at the right shoulder,
biceps, elbow, hands, feet, crown, and wings of the figure reflects its use as a tool to graduate
onto a larger modello.84
According to the authors, the culmination of these attributes suggests
that the terracotta was meticulously created as a reflection of the final stage in the design
84
Ibid., 324.
43
process.85
Regarding the Angel with the Crown, the catalog identifies the Fogg bozzetto (Fig. 21)
as the concluding phase of the metamorphosing composition. The evidence of repeated
measurements and the unusually large size of the bozzetto that is more akin to that of the
subsequent modelli suggest its place at the terminus of the timeline for the Angel with the Crown
of Thorns.86
Of the various chronologies proposed by scholars, the Metropolitan Museum of Art
exhibition catalog by Dickerson and Sigel presents the most logical, substantiated ordering of the
preliminary drawings and terracottas for the Angel with the Superscription and Angel with the
Crown of Thorns. In my own discussion, I continue to investigate this sequence of the bozzetti,
confirming Dickerson and Sigel’s discussion while utilizing their analysis as a basis from which
to extrapolate broader conclusions and conduct a more nuanced investigation.
85
Ibid.. 315-321. 86
Ibid.,323-325.9
44
CHAPTER IV
AN ANALYSIS:
INTRODUCTION AND ORIGINS
4.1 Introduction
At the core of my argument, I propose that Bernini worked systematically in a method
previously described by Charles Avery as the classical manner, a mode in which the most basic
attributes of a composition were established before graduating onto a more nuanced, meticulous
study of drapery and detail.87
Using Weil’s group-centered, investigatory approach as a model, I
suggest that Bernini worked in two phases: planning the structural foundations of the figure prior
to exploring the pattern and flow of the overlying drapery. Furthermore, like Avery, Dickerson
and Sigel, I argue that the creation of the Angel with the Superscription paralleled that of the
Angel with the Crown of Thorns, concomitant geneses that progressed along similar stepwise
evolutions in which only a handful of stages are manifested in the surviving bozzetti. As a result,
if the extant preparatory materials for the Crown of Thorns and the Superscription are properly
sequenced and considered in relation to one another, a general understanding of Bernini’s modus
operandi can be constructed. Moreover, while previous scholarship has acknowledged the
significance of drawings and terracottas in Bernini’s planning process, I challenge Avery’s
segregation of drawing and clay sculpting and suggest that an integrated relationship existed
between the sketches and the models, an entwining of two- and three-dimensional media in
which novel schemes were quickly fleshed out as drawings before the details were resolved and
87
Wittkower, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 165.
45
realized in clay. I specifically suggest that sketches were utilized at the very conception of an
idea to capture the initial design and reappeared in later phases of planning as checkpoints
following significant changes or alterations in design. Once the basic forms were determined as
an initial design or revised composition, the scheme was then more intricately explored as a
tangible model. To expand my discussion of Bernini’s creative methodology, I will analyze the
aesthetic and form of the sketches and bozzetti for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and the
Angel with the Superscription, approaching each drawing or figure as an isolated work while
acknowledging its relationship to the larger timeline of the angels’ conception and
development.88
Additionally, my personal conclusions will interweave previous analyses in order
to construct a more compelling discussion rooted in visual examinations of the works.
4.2 The Stylistic Origin of the Angels of the Ponte Sant’Angelo
The compositional inspiration for the attenuated proportions of the angels along the Ponte
Sant’Angelo likely derived from an amalgamation of ancient sources. The source of the angels’
serpentine anatomies has long been debated amongst art historians, and various propositions
have been previously put forth, including Weil’s Cathedra Petri, Avery’s unspecified work by
Praxiteles, Boucher’s Apoxyomenos by Lysippos, and the Metropolitan’s Belvedere Antinous by
Praxiteles. In actuality, each of these proposals by Weil, Avery, Boucher, and the Metropolitan
catalog possesses a certain degree of validity. In his 1963 essay entitled “The Role of Classical
Models in Bernini’s and Poussin’s Preparatory Work,” Rudolf Wittkower states that Bernini
frequently looked to antiquity for inspiration.89
This idea of returning to antiquity was reiterated
from and previously developed in Wittkower’s Art and Architecture in Italy: 1600-1750, II. High
88
For a visual representation of my ordering of the bozzetti, please see Appendix E. 89
Wittkower, “The Role of Classical Models,” in Studies in Western Art: Latin American Art, and the Baroque
Period in Europe: Volume III, ed. Millard Meiss (Princeton: The Princeton University Press, 1963), 110.
46
Baroque published 1958. In his text, Wittkower affirms that Bernini’s “procedure cannot be
dissociated from his convictions, his belief in the time-honoured tenets of decorum and historical
truth, […] and in the unchallengeable authority of ancient art.” Specifically, Wittkower cites
stylistic parallels between the Apollo of Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne (Fig. 31a,b) and Belvedere
Apollo (Fig. 32a,b); Bernini’s David (Fig. 33) and the Borghese Gladiator (Fig. 34); and
Bernini’s St. Longinus in St. Peter’s (Fig. 35a,b) and the Borghese Centaur (Fig. 36a,b),
particularly noting the similarity of figures’ heads.90
If this theory is taken to be true, that
Bernini’s procedural methods were underscored by a theoretical commitment to the ancient
approach to sculpture and art, it is possible to assume that Bernini adhered to these principles in
planning the angels of the Ponte Sant’Angelo and sought out ancient sculptures for inspiration.
This likelihood, then, corroborates the suppositions presented by Avery, Boucher, Dickerson,
and Sigel.
To determine the exact sculpture in whose composition the form of the angels originates,
it is useful to once again return to Wittkower’s study. In his discussion, he notes, “[early] in
[Bernini’s] career the finished work often remained close to the antique model. […] But as he
advanced in age, Bernini transformed his classical models to an even greater degree.” In essence,
the progression of Bernini’s career paralleled a diminishing fidelity in his sculptures to their
antique models, a deviation in composition that can be attributed to the greater manipulation and
dramatization of the original designs. To illustrate his theory, Wittkower likens the form of
Bernini’s sculpture of the Prophet Daniel in Santa Maria del Popolo (Fig. 37), completed in 1650,
to the figure of the father in the Laocoön Group (Fig. 38) from 25 BCE. To further confirm the
relationship between the works, he cites the existence of a series of drawings that document the
90
Rudolf Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Italy: 1600-1750, II. High Baroque, 6th
edition, ed. Joseph Connors
and Jennifer Montagu (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 21.
47
transformation and dramatization of the ancient design, and indeed, the heads of the central
figures are similarly thrown back as they look imploringly towards the sky. 91
Consequently, it
would not be extraordinary to suggest that the design for the angels, a project commissioned in
the latter period of Bernini’s illustrious career, derived from multiple ancient sculptures whose
forms were combined and modified. In considering the Apoxyomenos by Lysippos and the
Belvedere Antinous by Praxiteles identified by Boucher and the Metropolitan curators,
respectively, both sculptures exhibit attributes that are identifiable in Bernini’s preparatory works
for the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels.
Of the extant materials, the two-figural nude study for the Superscription in the Istituto
Nazionale is most closely associated with the two ancient sculptures. If this two-dimensional
study is to be taken as the earliest manifestation of Bernini’s planning process, it, consequently,
captures the most unadulterated representation of the sculptures’ inspirational source. In
analyzing the sketch, various motifs, particularly in the figure’s lower anatomical halves, find
parallels in the Belvedere Antinous as well as in the Apoxyomenos and thus support the
hypothesis that the angels were constructed from a conflation of ancient sculptures. Consider, for
instance, that in all three works the characteristically masculine bodies are depicted in
contrapposto; however, the stances are not identical, and the pose of the Superscription
figures—with the left hips cocked sideways and swinging outward—is more similar to that of
Praxiteles’s Belvedere Antinous. Though it is the opposite hip of the marble figure that protrudes,
in both works, the tilted posture of the bodies is emphasized by a similar, dramatic shifting of
weight that pushes out the lower trunk of the body. Unlike the angels of the sketch and the
Belvedere Antinous in which the distribution of weight creates a diagonal, slanting line from the
base of the weight-bearing leg through the hip of the figures, Lysippos’s Apoxyomenos lacks a
91
Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Italy, 21.
48
comparable angling of the body. Instead, the figure exhibits a gentler leaning of its torso, in
which a straight line is maintained from the foot of the figure through the connecting hip and
runs perpendicular to the base of the sculpture.
While the exaggerated contrapposto poses of the Superscription angels are derived from
the Belvedere Antinous, the distances between their feet and their knees as well as the moderate
bending of their freestanding legs are likely taken from the Apoxyomenos. In Bernini’s drawing,
both angels are depicted with feet approximately shoulder-width apart and a noticeable gap
between their knees, and these distances roughly correlate to the gaps separating the feet and the
knees of the marble sculpture. Additionally, the understatedly bent legs of Bernini’s angels more
explicitly recall the polite reservation of the Apoxyomenos’s bending leg as opposed to the
emphatic protruding knee of the Belvedere Antinous. These attributes—the angels’ jutting hips
that paralleled the dramatized contrapposto of the Belvedere Antinous and their shoulder-width
stance and self-conscious bending of their legs more characteristic of the Apoxyomenos—are
demonstrative of the relationship of the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels to both ancient sculptures.
Thus, the Apoxyomenos and Belvedere Antinous are equally relevant as origins for Bernini’s
creative process, and the aesthetic for the angels was likely constructed through a combination
and manipulation of forms taken from antiquity.
It is possible that the sinuosity of the bodies of the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels was
repeated in multiple projects under the direction of Bernini in the seventeenth century. Just as the
theories proposed by Avery, Boucher, and the Metropolitan Museum catalog find significance in
the discussion of the aesthetic origins of the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels, the stylistic likeness
between the angels of the Cathedra Petri and of the Ponte Sant’Angelo identified by Weil gains
validation with further analysis. In his investigation, Weil cites the similar attenuation of the
49
angels’ anatomies as the basis for his theory that the Cathedra Petri angels inspired the aesthetic
of the Ponte Sant’Angelo composition. While the overall style of the Superscription and Crown
of Thorns angels is more likely derived from the amalgamation and manipulation of the
aforementioned ancient sculptures by Lysippos and Praxiteles, it is likely that Bernini first
incorporated this figural form in the Cathedra Petri (1656-1666), for which two modelli of the
angels dated to 1662 survive,92
before repeating the anatomical design in the subsequent Ponte
Sant’Angelo project begun in 1667.93
The implication of these dates is that the development of
the Cathedra Petri and its flanking angels occurred just before Bernini embarked on the process
of designing and executing the angels for the Ponte Sant’Angelo. The temporal proximity of the
creation and construction of the Cathedra Petri angels and those of the Ponte Sant’Angelo, in
conjunction with their stylistically similar characteristics, suggest that Bernini likely returned to
the earlier, serpentine motif and incorporated the aesthetic in the design for the Ponte
Sant’Angelo sculptures.
Additionally, the chronological evidence for the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels as a variant of
the earlier Cathedra Petri design is bolstered by evidence that illustrates the commonality of
repeated motifs in Bernini’s works. Aptly, the tremendous apse of St. Peter’s Basilica,
specifically the luminescent composition of the Cathedra Petri, is one such example that
illustrates Bernini’s citation of earlier designs in later works. In his text, Boucher includes an
analysis of a model of a Gloria, the name given to the scheme of radiating divine light
surrounding the window above the throne in St. Peter’s. He suggests that, though the design was
possibly inspired by Peter Paul Rubens’s high altar for the Chiesa Nuova, it was in the hands and
mind of Bernini that the composition achieved a new level of drama and magnificence, one so
92
Bacchi, Andrea, “The Role of Terracotta Models in Bernini’s Workshop,” in Bernini: Sculpting in Clay, ed. C. D.
Dickerson, Anthony Sigel, and Ian Wardropper (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013), 56. 93
Dickerson and Sigel, catalog, 233.
50
striking that Bernini returned to the design in subsequent altars.94
The repetition of the Cathedra
Petri motif in later projects illustrates Bernini’s willingness to cite previous compositions in
subsequent commissions, a practice that supports a linkage between the Cathedra Petri and
Ponte Sant’Angelo angels. Furthermore, Boucher goes on to state that “the attenuated figures and
sinuosity of form […] follow a pattern seen in many of Bernini’s late works,” further affirming
the likelihood that Bernini replicated favored motifs, such as the curving, linear bodies of the
angels, in multiple works.95
Thus, while Weil presents a weakly substantiated theory for the
Cathedra Petri as the single source of inspiration for the form of the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels,
his affirmation of a stylistic relation between the Cathedra Petri and Ponte Sant’Angelo angels is
not unfounded. The close chronological succession of the Cathedra Petri and Ponte Sant’Angelo
commissions, instances in Bernini’s oeuvre that demonstrate his use of repeated motifs, and his
noted favoritism for attenuated figures in the latter part of his career validate Weil’s association
of the angels of the Cathedra Petri and the Ponte Sant’Angelo. The beginnings of the design for
the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels, then, can be traced from the Apoxyomenos and Belvedere
Antinous of antiquity, whose attributes were combined and manipulated, to the figural details
flanking the Cathedra Petri and, finally, to the sculptures of the Ponte Sant’Angelo.
94
Boucher, catalog, 230. 95
Ibid, 63.
51
CHAPTER V
AN ANALYSIS:
THE DUAL-PHASE DESIGN PROCESS
The extant preparatory materials for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and Angel with
the Superscription can be separated into two broad phases, each one bracketing multiple stages
of the stepwise realization of each sculpture. For clarity, the terms “steps,” “stages,” and
“segments” are reserved for the more nuanced facets of the creative process while the
designation “phases” will reference the broader, inclusive segments of the methodology. As
previously discussed, Bernini frequently worked in the classical manner, establishing the
fundamental forms of a work before realizing its more decorative, overlaying elements.
Accordingly, the sketches and terracotta models that manifest the metamorphic stages of the
development of the Superscription and the Crown of Thorns compositions can be classified into
one of these two phases of development. For each phase, whether the overarching goal was to
establish the core basics of the sculpture’s form or to address its more aesthetic, superficial
elements, two- and three-dimensional media were used as tools. In addition, both phases
commence with exploratory sketches and conclude in terracotta models. Essentially, I adopt a
two-fold analytical approach: beginning by broadly classifying each sketch and bozzetto as a
member of a larger phase before narrowing my research scope to investigate the relative
chronological relationships of the individual works within each phase.
52
5.1 The First Phase
In the first phase of the geneses of the Crown of Thorns and Superscription angels,
Bernini concerned himself with the orientation of the skeletons of the sculptures, working
primarily with bodies in the nude to resolve the essential forms of the figures in space. He likely
began this process by visualizing the union of different attributes gleaned from various
inspirational sources, specifically the Belvedere Antinous and the Apoxyomenos, in a single
composition. The two-figure sketch of the Angel with the Superscription in the Istituto Nazionale
captures this early stage of planning for the sculptures. Its schematic lines give form and
structure to the transformation and melding of multiple works and, in its composition, are
attributes of both the Belvedere Antinous, specifically its dramatic contrapposto stance, and the
Apoxyomenos, particularly the conservatively bent leg and gaped knees and feet, clearly
discernible. These visual elements demonstrate an intimate linkage between the sculptures of
antiquity and the Superscription sketch and thus identify this drawing as the manifestation of the
earliest stage of design and the beginning of the chronology for the development of the Angel
with the Crown of Thorns and Angel with the Superscription.
The nude model for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns follows the Istituto Nazionale
sketch as the next and the last surviving work in the first phase of the angels’ development. The
classification of the clay model is founded on visual evidence that relates the work to the
preceding nude drawing as well as the established understanding that Bernini’s methodology was
underscored by a reverence of the classical theory of sculpting. In concurrence with the earlier
assertions by Boucher, Dickerson and Sigel, the terracotta gives form and tangibility to the
composition depicted in the earlier sketch as both the Superscription drawing and the Crown of
Thorns model feature bodies of comparable stature and massiveness. For example, the well-
53
defined pectoral muscles of the clay figure recall those of the sketched angels, and, though the
legs of the clay model and the sketched angels are oriented to reflect Bernini’s original
conception of the Crown of Thorns and Superscription as physical reflections, the musculature of
the thighs of the angels in both media are comparably bulky and substantial. Furthermore, all
three figures are posed in contrapposto. Thus, as evidenced by the similarities in anatomy,
proportions, and pose, the Fogg’s nude bozzetto for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns is the
immediate descendant of the Istituto Nazionale study.
It is possible that the composition depicted in the Istituto Nazionale sketch evolved in
now lost bozzetti that preceded the stage represented by the Fogg’s nude terracotta for the Angel
with the Crown of Thorns. As previously discussed, bozzetti are most easily distinguished from
modelli by dissimilar heights and degrees of detail. Bozzetti are also less refined and are
approximately two palmi in height while modelli possess greater detailing and measure between
two and three palmi.96
The nude model of the Crown of Thorns in the Fogg Museum is
frequently classified as a bozzetto; however, as noted by Dickerson and Sigel, the clay sculpture
is unusually large, measuring 33.5 cm in height and eclipsing all but one extant model for the
Ponte Sant’Angelo angels.97
The terracotta, additionally, possesses an uncharacteristic degree of
detailing, namely the deliberate application of different textures for various parts of the work. It
is feasible that this model, of unusual size and detail, was preceded by clay sculptures of a
smaller size and of lesser detail, terracottas that more characteristically resemble bozzetti. This
supposition is largely based on the sequencing of the remaining models for the Crown of Thorns.
While this chronology will be more carefully explored in the latter part of my thesis, the
terminus for the Crown of Thorns timeline is significant here because the final sculpture—the
96
Hemingway, “Of Clay,” 31-32. 97
Dickerson and Sigel, catalog, 290-291.
54
Fogg’s second model for the composition—is as uncharacteristic as the nude model from the
same collection. This sculpture, also of an unusually grand size for a bozzetto—the largest of the
Ponte Sant’Angelo models—and fine detailing, is preceded by at least two smaller, rougher
terracotta works. As previously determined by the Metropolitan catalog, this work captures the
finalized Crown of Thorns composition and serves as a transitional sculpture, linking the rougher,
more rudimentary bozzetti with the more refined, more detailed modelli.98
The existence of a
similarly uncharacteristic clay sculpture that is of the same subject and follows smaller, more
sketch-like models make it possible to explain the curious size and detailing of the nude Crown
of Thorns terracotta. Like its later companion at the Fogg, the nude study likely functioned as an
intermediary work, a tool to graduate the forms fleshed out in ink and in clay during the first
phase of planning to more intricate studies and nuanced modifications in the second phase of
designing.
In addition to the Istituto Nazionale sketch for the Angel with the Superscription and the
nude Fogg model for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns, other sketches and terracotta
sculptures from this phase possibly existed whose survival would have contributed to a more
comprehensive representation of the various transformative stages of the evolution of the Angel
with the Crown of Thorns and the Angel with the Superscription. As discussed at length in prior
investigations, particularly by Avery and the authors of the Metropolitan Museum catalog, the
Crown of Thorns and the Superscription compositions evolved in tandem along paralleling
timelines. It is likely that as Bernini took ink to paper and gouged, scraped, and clawed at
mounds of soft clay to conceive the Angel with the Superscription, he simultaneously sketched,
planned, and developed the Angel with the Crown of Thorns. Evidence for this supposition lays
in Bernini’s original conception of the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and the Angel with the
98
Ibid., 323-325.
55
Superscription as physical opposites. While the mirroring anatomical relationship between the
Crown of Thorns and the Superscription figures eventually metamorphosed into an emotive,
psychological complementariness, the pairing of these sculptures suggests that, in designing the
overall scheme for the angels as related opposites, Bernini worked concurrently on the
compositions, creating sketches and clay models for both sculptures. Consequently, the Istituto
Nazionale drawing and the nude Fogg terracotta capture an abbreviated selection of this early
phase of design. In all likelihood, there were other, now lost sketches and models that captured
additional stages of the first phase of the creative process, and the Istituto Nazionale study of the
Superscription and Fogg model of the Crown of Thorns were created in tandem with companion
pieces.
5.2 The Second Phase
From the initial phase of the creative process, whose stages are made manifest in the
Istituto Nazionale drawing and the Fogg terracotta, Bernini’s imagination narrows to endow the
composition with more meticulous details and greater expressive effect in the second phase of
design process. Following the establishment of the figure’s form, Bernini embarks on a more
nuanced exploration of the interplay between visual aesthetics and emotional expressivity and
describes these stages as opportunities to “reflect on the ordering of the parts, and [give] them
perfection of grace and tenderness.”99
In these later, more intricate stages, Bernini once again
employs both ink and clay to realize more complex schemes that incorporate stylistic elements,
such as drapery and clouds, and perfect the anatomical organization of angels’ anatomy. Of the
aesthetic details integrated, the arrangement of drapery as an expressive vehicle of emotional
intensity seems to be the central concern of these stages and largely the focus of the majority of
99
Gian Lorenzo Bernini as quoted in Barberini, “Base or Noble Material?” 49.
56
the models. By examining the metamorphosis of drapery in conjunction with other evolving
details, the correct sequence of works can be revealed.
Just as ink and paper functioned at the start of the first phase to rough out the basic
skeletons for the Superscription and possibly the Crown of Thorns, sketches likely appeared in
the earliest stages of the second phase before three-dimensional sculptures entered the planning
process. In the preceding designs of the first phase, nude figures largely dominated as the
primary mode of exploration, and the beginning stages were comprised essentially of studies of
anatomy. To transition from a preoccupation with the body and its organization to a concern for
detail and an infusion of emotion, Bernini likely began with quick sketches to bridge the
structural form and more detailed, emotive aspects of the composition. Of the extant preparatory
material for the Crown of Thorns and Superscription sculptures, the ink-wash sketch of the
Crown of Thorns in Leipzig is the most representative of this stage in the graduated evolution of
the figures and likely Bernini’s first foray in rendering a fully draped figure. The position of this
Leipzig sketch at the start of the second phase of the designing process is affirmed by the
presence of common elements that link the sketch to preceding as well as succeeding works. In
regards to its relation to the earliest of the preliminary works, for example, the Leipzig sketch
elaborates on the schematic depiction of drapery in the Istituto Nazionale drawing of the
Superscription. Though the Superscription drawing depicts the companion subject, the diagonal
line scratched across the torso of the nude figure and threaded through its legs becomes a
rippling sheath of cloth in the Crown of Thorns sketch, whose principle axis parallels that
exhibited in the Superscription illustration. The relationship between the Leipzig work and its
sculptural predecessor relies on similarities in stance as opposed to drapery. While the Leipzig
figure possesses more attenuated bodily proportions, both the nude Fogg model and the two-
57
dimensional angel stand in contrapposto with a rightward thrusting of their hips. The relationship
of the Leipzig Crown of Thorns to the later models of the compositional timeline is identified
and noted by Dickerson and Sigel. In their exhibition catalog, they suggest that similarities
between the sketch and a later model for the Crown of Thorns support the characterization of the
sketch as the successor to the nude Fogg terracotta. Specifically, the angel’s gaping leg is clearly
demonstrative of its location as the start of clothed models.100
Furthermore, the attenuation of the
angel’s body, a departure from the broadness and bulkiness of the earlier Superscription sketch
and Crown of Thorns model, is repeated in all later sculptures for both the Superscription and
Crown of Thorns compositions. Therefore, the location of the Leipzig sketch at the beginning of
the second phase of the angels’ geneses is supported by visual traits that contextualize the work.
Furthermore, its aesthetical relationship to earlier and later works supports the identification of
the drawing as a transition between the nude form and the clothed body and a gateway into a
more complex, stylistic transformation of the angels.
In discussing the remaining seven bozzetti for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and
the Angel with the Superscription in Sant’Andrea delle Fratte, I consider each composition and
its respective works separately. Though my assertion of the parallel evolution of the Angel with
the Crown of Thorns and the Angel with the Superscription remains unchanged, I approach my
analyses of the terracotta models as two distinct discussions to organize the numerous
preparatory works. I will consider each bozzetto in relation to its companions of the same
chronology as well as those of the concurrent timeline in order to conduct a more nuanced,
thorough exploration of the extant bozzetto for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and the Angel
with the Superscription. Continuing from our previous discussion of the Leipzig sketch, the three
remaining bozzetti for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns will be analyzed to explore the
100
Dickerson and Sigel, catalog, 289.
58
advancement of the composition and infer a more informed understanding of Bernini’s working
method.
The Angel with the Crown of Thorns
From the Leipzig sketch, the Crown of Thorns evolved in clay, and the next stage is most
accurately represented by the bozzetto in the Louvre Museum. The placement of the figure as the
subsequent inheritor of the composition is founded upon aesthetic elements that link the figure to
past and future models. As mentioned previously, Dickerson and Sigel use stylistic similarities
between the preceding drawing and the Louvre terracotta, specifically the matching cascades of
drapery that expose the angels’ free-standing left legs, to justify the positioning of the bozzetto in
their chronology.101
Their identification is further substantiated by the angel’s pose, which
affirms the work’s characterization as an early sculptural model. The Louvre bozzetto is the
single surviving clothed figure that realizes Bernini’s original conception of the Angel with the
Crown of Thorns and the Angel with the Superscription as anatomical antagonists. In later
models, the transformed design of the Crown of Thorns places the weight of the body onto the
left leg, allowing the right leg to remain free-standing. Rather than a physical counterpart, the
Crown of Thorns angel becomes an emotive foil to the Superscription. Thus, it is most probable
that this clay model, which reflects the original design, would be located after a rough sketch and
following the unclothed, less detailed figure for the Crown of Thorns. Various elements, such as
the arrangement of drapery and the figure’s unique attribute as the sole manifestation of the
original scheme, relate the Louvre model to works while linking it to more mature bozzetti.
Consequently, this bozzetto for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns settles into its position as the
most probable successor to the Leipzig sketch.
The Kimbell bozzetto follows the Louvre sculpture as the next model in the graduated
101
Ibid., 293-295.
59
progression of the Crown of Thorns. While the positioning of the Louvre figure is largely a
derivative of visual similarities to earlier and later works, the characterization of the Kimbell
terracotta as an interim sculpture in the evolutionary timeline of the Crown of Thorns relies on
the absence of characteristics that are exhibited in a second clay figure in the Fogg Museum and
preserved in the finished marble sculpture. Of these incongruities, the Kimbell model’s
dissimilar arrangement of drapery, a pivotal communicative tool that intensifies the emotionality
of the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels, unequivocally distinguishes its placement in my chronology.
Most conspicuous is the absence of a prominent S-shaped wave of cloth that unfurls at the waist
of both the later Fogg sculpture and final work and imbues the overall composition with a
frenetic dynamism, enhancing the chaotic emotions of the grieving angel. Instead, in the Kimbell
bozzetto, an indefinite, narrow strip of cloth that is indistinguishable among the cascading folds
of drapery replaces the wide, arcing ribbon that defines the waist of the Fogg angel. The
diminished expressiveness of the drapery of this terracotta, as compared to that of the later Fogg
bozzetto and marble sculpture, suggests that the Kimbell model was created earlier and that the
composition evolved to become increasingly dramatic in subsequent stages of the design process.
The terracotta as the penultimate model for the Crown of Thorns is further affirmed by its lack of
facial detail and minimal consideration given to the sculptural base. As previously discussed, the
latest and, therefore, most finalized bozzetto functioned customarily as a reference in the
construction of a grander, more detailed model called a modello. Consequently, as Lavin
explains in an essay exploring the history of sculptural models, the final bozzetto’s function as a
bridge between the cruder bozzetti and the more polished modelli requires that the clay figure be
highly finished and fully developed in order to prevent errors in rescaling the composition.102
Therefore, the rough quality of the angel’s face and supporting base discourage the
102
Irving Lavin, “Bozzetti and Modelli,” 59-60.
60
characterization of the bozzetto as the final model in the chronology for the Crown of Thorns.
Visual analysis can also confirm that the creation of the Louvre bozzetto predates that of
the Kimbell model. In the Kimbell composition, the angel is a physical match to the
Superscription design, and both pairs of legs are oriented in identical poses. The Metropolitan
Museum authors go so far as to suppose that the Kimbell bozzetto captures the very stage at
which Bernini reversed the stance of the Crown of Thorns, transforming the compositions from
physical reflections to anatomical twins. Therefore, where stylistic commonalities identified the
position of the Louvre bozzetto as the first figure in the second phase of the creative process, it is
both the absence and presence of various aesthetic elements that contextualize the Kimbell
bozzetto in the larger evolving timeline of the Crown of Thorns.
Like those of its sculptural predecessors, the stylistic characteristics of the remaining
Fogg model for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns reveal its identity as the latest, most
developed of the bozzetti and support its designation as the final bozzetto in the graduated
development of the composition. The most telling qualities of the terracotta can be classified into
two categories: those that anticipate the final sculpture and those that predicate its role in the
transition to the modelli stage. Regarding the predictive qualities of the model, logic permits us
to presume that the final bozzetto would be most representative of the finished sculpture,
exhibiting qualities that foreshadow the final composition. Previous scholarship has frequently
assumed that the Kimbell bozzetto terminates the chronology for the Angel with the Crown of
Thorns.103
In order to reevaluate these earlier affirmations, a comparison of the terracotta to the
Kimbell model will be used to emphasize the significance of certain traits of the later Fogg
bozzetto that confirm its characterization as the actual terminus. An example of these anticipatory
103
In their discussions of the angels of the Ponte Sant’Angelo, both Weil and Boucher cite the Kimbell bozzetti as
the most realized of the terracottas for the Angel with the Superscription and the Angel with the Crown of Thorns.
See Weil, “Bernini Drawings and Models,” 147-149. and Boucher, catalog, 202.
61
characteristics in the Fogg terracotta is the drapery pattern at the waist of the angel that has been
previously discussed. In the Fogg creation, a ribbon of cloth surges forth from the angel’s left hip
and cascades across the torso before swirling through and around the legs. This dynamic,
prominent feature, though less emphatic and more self-conscious, is highly conspicuous in the
marble sculpture. In contrast, the Kimbell work substitutes this element for a narrow ribbon of
cloth that snakes timidly across the angel’s torso. Furthermore, in the later Fogg bozzetto is a
piece of drapery that swathes the figure’s upper torso and continues behind the upper arm before
cresting upwards and outwards. At its apex, the wave curves to spill toward the lower tumbles of
fabric. In the marble work, this pattern, specifically the crest of fabric framing the bicep, is
further dramatized, and the wave of fabric reaches a greater amplitude before similarly
integrating in the folds of the angel’s skirt.
While the Kimbell model does possess a comparable detail, the overall aesthetic of its
drapery feature lacks the liveliness and excitement imbued in the Fogg and final compositions.
Here, the energetic rising and falling of fabric is replaced by a narrow strip of cloth that, upon
extending from the upper right bicep, curls immediately downward. Additionally, the reserved
handling of fabric is exacerbated by exposing the end of the length of fabric. In contrast to the
incorporation of the upper fabric detail into the lower folds of drapery present in the Fogg and
marble sculpture, the analogous piece of cloth in the Kimbell bozzetto terminates as a free end,
remaining disjoined from the skirt and interrupting the undulating flows of drapery that unite the
upper and lower segments of the figure. Thus, the repeated presence of prominent drapery details
in both the Fogg bozzetto and the final marble sculpture relate these pieces as the nearest
compositional relatives and support the assertion that the Fogg terracotta completes the
chronology for the second phase and overall evolution of the Angel with the Crown of Thorns.
62
The characterization of the Fogg terracotta as the most developed bozzetto for the Angel
with the Crown of Thorns is further substantiated by its unusual attributes that suggest a role in
the rescaling of the composition to produce a modello. Just as qualities atypical of bozzetti were
used to identify the nude Fogg model for the Crown of Thorns as the final work in the first phase
of the creative process, analogous stylistic anomalies suggest a parallel positioning for the later
Fogg bozzetto at the end of the second phase. Similarly, this model is unusually large and
significantly detailed, and these attributes suggest that it too functioned as an intermediary tool.
Regarding its size, the Metropolitan Museum catalog notes that the model, at a height of two
palmi (or 17 ½ inches), corresponds to the customary height of modelli during this period,
predicating its function in the transition to the modelli stage of sculpting.104
The terracotta as an
interim work between the bozzetti and modelli stages explains the figure’s enlarged scale and can,
moreover, explicate the sculpture’s unusual degree of detail. If the Fogg sculpture is once more
compared to the more rudimentary, underdeveloped traits of the Kimbell bozzetto, it is evident
that a defined nose and distinct set of lips have replaced the muddled facial features of the earlier
angel, and this meticulous sculpting is symptomatic of the latter figure’s significance as both a
model and a transitional tool.
Additionally, the bases of the angel figures further illustrate the greater attentiveness and
care given to the Fogg model that corroborate its significance as a bridge between the past
bozzetti and future modelli. In the Fogg model, the amorphous platform of the Kimbell angel
evolves into a more accurate representation of the final sculpture. Specifically, the random
indentations underlying the Kimbell bozzetto metamorphose in the Fogg sculpture to express two
broad, flat regions that are of a similar shape and size to two clouds flanking the left leg of the
angel in marble. These schematic representations impressed in the clay correspond to details of
104
Dickerson and Sigel, catalog, 323.
63
the fully realized composition and indicate that the sculpture likely dates towards the end of the
design process. Furthermore, the role of the clay figure in the transition to the modelli stage and
related identification as the latest extant bozzetto for the Crown of Thorns is confirmed by the
presence of numerous measurement marks. These divots scattered throughout the figure confirm
that the model was, at one point, used to construct an enlarged model of the composition.105
Thus,
with the identification of predictive aesthetical traits that parallel the final composition; the
angel’s unusual size; highly detailed, anticipatory features of the face and platform; and presence
of points used in rescaling suggest that the work served as reference in the progression from
bozzetti to modelli, a transitional function that underscores to its position at the end of the
evolutionary timeline for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns.
The Angel with the Superscription
To determine the correct chronological sequence of the extant models for the Angel with
the Superscription, stylistic comparisons and visual analyses will function as significantly as in
the previous discussion of the terracottas for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns. In
differentiating the surviving four models of the Superscription, aesthetic similarities and
variations in the figures’ drapery patterns will be especially telling and significant.
The bozzetto of the Angel with the Superscription housed in the Palazzo di Venezia
begins the second phase of the developing composition as it exhibits a close stylistic adherence
to the only extant representation of the previous design stage, the Leipzig sketch for the Angel
with the Crown of Thorns. As was previously suggested by the Metropolitan exhibition catalog
for the Istituto Nazionale sketch of the Superscription and the nude Fogg model of the Crown of
Thorns, it is likely that a draft comparable in sketchiness and of similar rudimentary quality to
105
Ibid, 324.
64
the Leipzig drawing once existed for the Superscription.106
This supposition is supported not
only by the probable concurrent creation and evolution of the compositions but also the aesthetic
comparableness between the Palazzo di Venezia bozzetto for the Superscription and the Leipzig
illustration. The most notable characteristic that links the bozzetto to the preceding sketch, and
thus corroborates the figure’s identification as the direct descendant of the illustrative stage, is
the graphic rendering and linearity of the drapery pattern in both media. In the Leipzig drawing,
the angel’s skirt is delineated by diagonal strokes of varying weight and intensity. This schematic
representation of the lower drapery parallels the crisp furrows of the figure’s attire, and the
changing thickness and depth of the inky lines correspond to the superficial scratches and deep
gouges that define the angel’s drapery in clay.
The characterization of the bozzetto as an early model for the Superscription is further
supported by the presence of elements excluded from the final sculpture. For instance, in this
sculpture, a billowing tunnel of fabric has been pushed up to the elbow and cloaks the left arm
while a mushrooming fold of cloth obscures the figure’s waist. Contrastingly, in the final
composition, these elements disappear, and the angel’s arms are left bare and the waist defined
by a diagonally sweeping wave of cloth. In addition, the bottom of the skirt of the Palazzo angel,
which gently bends towards the right, is reversed in the marble sculpture and instead sharply arcs
towards the left foot of the angel. Moreover, the overall effect of the arrangement of drapery is
markedly more reserved and less exciting than that of the finalized work. The downward
striations and diagrammatic aesthetic of the drapery in the Palazzo di Venezia model that so
irrefutably relates the work to the preceding Leipzig stage is absent in the final figure, and
sweeping diagonal waves of cloth replace the clean, polite lines that define the lower portion of
the Palazzo bozzetto. Therefore, the visual similarities that intimately link the bozzetto to the
106
Ibid., 289.
65
Leipzig sketch and the stylistic elements that are not present in the marble sculpture support the
identification of the Palazzo di Venezia terracotta as a manifestation of an early stage in the
creative process for the Superscription.
The Kimbell bozzetto follows the Palazzo di Venezia terracotta as the next model in the
development of the Superscription, a positioning informed by particular attributes of the angel’s
drapery and form. Just as the Palazzo di Venezia bozzetto’s location in the chronology is
confirmed by the presence of certain stylistic elements, the position of the Kimbell bozzetto as a
descendant of the Palazzo di Venezia model derives from drapery details that predict attributes of
the finalized composition. Of these various characteristics, the waistline draping of the angel’s
garments is the most conspicuous and most demonstrative of its place following the Palazzo di
Venezia model; where a burgeoning cloud once surged from the waist of the Palazzo di Venezia
angel to billow at the base of vertical folds of cloth, a belt-like ribbon now restrains diagonal
cascades of drapery, a pattern that resembles the slanted drapes that clothe the marble sculpture.
Furthermore, the dramatically curling ends of drapery that are present in the final composition
have been introduced here in place of the more timid flow of the lower skirts in the Palazzo di
Venezia composition. Thus, the predictive details of the drapery of the Kimbell model verify the
classification of the bozzetto as the inheritor of the Palazzo composition.
While aesthetics can relate two sculptures and confirm the proximity of their creations,
stylistic attributes can also distance one work from another; in this instance, the presence and
absence of certain visual elements confirm the location of the Kimbell model at an intermediate
stage in the evolution for the Superscription. As previously discussed, the ribbon of cloth at the
waist of the angel identifies the work as one sculpted later than the Palazzo bozzetto. However,
this same detail classifies the sculpture as an intermediary piece, despite earlier affirmations by
66
art historians, like Boucher, who have argued for its placement at the end of the Superscription
chronology.107
Though the belt-like strip does somewhat relate the model’s drapery scheme to
the finalized pattern, the effect of the feature lacks the drama and grandeur of the final design in
which a broad, quivering wave of fabric streams diagonally over the angel’s torso before curving
under the upper thigh and sweeping between the legs. Furthermore, minute compositional details
of the marble work are absent in the Kimbell model but appear in later Fogg models, discrediting
the placement of the Kimbell bozzetto at the terminus of the Superscription chronology. One
example is the left elbow of the Kimbell angel, which is held closer to the body than in the
remaining Fogg bozzetti and the finalized sculpture.
Finally, there is a consensus amongst art historians that the Kimbell bozzetti for the
Crown of Thorns and Superscription were created as pairs in time. Therefore, as it has been
determined that the Kimbell bozzetto for the Crown of Thorns was followed by at least one
model, it is likely that as Bernini continued to manipulate the Crown of Thorns after the stage of
the Kimbell models, he simultaneously continued to explore the Superscription in additional
bozzetti. Thus, the variations in the waistline drapery and anatomical orientation of the angel; the
presence of qualities that foreshadow a more energetic design; and the likelihood of added
models extrapolated from the bozzetto’s relationship to the Crown of Thorns timeline support the
characterization of the Kimbell bozzetto as the immediate successor of the Palazzo model.
Following the stage of the Kimbell bozzetto, the composition advances in the now
headless bozzetto for the Superscription in the Fogg Museum, and drapery, once more,
implicates the placement of this model within my established chronology. While the sequencing
of the preceding Kimbell bozzetto was mainly a derivative of the inclusion and exclusion of
small details in its drapery pattern, the placement of the Fogg terracotta more heavily depends on
107
Boucher, catalog, 202.
67
the larger emotional effect of the design. Here, though obscured by the rough, unfinished quality
of the model’s hasty execution, deep, wide furrows of cloth entwine with broad, undulating
swells to shape the angel’s skirts. This contrast of height and interplay of light and dark endows
the scheme with an intensity that, as compared to the more self-conscious, reserved draping of
the Kimbell angel, more faithfully anticipates the energy and motion of the marble sculpture.
Additionally, a broad ripple of fabric softens the severity of the taut stretch of cloth that cuts
across the body of the Kimbell angel and prefigures the arcing wave that will delineate the
angel’s waist for both a later bozzetto and the final sculpture. While characteristics of the angel’s
garment situate the model towards the later stages of design, its crude finish and incompleteness
prevent its classification as the final bozzetto for the Superscription. In the earlier analysis of the
bozzetti for the Crown of Thorns, the Fogg bozzetto supported the notion that final models are
often of a higher finish and more finely detailed in order to facilitate the transition to the larger-
scale modelli. Consequently, the rough rendering of the folds of drapery, lack of definition in the
sculptural base, and disregard for the more minute anatomical and compositional details of this
sculpture suggest that it functioned singularly as a study of drapery and was not intended to be
utilized as a tool in the move to the subsequent modelli stage of sculpting.108
If collectively
considered, the growing drama of the figural composition, the anticipatory details of its drapery
pattern, and the unfinished state of the sculpture identify the headless Fogg bozzetti as the
penultimate model for the Angel with the Superscription.
The remaining Fogg terracotta completes the stepwise evolution of the Angel with the
Superscription, and its location is substantiated by visual features that parallel the finalized
composition and the presence of the distinctive characteristics of a more developed bozzetto and
108
Irving Lavin, “Calculated Spontaneity: Bernini and the Terracotta Sketch,” in Visible Spirit: The Art of
Gianlorenzo Bernini, Vol. I, ed. Irving Lavin (London: The Pindar Press, 2007), 389-392.
68
transitional model. Of the shared attributes present in the model and marble sculpture, the
arrangement of the upper bodies of the angels is most demonstrative of their intimate
compositional relationship. In both works, the angel casts the superscription to the right and
twists away from the offending object, a motion that extends their elbows similar distances from
their torsos. Additionally, as compared to the earlier models for the Superscription, the pinching
motion of the angel on the scroll has been more fully realized and, though still relatively
schematic, accurately anticipates the final action of the angel’s hands. Furthermore, the dramatic
waves of fabric and sweeping billows of cloth of the Fogg terracotta indicate that Bernini used
the model to explore a more active composition, and though the arrangement of drapery would
be tamed in the confines of marble, Bernini seems to have discovered attributes that he would
retain in the marble sculpture. For example, beneath the dramatic elaborations of the drapery in
the Fogg bozzetto, the directional axes of the folds are comparable to those of the final scheme;
swirling whorls of drapery that shield the upper torso are interrupted by a stream of cloth that
surges from the left hip before joining a diagonal cascade that slants leftward through legs of the
angel. Finally, the characterization of the model as the most finalized bozzetto is confirmed by
the deliberate detailing of the model, particularly the careful rendering of its drapery, and the
identification of measuring marks, two attributes that have been previously shown to be unique
traits that jointly signify a transitional function. The presence of these distinctive features, in
conjunction with the various stylistic and compositional commonalities between the Fogg model
and the finalized sculpture, confirm the position of the Fogg bozzetto at the terminus of the
developmental chronology for the Angel with the Superscription.
69
CONCLUSION
In the history of art, the eminence and prestige of a sculptor are often defined by the
individual’s finished works that persist as lasting manifestations of genius and talent.
Consequently, the scholarship of art historians has largely fixated on the analyses of these
completed sculptures. However, since the pioneering work of Irving Lavin in 1955, there has
been a shift in focus, and bozzetti have begun to command attention as significant works in their
own right. These clay models, which exist as visual records of the stylistic and structural
transformation of a composition, can provide insight into the methodological approach of the
artist. Through the analyses of these preparatory figures and the timeline of their creation, we can
gain a more nuanced understanding of the artist’s modus operandi that bridged imagination and
execution.
For the historic Ponte Sant’Angelo, a remarkable collection of eight bozzetti and two
drawings survives as traceable evidence of the compositional metamorphosis of the Angel with
the Crown of Thorns and Angel with the Superscription, now in Sant’Andrea delle Fratte.
Previous scholarship has presented varying hypotheses regarding the chronology of these models
that attempt to elucidate the creative process of consummate sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Of
the existing literature, art historians Mark S. Weil, Charles Avery, Bruce Boucher, C. D.
Dickerson, and Anthony Sigel have presented among the most noteworthy and foundational of
analyses. Weil, in both his original and revised discussions of the bozzetti, establishes the
groundwork for future research, recounting each extant sketch and model for the angel sculptures
while proposing their categorization based on stylistic similarities to the earliest sketch and
finalized works. In the later monograph chronicling the life and works of Bernini, Avery presents
70
a more linear chronology that suggests the Superscription and Crown of Thorns compositions
were first realized in drawings before evolving and maturing in tangible sketch models. Notably,
Avery proposes that Bernini’s creative process was characterized by a classical approach to
sculpting wherein the basic form of a figure was established before the application of more
superficial decorative elements, such as drapery. Boucher, in his subsequent study of the
surviving preparatory material for the Ponte Sant’Angelo angels, counters Avery’s separation of
drawings and models and instead proposes an integrated multimedia process in which both
sketches and bozzetti functioned equally throughout the genesis and realization of the sculptures.
Finally, the accompanying catalog for the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Bernini: Sculpting in
Clay exhibition offers an alternative analysis of the bozzetti. Specifically, authors C. D.
Dickerson and Anthony Sigel corroborate Weil and Boucher’s earlier proposition that sketches
and models possessed equal and continued significance throughout Bernini’s creative process
and include the most recent and, likely, the most accurate chronology of the drawings and
bozzetti for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and Angel with the Superscription.
While these previous suppositions have proposed various classifications and sequences
for the angel bozzetti, the stylistic and technical qualities of the figures suggest a two-phased
process in which the fundamental forms of sculptural figures were first established before the
overlying details and drapery were considered. From this graduated advancement of the Crown
of Thorns and Superscription, we can infer that Bernini worked deliberately, beginning with the
most basic attributes of a sculpture before progressing to the more complex, formal elements of a
composition. Furthermore, the timelines for the Crown of Thorns and Superscription angels
illustrate the sustained, comparable functionality of both sketches and models in the stepwise
exploration and realization of the figures. The existence of angels sketched and modeled in
71
various stages of development implies that Bernini began with drawings at each stage before
advancing to a more in-depth study in clay. Thus, though unrefined and often unfinished, the
terracotta bozzetti for the Angel with the Crown of Thorns and Angel with the Superscription
represent a metamorphic itinerary that manifests the developing stages of the compositions.
The remarkable nature of the existence of the bozzetti and the matter of their unconfirmed
completeness as an evolving sculptural series complicate their study as evidence of Bernini’s
methodology. While these models undoubtedly command scholarly attention as testaments to
Bernini’s sculptural process, the exceptionality of their survival could be indicative of
extraordinary and unique circumstances that render broad conclusions regarding Bernini’s
sculpting techniques unsound. Consequently, any conclusions drawn from the analyses of the
chronologies for the Crown of Thorns and Superscription bozzetti would not be wholly
representative of Bernini’s modus operandi and merely of this one particular commission.
Additionally, the extant bozzetti series as a complete collection of the preparatory models, as I
have previously argued, is doubtful, which impedes a thorough ascertainment of the nuances of
Bernini’s sculpting methodology. It is possible that lost or destroyed drawings and bozzetti may
have captured additional stages of the evolution of the angels’ designs. Thus, though there has
been undeniable progress made in the scholarship on Bernini, the immensity of Bernini as a
sculptor and the intricacy of his designs and techniques necessitate further study in order to
better appreciate and more fully comprehend his modus operandi.
Through my analysis and discussion of the extant bozzetti for the Ponte Sant’Angelo
angels, I have endeavored to extrapolate a broader understanding of Bernini’s working process in
order to provide a firm platform that would facilitate the resolution of the remaining research
questions on Bernini’s methodology. Among these lingering questions, the identification of the
72
source from which Bernini derived the serpentine bodies of the angels remains a particularly
complex matter that has precipitated various dissimilar hypotheses. While suggestions like
Weil’s Cathedra Petri, Boucher’s Apoxyomenos by Lysippos, Dickerson and Sigel’s Belvedere
Antinous by Praxiteles, and my own supposition of the amalgamation of Lysippan and
Praxitelean works are likely, an irrefutable identification is impossible without further visual or
documentary evidence. However, I suggest that alternate propositions that can also explain the
aesthetic parallel between classical sculptures and Bernini’s curvilinear angels deserve
investigation. It is necessary to likewise consider, for instance, the influence of other classical
works scattered throughout the city of Rome or the possible inheritance of Bernini’s classical
aesthetic from more immediate predecessors, such as Michelangelo (1475-1564) or
Giambologna (1529-1608). In particular, I hypothesize that Giambologna’s many small bronze
figures merit further study. Due to their wide dissemination and popularity among erudite
collectors, these graceful, serpentine forms would have been familiar to Bernini in the
seventeenth century. This seems a promising avenue for future inquiry, as Giambologna’s small
bronzes could not only have inspired the fluid pose of Bernini’s angels but could also have
influenced the style of earlier marbles for Cardinal Scipione Borghese in their complex
compositions and unparalleled dynamism.109
Furthermore, to resolutely contextualize his sculpting methodology, it is necessary to
consider the distinctiveness of his approach among his contemporaries as well as the impact, if
any, of his methodology on later generations of artisans. In spite of the unresolved and, perhaps,
unanswerable questions that endure, the bozzetti remain, thus far, our greatest insight into the
109
For more on Giambologna’s small bronzes, please see Michael W. Cole, Ambitious Form: Giambologna,
Ammanati and Danti in Florence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). For the most recent treatment of the
collection of small bronzes in Early-Modern Italy, see Antico: The Golden Age of Renaissance Bronzes, ed.
Eleonora Luciano (Washington DC: National Gallery of Art, 2011).
73
genius of Bernini, recording the mechanistic workings of the sculptural methodology that
transformed Rome and incontestably established Gian Lorenzo Bernini as the leading sculptor of
his age.
74
IMAGE LIST
75
Fig. 3b
The Ponte Sant’Angelo and the
Roman Borgo
Fig. 3a
The Ponte Sant’Angelo and Castel Sant’Angelo
Fig. 1
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with the
Superscription, marble,
Sant’Andrea delle Fratte, Rome
Fig. 2
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with the Crown
of Thorns, marble,
Sant’Andrea delle Fratte, Rome
76
Fig. 4
Ponte Sant’Angelo (A) in relation to St. Peter’s Basilica and the Roman Borgo
Fig. 5 Reverse with an image of the Pons Aelius,
Medal of the emperor Hadrian, 134AD, bronze
Fig. 6
Pietro Bernini, detail, Saint Bartholomew,
1602-1603, marble, Ruffo Chapel, St.
Philip Neri, Naples
77
Fig. 7
Pietro Bernini and Gian Lorenzo
Bernini, Bacchanal: A Faun Teased
by Children, 1616-1617, marble,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York City
Fig. 8a
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Model for
the Fountain of the Moor, 1653,
clay, modello, Kimbell Art
Museum, Fort Worth
Fig. 9a
Right: Stefano Maderno,
Hercules and Antaeus, 1622,
clay, Galleria Giorgio Frenetti Fig. 9b
Stefano Maderno, detail, Hercules
and Antaeus
Fig. 8b
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, detail, Model
for the Fountain of the Moor
78
Fig. 10
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Triton Fountain, 1642-
1643, travertine, Piazza Barberini, Rome
Fig. 11
Stefano Maderno,
Eagle Fountain,
1611-1612, Vatican
Gardens
Stefano
Maderno, detail,
Eagle Fountain
79
Fig. 12
Michelangelo Buonarroti, Hercules and
Cacus, 1528, bozzetto, terracotta,
Casa Buonarroti
View showing scale of Hercules and
Cacus, bozzetto
Fig. 13
Michelangelo Buonarroti, Torso,
bozzetto, terracotta, British Museum
80
Figure 16
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with
the Superscription, bozzetto,
Fogg Museum, Cambridge
Figure 15
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel
with the Superscription, bozzetto,
clay, Fogg Museum, Cambridge
Figure 14
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with the
Superscription, bozzetto, clay,
Palazzo di Venezia, Rome
Figure 17
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with the
Superscription, bozzetto, Kimbell Art
Museum, Fort Worth
81
Figure 21
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with
the Crown of Thorns, bozzetto,
Fogg Museum, Cambridge
Figure 20
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with
the Crown of Thorns, bozzetto, Fogg
Museum, Cambridge
Figure 18 Gian Lorenzo Bernini and Giulio Cartari
(?), Angel with the Superscription, bozzetto,
State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
Figure 19
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with
the Crown of Thorns, bozzetto,
clay, Louvre Museum, Paris
82
Figure 23
Paolo Naldini, Angel with the Crown
of Thorns, bozzetto, State Hermitage
Museum, St. Petersburg
Fig. 24
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with
the Scourge, bozzetto, Fogg
Museum, Cambridge
Figure 25
Ercole Ferrata, Angel with the
Cross, bozzetto, clay, State
Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
Fig. 22
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with
the Superscription, bozzetto,
Kimbell Museum, Fort Worth
83
Fig. 28
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Angel with the Superscription,
drawing, Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica, Rome
Fig. 27 Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Detail, Cathedra
Petri, St. Peter’s Basilica, Rome
Fig. 26
Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Angel with the
Crown of Thorns, pensiero, Museum
der bildenden Künste, Leipzig
84
Fig. 29
Lysippos (330 BCE), The Vatican
Apoxyomenos, marble, Museo Pio-
Clementino, Vatican City
Fig. 30
Roman copy of Greek statue of school of
Praxiteles (300 BCE), Belvedere Antinous,
marble, Museo Pio-Clementino, Vatican City
Fig. 31b
Detail, Apollo and Daphne
Fig. 32b
Detail, Belvedere Apollo Fig. 32a
Roman copy of bronze original (350-325
BC), Belvedere Apollo, 20-140, marble,
Museo Pio-Clementino, Vatican City
Fig. 31a
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Apollo
and Daphne, 1622-1625, marble,
Galleria Borghese, Rome
85
Fig. 34
Agasias of Ephesus, Belvedere Gladiator,
100 BCE, marble, Louvre Museum, Paris
Fig. 35a
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, St. Longinus,
1629-1638, marble, St. Peter’s Basilica,
Vatican City
Fig. 36a
The Old Centaur, Furietti Centaurs,
Hellenistic, marble, Louvre
Museum, Paris
Fig. 33
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, David, marble,
1623-1624, Galleria Borghese, Rome
86
Fig. 35b
Detail, St. Longinus
Fig. 36b
Detail, The Old Centaur
Fig. 38
Agesander, Athenodoros, and
Polydorus, Laocoön Group, 25 BCE,
marble, Vatican Museums, Vatican City
Fig. 37
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Daniel in the
Lion’s Den, 1655-1657, marble,
Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome
87
APPENDICES
Pictorial Representations of the Bozzetti Chronologies for
the Angel with the Superscription and the Angel with the Crown of Thorns
(Order progresses from left to right)
88
Appendix A MARK S. WEIL
Inspiration: First Grouping:
Second Grouping:
Angel with the Superscription,
Fogg Museum Angel with the Superscription,
Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica
Angel with the Superscription,
Kimbell Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Fogg Museum
Angel with the Crown of Thorns,
Fogg Museum
Angel with the Crown of Thorns,
Fogg Museum
Angel with the Crown of Thorns,
Kimbell Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Palazzo di Venezia
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Louvre Museum
Detail, Cathedra Petri, St.
Peter’s Basilica
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Museum der
bildenden Künste, Leipzig
89
Appendix B CHARLES AVERY
Angel with the Superscription,
Fogg Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Fogg Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Kimbell Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Palazzo di Venezia
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Museum der bildenden
Künste, Leipzig
Angel with the Superscription,
Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica
Angel with the Crown of Thorns,
Kimbell Museum
Angel with the Crown of Thorns,
Fogg Museum
Angel with the Crown of Thorns,
Louvre Museum
Angel with the Crown of Thorns,
Fogg Museum
90
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Louvre Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Palazzo di Venezia
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Museum der bildenden
Künste, Leipzig
Appendix C
BRUCE BOUCHER
Angel with the Superscription,
Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Fogg Museum Lysippos (330 B.C.), The Vatican
Apoxyomenos
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Kimbell Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Kimbell Museum
91
Appendix D
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Fogg Museum
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Kimbell Museum
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Fogg Museum Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Louvre Museum
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Museum der
bildenden Künste, Leipzig
Angel with the Superscription,
Fogg Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Fogg Museum Angel with the Superscription,
Kimbell Museum Angel with the Superscription,
Palazzo di Venezia
Angel with the Superscription,
Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica
Roman copy of Greek
statue of school of
Praxiteles (300 B.C.),
Belvedere Antinous
92
Lysippos (330
B.C.), The Vatican
Apoxyomenos
Roman copy of Greek
statue of school of
Praxiteles (300 B.C.),
Belvedere Antinous
Angel with the Superscription,
Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Fogg Museum Detail, Cathedra Petri,
St. Peter’s Basilica
Angel with the Superscription,
Fogg Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Fogg Museum Angel with the Superscription,
Kimbell Museum
Angel with the Superscription,
Palazzo di Venezia
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Louvre Museum
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Kimbell Museum
Angel with the Crown of
Thorns, Fogg Museum Angel with the Crown of Thorns,
Museum der bildenden Künste,
Leipzig
Appendix E
MY TIMELINE
93
BIBLIOGRAPHY
94
Antico: The Golden Age of Renaissance Bronzes, edited by Eleonora Luciano. Washington DC:
National Gallery of Art, 2011.
Avery, Charles. Bernini: Genius of the Baroque. New York: Bulfinch Press, 1997.
Bacchi, Andrea. “The Role of Terracotta Models in Bernini’s Workshop.” In Bernini: Sculpting
in Clay, edited by C. D. Dickerson, Anthony Sigel, and Ian Wardropper, 47-62. New
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013.
Barberini, Maria Giulia. “Base or Noble Material? Clay Sculpture in Seventeenth- and
Eighteenth-Century Italy.” In Earth and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from
Donatello to Canova, edited by Bruce Boucher, 43-59. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2001.
Boucher, Bruce. Catalog of Earth and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to
Canova. Edited by Bruce Boucher, 101-281. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.
Boucher, Bruce. “Bernini’s Models for the Angels of the Ponte Sant’Angelo in Rome.” In Earth
and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, edited by Bruce
Boucher, 60-66. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.
Boucher, Bruce. “Italian Renaissance Terracotta: Artistic Revival or Technological Innovation?”
In Earth and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, edited by
Bruce Boucher, 1-32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.
Burn, Robert. Ancient Rome and its Neighborhood. New York: George Bell and Sons, 1895.
Cole, Michael W. Ambitious Form: Giambologna, Ammanati and Danti in Florence. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2010.
Collins, Michael. The Vatican. New York: Dorling Kindersley Limited, 2011.
Dey, Hendrik W. The Aurelian Walls and the Refashioning of Imperial Rome, AD 271-855. New
95
York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Dickerson, C. D. “Bernini at the Beginning: The Formation of a Master Modeler,” in Bernini:
Sculpting in Clay, edited by C. D. Dickerson, Anthony Sigel, and Ian Wardropper, 3-24.
New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013.
Dickerson, C. D., and Anthony Sigel. Catalog of Bernini: Sculpting in Clay, edited by C. D.
Dickerson, Anthony Sigel, and Ian Wardropper, 109-364. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 2013.
Dickerson, C. D., and Anthony Sigel. Notes to the Catalog of Bernini: Sculpting in Clay, edited
by C. D. Dickerson, Anthony Sigel, and Ian Wardropper, 381-406. New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013.
Grundmann, Stefan. The Architecture of Rome. Fellbach: Axel Menges, 1998.
Hager, Hellmut. “The History and Decoration of the Ponte Sant’Angelo by Mark S. Weil.”
Review of The History and Decoration of the Ponte Sant’Angelo, by Mark S. Weil. The
Art Bulletin 58, 4 (December 1976): 625-629.
Hemingway, Colette Czapski. “Of Clay, and the Initial Stages of Sculpture.” In Sketches in Clay
for Projects by Gian Lorenzo Bernini: Theoretical, Technical, and Case Study vol. 6, ed.
Ivan Gaskell and Henry Lie, 31-36. Cambridge: Harvard University Art Museums, 1999.
Lamontagne, Monique. “Rome: Ponte and Castel Sant’Angelo.” In International Dictionary of
Historic Places: Southern Europe, vol. 3, edited by Trudy Ring, Robert M. Salkin, and
Sharon a Boda, 586-589. London: Routledge, 1995.
Lavin, Irving. “The Bozzetti of Gianlorenzo Bernini.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1955.
Lavin, Irving. “Bernini at St. Peter’s: Singularis in Singulis, in Omnibus Unicus.” In St. Peter’s
in the Vatican, edited by William Tronzo, 111-243. New York: Cambridge University
96
Press, 2005.
Lavin, Irving. “Bozzetti and Modelli: Notes on Sculptural Procedure from Early Renaissance
through Bernini.” In Visible Spirit: The Art of Gianlorenzo Bernini, vol. 1, edited by
Irving Lavin, 33-61. London: Pindar Press, 2007.
Magnuson, Torgil. Rome in the Age of Bernini, vol. 1. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiskell
International, 1986.
Malacrino, Carmelo G. Constructing the Ancient World: Architectural Techniques of the Greeks
and Romans. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2010.
McDonnell, Michael. Lost Treasures of the Bible. Raleigh: Lulu Publishers, 2007.
Middleton, John Henry. The Remains of Ancient Rome, vol. 2. London: Adam and Charles Black,
1892.
Montagu, Jennifer. Roman Baroque Sculpture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Mormando, Franco. Bernini: His Life and His Rome. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2011.
Mormando, Franco. Notes of The Life of Gian Lorenzo Bernini, by Domenico Bernini and Gian
Lorenzo Bernini, 247-430. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press,
2011.
Opper, Thorsten. Hadrian: Empire and Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Pollio, Marcus Vitruvius. “De Architectura.” In, The Proportions of the Human Figure, As
Handed Down to Us by Vitruvius, from the Writings of the Famous Sculptors and Paints
of Antiquity, ed. Joseph Bonomi and John Gibson (Longdon: Dryden Press, 1872.
Originally published in William Wilkins, trans., The Civil Architecture of Vitruvius
(London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1812).
Pulvers, Marvin. Roman Fountains: 2000 Fountains of Rome: a Complete Collection. Rome:
97
L'Erma di Bretschneider, 2002.
Sohm, Philip. “Introduction.” In Painting for Profit, edited by Richard E. Spear and Philip Sohm,
1-31. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2010.
Wardropper, Ian. “Highlights of the Collection.” In European Sculpture: 1400-1900 in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, edited by Ian Wardropper, 10-267. New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2011.
Weil, Mark S. “Bernini Drawings and Bozzetti for the Ponte Sant’Angelo: A New Look.” In
Sketches in Clay, edited by Ivan Gaskell and Henry Lie, 144-150. Cambridge: Harvard
University Art Museums, 1999.
Weil, Mark S. The History and Decoration of the Ponte Sant’Angelo [University Park: Penn
Press, 1974.
Wittkower, Rudolf. Art and Architecture in Italy: 1600-1750, II. High Baroque, 6th
edition.
Edited by Joseph Connors and Jennifer Montagu. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1999.
Wittkower, Rudolf. Gian Lorenzo Bernini: The Sculptor of the Roman Baroque. Phaidon Press:
London, 1997.