The Lute Player (Caravaggio)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lute Player

Caravaggio, c.1596

Oil on canvas

100 × 126,5 cm

Wildenstein Collection

The Lute Player (Giustiniani version)

Caravaggio, c.1600

Oil on canvas

94 × 119 cm

Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg

The Lute Player is a painting by the Italian Baroque master Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. It exists in three versions, one in the Wildenstein Collection once on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, another in the Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg and the other recently came to light from Badminton House, Gloucestershire. The Wildenstein version has been traced to the collection of Caravaggio's patron Cardinal Francesco Del Monte - Caravaggio had been living in the Cardinal's Palazzo Madama as a member of his household since 1595 - while the Saint Petersberg version is from the collection of the artist's other important patron of the period, Del Monte's friend and neighbour, Vincenzo Giustiniani. The Giustiniani version appears to be the earlier of these two, based on x-ray examination.

It shows a boy with soft facial features and thick brown hair, accompanying himself on the lute as he sings a madrigal about love. As in the Uffizi Bacchus, the artist places a table-top in front of the figure. In the St. Petersburg version it is bare marble, with a violin on one side and a still life of flowers and fruit on the other. The second, Wildenstein, version shows the table covered with a carpet and extended forwards to hold a tenor recorder, while the still life is replaced by a spinetta (a small keyboard instrument) and a caged songbird. The musical instruments are valuable and probably come from Del Monte's personal collection. The first version is illuminated by a soft chiaroscuro, inspired by the Brescia masters of the 16th century, characteristic of the early phase of Caravaggio's development. The catalogue to the 1990 exhibition held to mark the identification of the New York Lute Player - which was already known but thought to be a copy by another hand - commented on the markedly different lighting used for this second version, claiming that it "marks a significant step toward the more dramatically lit, highly focused style of Caravaggio's maturity" - i.e., towards the heightened contrast between shadows and light (tenebrism) that would mark paintings such as The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew.

The three versions show musical scores by French or Franco-Flemish composers. The St Petersburg (Giustiniani) version and the recent auction discovery reproduce madrigals by Jacques Arcadelt (1515–1568), and the visible text reads in part: "Vous savez que je vous aime et vous adore...Je fus vôtre." ("You know I love you and adore you...I was yours"). The New York (Wildenstein) version shows songs by Francesco Layolle on a text by Petrarch: Laisse le voile ('Let go the veil') and Pourquoi ne vous donnez-vous pas? ('Why do you not give yourself?') by Giachetto Berchem (Jacquet de Berchem). The flowers and damaged fruit, and the cracked body of the lute, suggest the theme of transience: love, like all things, is fleeting and mortal. The choice of French composers over native Italians no doubt reflects the cultural (and political) affiliations of the pro-French Del Monte-Giustiniani circle.

The still life elements are of an extremely high standard in all versions, the finely rendered fruit and flowers of one equalled by the textures of spinetta and flute in the other, and the artist has reproduced the initial notes of the madrigals so exactly that one can recognize the Roman printer, Valerio Dorica. Nevertheless, critic Jason Kaufman felt that the rendition of the boy in the Wildenstein (the second) version was aesthetically inferior to the Giustiniani, "...the face...hard and the expression less sweet than bovine...[t]he features...more sharply defined, the eyebrows severely geometrized, and the complexion pink, rather than fleshtone." David Van Edwards has written how the 14 peg Lute in the Wildenstein version is a most unusual layout for an Italian lute at this time and discusses many other inconsistencies in instruments featured in the painting - leading him to conclude that the painting is not by Caravaggio. ^[1]

It has been suggested that the rather androgynous model (who has been taken by some observers to be a woman) could be Pedro Montoya, a castrato known to have been a member of the Del Monte household and a singer at the Sistine Chapel at about this time - castrati were highly prized and the Cardinal was a patron of music as well as of painting. More recently Caravaggio biographer Peter Robb has identified him as Caravaggio's companion Mario Minniti, the model for several other paintings from this period including Cardsharps and one of the two versions of The Fortune Teller, both dating from before the artist joined Del Monte's household. There is certainly a strong resemblance between this boy and the one who modeled for Bacchus and other works done for the Cardinal.

Giovanni Baglione in his seventeenth century biography on Caravaggio describes the work as follows:

“E dipinse [per il Cardinale Del Monte]… anche un giovane, che sonava il Lauto, che vivo, e vero il tutto parea con una caraffa di fiori piena d’acqua, che dentro il reflesso d’ua fenestra eccelentemente si scorgeva con altri ripercotimenti di quella camera dentro l’acqua, e sopra quei fiori eravi una viva rugiada con ogni esquisita diligenza finta. E questo (disse) che fu il piu bel pezzo, che facesse mai” (He also painted [for the Cardinal Del Monte] a young man, playing the Lute, who seemed altogether alive and real with a carafe of flowers full of water, in which you could see perfectly the reflection of a window and other reflections of that room inside the water, and on those flowers there was a lively dew depicted with every exquisite care. And this (he said) was the best piece that he ever painted) ^[2]

The Badminton House painting came to light at auction covered in a thick yellow varnish in Sotheby's, New York (January 25, 2001, lot 179) corresponds in all details with the description made by Baglione of the work he saw at Cardinal Del Monte’s, and of which he reported Caravaggio’s pride - “the most beautiful work he ever painted”. The details he described of dewdrops on the flowers, and the reflections in the carafe of water - absent from the Hermitage version of the same subject - are essential ingredients of the subject, and together with its extensive pentiments and incisions show that this is the prime version. Dispersed after the Del Monte sale in 1627, it remained out of sight probably outside of Rome, before being acquired by the 3rd Duke of Beaufort in 1726 and taken to Badminton House. Since its rediscovery in 2001 it has been recognized as by Caravaggio by Sir Denis Mahon, Mina Gregori, & Martin Kemp.

Apollo the Lute Player

Caravaggio, c.1596

Oil on canvas

96 × 121 cm

Ex-Badminton House, Gloucestershire

It is the prime example of Caravaggio’s concentrated lighting from above, and it is appropriate that the underlying theme is one associated with light and vision. This ‘lume unito’ is described by Mancini as ‘a strong light from above with a single window and walls painted black, so that having the lights bright and the shadows dark, it gives depth to the painting, but with a method that is not natural nor done or thought of by any other century or older painters like Raphael, Titian, Correggio and others’. The room seems to be the same, with the light source on the left as opposed to the right, as in the Contarelli Chapel Calling of Saint Matthew, and the beam of light across the rear wall has an upper limit that would appear to be the shutter of the window above the table (in the Calling). The fascination with refraction, illustrated in the carafe, was the subject of much attention in the circle of the admired natural philosopher Giovanni Battista della Porta from Naples, author of the famous Magiae Naturalis (2nd ed. 1589) and De refractione optices published in (1593). The flowers, all of the early spring, make another link with Della Porta, for they are those illustrated in the Magiae Naturalis as ones corresponding to vision. The marigold has the radiating shape of the sun, the yellow cornflower resembles the eye itself, and the iris stands not only for the goddess who was the messenger of the Gods, but also for the rainbow, the eye and the spectrum of colours. Underlying this is the idea of segnatura - the correspondence of forms in the natural world with those in man himself - which links this work with the ideas of Paracelsus, reminding us that Del Monte himself was an alchemist. The musician can be seen as Apollo, as much the god of harmony and music as of light and the Sun, and the seasons he presides over between the flowers of spring and the fruit of autumn represent the moments of equinox when the world is in balance.

The work described by Baglione was done for Del Monte among the first things that Caravaggio undertook for the Cardinal, and it coincided with the studiolo in the Palazzetto (now the Casino Ludovisi) where the artist did the ceiling painting in oil with the Gods, Pluto, Jupiter and Neptune around the globe of the sun in conjunction with the moon. These three gods represent the elements of Earth, Air and Water. The absence of Fire in this setting is to be explained by the presence, in the same space, of Apollo as the god of the Sun and light, and the numerous reciprocal references will be discussed in a forthcoming study. It is easy to see Apollo’s relevance to music, but it is not so familiar to think of music as a branch of mathematics, and so of direct relevance to the natural philosophy that Del Monte and his colleagues pursued. Classical example was keenly followed, and it was Boethius (c 480-524) who established the appellation quadrivium to describe the four mathematical disciplines of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. The subject of the Luteplayer is more to do with the harmony of the the elements than any reference to an actual musician or even music, although the madrigals have been identified as the work of Archadelt.

The technique is a kind of mosaic of observed detail, betraying underlying juxtaposition of positions with characteristic distortions because of the changes of focus. There are numerous pentiments, especially in the flowers, (for example the central daisy is visible in a different position), but also around the hand and fingers of the lutanist, the shirt sleeve, the ear (the infrared image shows a different position), and the outline of the shoulder shows Caravaggio’s habit of painting up to the edge rather than making a linear definition. The powerful sense of volume is created by the close attention to the values of light and shade from the single source of light in the upper left of the picture, and the values of light are due to elements like the white shirt being painted an a darker ground, so the folds display that foundation colour. Further detailed shadow is added, as for example in the tip of the nose, from a meticulous observation of the dark area formed, with a black gel glaze. At the same time, the flowerpiece itself is an element that has a different lighting, both on the flowers and the carafe itself, which seems to have been transposed from another setting. Apart from the similarity of the glass to those in the two known versions of the Boy bitten by a Lizard, the ‘variation on a theme’ of the flowers in the Hermitage version of the subject suggests that the original (and missing) ‘Carafe of Flowers’ that originally belonged to Del Monte, last mentioned in 1628 among the pictures sold from the collection, provided some of the invention; the scale of this missing work, 2 palmi or about 45 cm high, is about that of this feature in the Luteplayer. The sensational realism of the flowers, and the accurate recording of the appearance of the glass (as seen from a single viewpoint), are testimony to the idea recorded from Caravaggio’s lips by Vincenzo Giustiniani, that it was just as much effort to make a good painting of flowers, as of figures. The word that Giustiniani uses ‘ritrarre’ is deceptive, because of its association with portraiture; instead this is a reference to the faithful copying of detail ‘il saper ritrarre fiori, ed altre cose minute’ a technique that demanded, in his words, extraordinary patience. Cardinal Borromeo’s assistant remembered in 1619 that ‘...Caravaggio was such a diligent imitator of Nature, what other painters merely promise, he actually accomplished’.

This optical process relied on a two-dimensional reflected image that was very small in area, and had limited focal depth (a characteristic that is also evident from the shallow depth of the composition as a whole). It seems as though some details like the music itself were painted with the canvas upsidedown (from the character of the ductus of the brushwork of the musical lines). Likewise, the complicated capital letter B of Bassus on the part book has been observed in a real image, while the rest of the letters are copied from a printed page and have a different perspective.

The relationship between this work and the Hermitage version is fascinating, because it shows clearly the process of correction that Caravaggio adopted, a kind of editing of the errors that result from the optical observation process. The out-of-line eyes are straightened, the cheek slightly reduced, the fruit laid on the marble without the hint of the basket or bowl. The process of making a second original was different, and hard to contain - the edge of the canvas bisects important details like the head of the violin and the flowers of the still-life. The music is transferred directly without inverting the canvas, and the anomaly of perspective in the Bassus is reduced. It seems an optical transfer, in the sense that the outlines do coincide area by area, but the replication is not based on a cartoon or a similar mechanical method.

Contents 1 A Repetition 2 Notes 3 Further reading 4 External links

[edit] A Repetition

It would seem the Wildenstein painting is painted after the Badminton work. In both paintings the eyes are out of line at an angle, whilst in the Giustiniani painting they are not. The hand on the fret board of the lute, in the Badminton and Wildenstein painting have the same profile whilst, again, the Giustiniani work has a different profile. X-rays reveal the Wildenstein painting to have a pentiment of the fruit still-life on the left hand side visible underneath the clavichord. The artist obviously started to paint the still life composition and then changed his mind. Such repetition makes it probable that Caravaggio painted the Wildenstein version after finishing or seeing the Badminton version. There is some suggestion that this could have been achieved by transfer by cartoon because of the exactness of the repetition of the eye angle, hand profile and still life visible in the pentiment.

[edit] Notes

1. ^ D. Van Edwards “Caravaggio re-discovered” Lute News, no.50, June 1999 p5-7
2. ^ Giovanni Baglione, Le Vite de’ Pittori, scultori et archtietti, Roma, 1642, p.136

[edit] Further reading

• V. Giustiniani, Discorsi sullearti e sui mestieri. ca.1620 & ca. 1628 [1981], edited by A. Banti, Milan;
• G. Mancini, Considerazioni sulla pittura, 1620 [1956], 2 vols. Edited by A. Marucchi, Rome p.108;
• G. B. Baglione, Le vite de’ oittori scultori et architetti, dal Pontificato di Gregorio XIII del 1572; in fino a’ tempi di Papa Urbano Ottavo nel 1642. (Manuscript written c.1625, cf. Marini 1987), Edited by V. Marini. Rome p.136;
• G. P. Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, scultori e architetti moderni, Rome 1672;
• C. C. Malvasia, Felsina pittrice: Vite de’ pittori Bolognesi, Bologna 1678, 2 vols.;
• O. Sitwell, “The Red Folder. Parts I & II”, The Burlington Magazine, vol. LXXX, May 1942, pp. 85-90, 115-118;
• R. Longhi, Il Caravaggio, Milan 1952.;
• L. Salerno, “The picture gallery of Vincenzo Giustiniani.”, The Burlington Magazine 102, pp. 21-27, 93-104, 135 - 48.;
• C. L. Frommel, “Caravaggios Fruhwerk und der Kardinal Francesco Maria del Monte”, Storia dell’arte 9-12, 1971;
• W. Chandler Kirwin, “Addendum to Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte’s Inventory: the Date of the sale of Various notable Paintings”, Storia dell’arte 9-12, 1971;
• L. Spezzaferro, “Lacultura del cardinal Del Monte e il primo tempo del Caravaggio”, Storia dell’arte 9-12, 1971;
• M. Lavin, Seventeenth Century Barberini Documents and Inventories of Art, New York;
• A. Moir, Caravaggio and his Copyists, New York 1976, under appendix I, p.85, no. 8g, illus. Fig. 20;
• F. T. Camiz, “Due quadri musicali di scuola caravaggesca”, Musica e filologia, 1983 pp. 99-105.;
• F. T. Camiz and A. Ziino, “Caravaggio: Aspetti musicali e committenza” Studi Musicali 12, 1983, pp.67-83.;
• M. Cinotti, Caravaggio. Tutte le opere, Bergamo 1983, p. 447-450;
• H. Hibbard, Caravaggio, New York 1983.;
• F. T. Camiz, in Cinque secoli di stampa musicale in Europa. Exhib.cat., Palazzo Venezia, Rome. Naples. 1985.;
• K. Wolfe, “Caravaggio: another Lute Player”, The Burlington Magazine, vol. CXXVII, July 1985, P. 452 (footnote), illus. P. 450, fig. 28.;
• P. Giusti Maccari, Pietro Paolini, pittore lucchese, 1603-1681, Lucca 1987.;
• G. de Marchi, “Guiseppi Ghezzi mostre di quadri a San Salvatore in Lauro 1628-1725”, Miscellanea della soietà Romana di Storia Patria, vol. 27, 1987;
• M. Marini, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio ‘pictor praestantissimus’, 1987, p.378.;
• F.Trinchieri Camiz, The Castrato Singer: From Informal to Formal Portraiture”, Artibus et Historiae, vol. 18, 1988, pp. 171-186;
• F. Trinchieri Camiz, “La ‘Musica’ nei dipinti di Caravaggio.” Quaderni di Palazzo Venezia, no.6, pp. 151-76.;
• B. Nicolson, Caravaggism in Europe, vol. I, 1989, p.82;
• D. Mahon, “The singing Lute Player by Caravaggio from the Barberini Collection, painted for Cardinal del Monte”, The Burlington Magazine, vol CXXXII, no.1042, January 1990, pp7 (footnote 25), 13 (footnote 63), 20 (footnote 112), illus. P. 14, fig. 6;
• K. Christiansen, “Some Observations on the relationship between Caravaggio’s two treatments of the Lute-Player”, The Burlington Magazine, vol CXXXII, no.1042, January 1990;
• K. Christiansen, in “Caravaggio Rediscovered: The Lute Player”, Exh. Cat., Metropolitan Museum, New York 1990;
• M. Calvesi, “La caraffa di fiori e I fiflessi di luce nella pittura del Caravaggio”, in Atti del Convegno Int. di Studi M.M. da Caravaggio 1995, p227-247;
• S. D. Squarzina, “Caravaggio e i Giustiniani”, in Atti del Convegno Int. di Studi M.M. da Caravaggio 1995 p.94-111;
• C. L. Frommel, “Caravaggio, Minniti e il Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte”, in Caravaggio. La Vita e le Opere attraverso I documenti. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi. Rome 1996, p.18-41;
• D. Van Edwards “Caravaggio re-discovered” Lute News, no.50, June 1999 p5-7
• L. Buaer & S. Colton, “Tracing in some works by Caravaggio”, The Burlington Magazine, vol. CXLII, no. 1168, July 2000, p. 426, footnote 18, illus. Fig. 23;
• M. Kemp, ‘The cut-and-paste Carafe’, in Nature,, Vol. 420, 28 Nov. 2002, p. 364.;
• M. Gregori, La Natura Morta Italiana. Da Caravaggio al Settecento, exh. cat., Munich & Florence 2003, pp. 138-9;
• W. Bennett, “Picture sold for £75,00 is a Caravaggio worth millions” Daily Telegraph, Wednesday July 14th 2004, p.7

[edit] External links

• Discovery of the Wildenstein version