pierre puget's projects for the church of santa maria assunta di carignano

Pierre Puget's Projects for the Church of Santa Maria Assunta di CarignanoAuthor(s): Guy WaltonSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Mar., 1964), pp. 89-94Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048144 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 10:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.146 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:31:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048144?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


NOTES 89

phase of Annibale's development, one that is approxi- mated by the final fresco version of Europa (Fig. 5).

The pen and wash drawings, The Sacrifice of Pelias (Louvre), the first Europa (Ellesmere Collection) and Jason and Aeta (Munich), are related in style, technique and medium (Figs. 9, 4, 3). This group contains the modello for one of the first scenes created in the Jason Cycle, the Jason and Aeta. The other drawings by Annibale, in black chalk with white heightening on darker paper form a second group (Figs. 6, 10, 12). Since it contains a final study for Europa (Gernsheim Collection) it must be later than the pen and wash series which includes the discarded version of this scene (Ellesmere Collection). The Gernsheim Europa was, in fact, our first evidence of Annibale's stylistic breakthrough. But neither it, nor the related fresco, nor the two hornplayers (Figs. 6, 5, 14) as fully develops the concept of uniting flowing drapery with the pose of the figure as is done in the Jason and Cheiron or 1585 Baptism, which were painted in rapid succession (Figs. 7, 11). Therefore the hornplayers and Europa should be placed between the other fresco scenes we have investigated; the early Jason and Aeta and the late Jason and Cheiron. They demonstrate Annibale's style when he was first trying to assimilate Correggio's influence into his own creative mode.

The scene representing Jason and Cheiron shows signs of a strong Correggiesque influence. The pallbearers in the fresco are endowed with the same rhythmic intensity as Correggio's figures; St. Joseph in the Madonna della Scodella, for example (Fig. 8)." In both works the coincidence of billowing drapery and lilting poses creates a sense of dynamic movement that prevents the forms from becoming elegant and decorative abstractions. Furthermore, both the figures and physiognomies are comparable to Correggio's on a strict Morellian basis."5 Even the curvilinear motif that carries across the picture plane and concurrently back through space as well, is similar in both examples (Fig. 7). These qualities are absent in the earlier Jason and Aeta where the composition is made of

separate, static, horizontal and vertical elements, and the independent drapery rhythms leave the figures lifeless actors, frozen in theatrical gestures (Fig. I). The pointing man to the left of this panel, and the

pallbearers in the later fresco, representing two poles of Annibale's style in 1584 (Figs. x, 8), are connected by the hornplayers in the Sacrifice of Pelias

(Fig. I4). An incipient vitality manifests itself here, inasmuch as the drapery now curves around the figures, revealing their underlying organic structure. In this light, they are practically identical with the draped figures in Correggio's Camera di San Paolo, painted early in his career."26 This is not to suggest that Anni- bale directly borrowed from these frescoes, but rather that in the process of remodeling his style on Cor- reggio's example, he passed through similar stages of development. This speaks of the consistency of his orientation in 1584, since even at this point of transi- tion, the only certain evidence we have indicates that

Correggio alone can account for his amazing meta-

morphosis.

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI

24. Now National Gallery, Parma. The painting dates from ca. 1528-1530 (C. Ricci, Correggio, London and New York, 1930, pp. 172-173, pl. CLXIV).

25. For example, compare the pose of the small boy im- mediately in front of the pallbearers with that of St. Joseph, or his physiognomy with that of the Madonna (Ibid., pls. CLXIV, CLxvI and our Fig. 8).

26. Most likely painted ca. x518 (Ibid., pp. 45-47). Compare the figures of Vesta, Ceres and Fortune to the hornplayers, especially in relation to the drapery folds (Ibid., pls. LXIX, LXXIV, LXXVIII).

PIERRE PUGET'S PROJECTS FOR THE

CHURCH OF SANTA MARIA ASSUNTA

DI CARIGNANO'

GUY WALTON

Pierre Puget (x620-x694) created some of his most magnificent marble sculptures, the St. Sebastian and the Blessed Alexander Sauli, and designed other grandiose projects which were never executed, for the Church of Santa Maria Assunta di Carignano in Genoa. The church was exceptionally important in

Puget's artistic career, providing him with some of his best opportunities to create the large-scale works which were so well suited to his talents.

The substantial number of surviving studies and

projects for these works by Puget have not been sought out and studied systematically since Lagrange published his monograph in I868.2 My recent search for Puget's drawings and bozzetti turned up some previously un- known material related to the projects for the church. The present note is the first step toward coordinating all the preparatory material with the documents preserved in the church archives and with other related visual material. Puget's studies for each work will be dealt with here in chronological order whenever it is

possible to determine the correct sequence. The Carignano church was privately owned by

the Sauli family of Genoa. A large building had been erected on the top of a hill to the east of the center of the city by the architect Galeazzo Alessi in the second

i. This note has developed from research done toward

my Ph.D. dissertation. It was made possible by a Fulbright grant (which allowed me to spend a year in France and

Italy) and considerable support, both moral and financial from the Institute of Fine Arts of New York University. Prof. Walter Friedlaender suggested the possibility of research on Puget to me and has subsequently supplied help, encouragement, and inspiration.

2. L. Lagrange, Pierre Puget, Paris, I868. This mono-

graph contains the only catalogue of Puget's works: sculptures, paintings, architecture, and drawings (bozzetti were



90 THE ART BULLETIN

half of the sixteenth century.8 After the completion of the building the embellishment of the interior appears to have advanced slowly.

Puget's arrival in Genoa can be dated with some precision in January of 1661.' Pare Bougerel and other eighteenth century biographers of the sculptor leave no doubt of the reason for which he went there: to obtain marble for some garden statues for Fouquet's new chateau, Vaux-le-Vicomte.5 His first year or so in Genoa is undocumented. Presumably much of the time was spent choosing the Vaux-le-Vicomte marbles, but the nine months between his arrival and the fall of the Prime Minister on September 5, I661, which must have precipitated Puget's decision to remain in

Italy, may also have been spent on other works. Only one dated work from this period exists, a bookplate en-

graved by B. Tiboust, of I66I, when the book was published.6 By 1662 Puget must have been fully launched. He began the main altar of the venerable church of San Siro, Genoa's first cathedral, in that year.

Puget appears to have been hired by the Sauli for the

Carignano church in either 1662 or 1663. A document of June 22, 1663, refers to him as "Pietro Puget francese architetto" and he is paid a wage (mercede).' A letter of May 22, 1663, mentions Puget's presence in Toulon on a short trip and says that in Genoa he is

being paid Iooo eJcus (per year?) plus the price of his works.8

His first documented work for the church was the

design for an altar to be constructed under the dome

(cupola). The document of June 1663 is a payment for a model of the structure.9 The style and the

iconography of a very large drawing in the Mus6e Granet at Aix-en-Provence indicate that it is for the project mentioned in the document."1 The drawing represents a baldachino which is based on that by Bernini in Saint Peter's in Rome (thus well suited to a location under a dome) but crowned with an Assumption of the Virgin and a shield showing the Sauli arms. The Carignano church was dedicated to the Madonna of the Assumption.

The documentation for two of the niche statues in the piers under the central dome, which were executed by Puget, leaves the date when they were

begun unclear. This renders it impossible to determine whether they were conceived together with the baldachino as part of an over-all project for the decoration of the church. The only document referring to the niche statues is a payment in May 1668 for the transporta- tion of the Alexander Sauli and the St. Sebastian to the

Carignano church." A certain amount of circumstantial evidence argues

for the simultaneous planning of the niche statues with the baldachino-particularly the connection of the decoration of the church with Gian Lorenzo Bernini. The Genoese church was ideally suited to some adap- tation of Bernini's Saint Peter's solution, as the build-

ing itself was a conscious imitation of certain sixteenth

century projects for Saint Peter's and the interior, though much reduced in scale, is in structure a cen- tralized Saint Peter's.12 Bernini's Saint Peter's project

included among the sculptures). The catalogue is very dated but astonishingly thorough.

3. For the most recent account of the construction of the church by Alessi see E. de Negri, Galeazzo Alessi, Genoa, 1957, PP. 35ff.

4. For the only study in detail of Puget in Genoa see M. Labb, "Pierre Puget

' Genes," Actes du Congres de

l'Histoire de 'PArt, Paris 1921 (published 1924) Section III, pp.

541ff. The date of Puget's arrival was established by P.

Auquier, Pierre Puget, Paris, n.d., p. 35, but he failed to discuss his reasons. Documents in the Toulon archives con- firm a stay in that city at the end of 1660.

5. Pere J. Bougerel, Memoires pour servir d l'histoire de

plusieurs Hommes Illustres de Provence, Paris, 1752. Bougerel is the most important of the early biographers of Puget. Twelve marbles were eventually sent to France. See the letter from De La Guette to Colbert of November 7, 1662, published in Archives de Part frangais, No. 7, Vol. 4, Paris, 1854.

6. Contrary to the opinions of nearly all modern writers the Hercule Gaulois now in the Louvre is not documented in 1661. Such a dating was linked to the assertion by Mariette in the A becedario that the work had been made for Fouquet and consequently begun before his fall. Auquier, op.cit., had even dated the tcole des Beaux-Arts (Paris) bozzetto before

Puget's departure from Paris. The dependence of both bozzetto and marble on a composition by Castiglione preserved in a drawing in Windsor Castle (A. Blunt, Drawings by G. B.

Castiglione and Stephano Della Bella at Windsor Castle, London, 1954, fig. 35) and in an even closer version in a sheet of studies attributed to Puget, but probably by Cas-

tiglione, in the Atger collection, Montpellier, excludes this

hypothesis. Castiglione was in Genoa in 1661 and his Her- cules drawing may date from that time (see Blunt, op.cit., p. 17) but that does not establish the date of Puget's work with any

precision. Mariette says he is willing to accept Bougerel's dating, 1664, for the marble.

7. For the text of the document see note 9 below. 8. Letter from De La Guette to Colbert. Published in

Archives de Part franCais, Paris, 1854, No. 7, Vol. 4. 9. This document and all the others for the church were

published by S. Varni in Spigolature artistiche nell'Archivo della Basilica di Carignano, Genoa, 1877, pp. 75ff. The book is

exceptionally difficult to find. I am indebted to Dr. Piero Tor- riti in Genoa who was kind enough to supply me with some

transcriptions which I had lost. The text reads: 1663, 22

giugno, Speaso di un modello dell'altar maggiore in mezzo della chiesa sotto la cupola, per giornate di maestri e lavoranti a . a L.356, 4-. E per prezzo di legnami, tavole chiodi et altro L.671, i7-. E per Pietro Puget francese architetto, per sua mercede L.485, 1o-.

1o. For the attribution in the early sources see Lagrange,

op.cit., cat. no. 172. 11. 1668, 12 maggio. Conto delle statue o sia figure di

marmo, una di San Sebastiano e l'altra del beato Alessandro

Saoli, opera di Monsieur Pietro Pogget francese, per uso della nostra chiesa di Carignano. . . . Per spese per condur dette statue di strada Balbi alla nostra chiesa In Carignano, L.2855, 19-. Per lire ottomila si fan buone a Pietro Pogget francese, per fattura di esse in vertu del concerto . . . L.8ooo, -. E per lire 2573,6 o si fan buone all'istesso, cioe

L.144o per fattura di un putto aggiunto alla statua del beato Alessandro, et il resto per spese... L.2573, 6-. E. per L.3303, 19-. Si fan buone al detto Pietro per li marmi e condotte di essi a Genova, pigione della stanza ed altro per esso. L. .... 3303, 19-.

12. Alessi himself gives the best evidence for this deriva- tion in a letter "... Gli ornamenti (of the Carignano church) che desidero si facino ripartiti secondo usavano gli antiqui



NOTES 91

consisted of a central altar under a baldachino and of niche statues in the crossing piers, just the program Puget probably instituted. It is not impossible that the

patrons may have wished to maintain the idea of the church as a small Saint Peter's.

The architectural-modello size (nearly two meters high) of the Mus6e Granet drawing greatly enhances an appreciation of Puget's achievement. The drawing is on several large attached pieces of paper. In its present state the background has been painted in with a light blue paint, probably, though not necessarily, modern, which detracts from the exceptional quality of the penwork. The actual drawing is in fact so fine as to suggest that a considerable portion if not all of the work was done by the master himself. It has such presence as to stand as a work of art in its own right.

Puget's baldachino is a substantial revision of Ber- nini's masterpiece, transforming completely the feeling of the model on which it is based. An entirely new dynamism is achieved by an important shift of empha- sis. In Saint Peter's the four giant columns were the

predominant element of the composition. Puget instead reduced their size and gave predominance to the superstructure. The key to Puget's composition appears to be the large sculptural group of the Assump- tion which was to crown it. The group as he conceived it called for massive support. The canopy of the Saint Peter's baldachino was abandoned for more substantial architectural forms. The four scrolls which merely em- bellish the Saint Peter's baldachino are here given an important structural role. Corner elements such as the four large angels on the Saint Peter's baldachino which tend to obscure the scrolls were eliminated. The shortened columns were strengthened by doubling. The shape of the cornice was radically changed, the corners cantered. A continuity of line was thus established from the doubled column bases to the Madonna assunta.

A fine small version of the Mus6e Granet drawing, faithful to the smallest detail, exists in the Mus6e Long- champ in Marseilles (Fig. I). Its style gives little reason to doubt that it is a drawing by Puget or a member of his workshop. This small, careful version might be either a final preliminary study, later enlarged for presentation, or a subsequent copy, more portable and consequently more easily used.

A drawing of one of the details of the baldachino is also preserved in the Mus6e Longchamp. It represents the composition of the relief destined for the base of one of the corner pairs of columns, the only one of the reliefs entirely visible in the Mus6e Granet drawing. A heavily draped woman is shown reclining. She supports her chin with her right hand and her elbow rests on a large pulley. In her left hand she

holds what appears to be a portion of a ship's mast entwined with a stout rope. Her attributes tend to

suggest that she may have some maritime significance, though her exact meaning cannot be determined because the reliefs on the bases of the other three corners are hidden, and the full iconographic meaning of the upper section is obscure.

The style of this relief permits speculation about Puget's most important lost work, the relief of the Assumption of the Virgin, executed for the Duke of Mantua in Genoa before his death in 1665. Both the baldachino relief and even more emphatically the Assumption on top of the baldachino seem to depend on the Genoese painter G. B. Castiglione. Puget's baldachino Assumption in fact closely reproduces a group known from a Castiglione drawing of about this time preserved in Windsor Castle (see Blunt, The Drawings by G. B. Castiglione and Stephano Della

Bella at Windsor Castle, London, 1954, cat. no. 159), though Castiglione's drawing appears dependent upon Guido Reni's famous Assumption in the Church of Saint Ambrose in Genoa and Puget appears to have worked in a putto directly from the Reni which was excluded by Castiglione. The comparison of the As-

sumption compositions alone might not be absolutely convincing, as the theme was so common, but it is backed by important circumstantial evidence. Puget is known to have admired Castiglione and to have sent his son

Francois to study painting with him. Castiglione

was in Genoa for some time shortly after Puget's arrival and then returned to Mantua, where he was court painter. Both the relief commission and the sub-

sequent invitation to Puget to come and work in Man- tua might well have been due to his influence."

A document of 1665 might indicate that some kind of preliminaries may have been undertaken for the construction of Puget's central main altar: Puget's assistant Solaro was paid for materials and work on the main altar in 1665.14 Whether this document ap- plies to work on Puget's baldachino is not clear; it does not, however, apply to the existing main altar in the apse of the church, since that altar was designed some years later. More information would be necessary to determine whether Puget's project ever advanced beyond the model.

The sequence of the several studies which have come down to us for the Alexander Sauli is difficult to establish. There is a document which refers to an alteration of the composition; the addition of an angel is indicated in the payments.15 This information is somewhat confusing when applied to the preparatory studies, for while two distinctly different types of com-

nei tempij loro, e come ho visto in alcuni luoghi gia quasi dal tempo consumati, nel portico di San Pietro di Roma et in la Rotonda . . ." in Varni, op.cit., p. 55. The central plan and exterior seem to be based on various projects from Bra- mante's to Michelangelo's.

13. The Duke of Mantua died in 1665. Bougerel reports that after receiving the relief the Duke sent two gentlemen

to bring Puget to Mantua but the journey was abandoned when the Duke died.

14. 1665, 26 novembre. Conto di marmi et fattura del altar maggiore per Maestro Carlo Solaro, per quanto im-

portanto i detti lavori. L.3622 -. IS. See note xo for the text.



92 THE ART BULLETIN

position are preserved, both include an angel. The possibility that all the compositions preserved in preliminary studies may be different ideas for the final or angel phase must be allowed.

A beautiful unpublished drawing (Fig. 2) in the little-known collection of the Mus6e Grobet in Mar- seilles inscribed in the lower left corner in Puget's hand, P. Puget Mass.s Inv delinea, shows a type unlike the final marble sculpture. This composition has long been known, minus the figure's right hand, in a bozzetto in the Musee Granet at Aix-en-Provence."6 Both the inscription and the highly finished execution of the drawing (in several media-pencil, brown ink, brown wash, white heightening) indicate that it was intended for presentation to the patrons. This compositional type differs from the marble in the reduced use of the Saint's attributes, the action and pose of the putto, and the arrangement of the robes.

Another composition (Fig. 3), closer to but still not identical with the final solution, is preserved in a fine unpublished bozzetto in the collection of Dr. Julius Boehler in Munich."? Dr. Boehler's sketch has a certain vivid billowing quality in the drapery similar to the Aix bozzetto which was regularized in the marble sculpture, and its putto leans away from the figure of the bishop rather than burying his head in the folds of the robe as in the marble, but nevertheless the attributes and the general arrangement of the final version are present. The principal difference between this composition (and the marble) and the Musde Grobet drawing is in the increased importance given the figure's attributes of office; even an indication of his personal wealth is included by the addition of an urn which generously spills out alms. The change may well have been at the insistence of the patron family, for Genoa was the home of a particular kind of full-length portrait statue of the patron as alms-giver, best ex- emplified by the intimidating statues in the staircases of the Albergo dei Poveri.' Generous though they oc- casionally were, the Genoese patricians insisted on full credit for their charitable actions. If, as I imagine, Puget was obliged to follow a similar tradition, he managed to do so artfully and to retain a religious feeling in his figure by its upward glance toward the

light-filled dome and the heavens. Alexander ignores his attributes, leaving even the support of his crook to the putto. This composition is one of the most convincing representations of a masculine ecstasy to emerge from the seventeenth century.

Recently another bozzetto for the Sauli statue has come to my attention here in America. It shows a refinement of the Boehler bozzetto's composition. In fact the only difference between it and the marble is a slight twist of the putto's head. The execution of a new bozzetto for this minor change serves to under- score the careful study which Puget put into the alteration of the statue.19

The Grobet museum possesses a beautiful bozzetto (Fig. 5), labeled a study for the Alexander Sauli (that is, presumably, for the Carignano marble). The identi- fication is incorrect for two reasons: the Saint, though represented with suitable crook and book attributes, appears by his dress to be a member of a monastic order; and the statue base with angels is clearly un- suited to a niche. St. Gaetano of Thiene seems the most likely subject. The sketch is strongly Pugetesque, related to his earliest Genoese phase, that is to say close to the bookplate. But it is more Italian, especially in the putti, and I believe comparison with a few of the Pugetesque works of Filippo Parodi dating from a period many years after Puget's departure from Genoa indicates the true author.20

Several studies are preserved which purport to be preparatory for the St. Sebastian. Two unpublished drawings contribute both to our knowledge of the development of this particular statue and to an under- standing of Puget's method of composing. The most important of these is a sheet in the Musee Fabre in Montpellier (Fig. 4). It is a free ink sketch over a

light pencil drawing. The three principal elements of the composition-figure, tree, and armor--are almost as in the marble statue, except for the details of the armor and the absence of sword and shield. The most unusual aspect of this composition is that it is conceived as if preparatory for a painting and not for a statue to be placed in a niche. There are even some in- dications of bushes suggesting a landscape wholly omit- ted in the later studies and the statue. This unusual

x6. The drawing is inv. no. 254. Height 47 cm, width

29 cm. The bozzetto is reproduced in M. Brion, Pierre Puget, Paris, 1930, pl. XiI.

x7. Height 66 cm. Mr. John Pope-Hennessy was kind

enough to call to my attention the existence of this sketch. Dr. Boehler has generously supplied me with the photograph. He does not know the provenance of this work, acquired around 192o by his father. It might be identified with one of the two bozzetti in Genoa known to Varni, op.cit., p. xxII, note i, or one in Marseilles known to Lab6, op.cit., p. 547.

18. For some illustrations of this portrait type see: E. Gavazza, "Del Barberini plasticatore lombardo," Arte Lom- barda, vII, 1962, pp. 63ff.

19. Two sanguine drawings in the Musbe Grobet are probably also for the putto change. Inventory no. 522 of a

putto (13.5 x 24 cm) has a modern inscription "Dessind par Pierre Puget" on the mat. No. 523, showing a baby lying on its back (21.2 x 14.4 cm), has putto studies on

the reverse. Neither is exactly for one of the known poses but both are reasonably close and no. 522 can without any question be attributed to Puget's hand. The condition of no.

523 makes a final attribution impossible. There is also a lively drawing of the Sauli marble at the

Musee Grobet, inv. no. x 18, but its attribution to Puget is doubtful. There are features that argue both for and against Puget's authorship. The vitality of the draftsmanship and the treatment of decorative details are not inconsistent with Puget's hand, but the drawing does appear in its extreme foreshortening of the head of the Saint, for example, to be after the statue as viewed from the floor of the church. It contains no significant variations from the marble. Drawn in brown ink and sepia wash. 18 x 27 cm.

20. See P. Rotundi Briasco, Filippo Parodi, Genoa, I963, pls. 15, 24, and 47. For the dating of the San Luca Immaco- lata which I would compare to the Grobet bozzetto, see the same volume, documents 14 and 16.



z,0

2. Pierre

Puget, Drawing, preparatory

study for the Blessed Alexander Saul. Marseilles,

Muse Grobet

(photo Borel)

1. Pierre Puget (or workshop), Drawing,

3. Pierre Puget, Terra-cotta bozzetto

a project for the Baldachino of Santa for the Blessed Alexander Sauli

Maria Assunta di Carignano. Marseilles, Munich, Boehler Collection Musbe Longchamp (photo: Borel)

4. Pierre Puget, Preparatory drawing

for the St. Sebastian. Montpellier,

St. Gaetano of Thiene (?). Marseilles,

MusMe Grobet (photo: Borel)

Mu~ Fbe(poo:Dsosy . nraigafe Per Pgt St.~ Seatin Prs Bib:ith:qu Nationale-

5. HeeatrbtdtoFlpo aoi St. aetno f Tiien (?. Maseiles



7. Pierre Puget, Terra-cotta bozzetto for the St. Sebastian. Paris, Petit Palais

(photo: Bulloz)

8. Pierre Puget, Drawing, preparatory study for the St. Sebastian

Florence, Uffizi (photo: Soprintendenza alle Gallerie)

9. Engraving after a lost drawing of St. Jerome by Pierre Puget. Paris,

Bibliothbque Nationale

Io. Schiaffino and D. Carlone, St. Jerome. Genoa, Santa Maria Assunta di Carignano (photo: Courtesy

of the City Photo Archive, Genoa)



NOTES 93

preliminary treatment of a sculptural composition sug- gests an important connection between the drawing and a St. Sebastian composition preserved in the Puget Album of the Cabinet des Estampes in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (Fig. 6). The print is only inscribed "St Sebastien Martyr. D6pos6.", but some features of it are so close to certain of Puget's paintings that it is clearly after either a lost painting or a highly finished drawing by him. Still another pictorial source for Puget's composition is the famous Saint Bartholo- mew print by Ribera (1624) which appears to have suggested the unusual pose of the figure.21

The connection between the statue and the prints confirms the essentially pictorial character of the Sebastian which Preimesberger demonstrated in his careful stylistic analysis of the appearance of the marble in its niche.22 The placement of the armor in the Mont- pellier drawing clarifies this point. Such features often appear in marble sculpture to add necessary support. But Puget's armor in the drawing poses a structural problem in itself. This treatment of accessories is a most original aspect of several of Puget's marble groups and, I believe, can now be connected to his habits as a painter on the basis of the Fabre drawing.

A reappraisal seems necessary of a drawing in the Musie Longchamp which was thought an old copy of the St. Sebastian.23 The Marseilles drawing, though close to the marble in its compositional elements, is spread far too wide for the narrow Carignano niche. Because of this and numerous other differences in detail it seems unlikely to be a copy. In spite of the unattractive appearance of this work (it is redrawn in pen over sanguine, and somewhat labored in the delineation of detail), the general configuration appears to be in the style of Puget. The Marseilles drawing fits well as an intermediate step between the Fabre study and other more highly finished studies to be discussed below. It may be a copy after a lost drawing.

The most widely known of the Sebastian studies are a large drawing in the Uffizi (Fig. 8) and a bozzetto in the Petit Palais, Paris (Fig. 7). Certain features indicate that the clay model preceded the drawing. The drawing shows the whole niche and base. It is highly finished in a combination of media--pencil, sanguine, ink, white heightening. The composition is

exactly like the marble except in the most minor details. These factors argue that the drawing was executed at a very late phase of the planning. The bozzetto, to the contrary, shows a compositional experi- ment, later abandoned--the tilting of the spear parallel to the figure's right thigh, and the turning of the breastplate nearly perpendicular to the picture plane. On the other hand, many details argue that bozzetto and drawing are not far apart, particularly the similar treatment of the hair, which was altered from both in the marble, and the decoration on the armor and shield. The Uffizi drawing with its upright spear and three-quarter view of the breastplate appears to repre- sent a partial return to certain features of the Fabre and Longchamp drawings. This may only have been a coincidence, since Puget's real aim was probably to

change the turning in space of the bozzetto to a pictorial treatment for the niche. The bozzetto appears to be an intermediate phase, a more sculptural treatment introduced as the composition was rendered in the round. The drawing instead adheres to the dis- cipline of the frame of the niche.24

The Sauli family probably expected Puget to complete their two remaining niche statues as well. Ratti speaks of a modello of a Magdalen destined for another Carignano niche which was destroyed by Puget in a rage against the Sauli at the moment of his departure from Genoa; no drawing or other indication of the composition appears to have survived.25 Puget after his return to France concentrated all his efforts on projects for Versailles. In the mid-I670's the Sauli turned to another artist: Filippo Parodi was paid for the completion and installation of the St. John the

Baptist in 1677.26

Until 1691 there is no documentary evidence that

anything was done about the last empty niche. Then a contract was signed by Puget on September 30 in Marseilles for a St. Jerome. A letter from Puget of

September Io, 1692, to Francesco Maria Sauli shows that little progress had been made toward its com-

pletion.27 It is even doubtful whether Puget intended to do anything about it, because in a letter of Sep- tember 26, 1693, he complains of being without work for the King: "Apres tout je seray forse

21. About this time Castiglione seems to have copied the Ribera composition; see Blunt, op.cit., fig. 34.

22. R. Preimesberger, Studien zur barocken Plastik in Genua. Pierre Puget und Filippo Parodi. Unpublished disserta-

tion, Vienna, 1962. Dr. Preimesberger was kind enough to send me his manuscript, which contains a substantial section on

Puget's Genoese works, and subsequently, in Vienna, to discuss

many of the problems raised therein. 23. No. 422. 14.5 x 20 cm. This drawing is glued to a

sheet that has on its reverse a view of what appears to be Paestum and a group of figures, both drawn in pencil. These sketches might be by Paul Puget, grandson of the painter. I have only begun an investigation of his drawings so at

present any attribution must be tentative. The sketches are

quite unlike the Sebastian to which they are attached. 24. A so-called bozzetto for the St. Sebastian in the Phila-

delphia Museum of Art is probably from a cast of the original in the Petit Palais. The flecks of plaster on the clay aroused my suspicion and my doubts were absolutely con- firmed by the base, which is treated in such a way as to be explainable only by an incomplete covering of the original with plaster. Nor does the quality of the finish suggest that it might be a copy by the master himself, as Puget's original clay works have a brilliance of surface treatment entirely lacking in the Philadelphia piece. Variations in detail from the Petit Palais bozzetto seem to me to be attributable to some damage done to the piece in Philadelphia.

25. C. G. Ratti, supplement to Soprani, Vite de' Pittori, scultori, ed architetti genovesi, Genoa, 1768, II, p. 323.

26. See S. Varni, op.cit., p. 81. 27. See S. Varni, op.cit., pp. 82ff., for both the contract

and the letter.



94 THE ART BULLETIN

d'aler servir au pais estranger n'y ayant pas issy de

personne asses puissante pr m'ocuper . ...,28

It seems impossible that he really intended to leave his considerable properties and go abroad to work; more likely he was using the threat of Sauli patronage to get work in France.

The composition of the St. Jerome, though it has never been previously noted, is preserved in a print which

appears to be after a presentation drawing of the type of the Uffizi St. Sebastian (Fig. 9). Such a drawing was called for in the contract.29 The print was known to Lagrange, who catalogued it as Number 168, but he was unaware of the existence of the Sauli commission, the documents having been discovered only somewhat later. The print in the Puget album of the Cabinet des Estampes of the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris is inscribed "Pet. Puget, Inv." The identifica- tion of the print with the work stipulated in the 1691 contract can be made on the basis of its style and the niche in which it is shown, which corresponds closely to the proportions of those in the Carignano.s0 The attributes specified in the contract are for the most

part included in the print, except that books have been replaced by a scroll. Such a change certainly seems possible under the contract; the phrase "I1 sera

permis audict Sieur Puget de varier quelques parties du dessein .. ." would indicate that the patrons were

willing to allow considerable latitude to the artist. The importance of the discrepancy between the

contract's specifications and the composition of the

print is that it gives some indication of its date. The

drawing could not have preceded the date of the contract. It may well be substantially later, since Puget in his letter of September 1692 mentions his slow progress, good intentions, and no model or project. How-

ever, for both the design and the execution Puget was allowed only two years in the contract.

Puget's St. Jerome seems to have been derived from Bernini's statue of the same subject in the Chigi chapel of the Cathedral in Siena. Both artists show the Saint with one foot poised on the back of a lion and both figures are clothed in heavy draperies gathered loosely around their waists and falling in part toward the base. Each Jerome holds a crucifix (though none was specified in Puget's contract). Their physiognomies are strikingly similar, but the Saint's action dif-

fers greatly in the two works. Bernini represented his Jerome adoring the crucifix with a downward glance. Puget's writes while looking up, presumably toward the light of the dome for inspiration.

Puget effected a complete departure from Bernini's sculptural style. By raising the lion onto all fours, he

forced a transformation of the figure's posture and provided the kind of broad base which he used in all of his other stone sculptures. The architectural solidity, block upon block, of Puget's composition is opposed to the twisting rhythms of Bernini's. He also departed sharply from Bernini in rendering the Saint's body. Where Bernini represented an antique athlete, Puget used a massive old working man whose huge muscles had begun to knot.

A large marble St. Jerome (Fig. Io) by Diego Carlone after the model of Schiaffino in a niche in the left transept of the Carignano church is based on Puget's project, giving final confirmation to the identi- fication of the Bibliotheque Nationale's print.31 It is by no means a simple copy but a reworking of the theme, a transformation of Puget's structural grandeur into somewhat affected Baroque rhetoric. Puget's in- tense sense of the figure's bodily weight disappears into an elegant system of rhythms established by the draperies and the figure's elegant gesture. This statue represents a step backward to the Bernini type. Puget's influence is evident in the body, the hard, rather ugly physique of the old man, and in the lion's face-per- haps the most delightful aspect of Carlone's work.

The St. Jerome engraving indicates that Puget's creative forces were unimpaired by his advancing age, though he tried in vain to explain this to the powers at Versailles. With this one exception, in his old age he lacked commissions on the scale best suited to him. Thus the great tragedy of his last years was the artistic waste resulting from his unemployment.

The Sauli managed to extract Puget's last large- scale project from him but not the determination to

complete it. The provinciality of Genoa in the last years of the seventeenth century must have been painfully obvious to an artist who had enjoyed more than one success at Versailles. His pathetic plea to a person in the entourage of the King in 1693 to prevent his de-

parture to a foreign land,32 indicates the anguish of an artist who realized that on only a very few occa- sions had he been able to show his real worth. The truth of the matter was, however, that it was only in Genoa and more specifically among the Sauli that

Puget's reputation seems to have remained constant.

Without the Sauli's patronage for their own Carignano church the number of large-scale projects by Puget which have come down to us would have been nearly halved.

[NEW YORK UNIVERSITY]

28. E. Charavay, Revue des Documents Historiques, Paris, 1873-1874, p. 3.

29. "... Le dessein en sera dresse apres l'obligation passee, laquelle sera envoie audicts Messieurs de Saulis pour lagreer et ordonner la piesse de marbre.

... ."

3o. The niche shown in the print has a broad border of the type to be found in the transept niches rather than those under the dome in the Carignano. I do not believe this detail

to be of much importance, as it was many years since Puget had seen the church and only the measurements or proportions of the niche would have been necessary for the execution of the design.

31. F. M. Schiaffino was paid for his model on November

4, 1734, Carlone for the statue on January 13, 1740. 32. See note 28.

