Head of Medusa

Artist/Maker

Material / Technique

Dimensionsh x w: Mått 49 x 48 cm

Inventory numberNM 7163

AcqusitionTransferred 2014 from Kongl. Museum

Other titlesTitle (sv): Medusa-huvud Title (en): Head of Medusa

DescriptionCatalogue raisonné: Description in Italian Paintings: Three Centuries of Collecting, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2015, cat.no. 14: FORMER INV. NOS.: 112 (M. 1796–97); 25 (F. 1798); 475 (M. 1804); KM 308. TECHNICAL NOTES: The support is made from a turtle shell. The ground is white. There are cracks in the shell and several cracks, losses and abrasions in the paint layer. The paint layer is very dark; probably the paint itself has darkened. The varnish is yellowed. The inside of the shell is inscribed with the name Raphael. PROVENANCE: Martelli 1804. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sander 1872–76, III, p. 138, no. 475 (as Raphael). In the Louvre there is quite a distinct drawing of the head of Medusa attributed to Calandrucci, acquired in 1972 from the art dealer Paul Prouté.¹ It is found on the verso of a sheet with a drawing of Moses and the Spies Returning from Canaan on the recto. There is no question that this drawing of the head of Medusa is directly related to the present Nationalmuseum painting, in all probability as a preparatory study.² Comparing the drawing and the painting, we can see that the vipers curl and twirl in almost exactly the same positions: for example, the two vipers’ heads that face each other above Medusa’s head, the one that turns to the left below these, and the one that turns in towards the chin from the left. All these correspond directly between drawing and painting. The Louvre sheet has obviously been cut along the right-hand side. This is especially evident from a comparison with the painting: clearly, Calandrucci originally developed a depiction of curling vipers just as detailed on the right as on the left. This is shown in particular by a study of what little remains of those snakes on the Louvre sheet. We can see for example how these fragments, a viper’s jaws turned towards the chin from the right and a curve representing a viper turning from the head to the right, exactly correspond with the depiction of the snakes to the right of the head in the painting. The inventory of Calandrucci’s collection of other masters’ drawings and the extensive body of his own preserved drawings, the greater part of which are today in the Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf and the Louvre respectively, shows that he was inspired by a wide range of artists.³ In the Düsseldorf collection there are for example careful studies of different famous artworks in Florence, including Michelangelo’s sculptures for the Medici Chapel.⁴ During his stay at Florence, Calandrucci must also have had the opportunity to see Caravaggio’s famous shield with the head of Medusa – commissioned by Cardinal Francesco Maria Del Monte (1549–1627) as a gift for the Grand Duke Ferdinando I de’ Medici (1549– 1609) in 1601 – since it must undoubtedly have influenced the Louvre drawing and consequently the Nationalmuseum painting. Calandrucci’s depiction of the severed head of Medusa is most clearly influenced by Caravaggio’s example in the way the stark look of horror and anguish is expressed in her face; in particular, the way the open mouth is frozen in a scream and the gaze is similarly fixed and frozen. The general colour scheme, too, is very close to Caravaggio’s.⁵ The present work is painted on a curved convex turtle shell, presumably to resemble a parade shield of the same sort as the one by Caravaggio. However, there are no discernible traces of hooks where a handle or support for the arm could have been fastened if it had been used as a shield of this kind. There are only two holes along the top edge, where one would have threaded the string used to hang it on the wall. Analogously to Caravaggio’s work, Calandrucci quite deftly handles the convex surface of the shield, creating an illusionistic impression of it mirroring a flat surface.⁶ Perhaps a desire to flaunt this particular skill was one of his reasons for painting the shell – to show the sprezzatura of his craftsmanship.⁷ As much as Calandrucci’s painting is indebted to the Caravaggio shield, it is also a work more typical of an earlier tradition than that, even though it was probably painted about a hundred years after Caravaggio’s. In fact, the way the brow is heavily furrowed and the forehead and the broad nose are wrinkled closely resembles the Medusa head found on the sculpture of Minerva by Jacopo Sansovino (1486–1570) at the Loggetta del Campanile of the San Marco cathedral in Venice.⁸ The way the eyes slopes towards the sides, giving an expression of sorrow and distress as well as horror, is also very close to the Sansovino sculpture. This characteristic is likewise found in Bernini’s famous bust in the Musei Capitolini, Rome, but is lacking in Caravaggio’s version.⁹ Comparing drawing and painting, we can see how Calandrucci seems to have reasoned, hesitant as to how far he should adhere to the earlier, less bloody, tradition. In the drawing, the fact that the head of Medusa has been decapitated is clearer, as the artist tentatively shows drops of blood emanating from her neck. In the finished painting however, Calandrucci returns to the more traditional depiction, where these drops of blood seem instead to turn into a symmetrical knot of the tail ends of two of the snakes, in the manner of Sansovino’s sculpture. Perhaps this alteration was a result of adapting the image to the convex surface. Calandrucci’s painting of the subject retains this symmetrical element from Sansovino’s depiction, while he replaces the wild and tangled hair with the disorder of the curling and intertwining vipers, influenced by Caravaggio and Bernini. In this way, he fuses the influences from the earlier tradition with the 17th-century elements. The present painting was attributed to Raphael in Fredenheim’s catalogue, and on the retained paper label on the verso it is still attributed to that artist by Corvi and Tofanelli.¹⁰ Even in the document sent to Fredenheim, in which Martelli more closely describes a few of the paintings in his collection, he singles out this one for special praise, attributing it to Raphael and describing its function as a 16th-century parade shield.¹¹ This peculiarly ambitious attribution is probably related to Vasari’s story of the shield which Leonardo supposedly painted as a young man. Vasari describes how Leonardo painted two versions of the subject: a Medusa shield and an “Animaliccio”, an amalgam of crawling and slithering creatures strongly resembling a straightforward Medusa depiction.¹² In the Uffizi there is a painting which as late as the 19th century was attributed to Leonardo, and which can perhaps be equated with this “Animaliccio”. The painting in question is today attributed to an unknown Flemish painter, 17th century, and is very similar to a famous version of the subject by Rubens.¹³ Perhaps this reference to Leonardo’s shield led Martelli to attribute the painting to the artist among Leonardo’s peers who was held in highest esteem in the 18th century and who, except for Michelangelo, was perhaps closest to him in artistic renown. Martelli could also have been influenced here by his knowledge of the prominent use of parade shields in Raphael’s day. Upon arrival in Sweden, Calandrucci’s painting was probably viewed as singular curio and, like a great many of the Martelli paintings, was deposited in the royal palaces. With its pseudo-martial character, it was decided in the 1820s that the shell should be placed in the newly furnished “Geatish Room” (Götiska rummet) at the Royal Palace, Stockholm.¹⁴ This room reflected the new nationalist tastes of Sweden at the time, when considerable interest in the earliest history of Sweden and the Nordic states was emerging. In particular, the decorations were supposed to reflect the country’s martial history, as well as the martial background of the new king Karl XIV Johan, and objects such as this shield would therefore have been considered suitable for display here.¹⁵ Catastrophically though, it was hung by one of the windows and was consequently damaged by exposure to direct sunlight, resulting in heavy paint losses. The existence of the Louvre drawing, however, permits a reconstruction of the painting, just as the better preserved right-hand part of the painting indicates what the missing right-hand portion of the drawing would in all likelihood have looked like. DP 1 The Louvre, Département des Arts Graphiques, inv. no. RF35519, verso and recto. 2 In fact the recto of this sheet does directly correspond to a painting in the collection of the Cassa dei Depositi e Prestiti, Rome, with an old attribution to Pier Francesco Mola. Richard Cocke rejected the attribution to Mola, instead describing the picture as a studio work painted after Venetian- and Poussin-influenced drawings by Mola; drawings produced for projects left unfinished at the time of his death. However, Calandrucci’s drawing is a freer work while at the same time corresponding much closer to the painting in question than Mola’s drawings. There is even a hint of the Poussin-derived landscape of the painting in Calandrucci’s drawing, which is completely lacking in Mola’s drawings. While the central group of figures seems quite clearly defined, there have been several changes to the other groups of figures, comparing Calandrucci’s drawing and painting. In all likelihood, Calandrucci painted the picture in question rather than a student or assistant of Mola. Taking into account the fact that Calandrucci was a collector of master drawings, there is a possibility that he was influenced by one or more of Mola’s unfinished designs. Cocke 1969. 3 Desmas 2001, pp. 79–121; Graf 1986. 4 Desmas 2001, pp. 79–121; Graf 1986, vol 1, p. 186, cat. no. 973; vol. 2, p. 458, pl. 1083. 5 Gregori and Marini 2012. As excellently argued in this book, the Medici shield is a close second variant of what is now considered the first Caravaggio Medusa; the Murtola shield. 6 Gregori and Marini 2012, pp. 120–147. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., p. 132, fig. 17. 9 Ibid., p. 132, fig. 18. 10 NM Archives, Kongl. Museum, F:1, Catalogue du Cabinet de Martelli (à Rome). 11 NM Archives, Kongl. Museum, F:1. Appendix 1. 12 Bellosi and Rossi 1986. 13 The Uffizi, inv. no. P1472. 14 NM Archives, Kongl. Museum, F:1. 15 Ibid. [END]

Motif categoryReligion/Mythology

Collection

MaterialOil paint, Tortoiseshell (Horn)

TechniquePainting

Object category

Keyword