The Archangel Michael Defeating Satan
Artist/Maker
Material / Technique
Dimensionsh x w: Mått 171 x 121 cm
Inventory numberNMDrh 644
AcqusitionTransferred 1866 from Kongl. Museum (KM 201)
Other titlesTitle (sv): S:t Mikael och djävulen Title (en): The Archangel Michael Defeating Satan
DescriptionCatalogue raisonné: Description in Italian Paintings: Three Centuries of Collecting, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2015, cat.no. 75: FORMER INV. NOS.: 152 (M. 1796–97); 180 (F. 1798); 417 (M. 1804); KM 201. TECHNICAL NOTES: Inscriptions: on verso, paper labels: “Guido. S. Michelo creduto repetigione”; “Copia efter Guido. Engeln Michael som binder Djefvulen K M 201”; “201.” The support consists of a single piece of coarse, plain-weave linen fabric. It has been lined with glue and mounted with staples on a Martelli strainer. There are numerous retouches and overpaintings. In some parts of the painting there is little original paint left (or visible). This explains, for example, the strange look of the devil’s hands. The varnish is yellowed. The painting is in poor condition. Documented restoration: 1928: Restored. PROVENANCE: Martelli 1804. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sander 1872–76, III, p. 132, no. 417 (as Guido Reni, copy of). Roncalli (1551–1626) and Cavaliere d’Arpino (c. 1568–1640). The Roncalli altarpiece of St Michael Defeating the Demons (1603–05) in Sant’Andrea della Valle is mentioned in guidebooks up to 1763 and must have been a ready source of inspiration for Roman artists in the 17th and 18th centuries, together with the earlier interpretations.³ For the importance of Roncalli’s painting, see the entry on the oil study NM 77 (cat. no. 79). Reni emulates the diagonal composition of Raphael’s painting, but modifies the depiction of the saint so as to achieve a more finely balanced, classical posture. Through the pose of St Michael, Reni has developed a way of expressing the power of faith rather than physical power: static, impassive, without any obvious force, the archangel triumphs over Satan. The artist conveys this, not by capturing the action of the scene, but through a more meditative expression.⁴ The classicizing pose and splendid bright colours of St Michael’s raiment clearly contrast with the forceful modelling and muted colours of the nude figure of Satan. That Reni had a clear and definite idea as to the effect of this contrast is evidenced by a letter to Urban VIII accompanying the altarpiece, quoted by Bellori as a prime example of Reni’s approach to painting: “I should have the brush of an angel and forms of paradise, to form the archangel, and to see him in heaven, but I was unable to ascend so high, and on earth I sought them in vain, so I looked at the form which I established for myself in my idea. The idea of ugliness is also to be found, but this is set forth in the devil and let us leave it there.”⁵ The idea of beauty represented by the archangel – “intangible”, platonic and celestial – is accentuated by the contrasting idea of ugliness represented by the heavy and brutal, infernal and temporal, depiction of the devil.⁶ With the addition of the chain, Reni has turned to the Gospel of St John and the Book of Revelation’s description of the Apocalypse (chapter 20). Here, the archangel is described as using a chain to subdue Satan and throw him into the abyss. For succeeding generations, Reni’s painting, next to Raphael’s, came to represent the classical rendering of this subject central to the Counter-Reformation.⁷ In Fredenheim’s catalogue, the present painting is referred to as a “réputé répétition originale de celui des Capucins à Rome”, which could be interpreted as a “famous copy” of Reni’s original painting or a “famous original copy”.⁸ Corvi and Tofanelli probably had this somewhat ambiguous information from Martelli himself, but described the painting simply as “Guido. S. Michelo creduto repetigione”. Several copies of the painting are known, in different churches in Rome and in private collections. Two copies were also listed in the Barberini inventories.⁹ The Nationalmuseum painting is quite a good-quality copy. Reni’s effective contrast between the archangel’s serene celestial beauty and Satan’s drab ugliness is expertly emulated. The flowing style of Reni is not captured in the copy, however, which seems somewhat stilted, lacking the plasticity of the original. Satan’s hands have been clumsily retouched and now seem almost claw-like in appearance. IR reflectography has revealed that they were originally of the same quality as the rest of the painting. dp 1 Pepper 1984, pp. 272, cat. no. 154, pl. 80; Ebert-Schifferer, Emiliani and Schleier 1988, pp. 197–200, cat. no. A 27; Schaefer, Emiliani et al. 1988, pp. 292–293, cat. no. 51 (entry by Cristina Casali Pedrielli). 2 Twiehaus 2002, pp. 206–207, cat. no. A 14, pl. 34; Bellosi et. al 1983–84, pp. 317f. (E. Fiori), 327f. (M. Faietti). 3 Kirwin 1978, pp. 18 ff., 38–39, 57, note 101, pl. 49; Kirwin 1979, pp. 52–54, cat. nos. 29–31, figs. 31–32, 34. 4 Ebert-Schifferer, Emiliani and Schleier 1988, pp. 197–200, cat. no. A 27. 5 Sedgwick Wohl, Wohl and Montanari 2005, p. 367, notes 109–110; Ebert-Schifferer, Emiliani and Schleier, pp. 292–293, cat. no. 51. 6 Ebert-Schifferer, Emiliani and Schleiler, pp. 197–200, cat. no. A 27. 7 Ibid. 8 NM Archives, Kongl. Museum, F:1, Catalogue du Cabinet de Martelli (à Rome). 9 Pepper 1984, p. 272, cat. no. 154, pl. 180. [End]
Collection
Object category