St Cecilia Playing the Organ
Artist/Maker
Dimensionsh x w: Mått 82 x 64 cm h x w x d: Ram 97 x 80 x 6 cm
Inventory numberNM 83
AcqusitionTransferred 1866 from Kongl. Museum (Martelli 1804)
Other titlesTitle (sv): Den heliga Cecilia spelande orgel Title (en): St Cecilia Playing the Organ
DescriptionCatalogue raisonné: Description in Italian Paintings: Three Centuries of Collecting, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2015, cat.no. 60: FORMER INV. NOS.: 396 (M. 1804); KM 246. TECHNICAL NOTES: Labelled on verso: “Carlin Dolce (Guido Reni?)”. The support consists of five pieces of plain-weave linen fabric. The painting was probably originally octagonal; later, but before it was shipped to Sweden, the corners were added, giving the painting its present dimensions. The added corners are painted on a more sparsely woven fabric than the central piece. The painting has been glue-lined (in Sweden) and mounted on a non-original stretcher. The left and right sides are cropped. The ground is red. There are some old retouches. The painting is in fair condition. PROVENANCE: Martelli 1804. EXHIBITED: Musiken i konsten, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2000–01; Musiken i barockkonsten, Läckö Slott, Lidköping, 2002. 5. St. Cecilia. Here is a painting that has been greatly praised by all scholars, but not acknowledged by them all as being by the same author. Most of them have thought it a work by Guidi Reni; some by Domenichino, among them the Chevalier Mengs. He based his opinion on the grand expression of the Virgin, and the highly studied attitudes that guided the painter’s thought, all characteristics of Zampieri. In my opinion, all this, which ischaracteristic of the former, excludes Guido, since onlyDomenichino has created images with studied poses andsublime expressions. Such beauty is often found in other excellent painters’ pictures; but never have there been inany of Domenichino’s paintings such flourishing colour, such easy brushwork, such harmonious shades and such accord of the chiaroscuro as we admire in our picture. The beauty of Dom. never immediately strikes the eye of the spectator, but requires long meditation. Our picture, besides the fact that it discovers new concealed beauties through the deceitful eyes of the Philosopher, immediately touches both the ignorant and the scholar of art, through its magical appearance. Together they all exclaim: Divine! The critics tell us that the motif of our protagonist is that of a virgin, an ecstatic saint; of a young lady who is singing and directing her hymn to God, and this is expressed by the right hand fixed on the keyboard of the organ on which the final cadence warbles, while with her left hand she puts away the music, turning her eyes and her head to heaven in a sign of dedication. Accordingly, R. Mengs once said that my St Cecilia and that of the Borghese were two masterpieces, but that the idea of the Borghese one was that of a beautiful statue, that of mine, of a saint alive.¹ It is likely that Domenico Corvi and Stefano Tofanelli, in their appraisal of the collection, refined the attribution which the collector himself had attempted and labelled the painting accordingly. Despite its erroneous attribution, Martelli’s analysis points directly to the characteristics of the 17th-century Florentine school and, indeed, to the art of Carlo Dolci: vivid colour, strong expression and religious pathos. At an unknown date, and with no support from surviving records in the Nationalmuseum, the painting was assigned to Agnese Dolci (?–1689), Carlo’s daughter, of whom confirmed autograph paintings are rare, if they exist at all.² Technical examination of the work, which has revealed that it was originally octagonal in shape, has failed to provide further evidence as to the identity of the author and thus cannot sustain this attribution. Despite the painting’s close affinity with the work of Carlo Dolci, in both style and choice of subject, it is not convincing as an autograph. Dolci had several pupils who very closely followed their master’s style and emulated his idiom after his death. Among these, Onorio Marinari is a likely author of NM 83. As his biographer Baldinucci confirms, Marinari, who studied with Dolci in the 1640s, produced his first paintings as regular copies of his master’s work and learnt the idiom so well that it became hard to distinguish their hands.³ Bruscoli rightly underlines the importance of careful examination of works attributed to Dolci from this particular period.⁴ The present painting shows a close concordance with Dolci’s predilection for religioussentiment and graceful femininity, but lacks hisdarker palette. The vivid colours seen in NM 83 are present throughout Marinari’s oeuvre, along with a particular interest in detailed garments and objects. It is true that Marinari’s dependence on Dolci ceases during the 1650s. He remains strongly attached, though, to the Florentine tradition of Matteo Rosselli (1578–1650) and Francesco Curradi (1570–1661).⁵ The latter is of particular interest as regards the overall style of the present painting, including the drapery of the saint’s dress and the elegant and slightly Mannerist movement of the hands. sne 1 NM Archives, Kongl. Museum, F: 1. See Appendix 1. 2 McCorquodale 1987, vol. I, pp. 80–81. 3 Matteoli 1975, p. 5. 4 Bruscoli 1987, vol. I, pp. 112–113. 5 Ibid. [End]
Motif categoryReligion/Mythology
Collection
TechniquePainting
Keyword
External links