Correggio and Begarelli: A Study in Correggio Criticism

Correggio and Begarelli: A Study in Correggio CriticismAuthor(s): R. W. LightbownSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Mar., 1964), pp. 7-21Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048136 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 15:59

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 185.2.32.152 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:59:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048136?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


CORREGGIO AND BEGARELLI: A STUDY IN

CORREGGIO CRITICISM'

R. W. LIGHTBOWN

URING the second half of the fifteenth century Modena had produced in Guido Mazzoni (d. 1518) the most distinguished and popular sculptor in terra cotta of his age, and Mazzoni's fellow citizen Antonio Begarelli (1499-1565) clearly succeeded to strong

stylistic traditions for work in this medium.2 Yet nothing could be more different from the rigid figures and harsh pathos of the older sculptor than the tender modeling and soft chiaroscuro of the younger man's statues. The present article examines a tradition that these qualities brought Begarelli into collaboration with Correggio, and that the two artists invoked each other's assistance in carrying out their most celebrated works. Not only are the vicissitudes of this story interesting in themselves, reflecting as they do the widely varying opinions held at different times

by connoisseurs and historians about the sources and nature of Correggio's art but, more important still, new or previously unconsidered evidence suggests that it may well have some foundation in fact.

The first indication of its existence occurs in a well-known account of Correggio. As students of Seicento art theory are aware, Vasari's bias in favor of his native Tuscany was sharply attacked during the seventeenth century by the art historians of other Italian provinces. Among those who accused Vasari most fiercely of injustice to the work of non-Tuscan artists was Francesco Scannelli (1616 - November 15, 1663) a doctor of Forli. In his book, II Microcosmo della Pittvra, published at Cesena in 1657, he is especially anxious to vindicate Correggio from the sixteenth century author's slurs, though Correggio's greatness had long been enthusiastically acknowledged by artists and connoisseurs alike. He hurls invective at Vasari for representing Correggio as an un- lettered, poverty-stricken journeyman of genius who had never been to Rome, and whose works, however marvelous their color and foreshortening, suffer visibly from lack of study after the

antique and after the great masters of the Roman High Renaissance. Behind this fury lies the recognition of a historical problem: how did Correggio, in the circumstances described by Vasari, achieve works of such astonishing genius? Scannelli's answer is to correct Vasari's picture of early sixteenth century Lombardy as a wretched provincial backwater.' Not only does Scannelli vindicate Lombardy, he explains just how classical were the means by which Correggio achieved perfection as a painter. In the first place, he received a sound education in the elements of his art from Mantegna, an artist described by Scannelli as "di maniera antica," the equal of any artist of the day and incomparably learned in the art of painting di sotto in s.' Correggio then im- proved on his early training by a continual study of the finer aspects of nature, so that with the aid of his natural gifts he became master of the most accomplished and perfect execution. Scannelli continues: "In order to display this to all eyes by means of the most difficult and extraordinary attitudes, report has it that he obtained little models from a close friend, a contemporary who was fairly skilled at working in relief; but be this as it may, it is clear that after having developed the inclination of his most delicate taste by similar means, he was able to display to the world

x. I should like to thank Mons. Can. Mario Moretti, Arciprete of San Cesario, for his courtesy and kindness in supplying me with information and for photographs of the Boschetti monument and Prof. A. Ghidiglia Quintavalle for photographs of the Boschetti monument and the Deposition in San Francesco.

2. The only monograph on Begarelli, and it is most in- adequate, is by L. Magnani (Antonio Begarelli, Milan and Rome, 1930).

3. Scannelli, op.cit., pp. 268-273. 4. Op.cit., pp. 84, 274.



8 THE ART BULLETIN

the most exquisite painting which the mingling of colors added to the finest nature can form."" Scannelli's readers did not have long to wait for the name and birthplace of Correggio's sculp-

tor friend. In 1662 the historian Lodovico Vedriani (1605-1670) published at Modena a little Raccolta de' Pittori, Scvltori, et Architetti Modonesi as part of his series of biographies of illustrious Modenese. Vedriani records' that Correggio studied in Modena under the painter Francesco Bianchi (ca. 1460-151o), a statement based on respectable sixteenth century authority,7 and gives a long and circumstantial account of his friendship with Begarelli and the collaboration to which it led. "While Correggio was painting in the Duomo of Parma those numerous histories, with so

many figures, our Begarelli made models in terra cotta for him in attitudes adapted to the place so that they might have their lighting, view and expressions shown in due proportion; and these the said Correggio expressed in painting. That ever marvelous cornice, which astounds the world, was first modeled in relief by Begarelli, and then colored after his model by that miraculous

brush, so perfectly harmonious ... were these two artists in their labors. So much so, that when

Correggio despaired of being able to paint in the cupola the multitude of figures to be fitted there, demonstrating how impossible it was to draw and accommodate the men, children, women, and similar features up there with proper foreshortening and shape them from below upward (di sotto in su~), Begarelli made him take courage, and formed all the figures for him so well with the expressions, attitudes, airs, and graces, etc., required for the work, that he painted them all, as one can see, and thus most marvelously assisted, made himself immortal in the highest degree. This is also noted by Scannelli.... "W

In estimating the evidential value of this passage the first consideration to make is that Scan- nelli and Vedriani were personally unknown to each other, as a letter of July 16, 1653, from Fra Tommaso Mazza of Forli to Vedriani makes plain.' Consequently Scannelli is recording the tradition that Correggio was helped by a sculptor independently of Vedriani. If he picked it up in Modena, the I 65o's are the likeliest date for his doing so, since he is known to have been connected from 1653 onward with the court of Francesco I d'Este, Duke of Modena, to whom his book is dedicated. But Scannelli's independence of Vedriani is only general confirmation that a

genuine tradition existed, and our assessment of Vedriani's statements must turn on our assessment of his character. A pious and learned priest, Vedriani was principally interested in the history of

5. Op.cit., p. 275: "E per dimostrarla ad ogni veduta, in ordine alle pifi difficili, e strauaganti espressioni, e fama, che procurasse piccioli Modelli da suo partiale amico, che a quei giorni operaua sufficientemente il rilieuo, 6 sia come si voglia, chiaro sta, ch'egli dopo somiglianti mezi eccitata la dispo- sitione del suo delicatissimo gusto venne ad esprimere al Mondo la pifi esquisita Pittura, che possa formare la mis- chianza de' colori in ordine alla pii' fina naturalezza."

6. Vedriani, op.cit., p. 39. 7. See the life of Bianchi in the Catalogo of Modenese

worthies compiled in I543 by Tommasino Lancillotto, published by A. Venturi ("Fonte dimenticata di storia artistica," in L'Arte, xxv, I922, p. 28).

8. Vedriani, op.cit., p. 50: "Dipingendo il Correggio nel Duomo di Parma quelle tante historie, e con tante figure, il nostro Begarelli li faceua i modelli di terra con atteggiamenti addatati al luogo, perche con proportione hauessero i suoi lumi, vedute, & affetti; quali poi il detto Correggio esprimeua in pittura; e quel sempre marauiglioso Cornicione, che fa stupire il mondo, fui formato prima di rilieuo dal Begarello, e poi conforme questo esemplare colorito da quel miracoloso pennello, tanto erano questi soggetti concordi insieme nell'operare, a segno, che disperando il Correggio di poter dipingere nella Cupola la moltitudine delle figure, che vi andauano, mostrando 1' impossibilith di tirare, & accomodare gli huomini, putti, donne, e simili l1 sopra, per cauarne i scurci (sic), e poi effigiarli di sotto in sii; il Begarelli li fece

animo, e li form6 tanto bene tutte le figure con suoi affetti, attitudini, arie, gratie, &c. che si richiedeuano per quell' opera, che ei poi le pennelleggi6 ancor tutte, come si vede, e marauigliosissimamente cosi aiutato immortal6 se stesso al sommo. Questo vien ancora accennato dal Scanelli. . . ."

9. Printed by L. Lenzotti, Intorno la vita e le opere di Lodovico Vedriani, Modena, 1882, p. 138: "M.o IIre. e M.o Rev.do Sig.re e Padr.e Osserv.mo-Dal qui serrato biglietto vedra V.S. quello m'impone il P. Francesco Scannelli, mio carissimo Amico, e perche e mio desiderio e mio debito di prontamente servirlo; scrivo per questo stesso ordinario al Rev.do P. Inquisitore di costi, e lo supplico, portato o mandato che li sii da V.S. il libro, a farmi grazia d'inviarmelo in Bologna per la prima occasione, che se gli presentera, che potrebbe essere in breve; sara poi mia cura il mandarlo a Forli ben presto, ne mi mancano mai occasioni opportune. Dunque V.S. se vuole compiacere il Padre, lo faccia capitare al sud.o P. Inquisitore; mentre io prendendo questa occasione d'offerirmele a' suoi servitii, la riverisco e le bacio le mani. Bologna 16 Luglio 1663. Fra Tomaso Mazza da Forli Domenico." Mr. Denis Mahon has kindly confirmed from transcripts in his possession that Scannelli entered the Con- gregazione di San Filippo Neri at Forli in 166o (for Scan- nelli's dates see Mr. Mahon's article "Miscellanea for the Cleaning Controversy," in Burlington Magazine, civ, p. 466 n. 42). I should also like to thank Mr. Mahon for a stimu- lating discussion about Scannelli's work.



CORREGGIO AND BEGARELLI 9

his native Modena. Unlike Scannelli, he was not a connoisseur and an art historian; indeed, as

already noted, his book on Modenese artists was only undertaken as part of a larger biographical series. Furthermore, the worst historical sin ever laid to his charge is the lack of scientific method characteristic of his century, and his probity and sincerity are unquestioned. It is most unlikely, then, that he invented the whole story. Most of his life of Begarelli is, in fact, demonstrably based on the chronicle of Tommasino Lancillotto (1479-1554), the sculptor's contemporary and still the best available source for his work,'0 and it is perfectly possible that Vedriani used other documents since lost for his account of Correggio's friendship with Begarelli. The fact that the details he gives are so specific certainly supports this view. Interestingly enough, he records that he obtained information for his biography from Begarelli's descendants, who showed him several

papers still in their possession regarding payments made to the sculptor for a late altarpiece." Vedriani is also the first printed authority to record the tradition that Correggio modeled three

of the figures in Begarelli's masterpiece, the Deposition now in San Francesco at Modena."2 The Deposition (Fig. I) will occupy us for much of this article, and since it no longer enjoys its former

celebrity, it may be convenient to digress for a little on the subject of its composition and authen- ticated history. The group consists of thirteen statues and is set on a naturalistic base. In the

upper section four figures take down the limply hanging body of Christ, while at the foot of the cross the Virgin falls backward in a swoon of grief, supported by the three Marys. To the left are the figures of St. Jerome, who kneels in the foreground, and St. John the Baptist, and to the right are St. Francis, also kneeling in the foreground, and St. Anthony of Padua. The Deposition is one of those fortunate works of art whose terminal date can be fixed with reasonable certainty. On August I, 1531, Lancillotto records: "The friars of Santa Cecilia have set up many figures with Christ taken down from the Cross at the head of the arcade in front of the said church. They are by the hand of Maestro Antonio Begarelli, a citizen of Modena, and from what men say, the said friars will spend 200 scudi on it or more, all got from women, for they have no other means of going to such expense."" In 1537, during the reconstruction of the fortifications of Modena, the city's ruler, Ercole II d'Este, Duke of Ferrara, decided to pull down the church and convent of Santa Cecilia to prevent a besieging army from using it as a place of shelter. On August 30, 1537, Lancillotto duly notes the demolition of the church, and adds that the friars "had made a fine devotion of the Passion of Christ who was being taken down from the Cross with 12 figures as large as life, which was made by Maestro Antonio Begarello of Modena, and they had set it

up at the head of the portico in front of the entrance to the said church to the north side. It is said that they had spent more than 300 scudi on the said work; I don't know if these mendicant friars were really poor, or if they had the secret of getting money to do whatever took their

fancy.14" The group was greatly admired by Begarelli's contemporaries on account of the technical skill with which such large figures were supported "in aria," and this probably accounts for Lan- cillotto's repeated references to it.1" In 1538 the Zoccolanti of Santa Cecilia were given a new home in Santa Margherita inside the walls of Modena. They took with them their beautiful Deposition; and one of Lancillotto's deluded ladies, Monica Trotti, the wife of Ercole Porrini, came to their assistance and paid for a chapel to accommodate it.

Io. The dates he cites for the Pietd of San Bernardino (March Ix, 1524), and the Santa Maria Maddalena of the Padri Carmelitani (August i, 153i) are clearly taken from Lancillotto (Cronaca modenese, II, Parma, 1865, p. io; III, p. 289). The date 1528, which he gives for the niche of the Madonna della Comunitt~, is also corroborated by Lancillotto (op.cit., II, p. 330). It should be noted that the only demon- strable error in Vedriani's biography is one of dating, in that he places Begarelli's death in 1555, an obvious misreading for 1565.

ii. Vedriani, op.cit., p. 52.

i2. Vedriani, op.cit., p. 48: "Ma che diremo di Christo, il quale e deposto di Croce, ammirato sin a'giorni nostri da tutti quelli, c'hanno cognitione dell'Arte. . .. In esso vi sono tre figure formate per mano d'Antonio da Correggio, il quale era compagno indiuiduo del nostro Begarelli."

13. Lancillotto, op.cit., III, Parma, 1865, pp. 288f. 14. Lancillotto, op.cit., v, Parma, 1867, p. 329. 15. See Lancillotto's Catalogo of I543 (in Venturi, op.cit.,

p. 3').



10 THE ART BULLETIN

Vedriani's account of the friendship between Correggio and Begarelli rapidly gained currency among connoisseurs. The eternally enthusiastic Padre Resta, writing on April I9, I699, to

Giuseppe Magnavacca in Bologna, remarked that among some drawings he was putting together would be one by Begarelli, "a special friend of Correggio, who made all the models for the

cupola." Resta's words are clearly taken from Vedriani." He repeated this statement in another letter of May 29, 17oo, and finally gave it public approval in his Indice del Parnaso de' Pittori, published at Perugia in 1707." In 1704 the story also found its way into the biography of Begarelli in Orlandi's Abecedario Pittorico, maintaining itself throughout all subsequent editions of this standard eighteenth century dictionary of artists. The story won easy acceptance for a variety of reasons. Seventeenth century connoisseurs had little visual appreciation of the historical significance of Mantegna and Leonardo, and therefore failed to divine the most important pictorial sources of Correggio's art. Since Vasari's life did nothing to remedy this deficiency, their favorite ex-

planation of the accomplished chiaroscuro and tender color that pleased their taste so perfectly was the force of natural genius, and Correggio became a standard example of this phenomenon. In the first (1704) edition of his A becedario, for instance, Orlandi describes him as a pupil of Frari and Mantegna, and remarks that "Nature rose above art and his teacher, and in a short time constituted him the exemplar of ideal beauties, laughing mouths, delightful colors, golden hair, stupendous foreshortening, flowing folds, bizarre invention, and rational composition." For De Piles also Correggio is the pupil of Nature: "We do not see any borrowing from others in

Correggio. Everything is new in his works; his conceptions, drawing, color, brush-work. And if one adds . . . the uniform excellence which appears in his handling, and his talent for

moving our hearts by the refinement of his expressions, then no one will find it difficult to believe that his knowledge of art was a gift from heaven rather than the result of his studies."" Even

so, a tour de force of decoration like the cathedral frescoes was very startling to eyes which asso- ciated this particular sort of virtuosity with far more recent artists, and Vedriani's story was very welcome as a partial explanation of the miracle. After all, the story originated in Modena, and

everyone interested was well aware that Begarelli had made four statues for the church of San Giovanni Evangelista in Parma, where Correggio had left another dazzling set of frescoes.

Although Vedriani had left a clear record of Begarelli's share in Correggio's cathedral frescoes, he had omitted to specify the three figures in Begarelli's Deposition that had been modeled by Correggio. The eye of some connoisseur soon remedied this deficiency, for in 1720, when the

younger Jonathan Richardson visited Modena, he was left in no doubt as to which figures in the group were the work of Correggio. "MODENA. In the Church of St. Margaret of the Cordeliers. On the Right-hand of the Altar of this Church is an Opening as into a Room, which if you would go into, you must climb as at a Window; for this Room is but to be Look'd into. Here is the Virgin supported by the three Mary's at the foot of the Crucifix between the two Thieves in Terra Cotta (see Vidriani). These Figures are made, and beautifully colour'd in their proper Colours by Correggio himself, as some of the ancients are said to have painted their Statues. They are marvellously fine. The Crucifix and Thieves, and several of the Apostles which are here also are of Terra Cotta, and painted; these are of Begarelli.""'

With Richardson the literary tradition of a collaboration between Correggio and Begarelli reaches its final development. No new evidence was forthcoming until the late 1750's, when it

16. For these letters see G. Campori, Lettere artistiche inedite, Modena, 1866, pp. 476-478. The echo of Vedriani's words is the reference to "Begarelli individuo compagno del Correggio."

17. Op.cit., p. 74. 18. R. De Piles, Abregi de la vie des peintres, Paris, '7'15

(2nd ed.), p. 289. i9. J. Richardson, Sen. and Jun., An Account of the

Statues, Bas-reliefs, Drawings and Pictures in Italy, France, &c. eoith remarks, London, 1754 (2nd ed.), pp. 28-29. Quoted in extenso since it is the only detailed description ever published of the group when preserved in Santa Margherita.




took unexpected visual form. According to Tiraboschi,20 in his day (1786) a tradition was current

at Parma that in 1759, during the preparations for the funeral ceremonies of the Infanta Duchessa Louise Elisabeth, daughter of Louis XV and wife of Don Filippo di Bourbon, Duke of Parma, many pieces of terra-cotta models were discovered in the cupola of the cathedral. Unfortunately these were almost immediately taken away and used for the repair or decoration of a building in the city. Ratti, writing in I78I,21 states that the Florentine painter Giuliano Traballesi (I727- 1812), while studying Correggio's paintings in Parma, also happened upon a terra-cotta model in the ceiling of the cupola. Ratti's words seem to imply that his informant was Traballesi him-

self, but he fails to tell us the date of the discovery. However, Traballesi is known to have been at Parma in 1764, when he won a prize for a picture from the Accademia.22 Tiraboschi also records Traballesi's discovery in his life of Correggio,23 so that there is a presumption that he and Ratti are not recording two versions of the same story, although this possibility cannot be absolutely excluded.

Meanwhile the labors of the enthusiastic and the erudite had gradually changed the accepted picture of Correggio into something very different. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the Swiss

painter Lodovico David (1648-1728/30) undertook in an unpublished manuscript to show that

Correggio, far from being poverty-stricken and miserly, was rich and of noble descent.24 A

pamphlet to much the same purpose, but printing documents from the archives of Correggio, was published at Bologna in I7I6 by the Proposto Gherardo Brunorio.25 Most indefatigable, if also most credulous, in his efforts to exalt Correggio and to find a historical explanation of his

style was Padre Sebastiano Resta (I635-1714). Resta, unlike David and Brunorio, was convinced that the painter had passed his youth in great poverty, since he was chiefly interested in proving that Correggio, far from being an untraveled provincial, had wandered as a young man all over

Italy in search of work, acquiring in the process a high degree of visual culture. Admiration cannot be withheld from Padre Resta's tireless efforts to establish this thesis; in 1698 he even drew

up a certificate of its truth which he sent to Correggio with a request for the signature of that

city's principal inhabitants. Most important of all, of course, was the question of whether Cor-

reggio had ever gone to Rome, and here Resta at least was able to adduce twelve arguments show-

ing that he had visited the Eternal City on two occasions, once in 1520, before beginning work on the cupola of San Giovanni Evangelista, and once in 1530, before embarking, as Resta believed, on the cathedral frescoes.26 But the French collector and connoisseur, Pierre Crozat (1661-1740), had different views. Writing on June 21, 1716, to the painter Giacomo Giovannini, he says, "I am inclined to think that although Correggio never left Lombardy he studied the antique, since

he was a friend of Begarelli, a famous sculptor, who in all probability made the journey to Rome and brought back some casts to study from."'27 Two important shifts of historical thought are evident in these developments. The first is the substitution of original sources for the chain of

printed authorities so beloved by previous centuries, and the second is the attempt to solve his-

20. G. Tiraboschi, Notizie de' Pittori, Scultori, Incisori e Architetti natii degli Stati del Serenissimo Signor Duca di Modena, in Biblioteca Modenese, vi, Modena, 1786, p. 322.

21. C. G. Ratti, Notizie storiche sincere intorno la vita e le opere del celebre pittore Antonio Allegri da Correggio, Finale, 1781, p. 72n.

22. L. Hautecoeur, "L'Academie de Parme et ses concours %

la fin du xvII1e sicle," in Gazette des Beaux-Arts, sr. 4, IV, 1910, p. 159.

23. Op.cit., pp. 246-247. 24. David's manuscript was used by Orlandi for his second

biography of Correggio (Abecedario pittorico, Bologna, 1719).

25. G. Brunorio, Risposta deli' Ill. Sig. Abate N.N. di

Correggio ad un Cavaliere Accademico che l'ha ricercapo della vera origine e condizione del famoso pittore A A4llegri, Bologna, 1716.

26. See the resume of Resta's views in Tiraboschi's life of Correggio, op.cit., pp. 234-302, especially pp. 247-251. For Resta himself see A. E. Popham, "Sebastiano Resta and his collections," in Old Master Drawings, xI, 1936-1937, pp. 1x-5, and the same scholar's edition of Resta's Correggio in Roma, Parma, 1958 (Supplemento al Vol. Ix dell' Archivio Storico per le Provincie Parmensi).

27. Letter printed by L. Pungileoni, Memorie istoriche di Antonio Allegri detto il Correggio, III, Parma, 1821, pp. 181-183.



12 THE ART BULLETIN

torical problems on the basis of historical probabilities. Both tendencies are of course characteristic of the age of Muratori and Apostolo Zeno.

It was against the background of these new questions about Correggio's social status and artistic

sophistication that Anton Rafael Mengs worked when he wrote his essay on the life and works of the painter in 1772.28 But Mengs was not content to use purely documentary evidence for his

study of Correggio's life and art, and based many of his conclusions on the paintings themselves, as became a fellow artist who was also an ardent admirer of Correggio's greatness. He refused, for instance, to believe that Correggio was born poor, on account of the richness and quality of the colors and other materials used in his pictures. He was sure, too, that Correggio had received a thorough training in architecture, sculpture, and painting, first from Bianchi in Modena and then from Mantegna in Mantua, and that he had visited Rome, since his paintings show "a sub-

lime, delicate, and educated genius." A consequence of this practical approach to the problem of

Correggio's visual experience is that Mengs returns again and again to the story of Correggio's collaboration with Begarelli in the Deposition. As a working painter he found it impossible to

accept that Correggio could have obtained his mastery of chiaroscuro and modeling without considerable practice in sculpture "since truth by itself without these studies is insufficient to teach such a difficult subject; and for this reason Michelangelo made preliminary models in terra cotta or in wax for the figures which he was to paint." So great was the importance which Mengs at- tached to this point that he also refers to it in his sketch of the history of Italian painting: "Cor-

reggio also practiced the plastic art in collaboration with Begarelli; and through his experience in sculpture, which greatly facilitates an understanding of the human form, and the study of the

antique, he rose above the wretched and narrow style of his teachers, and became the first who took to delighting the eye with a certain grace and sweetness, of which he was the inventor, and in which none have since rivaled him."29 For Mengs, therefore, the tradition that Correggio had worked with Begarelli was especially important, since it accounted in part for the daring originality of his style and the unequaled perfection of his chiaroscuro. Consequently he accepts Vedriani's account of the friendship between sculptor and painter with only two modifications. These, how-

ever, are extremely interesting, for they are inspired by his view of Correggio as an artist of great creative freedom, constantly experimenting on his search for truth of form, and also by a strain of

good sense which refused to believe that Correggio was able to keep a sculptor to make models for every part of a work as vast as the cathedral cupola. In the first place, he suggests that Bega- relli may have learned the art of modeling from Correggio rather than Correggio from Begarelli, and secondly, he assigns the dominating role in the models for the cathedral frescoes to Correggio, reserving only an assistant's place for Begarelli.

These views were accepted by the Genoese painter Carlo Giuseppe Ratti (I737-1795) either from unprincipled plagiarism, as asserted by D'Azara, Mengs's editor,30 or from independent inquiry. Ratti visited Parma on two occasions, once with Mengs in I770, and once by himself in I774. In his biography of Correggio, published in 1781,"1 he is chiefly concerned to trace the

history of the painter's individual works, but he does make one contribution of importance to the problem of Correggio's early background, for he was the first to emphasize that the artist's native city was a place of some cultural pretensions in the first years of the sixteenth century. Ratti's thoughts about the Deposition are interesting, for after noting that tradition assigns three figures in the group to Correggio, he gives it as his personal opinion that these "by their rather fine and

28. A. R. Mengs, "Memorie concernenti la vita e le opere di Antonio Allegri denominato il Correggio," in Opere di Antonio Raffaello Mengs, ed. J. N. D'Azara, II, Bassano, 1783, pp. 137-222. The passages concerning Begarelli and Correggio are on pp. 139-141, 159-160, 185-186.

29. Mengs, "Lettera . . . ad un amico sopra il principio, progresso, e decadenza dell'arti del disegno" in Opere, vol.cit., pp. 116-117.

30. Mengs, Opere, vol.cit., pp. 202-204.

31. See note 21.



.??.

f,o.

I. Begarelli, The Deposition. Modena, San Francesco

photo: Soprintendenza ai Monumenti, Modena)

A

.oU7

-W -

."7'? ' BSSk B

--e -e r~ J ~ W i:"V '-

2. Begarelli, the Boschetti Monument before removal to its present location, San Cesario,

Basilica (photo: Orlandini, Modena)

t[~7 ?

'

L-

~~DL8~~

3. Begarelli, the Boschetti Monument. San Cesario, Basilica (photo: Bandieri, Modena)



I r

j~k ? S I~ ki~L~ ~I~IL

'c. ~PNO

4. Correggio, St. Hilary. Parma, Cathedral (photo: Vaghi, Parma)

' tB

j . ... 4

?.

5. Correggio, Study for the Parma Lamentation. London, British Museum (Reproduced by kind permission

of the Trustees)

, ta

4??

-iiz

6. Begarelli, Model for the Deposition in San Francesco. London, Victoria and Albert Museum (Crown Copyright reserved)




graceful style must be the figures of the swooning Virgin and the sorrowing Maries who support her.'"32 It is illuminating to find eighteenth century expertise persistently fixing on these figures as the work of Correggio. With the elegant pathos of their poses, their gracefully agitated drapery and their soft contrasts of light and shade, they correspond most nearly to the qualities most admired in Correggio by late Baroque and Rococo taste. The other figures of the group are either more classicizing or more naturalistic, and therefore had far less appeal.

But by the late eighteenth century not everyone in Modena was convinced of the truth of Vedriani's story. In 1770 Gian Filiberto Pagani omitted all reference to Correggio in his description of the group, and assigned it to the hand of Begarelli alone.3" Sixteen years later came re- newed signs of doubt. In 1786, having completed the five stout quarto volumes of his dictionary of authors born in the territories of His Serene Highness the Duke of Modena, the indefatigable Girolamo Tiraboschi (I73I-I794) published a supplement containing the biographies of artists and musicians with the same fortunate origin."4 Tiraboschi begins a new era, that of the critical evaluation of documentary records, too often taken at their face value by his predecessors. In his life of Correggio he remarks, tartly but accurately, that previous attempts to defend Correggio from Vasari's misrepresentations show "how easy it is to go to one extreme in order to escape from another," and dismisses any suggestion that Correggio was rich and noble. He also rejects the tradition that the painter was a pupil first of Bianchi and then of Mantegna, in Bianchi's case perhaps rather rashly, on the grounds that the former artist died in 1510o and the latter in 1505. He notes, too, that no conclusions can be drawn from Correggio's colors and materials, since it is perfectly possible that these were provided by his patrons. On the other hand, he accepts for stylistic reasons that Correggio very probably visited Rome, and he cites documentary evidence to show that he was well paid and held in high esteem by his contemporaries. With Tiraboschi, therefore, the painter returns to a comfortable middle class status. Tiraboschi's approach to the question of Begarelli's collaboration with Correggio reveals the same cautious judgment. He re- gards Vedriani's account as based solely on verbal tradition, but notes that it is an authentic verbal tradition. In some respects, indeed, he supports rather than disproves Vedriani's statements, and he seems to have wished to record such facts and opinions as he could uncover rather than take sides in the discussion. After observing that the group "may still be seen, though in a state of decay and disrepair in (Santa Margherita)," he adds, "Nor should it be passed over in silence that, as is also recorded by Vedriani, a sort of tradition, though I know not on what basis, is current here in Modena that three of its statues, though precisely which is uncertain, are the work of the immortal Correggio, who was a friend and associate of Begarelli, in return for terra-cotta models made by Begarelli of the figures he was to paint in the cupola of the cathedral of Parma. . .. But to connoisseurs of the art all the statues seem by the same hand.""" Tiraboschi's connoisseurs of the art are almost certainly the Conte Jacopo della Palude, maestro di camera to the Princess Matilde, the painter Francesco Fontanesi (I751-1795), and Francesco Scarpari, for he acknowledges in his preface that these gentlemen had advised him on matters of artistic competence.

32. Ratti, op.cit., pp. 22-23.

33. G. F. Pagani, Le pitture, e sculture di Modena indicate, e descritte, Modena, 1770, pp. 33-34. Since neither Thieme- Becker nor Schlosser give any account of Pagani, a manuscript note dated "Modena 1773. li 19 Luglio" inserted in the Victoria and Albert Museum's copy of his book may be of interest: "L'autore di questo libro di

abilit, somma nel

copiare, & imitare la mano, il colorito degli antichi pittori, e sicuro nel giudizio degli autori med.mi, e stato pubblica- mente tradotto in carcere nel mese di maggio 1773 per varie accuse sia di vil mercimonio di disegni, e rami originali della Galleria Estense, sia per copie surrogate con frode agli originali di pitture eccellenti. Il suo processo non e ancora

formato, ma si pretende vi sieno de' fondamenti assai gravi contro di lui. 11 Dr. Bianconi di Bologna, intesa la prigionia del Pagani, rimand6 a Modena molti rami, che gli erano da lui stati donati. Alcuni di Ferrara anno fatto lo stesso. Egli e attualmente nella Fortezza di Modena."

34. See note 20. 35. Tiraboschi, op.cit., p. 3 9. The essential sentence for

Tiraboschi's views on the authenticity of the tradition reads in the original: "Na vuolsi qul tacere, che corre qui una cotal tradizione riferita anche dal Vedriani, ma non so a quali prove appoggiata, che tre di quelle statue, non si sa perb quali precisamente, siano opera dell' immortal Cor- reggio."



14 THE ART BULLETIN

But although some Modenese were now suspicious of one of their city's favorite traditions, the models discovered in the cupola of the cathedral of Parma still required an explanation. Tira- boschi could do no less than record their existence, as has already been noted, and they weighed heavily with other art historians. Lanzi, for instance, used them as evidence that Correggio per- fected his knowledge of chiaroscuro by making models in wax and terra cotta, and also accepted without scruple the painter's authorship of three figures in the Deposition. For Lanzi, however, as for Mengs, Begarelli was only an assistant in the task of making models for the cathedral

frescoes, though like Crozat he suggests that Correggio studied from casts of the antique in

Begarelli's studio.3 Baldassare Orsini was much more enthusiastic; citing Correggio and Begarelli as an example of a perfect artistic friendship, he says that the sculptor made models for the

painter's every requirement, so that the latter might produce the most rigorously truthful effects."'

Twenty years later the whole question was suddenly shifted from the domain of scholarship to that of farce. In 18 I o the convent of Santa Margherita was suppressed, and the problem of a new home for the Deposition arose. Various schemes were put forward, but for one reason or another none met with general approval. At last, in 181I2, it was decided to transfer the group to the Accademia delle Belle Arti. Prior to its removal the director of that institution, the archi- tect Giuseppe Maria Soli (1747-I823), and the painter Girolamo Fantaguzzi examined it with a view to ascertaining its condition. Judge of their surprise and delight when they found the letters AA incised in the pit of St. Jerome's left arm. Their interpretation was obvious, and Antonio

Allegri da Correggio's authorship of the St. Jerome was established without question. Soli and

Fantaguzzi eagerly examined the other statues for traces of inscriptions, but found nothing; nevertheless, with the sure stylistic criterion of the St. Jerome as a guide, they formed the opinion that the neighboring figure of St. John the Baptist was also by Correggio. The group was then dismembered for transport to the Accademia. The two principal groups of Mary and her attendants and of the four men with the body of Christ were transported entire, but St. Jerome, in spite of his importance as an autograph work by Correggio, was not treated so kindly, for his left arm was taken off, presumably for packing purposes, prior to his departure, and its removal caused the disappearance of the all-important letters. Owing to Correggio's foresight, however, this did not turn out such a tragedy after all, for other epigraphic evidence to support the attribution was soon forthcoming. The Accademia decided that a thorough restoration of the group was essential, and the work of repair was given to the sculptors Michelangelo Borghi and Giuseppe Malavasi. These two artists were lucky enough to find AA inscribed in capitals on the book held by St.

Jerome, just in the place where one would expect to find the title. Confronted by such iterative

proof, it was felt, even the most skeptical ought to abandon opposition to the tradition. The group was set in a handsome niche on the ground floor of the Accademia, and a Latin inscription carved beneath it expressed the hope that it would be an example to the art students as well as an ornament to the building.

But it is notorious that the difficult in these matters are not satisfied even when an artist writes his name in full on a work of art, so it is hardly surprising that a mere abbreviation, even twice

repeated, failed to convince the skeptics. The great Leopoldo Cicognara was prepared to accept that Begarelli had attained to the sublime through a truth and easy gracefulness of modeling and composition learned during long years of making models with Correggio, but as for the letters AA in the pit of St. Jerome's left arm, he could only say that as evidence for Correggio's authorship of the statue they were insufficient. Cicognara's reservations were made public in I8I16,"

36. L. Lanzi, Storia pittorica della Italia (4th ed.), Iv, Florence, 1822, pp. 57-58, 61.

37. B. Orsini, Descrizione delle pitture sculture architetture ed altre cose rare della insigne Citta di Ascoli nella Marca,

Perugia, 1790, p. 132. 38. L. Cicognara, Storia della scultura, II, Venice, 1816,

P. 364.




and were followed only a year later by the first salvo of the heaviest attack ever mounted on the whole tradition. The Memorie istoriche di Antonio Allegri detto II Correggio of the Abate Luigi Pungileoni (1762-1844) were published at Parma in three volumes during the years 1817, 1818, and 1821. They are written in a style which decorates the intricate syntax of academic Italian with the insipid graces of Neoclassical rhetoric, but the attentive reader soon finds beneath the Abate's strenuous sentences a consistent view of Correggio's artistic personality. For Pungileoni, even more than for Scannelli and Mengs, Correggio is a painter of powerful creative genius and vast learning. He states categorically that Correggio's youth was spent in the study of philosophy and anatomy, and that he had a profound empirical knowledge of the science of colors, although of course deprived of the assistance of modern chemistry. He is against the suggestion that Cor- reggio visited Rome, being certain that the painter learned all he needed to know of antique art from a short stay in Mantua, for "one look taught him far more than long and attentive study teaches others." Holding these views, Pungileoni could hardly accept that his hero needed the assistance of a modeler to embody his conceptions, and that he was the subsidiary partner in a work of sculpture. He disposes of the second tradition first.39" Although aware that Correggio probably contracted for an altarpiece with the Confraternith of San Sebastiano in Modena in 1525, he suggests that this picture was painted in Parma, especially as Correggio is known to have been

working on the cathedral frescoes during the period immediately before 1530, which Lancillotto's chronicle fixes as the date of Begarelli's Deposition. Moreover, since Lancillotto mentions only Begarelli in connection with the Deposition, he prefers to trust to contemporary authority rather than to Vedriani. In 1818 he returned to the charge with a note in his second volume. After

giving the story of the celebrated initials AA, he announces that until connoisseurs competent to judge of the style and date of the various figures in the group have given their verdict, he refuses to accept the letters as evidence of Correggio's authorship of the St. Jerome.40

His arguments against Vedriani's account of Begarelli's models for the cathedral frescoes turn on grounds of psychological as well as historical probability, since for Pungileoni this is the question in which Correggio's prestige as a powerful creative artist is most vitally at stake. Is it likely, he asks, that a genius so rich in invention should wish to copy slavishly figures modeled by another? Since we are now entering the romantic period, the answer is clearly no. He next points out that the whole story rests on the weak foundations of a verbal tradition and stresses Lancillotto's silence on this subject also. Unfortunately the effect of this particular piece of reasoning is rather spoiled by his earlier assertion that a similar silence among Mantuan chroniclers is no argument against a visit by Correggio to Mantua." Though Correggio may well have made terra-cotta models to assist him in carrying out his designs, Begarelli cannot have taken such an important part in modeling them as Vedriani asserts, since the cathedral frescoes would then be conspicuously heterogeneous in style. As for the models said to have been discovered in the cathedral during the funeral ceremonies of the Infanta Duchessa, if they really existed, which is not at all certain, and were really by Begarelli, which is equally open to doubt, then quite possibly the sculptor made them either for purposes of study or for his own amusement.

The arguments of his opponents disposed of, Pungileoni now produces his trump card, the existence of drawings showing the evolution of Correggio's designs for various sections of the frescoes. "Given these, I leave men who have the fine flower of the critical faculty to consider whether a man born to nourish his own ideas, and to graft them, so to speak, on to each other, can have been satisfied with tying down his fancy to mere imitation. The situation of his mind was such that he needed no model, nor could he feel anything but capable of rising above others like an eagle armed with youthful pinions." He concludes by suggesting that Begarelli was possibly

39. Pungileoni, op.cit., I, pp. 153-159. 40. Op.cit., II, pp. 195-198. 4x. Op.cit., I, pp. 33-34.



16 THE ART BULLETIN

a friend of the sculptor Gianbattista Barbieri (working in Parma ca. 1544-1573), also known as da Correggio, and that this relationship may have given rise to the whole story. But he adds that patriotic prejudice-he was a native of Correggio-may possibly have inspired this thought in his mind.42

As patriotic prejudice, it was dismissed by his friend the Conte Mario Valdrighi of Modena in the essay on Begarelli that he published in 1823/4 to accompany line engravings of the sculptor's works.43 Valdrighi devoted two and a half double-columned folio pages to an extremely fair and accurate history of the whole question before refuting Pungileoni's arguments. His principal grounds of attack are chronological; for him Begarelli's four statues in San Giovanni Evangelista at Parma (now dated ca. 1540) were made before I526, and therefore the sculptor must have been working in Parma when Correggio was beginning work on the cathedral frescoes. He con- cedes that Correggio, as an artist of lofty mind, fertile imagination, and great confidence in his own powers of execution, was perfectly able to assume the burden of such a vast scheme without diffidence or hesitation, but supposes that he was glad to discuss his designs with Begarelli and to profit from the sculptor's skill and experience. He also sees every reason to think that Cor-

reggio himself worked as a sculptor, since this is known to have been the practice of many sixteenth century painters. As for Lancillotto's silence, he feels that no inference against the story can fairly be drawn from a chronicler who omits many matters of interest and importance.

And there all active discussion rested. No new monographs were written on Correggio until the 186o's, though the artist was still greatly admired, and poor Begarelli, whose fame had spread in the seventeenth century as far afield as Holland," soon fell a victim in the nineteenth to the

rigid canons of Neoclassical taste. In 1821 Giuseppe Pisani (I757-1839) was appointed director of the Accademia delle Belle Arti in Modena, and under his auspices the Deposition disappeared behind a curtain painted to resemble a wall which served as a background to a cast of the Farnese Flora. Eventually it was handed over in the late twenties to the church of San Francesco, as a result of the restoration ordered by Francesco IV d'Este in 1826 and carried out in I828-1829.45 In its new home the group found few admirers. Burckhardt, writing in 1855, praises the richness and elegance of Begarelli's forms, but disapproves of their painterly qualities, and sees in the

fluttering drapery of the Virgin and her attendants the first breath of the withering Berninesque sirocco blowing northward from Naples.4 Thirteen years later Perkins4" was even more severe in his condemnation of "the pictorial character of Begarelli's style," though it "corroborates the

story of his intimacy with Correggio." With the end of the nineteenth century, interest in Vedriani's story disappeared totally."8 In

1930, for instance, Ricci dismissed it contemptuously as one of many legends about the cathedral frescoes." It is therefore necessary to begin our examination of it with one important fact. In 1919 Meder demonstrated that many of the angels in the cathedral cupola, in spite of their apparent differences, were drawn from a single wax or terra-cotta model, and that Correggio used tracing in order to reverse these figures and vary their attitudes.50 Mr. Popham accepts Meder's analysis

42. Op.cit., I, pp. 170-178. 43. M. Valdrighi, Della v'ita e delle opere di A. Begarelli

S. . memoria, Modena, I824. Also published as part of C. Galvani, C. Malmusi, M. Valdrighi, Le opere di Guido Mazzoni e di Antonio Begarelli . . . e le Pitture eseguite nelle Sale del Palazzo dell' Illustrissima Comunith di Modena da Niccold A4bati, Bartolomeo Schedoni ed Ercole Abati disegnate ed incise rispettivamente dai Signori Professori Giuseppe Guizzardi, e Giulio Tomba . .. e di opportune illustrazioni corredate, Modena, 1823-1834. The second is the edition cited here.

44. Vedriani, Raccolta, p. 51. 45. L. Chellini and E. Pancaldi, Guida storico-artistica di

Modena e dintorni, Modena, 1926, p. 209. Another restoration of the group by Luigi Righi probably dates from this period.

46. J. Burckhardt, Der Cicerone, Basel, I855, pp. 646f. 47. C. C. Perkins, Italian Sculptors, London, 1868, pp.

254f. 48. The last full discussion of the relationship between

Correggio and Begarelli is in the article on Correggio by J. Meyer, Allgemeines Kiinstler-Lexikon, I, Leipzig, 1872, pp. 394f.

49. C. Ricci, Correggio, London, 1930, p. Ill. 5o. J. Meder, Die Handzeichnung, Vienna, I919, pp. 413,

416f, 552f.




in his monumental work on Correggio's drawings, but is inclined to doubt the tradition that Bega- relli made the model or models used by the painter. "Though such a collaboration does not in itself seem improbable," he says, "its credibility is not enhanced by 'Vedriani's further statement that Correggio modeled three of the figures in Begarelli's group of the Deposition (1531) in San Francesco at Modena. If Correggio was so competent a modeler himself, why should he have called on Begarelli to make this elementary figure for him? Nor is there any record of Begarelli's presence in Parma during the period when Correggio was working on the cupola."5'

Mr. Popham's views represent the latest authoritative statement on the whole question, and put the case for doubt in the fairest possible terms. The first of his arguments involves the question, so long debated by eighteenth century connoisseurs, as to which artist took the preponderant role in making models for the cathedral frescoes. No one would now hesitate to agree with Mengs and Lanzi that the dominating mind was Correggio's, and that Begarelli, if he worked with the painter at all, must have worked to his direction. In spite of appearances Vedriani's account supports this view, for if interpreted with due allowance for Seicento hyperbole, it suggests that Begarelli gave Correggio occasional rather than continuous assistance. It is important to remember that there is no historical or psychological improbability in the tradition itself. Vasari records a similar collaboration ca. 1512-15I8 between Jacopo Sansovino and Andrea del Sarto and between Perugino and the same sculptor.52 More important still, he also records that the practice of using clay and terra-cotta models had spread to Lombardy as early as 1518-1519, when Garofalo, in making studies for the Massacre of the Innocents (completed in August 15I9, now in the Pina- coteca Nazionale, Ferrara) "fece ... quello che insin' allora non era mai stato usato in Lombardia; cio', fece modelli di terra per veder meglio l'ombre ed i lumi, e si servi d'un modello di figura fatto di legname, ghangerato in modo, che si snodava per tutte le bande, ed il quale accomodava a suo modo con panni adosso ed in varie attitudini."'5

Vasari's testimony amply demonstrates that models in clay and terra cotta were in demand by painters just at this period, when interest had deepened in naturalistic chiaroscuro as a compositional device. On looking at the Massacre, for example, with its complicated interweaving of figures in a diagonal band across the middle ground of the picture, it is easy to understand why Garofalo was anxious that his lights and shades should be correct in their emphasis. All the more likely then that Correggio, the accuracy and daring of whose chiaroscuro were the marvel of Baroque and Rococo painters and connoisseurs, should have taken up the latest device of terra-cotta models for the ambitious effects of the Duomo frescoes. Is it superfluous to point out that 1524-1525, the date implied in Vedriani's account of Begarelli's models for the frescoes, fits perfectly with Vasari's date for the introduction of the new fashion into Lombardy? Moreover, there is every reason why Correggio should have chosen Begarelli rather than another sculptor to assist him. If Correggio was an innovator in Parma, Begarelli, with his classicizing grace and dignity, was equally an innovator in Modena54--indeed he was the only sculptor then working in Emilia who

51. A. E. Popham, Correggio's Drawings, London, 1957, pp. 8f.

52. Vasari, Vite, ed. Milanesi, vii, Florence, I881, pp. 488, 490.

53. Vasari, ed.cit., VI, Florence, I881, p. 464. 54. M. Marangoni ("11 presepio del Begarelli nel duomo

di Modena," in Dedalo, vI, 1925-1926, pp. 457-475) stresses Begarelli's independence of all contemporary Emilian sculpture. The sharp break his work makes with Modenese tradition has already been noted. The possibility that he visited Rome in the early I52o's before his first dated commission (ca. 1523) must be seriously considered. As a young man Begarelli would certainly have been aware of the triumphs of High Renaissance art in Rome, if only from Pellegrino da Modena (ca. 1463/5-1523) Raphael's assistant, who re-

turned to his native city after Raphael's death in 1520. In 1543 Lancillotto (Catalogo, cit., in Venturi, op.cit., p. 29) describes both Pellegrino's work for Raphael and his association with Jacopo Sansovino in the decoration of the chapel of San Giacomo Maggiore in San Giacomo degli Spagnuoli. It is fascinating to speculate on another possible affinity between Correggio and Begarelli. As is well known, in 1521 the painter was granted spiritual communion with the Con- gregatio Casinensis (Benedictine Order) at the request of the Prior of San Giovanni Evangelista. The sixteenth century chronicler Francesco Forciroli (in Magnani, Antonio Bega- relli, p. 16) records that Begarelli regarded St. Benedict as his patron saint, "del quale fu sempre divotissimo" and that his death was greatly lamented by the Benedictines of San Pietro in Modena "essendo dedicato a detta religione et



18 THE ART BULLETIN

had something of the same modernity and independence of temperament as the painter. Although Begarelli received several commissions in Modena in the I520's, these were mostly in the second half of the decade, and there seems no reason why he should not have been able to produce terra- cotta models in Parma for Correggio, given the rapidity of workmanship which the medium allows. The size and importance of the cathedral frescoes surely explain why Correggio would have been glad of such assistance.

Two monuments still existing and one now destroyed, executed by Begarelli between 1524 and I529, during the period of conception and execution of the cathedral frescoes, suggest that the sculptor's relationship with Correggio at this particular time was indeed curiously close. The first of these monuments, the tomb of the protonotary Gian Galeazzo Boschetti (Figs. 2 and 3), in the choir of the church of San Cesario, near Modena, is one of Begarelli's most remarkable and misunderstood creations."5 Boschetti died suddenly in Rome on March 5, 1524,56 and although

insieme osservando detta vita et costumi tanto nel detto monastero, quanto fuori. Et per di piui li detti frati vennero a levare da casa il detto corpo, cosa insolita per detti religiosi." Begarelli's connection with San Pietro can be dated at least as far back as October 24, 1532, when he received the first of several commissions from the monastery (Magnani, op.cit., p. 4o n. Io).

55. The monument was first identified and published as a work of Begarelli by S. Fabriani, "Lettere due sopra un monumento sepolcrale finora sconosciuto come del Begarelli," in Memorie di religione di morale e di letteratura, xiv, Modena, 1828, pp. 167-178. In his first letter, dated August 8, 1827 from San Cesario, Fabriani describes the monument before the restoration which his discovery provoked. In his second, addressed to Valdrighi and dated October 20, 1827, he gives an account of this restoration, which was carried out by Giuseppe Malavasi. Malavasi re-set the head of the winged female-"un difetto per6 di proporzioni egli avverti nel capo della fanciulla, difetto, che secondo lui si deve at- tribuire a qualche non a abbastanza esperto racconciatore"-- and replaced her left foot and the crown held in her left hand. He also repaired the coat of arms and the two tails entwined about it. He furnished "di nuova face l'angelo, che sta al capo di Gian Galeazzo, e che mostrava i segni di quella che teneva anticamente," and replaced the fingers of the left hand of the other putto. Malavasi also scraped the entire monument of what Fabriani describes as a "grossolana e terrea vernice." In 1946 Monsignore Canonico Mario Moretti, Arciprete of San Cesario, transported the monument from its old position on the right-hand side of the apse of the choir to the first pilaster on the right-hand side of the nave. The inscription on the monument reads Io. GALEATIVS BOSCHETVS QVI QVAM VSQ. A TENERIS CLARISS. ET ANIMI ET CORPORIS INDOLEM PRAE SE TVLIT IN ADVLESCENTIA RE COMPROBANS LIBERALITER ERVDITVS ET AGENDIS REB. NATVS IN RO. CV. FLORENS ADEO GRATVS SACRIS ILLIS PATRIB. EXTITIT VT INTER APOSTOLICOS PROTONOTARIOS COOPTARI MVLTISQ. BENEFICIIS ORNARI MERVERIT ET POSTEAQ. FRATRES ET NEPOTES DIGNITATE ATQ. OPIB. AVCTIORES ET NOMINE ILLVSTRIORES REDDIDIT MORIENS IPSIS SINE FINE MAERENT. PIENTISS. HUIC MONVMENTO MANDATVS EST. QVI LEGIS IGITVR NEC El BENE PRECARIS SCYTHA ES ATQ. IMPIVS. MDXXIIII. DIE XVIII. MARCI. This inscription suggests that the prime mover in the erection of the monument was Gian Galeazzo's brother Roberto, Conte di San Cesario (1464-1529). L. von Pastor (The History of the Popes, vii, London, 19o8, p. 283, IX, 1910o, pp. 265, 424-425) describes Roberto as one of the closest and most loyal adherents of the Medici Popes. Lan- cillotto (op.cit., II, Parma, 1865, p. 331) speaks of him as "amicissimo de Sua S.ta" i.e., Clement VII, and on December 17, 1525 (op.cit., I, Parma, 1862, p. 324) records that he received from the same Pope "una intrata di quelle del marchee de Pescara in el reame de Napole per ducati mile

dala santita del Papa, per li soi benemeriti fatti in el stato de Urbino, dove ge fu governatore." Roberto Boschetti became Governor of the Duchy of Urbino in 1517, after its con- fiscation from Francesco Maria I by Pope Leo X. On June 28, 154o Lancillotto (op.cit., VI, Parma, i868, p. 359) notes the death of "misser Lodovigo figliolo fu del signor conto Ruberto Buscheto conto de S.t? Cesare, e preto benefitiato di bon benefiti." It should be noted that the date on the monument (March 18, I524) is not that of Gian Galeazzo Boschetti's death, which took place on March 5, 1524 (G. Bariola, in Thieme-Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon, III, Lepizig, 1909, p. 174, and the Boschetti family archives). Since Boschetti died suddenly (see below) it is unlikely that the monument was begun during his lifetime, and the date March x8 is therefore probably either that of his interment or that of the inception of the tomb.

56. F. Sansovino (Origine e fatti delle famiglie illvstri d'Italia, Venice, 1670, p. 72) records that Gian Galeazzo was one of the seven sons of Albertino Boschetti and his wife Diamante Castalda. His elder brother Giacomo (d. i509) married Polissena Castiglione and he was therefore the brother-in-law of Baldassare Castiglione. Like Roberto (for whose career see Sansovino, op.cit., pp. 72-74, and P. Balan, Roberto Boschetti e gli avvenimenti italiani dei suoi tempi, '464-1529, Modena, 1884) he was closely connected with both Medici Popes. Sansovino writes of him: "Datosi alle cose di Chiesa, come quello che era Dottore, & di molta scienza, fatto ricco di diversi prouenti, & essendo ne maneggi di stato molto accorto & prudente, & hauendo seruito prima Papa Giulio 2. & poi Leone io. & vltimamente Clemente 7. chiamato a Roma per douer esser posto nel numero de Cardi- nali, sopragiunto da vna repentina infermith, non poth godere il ben meritato frutto delle sue molte honorate fatiche." Fabriani prints an extract from a manuscript in the possession of Conte Luigi Boschetti which records that Gian Galeazzo was made a Protonotary and Palatine Count in April i505, lists the vast number of benefices which he en- joyed and states that in 1517 "Arrigo VIII Re d'Inghilterra l'ascrisse tra gl' intimi famigliari della sua corte." According to the same manuscript he was on terms of friendship with Vida, whom he probably met either in Mantua or at the Papal Court. Both Roberto and Gian Galeazzo Boschetti were obviously familiar with the two most advanced human- ist and artistic circles of the day, those surrounding Popes Julius II and Leo X, and the choice of Begarelli to make Gian Galeazzo's monument suggests that ca. 1524-1525 at least he was not regarded as merely a provincial artist of unusual charm.

The feudo of San Cesario, originally monastic property, was granted to the Boschetti family in 1404 by Cardinal Cossa. By a settlement with the monastery of San Pietro of Modena in 1448, the Boschetti agreed to endow the church of San Cesario, which in consequence passed under their




his monument is undocumented, there is general agreement that it was erected during the two

years or so immediately following his death. This dating is supported by an entry in Lancillotto's

chronicle, which records that on March 22, 1524, the Boschetti family held a magnificent funeral

ceremony for Gian Galeazzo in the Duomo of Modena." We know, moreover, that Roberto Bos-

chetti, Gian Galeazzo's brother, who almost certainly commissioned the monument, died in I529. In its present form the tomb consists of a sarcophagus supported by two hippocamps perched on a stone base. On the sarcophagus reclines the protonotary in the standard Andrea Sansovinesque position-the first example of this type of funeral pose in Modena-reading an open volume. Two

putti, one at his head and one at his feet, hold flaming torches; both look toward the left instead of facing in opposite directions, as is usual in Renaissance monuments. With the exception of this last detail, the tomb is perfectly consistent with Cinquecento fashion, but above Boschetti's ample draperies rises one quite unprecedented feature, a large cloud billowing among five winged putto heads and supporting a winged female figure who holds an open book in her right hand and

points heavenward with her left. This cloud must originally have been set in some sort of archi- tectural framework, for during the Cinquecento such a feature would never have been left without a firmly designed setting. The choir of San Cesario was restored in 1612, and the original framework of the tomb was probably removed at this time. Another consequence of this or a later restoration was the lowering of the cloud to its present position where it cramps the composition of the monument, making it untypical of Begarelli, one of whose stylistic hallmarks is a strong classical sense of spacing."8

The destroyed Belleardi monument of 1528-1529 in the church of San Francesco in Modena

closely resembled the Boschetti monument in general appearance. It consisted of a marble sar-

cophagus on which reclined the figures of the banker Francesco Belleardi and his son Leonello, a

jurisconsult. The sarcophagus was framed by an arch and above this was a niche that enclosed a vast cloud supporting a life-sized figure of Christ in the act of benediction. Two half-length cherubs

emerged from the cloud at the feet of Christ; their expressions are said to have mingled "allegrezza e meraviglia." To the right and left of the sarcophagus were two other cherubs supported by clouds.5

giuspatronato, and to receive investiture from the monastery. Two years earlier Albertino III Boschetti had been created Count of San Cesario by Leonello d'Este (G. Tiraboschi, Dizionario topografico-storico degli Stati Estensi, I, Modena, 1824, p. 87). Albertino V Boschetti, father of Gian Galeazzo and Roberto, was deprived of the feudo and executed in 1506 for his part in a conspiracy against Duke Alfonso I d'Este. On September 9, 151o, Pope Julius II, whose troops were then occupying San Cesario, re-invested Albertino's sons, an act confirmed in 1513 and 152o by Pope Leo X and in 1524 by Pope Clement VII. On August 3, 1527, Alfonso I, Duke of Ferrara, also re-invested the Boschetti with San Cesario (V. Spreti, Enciclopedia storico-nobiliare italiana, II, Milan, 1929, pp. 149-150). There is clear evidence that the Boschetti had regained possession of San Cesario long before their re- investiture by Alfonso, since on January 14, 1524, we find Susanna Pico, Roberto Boschetti's wife, writing from San Cesario to her husband in Rome. An extract from her letter printed by F. Ceretti (Biografie Pichensi, Iv, Mirandola, 1913, p. 71) reveals that by that date Gian Galeazzo was already ill.

57. Op.cit., ii, Parma, 1865, p. 10.

58. This disposition has been retained in the new siting of the monument.

59. This description is collected partly from Valdrighi, op.cit., p. xvi, and partly from a memorial drawn up by the Avvocato Giulio Besini at some date between 1807 and 1816 (printed by Valdrighi, pp. xxv-xxvi). The tomb was commissioned by Giacomo Belleardi (d. 1534), one of Bega- relli's earliest and most loyal patrons, for his father Fran-

cesco, his brother Leonello, and himself. The date of inception of the monument can be fixed from Lancillotto (op.cit., ii, Parma, pp. 340-341) who records Leonello's death on February 24, 1528, and the inscription, which was dated 1529, and read FRANCISCO. BILIARDO. PATRI. TRAPEZITAE. PRIMI/NOMINIS. LEONELLO. FRATRI. IVRISCONSVLTO. EQVE/ STRIQVE. ORDINE. INSIGNI. AC. SIBI. IACOBVS/PATERNAE. ARTIS. IMITATOR. NON. MINVS. LIBERALIS/QVAM. PIVS. POSVIT. 1529/ H.M.H.N.S. Besini's description of the monument is partic- ularly important: "Ho ancora in mente la bella gloria, in cui superiormente allo stesso Mausoleo, vedevasi sedente il Redentore in figura grande al naturale col braccio destro alzato in atto di benedire, e sostenendo colla sinistra il vessillo della resurrezione. Mi ricordo benissimo i due leg- giadrissimi Angioletti, che appie del Redentore schizzando fuori delle nubi fino a mezza vita in atto di allegrezza, e di meraviglia, quasi per non cadersi colle mani sostenevansi sulle nubi medesime. Inferiormente a questa gloria due Angioli piui grandi di un fanciullo di dodici, o tredici anni di figura intera stavansi sopra due nubi separate l'una a destra, l'altra a sinistra del Mausoleo, tenendo in graziosis- sima maniera ciascuno fralle mani un cartello, in cui era scritto un motto allusivo alla morte dei giusti. Lo svolazzare de'capelli, delle vesti, l'aria delle teste, la grazia degli atteggiamenti era si gentile, che io credo sicuramente, che non avrebbe sdegnato il Correggio di averli per modello onde eseguire le sue inarrivabili glorie. . . ." Besini then observes that since all the surviving large compositions by Begarelli deal with gloomy themes, the destruction of the Belleardi



20 THE ART BULLETIN

The conception of these great clouds carrying life-size or nearly life-size figures has no precedent in the history of Italian sculpture, and its only contemporary parallel is in the Parma frescoes of Correggio. Since the Belleardi monument no longer exists, the upper section of the Boschetti monument and the pendentive of the cathedral cupola showing St. Hilary seated on a cloud with his attributes held by putti (Fig. 4) now compare most significantly. The inference can only be that Begarelli obtained his inspiration directly from Parma. But since he received no known commissions in that city from ca. 1520, when the San Giovanni Evangelista frescoes were begun, until well after 1530, when Correggio received his last payment for the cathedral frescoes, Vedriani's account of his collaboration with Correggio surely contains some proportion of truth.

So much established, we can turn to the thornier problem of Correggio's participation in the

Deposition. Here the crucial piece of evidence is a model, now in the Victoria and Albert Museum

(Ht. I' 458"; W. 2' 2y 2"), for the three Marys bending over the fainting Virgin (Fig. 6). The four figures are partly modeled in one with a heavy base and are set for the view at which they are now seen, an analysis confirmed by the back of the model, which has been left broadly modeled

except where visible from the present viewpoint. Here, as everywhere else, the group is highly finished; all the details have been carefully worked up and the model is clearly an elaborate show

piece. Two iron stanchions set in plaster at the back would even suggest that a cross was at one time fixed into it and that it has been used for devotional purposes. However, the absence of St.

John, coupled with the fact that the base is clearly as originally designed-traces of a white slip remain on its sides-shows that the group is truly a model for the Deposition and not the lower section of a Crucifixion scene. Reference to Begarelli's Crucifixion at Bonporto helps to establish this. All the more surprising then are the differences which appear when the figures of the model are compared with their counterparts in the finished group. One glance at the model shows that it is asymmetrical; the figures curve upward to culminate well to left of center. This basic asymmetry of design, unprecedented in Begarelli's work, is heightened by the closely linked figures of the two women on the left, and by the body of the Virgin, which is set obliquely to the front of the relief. The action of the group is in consequence essentially private; it is an expression of the

relationships of four people who have no concern with a worshiping spectator. The sudden hollow between the central figure and the woman on the right, with its eloquent emphasis on the inter-

play of two hands, serves only to increase the effect of intimacy, almost of introversion. In the completed Deposition all this is changed. The group has been opened out, and the three women now form a symmetrical pyramid. By making the central figure more rigidly vertical and by turning the head of the left-hand figure inward, Begarelli has created a space within which to emphasize the Virgin's head, though in order to do so he has sacrificed something of the emotional expressiveness of the model. The Virgin has become older and therefore more conventional and decorous, and her ample draperies dominate the foreground. In fact the whole group has become characteristic of Begarelli, who always restrains movement and emotion within compositions of classical simplicity and symmetry. The changes in the finished Deposition may be due either to the sculptor's patrons, who must have thought the model unsuitable for a public image, or to the artist himself, but in any case it is surprising that Begarelli, with his considerable experience of large-scale devotional groups, should have failed to realize the deficiencies of his design before the advanced stage represented

monument is all the more to be regretted because "ci manca il contrapposto del dolore cioe l'allegrezza. L'avevamo es- presso nel Redentore, e negli angeli del monumento Belleardi. L'allegrezza, che e un soggetto si difficile ad esprimersi, e che fu privativamente trattato al sommo grado dal Cor- reggio, lo fu pure al sommo grado nella suddetta opera dal Begarelli." The tomb was destroyed on July I, 1807. The heads of the angels on either side of the sarcophagus

and of the putti on the gloria are still preserved in the Gal- leria Estense, Modena, as is the bust of Leonello Belleardi. It would be interesting to know if Canonico Pasquale Beleardi (Pascalius de Baliardis), one of the three Fabbricieri of the Cathedral of Parma who contracted on November 3, 1522, with Correggio for the frescoes of the cupola and choir, was related to the Belleardi of Modena.




by the model.60 Although it is impossible to be dogmatic about compositions with a theme as emotive as the Deposition, one explanation could be that he followed a little too blindly a design made for him by another and greater artist. The asymmetry which has no precedent in Begarelli's works has several in those of Correggio; compare for instance a drawing now in the British Museum

(Fig. 5) for the Lamentation in the Parma Gallery (ca. 1522, Popham, No. 43, pl. L, a, pp. 61-62, 158). Such is one possible explanation of Vedriani's story. In the absence of documents it would be unwise to advance it or any other as more than a tentative solution of the difficulty.

Several of the questions which troubled seventeenth and eighteenth century historians in their discussion of Correggio's art still remain unsolved. The present article was written in the hope that it might be possible to shed a little more light on at least one of these problems, the resources used by the great painter for the creation of his most ambitious work. An additional wish was to sketch out incidentally the successive conceptions of Correggio's art and personality formed by critics during a period when he was worshiped as devoutly as Raphael. There was also an inten- tion to wipe away a little of the dust which has settled on the sculptures of Begarelli, whose

anticipations of Baroque and Rococo art now seem even stranger than those of Correggio, since

they had so little influence on later artists. I hope to consider at another time the problems raised

by Begarelli's art, for a sculptor who collaborated with Correggio and was admired by Michel-

angelo6' deserves closer study than he has yet received.

VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM

60. According to Magnani (op.cit., p. 16) Begarelli is traditionally supposed to have fired his own terra cottas. His

family was one of potters and brick and tile makers. 61. Vasari, Vite, ed.cit., VII, x188, p. 281.



Documents

Correggio and Begarelli: A Study in Correggio Criticism