| Title : | Giorgione's Tempest or 'little landscape with the storm with the gypsy': more on the gypsy, and a reassessment |
| By : | Paul Holberton |
| Date : | 10 Sep 2010 |
| URL : | http://www |
| Outline : | This article on the interpretation of Giorgione's Tempest was first published in Art History, vol. 18, no. 3, September 1995. In re-publishing the article here I intend to meet criticisms, update my citations, revise where necessary and solicit further discussion of points at issue. |
Giorgione's Tempest: p. 1 |
No published author or critic of the sixteenth, seventeenth or eighteenth century mentions Glorgione's Tempest (plate 1). Although it was recorded in Marcantonio Michiel's manuscript notes on art around 1530 and has been traced in two inventories, of 1569 and 1601, the painting remained effectively unknown until some time after Morelli's publication of Michiel's manuscript Notizia in 1800.[1] In the annotation to his edition, Morelli did not associate Michiel's report with the painting then in the Manfrin collection, but he made the identification later, and at some time before his death in 1819 noted it in a personal copy of his publication, now in the Biblioteca Marciana.[2] In 1817 Byron saw a ‘Family of the Painter’ by Glorgione in the Manfrin collection, which without doubt was the picture seen by Michiel and formerly owned by the Vendramin family. [3] In 1875 the painting passed from the Manfrin to the Giovanelli collection, and from the Giovanelli collection was acquired for the Venice Accademia in 1932.
FOOTNOTES 1 Giorgione's painting is T. Pignatti, Giorgione, Venice, 1969, cat. 13; also C. Hornig, Giorgiones Spätwork, Munich, 1987, cat. 11. Apart from books or articles cited as appropriate below, some more recent bibliography on the subject is given in note 8 below. 2 Biblioteca Marciana, Venice, Archivio Morelliano 73 (= 12579), p. 80: ‘É nella Galleria del C[onte] Girolamo Manfrin.’ 3 M. Calvesi, ‘La Tempesta di Giorgione come Ritrovamento di Mosè’, Commentari, July–December 1962, p. 226, at note 2. Calvesi's idea that Byron saw some other picture with the same title and that the Tempest was acquired by Manfrin at some later date is misconceived and disproved by Morelli's note.
|
Giorgione's Tempest: p. 2 |
The subject of the Tempest had apparently ceased to be recognized by the end of the sixteenth century. Although Michiel identified the woman as a gypsy, as did the Vendramin inventory of 1569, the Vendramin inventory of 1601 gave an abstract description: ‘A painting of a landscape with a woman who suckles a child and another figure …’. [4] At some time thereafter the idea seems to have sprung up, to be repeated by Byron in 1817, Burckhardt in 1855 and Reinhart in 1866, that it represented the family of the painter.[5] While Reinhart did not find the title satisfactory, Wickhoff in 1895 was the first to suggest an alternative subject, initially gaining some acceptance (Justi refers to the Tempest as the Hypsipyle throughout his book of 1908).[6] Following its entry into the Accademia, Morassi in an article of 1939 set the terms of the post-war debate: was it a ‘history’ or story or was it ‘genre’, a conundrum recast by Settis in a book of 1978 on the question, did it or did it not have a ‘subject’?[7] There has been consensus that it must have one, but no subject seems convincing: hence a dead end, though contributions continue to appear.[8] Two articles in this journal of 1985 and 1986 argued for the presence of contextual references without discussing the figures.[9] The fact remains that although they differ in their descriptions of the man, both Michiel and the 1569 inventory identify the woman as a gypsy. To repeat Michiel's often quoted but seldom credited words, ‘The little landscape on canvas with the storm with the gypsy [zingana] and soldier [soldato] was by Glorgione.’[10] The 1569 inventory records ‘another picture of a gypsy [and] a shepherd [pastor] in a landscape with a bridge . . .’.[11] The identification of the woman can be corroborated. Placement of the man, whom the two sources perceived differently and identified less convincingly, was evidently less obvious; but no doubt at all should linger about the woman's identity: she is a gypsy (Italian zingana, German Zigeunerin, French tsigane or gitane).
FOOTNOTES 4 J. Anderson, 'A Further Inventory of Gabriel Vendramin's Collection', Burlington Magazine, vol. 131, October 1979, p. 639. |
Giorgione's Tempest: p. 3 |
Michiel's is not the first surviving notice of a gypsy in a work of art, for Leonardo included the head of a gypsy ('zingana') in a list of his works of about 1482.[12] By his time gypsies were well known in Europe, where they had appeared, at the end of a gradual filtration westwards, in the second decade of the fifteenth century.[13] The earliest mention of gypsies in Italian literature seems to belong to the 1460s, in Pulci’s Morgante.[14] A standard perception of the nature and activities of gypsies seems to have formed quite rapidly after their appearance in western Europe. Having first been treated with the respect due to pilgrims, they soon came to be regarded as thieves and a nuisance, and during the course of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were banned almost universally by individual states and cities – from Milan, for example, in 1506.[15] Venetian edicts or parti prese of 1549 and 1588 speak of ‘great damage [molto danno]’ and ‘nuisance, damages and many upsets [molestia, danni e molti disturbi]’ by them.[16] Even the telling of fortunes was a means by which to thieve: a Bolognese chronicler, for example, reported in 1422, ‘And when some of those who wanted to have their fortunes told approached them, few went away without having been robbed of their purse or, among the women, without their clothes having been cut.’[17] Similar was reported at Forlì.[18] At Paris in 1427 they had the same reputation, whether or not it was true: ‘And, what was worse, while speaking to the creatures [during fortune‑telling], by magic or by other means they emptied people's purses … to tell the truth, I was there three or four times to talk to them, but I never became aware of having lost a penny, nor did I see them looking at people’s hands.’[19] As for their nomadic way of life, gypsies were commonly believed to be dogged by a fatal curse, which prevented them, poor wretches, from settling or taking any permanent refuge.[20] According to one story, they were condemned to wander because they had failed in hospitality towards the Holy Family in Egypt, their supposed land of origin. In a Renaissance carnival song such as the following the chorus of gypsy women typically present themselves as homeless:[21]
FOOTNOTES 12 Leonardo da Vinci, The Literary Works, ed. J.P. and I.A. Richter, 3rd edition, New York, 1970, item 680 (Cod. Atl. 324).
|
Giorgione's Tempest: p. 4 |
Like other female vagabonds and mendicants, gypsy women were commonly depicted carrying a baby; but gypsy women in particular held their child by a swaddling band or wrapped them in their cloaks. In his costume book of 1590, Cesare Vecellio remarks: ‘. . . con qualche figliuolino da qualche fascia legato al collo di essa vanno cosi vagando’ (with some little child bound by some band to their neck, that is how they wander about).[25] In the prologue to his play La zingara of 1545, Artemio Giancarli implies that the practice was distinctive:[26] ‘… il proprio figliuolo, qual'avea in collo al modo loro’ (her own son, which she had at the neck in the way they do). Vecellio further records that ‘they bind a cloak of woollen cloth [panno] over the shoulder, passing it under the other arm; and it is long enough to reach down to their feet.’ More than 150 years earlier the Paris chronicler had remarked:[27] ‘pour tout costume une vieille couverture très grossière attachée par un lien de drap ou de corde, et dessous, un pauvre corsage ou chemise pour toute parure’ (their only clothing is an old very coarse blanket attached to the shoulder by a strip of cloth or cord, and underneath a poor bodice or shirt – that is all they have to wear). Such a costume was frequently noted and depicted;[28] in Italy their overgarment or cloak was called a schiavina (‘a long garment of coarse wool, worn by pilgrims and hermits’),[29] and the expression ad armacollo used to describe the way they wore it, over one shoulder and under the other arm.[30] More exactly, they might hold the baby by the strip that held the cloak to the shoulder.[31]
FOOTNOTES 25 C. Vecellio, Habiti antichi e moderni, Venice, 1590, p. 176. |
Giorgione's Tempest: p. 5 |
By these characteristics – and not only by the oriental turban or wide sunhat with which they were commonly, but not always, shown – it is easy to identify many more fifteenth- and sixteenth-century images of gypsy women, besides that in Giorgione's Tempest.[32] They appear almost invariably, for instance, among the audience in the numerous sixteenth-century Netherlandish representations of St John the Baptist preaching, sitting with their babies on the ground. There is a fine gypsy family in the centre foreground of Joos de Momper's landscape in the Wallraf-Richartz Museum.[33] Their earliest surviving image is a Gypsy Family by the Housebook Master (plate 2), of which there are copies by Master bxg and by Wenzel von Olmütz.[34] Here the child is free from the enveloping cloak, though at the mother’s neck. Underneath, the woman wears a shirt (camicia), distinctive for its broad sleeves, which recur in Desprez’s and Vecellio’s costume books.[35] Datable to about 1496–97, Dürer's engraving Bartsch 85, incorrectly titled The ‘Turkish’ or ‘Oriental’ Family – Dürer portrayed Turks in other works, and they do not look like this [36] – represents a gypsy family, and has repeatedly been related to the Housebook Master's print. It was copied in Italy by Nicoletto da Modena (plate 3).[37] In having no camicia Dürer's mother is unusual, but resembles Glorgione’s, and accords with some reports. Like the Housebook Master’s gypsy, the father is armed with a bow. The Housebook Master also made a pendant pair of prints of a gypsy man and gypsy woman suckling, bearing shields as wildmen might.[38] Giorgione's Venetian contemporary Jacopo de’ Barbari, too, made pendant prints (plates 4a, 4b) of figures that have not previously been identified as gypsies, but are closely related both to the Housebook Master’s image (the man has a similar hat, and the woman has a similar turban and wide-sleeved camicia) and (in reverse) to the Dürer (their essential poses, turns of the head, the positions of their arms).[39] Jacopo's prints, dating from before 1504, will have immediately antedated Giorgione's Tempest.
FOOTNOTES 32 F. Vaux de Foletier, 'Iconographic des "Egyptiens": Precisions sur le costume ancien des Tsiganes', Gazette des Beaux-Arts, vol. 68, no. 2, 1966, p. 165; C.D. Cutler, 'Exotics in 15th Century Netherlandish Art: Comments on Oriental and Gypsy Costume', in Liber Amicoruni Herman Liebaers, Brussels, 1984, p. 423. |
Giorgione's Tempest: p. 6 |
Other contemporary images of gypsy women include two prominent in the foreground in Bosch's Haywain in the Prado;[40] one in an early sixteenth-century south Netherlandish Calvary in the Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Ghent; another in the background of a Descent from the Cross by Cornelis Engelbrechtsz in the same museum.[41] In Italian art there is one by Marcantonio Raimondi (Bartsch 450); one, with a woman whose fortune she tells, on the extreme right in Boccaccino's Calvary, in the National Gallery, London, usually dated around 1500;[42] another in Boccaccino's Visitation in Cremona cathedral, dated 1515;[43] the small Head in the Pitti by Boccaccino has long been regarded as that of a gypsy girl.[44] (Boccaccino is recorded as having been lodged in Venice in 1506; he had probably been there since 1500, when his murder of his wife appears to have terminated his career in Ferrara.) The most complete contemporary portrayal of gypsy life is to be found in a set of three drawings by or after Hans Burgkmair, two in Stockholm and one in the Veste Coburg.[45] In one, male gypsies who have stolen chickens are being chased; in another, a female gypsy tells the fortune of a woman while behind her back gypsy children rob her; in the third, we see a gypsy family at rest, with the mother seated on the ground suckling and the father standing by her (plate 5). If the horse and dog and other women are subtracted, Burgkmair's drawing offers a close parallel to Giorgione’s picture.
FOOTNOTES 40 W. Starkie, ‘Jerome Bosch's The Haywain’, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, 3rd series, vol. 36, 1957, p. 83; M. Cinotti, L'opera completa di Bosch, Milan 1977, pl. 21; P. Vandenbroeck, Jheronimus Bosch: tussenvolksleven en stadcultür, Berchem 1987, pp. 69‑70. |
Giorgione's Tempest p. 7 |
Neither Michiel nor the Vendramin inventories identify the male figure in the Tempest as a gypsy as well, but many parallels over and above those already cited suggest that he is her consort and the father of her child, and justify the tradition that the picture represented a family. The man stands by the woman and her child like the father beside his consort in representations after Lucian’s description of Zeuxis's picture of a family of centaurs, or like Adam beside Eve, or like a wildman beside his seated mate. Objections may be raised about the river, or gulf, between them; but a river ran down the centre of Giorgione's earlier Birth of Paris (plate 6), and commonly runs down the middle of the landscapes in Jacopo Bellini’s sketchbooks – indeed, the composition of the Tempest has essentially the same pattern as these.[46] He could be with her in a single bound. By contrast to his identification of the woman, Michiel's description of the man as soldier conflicts with the usual iconography:[47] he wears no breastplate and no visible weapon, though he could hang a dagger behind his back. He patently does not wear shepherd's clothing, either, though he has a staff resembling the kind shepherds often lean on. The staff, his single most prominent attribute, marks him as a traveller, wanderer or pilgrim, a gypsy by nature if not by race.
FOOTNOTES 46 Cf. Pignatti, Giorgione, cat. no. C3 and plate 225; B. Degenhart and A. Schmidt, Corpus der italienischen Zeichnungen 1300‑1450, part 2, vols. 5‑8: Venedig. Jacopo Bellini, Berlin, 1990, Paris sketchbook f. 24, pl. 27; f. 64v, pl. 82; London sketchbook f. 24v, pl. 166; f. 42r, pl. 201; f. 46r, pl. 209; f. 58v, pl. 234; f. 85v, pl. 288. |
Giorgione's Tempest: p. 8 |
A second print by Jacopo de' Barbari (plate 7) also represents gypsies.[48] It has hitherto been taken to be a Holy Family, but the Virgin seldom wears a turban. Jacopo’s gypsy’s manner of holding and enveloping her child is closely related to Giorgione's, and the design of her schiavina is similar, particularly in the measure of stuff that comes over her left shoulder. This print by Jacopo is rather later than his earlier pair; executed after he had left Venice for Germany and perhaps dating from a year or two after the Tempest had been painted, it is one of a group of prints that show a renewed association with Venetian imagery, from which it has been deduced that Jacopo briefly returned to Venice in late 1509 or early 1509.[49] Particularly interesting is the similarity of pose between Jacopo’s image and that of the woman revealed by X‑rays beneath the man in Giorgione’s picture (plate 8).[50] The influence was probably from Giorgione to Jacopo rather than vice versa, for Giorgione's initial figure appears to have been taken from a previous work of his own, now lost, in which a similar nude was threatened by a soldier with a knife; the picture was attributed to Giorgione in Archduke Leopold Wilhelm's collection and recorded by Teniers (plate 9).[51] In turn, the consort to Jacopo's sad mother, in pressing profile, seems to echo Giorgione's rapist. If the lost painting really was by Giorgione, which does not seem unlikely, given not only this correlation but also the resemblance of the large house in the landscape to that, for instance, in the background of the Castelfranco Madonna, then it was surely earlier: the nude in the lost picture has a simpler pose. The most plausible explanation of the X‑ray evidence is that Giorgione always intended a male and female couple, setting the female first on the left, then deciding to make her a gypsy, to alter her pose and to place her on the right; he would originally have expected to place the man on the right, but painted him in her vacated position after he had moved the woman. [52]
FOOTNOTES 48 Hind, Early Italian Engraving, vol. 5, Jacopo no. 4; Levenson, Jacopo de' Barbari, cat. no. 32. |
Giorgione's Tempest p. 9 |
In his encyclopaedic Commentari Urbani of 1505, Raffaele Maffei characterized gypsies as an Oriental people ‘who live scattered through the world, especially Italy, in the manner of beasts, without law, without arts, only predicting the future.’[53] As such, gypsies were primitives, or on a par with primitives, who ‘wandered the world naked, shaggy and savage, in the manner of beasts, without a roof, without human intercourse, without any civilized custom …’ to quote Pietro Bembo's Asolani.[54] Glorgione's pair certainly resemble other primitives. For example, in Raphael's frontispiece for his illustrated edition of Vitruvius, which shows the invention of fire, there features a suckling mother seated on the ground, and such figures are usual in depictions of primitive.[55] By reversal, it seems that in his picture of the invention of the horse‑shoe (Vulcan and Aeolus) in the National Gallery, Ottawa (plate 10), Piero di Cosimo used what he knew of gypsies to represent the primitive: the smith, who, like his naked or semi‑naked companions, and like the builders of a wooden house behind him, belongs to an early stage of civilization, sits on the ground and has his companion blow the bellows in just the way that travellers report gypsy smiths doing at Modone in Greece.[56] The gypsy smith is appropriately accompanied by a giraffe and by a seated man in a turban and a crouching suckling mother, and by a man sleeping in the open.
FOOTNOTES
53 Raphaelis Volterranus, Commentari Urbani, Rome, 1506; edition used Basle, 1603, chap. 12, p. 399e‑f. |
Giorgione's Tempest p. 10 |
The visual parallels between the Tempest gypsies and other primitive families have been noticed before. Pictures and drawings of wild (or woodhouse) families and satyr families by Cranach and Altdorfer have been adduced, and one might expect that Altdorfer's closely contemporary picture in Berlin, dated 1507, showing a satyr family looking on while a wildman attacks a traveller (plate 11), had an appeal much like Giorgione's picture.[61] A particularly charming print of a woodhouse family after the Housebook Master shows the mother and father sitting while the children play about them;[62] this is a composition anticipating Italian representations of satyr families. Homeless beings such as wildmen were similarly associated with bad weather.[63] With equal justification the Tempest has been compared to depictions of Adam and Eve after their Expulsion, who, cast out in the wilderness, at the beginning of the world, were necessarily primitives.[64] Glorgione's gypsies may further be compared to representations of New World Indians, or to other parents exiled with their child to the wilderness, like Milon and Berta with Orlando, or Hecuba with Paris in his own Birth of Paris.
FOOTNOTES
61 E. Wind, Giorgione's Tempesta, Oxford, 1969, figs. 14, 15; cf. also L.F. Kaufmann, The Noble Savage, Satyrs and Satyr‑Families in Renaissance Art, Philadelphia, 1979; L. Silver, 'Forest Primeval: Albrecht Altdorfer and the German wilderness landscape', Simiolus, vol. 13, 1983, p. 4; C.S. Wood, Albrecht Altdorfer and the Origins of Landscape, London, 1993, pp. 97‑98. There is no agreement as to what exactly is going on in Altdorfer's picture; I give only my own interpretation. |
Giorgione's Tempest: p. 11 |
It is possible, though not verifiable, that Mantegna's Satyress was not merely seated but, like Giorgione's gypsy, half‑seated and half‑kneeling; while her right calf was upright, as the Louvre drawing reveals, with the leg bending sharply at the knee, she may have rested her left knee on the ground. If so, she would have echoed the pose of Zeuxis's centauress, whose ‘feet in front were not yet stretched out, as of one lying on her side, but one of them was bent with the hoof turned under, like one crouching, while the other was raised and taking a grip on the ground, as when horses try to leap up’. In any case an antique statue in the same pose, the so-called Doidalsas type of kneeling nude, with one leg folded under the body and the other raised was known and imitated at Mantua in the last years of the fifteenth century.[70] Antico, with whom Mantegna shared both tastes and patrons, had made a statuette for bishop Ludovico Gonzaga known as ‘la nuda della bissa scudelara’ (the nude of the tortoise) some time before 1498; examples are in the Thyssen Collection, the
FOOTNOTES 70 Cf. A. Allison, 'Antique Sources of Leonardo's Leda', Art Bulletin, vol. 56, 1974, p. 375. |
Giorgione's Tempest p. 12 |
The changes revealed by X‑rays would therefore have had a stylistic direction as well as a compositional purpose: Giorgione substituted a more classicizing pose for the one with which he began. The development the change implies is parallelled in Jacopo de' Barbari, for his seated gypsy woman seems shortly to been succeeded by a seated Sleeping nymph (incorrectly known as Cleopatra because the tree root above her head has been mistaken for a snake), a figure that is surely based on a classical prototype, either the ‘Caffarelli’ Nymph, now in the Uffizi, or perhaps some sarcophagal hippocamp‑rider.[77] Glorgione, having used the Doidalsas type perhaps a little crudely in the Tempest, seems subsequently to have reworked and refined it in the more evidently classicizing drawing or drawings of which another artist made use for the flute‑playing nude the Louvre Concert champêtre.[78] Alternatively, the Dresden Venus may stand for the increasing classicism, anticipated in the Tempest, of the last few years of his prematurely terminated career.
FOOTNOTES
77 Hind, Early Italian Engravings, vol. 5, Jacopo no. 27; Levenson, Jacopo de' Barbari, cat. no. 35; see also cat. nos. 36, 40, 41, 42; cf. H. Tietze and E. Tietze‑Conrat, The Drawings of the Venetian Painters, new edn, New York, 1979, cat. no, 62. A bronze statuette after the Caffarelli Nymph, dated 1486, is in the Wallace Collection, London; cf. Bober and Rubinstein, Renaissance Artists, cat. no. 61.
|
Giorgione's Tempest p. 13 |
For emotional effect the Tempest may be compared specifically to Cranach's exquisite small panel of The Holy Family in a Landscape in Berlin, of 1504 (plate 14), in which not only the Virgin looks out towards the viewer but St Joseph also, humbly doffing his hat, as it were in response to the viewer's peeking in at the refugee family with its precious child.[81] There is a marked similarity between the St Anne and her child of Jacopo de' Barbari's early print of The Holy Family in a Landscape and Glorgione's gypsy and her child.[82] Whether or not it was produced after he left Venice, Jacopo's engraving was evidently a response to Schongauer's and Dürer's prints of the Madonna in a landscape. Similarly, some influence on Giorgione from the north in the years between his earliest work c. 1500 and the Tempest is likely enough: artists such as Cranach or Altdorfer, immediately in the wake of Dürer, were tending just in the years around 1505 to liberate amorous subjects from their conventional moralizing framework and depict them sympathetically, humorously or ironically, but above all from observation; they were beginning as well to isolate effects achieved in religious art and to develop a secular iconography for them. It is no easier to characterize the reception of these works than of Giorgione's, but there is a parallel in the novel exploration of secular themes, and in the depiction of the ‘natural’ behaviour of creatures from the lower orders for the delectation of patrons high in society. This interest was not properly or fully an attitude of 'soft primitivism'.[83] Although it was widely acknowledged in the Renaissance that wild beasts caring for their young demonstrated the virtue of charity,[84] that did not render their condition desirable for a human being. The question was discussed, for example, by Bartolommeo della Fonte or Fonzio in his discourse On Human Excellence. Even though they might even outdo humankind in 'charity', creatures without reason, to quote Fonzio, ‘relate everything to pleasure [voluptatem], and would declare pleasure to be the one thing they desired and sought, if by the grace of nature they could speak.'[85] But pleasure was not the proper goal of Christian men. Although Giorgione's picture does not explicitly moralize, Giorgione's couple are depicted in their animal pleasures, which ultimately can only have been regarded with the same disapprobation as the pleasures of lovers in Love Gardens or as Mantegna's satyress, whom we find among the vices being expelled by Minerva in his Expulsion of the Vices. In compensation for the moralization dropping away, there is a distance between viewer and subject, who belong to different orders. One has the sensation before Giorgione's picture that the gypsy family is a vision carried to the viewer as if in a bubble, within the landscape to which they belong, where the viewer peeps in on them. Their world of landscape or nature is a separate world from the viewer's world of city, palace and garden – to echo a distinction made by Filenio Gallo in the dedication to his Venetian pastoral of the 1480s, Safira.[86] In Altdorfer's 1507 picture in Berlin the idyllic family in the foreground look over to a savage attack on a member of civilization.
FOOTNOTES 81 M.J. Friedländer and J. Rosenberg, Die Gemälde von Lucas Cranach, Basle 1979, cat. no. 10; D. Koepplin and T. Falk, Lukas Cranach. Gemilde, Zeichnungen, Druckgraphik, exh. cat., Kunstmuseum, Basle, 1974, p. 523. |
Giorgione's Tempest p. 14 |
Furthermore, the condition of Giorgione's gypsies, though they are young, beautiful and healthy and not scrawny, filthy or old, is not ‘soft’ but ‘hard’, because they are homeless and threatened by a storm. The storm emphasizes their pathetic, vulnerable aspect. Unlike wildmen, they do not rejoice in it. Like a pair of woodhouses, the Tempest couple are creatures united by their bond of love, but unlike them, they are human wanderers whom the storm afflicts, or is about to (neither rain nor wind are depicted; the viewer must have caught them at the moment before the storm breaks). In an abstract sense the storm is the attribute of the gypsies, or, if one wishes to believe that the storm was the picture's raison d’être, homeless gypsies are appropriate figures to place in a landscape with a storm. But the picture is made by the two together, for the gypsies illustrate the threat in the storm, and the storm compounds the poignancy of the gypsies’ condition.
FOOTNOTES
87 F. Rossi, Accademia Carrara, Bergamo: Catalogo dei dipinti, Bergamo, 1979, p. 134, plate at p. 109; I Campi, p. 87.
|
Giorgione's Tempest p. 15 |
The Tempest had no obvious sequel, although the small Soldier Family now in the Fogg Art Museum surely derived from it.[88] Instead, Giorgione moved from a venture into ‘ponentine’ (transalpine) subject-matter constituted by the interesting or exotic in the contemporary world back to a more classical iconography. Conceptually the Tempest is close to pastoral works such as Titian's Three Ages of Man in Edinburgh or the Louvre Concert champêtre,[89] as is also suggested by a seventeenth‑century Dutch drawing from the circle of Rembrandt in Chatsworth, which is with little doubt a copy of an early sixteenth‑century Venetian drawing (plate 15).[90] It recalls simultaneously the Tempest and its Fogg derivative, the Concert champêtre, the Ages of Man and southern German prints and drawings of amorous couples in the countryside.
FOOTNOTES
88 Pignatti, Giorgione, cat. A7; H.T. Goldfarb, 'An Early Masterpiece by Titian rediscovered, and its stylistic implications’, Burlington Magazine, vol. 26, July 1984, p. 419; Hale, Artists and Warfare, p. 91.
|
Giorgione's Tempest p. 16 |
According to Sanudo, the reception given in Venice to Bartolomeo d’Alviano in May 1513 after his release from captivity and reinstatement as commander-in-chief of the Venetian forces included a tour of the city’s artistic landmarks. After seeing
FOOTNOTES
92 G. Boerio, Dizionario del dialetto Veneziano, Venice, 1856 (reprinted Florence 1983), s.v.
|