CIRCA1600A RevolutionofStyleinItalianPaintingS.J.FreedbergCIRCA1600CIRCA1600ARevolutionofStylein Italian PaintingS.J.FreedbergTHEBELKNAPPRESSOFHARVARDUNIVERSITYPRESSCambridge, Massachusetts, andLondon, EnglandCopyright 1983bythe PresidentandFellowsof HarvardCollegeAll rights reservedPrinted in theUnitedStates ofAmericaFIFTH PRINTING, 1994Libraryof CongressCataloginginPublicationDataFreedberg,S.J.(SydneyJoseph), 1914-Circa 1600: a revolution ofstyle in Italian painting.Threelectures given at Cornell University in May 1980.Bibliography:p.Includes index.1. Carracci, Annibale, 1560-1609. 2. Carracci,Lodovico, 1555-1619. 3. Caravaggio, MichelangeloMerisi da, 1573-1610. 4. Mannerism (Art) Italy.I. Title.ND623.C38F7 759.5 82-1076ISBN0-674-13156-8 (cloth) AACR2ISBN0-674-13157-6 (paper)PrefaceTHETHREELECTURESpresented in this book weregiven at Cornell University in May 1980 under the aus-pices ofthePrestonH. ThomasMemorialLecture Series,sponsoredbytheCollegeof Architecture, Art &Planning,Cornell University. Thelectures on Annibale and Ludo-vico Carracci are printed here as they were given, withonly very minor editorial amendment. The Caravaggiolecture, delivered from extensive notes rather than a fin-ished text, has hereassumeda morepolishedform.Mypreserving the original lecture formis a consideredchoice, firstbecauseI believethatitishistoricallyappropri-ate that the printed volumeofa lecture series preserve asmuchas possibletheeventfroinwhichit cameandwhichit purports to record; moreimportant, the lecture form,whichpermits a maximumliberty ofillustration, encour-ages a range and specificity ofobservation that a studywrittenasanessaytendstolimitordeny.Thelectureformsuits meparticularly, since what I say about these artistsderives almostaltogetherfrommyconfrontationwiththevisual substance oftheir art. The publishers have recog-nized the essential role the illustrations played in the lec-tures and have virtually duplicated their original abun-dance. I hopethe readernowmayfind that I haveturnedback on the illustrations some part of the illuminationmystudy ofthe pictures has conveyed to me.Becausenolecturer canhopethat his audience will re-main unchanged throughout a series, I felt it necessary,verysummarily,occasionallytorehearsea pointthat I hadtouchedoninapreviouslecture. It maybeanexcessofhis-torical conscienceto retain thesefewplaces here, buttheyare surely notenoughto boreorgive offense.For the reader whomaybe interested in pursuing thissubject further, I haveappendeda restricted bibiliographyofwritings available in English.I amobligedto friendswhogaveinvaluablehelp in se-curingphotographs for reproduction: Dr. BerniceDavid-son, Mrs. KarenEinaudi, ProfessorAndreaEmiliani, Pro-fessorKathleenWeilGarris, LauraGiles,ProfessorDonaldPosner, M. Pierre Rosenberg, Mr. Alan Salz, and Mrs.Christine Lilly ofthe Fine Arts Library in the FoggMu-seum. Miss Marilyn Perry, Executive Vice President ofthe Samuel H. Kress Foundation, responded quickly andgenerouslyto arequestforassistancefromtheFoundationthat has allowed the book its color illustrations. I ames-pecially gratefulto her. Mrs.MaudWilcoxhasonceagainmademefeelwelcomeandathomeatHarvardUniversityPress, as hasmyeditor, Ms. Katarina Rice, withwhomithas been a rare satisfaction to haveworked.I mustexpressmygreatthankstoProfessorColinRoe,whoseinterestbroughttheselecturesintobeing,andtotheThomasfamily, whosegeneroussponsorship ofthePres-tonThomasLectures gavethemtheir publicforum.ContentsI. AnnibaleCarracci i11. Caravaggio 5iIII. LudovicoCarracci 8iBIBLIOGRAPHY 117CREDITS 119INDEX 121II^^*,tfVPlate I.Annibale Carracci,Crucifixion with Saints.Bologna, S. M. della CaritaANNIBALECARRACCIABRIEF ANDEFFECTIVE WAY to understandthenatureofthechangethat thethreeartists of theCarracci family Ludovico, the oldest, and hiscousinsAgostinoandAnnibale(thelastone mostdecisivelyofall) wroughtin theircontemporaryart is to seewhatthat art seemed like to the generation that followed theCarracci, for whomthe revolution that Annibale princi-pally madehadcometo havecanonical authority. CountCarlo Cesare Malvasia, writing in the mid-seventeenthcentury in his Fclsitm Pittrice, described the context ofartbeforeand close to the timeofthe Carracci thus: the fol-lowers ofthe great masters ofthe various Italian schoolshadat thattimedepartedfromtheirmodels,and"seekinganotherstyleandadifferent wayof doing,fellintoaweak-ness ofdrawing, not to say an incorrectness ofit, into aflaccidandwashed-outcoloring,in sumintoacertainman-ner [inaniera] farfromverisimilitude, notto mentionfromthetruthitself, totallychimericalandideal . . . thesewereSalviati (1), theZuccari(2),Vasari(3),AndreaVicentino,Tommaso Laureti, and among our painters in BolognaSammachino(4),Sabbatini(5),Calvaert, Procaccini(6),and their Hke, who, abandoning the imitation ofantiquestatuary, as well as ofnature, foundedtheir art whollyintheirimagination, andworkedin a carelessandmanneredway."Letussee howAnnibaleCarracci'sgreatalterationinthehistoryofItalian art began. Its first public actwastheset-ting up in 1583 ofan altar painting ofa Crucifixion withSaints (plate I) in theBolognesechurchofS. Niccolo(nowtransferred to the church ofS. M. della Carita); when itwasunveiledit broughtdownonAnnibale, its author, thecensure ofall his Bolognese Maniera colleagues. This isnotahistoricalpictureof theCrucifixion; its iconographydefines it as adevotionalandsymbolicimageof theevent.Butthereisnothingwhateversymbohcinitsmodeof rep-resentation. Thesceneconveysaninstant effect ofreality:1.Francesco Salviati,Caritas.Florence,Uffizi Gallerypersons whoseem utterly ordinary, the nude Christ notexcluded, are described to uswithmeansthatremarkablysuggest the truth of their existenceheavy figures re-vealedbyapowerof lightwithinaspace,whoconvinceusstill more that they reproduce an ordinary truth becausetheyhaveabjured altogether the effects ofartifice, in ap-pearance and in modeofaction or expression, that werehitherto traditional to art and, among the contemporaryMannerists, were its prime currency. Never before thiswithin the sixteenth century had an image been createdwithso minimalanintrusion ofthe processes ofidealiza-tion, withsuchavoidanceof themeansof rhetoric, orwithso blunt a confrontation with thesimpletruth.[2]TaddeoZuccaro, Conversion ofSt. Paul.Rome, Doria Gallery3.Giorgio Vasari, Stonint^ ofSt. Stephen.Vatican Gallery4.Orazio Sammachini,MadonnaEnthronedwith Saints. Bologna, S. M. Maggiore5.LorenzoSabbatiniandDionisio Calvaert,HolyFamily with St. Michael.Bologna, S. GiacomoMaggiore6.Ercole Procaccini, Conversion ofSt. Paul.Bologna, S. GiacomoMaggiore6.Theextraordinarynovelty that is in this altarpiecemayberelated to tendencies ofdifference with thethenreign-ing styleof Mannerismthathadmanifestedthemselvesinthe years close to themomentofcreation ofthis picture,buttheseare, mostoften,nomorethantendencies,appear-ing only sporadically, and then in fragmentary elementsonlyofaworkof painting: theinterpretationof thethemeofa symbolic Crucifixion by Annibale's older colleagueamong the artists ofBologna, Bartolommeo Passarotti,about 1575 (the picture, destroyed in WorldWar II, wasformerly in the Bolognese church ofS. Giuseppe; 7), istypical in its intrusion of someincidents ofsharply literaldescription, asinthefacesandinpartsoftheanatomy,intoanevidentlyartificial whole.Morerarely, inFlorencepar-ticularly andto a lesser degreeinRome, thereweresomeartists whoseintention it wastoreformtheextravagancesof contemporary Mannerism and make images whichshouldmoreconsistentlyassertan unornamentedclarityofform andsimplelegibilityofcontent.*Such,for example,isthecharacterof theearlyworksof apainterworkinginthisreforming mode in Rome, Scipione Pulzone, in his As-sumptionofthe Virgin (Rome, S. Silvestro al Quirinale,*It maybe helpful to the reader to define the usage ofthe terms"Mannerism" and "Maniera," in both their upper- and lower-caseforms, whichapply to the styles ofart that prevailed in Italy until theevents described here. Lower-casemaniera is, simply, the Italian wordfor"manner"or "style." In the art ofthemiddleyearsofthesixteenthcenturyin Italy, in CentralandNorthernItaly in particular, thenotionofstylebecamea matterofself-conscious stress, achievingan artificial,indeed often mannered, stylishness. Upper-case "Maniera" describesthe collective character ofart ofthis kind and also denotes the perioditselfLower-case "mannerism" refers to art which has traits similar tothosedisplayedintheManierabutwhichmayappearinotherperiodsaswell. Upper-case"Mannerism,"however, applies onlyto thesixteenthcenturyandincludesnotonlythefully achievedart of theManierabutthe priordevelopments, succeeding the classical style oftheHighRe-naissance, outof whichManieracame, as wellasmanyresemblingbutbynomeansidentical modesofartistic practicethroughout Italy fromthesecond quarter ofthesixteenth century to its end.BartolommeoPassarotti, Cnuijixioii with Saints.FormerlyBologna, S. Giuseppe (destroyedin WorldWarII)[4]1585; 8), or, more legibly, ofthe pictures ofthe primeFlorentine reformer, Santi di Tito, as in his Crucifixion(Florence, S. Croce; 9) of1588. But it requires only thebriefest confrontation for us to see that thenear-contem-porarypicturesofaPulzoneora Santiare still, despitethequotatheymayshowof naturalism,boundto a mentaUtyofideaUzation and convey more sense ofan accompHsh-ment ofart than they do ofthe sense ofa reaUty. Theworksof thesecontemporarypaintersmayconstitutea re-form ofstyle, but by contrast Annibale's Crucifixion hasachieved a revolution.It is proper to inquire for native forces that mighthavegenerated this remarkable event in the young Annibale'sart. Whatwouldatfirstseemtobeoneof themoffersitselfin theimmediatetimeandplaceof theCrucifixion of1583.At the end of1581 and into 1582, Cardinal Gabriele Pa-leotti, archbishopof Bologna, a distinguishedandadmiredreforming churchman, had circulated among a limitedgroupofintellectuals and clergy, mainly withinBologna,twochaptersofa treatiseonart, calledDiscorso intorno alleimaginisacre eprofane, togetherwithanoutlineof thethreefurther chapters he proposed to writebut never did. ThesegmentofPaleotti's Discorso was printed but not in anynormalsense"published"; it wascirculated to solicit criti-cismandcomment.Muchofthe contentoftheDiscorso is conventionalandCounter-Reformational in tenor, but there are also in itviews on the nature and role ofart that at this momentScipionePulzone,Assumptionofthe Virgin.Rome, S. Silvestro al QuirinaleSanti di Tito, Crucifixion.Florence, S. Croce8.[5]seem a novelty. Conspicuousamong them, tor our pur-poses, areanappreciationoftheimitationof naturein artandofthepowerofart to achieve direct andemotionallyaffectingcommunication.We knowenoughaboutthedis-tribution ofthe Discourse, bothjust before and after thedateofits partial printing, to think it likely that Annibale,as well as his brother Agostinoand his cousin Ludovico,mighthavehad access to it, or at least knowledge ofitscontentsindirectly. CouldPaleotti'sendorsementof anaf-fectivenaturalismin arthavebeenthe causalagentof An-nibale'snewstyle?Thisproposition, inmyestimation, mostlikely yields anegative response. Paleotti's statements are insufficientlyconcretetoserveasguidelinesforanartist's style, andtheyaremadein atonethatis moredeclarativethanhortatory.It is almost a psychological impossibility that Paleottishouldhaveformulatedinhisminda goalof styleliketheoneAnnibalein fact achieved, andthat, in theyearswhentheDiscorsowasbeingwritten, inthemid-1570s,thecardi-nal's visual imaginationshouldhaveexceeded thesumofhis experience ofart as heknew it then, well before theCrucifixion altar happened. Paleotti's sense of what artought to be could reasonably be expected to have beenaligned with the avant-garde ofthe mid-1570sthat is,withthe earliest manifestationsoftheReformmovement,which I have sketchily described but not to have out-stripped it. Thatthis wasin fact thecase is provedbyPa-leotti's own patronage, which went not to Annibale oreven to Ludovico Carracci (who, as we shall see later,shouldhavebeenmoredirectly sympathetic to him), butto Bartolommeo Cesi (10), whose mannerwas at best averyapproximate counterpart, and partly a reflection, ofthat of the Florentine reformer Santi di Tito, and whocameintime, abouta decadeafterthe S. NiccoloCrucifix-ion, tentatively toacceptsomeof theadvancedideasof theCarracci. The writings ofPaleotti could not have been acausa efficiens for Annibale's revolutionary act of style;[6]however, they could still haveserved as a kindof precipi-tateforit, fortheyfellonfallowgroundaninclinationinAnnibale to confront ordinary reality and to imitate itslookthatwasmanifestbeforetheCrucifixion andwasdem-onstrated in areas ofart to which Paleotti's doctrine wasnotaddressedorwhichwereevencontradictory to it.There is signal evidence in Annibale's remarkableDeadChrist (11),nowinStuttgart,dateduniversallybyarthisto-riansin 1582.Thesubjectis religious, butitseemsquiteev-identthatthereligiousmeaningof theimageis notits pri-maryoneandmaybenomorethan a pretext. Themainsensethattheworkconveysis of itsingenuityas a realisticstudyof anunidealizedanatomysetarbitrarily, inatourdeforce thatobviously recollects thefifteenth-century paint-ingof Mantegna,inanillusionistperspective.Themental-ity oftheconception, contradictory to thepretextofsub-jectmatter, is thatof a still-lifepaintingorapieceof genre.10.BartolommeoCcsi,Auiiunciatioii.NewYork,private collection11.Annibale Carracci,DeadChrist.Stuttgart, GalleryAnnibaleCarracciBiiichcr's Shop.Oxford,ChristChurchGallery[7]-*i^- i"i- 'kvHC*''''??Thatthepainter's firstprobingsforreaHtyarethroughthesubject-instrumentof genreis confirmedbyamuchlargerandmoreambitious work, cxpHcitly a sceneofgenre, theButcher'sShop (Oxford, ChristChurchGallery; 12), ofthesameyearoratthelatestearly1583. It servestoidentifytheregion in which Annibale's inclination to such reality ingenrestarted: withintheschoolof Bologna,in themodelsofcomparable subject matter in the art ofhis older, stillManneristcompatriot, BartolommeoPassarotti (as forex-ample in the National Gallery in Rome, ca. 1575; 13),whichtooktheirimpetusinturnfromgenreworks, realis-tic indetailbutinwholestylisticsubstanceMannerist,im-portedintoItalyfromsixteenth-centuryFlanders, asintheworkof Joachim Beuckelaer. Almostsurely still in 1583,threeversionsof thethemeofaBoyDi'iiikiiig (oneof themat London, Art Market; 14), are directed to the mostordinaryandintimate ofhumanactions,and compoundthewishtoillustrate acommonhumanfactwitharemarkableeffect ofstill-lifeillusion:toachievethisendAnnibaleexper-imentswithatechnique amodeofsummaryandtexturalbrushworkthat makesequivalenceinpaintfortheopti-calsensationsbywhichweapprehendappearances.Amo-mentlater, in 1583or1584, theBeanEater(Rome, GalleriaColonna; 15), far moredaring and assertive than theBoyDrinking, employsamoredevelopedversionof thisopticaltechniquetoputusintoforcefulandimmediateconfronta-tionwiththispeasantpresence, withtheeffectof anintru-sionbyusintohisactuality,where weareneitherwelcomenorexpected.Thevocabulary ofthe S. NiccoloCrucifixion was, thus,present in Annibale's art beforethatpainting; it cameintothe altarpiece from a vocabulary he haddeveloped in therealmofgenre, whichmoreappropriatelyhadsummonedforth fromhiman interest in the depiction ofreality andthe pictorial meansbywhichit mightbeachieved. Genremustnotbe taken as a cause for Annibale'snewnatural-ism,however,butas anopeningto it anda vehicleforex-ploring it.Phenomenaofstylewithinan artist's workmustnotbemeasured by a rigid yardstick: within a style we mustapply the concept ofmodahty, by which the manner ofemployingbasicelements ofa stylemaybealtered, oftenwith considerable flexibility, to accord with the artist'ssenseof thenatureofhis subject. ThedecorationthatAn-nibaleundertooktogetherwith his cousinandhis brotherinthePalazzoFavainBolognainthesameyearastheCru-cifixion ofS. Niccolo(theworkcontinuedinto1584)beganwitha mythology, thestoryof Europa,paintedin a friezeinthesmalleroneof twoadjoiningrooms;thelargerroomwaspainted with a frieze ofa moreserious ancient tale, amythology which pretends to the character ofa history,13.BartolommeoPassarotti, Butcher's Shop.Rome, National Gallery (Palazzo Barberini)[8]14.AnnibaleCarracci,BoyDrinking.London, Art Market15.AnnibaleCarracci, Bean Eater.Rome, ColonnaGallery[9]TheCarracci, Frieze with theHistory ofJason,Bologna, Palazzo Fava, Sala dijasonepart.thatofJason(16). Thereisnoplacein thispaganworldforthesobrietyandbluntnessthatAnnibalehadfoundfortheCrucifixion: no less effectively natural than the rehgiouspicture, theseworksseeka differentmode,andthemodal-ity is furtherdistinguishedbetweenthepurelymythologi-cal story ofEuropaand theJason story that asserts it is ahistory.Therecanbenobetterwayof showingwhatthenoveltyofAnnibale's style is, beneathits modalinflections, thanacomparisonofhis depiction o^ EuropaMounting the JovianBull(17) withVeronese'sinterpretationof thesametheme(18), painted in the PalazzoDucalein Veniceonly a half-dozenyears before. TheformahtyoftheVeronese, posedandartificial, is replacedinAnnibale'spicturebyaseeminguttercasualness. Veronese'scarefulsuavities givewayto aloose-limbed, loose-jointedgraceofdesign, whosemove-mentseemsnottobeimposedas patternonthecomposi-tion but to beinstead a byproductofthe figures' natural,unposedactions; and as they open to the landscape, it noless than they makesup the picture's fabric. Barely ideal-ized in appearanceand in attitude, the actors exist withinanenvironmentofairandspacethatconveysthefreshness[10]^-*'!'**"--"" "-17.AnnibaleCarracci, EuropaMounting the Bull,Bologna, Palazzo Fava, Sala di Europa-r#*J v18.PaoloVeronese, EuropaMounting the Bull.Venice, PalazzoDucalc, Sala del AnticollcgioAnnibale Carracci, Europa Leading^ the Bull.Bologna, Palazzo Fava, Sala di Europaof adayinspring,andthewholeeffecttheimagecreatesisofan instant verisimiHtude. Anotherscene in the Europastory, EuropaLeading the Bull (19), exerts a charmoftruththat maybe still more persuasive in the fmely observednaturalness with which Annibale has characterized themovementofthe animal as well as ofthe maidens: theirgraceis adulteratedwithasmall,sympatheticallyseen, andslightly funnytouchof commonawkwardness.I haveremarkedthatthemodalityinAnnibale'sconcep-tionof thesceneshepaintedin the Jasonfrieze is differentfromthatin theEuroparoom. Theas I havecalled it"historical" nature ofthe content oftheJason story asksformoreformalityof design,andevenacertainrhetoricofexpression; and the large dimension ofthe space ofthisroom, refusing intimacy, wouldin itselfsuggest this. Justsuchqualities are atonceperceptiblein the Jasonfriezeby[12]20.Annibale Carracci, FalseFuneral ofthe Infant Jason.Bologna, PalazzoFava, Sala diJasonecomparisonwiththatintheCamerinod'Europa.TheFalseFuneralofthe Infant Jason (20) illustrates them: theattitudesof thefigureshaveadistinctmeasureof styleddeliberation,calculatedtobedecorativeineffectandinsomeplacesalsorhetorical;thecompositionretainsalmostnopartof theca-sualnessof theEuropascenes,butis arrangedonanexplicitand sequential armature, whoserhythmicmovement ex-tends that of the figures. There seems to be in such aschemeas this at leasta partialreadmissionintoAnnibale'saesthetic ofsome ideas ofthe Maniera, and this is con-firmedwhenweobservethe wayinwhichhehasrhythmi-callymanipulatedtheshapesof theanatomies.Yetsopow-erful is the essential novelty of Annibale's style hisnaturalism that these inflections only qualify it; theycannotcompromiseit. Physicalexistencesaredefinedwithentire conviction by a varied and wonderfully nuancedlight, andpsychologicalresponsesarecharacterizedwithasubtlety andliveness that arenewin Annibalein this de-gree.Anotherscene, theBattlein theLibyanDesertwith WildBeastsandHarpies (21), conveysanothernewdimensionofAnnibale'spowertoevokerealityin thewayinwhichthefighting menthe Herculeanfigure in the foreground in[13]21.Annibale Carracci, Battle in the Libyan Desertwith WildBeastsandHarpies.Bologna, Palazzo Fava, Sala diJasoneparticular (22)demonstratecredibleanatomiesinhabitedbyan energy that, as the Hercules conspicuously displaysit, radiates into thesurroundingatmosphere.TheAllegoryofTruth and Time inHamptonCourt(23)closely succeeds thepainting ofthe Jasonfrieze. Contem-poraryviewerswouldhaveseenin it notonlyanallegorybut apoesia, a kind ofsubject matter for whichnot onlyPaleotti's Discorso but other Counter-Reformation tractsheldflexiblestandards,allowinglibertiesinappearanceandexpressionofthekindcustomarytoManiera. HereAnni-balehasagainsoughtanappropriatemodality, andhehasreadmitted from the repertory ofManiera, more than inthe Jasonhistories, ornamentalvaluesindesignanda con-sonantpoeticmodeoffeeling. Butthesereadmittedquali-ties of Mannerismdonotexist as overlaysorasintrusionsintheAllegory; theyhavebeenfusedabsolutelywithAnni-bale's newly invented naturalisminto substances moresensuouslyassertivethaninanyprecedingwork,into sur-faces more variously luminous and textured, while therhythms that makeornamenthavebeeninfused with thestrongestpulseofenergy.The revelation ofso sensuous a physicality, so subtlyandelegantly manipulatedin theAllegory, is notin Anni-bale's nativeveinbutis rather a responsetohisexperience[14]23.AnnibaleCarracci,Allegory ofTruth and Time.HamptonCourt, RoyalCollection.Reproducedbycourtesy ofH. M. theQueen (copyright reserved)AnnibaleCarracci,Battle ill the Libyan Desert, detail.Bologna, Palazzo Fava,Sala diJasoneof Correggio. Thisis thehkelyfirst in a longseries, essen-tial to Annibale's history, ofcreative exploitations ofpastartthatwouldsimultaneouslypromotehisprogressin newdirections and bind him to the mainstream ofcontinuitywiththeartistic past. Theprocessis moreobviouslydocu-mentedin Annibale'sBaptismofChrist (24) in the Bolog-nese churchofS. Gregorio, whichthoughcommissionedin 1583wasnotexecuteduntilthedate it bears, 1585. Thedependence on Correggio's models is explicit: on themotifsof his cupolainParma(25), andnotonlyonthe al-tarpieces that werethen in Parmabuton the vocabulary,touched with Mannerism, ofCorreggio'sMadonnaofSt.Sebastian (26), then in Modena. Annibale's adaptation ofthe motifs signifies less, however, than his response toCorreggio'shandlingof surface, zsfumato thatmakespres-enceseemas ifit shouldbepalpable, andwhichinspires inflesh a quasi-erotic magnetism, appealing to the visuallyexperienced quality oftouch. Annibale's figures remain,however, more earthbound than Correggio's, affirmingtheir actuality ofsubstance, and it is this weighingphysi-cality ofAnnibale's persons that moderates a borrowedCorreggesquetemperof complexexcitementinthewholedesign.It is notonlya modalitybut,beyondit, a measurableal-teration ofstyle that shapes the Pietd with Saints (Parma,Gallery;27)of1585:mostimmediatelyandvisiblytheresi-duesof Manierainthepresentationof theformshavebeenvery much diminished or almost altogether eliminated;thoughin terms that are morecomplexandsophisticatedthan in the S. NiccoloCmciftxiori, this is a reprise ofthatmodality. Correggio'smodel(28) is operativeonthecrea-tion ofthis image, painted for Parma, in multiple ways,but beyond the evident adaptations ofmotifs and ele-mentsofdesign the mostimportantmaybethewayinwhichthenaturalismof representationhasbeenpassed, as24.Annibale Carracci, Baptism of Christ.Bologna, S. Gregorio[16]Correggio,Assumptionofthe Virgin, detail.Parma,Duomo26.Correggio,MadonnaofSt. Sebastian.Dresden, Gallery[17]27.AnnibalcCarracd,Pietd with Saints.Parma, Gallery[18]28.Correggio, Pieta.Parma, Galleryit were, through a Correggesquesieveofmoderatingide-aHty, tocomeoutatoncesharpenedinprecisionandinef-fect ofexistential truth. Thenaturahsm is, as well, morecontrolled, referentevenasitintensifieseffectsof truthtoabeauty that derivesfromideality.I wish to intrude here an observation that concerns asubject I shall treatoflater. WhenoneobservestheRepen-tant Magdalen ofCaravaggio (29) which survives to usonlyinthefCrmof copies inconnectionwithAnnibale'sPietd, it wouldappear that Caravaggio based his concep-tion ofhis theme on a memoryofAnnibale's swooningVirgin. Caravaggio must, therefore, havecome to knowtheearlyandrevolutionaryworksof AnnibaleCarraccionCaravaggio's way to Rome, presumably in 1592, before29.Copyafter Caravaggio,RepentantMagdalen.Marseilles, MunicipalMuseumAnnibaleCarracci, Assumption ofthe Virgin. Dresden, GalleryAnnibale's arrival there, and Caravaggio's first datableessays into naturalism (and genre) may well have beenshaped by Annibale's precedents morethan by Caravag-gio's nativebackgroundin Milan.ThedirectioninitiatedinthePietd comesrapidlytoa cli-maxintheAssunta (30),nowinDresden,of1587. Correg-gio's precedent (31) is still very muchpresent and opera-tive, butAnnibale'snewnaturalizing strainnowalters theCorreggio model with far moreradical effect than in thePieta. The Apostles ofthe Assuitta have been accommo-dated to thepopolaiio and the ordinary in physiognomictypes andin anatomy; andCorreggio'sflamboyantmodeofdramatic action has been changed into powerfully ex-pressiveandcommunicative, butnaturally observed, pos-tures and gestures. There is solidity ofform in place ofCorreggio'sdiffusionof substanceintoatmosphere,andanintensificationof theeffectof presencemadebyAnnibale'sclose-packed density ofpersons. They seem powerfullyimminent,compellingustoshareinempathytheirexperi-enceofa realized miracle.Not only Correggio is apparent in this picture; in themanner and the temper ofthe naturalizing that departsfromCorreggio, anexperienceofTitian, in his great altarofthesamethemein thechurchofFrari in Venice (32), isclear. Comparedwith Correggio, Titian is more literallydescriptiveandmoreassertiveofthedensityofsubstance;andbeneathTitian'sHighRenaissanceidealizationthereisa similarity to Annibale's conception ofthe relation be-tweenphysicalactionandits meaning.Butin this relation-ship to Titian, as positively as withCorreggio, there is theurgent sense in Annibale's Assunta that what he has de-pictedhereis ina differentrealmfromthatof theearlysix-teenth-century work: this onemeans, with a different as-scrtiveness, immediacy, and conviction, to intersect ourworld. It intends, and is, a commandingextension ofourown existence. Only as the drama ofthe event ascendswithinthepicture, alongwiththeeyethatreadsit, doesthe[20]31.Correggio,Assumption oj the Virgin,detail. Apostles. Parma, Duoino32.Titian,Assumption ofthe Virgin.Venice, S. M. de' Frari[21]qualityof theimage becomelessearthbound,touchedwiththe ideal, appropriately distancing itself fromus.There is another majornovelty ofeffect the infusionofthese densely material substances with an energy thatnot only expands beyond the limits oftheir forms intotheirimmediatecontextof spaceandatmospherebutis ofsuchpoweras to convinceus thateventhesedensities canbelevitatedbythisenergyandpropelledthroughspace, asthe Virgin is; the energy here expressed by forms tran-scends not only their limits but the limits ofthe picture.Thisis differentfromTitian, thesplendidenergyof whoseimages is alwaysinternal to thepicture. It is different alsofromCorreggio, inwhosepaintingsenergycanbevibrantandexpansivebeyondthelimitsof theworkofart, perva-sive beyond anything in Annibale, but does not carryweight: no matterhowsensuously palpable Correggio'sfigures mayseem to be, it is an optical "realization" ofthemthatweperceive; there is notanapprehension, as inAnnibale, ofa substanceand a mass. This distinction is avital one, for it separates Correggio'sproto-baroquefromAnnibale's achievement, for the first timein theAssunta,ofthe bases ofa genuine Baroqueno longer a proto-baroquestyle.Hardly had this remarkable affirmation ofa new stylebeen accomplished when a moderating impulse was im-posedupon its aggressiveness and novelty, as ifAnnibaleshouldhavedoubtedhisowndaring. Themoderatingim-pulseis theresultagainof thenewVenetianexperience, inpart from the classicizing example ofTitian, but morepressinglyfromthatof Veronese(33), less essentially clas-sical and rather the practitioner ofa cosmetically refinedbut brilliantly existential description. Veronese's descrip-tiveefficiencyappealedinevitablytoAnnibale,andhisfac-ile beautifying ofform was an easily accessible counter-weight to the too assertive naturalism from which, onceachieved in the DresdenAssiwta, Annibalethought better33.PaoloVeronese,MarriageofSt. Catherine. Venice, Academyto withdraw.TheMadomia ofSt. Matthew of1588 (also inDresden;34) is ademonstrationof Annibale'sretreatfromapositionthatmayhaveseemedpolemicalachieved,wemustremember, in only four years since his first publicworkin S. Niccoloandof compromisewiththechrono-logicallyverynearperpetuationinVenetianartof theclas-sical ideal. (Veronese, we must recall, died only in thisyear.) The measure ofchange from the ambitions ofthe[22]34.AnnibaleCarracci,Madonna ofSt. Matthew.Dresden, Gallery[23]35.AnnibaleCarracci, S.Bologna, GalleryLudoi Altar.Asstiuta is considerable: notjust ofa modalitydeterminedbythedevotional, as contrasted to theAssunta's dramatic,subject but, moreessential, achieving a tonalityof expres-sionandamodeof ordernotunlikethatinVeroneseandamoderatingidealityof formsandappearancesthatin prin-ciple at least resembles his. Butno matterhowdeliberateAnnibale's Veronesian restraints may be, the visual andplastic actuality ofpresence that Annibalehas conqueredfor art in a new degree informs the mechanisms ofre-straint, and the painting is, in its differently controlledway,onlya little lesscommandinganaffirmationofactu-ality than theAssiwta.Annibale'swastookeenandtooundogmaticanintelli-gence to bebound, in this still early stageofhis develop-ment, to a fixed and single credo. Whathe was dealingwithwas, after all, ideas of hisowninvention, ortheideasofprior great painters that he had recreated to his ownends, hitheyearsimmediatelysucceedingtheDresdenAs-suuta andtheSt. Matthew altar eachof thedistinct tenden-cies wesaw in them, and which wemaynowproperlyterm respectively a baroque tendency and a classicizingone, were manifest in Annibale's art; the baroque domi-nant, but altered, partly in its superficial complexion andpartly in its essence, byelementsofclassicizing kind. TheS. LudovicoAltar(Bologna,Gallery;35), of whichthemostlikelydateis 1589-90, is conceiveduponaschemeof con-trapuntal orderings ofform, grave in substance and ofaslowdignity in movement, that suggestantecedentsfromthe classical High Renaissance such as the works ofFraBartolommeo, which Annibale is not likely to haveknown; or, given the picture's chiaroscuro and texturalopulenceof surface,somemonumentalaltarschemeof Ti-tian's (such as theS. Niccolo Altarin theVatican; 36). Stillmorethan the antecedentMatthew altar this one demon-strates the proposition, vital to Annibale's future art, thatthe conviction inspired in the spectatorofthe truth ofthe[24]36.Titian, S. Niccolo Altar.Vatican Gallery37.AnnibaleCarracci,Ludovico Altar, detail.Parma, Gallery[25]existence that the artist paints depends not on literal mi-mesis orsucha recreationin paint of ordinary reality as isin the Apostles oftheAssitnta but on the recreation withthe painter's brush and color ofthose optical sensationsthrough which we visually apprehend the world (37).These optical effects that denote substances existing in acomplexlylit, atmosphericspace, whichAnnibalededucedfirstfromCorreggioandthen, as in this painting, signifi-cantlyreinforcedfromTitian, haveherebeenappliedwithsuch convincing effect that Annibale no longer needs tocall upondevices ofliteral descriptive truth: thepopolanotypesandtherepertoryof genrearenot nowrequired,andAnnibale may readmit from the vocabulary of the six-teenth century's classical tradition notions ofideality offeatureandexpressioninthecountenance,ofharmonyandplenitudeof shapeof body,of deliberated,rhythmedgracein attitudeandgesture, andofsuavities of manageddrap-ery. Yet none ofthis artifice, here so beautifully accom-plished and so calculatedly beautiful in effect, diminishesthepowerofverisimilitude that is in the wholeimage; itonlydemonstratesthattheexistenceit soconvincinglyde-scribes is ofahigherorder. It is this existentialpowerthat,despite the accumulation in this altar ofclassicizing ideaanddevice, affirms thatits style is notretrospective, butinits essence ofthenewwayofAnnibale's so recentinven-tion.IntheSt. LukeAltar (Paris, Louvre;38), dated 1592, theclassicizing idealityof appearancesandattitudes is insomeways still more apparent: the rhetoric ofposture in theLukeseemsmagnifiedfromwhatwemightfindinaTitianoraRaphael. Yet, to contrast this paintingwiththeworkofRaphael that couldjust possibly have inspired it (re-memberthat the Sistine Madonna (39) was at that time inPiacenza, in North Italy, not far from Annibale's nativeBologna) is to realizehowthe classical elements ofAnni-bale'spainting are aninflection ofits meaningrather thanAnnibale Carracci, St. LukeAltar. Paris, Louvre[26]39.Raphael,Sistine Mcidonia.Dresden, Gallery40.AnnibaleCarracci,Assumption ofthe Virgin.Bologna, Gallery[27]Annibale Carracci,Paris, LouvreResurrection.its motivepowerorits substance. ThesensethatunderHesthis pictureis a reprise, withthealteringaccentof theclas-sical experience that has intervened, ofthebaroqueinten-tion of the Assunta: contrast with the Raphael demon-strates how the pictorial elements in the earlier paintingthatarecomparablehavebeentranslatedintothelanguageandmentalityofa Baroque.Weneednotelaboratethere-lation ofthis altar to theAssunta in its density ofrealizedsubstance, its vitality ofaction, or its forcing nearness tous; thesequalitiesin theSt. LukeAltarare, however, all in-tensified in scale, in nearness (to which this workadds,beyondtheAssunta, devicesof psychologicalcommunica-tion), in the fluency and velocity ofdischarge ofenergyfrom forms, in the pervasive vibration that has been in-fusedintothelight, andaboveall inthemagnifyingof themeansbywhichAnnibalecreates effects ofoptical verisi-militude.Theversion oftheAssunta painted in 1592 (40), in thegalleryinBologna,extrapolatesstill fartherfromtheDres-denversionof thethemeinthedirectionofaBaroque.Initthedemonstrationof anenergyis intensifiedintothesimileofanexplosion. Substanceis multipliedinasheerlyquanti-tativesense,andit3 existenceis assertedalmostviolentlyina goldenbrilliance thatblazesfromtheheavenintowhichtheVirginascends, its divinelightreplacingthatof nature.Morethan in the DresdenAssunta, the style ofthis altarmovedinto an extreme position, and it demanded pauseandreconsideration.Within the next year, 1593, Annibale had determinedwhatthe solution ofhis probings in baroqueexperimentandclassicizingrestraintoughttobe:thesolutionnotcom-promised between the two but dialectic, coercing theminto a workingfusion. Hiswayoftreating a themeessen-tiallysimilartotheAssunta, theResurrectionofChrist (Paris,Louvre;41), manifeststhepowerof mindthatevolvedthissolution. Theenergyof theaction is intense, butit is disci-plined into order and perfectly controlled. Theforms of[28]theactors, noless powerfullyexistential thanbefore, havebeengiventheplasticlucidityof elementsofstatuary, andtheiranatomiesconformtotheidealizingtraditionthathadcomedownfromthe classic masters, referring eventuallyto Raphael and Michelangelo. Thefigures are distributedin a scansionofmeasuredintervals, allowing each, withinthelinkagesof thedesign, its effectof anidentity. Thede-signitselfis aninstantlydiscerniblegeometricorder, deter-mined by two intersecting circular shapes; diagonal im-pulsesof rhythmanddirectionmakesurfaceornamentandspatialdirectionforthisdesignbutdonotdiminishits legi-bility orits integrity.Anassertion in this yearofAnnibale'snewdecisivenessofclassicizing will is in simpler, and perhaps on this ac-countstillmorepositive,forminhisMadonnawith St. JohnEvangelist and St. Catherine (Bologna, Gallery; 42). Itsstructure is almost startlingly reactionary: simple, monu-mental, and nearly symmetrical, the figures framed andsupported by an architecture, and though the figures aregrand in scale and ofan almost opulent physicality, theiractionsarecontainedandgentleanddisposedin a compo-sitionalcontrapposto. Thewhole imageconveysthesenseofa calculated, measuredand evidently idealized beauty, ononehand recalling the character ofRaphael's or Titian'smost self-consciously classicizing altar paintings, and ontheothermakinga critique, fromwhatis evidently anewpointof view, ofthe paintingbyCorreggio, theMadonnaofSt. George (43), then in Modena (now in Dresden),which served as Annibale's immediate model. Annibale"corrects" the overanimated altar ofCorreggio in everypossible respect precisely in a classicizing sense; and thisexercise, inwhichhereshapestheproto-baroqueartofhisfirst great stylistic mentorinto a modeofclassicism, hasthemeaningofa manifestoandmarks thefinally decisivechoicebetween the alternatives that Annibalehimselfhadopenedup, of pursuitof thepossibilitiesofa baroquestyleortheconstraintof thenewlydiscoveredresources ofthat42.AnnibaleCarracci,Madonna with St.John EvangelistandSt. Catherine. Bologna, Gallery[29]styleinto the aestheticand, it shouldbeobserved, at thesametimetheethic systemsofclassicism. I speakadvis-edly ofconstraining the resources ofa baroquestyle intotheaestheticsystemsof a classicism: whatAnnibalehasde-fined in this picture, andless obviously in theResuirectionaltarofthesameyear, is nota resurrectionofthe classicalstyle ofthe HighRenaissance, despite the references to itanddependenceonit thatwereessentialtoAnnibale'sfor-mationofthis present style. Thispresentaccomplishmentis the founding proposition not only for Annibale's ownsubsequentachievementbutforthewidespreadandhistor-icallysignificantphenomenonofstylewhichthatachieve-mentwouldservein turn as threshold for, ofa classicismwithinbaroque. Inthatstyle, asinthisaltarpiece, theresur-gentidealsof classicismwould,inthemostliteral sense,beembodied in the splendid sensuousness ofoptically definedpresenceandappearancethatweretheinnovationof Anni-bale. Thisnewclassicismassumes a lookanda tonality ofmeaning(againin a literal sense) visibly differentfromthatin Annibale's sixteenth-century models.The clarity of Annibale's commitment to this newcourse is evident in his Madonna above Bologna (Oxford,Christ Church; 44) of1593 or 1594, in a design which,though inspired possibly by Annibale's exposure to theSistineMadonna (39) in the original, andto Raphael'sMa-donnadiFoUgno (45) inengraving, is moredoctrinairein itsgeometry than either. But the identity ofthe image as aphenomenonofthenewstyle, andnotas a recollection, iseven more apparent here than in the Madonna with theEvangelist and Catherine; the grand dimension ofthe Ma-donnahere is notjustfroma will toachieve a classicizinggrandeur, butfroma will baroquein essenceto mag-nify thesplendorofa physicalpresence, andthatpresenceis conveyed to us in terms that make it vibrant with theexcitements oflight and texture.43.Corrcggio,Madonna oj St. George.Dresden, Gallery[30]44.AnnibaleCarracci,Madonnaabove BoU\^na.Oxford, ChristChurchGallery45.Raphael,Madonnadi Foligno,VaticanGallery[31]46.Annibale Carracci, T'c)/7t'fofVenus. Washington, National Gallery, SamuelH. Kress Collection[32]Toa classicism of formsandtonalityofexpressionAn-nibaleaddedthat ofancient subject matterin the ToiletofVenus (Washington, National Gallery; 46), of 1594-95.Thenudesdonotjust translate theaccustomedmodelsofantique statuary but amplifythem, aggrandizing their ef-fect of substance and dimension. However, Annibalemakesnocorresponding effect in his handling ofthesen-suous description ofthesenudes: on the contrary, as iftoinsistontheirideality as anaspectof boththeirOlympiannatureandthehistorical distancetowhichtheypertain, hehas, as it were, distilledoff fromthenudesthesensualepi-dermisoftheir sensuousness, giving to the bodies a puri-fying, morenearly even radiance that affirms the descentoftheir imagery from ancient statues. The intellectuallymotivated deliberateness of this effect is accentuated bycontrastwiththeopulenceof chiaroscurointhesettingandof texturein theaccessories. Again, thereis a revealingin-cidentof a critiqueof Correggio'sexampleinthispainting.ThehandmaidenatthelefttranscribesalmostexactlyCor-reggio'spoignantlysensualVenusin hisEducation of Cupid(47) butdiminisheshersensualityandputsbothhernudityandtheidea ofit at a distance.Agreatpicturegreatindimensionalso; it is aboutfivemeterslongmarksthelast accomplishmentof AnnibaleinBolognabeforehispermanenttransfer toRomeinNo-vember1595: the St. Rock Distributing Alms (48), doneforthe confraternity ofS. Roccoin ReggioEmiha, andnow,likesomanyothersof Annibale'sprimeBologneseworks,in Dresden. Thepainting wasexecutedalmost altogetherin 1594or 1595, butit hadbeencommissioned,andpossi-blyinsomedegreebegun,as early as 1587-88. Althoughaconception ofdesign made at that time, when Annibalewasinthemainconcernedwithprobingstowardbaroque-ness, mayaccount for evidently baroque qualities in thecomposition, this need not be the case. Thearmature ofdesign, a brilliantly manipulated play in counterpoint of47.Correggio.Education ofCupid.London,NationalGallerydiagonal impulses, locked absolutely into a powerfullychargedbutpreciseandfinallydeterminingequilibrium, isawhollyappropriateresponsetothepotentialfordramaticactionin thispanoramic/y/ifona; theprincipleofmodality,whichswayedAnnibale's stylisticformulationsoften, wassurely operative here, hi any case, the St. Rock demon-stratesatthehighestpossibleleveltheinteractionAnnibalehadformedbetweenclassicalprincipleandbaroquedevice;thebaroqueimpulsionof diagonaldesignworkednotonlyintocounterpointbutwithineachimpulseintodisciplinedcommunity of direction, in which actions and gestures[33]Annibale Carracci, St. Roch Distributing Alms. Dresden, Galleryseem to line up like iron filings responding to a magnet.Thecharged equilibrium the design finds satisfies, in theend, requirementsofclassical designnoless stringentthanforaRaphael: theExpulsionofHeliodoms (49), forexample,achieves an end effect no different in principle from this.Nolessimportanttothetemperof thewhole,andequallyaffirmative of its descent from classicismRaphael's,muchmorethan Veronese's superficial brandofit, as hasfor this instance been alleged is the rhetoric ofthe pic-ture: in the largeness and emphatic character ofthe dra-matic action; in the demonstrativeness and impressiveamplitude of the actors, and the handsome large de-liberateness oftheir postures and their gestures. This isthe rhetorical modenot ofany North Italian or VenetianmodelbutofRaphael, as it hadbeeninventedbyhimforthe Stanze, and climactically developed in his Tapestry[34]t> Ml" \ tif49.Raphael,Expulsionof Heliodoms.Vatican, Stanzad'EliodoroCartoons and in his late Transfiguration (50)Raphael'sclassicalrhetoric, butaggrandizedfurtherbyAnnibale,andextrapolatedto the vergeof baroquehyperbole.It isimpossibletoestablish howmuchof thecastof styleinthesetwoworksof 1594-95thereferencetoantiquityin the Toilet of Venus, the analogue to Raphael'smodeofrhetoricin theSt. Roch maybeduetothebriefvisit An-nibalemadetoRomelatein 1594, butit is explicit that, inany case, the substance ofhis formulation ofa classicismwithinbaroquehadbeenentirely resolvedbeforehis defi-nitetransferof residencetoRome,wherehewassettledbytheautumnof1595. Theclassicism his Romanpaintingsmanifest perfects and clarifies what he had laid downinBologna,andit acquiresaspecifically Romanaccent,com-pounded from the examples ofancient art that Annibalecould see there in unparalleled abundance and from theHighRenaissanceinterpretations ofantiquity.AnnibalehadcometoRometoenterintotheserviceofthe Farnese, andfrom1595 to 1597heperformedhis firstworkforthemin thedecorationin theirgreatRomanpal-aceof aroomcalledtheCamerino,of whichthethemewas50.Raphael,Tniiisfii^uralioii.Vatican Gallery[35]51.Annibale Carracci, ChoiceofHercules. Naples, CapodimonteMuseumthehistoryof Hercules.Thecenterpieceofthisdecoration,a paintingoncanvas laid flat uponthe ceiling, depicts theChoiceof Hercules (51); the canvas has long since been re-movedandreplacedbyacopy,andtheoriginaltransferredto the museum at Capodimonte in Naples. Immediatelystrikinginthepicture, andmarkedlydifferentin its consis-tencyandimpactfromthenearest similarexercisedoneinBologna, the ToiletofVenus, is thewayinwhichthesensein this antiquesubjectmatterof belongingauthentically toantiquityhasbeenreinforcedbyAnnibalc'sexploitationofwhathehadcometoknowinRomeof theappearancesofancienttimesthatsurvivingstatuarydocumentedforhim.hi the principal figure there is a singular confluence be-tween Annibalc's previously asserted will to aggrandize[36]53.Michelangelo.Sistiiic Ceiling, detail, IgnudoVatican, Sistine Chapel52.Glykon, FarncscHercules.Naples, NationalMuseum54.Raphael,Fire in the Borgo, detail.Vatican, Stanza dell'Incendiohumansubstanceandanantiquemodelthen in the court-yardof thepalace, theso-called FaniweHercules (52), whichhewouldinevitablyconsult. AtthesametimeAnnibale,inthis depiction ofa heroicanatomy, hadnoless inevitablytorefertoMichelangelo(53). Inthefigureof thetemptressat the right it is the late and most classical Raphael (54)whoseinterpretation ofantiqueform is taken over, whilethe Virtue, onthe left, reflects the filtering ofantique atti-tude and drapery style through the noble models oftheSchoolofAthens. Beyond the parentage ofclassicism, an-tique or High Renaissance, that has been deliberately as-sertedbyAnnibalein thefigures, his assertionofakinshipwithstatuaryintheirappearanceis anewdevice: I havere-ferred already to the circumstance that, since Annibale'stimeknewthelookof theancientworldin themainfromstatuary, reference to its appearancemakesa warrantyforthe truth ofancient subject matter. Toachieve this refer-enceAnnibaleappropriatelydiminishestheeffects ofopti-cality in his style, smoothingthe description ofthe fall oflight on substance, muting the effects oftexture in the[37]draperies no less than in the flesh discipUning baroquevibrancetowardmodulatedcontinuity. This process doesnotmakea diminutionofthefigures' existentialpower; itis aclarifyinganda distillationof it, appropriateto a classi-cal mentality. Further, whatthe figures lose in optical ef-fectsof sensuousimmediacytheyreplacewiththeireffectsofclarityandcertaintyof presence. Theirillusionhasbeenlessenedbut their verisimilitudehas not, andbythe senseofa distillation that theygivetheyaremoreappropriatelyseen as dwellers in a distanced, Olympiansphere.FromtheCamerinoAnnibaletransferredhisattentiontothe muchlarger project ofdecoration ofthe vault ofthegreatsaloninthepalace(55), whereheworked,assistedonoccasionbyhisbrotherAgostino,fromlate1597totheendof1599. Thereason for the decoration wasapparently animpendingmarriage, tobecelebratedin 1600,betweentheyoung Ranuccio Farnese and Margherita Aldobrandini,daughterof an allied greatRomanhouse, thatofthe thenreigningpope,ClementVIII.Thethemeof thedecoration,theLoves oj the Gods, was taken with the meaning ofanepithalamion, an ode in celebration ofthe marriage. Thetheme accounted for the subjects Annibale was to illus-trate, butnotfortheschemeinwhichhechosetorepresentthem. That proceeded from another preexistent circuin-stance: that the salon was a gallery in which the antiquesculptureof theFarnesecollectionwasdisplayed.Thissug-gested to Annibale the brilliant thought of treating hisscenes on the vault as ifthey were pictures hanging in agallery (56): asanassemblageof illusionisticsemblancesofframed paintings {quadri riportati, as the current languagecalled them) and sculptural reliefs, hunguponor insertedinto a framework offictitious architecturean architec-turemadewithpaint apparently to extendandcrown thegallery's real walls.Thepainted architecture extends the luxury ofdecora-tionof thosereal walls. Thefictivesuperstructureencloses55.After GiovanniVolpato,Farnese Gallery[38]AnnibaleCarracci, Farncsc Gallery. Rome, Palazzo Farncseanaddition to thespacea storyhighabovetheactual cor-nice; at the corners it is open to an apparent outside sky.Thelongsides of thesuperstructurearedividedinto alter-natingbays ofsimulated reliefsculptureand paintings in-serted into fictitious picture moldings; in the center is aquadroripovtato inthemostexactsense, heavilyframedas ifit were a canvas. Terms or Atlantids, made in mono-chromepaint to convey the illusion that they are stuccosculptures,handsomelyandheavilydividethepictorialandsculptural episodes. On each short wall, a great verticalpicture,framedwithpaintas ifit wereaneaselwork,leansforwardinspaceandrisesaboveintothesuperstructuretoits verylimit. Acrosstheopeningto a paintedskywehereperceive, two smaller "pictures" hang as a bridge to twolargescenes, thesenowpretendingtobetapestries, which,stretchedacross theupperspace, wouldshadeusfromthe"sky."Thesein turnadjoin a large centralpainting that iscontained in what seems to be an architectural molding[39]57.Raphael, Story of Psyche.Rome, Villa Farnesina, Loggia di PsycheMichelangeloand others,Sistiiw Chapel.Vaticanratherthan a normalpictureframe, as ifthis central scenewereafixedelementinthedecorativescheme.Aroundthebottom ofthe painted superstructure, below the Termsandposedas if theyweresittingonthe real corniceofthegallery, arenudesin color, whosederivationfromMichel-angelo'sIgnudi is instantlyobviousandwasmeantbyAn-nibale to be.Thecomplexity ofthe system offictitious architectureAnnibale has projected in paint upon the vault precludesour trying to describe and analyze it in detail, but we[40]59.AnnibaleCarracci, Farncse Gallery, detail, VaiusandAnchisesshould note how, with the stimulation ofclose contactwiththe Romanworld, Annibalehasmadein this schemea transmutationoftheprecedentsoftheHighRenaissancethatismoreinspiredandoriginalthananypreviouspainterhadachieved. Raphael'sStory of Psyche in theVilla Farne-sina (57) wasof necessityreferredto, andfromit cametheideaof coveringthe centerof the vaultwithimagesin themodeo{quadririportati, avoidingthusthelogic, destructivetoa classicalunityof decoration,of foreshorteningillusion.FromMichelangelo (58)came the basis for the idea ofaframework ofinterlocking elements ofarchitecture pro-jected in paint onto the ceiling, in whichsomefigurativeelements display at least in part the character ofillusion,while others contradict it. In one respect Anmbale's[41]60.Annibalc Carracci, Ftinicse Gallery, detail, Herculesand loleschemeconveys a sensemorelike Raphael's than Michel-angelo's: the vault ofthe Farnesina, like that ofthe Far-nese, seems to contain thespectator spatially andpsycho-logicallyas if intheshelterof anumbrella; thevaultoftheSistine does not contain but only surmounts him. Morethan either, however, Annibale creates the effect in boththe pseudo-architecture and the figurative elements ofhisvault (59, 60) that they are palpable presences. Theformsofarchitecture are transformedfluentlyandalmostperva-sively into the human forms of fictive stucco sculpture,whichdespite theirmonochromeinspirein thespectator'seyeandimaginationnoless a convictionoftheir presence[42]61.Raphael, Story of Psyche, detail, Three Graces.Rome, Villa Farnesinathan the actors in the paintings they enframe. Before thestuccosculptures, onthecornice, in a spaceof illusionthatappearsasif halfwayintoourown,andinourlightaswell,theIgnudi are live, flexible, andtouchableexistences.Thelife Annibalehas spread out on the Farnese ceilingseems,bycomparisonwithits early sixteenth-centuryan-tecedents, to pullulate and be intensely present, yet themodeofideality to whichits formshavebeenreshaped isinmostwaysnotso different. Annibale'smannerof mag-nifying his anatomiesandendowingthemwith clarity offormandregularityof proportionis closetoRaphael's(61)andstill moredoctrinairethanhis; insomerespects Anni-bale's actors seem more distant. Yet there emerges fromAnnibale's figures whatwehaveperceived already in theChoiceofHercules: a distilledsensuality, compoundedfromthenuditythathasbeenillustratedanda qualityof surfaceon it that is as ifcaressedby light. Thisemanation to thespectator'spsyche, combiningwiththeillustrationandag-grandizementofpresence, makesapoweroffelt existencethatisnotinAnnibale'smodelsbutis of hisowntimeand,wemustnot forget, ofhis invention. AcomparisonwithMichelangelo's models (62) eloquently demonstrates thedifference ofAnnibale's effect. Thecomparisonprovokesanobservation on thenatureofAnnibale's ideality, how-ever;formallynolessthanMichelangelo's, it is philosophi-cally or, perhaps more exactly, morallyin a less ex-alted sphere.Theanalogue, in regularity of grandproportionandlu-cidityofsurface, totheactualsculpturethatpopulatedthegallery below is reserved in that degree for the deitieswhose amoursAnnibaledepicts: thereis amatchingof formtoanideaofcontent, andit is adjustableonjust this basis.TheIgnudiwhosit illusionistically as ifbefore the narra-tive scenes and on the actual cornice (63) are not Olym-pians, separate from us in a discrete pictorial space, butcreaturesintermediatebetweenOlympiaand us. Aggran-dized in anatomy, in imitation ofthe nudes ofMichelan-gelotheysopurposelyrecall (53), theyareofamoreflexi-ble, less geometry-suggesting form than the Olympians;their physiognomies, too, are less beautifully recast. Fur-ther, theirbodiesarerevealedtousin a lightdistinctfrom[43]62.Michelangelo,Sisiiiie Ceiling, detail,Temptation andExpulsion.Vatican, Sistine Chapel63.AnnibaleCarracci,Farnese Gallery, detail,Igniidi andAtlantids64.AnnibaleCarracci,Sileiius Picking Grapes.London, National GallerythelightilluminingourviewbeyondtheIgnudiintoAnni-bale's Olympus; as the Ignudi on the cornice share ourspacetheyshareourlight as well, andit worksupontheirbodies with a texturing complexity that affirms the truthand nearness oftheir presence. Their anatomies are alsomoredetailedthanthoseof thegods,andtheirexpressionsofcountenance are manifold and psychologically precise.Thesphereof idealitytowhichAnnibalehasraisedthemisspecified by his artistic means to be at mosthalfway be-tween us and the gods, exactly as their situation in thescenerequires. ThecontrastofAnnibale'sIgnudiwiththeimagesof Michelangeloinwhichtheytaketheirorigin af-firms that, whatevertheir relation to the artistic past, theessence ofAnnibale's conception is ofhis owninventionandonlyofhistime.Butwhatis alsoontheFarneseceilingthatis particulartoAnnibale,andindicativeforhistime, isan affirmation ofa pleasure in existence; morethan plea-sure, it seems an expansive and commandingjoy, whichcomesnotfrom the narration but fromthe radiance thatemergesfromAnnibale's recreation ofa physical world.Thereis abyproductinsmallscaleof themannerof theFarnesedecoration,doneclosetothetimewhentheceilingwasapproachingits completionin 1599, intwofragmentswith Bacchicsubjects (nowin London, National Gallery;64, 65) fromthedecorationofa cembalo, towhichAnni-bale has transferred the modality in whichhepainted theFarnesenudes. TheBacchicthemes {SilemisPicking Grapesand Bacchus with Siletius) are traditionally vehicles ofhumor, meantall the moreso in their association withthe musical instrument they once adornedto inspireamusementand an intimate delight. TheFarnese decora-tion, ongrand scale, hadofnecessity toworkin large ef-fectsandwithconstantimplicationof arhetoric.Thesmallpaintings display the other end of Annibale's aesthetic[45]65.AnnibaleCarracci,Bacchus with Sileiius.London, NationalGalleryrange: a mostrefinedandcomplexlighting, reverberatingagainst thebackground(even the arbitrary butwhollyat-mospheric-seemingoneofgoldleaf) in whichthe figuresseem most live and tangible resurrections ofa pleasure-imbuedpaganworld. Theintimacyandfineness ofvisualandphysicalsensationthatAnnibalesets forthherearethecounterpartofthe sensibility hehas employedin psycho-logical description: the personalities ofthe actors are noless vibrantly madealive for us than are their persons.Sensibility in this extraordinarydegreeof fineness artic-ulates greatpowerofemotionin a religious painting thatcomes from this time or very shortly later, a Pieta (66),nowin Naples, of1599-1600. Grandformsdeducedfromwhatis againaninescapableexampleinMichelangelo(67)are remade into a more evidently classical and heroicbeauty, and adjusted in their composition so as to make,with baroque disposition, a counterpoint of rhythmicmovements as well as weights. Thealteration ofthe Mi-chelangelesquedesignremembersthemostnearlybaroqueprecedentinCorreggio,thePietdnowinthe Parmagallery(28), andAnnibaleremembersfromit alsowhatCorreggiohaddemonstratedtohimof emotionalsensibility. Aslyricand pathetic as in Correggio, Annibale's emotional re-sponse is effectively mimetic, but it is even more essen-tiallyaesthetic, inspiringthewarping,tormentedbeautyofthemovementof eachlineandthepalpitationof thechiar-oscurolight. ButAnnibale,nowfixedinhismoldof classi-cism, hasas hasnowbecomehis habitcorrectedCor-reggioeven as hehas recalledhim.TheQuo Vadis, Domitie of1602-3 (London, NationalGallery; 68) speaksamuchmoredoctrinaireversionof theclassical language Annibalehadperfected in theseRomanyears. Although it is a small picture (barely eighty centi-meters high), its lucidity ofform and expressiveness ofcontentenlargeit greatlyin theviewer'smind.Thefigureofthe Christ comes toward us as a simpleand impactfulform, bluntandemphaticin his action. Peter, setin profilecountertothefrontalChrist, reactstothedivineapparitionwith similar emphasis and simplicity. Astrong but onlymodestlyinflectedlightreinforcesthelucidityof formand[46]66.Annibalc Carracci, Picla.Naples, CapodimonteMuseumMichelangelo, Pietd.Vatican, St. Peter's[47]68.Annibalc Carracci,Quo P'adis, Doiniiw.London, National Galleryatonceclarifiesandstrengthenscolor.ThedisciplineAnni-balehasimposedon his artistic means is in every respectmorestringent in theQuo Vadis thanwehaveeverseen itbefore;butit mustbeobservedthatwhatwemaythinkofasanincreasedabstractnessof designandof someelementsofform does not diminish the powerofexistence in thepicture. Indeed, the process that resembles abstractionmost certainly intended its effects to be the opposite: ahigherimmediacyandurgencyinpresenceandincommu-nication ofidea. It is nonetheless perceptible that there is,from this time on, a changein the tenorandintention ofAnnibale's classicism: a newausterity ofmindand strin-gencyof meansinformhis style. Fromanaestheticprinci-ple, classicismhasnowbeenelevatedtoadogma,moralaswell as aesthetic.Onelast workweshall consider exemplifies in its best[48]69.AnnibaleCarracci, Pictd.London, NationalGallery[49]aspectwhathappened in Annibale's art in consequence: aPieta (also London, National Gallery; 69), not later than1605 in date, makesanorderofextraordinary rigor. Thefiguresinthepaintingarearrangedalmostas if theymightbebuildingblocks, in asequenceestablishedbya mostar-bitraryandbarelyflexiblegeometry.Yetevenas ageome-trythedesignmoves,impellednotonlybythehumanac-tionsheldwithinit butbyitsowninternallogic: asteppedsequence rises from the dead Christ to the left, traversessharply to the right, andthendescends to dischargeuponthe Christ again. Thescheme carries the viewer throughthestagesofanarrativeinwhicheachstep is a prodigiousdeclarationof emotion:concentrated,stylized,andexplicit,and ofmost penetrating power. Theextreme constraintsthat Annibale has intellectually imposedupon the imagedo not limit its dimension ofemotion; on the contrary,theyintensifyandmagnifyit, inthe waythatis characteris-tic ofthe aspirations ofa highest classical style whichAnnibalehas, at this momentin his career, achieved. Butthis classicismremainsnowasevera classicismwithinba-roque:presence is as actual as it is poignant, andit is con-veyedin a vehicleof light thatintensifies thelifeof feehngas well as of formandexalts theradianceofcolor.Analmost wholly incapacitating mental illness, whichtooktheformof anacuteandpathologicalvarietyof mel-ancholia,begantomanifestitself inAnnibaleabout1605. Itseems soon to have made it impossible for him to paint,thoughheseemstohavebeenable to continue, in a mostlimitedway, todirecthisstudioandtogivesomeideasfordesign. Annibaledied in 1609, notyet fifty, leaving to thepupils he had gathered to himselfin Romea legacy thatwouldbecomein theirhandsthe classicalmodewithinthestyleof theBaroque,butleavingalsotothewiderworldofartinItalytheexampleof his ownearlyessays, priortohisclassicaldecision, inthemakingof thebasesof theBaroquestyleas such. Hewasthegiantofcreationof his time, andhis accomplishmentwouldbear fruit longbeyondthatoftheonlyartist in his worldwhocould rivalhimin artisticmerit and in dimension ofhumanityMichelangelo daCaravaggio.[50]IIPlate II.Caravaggio,St.John the Baptist with a Ram.Rome, CapitolincGalleryCAR/M^GGIONoOTHERIMAGEOFTHISmomentin Italianpainting makes so powerful an assault upon oursensibilities as Caravaggio's St. John the Baptistwith a Ram (in the Capitoline Gallery in Rome; plate II).^Awork ofhis early maturity, about 1602, it stands inan extreme degree for what, in the context ofthe recentpastaswellasCaravaggio'scontemporaryworld,wasrad-ical andinventive in his art. Recognizing that it is an ex-treme statement, wemay use it onjust that account tomakea morepointed demonstration.Thepast reigning style of Mannerismoffers its charac-teristic conceptionofthethemeoftheyoungBaptist in apainting by Agnolo Bronzino (Rome, Borghese Gallery;70) fromthe middleyears ofthe preceding century. Thisasserts apresencewhichinsomewaysseemsas forceful asCaravaggio's,andwhichdependslikeCaravaggio'sontheaffirmationof effectsof visualtruth. Bronzino'snudehasasharplydefinedverityof descriptioninthepartsof its anat-omy;however,oppositetoCaravaggio'snude,Bronzino'swholefiguregivestheeffectnotof actualitybutof artifice.Thevery modelBronzinohas chosen, to begin with, af-firms his removefromordinary reality: he is a high-bredyouth, offine and classicizing feature and, for all his evi-dentpowerof body,noless fineandclassicizinganatomi-calform.Bronzinohasdefinedthatformbygraphicmeansconjoined with the means of plastic modeling, as if hemeantto recreate for us less a bodyofpalpableflesh thanthe imageofa sculpture. Thesemblance ofstatuary thathas been given to the figure has made it seem asensuous;nevertheless, it conveysa quality ofdistilled and eccentri-cally displaced sensuality. AsweregardBronzino'simageweexperience complex and ambivalent sensations, someof theminternallycontradictory,andourexperienceof it isdiffuseandfaceted. Butit is Bronzino's initial approachtotherepresentationof theformthatresultsinsuchdiffusion:theextremeacuityofattentionfocusedonthedescriptionAgnoloBronzino, St.John the Baptist.Rome,BorgheseGalleryof eachpart is of necessitydivisivefacetingandanalytic.Weareeachmomentmademoreawareof theoperationinBronzino's imageofa complicated apparatus ofintellect:the processes ofhigh andabstracting intelligence are herecommunicatedbythemostdisciplinedformalworkingofthe hand. Thepresence Bronzino's picture so command-ingly asserts does not result from the reproduction that[52]maybein it ofnature; the reality it conveys is that ofitspowerful reality ofart. Intheartof Caravaggio'sgreatnear-contemporary,An-nibaleCarracci, intellection andidealizationremainprimeoperativepowers. Annibale'sIgnudi oftheFarnese ceiling71.AnnibaleCarracci, ModelStudy for an l^nudoojthe Farnese Gallery. Paris, Louvre(63) makeovertreferencetotheprecedentof Michelangelo(53), reinforcing the role mthemofthe ideal; at thesametime, Annibale's nudes were, far more than Michelan-gelo's, (literally) embodied, theideal inthemincorporatedintoandcompromisedwithformsthathavebeenopticallyandsensuouslyperceived. Evenwhen,asinastudyforoneof the Ignudi (71), Annibale immediately confronts themodel, his notationof whathelooks at, for all its textureandaliveness, is fromthebeginningconditionedbyamea-sure ofintellectual arranging and idealization. What wemay call "realism"in the most conventional and prag-maticsenseinwhichthewordis usedbyarthistorians isa basis and a starting point in Annibale's creative process,butinhismatureart it is neverits mainend. It wasonlyinhis first traceable beginnings that Annibale, as we haveseen in hisDead Christ ofca. 1582 (in Stuttgart; 11), hadthought the reality ofthe unidealized model a sufficientpurpose; hequickly came to reincorporate the traditionalrequirementsofan ideal style.Wehave a contextnowfor Caravaggio's St.John, andthe first consideration the image impresses on us in thiscontextis that thefigurehasbeenseenbyCaravaggioap-parentlywithouttheinterventionof anyofthe traditionalidealities. Caravaggio seems indeed to have selected hismodelin defiance oftherequirements ofidealism, andhehaswilledtopresenthimphysicallyandpsychologicallyinawaythatmakeshiminthemostextremedegreeactualimmediate,hterallywithoutanyintermediarybetweenthemodel-imageandourselves. Caravaggio'sapprehensionofthemodel'spresenceseemsunimpededin the least degreebyanyinterventionof theintellectorbythoseconventionsof aestheticorof ethicthattheintellectinvents.TheimageCaravaggiopresents to us is essentially the sensuous per-ceptionofaphysicalfact; thepsychologicalrecordaccom-panyingit is onlysuchas is requiredtoimplythemeaningthat this sensuous presencemayhavefor the viewer.[53]M/ Thispresenceis of anaggressivelynakedyouthfulmale,/ and in the context ofour biographical information aboutCaravaggio and our understanding of the pictures hepainted prior to this one, werecognize that this image is*"homosexualinits essentialcontent. Onemight jugglewith>>>,f platonicnotionsofthepicture's senseortryto palliate thesubjectbylending it anOldTestamentorevena mytho-logical rather than a Christian label, but it is most likelythatnoneof thesewasmeant.Inanycase, thenominalsub-ject matteris of nomorethan tangentialimport, since therealmeaningandthenominalthemedivergefromonean-other: the Baptist with the sacrificial ram, or whateverother subject maybeproposed instead for it, is merely afigleaf imposeduponthereal meaningofthis picture. Therealthemeis nota narrative, anallegory, oranemblem;itis a presence, andthemeaningofthepresence is thesheersensoryexperienceof it andtheemotionsthisexperienceis\ meantto generate.jThe artist's seeing ofthe model and the action ofhis/ hand that records the seeing are absolutely immediate tojhis brush. HisperceptionhasbeenconveyedtothecanvasIwithout the intervention, or the consequent deliberation,1 ofany studies in drawingin this he is unlike Annibale\ Carraccimostconspicuously;andhis processof recording'is as intense as it is direct. There is no precedent for thisdegreeeitherof intensityordirectnessinanypriorart. Theseeingimpelledbythisintensitygraspsits objectandexpe-riences it as ifat highest speed, giving the effect ofan in-stantaneous apprehension ofthe whole. Theact ofappre-1 hension is including and integral, a unity as well as aninstantaneity; and in this apprehension optical and tactileexperienceor, moreprecisely, the sense in the mindoftactile experience have been fused, reinforcing one an-other, absolutelyinterpenetrating, tomakeaneffectwhichfar exceeds that ofeither kindofexperiencebyitselfVrhewayinwhichCaravaggiorelates to thisseenimagebutnotonlytothisparticularkindofimage,itshouldbeunderstoodis asif toalove-object.Hetranslatesintohisactof artthelover'sexperienceof seeingandtouch, whichhehasgalvanizedat thatveryinstantwhere,inaliving sit-uation, seeingwouldbeturnedinto touching. Visual sen-sation is intensely charged, containing a high tension andgeneratingmore.Theartist isbynatureavoyeur,andhereCaravaggiohas created a voyeuristic situation into whichthespectator, as hetakes thepainter's placein front ofthecompleted canvas, necessarily must fall. Themeaning ofthe picture thus depends not only on the presence Cara-vaggio has evokedin it, butonthe situation hehasnowmade.Thereis noverymeaningfulactionoremotionthatoccurs within the painting; what is meaningfulcomesin-steadfromtherelationshipestablishedinitiallybetweentheartist andthe modeland then, as weare thesurrogate forthe painter when we look at the picture, between themodel-imageandourselveS;_Thisisanythingbutastill-lifemodeof responsetoexpe-rience, despite Caravaggio's prior episodes ofinterest instill life. The quality ofattention and the efficacy ofde-scriptionmayindeedbethoseofa painter ofstill life, butthe situation that has been created between the spectatorandthepicture is verydifferentfromwhathewouldcon-front in a still life. This situation posits a relationship be-tween persons, and requires what wemay describe as atransaction ofexperiencebetweenthem. Each confronta-tionwiththeimagerechargesit, as it were, withthelife ofthis transaction.Yet, even as it inescapably demands relationship, theimageretainsthecharacterof athingapartfromus: apres-enceandapersonalitythatCaravaggiohasobjectified.Theobjectivity is notjustin thepainter's truth ofphysical de-scriptionbutalsointhepsychologicalcharacterization,andbeyond that it arises from Caravaggio's management ofthe aesthetic factors ofwhich the painting is composed.[54]Caravaggio, Fruttaiolo{YoungFruit Vendor).Rome,BorgheseGalleryThelatteraretheeasiertoexplain: theplanarsettingof thebody; the self-containing, regulating arrangement ofthehmbsinto a cotitrapposto; thelogic of anevidentgeometrythatrelatestheimagetothepicturefieldandseemstolockit there, holding it thus separatefromus. Despitehis pre-tenseof acontrarypremise, theintellectualdevicesof pasttradition have in fact not been rejected by Caravaggionor, obviously, couldtheybe; buttheyhavebeenmaster-fullyoccludedbytheclamorhehasmadeinfrontof themwithhis assertion ofvulgarian reality.Theobjectifyingofthepsychologicalcomponentoftheimageis difficult to characterizefromthesinglepictureinitself; it is better demonstrated by a comparative processwhichshows howit evolvedfromCaravaggio'sprecedingpaintings.TheFruttaiolo (the YoungFruit Vendor, in the BorgheseGallery in Rome; 72), is almost a decade earher than theAttributed to Giorgione, Shepherd with Fhtte.HamptonCourt, RoyalCollection. ReproducedbycourtesyofH. M. theQueen(copyright reserved)[55]74.Caravaggio,Musica {TheMusicParty).NewYork, MetropolitanMuseumCapitoline Baptist; it was painted shortly after Caravag-gio's arrivalin thecapital, about 1593. In this earlypicturethe real meaning, beneath the apparent subject matter ofgenre-cum-still-life, is thesameas that in theBaptist. The[56]psychological characterization ofthe modelconveys a ro-manticizingtenderness,whichdespitetheelementof genresuggests theworkinguponCaravaggioofa modeoffeel-ing he wouldhave seen in Giorgione (73); it is virtuallycertain that the young painter had had an experience ofCaravaggio, Liiteiiisi.Leningrad, HermitageMuseum[57]76.Caravaggio, Bacchus.Florence, Uffizi GalleryVenice. TheMusica oftheMetropolitanMuseumin NewYork (74), ofa year or so later, ca. 1594, illustrates stillmorecompellingly the sense ofa sympathybetween theartist and his models. The models demonstrate theprojectionuponthemofthe artist's feelings: almost senti-mental,andlyricalnotonlyinthetonalityof feelingbutinthe emotive affect he has imparted to the representedforms.Thefeeling is asgenuineandas authenticallypoeticas it is tender, andtheparticularsexualimplication it con-tainsshouldbeseenas its inspiringmotive,notas anadul-terant. Againa yearortwolaterintime, theLutenistof theHermitage (75), ofabout 1595-96, begins to demonstrateCaravaggio'sprocessof objectifyinghis relationshiptohismodels: as thepowerdevelops in himofobjectifying thedescription of the form, simultaneously and in parallelwiththatdevelopmentandas a functionofit hispowerofobjectifyingfeelingdevelopsalso. Asthefigureacquiresanappearance more certainly separate from us, so does itspsychologicalidentitybecomediscrete. BythetimeoftheUffizi Bacchus of1597-98(76), the articulation ofa psy-chological distinction ofthe model from the spectator isclose in degree to whattheBaptist shows./^77.Caravaggio, Si. Johnthe Baptist witha Ram (replica).Rome, Doria Gallery[58]Thesoleinstance thatweknowofanauthenticrephca-tionbyCaravaggio ofone ofhis ownworks is a secondversion oftheBaptist picture (77), in theDoriaGallery inRome. It demonstrates no less than the first, Capitoline,version how, by the time ofhis early maturity ofstyle,Caravaggiocameto observeandrecord thepsycheofhismodels with an effect ofseparate and living truth withinthe real world, no longer trammeled in the psyche andemotionsofthe artist. Hehasinterposed a smallbut verysensiblepsychologicaldistancebetweenusandthemodel-image,whichdoesnotlessenitsimmediacyordecreaseitspower ofcommunication, but which makes our experi-enceof it likethatofa truereality, uncompromisedbytheartificial subjectivity that art supplies. This psychologicaldistancebetweenviewerandimageisnovoid; it is, rather,Hkeasparkgap;prodigiouslycharged, it is thebridgeforarelationship whichis, in boththehumanandaesthetic di-mensions, phenomenally live.Caravaggio's process ofmaturing was, as wehave al-readynoticed, notonlyaninternal one. It wasacceleratedbythe sense that Caravaggiomusthavefelt ofdifferencefromhisimmediateartistic contextand, as well, fromtheart-historical past: the sense ofdifference, which wetoomustfeelstrongly, emergesmoreandmorewitheachnewpersonalexpression, andas it emerges it is inevitably self-reinforcing. Bythe century's turn Caravaggio'snewwayhadacquiredthecharacterof anaggressionagainsthiscon-text of contemporary art and even more against thesourcesin theCinquecentopast ofthepresent's persistenthabitof ideahsm, conspicuous, foraprimeexample, intheartof AnnibaleCarracci. Thereare deliberateepisodes, ofwhichtheBaptist isamongthemostexplicit, of aggressiontowardthegreat deities of sixteenth-centurypainting, Mi-chelangeloinparticular.Adeliberatetranslationintorealistrproseofovert classic sources on the sacred Sistitie Ceiling(78), theBaptist is notjust anti-ideal; it is a derisive irony.andin asense ablasphemy,whichintendsaneffectofsac-rilege and shockto which its contemporary audiencewouldha,vebeenmoresusceptible thanwe. The Amor(inBerlin-Dahlem; 79) of1601 or 1602 is a still moredrasticJinversionin this samevein (80). Themeasureof Caravag-gio's aggression against Michelangelo is in proportion tothelatter's toweringideality, buttheremaybea less theo-retical basis for it a reaction to Michelangelo's veilingandsublimationofa sexualdispositionthatCaravaggioinhis arthadmadeovert. Therelation toMichelangelo'sex-ample is, however, two-faced: Caravaggio is awed bywhatprovokeshimtoattack,andlikeallactsofblasphemytheseof Caravaggio are inescapably ambivalent.78.Michelangelo,Sistitie Ceilitig,detail, Ignudo.Vatican,SistineChapel[59]79.Caravaggio,Amor.Berlin-Dahlcm, Gallery.Pictures like theBaptist andtheAmorare at least in partpolemic,andtheymaybetakenasnonverbalmanifestosofCaravaggio's anti-ideal posture. Ashe matures, Caravag-gioinsists thatthemissionof thepainteris notonlyto de-scribe realistically; heinsists further thatwhathe choosesto describe be real in thesense ofbeing ordinary or, evenmore, common,popolanoofthe people notjust in ap-pearancebutinexpressionandbehavior.Thepainter'srep-resentation mustbe unstyled, without rhetoric and with-outman/era.IIn~Caravaggio's wholematureworkthere isnomythologyorancienthistory, andexceptfortheAmorthereisnoclassicalliterarytheme.JYetdespitethepopolanoworld that the art of the mature Caravaggio describes,there is no genre either, though genre in Seicento artwouldderive fromwhat hepaints. Hisreligiousthemesare80.Michelangelo,Sistiiic Ceiling,detail, Igniido.Vatican,Sistine Chapel>:[60]81.Caravaggio,Cijlling of Mntthew.Rome, S. Luigidei Francesi,Contarelli Chapelactedoutbypersonsfromtherealmof genreinplacesthatcould frame genre scenes, and the technique which de-scribes them is that which genre painters come to use.However, this implies no submission ofreligious art togenre; very differently, this is a newkindofreligious art,whichmakes its persons actual and its subject matter ut-terly contemporary, mostpoignantly o{now. This beginswithCaravaggio'sfirst publicandlarge-scalecommission,theCalling ofMatthew in the ContarelliChapelofS. LuigideiFrancesiof1599(81), andbecomesstillmoreevidentin[61]82.Caravaggio, Crucifixion of St. Peter.Rome, S. M. del Popolo, Cerasi Chapelthepaintings of1600-1601 in the Cerasi ChapelofS. M.delPopoloinRome(82, 83); it is explicitin apaintingofabriefly later moment, most likely 1601-2, the Supper atEminaus in the NationalGallery inLondon (84).Thelogic ofthe case suggests that painting madefromsuchareahstpremiseshouldbeakindof anti-art, inthatit83.Caravaggio, Conversion ofSt. Paul.Rome, S. M. del Popolo, Cerasi Chapelseems to reject all theapparatus ofart thatdoesnotservetheimmediatepurposeofrepresentationandcommunica-tion; andfromwhatwehaveobservedof Caravaggio'sre-lationtotheHighRenaissance, it shouldbeanti-classicalaswell. Butin evident fact the discipline of formand struc-[62]Caravaggio, Supperat Eiiiiiiaus. London, National GalleryturethatCaravaggioexhibitsin theseworksis quintessen-tiallyartistic, andit is alsoclassicalinkind. Thereis asenseineverypart letustakethe Emmansasexample(85)oftheactiononit ofastronglyshaping,summarygeometry;in the relation ofeachpart to its includingformthere is asenseof lucid sequentiality, andin thewholeimagea clar-ity, coherence, and stability ofrelationship that makesanorderof anexplicitlyclassicalkind.Thisformalorderillus-trates a consonant order of emotion, lucid, stilled, andstrong,arrestingdramainapowerfullychargedinstantina[63]85.Caravaggio, Supperat Emmaus, detail.London, National GalleryCaravaggio, Eiitoinlminit. Vatican Gallerywaythatrecalls a centraldogmaof theearlyCinquecento'shighest classical style. Wearcaccustomedin conventionalarthistory to thinkof Caravaggioas thegreatprotagonist*ofSeiccnto realism, whileAnnibaleCarraccistands as thedefender of the principles of classicism; but should wecompareamatureandtypicalworkbyCaravaggio,hisEn-tombmentin theVatican (86), of1602, withAnnibalc'sPietdinLondon(69), of about1605,wemustobservethatines-sential ways Caravaggio's work is not less classical thanCarracci's. The Caravaggio demonstrates no less coher-enceandeconomyof form,andanequallystringentdisci-pline offeeling, andin theCaravaggionoless than in theCarracci there is a studied rhetoric thatdescendsfromtheclassical tradition.[64]87.AnnibaleCarracci, Assuinplioii of the Virgin.Rome, S. M. del Popolo, Cerasi ChapelIn thecourseof thepaintingof theCerasiChapela curi-ousinstanceoccurredof whatseemscertainlytobeacross-influencebetweenCaravaggioandAnnibale.Thecommis-sionfor this decorationwasinfact a sharedone; whilethelaterals with St. PeterandSt. Paulwereassigned to Cara-vaggio, thealtarpiece, anAssunta (87), wasgivento Anni-bale, in exactly the same time span, 1600-1601. In thisclose contact Annibale recovered from Caravaggio's ex-amplesomeoftheconspicuousinterestofhisownbegin-ningyearsinrealism,andintheAssunta recalledthatit was^he, notCaravaggio, whohadfirst conceivedtheidea ofa^popolano typology, whichhehere describes not in his na-tiveopticallyorientedveinbutwithahard-shelledsurfaceof Caravaggesquekind. Caravaggiorespondedoppositelyto Annibale, orat least tosomeof theideals that Annibaleshared with the more traditional painters ofthe Romanschool. Caravaggiodidtwoversionsof thelaterals for theCerasi Chapel; for reasonswedonotknow, the first pairwas withdrawn. Oneofthem, the Conversion oj St. Paul(88), exists in theBalbi-Odescalchi collection inGenoa. Init Caravaggioessayedtheconventional, acceptedmodeofhistory painting, fancy and dramatically movemented, amannertotally alien tohisnormaldispositionandhis cur-rent development ofstyle. Perhaps fortunately for bothartists, their enforced conjunction wastemporary, as wastheir effectoneach other's art.Whenweconsider the intrinsic classicism in Caravag-gio'smaturestyleit maynotbetooextravaganttothinkofit, despite his outward attitude toward the High Renais-sance, asakindof Raphaelismrefoundedinnature(89, 90),of whichthe classicism, however, showsnoneofthe out-wardapparatusthatwouldsignalitsinternalpresence. Butthecenterof gravityof Caravaggio'sstylelies nonethelessinaverydifferentplace; hisstyleis anchoredatafardiffer-ent depth into reality, and while heendows the ordinarywith dignity ofbothformandemotionhenever tries toescaperealityorcontraveneit. Andas thisartprobesmore[65]Caravaggio, CoiwersioH ofSt. Paul.Genoa, Balbi-OdescalchiCollectiondeeplyinto physical reality so does it cometo seek, withever-increasingprofundity,theinnerrealityof psychologi-calexperience. IntheDeathofthe Virgin of1605(91), intheLouvre, the tenor ofemotion, contained and stilled, re-mains like that ofclassicism, but it probes in private re-gions that the conventions ofclassicism would close off:thereisnosecretof thepsychethatCaravaggiocannotfmdout. Ashesearches outthedepthsoffeeHngheinsists in-creasinglythatit conveya totalauthenticity, requiringthat89.Caravaggio,Madonna di Loreto.Rome, S. Agosdno[66]90.Raphael,Healing oftheLame(Tapestry Cartoon), detail.London, VictoriaandAlbert Museum.Reproducedbycourtesy ofH. M. theQueen (copyright reserved) 91.Caravaggio,Death ofthe Virgin. Paris, Louvre[67]92.Caravaggio,Death ofthe Virgin, detail. Paris, Louvreemotionwearthelookandcarrythebehavioroftheordi-naryworld, as different as possiblefromthe styledworldofart. In theDeathofthe Virgin the onlytouchofrhetoricorself-consciousartis inanaccessoryof setting,inthecur-tain; thehumanactors, unrhetorical and styleless, convey93.Caravaggio, David. Rome,BorgheseGalleryin eachcountenancetheirabsoluteveracityoffeeling (92).Theeffectof truthis magnifiedbythecompleteabsenceinthe actors of anydeviceoraction ofdramatickind. Cara-vaggio's practice is the antithesis ofthe rising contempo-rary doctrine ofthe rhetorical affetti* ofwhich AnnibaleCarracci at thesametimegavesuch effective demonstra-tions.AsCaravaggiomaturesfurtherinthe Romanyearsthere[68]94.Caravaggio, Supperat Emmaus. Milan, BreraGallery[69]is anever-deepeningsenseinhispicturesof theinwardnessoffeehng. TheDavidoftheBorgheseGallery (93), oflate1605orearly 1606, tragically introspective, is anexample.Late inMayof1606, in anargument that ensuedfrom aball game, Caravaggio murdered one RanuccioTomma-siniandwascompelledinconsequencetofleeRome,seek-ing refuge mainlyin the territory ofthe ColonnaprincesaroundPalestrina. It wasthere that Caravaggiopainted asecondinterpretationof theSupperatEmmaus(94),nowinthe Brera Gallery in Milan; it demonstrates most elo-quentlywhathadhappenedtoCaravaggio'sperceptionofemotion in the few years only four or at most fivesincehisfirstversionof thethemein1601-2(84). hiplaceoftheformidableimmediacyofconfrontationweare of-feredin the early version, the later paintingasks a slower,quieter,moregradualapproachtoitsinhabitants,in whomwefindamuchmorerecessive,inwardmodeof indicatingtheiremotions: a gentlingcontinencecontrolsthetenorofthescene. Tosupportthis different tonalityoffeeling andarticulate it, lightworkswitha concomitantrestraint. Theaffective powerofthe lighting is not actually less than inthe brilliant display of the early Emmaus: its strengthcomes,however,notfromsaliencesandcontrastsbutfroman intensely charged yet muted vibration; the light playsmoremovinglythan in the early version, butnowin sor-dino.Theremaybe in this laterEmmaus painting somethingbiographical, a reflection ofa state ofmind induced byflightandexile I hesitate, inCaravaggio'scircumstances,tosuggestthatits motivewasremorse. It is trueinanycasethat other paintings apparently of this moment, 1606,showsolitaryandtragic-seemingstatesof feelingwithex-traordinarydepth: sothe Magdalen, whichsurvivesonlyincopies (as in Marseilles; 29), which reveals howwell theartist knowsthe condition ofspiritual anguish; or the St.Francis (95) in the church ofthe Cappuchins, in Rome,95.Caravaggio, St. Francis.Rome, Chiesadei Cappuccinimorecontrolled,butnolesspoignantinitsrecordofastateofspirit.Under banishment in Rome, Caravaggio in the latestmonthsof1606 or in early 1607 wentfrom Palestrina to[70]Naples to work. His experience ofthat city violent andteeming, unceasingly in fermentseems to have regen-erated in Caravaggiosomepart ofhis ownnative tough-ness, redeemingtheintroversionintowhich,intheyearorso before, he seemed to fall. Objectivity in the record ofemotionandexplicitness of formare againasserted in theFlagellation of1507in S. DomenicoMaggiore(96). Thede-scription ofboth form and feeling convey the most im-pactfuleffectofa veracity, unsparingof thespectatorin itsacuity and force. In the Crucifixion ofSt. Andrew of1607(97), recentlyrediscoveredandnowin theClevelandMu-seum, thesenseofauthenticity in theemotionsthat Cara-vaggiodepictsis suchthatwemustforceourselvestoreal-izethatthesecountenancesandgesturesarenot"records";they are creative imaginings ofthe artist, whohas felt inhimself andthenprojectedontheemotionallyinertmodelswhatthe latter could hardly be expected to feel oncom-mand. Thefeelings Caravaggiopretends to us that he re-portsareactuallyhisrememberings,interpretations, orex-trapolations ofhis own emotional experience, which hehas, in the picture, situated in an externalized reality andinstilled intothecountenancesofrealpeople.Thoughit is,thus, Caravaggio'semotionsthatthepersonsinthepicturewear, they seem really to belong only and absolutely tothesepersons andto the situations in whichthey act. TheSalomeinLondon(98), of thesameyearas theSt. Andrew,demonstratesthisnoless certainly. Whenweconsider howintenselyCaravaggiomusthaveexperiencedthesefeelingsitseemsaformidableactof artthathewasabletoextricatehimself fromhisdepictionof emotionsandexternalizeandobjectify them as he has. There is no commentary fromhimandnoinvolvementonhispart; andthereis noindexof sentimentorpity, whichinvolvementinsituationssuchas theseshouldalmostunavoidably extract.Caravaggio's objectifying ofemotion does not mean arejection ofthe compassion that his creating imagination96.Caravaggio, Flagellation.Naples, S. DomenicoMaggiore[71]Caravaggio, Crucifixion ofSt. Andrew.Cleveland, Museumof Artmusthavemadehimfeel andthat thepaintedimagethendemandsabsolutelyfromthe spectator. It may,however,havebeen for him a psychological defense. Caravaggio'scapacity for compassionwasso deep and terriblein thesense o{tenibilita that werehenotable to objectify it itcould have destroyed him. His biography reveals a po-tency of feeling that repeatedly became ungovernable,eruptingin excess, in violence, and, aswehaveseen, evenin murder.Whathecouldnotachievein life, however,hewasabletoachievein art, discipliningandobjectifying hisemotions, sublimatingthus his real-life viceof ungovern-able passion. Theprocess in art is a self-chastisement andanexorcism;perhapsit mightbeseenalsoas afunctionofhis sexual disposition, trying to evade the taint that the"feminine" vice ofpitywouldcastuponhis maleness.WhenCaravaggiomovedonfromNaplestoMalta latein 1607 there wasnointerruption in thebiographical rec-ordofrestlessness andviolence, butthe expression ofhisart became increasingly controlled. TheBeheadingofSt.John theBaptist (99), in thecathedralatValettainMalta, oflate 1607-8, is the most impressive evidence of this. Atruth that, as welook at it in the painting, seems not tohave been tampered with at all has actually been stage-managed with a deliberateness like that in a Poussin, aSarto, oraRaphael.Thesetting,newinits extentforCara-vaggio, is like adimlylit stage, but it givesnoeffect at allofartificiality. Instead, it seems to adda widerdimensionto thegiven reality, relating its inhabitants notjust to thespectatorinthespaceinfront (aswasusualbefore)butto aspace that connects at either side into the actual environ-ment,whichis atoncetheactors'andourown.Withinthislarger ambience the light that reveals thepersonsandtheplacetoushasbeenmanipulatedwithpreciseandabsolutecontrol (100): relentlessly, almost cruelly insistent, yetwonderfully fme in modulation, the light works with amatching ofpowers and subtleties that only Rembrandt[72]Caravaggio, Salome. London, NationalGallery[73]Caravaggio,Beheading ofSt.John the Baptist.Valetta (Malta), Cathedrallaterwouldachieve, andwithaneffect of truth thatRem-brandtnever matched.Thehistory ofthe eventhas beengiven us in its essen-tials, but this, evenless thanearlier paintingsbyCaravag-gio, is not a narrative. Weare shownpersons"actors"[74]100.Caravaggio,Beheading ofSt.John the Baptist, detail.Valetta (Malta), Cathedralseemsnolonger the right wordfor themin a situationcaught in an arrested momentofwhichwecan feel, op-pressively, the stillness: thestillness seemsalmosttomakeanachinginourears. Thestillness is thatof a crucialpausebetweenviolentanddramaticactions, andit is gravidwiththesenseofthem. Theviolenceanddramahavenotbeendescribed, butinsteadthemomentthatis theaftermathofoneandthepreludetotheother. Thetonalityof this situa-tion is in fact quitecontraryto thatof drama, especially ifweimplybydramasomething that conveys the sense ofbeingstaged. Whatwehavebeenpresentedwithappears,oppositely, an actuality, a moment ofpresent trutha101.Caravaggio, Burial ofSt. Lucy.Siracusa, S. Lucia[75]"now"and, as in the psychological moment of truththe world for a terrible instant ofrealization stands quitestill, sodoesit here. Thispasthistorywhichhasbeenmadeapresentis amomentof arrestedtime:bydefinition, thus,eternal, so that it is noless a "now"for us thanfor Cara-vaggio when he arrested it for his contemporaries. Andthoughhehasavoidedthedepictionof theviolence,hehasmade its burden and its consequence oftragedy eternalalso.The St. John painting is the image ofa death, and inCaravaggio's latest pictures death seems a constant pres-encean omnipresence, indeedhauntingly sensible totheviewerthroughandallaroundthehumanpresencesineach scene. Fromthe momentofhis exile fromRomein1606, and more after he fled Malta in 1608, an object ofvendetta by the knights ofthe Order, Caravaggio was ahuntedman,infearof violenceanddeath;bothsoonfoundhimout. ThemortalthemesofCaravaggio's latest worksweresurely onaccountofpatrons' orders, butthe feelingabout death that Caravaggio paints int