Contents

E.5 Fame

E.5 Barbiere, Fame, I

Engraving by Domenico del Barbiere, 28.8 x 22.3 P (Boston).

Two states:

I. Inscribed at the upper left: . GLORIA . and on a small curled piece of paper at the lower right: DOMENICO -/DELBARBIERE . / FLORENTINO

II. Also inscribed: P. Mariette ex. (Zerner)

Fig.E.5 (State I, Paris, Ba 12)

Heinecken, 1788-1790, II, 163-164, as Barbiere after Salviati.  Bartsch, XVI, 1818, 359, 7, as Barbiere after Rosso.  Le Blanc, 1854-1890, I, 147, 11, as after Rosso.  Destailleur, 1895, 281, no. 133.  Herbet, III, 1899, 10, (1969, 98), 7, as Barbiere after Rosso, and related to a painting that was in the Gallery of Francis I.  Zerner, 1969, XXXVIII, and D.B.9 (Paris), as 1540-1545, after Rosso, and related to a figure that was in the gallery.

COLLECTIONS: (all I) Amsterdam (Triomphe du Maniérisme, 1955, 98, no. 129).  Boston, 59.661 (note on mat that wm. is a Gothic P).  Cleveland (formerly Chatsworth, Vol. 5, p.60, no. 103; sale, Colnaghi, 1-19 July 1986, BM, CXXVIII, May 1986, xliii, Fig.).  Hamburg, inv. no. 1119.  London, V1-36; 1874-8-8-1543.  New York, 49.49.1.  Paris, Ba 1; Ba 12, p.84, no. 121; Ed 8b, no. 142 Réserve.  Philadelphia Museum of Art (formerly Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, A-P-1261).  Vienna, It.III.3, p.51 top.

LITERATURE:

Mariette, Abécédario, 1858-1859, 23, as Barbiere after Rosso.

Pittaluga, 1928, 281-284, Fig. 219 (Vienna), as Barbiere influenced by Rosso.

Kusenberg, 1931, 79, 159, Pl. LXII, 2 (Paris), as after Rosso’s lost painting.

Barocchi, 1950, 115, n. 3, perhaps far from Rosso’s original.

Oberhuber, 1966, 150-151, no. 244.

McAllister Johnson and Graham, 1968, 17, Fig. 8 (Paris), as after a lost work by Rosso in the Gallery of Francis I, the figure’s two traditional trumpets indicating Favorable Fame and Unfavorable Fame.

Thirion, 1971, 47, as after Rosso, and used for a figure on a fireplace at Écouen.

Zerner, in EdF, 1972, 278, Fig. (Paris), 279, no. 338.

Zerner, in Fontainebleau, 1973, I, 71, Fig. 38, II, 86-87, no. 338.

Zerner, IB, 33, 1979, 263 (Vienna).

Borea, 1979, 371, Fig. 244 (Vienna), as after Barbiere’s invention.

Borea, 1980, 278, 280, no. 769, 277, Fig. (Vienna), as Barbiere after his own design.

Lévêque, 1984, 232, 233, Fig. (Paris).

Wardropper, 1985, 23-24, 33-34, 35, 36, 37, 49-51, 68, Fig. 10, as probably an early engraving done shortly before Rosso’s death, and possibly based on Rosso’s lost fresco at Fontainebleau.

E. Hevers, in Zauber der Medusa, 1987, 329, no. VII, 40, Fig. (Hamburg), after Rosso.

Carroll, 1987, 44, 250-252, no. 78, with Fig. (Paris, Ba 12).

Karpinski, 1988, 172, as just tenable as a print made before Rosso’s death.

Miller, 1992, 112, 113, n. 2, mentions technical innovations visible in the Cleveland impression.

Wardropper, in French Renaissance, 1994, 288, under no. 67, as by Barbiere and thought to be after Rosso.

Béguin, 1994, 272, n. 17, mentioned in relation to the entrance to the North Cabinet of the Gallery of Francis I.

As discussed under P.22, IV N, this figure would seem to be dependent on the reverse painted image of Fame that Rosso designed for the area to the left of the entrance to the North Cabinet in the Gallery of Francis I.  This relationship has generally been recognized, except by Borea who believes the design is by Barbiere himself.

Barbiere is known to have worked from the compositions of others, including Michelangelo and Primaticcio, and to have engraved a composition closely related to one by Giulio Romano (see Zerner, 1969, D.B.3, 3, 4, and 7).  The former are inscribed with those artists’ names; the last is not.  All would seem to be based on drawings, or drawn copies in the case of the engravings after the Last Judgement.  The print after Giulio may well be based on a lost drawing by him.  It is, therefore, not improbable that the Fame is also based on a drawing by someone other than the engraver.  Stylistically, the figure is very much like some in the gallery, and it fulfills so completely what could have been required of Rosso’s figure in the gallery.  Barbiere’s figure also makes a good companion to the figure of Victory, known from an anonymous etching (Fig.E.141) that seems to represent the figure that Rosso planned for the right side of the door to the North Cabinet.  Sketchy as it is, one might also wonder why Barbiere would not have shown the land masses of Italy and Sicily in the right direction if the print were an engraving of his own design, a correction he might, of course, also have made working from a drawing by Rosso.

The drawing by Rosso that Barbiere worked from may have been one like his Standing Apostle (Fig.D.36a) or the Empedocles-St. Roch (Fig.D.80a), both done in red chalk.  There is a finesse about the print that recalls Rosso’s draughtsmanship, although the engraving technique has probably recorded it as too regular.  This apparent correspondence between Rosso’s draughtsmanship and the technique of the print could be related to the possibility that the print was made before Rosso’s death, as suggested by Wardropper and Karpinski.1

There is only one serious discrepancy between the Victory and the Fame: the breadth of the latter image because of the extension of the wings.  In the gallery, these figures would have occupied comparable areas across from each other.  But as Barbiere would have worked from a drawing by Rosso, the image of that could have been slightly modified before it was actually painted in the gallery.  However, it is also possible that part of the wings would simply have been cut off by a frame, as occurs with several of the figures in the gallery, such as the head of the nude to the left of the Education of Achilles (Fig.P.22, II N b), the drapery of Philyra to the right of the Royal Elephant (Fig.P.22, VI N a), and the pairs of figures to the left and right of the Unity of the State (Fig.P.22, VI S a).

VARIATION

Fame, Écouen, Château,  Salle d’honneur, relief over fireplace.  White marble on a background of black schist.  LITERATURE: Kusenberg, 1931, 117, 208, n. 315, Pl. LXII, 1, as by Jean Goujon.  D. du Colombier, Jean Goujon, Paris, 1949, 48-49, as Goujon.  McAllister Johnson and Graham, 1968, 17, as by a pupil of Goujon around 1550, and showing the influence of Barbiere’s print and of Goujon’s Fame on the façade of the Louvre.  Thirion, 1971, 47, as wrongly attributed to Goujon.  Claude Lauriol, in EdF, 1972, 484, as school of Goujon, inspired by Barbiere’s print.  Carroll, 1987, 252, n. 4, under no. 78.

This relief has generally been recognized as related to Barbiere’s print.  Kusenberg suggested it might rather be after the lost painting in the gallery.  Compared to Barbiere’s figure, the sculpted figure has much smaller wings, covered breasts, and carries a sword and wreath instead of two trumpets.  She does not look up.  As the relief figure is in the same direction as the print, it would seem to be dependent, so far as it is, on the engraving rather than upon Rosso’s lost painting.

 


1 Miller noted that the Cleveland impression shows, as pointed out by Starr Siegele, “technical innovations that cast new light on the means employed by the printmakers to translate Rosso’s draughtsmanship into their own media.”  He did not indicate what these technical innovations are.