{"id":2209,"date":"2011-11-23T15:21:35","date_gmt":"2011-11-23T19:21:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.vassar.edu\/rosso\/"},"modified":"2013-04-10T10:57:42","modified_gmt":"2013-04-10T14:57:42","slug":"d-42-mars-and-venus","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/catalogues\/drawings\/d-42-mars-and-venus\/","title":{"rendered":"D.42 Mars and Venus"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

D.42 Mars and Venus<\/p><\/div>\n

1534<\/p>\n

Paris, Louvre, Inv. 1575.<\/p>\n

Fig.D.42a<\/a>\u00a0bw
\nFig.D.42b<\/a>\u00a0slightly cropped<\/p>\n

Pen and black ink, point of brush and brown washes, heightened with thin white washes, also with highlights and details in almost opaque white applied with point of brush, over faint outlines in black chalk, on lavender-gray-brown washed paper (the brown washes have either faded and\/or the color of the paper has darkened, consequently destroying the original tonal range of the chiaroscuro), 42.8 x 33.8; the lower corner cut and added; a horizontal crease in the middle of the drawing; laid down; the drawing is much rubbed in places, but in others not at all as in the area of Venus\u2019s dress held up by putti.<\/p>\n

PROVENANCE: E. Jabach (flourishes on verso<\/em> of mount, Lugt 2959 and 2953 [J. Prioult] with no. \u201ccent quartre vingt cinq\u201d).<\/p>\n

LITERATURE:<\/p>\n

Vasari, 1550, 803 (Vasari-Ricci, IV, 250), fleeing from Borgo Sansepolcro on or shortly after Maundy Thursday, 14 April 1530, Rosso, \u201cfaccendo la via di Pesaro, arriv\u00f2 a Vinegia, dove da M. Pietro Aretino trattenuto, gli disegn\u00f2 una carta, che si stampa, quando Marte dorme con Venere, e gli Amori e le Grazie to spogliano, e gli traggono la corazza.\u201d\u00a0 Basically the same except for the phrase \u201cche poi fu stampata\u201d in Vasari, 1568, II, 209-210 (Vasari-Milanesi, V, 167).<\/p>\n

Jabach Inventory, 1671, no. 185, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Morel d\u2019Arleux Inventory, 1797-1827, I, no. 512, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Paris, Louvre, exh. cat., 1818, no. 295, as Rosso; also exh. cats. 1820, no. 345, 1841, no. 600, 1845, no. 600, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Reiset, 1866, 99, no. 307, as apparently Rosso\u2019s drawing described by Vasari.<\/p>\n

Milanesi, Vasari-Milanesi, V, 1881 (1906, 167, n. 1), mentions the drawing in the Louvre, as attributed to Rosso, in relation to Vasari\u2019s description.<\/p>\n

Herbet, III, 1899, 48, (1969, 136), as Rosso and related to the print by Caraglio.<\/p>\n

M\u00fcntz, 1902, 158-159, as Rosso, with reservation.<\/p>\n

Berenson, 1903, no. 2460, as School of Rosso, and a copy of his drawing made for Pietro Aretino.<\/p>\n

Goldschmidt, 1911, 24-25, as a copy after Rosso\u2019s drawing and perhaps a study for a chiaroscuro woodcut.<\/p>\n

Pierre Marcel, \u201cLes Dessins fran\u00e7ais. II. Le XVIe<\/sup> si\u00e8cle,\u201d (in Russian), Stary\u00e8 God\u00ff<\/em>, II, 1911, Pl. opp. p. 4, as by Rosso.<\/p>\n

Hans Kauffmann, \u201cDer Manierismus in Holland and die Schule von Fontainebleau,\u201d Jahrbuch der Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen<\/em>, XXXIV, 1923, 194-195, Fig. 5, as Rosso\u2019s, and referred to as a Fontainebleau work.<\/p>\n

Kusenberg, 1931, 149, no. 13, as a careful copy by Ren\u00e9 Boyvin of the print attributed to Caraglio after Rosso\u2019s Mars and Venus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Berenson, 1938, no. 2460, as in 1903.<\/p>\n

Levron, 1941, 40, 63, no. 31, 88, n. 97, repeats Kusenberg\u2019s comments but says there is no print by Boyvin of this subject.<\/p>\n

Adh\u00e9mar, 1950 (1954, 312) repeats Kusenberg\u2019s attribution to Boyvin.<\/p>\n

Barocchi, 1950, 78, Fig. 46, as a copy after the engraving attributed to Caraglio.<\/p>\n

Adh\u00e9mar, Dessins<\/em>, 1954, 105, by implication a copy after Rosso\u2019s lost drawing.<\/p>\n

Panofsky, 1958, 172, n. 72, by implication as a copy after Rosso.<\/p>\n

Berenson, 1961, no. 2460, as in 1903 and 1938.<\/p>\n

Carroll, 1964 (1976), I, Bk. I, 216-218, II, Bk. II, 322-338, D.34, Bk. III, Fig. 95, as by Rosso.<\/p>\n

Between Renaissance and Baroque<\/em>, 1965, 110, under no. 371, reports that Shearman thinks the drawing is by Rosso.<\/p>\n

Carroll, 1966, 169-170, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Shearman, 1966, 164, Fig. 19, 166, 171, n. 38, 172, n. 43, as by Rosso, its draughtsmanship dependent on Etruscan engravings on bronze.<\/p>\n

Shearman, 1967, 68, 69, Fig. 34, 153, 195, no. 34, as Rosso, and as showing the study of Etruscan bronze engraving and of Michelangelo\u2019s teste divine<\/em>; also as showing its subject mocked and as a tour de force<\/em> demonstration of artistic capacity.<\/p>\n

Rome \u00e0 Paris<\/em>, 1968, no. 244, as Rosso and apparently made in Venice for Aretino.<\/p>\n

Freedberg, 1971, 131-132, 485, n. 35, as Rosso, and showing the precise style that Rosso would employ at Fontainebleau.<\/p>\n

Thirion, 1971, 41-42, gives opinions of others.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, in EdF<\/em>, 1972, 180, Fig., 181, no. 244, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Cox-Rearick, 1972, 35-37, no. 42, and Fig., as Rosso.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, \u201cMa\u00eetre Roux,\u201d 1972, 103-104, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Miles, 1973, 32, as having a good claim to being the drawing that Rosso made in Venice.<\/p>\n

Stein, Mer, \u201cMars of V\u00e9nus, En bryllupsallegori fra den danske renoessance,\u201d Soe rtrvk af Kulturminder<\/em>, 1973, 16, Fig.<\/p>\n

Passavant, 1973, 117, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Carroll, 1975, 18, Fig. 1, 19, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Rosaline Bacou, in Collections de Louis XIV<\/em>, Paris, 1977-1978, 9, 73, Fig., 74, no. 34, as Rosso, suggesting that it may have been among the drawings that Desneux de La Noue collected from the studios at Fontainebleau.<\/p>\n

Barolsky, 1978, 44, 113-115, 214, as Rosso, its idea possibly invented by Aretino; he sees the drawing as mocking and spiked with Rosso\u2019s caustic wit.<\/p>\n

Walters, 1978, 160, states that in the figure of Mars \u201cthe classical nude has become a joke.\u201d<\/p>\n

Smith, 1978, 111, 113, n. 7, as Rosso and as influential on compositions by Bronzino; he also questions the idea of identifying Francis I with Mars.<\/p>\n

Knecht, 1982, 261, with Fig., as Rosso\u2019s, and an allegory of the peace of Cambrai.<\/p>\n

Darragon, 1983, 28, 65, 70, n. 35, Fig. 7, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

L\u00e9v\u00eaque, 1984, 102, 105, Fig., as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Cox-Rearick, 1984, 170, n. 38, commented on the two zodiac signs above.<\/p>\n

Marianne Grivel, in Ronsard<\/em>, 1985, 74-75, no. 82, 128, Color Pl.<\/p>\n

McGovern, 1985, 83-84, Fig. 21, as Rosso, and as influencing Ronsard\u2019s poetry.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, in D\u00e9lay, 1987, 76, 208, 209, Color Pl.<\/p>\n

Bjurstr\u00f6m, 1987, 21, 22, Fig., as made by Rosso for Aretino and sent to Francis I.<\/p>\n

Carroll, 1987, 9, 10, 29, 30, 42, 170-175, no. 57, with Color Pl., as Rosso, 1530.<\/p>\n

E. Hevers in Zauber der Medusa<\/em>, 1987, 156, under no. I, 29, mentioned.<\/p>\n

Mundy, 1988, 80, with Fig., as having the basic effect of a chiaroscuro woodcut, earliest examples of which are German, with greatest concentration of German art in Venice.<\/p>\n

Franklin, 1988, 324, its technique derived from Perino del Vaga\u2019s Martyrdom of the Ten Thousand<\/em>, made in Florence c. 1522-23.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guin, 1989, 835, and Fig. 29, 837, 838.\u00a0 Carroll, 1989, 18-19, Fig. 35 (wrongly numbered 36).<\/p>\n

Waddington, 1991, 108-112, 124-125, with Fig., related the tone of the drawing to the bisexual image of Francis attributed to Niccol\u00f2 Bellin da Modena.<\/p>\n

Ciardi and Mugnaini, 1991, 23, 151, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Miller, 1992, 111, 112.<\/p>\n

Scailli\u00e9rez, 1992, 17, 27, 119, no. 49, with Fig., 128, under no. 55, thought the drawing probably preceded a painting attributed to Rosso later at Fontainebleau; she also noted D. Cordellier\u2019s observation that the figure of Mars is similar to that of a dancing satyr on an ancient Greek or Roman relief from Isabella d\u2019Este\u2019s Studiolo<\/em> in Mantua (Mantua, Museo del Palazzo Ducale).1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Wilson-Chevalier, 1993, 45, Fig. 12, 46-47, ns. 25, 30, identified the Zodiacal sign at the upper right as the Crab of Cancer, and not as the Scorpion of Scorpio, and interpreted the drawing with this in mind (on which see note below).<\/p>\n

Franklin, 1994, 263-264, Color Pl. 207, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Ciardi, 1994, 53, 71.<\/p>\n

Acton, in French Renaissance<\/em>, 1994, 303, 307, ns. 13-14, under no. 73, as generally attributed to Rosso, the cupid parallel to the one in Giulio Romano\u2019s Bath of Mars and Venus<\/em> of 1528 in the Palazzo del Te, Mantua, which Rosso may have seen in 1529, the figure of Mars related to the nude carrying an old man in Raphael\u2019s Fire in the Borgo<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Knecht, 1994, 432, 433, Fig. 78, as by Rosso.<\/p>\n

Meyer, 1995, 305, as Rosso.<\/p>\n

Jollet, 1994, 80, noted that \u201cle dieu de la guerre appara\u00eet ridicule.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Although Rosso\u2019s authorship of this composition – as distinct from his execution of the Louvre drawing – and the identification of it with the drawing that Vasari says Rosso made in Venice for Pietro Aretino have never been seriously doubted, it may well be for the subsequent arguments in favor of recognizing the drawing as an autograph work to present its relationship to Rosso\u2019s authentic paintings.\u00a0 The tall, slender female figures in the drawing are of the same kind as those in Rosso\u2019s Christ in Glory<\/em>, executed in 1529-1530, and the faces of the women intimately resemble those in that painting (Fig.P.20a<\/a>).\u00a0 Mars\u2019 face is almost identical to that of the soldier wearing a helmet in the same picture.\u00a0 The hand of the Grace at the right, with its slender, curving, boneless fingers, is also borne by the seated female saint in the upper left corner of the picture in Citt\u00e0 di Castello.\u00a0 The richly folded and creased draperies in the drawing are of the same kind that clothe the figures in the Christ in Glory<\/em>.\u00a0 Very similar comparisons can also be made between the drawing and Rosso\u2019s Piet\u00e0<\/em> in Borgo Sansepolcro (Fig.P.19a<\/a>) and his picture in the Louvre (Fig.P.23a<\/a>).\u00a0 The details of the drawing are specifically those of Rosso\u2019s mature artistic vocabulary.\u00a0 Compositionally, as well, the drawing is related to Rosso\u2019s paintings.\u00a0 The distention of the figures across the surface of the design in broad, slow-moving rhythms characterizes also the arrangement of the figures in Rosso\u2019s pictures in Borgo Sansepolcro, in Citt\u00e0 di Castello, and in the Louvre.\u00a0 As in the Christ in Glory<\/em>, the figures in the lower part of the drawing are arranged, one next to the other, across the full breadth of the composition, obstructing without, however, wholly blocking, a view into the space behind them.\u00a0 The upper part of both of these scenes is spatially more open, and the figures and decorative details there are composed into a circular pattern.\u00a0 In the Louvre drawing and in the Christ in Glory<\/em>, three of the heads in the lower part of the compositions mark the lower limits of the circular pattern that rotates into the upper part of the scenes.\u00a0 The similarity of the figural and compositional motifs of the Louvre drawing and of these paintings by Rosso is so specific as to affirm emphatically that the invention of the drawing, including that of its details, belongs to Rosso.<\/p>\n

The use of light in the drawing is also specifically Rosso\u2019s.\u00a0 A plane of light, parallel to the surface of the drawing, sweeps in from the left, catching here and there on the salient forms in the composition.\u00a0 Only parts of the scene are fully illuminated; the rest is engulfed in the prevailing dark atmosphere of the background.\u00a0 This is exactly what happens in Rosso\u2019s Piet\u00e0<\/em> in Borgo Sansepolcro, in his Christ in Glory<\/em>, and in his Piet\u00e0<\/em> in the Louvre.\u00a0 In fact, light is to a great extent the most significant artistic element in the drawing.\u00a0 Moving relatively broadly across the large surfaces of the figures in the lower part of the drawing, the light is virtually shattered into tiny fragments as it is caught by the petals of the flowers, by the wings and lumpy bodies of the putti, by the edges of the crinkled drapery, and by the curly locks and intricately worked braids in the upper circular part of the composition.\u00a0 In the range and precision of these sparkling effects of light and shade, one has to recognize the realization of an artistic intent that must be due to the very artist who conceived this composition.<\/p>\n

The steely dark pen lines in the Mars and Venus <\/em>are identical to those in Rosso\u2019s study in the Albertina (Fig.D.26A<\/a>) for the figure of Christ in the Borgo Sansepolcro Piet\u00e0<\/em>, in the Throne of Solomon <\/em>(Fig.D.34<\/a>), and in the Annunciation<\/em> in the Albertina (Fig.D.43a<\/a>).\u00a0 Mars\u2019s tightly curled locks are rendered exactly like those of the seated youth in the foreground of the Throne of Solomon<\/em>.\u00a0 The white bars of light on the draperies in the Louvre drawing are applied just as they are in the Albertina Annunciation<\/em>.\u00a0 Finely interwoven feathery hatchings in white on the body of Mars are rendered with exactly the same delicacy as are the black pen hatchings on the torso in the study of Christ in the Albertina.\u00a0 In all respects the handling of the Louvre drawing is identifiable as Rosso\u2019s own.<\/p>\n

The engraving that Vasari says was made from Rosso\u2019s drawing is unsigned and undated (Fig.E.130, I<\/a>).\u00a0 It must, however, have been made before 1550, for it is already mentioned in the first edition of Vasari\u2019s Vite<\/em>.\u00a0 The engraving is the same size and in the same direction as the Louvre drawing, the composition and details of which the print copies quite accurately.\u00a0 The fundamental difference between the drawing and the print lies in the rendering of the lights.\u00a0 In the drawing, the lights are largely drawn with very fine parallel white lines and crosshatching on the dark washed background and further dark washes of the drawing.\u00a0 In an engraving, however, it is the shadows that must be cut into the plate; the lights cannot be drawn.\u00a0 Therefore, the engraving of the Mars and Venus<\/em>, in comparison with the Louvre drawing, appears as a translation of the latter into a somewhat incompatible medium.\u00a0 Such a detail as the fine wire-like white strands of curly hair in the drawing that float in the air at the left of the head of the Grace at the right could not be reproduced against a dark background in an engraving.\u00a0 This detail, so specifically Rosso\u2019s – see the Saturn and Philyra<\/em> (Fig.E.47a<\/a>) engraved by Caraglio after a design by Rosso where similar strands of hair, black, however, instead of white, are reproduced against a white background – had to be sacrificed by the engraver reproducing the Louvre drawing.\u00a0 In fact, most of the particular brilliance of the drawing is lost in the engraving.\u00a0 The differences of the light in the two emphasize the untranslatable refinement of the drawing, affirming once again Rosso\u2019s authorship of the Mars and Venus<\/em> scene in the Louvre.\u00a0 It also becomes clear that the drawing was not executed as a model for a print.\u00a0 Rosso, who knew very well from his experiences in Rome preparing disegni di stampe<\/em> for Caraglio the requirements of an engraver\u2019s model, would never have provided an engraver with a drawing executed in the manner of the Louvre drawing.\u00a0 Vasari says only that Rosso\u2019s Venetian drawing was made into a print; he does not say that the drawing was executed as a disegno di stampa<\/em>.<\/p>\n

These comparisons between the print and the drawing should make it clear that the drawing is not copied from the print as some have thought.\u00a0 If it had been, one would have to credit the copyist with all the details, characteristic of Rosso\u2019s style, that appear in the drawing but are not found in the engraving.\u00a0 In this regard, one more difference between the drawing and the print is particularly significant.\u00a0 In the Louvre drawing, the pictorial area of the scene is limited at the top by a ruled pen line about an inch below the upper edge of the sheet.\u00a0 The band of the Zodiac above the bed passes, as it were, behind the bare strip that borders the top of the drawing.\u00a0 Some of the putti flying above the heads of the principle figures, however, project their legs out of the space of the picture over the line ruled across the top of the drawing.\u00a0 In other words, they break through the foremost spatial limit of the picture.\u00a0 This is a conceit that appears already in Rosso\u2019s Assumption<\/em> at SS. Annunziata (Fig.P.3a<\/a>) and frequently in the prints, particularly the Labors of Hercules<\/em> executed by Caraglio in Rome after Rosso\u2019s designs (Fig.E.20<\/a>; Fig.E.21<\/a>; Fig.E.22<\/a>; Fig.E.24<\/a>).\u00a0 This spatial delightfulness in the Louvre drawing does not appear in the engraving of the Mars and Venus <\/em>scene.\u00a0 Instead, the Zodiac band fades away ambiguously over the top of the bed and the putti stay in their places within the picture area.\u00a0 Nor is this amusing spatial device to be found in any other version of this composition, drawn, painted, or printed (see COPY below).\u00a0 It is unique to the Louvre drawing.\u00a0 Certainly its appearance in this drawing is not the invention of a copyist working from the engraving.<\/p>\n

The Mars and Venus<\/em> drawing in the Louvre is certainly by Rosso.\u00a0 It must also be concluded that it is the drawing Vasari says Rosso did in Venice for Pietro Aretino.\u00a0 Rosso arrived in Venice shortly after Maundy Thursday, 14 April, 1530.\u00a0 He was already in France in November of that year.\u00a0 Adh\u00e9mar\u2019s suggestion that the drawing was made on Aretino\u2019s advice to encourage Francis I to call Rosso into his service would seem to indicate that the drawing preceded the artist to France.\u00a0 It is likely, then, that the drawing was made in the late spring or summer of 1530.2<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The supposition that the drawing was sent to France is somewhat supported by its having been in the Jabach Collection, from which it entered the French Royal Collection in 1671.\u00a0 Bacou has suggested (see above) that it may have been one of the drawings collected by Desneux de La Noue (early XVIIth<\/sup> century, died before 1657) from the studios at Fontainebleau.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

COPY, PRINT: Anonymous, E.130 (Fig.E.130, I<\/a>).\u00a0 The print that Vasari says was made after the Louvre drawing has been attributed to Caraglio but it is most probable that he was not the engraver.\u00a0 All other paintings, drawings, and prints of the Mars and Venus<\/em> scene are dependent upon this engraving and are listed as copies under E.130.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/a>1<\/sup> See Splendours of the Gonzaga<\/em>, exh. cat., ed. D. Chambers and J. Martineau, London, 1981-1982, 166-167, no. 116, with Fig.\u00a0 The fragment shows only the lower half of the satyr, whose pose is similar to that of Rosso\u2019s Mars; the satyr may also have quite small genitals.\u00a0 However, the satyr\u2019s right leg is turned out and is described in profile, which the leg of Mars is not.\u00a0 It is, thus, not imperative that Rosso knew this relief when he made the Louvre drawing.\u00a0 Scailli\u00e9rez would see in the similarity an argument in favor of a stop by Rosso in Mantua on the way to Venice.\u00a0 But Vasari says that the artist went to Venice by way of Pesaro, which could mean a trip by sea.\u00a0 But even by land the road from Pesaro to Venice does not go through Mantua.\u00a0 It is more likely that Rosso stopped in Mantua on the way westward to France (see Chapter VII).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>2<\/sup> Adh\u00e9mar, 1954, 312-313, proposed that the drawing is an allegory of Francis I related to the situation following the Paix des Dames of 3 August 1529, in which the king \u201cprovisionally abandoned his military ambitions, prepared to marry Charles V\u2019s sister, and planned to glorify his reign by setting himself up as a protector of the arts and of artists.\u201d\u00a0 If this compelling interpretation is true, then the drawing might have been done only after the first week of July 1530, when Francis I married Eleanor of Austria.\u00a0 In support of Adh\u00e9mar\u2019s interpretation, the Panofskys, 1958, 176, n. 110, suggested that the Balance of the Zodiac, as the sign of Francis I, who was born on 12 September 1494, is placed immediately above the figure of Mars to signify the king.\u00a0 The position of the two signs above, of Libra and of Scorpio, is the same as in Marcantonio\u2019s Two Women with the Signs of Libra and Scorpio<\/em>, of around 1517-20.\u00a0 Here, as Bernice Davidson suggested, the signs may show the contrast of balanced judgment and passion or violence (see Shoemaker and Broun, 1982, 137-139, no. 40, for other interpretations not so likely related to Rosso\u2019s image).\u00a0 Cox-Rearick, 1984, 170, n. 38, thought that the two zodiac signs – the \u201c\u2018rising\u2019 scales of Libra, diurnal house of Venus, and sign of love and concord\u201d and the \u201c\u2018descending\u2019 …scorpion, for Scorpio, diurnal house of the warlike Mars\u201d indicate that the drawing is \u201can allegory of the marriage of Francis I and Eleanor of Austria, in which Francis-Mars is \u2018defeated\u2019 by the love of Eleanor-Venus.\u201d\u00a0 Wilson-Chevalier, 1993, 46-47, n. 25, identified the scorpion as a crab, and hence as the sign of Cancer, and interpreted the drawing accordingly.\u00a0 This is certainly incorrect, not only because the sign looks like a scorpion and not a crab, as Rosso knew how to draw one in his Roman Hercules Killing the Hydra<\/em> composition (Fig.E.21<\/a>), but also because the Crab in this position would violate the order of the zodiac signs where Scorpio follows Libra.<\/p>\n

<\/a>3<\/sup>\u00a0In 1625 Cassiano del Pozzo saw in the Cabinet des Peintures at Fontainebleau: \u201c…un quadretto di Marte et Venere<\/em>…\u201d that he said was by Rosso (Pozzo-M\u00fcntz, 1886, 269).\u00a0 Describing the pictures by Rosso in the same location, Dan, 1642, 136 (Kusenberg, 1931, 102, 201, n. 233), remarked: \u201cOr en ce cabinet il y en a encore de particuliers de sa main. …un Mars et une V\u00e9nus en petit.\u201d\u00a0 This could be one of the two paintings of Mars and Venus<\/em> recorded in the inventory of 19 January 1692 (verified in October 1694) of the Cabinet des Peintures at Fontainebleau: \u201cUn tableau de Mars et V\u00e9nus, sur bois\u201d and \u201cUn tableau de Mars et V\u00e9nus, sur thoille\u201d (Herbet, 1937, 94).\u00a0 However, neither one of these paintings is attributed to an artist in this inventory.<\/p>\n

Dimier, 1904, 72, thought that a painting of Mars and Venus<\/em> may have been among the first pictures executed by Rosso for Francis I to which Vasari refers.\u00a0 Kusenberg, 1931, 102, suggested that the painting mentioned by Dan was either the picture executed by Rosso in Venice for Pietro Aretino or a duplicate of it made by Rosso in France.\u00a0 According to Cox-Rearick, 1972, 35, it may have been the \u201cgrant tableau\u201d that Rosso is recorded to have made for the king in 1530-1531 (see L.36<\/a>, and DOC.15<\/a>).\u00a0 But if the small painting seen by Del Pozzo and Dan was Rosso\u2019s, it could not have been the large painting done for Francis I.\u00a0 Herbet, 1937, 94, n. 5, expressed the opinion that the panel painting listed in the inventory of 1692 once decorated the fireplace of the room of Catherine de\u2019Medici or the Pavillon des Reines M\u00e8res, from which it was removed in 1664, in which case it was most likely not the painting seen by Dan in 1642, or by Del Pozzo in 1625.\u00a0 However, the other Mars and Venus<\/em> in the inventory of 1692 was on canvas, which was a support known to have been used only once by Rosso for his Moses Killing the Egyptian and Defending the Daughters of Jethro<\/em> (P.14<\/a>).\u00a0 Scailli\u00e9rez, 1992, 119, under no. 49, thought the picture mentioned at Fontainebleau as Rosso\u2019s was preceded by his Mars and Venus<\/em> drawing in the Louvre.<\/p>\n

It should be noted that there is no source from the sixteenth century that indicates that Rosso painted a picture of this subject.\u00a0 Vasari mentions only the drawing made in Venice in 1530 and now in the Louvre, from which the anonymous engraving was made in France probably very shortly thereafter (Fig.E.130, I<\/a>), and from which all other versions of this composition are derived, including the two small paintings in Montargis and formerly (?) in the Arthur Kay Collection in Dowdeswell, neither of which is by Rosso (see E.130<\/a>).\u00a0 There is some possibility that one of these panel paintings is the picture that Del Pozzo and Dan saw at Fontainebleau. Even if they are not there is no guarantee that the one they did see was not also a painting derived from the engraving.\u00a0 Still there is some possibility that they were correct in identifying the painting they saw as Rosso\u2019s.\u00a0 It could have been derived from his drawing in the Louvre.\u00a0 Or, of course, it could have been of an entirely different composition.\u00a0 Neither Del Pozzo nor Dan mentions the support of the pictures they saw but it is unlikely, although perhaps not entirely impossible, that what they saw was the Louvre drawing by Rosso.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1534 Paris, Louvre, Inv. 1575. Fig.D.42a\u00a0bw Fig.D.42b\u00a0slightly cropped Pen and black ink, point of brush and brown washes, heightened with thin white washes, also with highlights and details in almost opaque white applied with point of brush, over faint outlines in black chalk, on lavender-gray-brown washed paper (the brown washes have either faded and\/or the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"parent":820,"menu_order":46,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2209","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2209","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2209"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2209\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3046,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2209\/revisions\/3046"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/820"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}