Panel Painting (and the Design of its Frame?), Cabinet Des Peintures, Fontainebleau<\/p>\n
1530-1531<\/p>\n
Cassiano del Pozzo in 1625 (Pozzo-M\u00fcntz, 1886, 268; Kusenberg, 1931, 102, 201, n. 232), describing the paintings in the Cabinet des Peintures in the Ch\u00e2teau at Fontainebleau, stated: \u201cDel Rosso havevano alcuni pezzi, cio\u00e8 una figura, grande poco men del vero, fatta per una Giudetta<\/i>, con la testa d\u2019Oloferne ai piedi; l\u2019habito di essa \u00e8 imitato assai dall\u2019antico, cinta pocco sotto le poppe; il panneggiamento \u00e8 bello et \u00e8 in tavola;…\u201d\u00a0 Dan, 1642, 136 (Kusenberg, 1931, 102, 201, n. 233), recorded the painting, one of two by Rosso in the same location: \u201cLe premier une Judith.\u201d\u00a0 At the end of the century in the same location, according to an inventory of 19 January 1692 (verified in October, 1694): \u201cUne Judith, peinte sur bois, par Rousse\u201d (Herbet, 1937, 94).<\/p>\n
It is generally recognized that this lost painting is represented by Boyvin\u2019s engraving (E.7<\/a> with bibliography, Fig.E.7<\/a>), which is inscribed with Rosso\u2019s name.\u00a0 Dimier, 1904, 72, and 1928, 9, as probably one of the first pictures painted for the king in France.\u00a0 Kusenberg, 1931, 102, and Pl. LV, as stylistically similar to the engraving of Rosso\u2019s Mars and Venus<\/i> (Fig.E.130, I<\/a>) and hence datable from the beginning of Rosso\u2019s French period.\u00a0 Dimier, 1942, 24.\u00a0 Barocchi, 1950, 252, Fig. 233.\u00a0 B\u00e9guin, 1960, 43, 94, commented on the curtains in the background and stated that the use of the half-length figure is inspired by the paintings of the nude Giaconda<\/i>.\u00a0 B\u00e9guin, in Cox-Rearick, 1972, 5, mentioned the 1692 listing.\u00a0 Cox-Rearick, 1972, 37-38, no. 44, as done early in Rosso\u2019s French period, and in size around 1.50 x 1 meters.\u00a0 Carroll, 1975, 19, Fig. 2, the lost original probably painted in 1530-1531.\u00a0 Carroll, 1987, 180, 182, n. 5, under no. 59.\u00a0 Scailli\u00e9rez, 1992, 14, 17, 18, Fig. 10 (Boyvin), the lost picture known either from Boyvin\u2019s print or from Rosso\u2019s drawing in Los Angeles [D.84<\/a>].\u00a0 Franklin, 1994, 150, Pl. 114 (Boyvin, Vienna), as probably recording a lost French painting by Rosso, characteristics of which were anticipated by the Death of Cleopatra<\/i> in Braunschweig that he would give to Rosso [RP.4<\/a>].<\/p>\n Del Pozzo commented that the head of Holofernes in Rosso\u2019s lost painting was at the feet of Judith, which is not what appears in Boyvin\u2019s print where Judith is shown three-quarters length and the head is placed on a ledge in front of her.\u00a0 Nor can her garments strictly speaking be considered antique in appearance, as Del Pozzo remarked.\u00a0 But the special attention he gave to the drapery in the lost painting and to the tying of it just below Judith\u2019s breasts give indications that Boyvin\u2019s print is related to the image that Del Pozzo saw at Fontainebleau in 1625.\u00a0 Scailli\u00e9rez\u2019s suggestion that the lost painting might be represented by Rosso\u2019s drawing in Los Angeles (D.84<\/a>), where again Holofernes\u2019s head is not at Judith\u2019s feet, is not possible because Judith is shown there entirely nude.<\/p>\n It is most likely that the engraving, which shows Judith holding the sword with her left hand, probably indicating that the scene is reproduced in reverse, was made from a drawing, as none of the sixteenth century prints after Rosso\u2019s designs can be shown to have been made from his paintings, or even from drawings made from them.\u00a0 The drawing that Boyvin used was, therefore, either one by Rosso, presumably for the lost painting, or a very good copy of that drawing.<\/p>\n As first pointed out by Kusenberg, the style of the Judith<\/i>, as can be known from Boyvin\u2019s print, is very similar to that of Rosso\u2019s Mars and Venus<\/i>, however to his drawing in the Louvre (Fig.D.42a<\/a>) as well as to the print made from it.\u00a0 Judith\u2019s oval head and her heavy-lidded eyes, her elaborate coiffure of parallel plaits, braids, and ribbons, and her long arms and tapering fingers are virtually identical to these details in the Mars and Venus<\/i> of 1530.\u00a0 The folding of the drapery at the left behind Judith is quite like that of the bed curtains in his drawing.\u00a0 One might also point out that her head is also very similar to the heads of the women in the copy in Rome (Fig.D.29<\/a>) of Rosso\u2019s drawing for his Christ in Glory<\/i> as well as of the woman in the altarpiece itself in Citt\u00e0 di Castello (Fig.P.20a<\/a>), painted just before Rosso left Italy.\u00a0 These similarities are so close as to make it highly likely that the Judith<\/i> was invented by Rosso almost at the same time.\u00a0 However, there are no French prints made after Italian works by Rosso except the Mars and Venus<\/i> and copies of some of Caraglio\u2019s prints.\u00a0 Therefore, the Judith<\/i> copied by Boyvin must be after a French work by Rosso, and from the evidence of its style as seen in that print after a very early one of around 1530-1531.<\/p>\n Dan, 1642, 96, in describing the fourth room of the Appartement des Bains at Fontainebleau, stated: \u201cL\u00e0 encore sur l\u2019une des portes est un Tableau de Iudith, dont la bordure est accompagn\u00e9e de plusieurs figures de relief.\u201d\u00a0 No artist is mentioned, but it has been assumed that this Judith<\/i> is Rosso\u2019s, not the original but a copy of it, for all the original paintings in these rooms had been replaced by copies during the reign of Henri IV when the originals were moved to the Cabinet des Peintures (see also Guilbert, 1731, I, 73, as in the fifth room).\u00a0 There is, therefore, evidence to indicate that Rosso\u2019s Judith<\/i> once hung in the Appartement des Bains (see Cox-Rearick, 1972, 37-38).\u00a0 But as the Appartement des Bains was not built and decorated until after Rosso\u2019s death, his Judith<\/i> could not have been made for this complex (see Dimier, 1900, 279-282, who pointed out that later, upon the destruction of the Appartement des Bains, the copies were moved to the Cabinet des Empereurs).1<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 But one detail of Dan\u2019s notice suggests that Boyvin\u2019s print is related to Rosso\u2019s lost painting.\u00a0 Dan remarks that the Judith<\/i> he saw was hung over a door, suggesting that if it was Rosso\u2019s painting, which was just under life size, according to Dan, it occupied an area that probably would not have taken a picture of a full-length figure.<\/p>\n If Rosso\u2019s lost painting, a drawing for which may be represented by Boyvin\u2019s print, was done in 1530-1531, then there is some possibility that it is the work indicated by the document recording payments to Rosso for his livelihood in the months of November and December 1530 and from January through July 1531 \u201cdurant lequel temps il a faict un grant tableau pour le Roy\u201d (L.36<\/a> and DOC.15<\/a>).\u00a0 In the same document it is recorded that Francesco Scibec de Carpi carved a wood frame (\u201cbois… entretailleure\u201d) for it that was gilded by Jehan Poulletier (\u201cpour l\u2019or, fa\u00e7on dud. aornement de bois;\u201d on the latter, see also the document of 8 July 1531 under L.36).\u00a0 It is possible that this frame was designed by Rosso (see L.36).\u00a0 Archangelle de Platte was paid to crate the painting and take it from Paris to Fontainebleau.\u00a0 Rosso\u2019s Judith<\/i> must have been about 1.50 by 1 meters, a size that might qualify it to be called \u201cun grant tableau.\u201d\u00a0 It would, of course, have been even larger in its frame, which, like that of the copy, could have been carved with \u201cplusieurs figures de relief;\u201d it is possible that the frame of the copy was itself a copy of the original frame.<\/p>\n If Rosso\u2019s lost Judith<\/i> was painted immediately upon his arrival in France it seems only reasonable to suppose that it was painted for the king.\u00a0 Unfortunately one does not know why this subject was selected for what may have been Rosso\u2019s first royal commission.<\/p>\n