(1)
So far, 4 versions of Guido Reni’s late painting Bacco e Arianna are known, which the literature deals with, namely the 2 paintings Luca (Rome, Accademia di San Luca) and Montecitorio (Rome, Palazzo Montecitorio) as well as the 2 engravings by Frey and Bolognini . With the catalog for the exhibition Bacco e Arianna di Guido Reni 2018 in Bologna, two more paintings have become known, namely Rio (once in Rio di Janeiro) and now, for the first time, Arianna Stuttgart (Stuttgart, private collection; catalog p. 47). The existence of Rio in South America has sometimes been mentioned, but a photograph has not yet been published.
Arianna Stuttgart was acquired from Christies in London in 1893 and has been in the family ever since. Nothing is known for the time before that. The picture has never been shown. The professional world has therefore not yet been able to appreciate this version, which offers significant new information.
The 6 versions have a certain order in which they were created, which makes the development of the original traceable. The external comparison immediately reveals 3 essential features of the versions, viz
1. format
2. proportions
3. figures
and shows the extent to which there is agreement or deviation.
The more precise comparison allows differences and changes to be recorded in detail, which allow certain conclusions to be drawn. As far as pentiments are visible on a version, they allow comparison to be made as to whether certain details have been dealt with in the same or a different way on other versions. Particularly revealing are pentiments that reveal a changed earlier state under the current state. They are useful for dating or attribution, and they help to identify and distinguish earlier and later states on other versions. The versions can then be arranged in relation to one another in terms of time.
(2)
All 6 versions want to reproduce the former original of Reni’s famous painting Bacco e Arianna, which was commissioned by the English Queen Henrietta from Reni in 1638. The painting served them as a template either directly or in a contemporary copy.
Reni probably began his large painting in Bologna in 1638. In 1640 the picture came to Rome. In 1642 it was sent to Henriette, who was now living in Paris, as a revolution had broken out in England. The rest of the story is dark. Felibien reports in 1685 that a prudish widow of d’Emery cut the picture into pieces in Paris in 1650. Only Malvasia wrote in 1678 that the pieces were also burned, as he was much further away from the events
Only Frey’s engraving is dated, with “Rome, October 1727”, when the original probably no longer existed, or at least was no longer in Rome. The engraving can therefore only reflect the status of an earlier copy (possibly Rio). No absolute date can be given for the other 5 versions. They can only be dated relative to each other from the comparison and placed in a possible chronological order.
(3)
The 5 undated versions were not all created at the same time and not in one go. To the extent that pentiments are present on a version, they mean that this version has been worked on for a certain period of time. The comparison shows various differences in the versions, which prove a longer development of the template. A certain chronological order of the 6 versions can also be derived from this, which each reflect the current status of their template. This shows 6 states for the template over a certain period of time and thus a development, from the “Luca” state to the “Montecitorio” state to the “Frey” state. The condition of Frey does not result in anything new, because Frey certainly sticks exactly to his original in his engraving with the exuberant dedication to Reni. This could have been Rio if the image was in Rome in 1727, or a similar copy.
(4)
The 6 versions have different formats, whereby the engravings are naturally smaller than the paintings. The images have the following dimensions and proportions:
Luca: 284 x 419 cm; 1/1.47
Montecitorio: 95 x 132 cm; 1/1.38
Rio: 150 x 338 cm; 1 / 2.2
Arianna Stuttgart: 145 x 320 cm; 1 / 2.2
Bolognini: 49 x 103 cm; 1/2.1
Frey: 45 x 89 cm; 1/1.97
Little can be deduced from size alone. Luca is presented as the largest painting, Montecitorio as the smallest, while Rio and Arianna Stuttgart are almost identical in size, like twins. But since it can be assumed that the image of a copy is not larger than the original, Luca can be used to determine the dimensions of the original and thus the minimum size of the original.
Arianna Stuttgart is missing a stripe of about 20 cm on the left edge opposite Rio, which Bolognini does not know either.
(5)
The proportions of the versions differ, but with 4 versions they are largely the same, namely with about 1 / 2.2. The biggest difference with Luca with 1 / 1.47 is easily explained if Luca as a special copy for Cardinal Sacchetti should only reproduce 4 main characters exactly. So it can be assumed that the template was also in format 1 / 2.2. This results in the possible size (minimum size) of 284 x 636 cm for the original, transferred from Luca with 284 cm x 2.2.
(6)
The number and arrangement of the figures are the same in 4 versions; only Luca and Montecitorio differ.
In Luca’s sky the Pudicizia and the Vittoria are missing. The Amorino holding the vine is missing in the lower left corner. The faun with the grapes is missing in the middle. The absence of these characters could be due to the intentional limitation to 4 main characters, or to the fact that they weren’t present on the original, which is more likely to be the case.
In Montecitorio only the grape faun is missing, the 3 other figures are present.
(7)
Pentimers indicate improvements. Pentiment come in large numbers to Arianna Stuttgart
appearance. Over 50 changes are easy to spot with the naked eye. Only about 30 of them will be presented here. They reveal an older condition, which Arianna Stuttgart has painted over in the current version. Corresponding details for many pentiments can be found on the other versions at these points, which still show the older condition there. These pentiments do not mean subsequent corrections of the editor’s mistakes, but deliberate changes that definitely turn out to be improvements. You are also allowed to make same changes on the template. reflect. This proves that the template was not created quickly and quickly, but was worked out critically and meticulously and often revised. Arianna Stuttgart’s editor attentively followed the development of the template and faithfully added changes there to his copy. – The reverse procedure is also conceivable: Arianna Stuttgart served the painter as a sketch for the picture, as a draft on which the changes were first entered before they were then reproduced in the original.
(8)
Comparisons and the pentiments in Arianna Stuttgart arrange the 6 versions in this order:
- Luca
- Montecitorio
- Rio
- Bolognini
- Arianna Stuttgart
- Frey
(9)
Comparisons and the pentiments at Arianna Stuttgart also show the development of the template from Luca to Arianna Stuttgart.
a) Luca still has 4 pieces missing. Bacco’s blue cloth blows high over his left shoulder (L1) (just as clearly in Arianna Stuttgart’s pentiment P13). The Ebbrezza still has no headband (L2) and no band around the left shoulder (L3); her right foot is close to the left foot (L4).
b) 3 figures have been added to Montecitorio; only the grape faun is still missing. Bacco’s shawl has become flatter (M1). The branch of the Vittoria intersects the right wing (M2). The Ebbrezza has changed in 3 places compared to Luca; she has a headband (M3) and a scarf over her left shoulder (M4), her right foot is higher (M5). The dancer’s tambourine is closed (M6). This corresponds to the position of the dancer’s left thumb in P27.
c) Rio brings significant changes compared to Montecitorio. 2 figures are faintly indicated next to the castle (R1). The vine on the bottom left points steeply upwards (R2). The grape faun is inserted in the middle (R4), with a plant on its back on the left (R3). The girl with the demijohn has 2 back loops (R5). The dancer’s tambourine is open (R6). A closed tambourine (R7) lies on the floor.
d) Frey brings further changes that he cannot have taken over from Rio. There is a tree next to the castle (F1). The boy’s right hand with the pole is lower (F2). Leaves are growing out of the ground beneath Arianna (F3). The left thigh of Venus is fuller (F4). Only 1 finger of Bacco points down (F5). Next to the tambourine are 2 shells (F6). This makes it unlikely to see Frey assist in Rio.
d) Bolognini follows Rio and Frey and shows further changes, which without Arianna Stuttgart would not be recognizable as a conscious correction of the template. Here are some examples:
The cloth of Arianna under the right leg becomes dark (B1). Her left thigh gets a shadow outline (B3). The boulder at their feet is divided (B2). The plant on the back of the grape faun has been removed (B4). The sword hilt became easier (B5). The left foot of the drinking boy is further drawn back (B6). The back loops on the girls and the Vittoria have been removed (B7 and B10). The tambourine on the bottom is open (B8). The dancer’s right foot is now pointing down (B9). – The changed arrangement of some figures is due to the insertion of the coat of arms.
e) With Arianna Stuttgart, Bacco’s changed leg position immediately catches the eye. The picture also shows other significant changes in details that are not yet found in Bolognini.
30 changes P1 to P30, mostly with pentiments, are easy to recognize at Arianna Stuttgart:
P1: Fingers of Pudicizia once longer (as in Bolognini).
P2: The boy’s hand is now lower.
P3: Rocks wider under Arianna’s elbows.
P4: Darkened the cloth under Arianna’s right leg, then lightened a stripe again.
P5: Shadow contour on Arianna’s left thigh.
P6: Arianna’s left foot fully visible, the rock parted.
P7: Face of Venus repainted several times.
P8: Thighs of Venus extended. The red cloth still shimmers through.
P9 to P11: Cloth of Bacco withdrawn in 7 places.
P12: All 4 fingers of the bacco point up
P13: Bacco’s shawl lower (cf. L1 and Rio).
P14: No plant.
P15: Faun’s shoulder freer.
P16: Faun’s head freer.
P17: Sword heavily changed.
P18: The faun’s foot reaches down to the boy.
P19: Boy’s foot further back.
P20: Here the branch of the Vittoria cut the wing (cf. M2).
P21: Ebbrezza’s right thigh visible.
P22: Girl’s left hand higher.
P23: No back loop on the Vittoria.
P24: No back loops on girls.
P25: Dancer’s right foot points down.
P26: Fluter’s right foot points forward.
P27: Dancer’s left thumb now in tambourine, formerly higher on tambourine (cf. M6).
P28: The tambourine on the bottom is open.
P29: Dancer’s right fingers closed and shortened.
P30: Donkey’s head touches dancer’s leg.
In addition, Bacco’s original leg position is still recognizable (B31).
Whether the massive, undoubtedly harmonious change in Bacco’s leg position was only carried out by Arianna Stuttgart or also on the model, i.e. on the original, must remain open. In any case, Chiari gave Bacco exactly this attitude in 1698 in his Bacco painting in the Galleria Spada in Rome, which strikingly resembles the Reni picture. This may be coincidence, but it is more likely to be a deliberate imitation. Arianna Stuttgart could well have been in Rome in 1698 and Chiari could have known her.
For the current version, the Arianna Stuttgart version, there is no possibility of comparison because the original has long been lost. Some pieces may have survived as fragments of the original. If the Arianna Stuttgart version always faithfully follows the original, the fragments would also have to show their status and correspond to the size of the original. In any case, this does not apply to the two known fragments.
f) The two currently known fragments, an Arianna and a dancer, are not from the same object. They are significantly different in size. The Arianna with a height of 220 cm (= total height of the picture) would result in a painting of 220 x 485 cm with the known proportion 1 / 2.2, from which she could have been cut out. That would be significantly smaller than the Luca version. The dancer fragment with a height of 254 cm, only a section is visible, would result in a full picture height of 391 cm and thus with the proportion 1 / 2.2 a painting of 391 x 860 cm, i.e. larger than Luca and completely different from the Arianna fragment.
Both fragments also show an early state that certainly does not correspond to the state of the completed original.
Fragment of Arianna: The leaves (and the plant?) that already show Frey, Bolognini and Arianna Stuttgart are missing at the bottom left (FA1). The cloth under the right leg is not yet darkened (FA2). The rock at the foot is not divided (FA3). The left thigh has no shadow contour (FA4). The rock next to the left foot drops off steeply (FA5), so only with Luca.
Dancer fragment: The dancer’s right foot is still pointing upwards (TF1). The flutist’s right foot points to the left (TF2), but in Arianna Stuttgart it points forward (clearly P26). distance between left leg and head of donkey (TF3); different with Bolognini and Arianna Stuttgart (clearly P25).