Retooling Medievalism for Early Modern Painting in Annibale Carracci’s Pietà with Saints in Parma
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
Generally I think there may be some promise in this essay. However, - removed for peer-review - revisions and some changes are needed.
To begin, a general concern I have is what I read as an over exultation of A Carracci. There is no real balance of criticism or recognition of limitations and seems to lack that objective criticality needed to provide a balance approach to the essay. In light of current political and cultural contexts, within which all our academic writing should also be sensitive to, there needs to be a bit more nuance
The paper would benefit extensively with a nice formal description of the painting. Although I see the importance of the focus on Christ, I personally still see the main focus on the Virgin Mary and her suffering. This is connected to the compositional formatting where she is effectively the center of the image that is made clear by the “X” shape composition. Yes, the lower saints look at Christ, although St. Francis could simply be gesturing to both. Having a clarity of the iconography and composition in general would help. And here I mean standard iconographical and academic reading of the image. This is a key factor that is lacking in the essay. It’s glossed over and not engaged directly enough to show the author’s full contribution to the discourse.
Next some of the sections could be tightened and restructured for clarity. It would be useful to a better definition of some of the phrasing used in various sections. For example the section on imago pietàtis really needs to be inversed as we really don’t get a fully understand of the theme and ideas until the end of the section. This needs to be first so that we can have a firm understanding of the history and then how AC is engaging with and expanding the content.
There are multiple areas throughout where the author argues intent by the artist, but these are not supported by documentation. This needs to be added to support these claims. If the material doesn’t exist, the statements need to be qualified.
There is potential for this essay but some of these issues need to be addressed before it can go forward.
A few page and section comments:
Page 1
A general point throughout. There is excessive use of prepositional phrasing that simply makes portions of the paper overly complex and convoluted. Simplifying and clarifying the phrases will help the entirety of the essay and the argument.
In this current cultural and political context, best to avoid using phrasing like “the great military hero.” The question is great for who, the Catholics? ? What did the Low Countries do other than be protestant? Could simply state the “military leader.”
“at the high altar?” or in front, below, near? A lot going on in that sentence consider revising. Probably make 2 sentences
Page 1-2 commentary:
The introductory pages are convoluted and a little celebratory for the current cultural context of the day. I would suggest revising this section to focus more on the details and balance in tone and narrative. The abstract is much clearer in focus than the introductory pages in outlining the focus of the essay.
Crisper and more concise attention on this section could allow for a significant revelation of the author’s intent and what new material they are bringing to the discussion. It seems that there is importance to the idea of the evolution of lamentation imagery from antiquity to mid-to-late sixteenth century. This needs to be zeroed in more as the focus than say, waxing poetically on the use of brush strokes.
Page 3
I’m not sure I fully agree with the reading of placing all the emphasis on Christ or simply out of the evolution of the Man of Sorrows. What would strengthen this would be references to a few examples of marking the progression from MoS to Lamentation to AC. For example, Giotto’s famous Lamentation establishes a form of emotional and gesturing that focuses on Christ early in the Renaissance era.
There are many instances with Francis and other saints being employed to draw viewers into a picture to contemplate the death of Christ or his suffering. I don’t see AC doing anything new here. Rather, he is affirming the sacrifice of Christ in regards to salvation and simply inviting the viewer (and monks) to contemplate on Christ’s sacrifice.
I’m also not sure why shifted to use of phrase imago pietàtis without much of a definition. As I understand it the term evolves from Man of Sorrows and Arma Christi? Here it would be relevant to define this material a bit more.
Still not sure I grasp the clarity of Christ’s sleep. Again there is a lack of contextualization of what this actually means. There are references to presumed artistic forms of this, but nothing that fully frames and expand this context of how it becomes important to AC. There seems to be a missing step here. It would be useful to restructure the imago pietàtis section with a tighter definition of what is meant by that term, followed by sleeping Christ. The clarity of the section comes at the end of the section and should be at the beginning. THEN there needs to be a clear and concrete connection made to AC. I get that AC copied some images by Michelangelo and others, but that doesn’t affirm that he adopted his or others’ ideas. Unless the author has text from AC indicating that they did buy this concept—if there is, the author needs to cite this—there needs to be more conditional approach here, say, it seems like AC was employing Mich’s ideas of imago pet.. based on the drawings AC produced. There needs to be some qualification.
Author Response
Please read the report. Thanks
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The overall point of the article, that in his Pietà with Saints Annibale Carracci responds to renewed Counter Reformation emphasis on the Eucharist and transubstantiation by turning to forms associated with early Christian art, like the Man of Sorrows, as reinterpreted by Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo, is plausible. The discussion of how the picture breaks with Albertian notions of the istoria is of interest and overall, the essay is well-grounded in the issues of devotional imagery in the sixteenth century.
The reading of the picture in relation to the Farnese is less convincing. The altarpiece was completed long before Alessandro Farnese’s death and was commissioned by the Capuchins. Certainly, Alessandro’s burial in front of the altar suggests his hope for rebirth and gives specific meaning to the themes of death and resurrection inherent in the altarpiece. But that doesn’t make the altarpiece specific to the Farnese. It was always likely that someone would be buried in front of the high altar, and themes of death and life are inherent to the subject (and to the very practice of the mass). I remain unconvinced that the altarpiece specifically “commemorates the history, patronage, and agency of the House of Farnese in Renaissance Italy” (1), as the essay doesn’t really articulate how it does so. The discussion of the connection to the Farnese later in the essay (8) remains very general.
The most serious issue with the essay is in the material cited. The most recent citation is 2012 and that is only one source, the rest is 2011 or before. Significant literature is missing, including books absolutely germane to the topic like Catherine Puglisi and William Barcham’s monograph on the Man of Sorrows in Venetian painting through the 16th century (Harvey Miller, 2019) or Jesse Locker’s 2019 edited collection on art After Trent (Routledge). Similarly, there are over 150 articles on Annibale published since 2011 some of which are clearly connected to material considered here including Stefano Pierguidi on the Carracci and tradition during the Counter Reformation (2018), Saskia Rubin on his approach to an “old theme” (2018), and Ostrow on Michelangelo’s legacy (2016). There is also a plethora of more recent work on Michelangelo’s drawings for Vittoria Colonna, including Jessica Maratsos on the afterlife of those images. The essay needs significant updating in the bibliography, which might affect the substance of the discussion.
Below are specific comments on the text; red text correlates to highlight on the attached pdf. These are comments about places where wording is problematic, but also places where ideas are shaky.
1.
commemorates… (see notes above)
“now reckoned with” – awkward phrasing here that suggests a conceptual issue. the painting itself doesn’t reckon with anything; it is the context around it that has changed. So Annibale’s work was now understood in the context of, or situated in a setting that…
“documented” – problematic wording, it suggests something more concrete than what is being discussed here. The picture itself doesn’t really document anything related to the Farnese, it doesn’t include a Farnese donor or patron for example. If one were unaware of Farnese patronage of the picture, they wouldn’t learn it from the picture itself.
inspired – what is meant here? Mochi was commissioned to make the equestrian bronzes, he didn’t make them of his own accord. What is meant here that he was inspired by the altarpiece?
manifests innovation – awkward
2.
capture iconographic meaning…imitation – it is not clear what you mean here, particularly by “at the expense of imitation.” the phrasing suggests a negative, that he should have been trying to imitate one artist or another.
with a medieval…altarpiece practice – unclear here. ‘relevance’ should perhaps be ‘importance’ or ‘significance’. also Christocentric emphasis on Marian devotion? need to draw out the shift from one to the other
around 1500 – Need clarification in this whole paragraph. I believe that you are suggesting that Annibale’s altarpiece picks up on ideas that were explored “around 1500”? Later sentence “The religious culture to which Annibale’s altarpiece belonged was structurally anticipated…” needs more signposts to clarify – I think – that you are suggesting that Annibale’s late 16th century context was building on ideas circulating around 1500. i.e. clarify that you aren’t suggesting that Annibale’s altarpiece belongs to an “around 1500” context, which would be problematic.
Man of Sorrows – up to this point in this paragraph you have been discussing the relationship of Annibale’s painting to Lamentation imagery. This is the first mention of the Man of Sorrows. Need to clarify that these are two distinct iconographies. Likely need to introduce the Man of Sorrows earlier in the paragraph.
never reprised the funerary context – this statement is confusing. “funerary context” seems to refer to the physical place of the altarpiece’s installation and its connection to the Duke’s tomb. That would be problematic for several reasons (not least because the first paragraph of the essay says that the installation of the duke’s remains happened after Annibale made his altarpiece). I don’t think that is what is meant however? “Funerary context” seems instead to mean “archaic frontality”? This still doesn’t entirely hold, given that Annibale’s later Pietà seems to have a similar frontality.
3
surround – awkward
breaks with the arrangement… which is what?
In earlier Lamentation scenes… this is very general, and I can immediately think of many Lamentation scenes that don’t fit the description of “restrained gesture” (Niccolò dell’Arca’s and Giulio Mazzoni’s sculptures first and foremost). The examples given here are central Italian and around 1500 (see notes above). What about around 1580 and Emilian?
4.
exquisite violations – same as the above comment. This suggests more uniformity or “rules” than is really reasonable. I’m not convinced that an outward turning figure in a Lamentation is so unheard of
agency – perhaps not the right word here
that occupied – grammatically need more of a transition. “…transubstantiation, a search that occupied…”
highly creative idea – again, at first read I am not convinced that this is so innovative. What about Pontormo’s altarpiece in the Capponi chapel?
unordinary – awkward
living Christ – need to establish before this why we should read him as living, rather than dead. As noted earlier, he is wrapped in a winding cloth, inert. We do see the wound on his side. The wounds aren’t stressed, but they are there. And there is a skull at his feet. Why should we read this as other than dead?
5
The effect… ritual setting – this isn’t clear. perhaps is a word choice issue. The “setting” of the image is still landscape, etc.
not sure about the Mantegna discussion. If Mantegan “scattered moments” etc. then how is it a good precursor for this altarpiece, which instead is about singular focus and an iconic mode? Need some more specific links here.
6.
colorito suave – missing word here?
Annibale used Raphael – not sure what is meant here
An extraordinary Christocentric focus… - need to clarify something that is implied here: that Christocentric focus was imposed on Annibale by someone else (eg. a patron?) or it was something he chose?
7
woundless – for the sake of accuracy, ‘near woundless’. they are there, but faint
8
utterly interpretative – word missing? grammar issue
last three paragraphs – the basics need to be laid out here again. Alessandro buried in front of the high altar, where Annibale’s altarpiece is already placed. does that really mean that the altarpiece commemorates Alessandro’s life specifically? I’m not convinced. Surely it has more to do with Capuchin ideals, which with Alessandro (or rather his family) sought to align himself. Similarly, it’s not entirely convincing that they chose to bury him there because of Annibale’s altarpiece. The location in front of the high altar is the most prestigious burial location in a church, regardless of what decorates it.
9.
Cima de Conegliano – spelling error, should be: Cima da Conegliano
10
to project a post-Tridentine… - unclear/word choice
11
funerary portraiture - not clear what is meant by this
Remarkably … - except Annibale didn’t work to fit a funerary altarpiece, since that context came after the completion of the painting, correct?
12
whether the acquiescent… - this is a strange ending to an essay that has stressed Annibale’s agency, his aesthetic choices, his devotional understanding. ‘acquiescent’ suggests total passivity, and I can’t imagine who would argue that he was a ‘shadow’ of a predecessor. similarly, hasn’t the essay been arguing all along for what “elevated the cultic significance”, etc.? This sentence seems to undercut the main point of the paper.
Author Response
Please read the report. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The changes and updates to the paper are quite nice. The author to the took the concerns of the reviews seriously and adapted the paper to make a sound contribution to the scholarship.
Good job!
Author Response
Thanks for the endorsement of revisions!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
