The Taking of Jerusalem

Tempesta Antonio

(Florence 1555 - Rome 1630)

This work is exemplary for its use of ruin marble, so-called for its unique natural veining that can mimic groups of buildings, recalling the view of a village or a city. The painting shows a Christian army liberating the city of Jerusalem. The subject, taken from Torquato Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata, is illustrated as a miniature might be, with small lively figures that make the most of the figuration produced by the natural lines in the marble. The artist of the work, which was part of Cardinal Scipione’s collection, is remembered from late 18th-century inventories as Antonio Tempesta, an artist who specialized in the use of this particular technique.

Object details

Commentary

The scenic layout of this Liberation of Jerusalem is heavily conditioned by the natural appearance of the ruin marble: the skyline of the city, illuminated by the lighter areas in the support, is depicted with great precision by the marble itself, and the artist only sporadically added some painted detail to the buildings. Their height, on average a few centimetres, imposes the need for an almost miniaturist approach to the figures. The ranks of the Christian Army, with lively horses and riders bearing the banner with a white cross on a red field, storm into the city. Some foot soldiers are trying to climb the walls, out of which the Turks are looking, attempting to drive them back. On the left, they are waving the flag with the half-moon; high in the sky is the divine appearance of angels armed with long spears spurring a group of devilish figures to flee into the opposite corner.

Herrmann Fiore was the first to recognise this work on ruin marble in the inventory, dating to c.1633, which read: “A small painting on stone which through natural features shows soldiers storming a city, ebony frame inlaid with silver with eight stones set in it [...] palms wide [... ] palms high (K. Herrmann Fiore 2001, p. 111, no. 4). At that time, the work was located in the Villa Pinciana, in the fourth room toward the aviary, and the author of the inventory, although unnamed, nevertheless provided interesting information about the valuable frame that no longer exists. Manilli, on the other hand, in 1650, recalled it in the apartment in the south of the villa, though without venturing into attribution: “In the one of alabaster, where nature has formed a City without the help of art, one can see painted the liberation of that same City by the force of a Christian army against the Turks: and perhaps the Painter wished to express the liberation of Jerusalem, recounted by Tasso”. Giovanni Battista Borghese's wardrobe keeper also pointed out the subject of the work, perhaps already described in a document of 1644 preserved in the Vatican Apostolic Archive and published by Collomb (2006a, p. 624 note 913; 2012, p. 210 note 5), if the painting, generically described there as “A small painting of the city of Jerusalem [...]”, coincides with this one. It is actually thanks to the description of the frame in the inventory of c.1633 that it has been possible to trace The liberation of Jerusalem in that of 1693: “a picture on stone that forms Natural Villages with the black moulded and diapered silver frame with stones in the corners, in the middle, about one palm in height of No. 425. Uncertain” (Della Pergola 1965, p. 211, n. 631). It is true that the indication of the subject is somewhat vague, but all other information is consistent with the painting under consideration, including that inventory number 425 still legible in the lower left-hand corner. It was misinterpreted as 725 by recent critics, who consequently ruled out identifying the Liberation as the work mentioned in the 1693 inventory (Lohff 2015, pp. 197-198, no. 5.1). There is still no mention of the artist, however; the Florentine painter's name appeared only in the 1790 inventory: “The Liberation of Jerusalem by Goffredo, Antonio Tempesta” (De Rinaldis 1937, p, 228, no. 107). The attribution was repeated in the 1833 fideicommissary (Mariotti 1892, p. 90, no. 67) and in the 19th-century literature, but ignored by Venturi, who preferred to attribute the work to Pieter Brueghel, and by Longhi, who, without sharing Venturi's opinion, even classified it as lacking merit and unworthy of discussion. Conversely, Della Pergola returned to Tempesta's name, relying on a comparison with two other works on ruin marble in the Borghese collection (cat. VI.3, Vl.4) with an early attribution to the Tuscan painter, also supported by later critics with the exception of Leuschner (2005, p. 513) and Lohff (2015, pp. 197-198, no. 5.1). In particular, the latter scholar compares the Borghese Liberation of Jerusalem with two other works on ruin marble (New York, private collection, and Milan, Fondazione Giulini Giannotti) with similar subjects, attributed to Filippo Napoletano (see Chiarini 2007, p. 287, nos. 62 and 63), and observes the similar miniaturist style of the figures, as well as the way of using the surface, with stone playing the leading role, finally suggesting that the Borghese work be attributed to an artist close to Filippo Napoletano, or to Napoletano himself.

But the features singled out by the scholar are also typical of Tempesta, who had a calligraphic naturalism that he had practiced since his Florentine days at the workshop of the Flemish Jan van der Straet known as Stradano; accustomed to changes in size and proportions, from frescoes to engravings, Antonio was adept at accommodating the dimensions of the supports and the suggestions offered by the veining of natural stones, and in numerous cases, the compositional solutions depend on them, as in this one. The Borghese work is not taken from Tempesta's series of engravings dedicated to the Liberation of Jerusalem, but the manner in which he composes and portrays the dynamic figures, similar to the Tuscan painter's vast number of graphic works, confirming the artist's prolificity of ideas. It is understandable that Tempesta returned to such a subject also on such a distinctive medium as ruin marble. He had experimented with it extensively, and we should bear in mind that in those years, between the late 16th century and third decade of the 17th century, that Tasso's poem was highly appreciated. The poem was also translated into theatrical performances, such as the one staged in 1612 at the Palazzo della Cancelleria, in the presence of such illustrious personalities as Cardinal Scipione Borghese (Granata 2003, p. 39).

Emanuela Settimi