arts

Article Marketing and Self-Promotion in Early Modern : The Case of

Daniel M. Unger

The Department of the Arts, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 8410501, Israel; [email protected]

Abstract: This article focuses on Guercino’s Return of the Prodigal Son, commissioned in the name of Cardinal Alessandro Ludovisi and on his marketing choices. This is a case study in terms of self- promotion tactics employed by an ambitious artist. My argument is that one finds in the painting a secondary and more sophisticated level of interpretation, which relates to the relationship between the painter and his patron. To the most traditional iconography of the scene, Guercino added musicians and spectators, thus positioning the entire composition in the theatre. One of the musicians is depicted in a way that casts him as a representative of the painter. The patron understood Guercino’s intentions and commissioned what became Guercino’s most important artworks. It was Guercino’s ability of shifting the attention of a given iconography and deliver current political meaning that is discernible in his Roman works commissioned by the same Cardinal Ludovisi who was elected Gregory XV.

Keywords: Guercino; Gregory XV; prodigal son; early modern theatre; self-presentation

  1. Introduction Citation: Unger, Daniel M. 2021. Today we may confidently assert the extent to which Guercino’s career was impacted Marketing and Self-Promotion in by Pope Gregory XV (Alessandro Ludovisi 1554–1623). In 1621, immediately after his Early Modern Painting: The Case of 1 Guercino. Arts 10: 55. https:// elevation to the papal throne, the newly elected Ludovisi pope summoned the painter to doi.org/10.3390/arts10030055 and commissioned him to depict The Burial and Reception into Heaven of St. Petronilla (1621/3, Pinacoteca Capitolina, Rome) for St. Peter’s.2 Guercino was the first Bolognese Academic Editor: Thor J. Mednick painter to be called to the eternal city by this pope, where he created his most important works, and where he first encountered success and great acclaim. Received: 18 July 2021 The Burial and Reception into Heaven of St. Petronilla is Guercino’s most prestigious Accepted: 13 August 2021 work in Rome. In fact, this is the only major work of art commissioned by Pope Gregory Published: 18 August 2021 XV for St. Peter’s. This monumental , which seems to have marked the climax of the painter’s success, was installed above the altar that replaced the demolished chapel of Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral the French kings, in which the remains of St. Petronilla had been interred by with regard to jurisdictional claims in in 1606 (Pinelli 2000, p. 646). published maps and institutional affil- There are many questions concerning the reasons that motivated the Ludovisi pope to iations. invite the obscure young painter from to Rome. Foremost among these questions is: what exactly did the old clergyman find so compelling in Guercino’s work? The answer to this question, as I would like to argue, can be found in one of the that were commissioned on his behalf while he was still serving as the of Copyright: © 2021 by the author. , the Return of the Prodigal Son (Figure1). 3 It is unknown who commissioned the Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. painting on behalf of the archbishop. It is very likely that Guercino’s first encounter with This article is an open access article the Ludovisi patronage was initiated by Alessandro’s nephew Ludovico.4 The latter was distributed under the terms and an art connoisseur, and later created a major collection, housed at the Casino Ludovisi.5 conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Arts 2021, 10, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts10030055 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2021, 10, 55 2 of 18 Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 19

FigureFigure 1.1. Guercino,Guercino, ReturnReturn ofof thethe ProdigalProdigal SonSon,, 1618,1618, GalleriaGalleria Sabauda,Sabauda, Turin.Turin. Photo:Photo: ©© DanielDaniel M.M. Unger.Unger.

InIn thisthis essayessay II willwill argueargue thatthat CardinalCardinal AlessandroAlessandro LudovisiLudovisi waswas fascinatedfascinated byby Guer-Guer- cino’scino’s abilityability to infuse familiar familiar themes themes with with additional additional layers layers of of meaning, meaning, through through the the in- incorporationcorporation of of particular particular elements elements that that shift shift the the viewer’s viewer’s attention attention from from a well-known a well-known and andcommon common understanding understanding of a given of a given subject subject toward towardss a more a morespecific specific message. message. This ability, This ability,discerned discerned in Guercino’s in Guercino’s St. Petronilla St. Petronilla altarpiece, altarpiece, is also evident is also evident in the Return in the ofReturn the Prodigal of the ProdigalSon. Indeed, Son. Indeed, the St. thePetronilla St. Petronilla altarpiece altarpiece is a tour is a de tour force de forceof Guercino’s of Guercino’s innovative innovative em- employmentployment of ofsigns signs to todirect direct the the viewer viewer to towardswards the the message, which goesgoes beyondbeyond thatthat whichwhich cancan be gleaned gleaned from from the the title title of of the the painting painting (Unger (Unger 2010, 2010 pp., pp.10–11). 10–11). Modern Modern schol- scholars,ars, such suchas Leo as Steinberg, Leo Steinberg, Louise Louise Rice, Rice,and Carolyn and Carolyn H. Wood, H. Wood, have havealready already suggested sug- gestedpolitical political interpretations interpretations for this for presentation, this presentation, that is first that and is first foremost and foremost a religious a religious artwork artworkmeant to meant commemorate to commemorate a a Catholic (Steinberg saint (Steinberg 1980; Wood 1980; 1988;Wood Rice 1988 1997;; Rice Unger 1997; Unger2010). 2010). AA carefulcareful analysisanalysis ofof thetheReturn Return ofof thethe ProdigalProdigalSon Sonoffers offersa asimilar similarintention intentionthat thatmay may explainexplain Guercino’sGuercino’s stunningstunning earlyearly successsuccess andand whywhy hehe waswas thethe Pope’sPope’s preferredpreferred painter.painter. TheThe paintingpainting should should be be explainedexplained in in terms terms ofof anan ambitiousambitious youngyoung painterpainter seeking seeking to to makemake aa namename for for himself. himself. Indeed, Indeed, for for a a painter painter at at the the outset outset of of his his career, career, it would it would seem seem natural natural to tryto try and and impress impress his viewers,his viewers, and toand search to search among among them them for a powerfulfor a powerful patron patron by producing by pro- theducing most the compelling most compelling painting painting possible—through possible—through actions actions which, inwhich, today’s in today’s terminology, termi- wenology, could we describe could describe as marketing as marketing choices towardschoices towards the creation the creation of an effective of an effective commodity. com- Inmodity. this regard, In this one regard, should one be should constantly be constantly reminded reminded that he wasthat athe the was outset at the of outset his career of his whencareer Guercino when Guercino completed completed his first his version first version of Return of ofReturn the Prodigal of the Prodigal Son. The Son painting. The paint- was intendeding was intended for a high-ranking for a high-ranking patron, who patron, paved who his paved way toward his way fame toward and fame success. and Thus, success. in thisThus, early in this commission, early commission, Guercino Guercino added a personal added a undercurrentpersonal undercurrent note that wasnote meant that was to impressmeant to the impress recipient the ofrecipient the painting—Alessandro of the painting—Alessandro Ludovisi. Ludovisi.

Arts 2021, 10, 55 3 of 18 Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

2.2. TheThe LudovisiLudovisi Commission Commission TheTheReturn Return ofof the Prodigal Son Son isis one one of of three three paintings paintings that that Carlo Carlo Cesare Cesare Malvasia, Malvasia, the theBolognese Bolognese bio biographer,grapher, mentions mentions as having as having been been comp completedleted by Guercino by Guercino for forCardinal Cardinal Lu- Ludovisidovisi in in 1618. 1618. The The other other two two paintings paintings are are RaisingRaising of of Tabitha andand SusannaSusanna andand thethe Elders Elders (Prado,(Prado, Madrid). Madrid). According According to to Malvasia, Malvasia, these these three three works works truly truly exceeded exceeded the the cardinal’s cardinal’s 6 expectations.expectations.6Susanna Susanna and and the the Elders Eldersis is the the only only painting painting among among the the three three that that is is mentioned mentioned inin bothboth LudovisiLudovisi inventories—those of of 1623 1623 and and 1633. 1633.7 Nicholas7 Nicholas Turner Turner explains explains the the ab- absencesence of of the the ReturnReturn of of the the Prodigal Prodigal Son from bothboth inventories,inventories, wherebywhereby thethe painting painting was was givengiven to to the the Duke ofof Savoy,Savoy, Carlo Carlo Emanuele Emanuele I I by by the the Pope’s Pope’s nephew,nephew, Ludovico , Ludovisi, soonsoon after after its its execution. execution. The The painting painting is mentionedis mentioned in the in collectionthe collection of the of Duke, the Duke, in the in 1631 the inventory.1631 inventory.8 8 TheThe actual actual return return of of the the prodigal prodigal son son is is depicted depicted on on the the left left side side of of the the painting painting in in a a highlyhighly traditional traditional manner, manner, and and features features the the most most climactic climactic moment moment of of the the New Testament storystory (Luke (Luke 15, 15, pp. pp. 11–32), 11–32), in in which which the the prominently prominently displayed displayed son son asks asks for for his his father’s father’s forgiveness.forgiveness. Guercino Guercino employed employed the the familiar familiar iconography iconography associated associated with with this this scene, scene, de- depictingpicting the the father father descending descending the the stairs stairs while while stretching stretching out out his his arms arms in welcome. in welcome. The The son sonkneels kneels in front in front of him, of him, his his hands hands clasped clasped together, together, in ina gesture a gesture commonly commonly interpreted interpreted as asremorse. remorse. Both Both father father and and son son express express their their f feelingseelings by means ofof theirtheir hands.hands. BehindBehind the the fatherfather is is a a third third man, man, carrying carrying a a pile pile of of clothes. clothes. ToTo the the most most conspicuous conspicuous part part of theof the painting—the painting—the son’s son’s return—the return—the painter painter added added two groupstwo groups of figures of figures that may that shiftmay ourshift understanding our understanding of the of scene the scene towards towards a more a nuancedmore nu- explanationanced explanation of the painting. of the painting. The first The group, first ingroup, the upper in the part upper of part the composition,of the composition, consists con- ofsists five of figures:five figures: three three men men who who seem seem to beto be engaged engaged in in conversation, conversation, and and two two men men with with 9 musicalmusical instruments, instruments, one one tuning tuning a theorboa theorbo and and another another holding holding a lira a dalira braccio da braccio (Figure (Figure2 ). Hornik2).9 Hornik and Parsonsand Parsons identified identified this group this group as musicians as musicians invited invited to play to at play the feast at the the feast father the isfather preparing is preparing in honour in of honour his returning of his son. returning Interestingly, son. Interestingly, both scholars acknowledgeboth scholars theacknowledge inclusion of the two inclusion distinct of scenes two distinct in one painting:scenes in one the painting: reunion of the the reunion prodigal of the son prod- and hisigal father, son and and his the father, feastfor and which the feast the musiciansfor which werethe musicians invited (Hornik were invited and Parsons (Hornik 2005 and, p.Parsons 147). 2005, p. 147).

FigureFigure 2. 2.Guercino, Guercino,Return Return of of the the Prodigal Prodigal Son Son(detail), (detail), 1618, 1618, Galleria Galleria Sabauda, Sabauda, Turin. Turin. Photo: Photo:© ©Daniel Daniel M.M. Unger. Unger.

ArtsArts2021 2021, 10, 10, 55, x FOR PEER REVIEW 44 ofof 18 19

TheThe second second group, group, on on the the far far right, right, consists consists of of two two figures: figures: a a young young man man dressed dressed in in fancyfancy seventeenth-century seventeenth-century attire attire and and a a feathered feathered hat, hat, and and a a man man in in simple simple clothes clothes standing standing behindbehind him, him, who who is is showing showing him him the the way way towards towards the the staircase. staircase. He He seems seems to to belong belong to to a a lowerlower social social rank. rank. A A horse horse is is positioned positioned behind behind the the men, men, indicating indicating that that the the well-dressed well-dressed gentlemangentleman has has just just arrived. arrived. The The gentleman gentleman can can certainly certainly represent represent the the loyal loyal son son returning returning fromfrom his his daily daily work work in in the the fields. fields. Thus, Thus, here here too, too, one one may may find find a a representation representation of of two two differentdifferent instances instances of of the the same same story: story: the the reunion reunion of of the the prodigal prodigal son son and and his his father, father, and and thethe return return of of the the loyal loyal son son from from the the fields. fields. InIn his his SuzannaSuzanna and the the Elders Elders GuercinoGuercino depicted depicted the the scene scene in the in themost most traditional traditional man- manner.ner. The Thetwo twoelderly elderly men are men glancing are glancing on the on naked the nakedSuzanna Suzanna while she while is seated, she is washing seated, washingher feet. her Yet, feet. the Yet, painter the painter succeeded succeeded in crea inting creating a dramatic a dramatic and andtempestuous tempestuous scene, scene, ex- expressedpressed in in the the movement, movement, hand hand gestures, gestures, and facialfacial expressionsexpressions ofof thethe two two men, men, featuring featuring thethe most most climatic climatic moment moment of of the the story. story. Guercino’sGuercino’sRaising Raising ofof Tabitha (Figure(Figure3 3)) isis aa more sophisticated sophisticated painting. painting. Here, Here, in in ad- additiondition to to the the two two main main protagonists, protagonists, St. St. Peter and Tabitha, hehe peopledpeopled hishis canvas canvas with with otherother figures. figures. InIn thisthis painting, painting, thethe miracle miracle of of restoration restoration of of life life is is depicted, depicted, as as St. St. Peter Peter resurrectsresurrects someone someone (Tabitha) (Tabitha) who who has has recently recently passed passed away. away. Tabitha, Tabitha, a a pious pious woman woman who who livedlived in in Jaffa Jaffa and and occupied occupied herself herself with with charitable charitable works, works, died died suddenly. suddenly. St. St. Peter, Peter, who who waswas in in Lydda, Lydda, was was called called in. in. He He saw saw her her lying lying dead dead and and asked asked everyone everyone to to leave leave the the room, room, andand then then called called out, out, “ “Tabitha,Tabitha, surge surge”,”, whereupon whereupon she she opened opened her her eyes eyes and and sat sat up up (Acts (Acts 9, 9, pp.pp. 36–43). 36–43).

FigureFigure 3. 3.Guercino, Guercino,Raising Raising of of Tabitha Tabitha, 1618,, 1618, Palazzo Palazzo Pitti, Pitti, Florence. Florence. Photo: Photo: Wikimedia Wikimedia Commons, Commons, PublicPublic Domain. Domain.

GuercinoGuercino chooses chooses the the climactic climactic moment moment as as St. St. Peter Peter cries cries out out to to the the dead dead woman, woman, who who isis depicted depicted foreshortened foreshortened lying lying in in the the lower lower right right side side of of the the picture, picture, still still lifeless. lifeless. St. St. Peter, Peter, positionedpositioned on on the the leftleft ofof thethe canvas,canvas, flingsflings up his arm arm and and points points upward upward while while looking looking at

ArtsArts2021 2021, 10, 10, 55, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 ofof 1819

atTabitha Tabitha and and exhorting exhorting her her to to rise. rise. Around Around the the two two main main pr protagonistsotagonists Guercino Guercino added added a ayoung young shepherd shepherd between between St. St. Peter Peter and and Tabitha, Tabitha, wh whoo is holding is holding a staff a staff in his in left his lefthand hand and, and,with with his right, his right, hand hand points points down down at atthe the de deadad body, body, in in a a movement movement contrasting withwith St.St. Peter’sPeter’s upwardlyupwardly pointingpointing hand.hand. HeHe turnsturns hishis headhead towardtowardSt. St. Peter.Peter. ToTo the the shepherd’s shepherd’s leftleft stands stands a a woman, woman, also also looking looking at at St. St. Peter Peter with with her her hands hands on on her her breast. breast. On On the the other other sideside of of St. St. Peter,Peter, there there are are three three figures. figures. One, One, in in the the frontal frontal plane, plane, sits sits with with her her back back to to the the viewer,viewer, holding holding a a baby baby and and watching. watching. Two Two other other women women are are behind behind St. St. Peter. Peter. One One holds holds a handkerchiefa handkerchief close close to to her her eyes eyes and and the the other other looks looks on on from from beyond beyond St. St. Peter’s Peter’s shoulder.shoulder. TheThe scenescene isis takingtaking placeplace in a dark room lightened by by a a single single candlelight. candlelight. According According to toCarolyn Carolyn Kinder Kinder Carr, Carr, the the women women in inTheThe Raising Raising of ofTabitha Tabitha areare the the widows widows who who asked asked St. St.Peter Peter to come to come to their to their help. help. Although Although St. Peter St. Peter asked asked that the that room the roombe cleared, be cleared, the icono- the iconographicgraphic tradition tradition of this of thissubject subject always always incl includeduded additional additional figures figures (Carr (Carr 1978, 1978 p., p.128). 128). Whereas,Whereas, Guercino’s Guercino’sReturn Return of of the the Prodigal Prodigal Son Sonfollows follows the the traditional traditional iconography iconography in in termsterms of of the the representation representation of of the the three three main main protagonists protagonists and and their their interrelationship, interrelationship, the the twotwo additional additional groups groups of of figures figures may may have have other other meaning. meaning. They They may may be be seen seen as as musicians musicians andand spectators,spectators, thusthus positioningpositioning thethe entireentire composition composition inin the the theatre. theatre. Indeed, Indeed, the the entire entire compositioncomposition alludes alludes to to the the theatrical theatrical performance performance of a of liturgical a liturgical play play (sacre ( rappresentazionesacre rappresenta-), inzione which), in musicians which musicians and spectators and spectators supplement supplement the three actorsthe three in the actors role ofin thethe fatherrole of and the hisfather two and sons. his two sons. TheThe theatricaltheatrical charactercharacter ofof thethe entireentire composition composition isis clarified clarified when when we we compare compare the the painting’spainting’s backgroundbackground withwith Guercino’sGuercino’s only only surviving surviving drawing ofof a a full full theatrical theatrical d décorécor (Figure(Figure4 ).4).

FigureFigure 4. 4.Guercino, Guercino,A A Theatrical Theatrical Performance Performance(drawing), (drawing), 1617, 1617, The The British British , Museum, London. London. Photo: Photo:© © The Trustees of the British Museum. The Trustees of the British Museum.

InIn this this drawing, drawing, two two women women are are performing performing on on stage, stage, probably probably singing singing and and dancing dancing inin frontfront ofof aa largelarge crowd, which is is seen seen from from behind. behind. On On the the right right side side of ofthe the drawing, drawing, on onthe the second second floor, floor, on what on what seems seems to be to a becove ared covered balcony, balcony, are two are musicians two musicians with instru- with 10 instruments,ments, similar similar to those to those in the in Return the Return of the ofProdigal the Prodigal Son. Son In .fact,10 In the fact, two the musicians two musicians in the drawing of the theatre are located in the same spot in the theatre as those depicted in the

Arts 2021, 10, 55 6 of 18 Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

in the drawing of the theatre are located in the same spot in the theatre as those depicted inpainting. the painting. There There is one is fundamental one fundamental difference, difference, however, however, between between the two the pairs two pairsof musi- of musicians.cians. Whereas Whereas the thefigures figures in the in thedrawing drawing are areproducing producing music, music, the the most most remarkable remarkable as- aspectpect of of the the two two musicians musicians in inthe the painting painting is that is that they they are are not not playing playing music music (Figure (Figure 2). 2The). Thetheorbo theorbo player player is intent is intent on ontuning tuning his hisinstru instrument,ment, while while the the other other musician musician is holding is holding his hisinstrument instrument in ina manner a manner that that makes makes it it impo impossiblessible for for him to produceproduce sounds,sounds, withwith the the fingersfingers of of his his left left hand hand visible visible on on the the back back of of the the lira lira da da braccio. braccio. FromFrom thethe musicians’ musicians’ perspective,perspective, itit seemsseems asas ifif the the three three main main protagonists protagonists of of the the NewNew Testament Testament parable parable are are positioned positioned on stage,on stage, while while the diagonalthe diagonal view view captures captures not only not theonly actors the actors and musicians and musicians on stage, on butstage, also but the al arrival,so the arrival, on the right,on the of right, the distinguished of the distin- spectatorguished spectator who is being who shown is being to shown his place. to his place.

3.3. Guercino Guercino and and the the Theatre Theatre Guercino’sGuercino’s involvementinvolvement withwith thethe theatretheatre ofof his his day day is is well well documented, documented, and and was was thoroughlythoroughly investigated investigated by by Shilpa Shilpa Prasad Prasad in in her her doctoral doctoral dissertation, dissertation, which which focused focused on on thethe centralitycentrality ofof theatrical theatrical dispositions dispositions inin Guercino’s Guercino’s work work and and on on their their development development throughoutthroughout his his career career ( Prasad(Prasad 2007 2007).). Bartolommeo Bartolommeo Fabri,Fabri, whowho builtbuilt hishis theatre theatre in in Cento, Cento, Guercino’sGuercino’s birthplace, birthplace, employed employed the the painter painter and and made made two two rooms rooms available available to to him him for for his his academiaacademia del del nudonudoin in 16161616 ((MalvasiaMalvasia 16781678,, vol.vol. 2, 2, p. p. 258; 258; Bagni Bagni 1984, 1984 ,p. p. 23; 23; Salerno Salerno 1988, 1988 p., p.8; 8; Unger Unger 2010, 2010 ,p. p. 55). 55). Giuseppe Giuseppe Maria Maria Pannini Pannini records Guercino’sGuercino’s associationassociation with with Fabri Fabri andand the the theatre theatre in in his his 1655 1655Compendiosi Compendiosi ragguagli ragguagli d’alcune d’alcune attiioni attiioni seguite seguite nella nella Nobilissima Nobilissima PatriaPatria di di CentoCento ((PrasadPrasad 2007,2007, pp. pp. 37–41; 37–41; Prasad Prasad 2006, 2006 pp., pp. 7–8). 7–8). Malvasia Malvasia mentions mentions the Mar- the Marquisquis Enzo Enzo Bentivoglio, Bentivoglio, a well-known a well-known figure figure in the in theatrical the theatrical world world of his of time, his time, who whocame cameto visit to Guercino visit Guercino at his athome hishome in Cento in Cento (Malvasia (Malvasia 1678, vol1678 2,, volp. 258; 2, p. Prasad 258; Prasad 2007, pp. 2007 56–, pp.58). 56–58).Letters Letterswritten writtenin 1617 inby 1617 Guercino by Guercino and by andthe Bolognese by the Bolognese clergyman clergyman Don Antonio Don AntonioMirandola, Mirandola, Guercino’s Guercino’s lifelong lifelongmentor and mentor friend, and confirm friend, confirma request a that request was that made was by madeBentivoglio by Bentivoglio for a painting, for a painting, and which and whichwas rejected was rejected by the by painter the painter because because he was he was too 11 toobusy. busy.11 PrasadPrasad noticed noticed another another referencereference to to Guercino’s Guercino’s representations representationsof oftheatrical theatricalperfor- perfor- mancesmances in in his hisPeasants Peasants in in a a Domestic Domestic Interior Interior,, where where the the painter painter duplicated duplicated the the right right side side of of anotheranother drawing, drawing, the theTavern Tavern Scene Scene(Figure (Figure5). 5).

FigureFigure 5. 5.Guercino. Guercino.Tavern Tavern Scene Scene(drawing), (drawing), the the Ashmolean Ashmolean Museum, Museum, Oxford. Oxford. Photo: Photo:© ©Ashmolean Ashmolean Image Library. Image Library.

Arts 2021, 10, 55 7 of 18

While there is nothing in the domestic interior that relates to the theatre, the tavern scene represents a theatrical performance. In this work, the painter blurs the boundaries between theatre and life by depicting a stage with actors, musicians, and spectators, all intermingled so that the viewer cannot distinguish between them.12 Below the stage, two seated figures are depicted observing the stage. They, too, do not appear as regular audience members, and wear costumes that might connect them to the group of actors rather than to the group of spectators. In this drawing, Guercino is blurring the boundaries between the two worlds. In contrast to the Return of the Prodigal Son, however, in this composition the figures behave as would be expected during a performance: the musicians play their instruments, the actors stand at centre stage, and the spectators observe them. It is possible that it was Guercino’s engagement with Fabri’s theatre that influenced his decision to depict his first version of the Return of the Prodigal Son as if on a stage. Adding the two musicians on the upper right side could imply that the depicted scene was not the actual return of the Prodigal Son, but rather the theatrical performance of a liturgical play on this subject. The depicted theatrical performance represents two contrasting moments: while the musicians and the spectators are represented as if the show has not yet begun— the musicians are not producing music and the distinguished guest is not yet seated—the father and his two sons are rendered as if the show has already reached its climatic moment, in which the son kneels down as he pleads his father for forgiveness. Whereas early seventeenth-century religious painting was meant to offer its viewers a representation of a coherent reality (Huddleston 2001, p. 19), Guercino’s painting contrasts the action unfolding on stage with the behaviour of the musicians and spectators. As the dramatic scene reaches its climax, the musicians and the audience are caught unprepared. What makes Guercino’s Return of the Prodigal Son so intriguing is precisely this absence of Aristotelian unity of plot or action, familiarized by Lodovico Castelvetro’s translation of the Greek philosopher’s Poetics into the vernacular in 1570.13 Castelvetro himself added two unities, the unity of place and the unity of time.14 Guercino’s painting, however, contradicts the allusion to reality. This dissonance between the secondary figures and the main group deserves further attention, and may have served to direct the viewer, and more specifically, Cardinal Ludovisi, to the underlying message. Why, then, did Guercino choose to shift his emphasis from the return of the prodigal son to a theatrical performance of the scene? And, having chosen to depict such a scene, why did he insist on such a lack of Aristotelian unity, consistency, and decorum—all qualities that were viewed as fundamental for an early modern theatrical performance? It is as if Guercino, by subverting Aristotelian unity, was trying to shift the viewer’s attention from the actual act of contrition toward the secondary figures. We may regard the three actors in full theatrical motion as rehearsing the scene. In that case, they parallel the position of the painter, who has not yet completed his work, and who has yet to reach the height of his career and realize his highest potential. Yet this explanation is rather limited, and does not addresses what seems to be a much more sophisticated marketing goal, centred on self-promotion, in light of a commission intended for a high-ranking patron. Theatre and painting have been regarded as sister arts since the time of Aristotle, for both were forms of mimetic expression. In his La Carta del Navegar Pitoresco, Marco Boschini described painting in terms of a theatrical act: “Painting is like a comedy in which the spectator sits on his chair and observes a recital”.15 The two additional groups emphasize the unique idea that this painting was meant to express, beyond its scriptural source.16 By adding groups of figures that belong to the theatre, the painter highlights his artistic abilities, creativity, and commitment, investing a familiar theme with a complex message intended for the most important viewer—Cardinal Alessandro Ludovisi.

4. Guercino’s Other Versions of the Return of the Prodigal Son Guercino’s reasons for producing such a conceit remain a mystery, and a comparison between this painting and the other versions of this scene that Guercino created during his Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19 Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

Arts 2021, 10, 55 8 of 18 4. Guercino’s Other Versions of the Return of the Prodigal Son 4. Guercino’s Other Versions of the Return of the Prodigal Son Guercino’s reasons for producing such a conceit remain a mystery, and a comparison betweenGuercino’s this painting reasons and for producingthe other versions such a conceit of this remain scene thata mystery, Guercino and created a comparison during lifetimebetweenhis lifetime emphasizes this emphasizes painting the and uniqueness the the uniqueness other of thisversions of choice. this of choice. Guercinothis scene Guercino produced that Guercino produced at least created sixat least additional duringsix ad- versionshisditional lifetime ofversions thisemphasizes scene of this after the scene completing uniqueness after completing the of paintingthis choice. the forpainting Guercino Ludovisi. for produced Ludovisi. The following atThe least following year, six ad- he createdditionalyear, he a versions secondcreated versiona of second this forscene version Cardinal after for completing Serra Cardinal (Figure Serra the6). painting Denis(Figure Mahon 6). for Denis Ludovisi. attributed Mahon The to attributed Guercinofollowing to a third version, based on stylistic grounds. This painting, writes Mahon, was completed in year,Guercino he created a third a secondversion, version based foron Cardinalstylistic grounds. Serra (Figure This 6).painting, writes attributedMahon, was to 17 1627/8Guercinocompleted (Figure a inthird 71627/8). version, (Figure based 7).17 on stylistic grounds. This painting, writes Mahon, was completed in 1627/8 (Figure 7).17

FigureFigure 6. 6.Guercino, Guercino,Return Return ofof the the Prodigal Prodigal Son Son, 1619,, 1619, Kunsthistorisches Kunsthistorisches Museum, Museum, Vienna. Vienna. Photo: Photo: FigureWikiart, 6. Public Guercino, Domain. Return of the Prodigal Son, 1619, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Photo: Wikiart,Wikiart, Public Public Domain. Domain.

Figure 7. Guercino, Return of the Prodigal Son, 1627/8, Borghese Gallery, Rome. Photo: Wikimedia FigureFigureCommons, 7.7.Guercino, Guercino, Public Domain.Return Return of of the the Prodigal Prodigal Son Son, 1627/8,, 1627/8, BorgheseBorghese Gallery, Gallery, Rome. Rome. Photo: Photo: Wikimedia Wikimedia Commons,Commons, PublicPublic Domain.Domain. Two other known representations are those made for the Venetian Giovanni Nanni in 1651TwoTwo (Figure otherother known8)known and for representationsrepresentations the archbishop areare of those thoseMilan, mademade Girolamo forfor thethe Boncompagni, VenetianVenetian Giovanni Giovanni in 1654/5 Nanni Nanni (Fig- ininure 16511651 9). (FigureThis latter 88)) andand version for the the was archbishop archbishop intended of ofas Milan, Milan, a gift Girolamo Girolamofor Prince Boncompagni, Boncompagni,Colonna (Ghelfi in 1654/5 in 1997, 1654/5 (Fig- pp. (ureFigure 9).9 This). This latter latter version version was was intended intended asas aa gift gift for for Prince Prince Colonna Colonna (Ghelfi (Ghelfi 1997 1997,, pp. 151,pp. 188; Hornik and Parsons 2005, pp. 151–53). Two other paintings that are considered lost are mentioned in the painter’s accounts book. One of them is registered as having been

Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19 Arts 2021, 10, 55 9 of 18

151,188; Hornik and Parsons 2005, pp. 151–53). Two other paintings that are considered 151,188;lost are mentionedHornik and in Parsons the painter’s 2005, pp. accounts 151–53). book. Two One other of paintingsthem is registered that are considered as having commissionedlostbeen are commissioned mentioned in 1642 inin by the1642 Taddeo painter’s by Taddeo Barberini, accounts Barberin a nephewbook.i, a nephew One of Pope of ofthem UrbanPope is Urbanregistered VIII (Malvasia VIII as(Malvasia having 1678, vol.been1678, 2, commissionedvol. p. 265; 2, p. Ghelfi 265; Ghelfi 1997in 1642, pp.1997, by 113–14; Taddeo pp. 113–14; Vivian Barberin Vivian 1971i, ,a p. 1971,nephew 23). p. 23). of Pope Urban VIII (Malvasia 1678, vol. 2, p. 265; Ghelfi 1997, pp. 113–14; Vivian 1971, p. 23).

FigureFigure 8. 8.Guercino, Guercino,Return Return of theof the Prodigal Prodigal Son ,Son 1651,, 1651, Diocesan Diocesan Museum, Museum, Wloclawek. Wloclawek. Photo: Photo: Wikimedia Wiki- Figuremedia Commons,8. Guercino, Public Return Domain. of the Prodigal Son, 1651, Diocesan Museum, Wloclawek. Photo: Wiki- Commons, Public Domain. media Commons, Public Domain.

Figure 9. Guercino, Return of the Prodigal Son, 1654/5, Timken Museum, , CA, USA. Photo: FigureFigureWikimedia 9.9. Guercino,Guercino, Commons,Return Return Public ofof thethe Domain. ProdigalProdigal SonSon,, 1654/5, 1654/5, TimkenTimken Museum,Museum, SanSan Diego,Diego, CA,CA, USA.USA. Photo:Photo: Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain. Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain. It is clear that among the five versions known to us today, the version intended for CardinalItIt isis clear clearLudovisi thatthat amongamongis the only thethe five fiveone versions versionsthat adde knownknownd additional toto usus today,today, groups the the to version version the parable’s intended intended dense for for CardinalCardinalnarrative. LudovisiLudovisi While its isis composition thethe onlyonly oneone contains thatthat addedadde threed additional additionalgroups of groupsfigures—actors,groups toto thethe parable’sparable’s musicians densedense and narrative.narrative.viewers—what WhileWhile characterizes itsits compositioncomposition the containscontains other paintings threethree groupsgroups is a focused ofof figures—actors,figures—actors, scene with musicians musiciansonly the three and and viewers—whatviewers—whatmain protagonists characterizescharacterizes depicted. theThethe otherotherSabauda paintingspaintings painting isis a ais focusedfocused also the scenescene only with withversion onlyonly that thethe threecorre-three mainmainsponds protagonists protagonists to the traditional depicted. depicted. representation The The Sabauda Sabauda of painting th paintinge scene, is also withis thealso the only the prodigal versiononly versionson that kneeling corresponds that corre-while tospondsclasping the traditional to his the hands traditional representation together, representation his of father the scene, descen of th witheding scene, the the prodigalwith stairs the with sonprodigal his kneeling wide-open son whilekneeling arms, clasping while and hisclaspinga third hands protagonist his together, hands together, hiscarrying father hisclothes. descending father In descen all the of stairsdingGuercino’s the with stairs hisother with wide-open renditions his wide-open arms, of the and arms,scene, a third and the protagonistathree third main protagonist carryingprotagonists carrying clothes. are clothes.responding In all of In Guercino’s all to of one Guercino’s another other renditions otherin other renditions ways, of the without scene,of the thescene, stressing three the mainthreethe hierarchy protagonistsmain protagonists between are respondingthe are embracing responding to onefather to another one an danother the in kneeling other in other ways, son. ways, without Indeed, without stressingin these stressing later the hierarchytherepresentations, hierarchy between between the the prodigal the embracing embracing is neither father father kneel and ingan thed nor the kneeling clasping kneeling son. his son. hands Indeed, Indeed, together in in these these in a later latertyp- representations,representations,ical gesture of contrition. the the prodigal prodigal Among is is neither neither the kneelingfour kneel laingter nor versions,nor clasping clasping the his histwo hands hands earlier together together ones in (Figures a in typical a typ- 6 gestureical gesture of contrition. of contrition. Among Among the four thelater fourversions, later versions, the two the earlier two earlier ones (Figures ones (Figures6 and7) 6 relate to a different instance in the story—the changing of clothes. The two later versions

Arts 2021, 10, 55 10 of 18

(Figures8 and9) actually emphasize contrition, but in an almost theatrical manner, with the help of a handkerchief that the prodigal son is holding to his eyes. In the Timken version, this theatrical act of contrition is further emphasized by the turning of the prodigal son towards the viewer, away from his father.

5. The Role of the Violinist Returning now to the group with the musicians (Figure2), one cannot but notice that the violinist, in addition to holding a musical instrument, is directing his gaze toward the viewer, so that one may initially interpret this figure’s role as to be that of an admonisher. This role is emphasized by the violinist’s hands, which are grasping the lira da braccio and the bow unconventionally, thus, they seem like the hands of a painter holding a palette and brush. This way of holding the musical instrument and gazing at the viewer differs from the many renditions of violinists that Guercino painted during his long career.18 In some cases, the violinist is accompanied by a lute-player. In most instances, the violinist is no other than an angel, playing the violin while hovering over a saint. This can be seen, for example, in Guercino’s St. Francis in Ecstasy (, National Museum 1620), which is one example out of four paintings that the painter produced. The angel in these works is holding a violin in the proper manner, with the fingers of his left hand resting on the strings while he holds a bow in his right hand. St. Francis is reacting to the music with hand gestures.19 In his Landscape with a Concert (Figure 10, the violinist once again holds the musical instrument in the proper manner. This is also true of the angel on the left in Madonna and Child with Sts. Joseph, Agostino, Louis and Francis, the Donator and Two Angels (Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux Arts 1616), and Madonna and Child with St. Joseph and an Angel (Cleveland OH, The Cleveland Museum of Art 1624). These depictions all differ significantly from the peculiar rendition of the musician holding the lira da braccio in Guercino’s Return of the Prodigal Son. Whereas the musician usually opens his arms so that the viewer can see the violin’s strings, in this painting the instrument is shown from the back, and the musician’s outstretched arm blocks our view of the strings. Moreover, the bow seems to be pointed towards the viewer, rather than in the opposite direction. In this depiction, the musician gazes attentively at the viewer, while pointing his bow towards him. This attentiveness may be seen in such examples as Botticelli’s self-portrait in his Adoration of the Magi (Uffizi, Florence 1475) (Lightbown 1978, vol. 2, pp. 45–46; Paolucci 2003, pp. 69–76), Ghirlandaio’s self-portrait in the Resurrection of the Notary’s Son (Sassetti Chapel, Santa Trinita, Florence, 1483/6) (Forsook and Offerhaus 1981, p. 41), and Raphael’s self-portrait in his School of Athens (Stanza della Segnatura, , Vatican) (Unger 2012, pp. 269–87). The difference between Guercino’s musician and the depictions of these three masters mentioned here is that Guercino did not incorporate his own image into the composition. Guercino’s depiction of the musician thus requires attention not in terms of self-portraiture, but rather in terms of self-presentation.20 A famous Venetian precedent for Guercino’s choice to depict the musician as a clear reference to a painter may be seen in Paolo Veronese’s Wedding at Cana (Figure 11), originally for the refectory of the San Giorgio Maggiore Monastery in Venice, and now at the Louvre. Veronese, depicted himself together with fellow painters Titian, Tintoretto, and Bas- sano, as musicians at the centre of the composition.21 Guercino must have seen the painting during his visit to Venice, in its original location (the painting was looted by the French during Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion) (Fehl 1981, p. 341; Riley 2007, pp. 570–71). Both Malvasia and Passeri report that in 1618, the year in which Guercino painted the Return of the Prodigal Son, he visited Venice and met the most important painter working there at the time—Titian’s student Jacopo Negretti (known as Palma il Giovane), who showed him around the city (Malvasia 1678, vol. 2, p. 259; Passeri 1772, p. 373). Since Veronese’s painting was very famous and was located at the heart of Venice, it would seem implausible for Guercino not to have seen it. Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Arts 2021, 10, 55 11 of 18 Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Figure 10. Guercino, Landscape with a Concert, 1617, Uffizi, Florence. Photo: Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.

A famous Venetian precedent for Guercino’s choice to depict the musician as a clear reference to a painter may be seen in Paolo Veronese’s Wedding at Cana (Figure 11), origi- FigureFigure 10. 10.Guercino, Guercino,Landscape Landscape with with a a Concert Concert, 1617,, 1617, Uffizi, Uffizi, Florence. Florence. Photo: Photo: Wikimedia Wikimedia Commons, Commons, nallyPublic for Domain. the refectory of the San Giorgio Maggiore Monastery in Venice, and now at the Public Domain. Louvre. A famous Venetian precedent for Guercino’s choice to depict the musician as a clear reference to a painter may be seen in Paolo Veronese’s Wedding at Cana (Figure 11), origi- nally for the refectory of the San Giorgio Maggiore Monastery in Venice, and now at the Louvre.

FigureFigure 11.11. PaoloPaolo Veronese,Veronese,Wedding Wedding at at Cana Cana, 1562/3,, 1562/3, Louvre,Louvre, Paris.Paris. Photo:Photo: WikimediaWikimedia Commons,Commons, PublicPublic Domain.Domain.

Indeed,Veronese, there depicted are several himself similarities together with between fellow Veronese’s painters Titian, painting Tintoretto, and Guercino’s and Bas- 21 Returnsano,Figure as of11. musicians the Paolo Prodigal Veronese, at Sonthe . centreWedding The first of atthe isCana thecomposition., use1562/3, of anLouvre, architectural Guercino Paris. Ph mustoto: setting haveWikimedia comprised seen theCommons, paint- of a seriesingPublic during of Domain. buildings, his visit to which Venice, form in its a streetoriginal depicted location in (the foreshortening. painting was looted Whereas by the Veronese French positionedduring Napoleon three Palladian Bonaparte’s palaces, invasion) one after(Fehl the 1981, other, p. 341; on eitherRiley side2007, of pp. the 570–71). painting Both to constructMalvasiaVeronese, theand allusionPasseri depicted report of ahimself street, that intogether Guercino 1618, the with achieved year fellow in which a painters similar Guercino effectTitian, painted with Tintoretto, two the palaces Return and Bas- at of thethesano, centreProdigal as musicians of Son the, painting.he atvisited the centre The Venice two of and buildingsthe composition.met the represent most21 importantGuercino two different mustpainter architecturalhave working seen the there styles, paint- at onetheing time—Titian’smore during elaborate his visit student thanto Venice, the Jacopo other. in its Negretti In original Veronese’s (k locationnown painting, as (the Palma painting a manil Giovane), in was fancy looted who dress by showed standsthe French him on theduring right Napoleon side, appreciating Bonaparte’s a glass invasion) of wine. (Fehl This 1981, figure, p. too,341; isRiley echoed 2007, by pp. Guercino, 570–71). who Both depictedMalvasia an and arriving Passeri spectator report that about in 1618, to enter the theyear staircase in which on Guercino the right. painted the Return of the ProdigalAccording Son to, he Philipp visited Fehl Venice(1981 ,and p. 348), met Veronese’s the most important depiction ofpainter his fellow working painters there as at musiciansthe time—Titian’s was meant student to stress Jacopo the similarityNegretti (k betweennown as thePalma role il of Giovane), the painter who and showed that of him a musician, who is supposed to support the believer in his spiritual exercise. The painting,

Arts 2021, 10, 55 12 of 18

like the sound of music, was meant to inspire apprehension of a moment of sacred truth. This idea is similarly emphasized in Guercino’s painting by the scene of the prodigal son’s return, which has paramount significance for Catholics in relation to the sacrament of penitence. This allusion to the sacrament underscores Guercino’s vocation as a religious painter.

6. A Self-Presentation Guercino was not in the habit of producing self-portraits, and the few rare exceptions that are attributed to him indicate that the image of the musician in Return of the Prodigal Son is not a self-portrait and his presence is meant to accentuate a different type of endeavour.22 There are several known self-portraits of Guercino in different mediums and techniques (Turner 2017, pp. 21–30), including the two self-portraits done in oil on canvas mentioned here. In one of them (Figure 12), the painter depicted himself from the chest up, with his left hand holding his palette and brushes. The other hand is not visible in the painting. In the late version (Figure 13), painted when Guercino was over sixty years old, he depicted himself from the waist up before a painting of “Amor Fedele”, holding a palette and a few brushes in his left hand and another brush in his right hand. This painting, which was completed many years after the first version, is much more sophisticated. As pointed out by Prasad(2006, p. 34), in this case Guercino emphasizes his squint through a witty game of two points of view (as if each seen through one eye). In addition, he presents himself as both the author and the subject (Prasad 2007, p. 6). Still, there are a few similarities between these two self-portraits that deserve our attention. Firstly, in both paintings the painter is similarly positioned, with his shoulder rotated toward the viewer and his head turned slightly to the left, as if gazing at the viewer (at least with one eye). In both paintings, he is portrayed with long hair, wearing the same black clothes and sporting a large white collar. Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEWThe squint visible in both paintings is also apparent in ’s rendition13 of of the 19

painter from 1623 (Figure 14).

FigureFigure 12. 12.Guercino, Guercino,Self-Portrait Self-Portrait, 1635/40,, 1635/40, London, London, Schoeppler Schoeppler Collection. Collection. Photo: Photo: Wikiart, Wikiart, Public Public Domain.Domain.

Figure 13. Guercino, Self-Portrait before a Painting of “Amor Fedele”, 1654/5, , Wash- ington DC. Digital image courtesy of the , Washington Open Access Program.

Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

Arts 2021, 10, 55 13 of 18 Figure 12. Guercino, Self-Portrait, 1635/40, London, Schoeppler Collection. Photo: Wikiart, Public Domain.

Arts 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure 13. Guercino, Self-Portrait before a Painting of “Amor Fedele”, 1654/5, National Gallery,14 Wash- of 19 Figure 13. Guercino, Self-Portrait before a Painting of “Amor Fedele”, 1654/5, National Gallery, Wash- ingtonington DC. DC. Digital Digital image image courtesy courtesy of the ofNational the National Gallery Gallery of Art, Washington of Art, WashingtonOpen Access Open Program. Access Program.

FigureFigure 14. 14. OttavioOttavio Leoni,Leoni, PortraitPortrait ofof GuercinoGuercino (engraving),(engraving), 1623,1623, RoyalRoyal CollectionCollection Trust,Trust, London.London. Photo: Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain. Photo: Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.

AA comparison comparison between between these these two two self-portraits self-portraits and and the the figure figure of of the the musician musician in in the the ReturnReturn of of the the Prodigal Prodigal Son Sonreveals reveals a resemblance a resemblance between between the musician’sthe musician’s handling handling of the of lira the dalira braccio da braccio andthe and painter’s the painter’s handling handling of the of palette the palette and brushes. and brushes. What isWhat emphasized is emphasized in all threein all paintings three paintings is the wayis the both way the both painter the pa andinter the and violinist the violinist hold their hold instruments their instruments with thewith thumb the thumb prominently prominently displayed. displayed. Additionally, Additionally,Return Return of the Prodigalof the Prodigal Son can Son be can seen be asseen a as a precedent for Self-Portrait before a Painting of “Amor Fedele”, in that it contains an ad- ditional scene which emphasizes the painter as both the author and the subject. At the same time there are obvious differences between the rendition of the musician and the self-portraits, most notable of which is the portrayal of the painter with his trademark squint. The musician, by contrast, has no notable facial features, and does not resemble Guercino. It is thus easy to ascertain that the figure of the musician is not a self-portrait, although he does seem to be a symbolic representation of a painter. In his An Anthropology of Images, Hans Belting (2011, pp. 62–67) distinguishes between two types of early modern representations of a subject: a ‘body image’, which is an attempt to persuasively portray a living person, and a ‘body sign’, which marks and identifies a given subject by means of a heraldic, abstracted notion such as a coat-of-arms. Whereas the first form of identifying an individual relies on physiognomic duplication, the other is a genealogical emblem that is recognized with the help of identifiable marks. Using Belting’s definitions, one may regard Guercino’s violinist as a symbolic image of the painter—what he calls a heraldic face (Belting 2011, p. 72). He is there to capture the beholder’s gaze, hinting at an interpre- tation that is a diversion both from the return of the prodigal son and from its theatrical performance. Indeed, the violinist points towards a new meaning, one that involves the interrelationship between a painter and his patron. As a self-presentation of a painter whose gaze is directed toward the viewer—Cardi- nal Ludovisi—the violinist/painter becomes a crucial sign for understanding the paint- ing’s political dimension, marking an additional lens through which the beholder may view the scene. Thus, the straightforward meaning of the prodigal son’s contrition, por- trayed in the most conventional way, is enhanced by a theatrical frame, marked by adding musicians and spectators to the composition. Within these groups of secondary figures,

Arts 2021, 10, 55 14 of 18

precedent for Self-Portrait before a Painting of “Amor Fedele”, in that it contains an additional scene which emphasizes the painter as both the author and the subject. At the same time there are obvious differences between the rendition of the musician and the self-portraits, most notable of which is the portrayal of the painter with his trademark squint. The musician, by contrast, has no notable facial features, and does not resemble Guercino. It is thus easy to ascertain that the figure of the musician is not a self-portrait, although he does seem to be a symbolic representation of a painter. In his An Anthropology of Images, Hans Belting(2011, pp. 62–67) distinguishes between two types of early modern representations of a subject: a ‘body image’, which is an attempt to persuasively portray a living person, and a ‘body sign’, which marks and identifies a given subject by means of a heraldic, abstracted notion such as a coat-of-arms. Whereas the first form of identifying an individual relies on physiognomic duplication, the other is a genealogical emblem that is recognized with the help of identifiable marks. Using Belting’s definitions, one may regard Guercino’s violinist as a symbolic image of the painter—what he calls a heraldic face (Belting 2011, p. 72). He is there to capture the beholder’s gaze, hinting at an interpretation that is a diversion both from the return of the prodigal son and from its theatrical performance. Indeed, the violinist points towards a new meaning, one that involves the interrelationship between a painter and his patron. As a self-presentation of a painter whose gaze is directed toward the viewer—Cardinal Ludovisi—the violinist/painter becomes a crucial sign for understanding the painting’s political dimension, marking an additional lens through which the beholder may view the scene. Thus, the straightforward meaning of the prodigal son’s contrition, portrayed in the most conventional way, is enhanced by a theatrical frame, marked by adding musicians and spectators to the composition. Within these groups of secondary figures, one may discern the violinist/painter as a signifier that calls for an additional reading of the painting.

7. Music In forging a connection between painting and music, Guercino was relying on the affinity noted between these two mediums in both sixteenth-century treatises and works of art (Veronese). The main emphasis in both verbal and visual forms was on a comparison between the harmony of colours and the harmony of sounds (Lever 2019, pp. 72–77, 226– 30). Leonardo, who was himself a musician, and even a music teacher (Winternitz 1982), emphasized the importance of finding the precise relationships between different parts for the sake of creating a perfect harmony of rhythms. Yet although he regarded painting and music as sister arts because they were both characterized by the simultaneity of their elements, he considered music as inferior to painting, because the sense of hearing was inferior to the sense of sight (Winternitz 1970, p. 280; Farago 1999, pp. 99–100). For Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo, art “is largely composed of this science [architecture] along with music, which, too, is so essential that, lacking it, the painter would be imperfect” (Lomazzo 2013, p. 71).23 For Lomazzo, harmony is the component that is necessary for art to be pleasurable: “indeed, each artist applied all his care and efforts to fully understanding this harmonious beauty, especially Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Gaudenzio. They acquired knowledge of harmonious proportions through music and through insight into the structure of our body, itself fabricated according to musical consonances” (Lomazzo 2013, p. 145). Pietro Testa compared colours to musical notes, arguing that the rules of musical harmony are comparable to the rules of colour, and that musical scale is analogous to the tonality of colour (Cropper 1984, pp. 138, 223). Marco Boschini, who marvelled in his La carta del navegar pitoresco about the artistic abilities of Venetian painters, used musical terms to express his amazement. He writes (Boschini 1660, p. 294) that the Venetian painters are expert musicians who masterfully control their instruments, noting that their virtuosic use of colour may be compared to a musical concert in which the strings of a musical instrument become loose, yet the music remains graceful. This hyperbolic description emphasizes the painters’ extraordinary abilities. In this context, it is also noteworthy that Malvasia began his biography of Guercino by comparing colour with voice, associating the Arts 2021, 10, 55 15 of 18

painter’s greatness with his skill as a colourist and comparing this ability to a singer whose most important trait is a beautiful voice (Malvasia 1678, vol. 2, p. 359; Prasad 2007, pp. 29, 116–20). This analogy, common in early modern treatises, might suggest the biographer’s awareness of Guercino’s own self-perception in terms taken from the world of music.

8. The Act of Viewing My explanation for Guercino’s choice of depicting the return of the prodigal son in a theatrical environment, with the violinist on the balcony representing the artist, is that it was intended as a message directed at the work’s aimed applicant. The derivation of the word ‘theatre’ from the Greek theaomai, which means ‘look’, casts it as a metaphor of knowing or learning through seeing (West 2002, pp. 45–47). Looking or seeing, as Giovanni Andrea Gesualdo writes in his 1541 commentary on Petrarch’s Trionfi, is the most important among the five senses: “And even though one learns through all the senses, nonetheless it is the sense of sight that provides information about the most beautiful and varied things”.24 In his 1657 treatise on theatre, commissioned by Cardinal de Richelieu, the French playwright François Hédelin, Abbé d’Aubignac (Hédelin 1657, p. 6), regarded theatre as “the people’s school”, noting that it was the only way to teach morality to the lower ranks. In his book Theatres and Encyclopedias in Early Modern Europe, William N. West(2002, pp. 1–11) underscores the interpretive role of early modern theatrical culture in regard to knowledge, truth, and authority. What he calls a ‘performance of knowledge’, is, in effect, a pedagogical institution in which a princely patron controls the meaning of things. The theatre served as a way to convey messages, teach, transmit knowledge and provide explanations. In effect, the theatre was able to “represent and transmit the universal knowledge of everything” (West 2002, p. 114; Bouwsma 2000, pp. 129–42, especially, pp. 132–34). As Ornat Lev-er writes in Still-Life as Portrait in Early Modern , humanists and scholars added to the titles of their theoretical and philosophical treatises the word for theatre, teatrum, as a metaphor for reason, critical thinking, and observation (Lever 2019, p. 181). The use of a theatrical performance may have been chosen to present Cardinal Ludovisi with Guercino’s true vocation—that of representing his patrons’ ideas, thoughts or interpretations by means of his critical power to deliver sophisticated messages through artistic wit and creativity. This aim may explain why the painting does not depict the prodigal son returning home, but rather emphasizes a theatrical problem: although the narrative’s climax—the joyful father’s embrace of his long-lost son—is underscored, the musicians are not playing their instruments, and one of them is looking at the viewer. The man on the right, who represents the audience, has just arrived. Guercino was challenging his viewer by making a claim to his ability to deliver a message. Standing on a theatre balcony, his violinist/painter acts as an admonisher, through whom Guercino is advertising himself as a painter who has the ability to direct attentive viewers towards the artwork’s message. The choice of a theatrical setting, in this context, further enhances the importance of sight, which the painter makes use of in order to communicate with his viewers. The portrayal of a religious theme against a theatrical backdrop thus serves to allude to the sacrament of penitence, alongside an additional message—one concerning the painter’s employment of his skills in the service of his patron.

9. Conclusions Guercino’s Return of the Prodigal Son is a unique painting in that a more sophisticated level of meaning is added to the story’s traditional understanding. This added value relates to the relationship between the painter and his patron, and the private message delivered by the former to the latter. Guercino communicates a personal note—his ability to convey ideas, thoughts or interpretations by means of his critical power to deliver sophisticated messages through artistic wit and creativity. What is exceptional about the painting is the portrayal of a violinist who directs his gaze at the viewer, and his handling of the lira da braccio in a manner that casts him as a representative of the painter. This is not a self-portrait. Rather than a self-portrait, Arts 2021, 10, 55 16 of 18

this figure was meant to be identified as a symbol, sign, or signature of the painter. The contrast between the main scene in the story of the prodigal son’s return and the theatrical setting suggests that it was meant to be identified by the intended recipient of the painting— Cardinal Alessandro Ludovisi—as a conceit that relates to the agent-painter and his abilities to organize a composition. One may assume that Cardinal Alessandro Ludovisi understood Guercino’s intentions. This can be deduced by the subsequent invitation of Guercino to Rome, where he received from the Ludovisi pope his most important commission—the Petronilla altarpiece for St. Peter’s. Guercino’s Return of the Prodigal Son may be comprehended as belonging to the group of paintings that were produced for the sake of promoting a career. Embracing a setting of a theatre, adding to the main protagonists of a religious scene groups of secondary figures that belong to the theatre were meant to divert the attention of a traditional iconography and thus a traditional message towards something else. Adding musicians and viewers to a composition that is meant to show the return of the prodigal son, may be seen as a marketing choice. The most noticeable aspect of this work is Guercino’s ability to shift the attention of a given iconography and deliver current political meaning by instilling crucial elements that shift the viewer’s attention and add another layer of meaning to the painting.

Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes 1 Alessandro Ludovisi received the red hat in 20 November 1618. He was elected pope on 9 February 1621, and chose to be called by the name of another Bolognese pope, Gregory XIII (Boncompagni). See (di Paolo Masini 1666; von Pastor 1891/1953, pp. 45–46). 2 For the special connection between the artist and Pope Gregory XV, see (Mahon 1981, p. 230). 3 A letter by , dated 19 July 1617, to Don Ferrante Carlo, secretary to Cardinal , mentions Guercino as working for the archbishop in Bologna: “ ... è pur giunto un messer Giovan Francesco da Cento, ed è qua per fare certi quadri al Signor cardinal arcivescovo, e si porta eroicamente” (Perini 1990, p. 140). 4 Although Alessandro Ludovisi received his appointment in Bologna as early as 12 March 1612, he did not arrive in the city until 1619. In 1616, however, his nephew Ludovico Ludovisi, was already an archpriest in Bologna, and very likely it was he who ordered the three paintings on behalf of his uncle. Ludovico Ludovisi later joined his uncle in the latter’s diplomatic missions on behalf of Pope Paul V in Turin and Milan. On Alessandro’s appointment to Bologna, see (Faleoni 1649, p. 654; von Pastor 1891/1953, p. 45). 5 Ludovico Ludovisi’s collection was housed at the Casino Ludovisi, which he purchased from Cardinal del Monte, on 3 June 1621. Guercino completed two major ceiling decorations in the Casino for the Ludovisis—Triumph of and Allegory of Fame. On Ludovico’s private collection, see (von Pastor 1891/1953, pp. 60–62; Garas 1967a, pp. 287–90; Garas 1967b; Wood 1992). On the purchase of the palace, see (Felici 1952, p. 132; Wood 1986, pp. 223–24). 6 “Fù chiamato dall’Eminentissimo Sig. Cardinale Ludovisio all hora Arcivescovo di Bologna, che fù poi Gregorio XV. e per lui fece diversi quadrì cioè: Un miracolo di S. Pietro, che resuscita una fanciulla, che fù poi intagliato benissimo dal Bloemart. Una Susanna, ricavata da bella Donna entro a quelle carceri Arcivescovali. Un figliol prodigo, che surono opre maggiori dell’aspettatione del medemo Sig. Cardinale”. (Malvasia 1678, vol. 2, p. 363). See also, (Mahon 1968, p. 54; Salerno 1988, p. 114). Another letter written by Don Antonio Mirandola to Enzo Bentivoglio, dated 7 December 1617, mentions Guercino as a busy painter who is currently working for Cardinal Ludovisi: “Ho fatto quanto ho potuto, acciò M. Gio. Francesco, fra tanti oblighi di lavori, che ha e con il Gran Duca, e l’Ill. mo Cardinale Ludovisi ... ”. See, (Bagni 1984, p. 269, doc. 3; Turner 2017, p. 7, n. 15). For Alessandro Ludovisi as a collector of Guercino’s paintings, see (Morselli 2019, pp. 47–49). 7 For the mention of Susanna and the Elders, see (Wood 1992, p. 518; Garas 1967b, p. 339). 8 See, (Turner 2017, p. 301). For the 1631 inventory, see (Campori 1870, p. 76). 9 For the type of musical instruments depicted in Guercino’s drawing, see, (Praetorii 1620, vol. 2, p. i, p. xvi and p. xx). 10 For a discussion of this drawing, see (Prasad 2007, pp. 12–18). 11 For the letter, see (Bagni 1984, pp. 14–15, 268–70). See also (Malvasia 1678, vol. 2, p. 258; Prasad 2006, p. 10; Bagni 1984, pp. 6–7; Salerno 1988, p. 8). Frances Gage published a letter, written in 22 January 1624 by Giovanni Battista Bandi, and sent to Deifebo Mancini, which indicates Guercino’s involvement in constructing a stage decoration for the play Pastor Fido in 1624. See (Gage 2014, pp. 653–56). Arts 2021, 10, 55 17 of 18

12 This point has been made by Shilpa Prasad(2007, p. 53). 13 For Castelvetro’s influence on Guercino, see (Turner 2017, pp. 174–78). 14 Aristotle, Poetics, chap. 8: “ ... so in poetry the story, as an imitation of action, must represent one action, a complete whole, with its several incidents so closely connected that the transposal or withdrawal of any one of them will disjoin and dislocate the whole”. (Mckeon 1941, p. 1463). For the addition of the unity of time and the unity of place to the notion of the unity of action, see (Castelvetro 1570, p. 60 verso). See (Travis 1982, pp. 39–40). 15 “La Pitura xè come una Comedia: I Spetatori stà in Teatro, e in sedia, E osserva i Recitanti”. (Boschini 1660, p. 14). It is interesting to note that the parable of the prodigal son was viewed as a comedy by the German preacher Georg Witzel. See (Delcorno 2018, p. 416). 16 For the history of parable of the prodigal son as a religious drama, see (Delcorno 2018). 17 On the Borghese version, see (Mahon 1968, p. 151; Salerno 1988, cat. no. 120; Stone 1991, cat. no. 110). 18 In addition to the many known depiction of musical instruments, one should mention that in 1615/17, Guercino decorated the Casa Pannini in Cento. In the room dedicated to music, Guercino painted musical instruments accompanied by a text. The entire decoration is lost today. See (Atti 1861, p. 27; Bagni 1984, p. 163). See also, (Plank 2013, p. 448). 19 See Plank’s reading of the painting in (Plank 2013, especially pp. 450–54). 20 For the notion of self-presentation, see (Crozier and Greenhalgh 1988, p. 29). 21 For the musicians as representatives of the four Venetian painters, see (Hanson 2010, p. 47). 22 For the early self-portrait, see (Loire 1989, pp. 266–67; Mahon 1991, cat. no. 62; Prasad 2007, pp. 211–12; Turner 2017, pp. 21–29). 23 On Lomazzo’s connection between painting and music, see (Korrick 2003, pp. 193–214). 24 (Gesualdo 1541, ch. 1, n.p). The translation of this sentence is taken from (Cropper 1984, p. 66).

References Atti, Gaetano. 1861. Intorno Alla Vita e Alla Opera di Gianfrancesco Barbieri Detto il Guercino di Cento. Rome: Tipografia delle scienze matematice e fisiche. Bagni, Prisco. 1984. Guercino a Cento: Le decorazioni di Casa Pannini. Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale. Belting, Hans. 2011. An Anthropology of Images: Picture, Medium, Body. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Boschini, Marco. 1660. La Carta del Navegar Pitoresco: Dialogo tra un Senator Venetian Deletante, e un Professorde Pitura Soto Nome d’Ecelenza, e de Compare. Venice: li Baba. Bouwsma, William J. 2000. The Waning of the Renaissance 1550–1640. New Haven: Yale University Press. Campori, Giuseppe. 1870. Raccolta di Cataloghi ed Inventari Inediti di Quadri, Statue, Disegni, Bronzi, Dorerie, Smalti, Medagli, Avorii, Ecc. Dal Secolo XV al secolo XIX. Modena: Carlo Vincenzi. Carr, Carolyn Kinder. 1978. Aspects of the Iconography of in Medieval Art of Western Europe to the Early Thirteenth Century. Ph.D. thesis, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. Castelvetro, Lodovico. 1570. Poetica d’Aristotele Vulgarizzata, et sposta. Vienna: Gaspar Stainhofer. Cropper, Elizabeth. 1984. Ideal of Painting: Pietro Testa’s Düsseldorf Notebook. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Crozier, W. Ray, and Paul Greenhalgh. 1988. Self-Portraits as Presentations of Self. Leonardo 21: 29–33. [CrossRef] Delcorno, Pietro. 2018. In the Mirror of the Prodigal Son: The Pastoral Uses of a Biblical Narrative (c. 1200–1550). Leiden: Brill. di Paolo Masini, Antonio. 1666. Bologna Perlustrata: Terza Impressione Notabilmente Accresciuta in Cui Si Fa Mentione Ogni Giorno in Perpetuo Delle Fontioni Sacre, e Profane di Tutti L’anno. Bologna: Vittorio Benacci. Faleoni, Celso. 1649. Memorie Histoirche Della Chiesa Bolognese e Suoi Pastori. Bologna: G. Monti. Farago, Claire, ed. 1999. Leonardo’s Writings and Theory of Art. New York: Garland. Fehl, Philipp P. 1981. Veronese’s Decorum: Notes on the Marriage at Cana. In Art the Ape of Nature: Studies in Honor of H. W. Janson. Edited by Moshe Barasch and Lucy Freeman Sandler. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, pp. 341–65. Felici, Giuseppe. 1952. in Roma. Rome: Sansaini. Forsook, Eve, and Johannes Offerhaus. 1981. Francesco Sassetti and Ghirlandaio at Santa Trinita, Florence: History and Legend in a Renaissance Chapel. Doornspijk: Davaco. Gage, Frances. 2014. New Documents on Giulio Mancini and Guercino. Burlington Magazine 156: 653–56. Garas, Klara. 1967a. The Ludovisi Collection of Pictures in 1633-I. Burlington Magazine 109: 287–91. Garas, Klara. 1967b. The Ludovisi Collection of Pictures in 1633-II. Burlington Magazine 109: 339–48. Gesualdo, Giovanni Andrea. 1541. Il Petrarcha Colla Spositione di Misser Giovanni Andrea Gesualdo. Venice: Giovann’ Antonio di Nicolini & fratelli da Sabbio. Ghelfi, Barbara, ed. 1997. Il libro dei conti del Guercino 1629–1666. Bologna: Nuova Alfa. Hanson, Kate H. 2010. The Language of the Banquet: Reconsidering Paolo Veronese’s Wedding at Cana. Invisible Culture 14. Available online: https://ivc.lib.rochester.edu/the-language-of-the-banquet-reconsidering-paolo-veroneses-wedding-at-cana/ (accessed on 18 July 2021). Arts 2021, 10, 55 18 of 18

Hédelin, François. 1657. La Pratique du Théâtre: Ouvre Tres-Necessaire a Tous Ceux Qui Veulent S’appliquer à la Composition des Poëmes Dramatiques, Qui Font Profession de les Reciter un Public, ou Qui Prennent Plaisir d’en voir Les Representtions. Paris: Antoine de Sommaville. Hornik, Heidi J., and Mikeal C. Parsons. 2005. Illuminating Luke: The Public Ministry of Christ in Italian Renaissance and Painting. New York: T&T Clark. Huddleston, Robert S. 2001. Baroque Space and the Art of the infinite. In The Theatrical Baroque. Edited by Larry F. Norman. Chicago: The David and Alfred Smart Museum of Art and The University of Chicago. Korrick, Leslie. 2003. Lomazzo’s Trattato ... della pittura and Galilei’s Fronimo: Picturing Music and Sounding Images in 1584. In Art and Music in the Early Modern Period: Essays in Honor of Franca Trinchieri Camiz. Edited by Katherine A. McIver. London: Routledge, pp. 193–214. Lever, Ornat. 2019. Still-Life as Portrait in Early Modern Italy: Baschenis, Bettera, and the Painting of Cultural Identity. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Lightbown, Ronald. 1978. Sandro Botticelli. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2 vols. Loire, Stéphane. 1989. Etudes recéntes sur Le Guerchin. Storia dell’arte 67: 263–77. Lomazzo, Giovan Paolo. 2013. Idea of the Temple of Painting. Edited by Jean Julia Chai. University Park: The Pennsylvania University Press. Mahon, Denis. 1968. Il Guercino (Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, 1591–1666) Catalogo Critico dei Dipinti. Bologn: Nuova Alfa. Mahon, Denis. 1981. Guercino as a Portraitist and his Pope Gregory XV. Apollo 113: 230–35. Mahon, Denis, ed. 1991. Giovanni Francesco Barbieri: Il Guercino 1591–1666. exh. cat. Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale. Malvasia, Carlo Cesare. 1678. Felsina Pittrice: Vite de’ Pittori Bolognesi. Bologna: Domenicho Barbieri, 2 vols. Mckeon, Richard, ed. 1941. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House. Morselli, Raffaella. 2019. Il desiderio di tutti: Guercino tra i suoi collezionisti, agenti, intermediary e banchieri. In Il Guercino: Opere da quadrerie e collezioni da Seicento. Edited by Elena Rossoni and Luisa Berretti. Aosta: Forti di Bard, pp. 47–57. Paolucci, Antonio. 2003. Botticelli and the Medici: A Privileged Relationship. In Botticelli: From Lorenzo the Magnificent to Savonarola. Milan: Skirl Editor, pp. 69–76. Passeri, Giovanni Battista. 1772. Vite de’ Pittori, Scultori ed Architetti: Che Anno Lavorato in Roma Morte dal 1641 Fino al 1673. Rome: Presso Gregorio Settari. Perini, Giovanna, ed. 1990. Gli Scritti dei Carracci: Ludovico, Annibale, Agostino, Antonio, Giovanni Antonio. Bologna: Nuova Alfa. Pinelli, Antonio, ed. 2000. The Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini. Plank, Steven E. 2013. [Uno] Miracolo da far stupire: Transformation and Il Guercino’s St. Francis in Ecstasy with St. Benedict. Franciscan Studies 71: 445–61. [CrossRef] Praetorii, Michaëlis. 1620. Theatrum Instrumentorum: Seu Sciagraphia. Wolffenbüttel: S. N, 2 vols. Prasad, Shilpa. 2006. Guercino: Stylistic Evolution in Focus. exh. cat. San Diego: . Prasad, Shilpa. 2007. Modes of Representation: Genre, Theater, Music and Voice in the Work of Guercino. Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. Rice, Louise. 1997. The Altars and of New St Peter’s: Outfitting the Basilica 1621–1666. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Riley, Gillian. 2007. The Oxford Companion to Italian Food. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salerno, Luigi. 1988. I dipinti del Guercino. Rome: Ugo Bozzi. Steinberg, Leo. 1980. Guercino’s Saint Petronilla. In Studies in and Architecture 15th through 18th Centuries. Edited by Henry A. Millon. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 207–42. Stone, David M. 1991. Guercino: Catalogo Completo dei Dipinti. Florence: Cantini. Travis, Priscilla Jane Masavage. 1982. The Three Unities: Their History and Application in the Development of Dramatic Criticism and Technique in England and France before 1800. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Turner, Nicholas. 2017. The Paintings of Guercino: A Revised and Expanded Catalogue raisonné. Rome: Ugo Bozzi Editore. Unger, Daniel M. 2010. Guercino’s Paintings and His Patrons’ Politics in Early Modern Italy. Farnham: Ashgate. Unger, Daniel M. 2012. The Pope, the Painter, and the Dynamics of Social Standing in the Stanza della Segnatura. Renaissance Studies 26: 269–87. [CrossRef] Vivian, Frances. 1971. Guercino seen from the Archivio Barberini. Burlington Magazine 113: 22–29. von Pastor, Ludwig. 1891/1953. The History of the from the Close of the Middle Ages. Translated and Edited by Dem Ernest Graf. London: J. Hodges, vol. 27. West, William N. 2002. Theatres and Encyclopedias in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winternitz, Emanuel. 1970. The Role of Music in Leonardo’s Paragone. In Phenomenology and Social Reality: Essays in Memory of Alfred Schutz. Edited by Maurice Natanson. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 270–96. Winternitz, Emanuel. 1982. as a Musician. New Haven: Yale University Press. Wood, Carolyn H. 1986. Visual Panegyric in Guercino’s Casino Ludovisi Frescoes. Storia dell’arte 58: 223–28. Wood, Carolyn H. 1988. The Indian Summer of Bolognese Painting: Gregory XV (1621–1623) and Ludovisi Art Patronage in Rome. Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Wood, Carolyn H. 1992. The Ludovisi Collection of Painting in 1623. Burlington Magazine 134: 515–23.