Originalveröffentlichung in: Mader, Rachel (Hrsg.): Kollektive Autorschaft in der Kunst. Alternatives Handeln und Denkmodell. Bern ; Berlin ; Bruxelles ; Frankfurt am Main ; New York ; Oxford ; Wien 2012, S. 139-158 (Kunstgeschichten der Gegenwart ; 10) Between Family Brand and Personal Ambition: Strategies and Limits of Collaboration in the Carracci Workshop Samuel Vitali In a crucial passage of the Carracci biography in his ground-breaking work on Bolognese painting, the Felsinapittrice of 1678, Carlo Cesare Malvasia labels the three artists a “Gerione pittorico”,1 in allusion to the triple-bodied monster Geryon which was killed by Hercules in one of his deeds. The somewhat (given the ill fate of the creature) unfortunate metaphor serves to underscore the stylistic unity of Ludovico, Agostino and Annibale Carracci which, according to Malvasia, already made it difficult to tell their works apart during their lifetime. Over the past decades scholars have devoted much effort to solving this truly Herculean task. Yet, although in many individual cases some defmite progress has been made and much new information has been gathered, one cannot help the feeling that in general, and especially in the field of drawings, the confusion is increasing rather than diminishing. In recent years, some scholars have tried to make sense of this “attributional havoc”, as it has been aptly called, 2 maintaining that it is not due to our limited knowledge, but is a logical consequence of the Carraccis’ inti- mate collaboration. Gail Feigenbaum in particular has insisted upon the teamwork among the three artists, claiming that they consciously “sub- ordinated their individual propensides to a unity of purpose ” - namely the creation of a suprapersonal, collective style, a view that has gained much consensus since.3 1 Malvasia 1678/1841, I, p. 287. 2 The phrase was coined by Clovis Whitfield during a symposium on Carracci drawings held in Oxford in 1997 and is reported by Diane De Grazia, “Carracci Drawings in Britain and the State of Carracci Studies ’, in: Master Drawings, XXXIV (1998), pp. 292—304, here p. 294. 3 Feigenbaum 1990 (here, p. 155, the quoted words); Feigenbaum 1993, p. 70. Cf. also, among others: Luigi Spezzaferro, “I Carracci tra naturalismo e classicismo”, in: Andrea Emiliani (ed.), 140 S amuel V itali Collaboration and unity As a matter of fact, the written sources supply ample evidence that, until the departure of Annibale for Rome in 1595, the Carracci work- shop was organized as a kind of family enterprise whose members did not only cooperate in several larger commissions such as the frescoes in the palaces of the Fava, Magnani and Sampieri, but often also in single altarpieces or even small easel paintings — on the level both of concep- tion and of execution.1 Malvasia states several times that Ludovico assisted his cousins by making compositional studies for their works, or, especially in the case of Annibale’s early altarpieces, refinishing their paintings.*5 Admittedly,* * 4 the author might not be entirely trustworthy in this instance, since one of the chief aims of his biography is to emphasize Ludovico ’s role as the leading personality among the Carracci. He also asserts, however, that Agostino helped his brother and his cousin in the execution of their works and, in turn, received their help for his own paintings. 6 Ludovico ’s inventive power is indeed confirmed by a large number of compositional drawings that cannot be connected with any of his known paintings. Modern scholarship has therefore tried to identify some of his proposals for the cousins’ compositions. Gail Feigenbaum and Catherine Loisel have recognized that a series of three related studies for a Lamentation in Oxford, Stockholm and Copenhagen (fig. 1), which can be attributed to Ludovico and dated around the early or mid-1580s, shows marked similarities to the Pieta with Saints Annibale painted in 1585 for the main altar of the Chiesa dei Cappuccini in Parma (fig. 2). Le arti a Bologna e in Emilia dal XVI al XVII secolo (Atti del XXIV Congresso Internazionale di Storia dell ’Arte C.I.H.A., 10—18/9/1979), Bologna 1982, pp. 203 —228, especially p. 206; De Grazia 1995, p. 166, 181 f.; Nicholas Turner, “Ludovico Carracci, Paris” (exh. review), in: The Burlington Magazine, 147 (2005), p. 54-56, here p. 55; Robertson 2008, p. 12, 78, 93. Scepticism concerning this view has been expressed by Boesten-Stengel 2008, p. 127. 4 On the collaboration in the Carracci workshop see also, apart from the contributions by Gail Feigenbaum (Feigenbaum 1990, p. 148-155; Feigenbaum 1993, p. 69-72): Longhi 1957, especially p. 33-36; Ostrow 1966/1974, p. 249; Stanzani 2006, p. 445f., note 37. 5 Malvasia 1678/1841, I, p. 267, 282, 345, 351. 6 Malvasia 1678/1841, I, p. 284. Between Family Brand and Personal Ambition 141 • - • ■ Fig. 1: Ludovico Carracci, Lamentation, ca. 1584 85. 142 S amuel V itali Fig. 2: Annibale Carracci, Pieth with Saints, 1585. Betvveen Family Brand and Personal Ambition 143 Their logical conclusion was that Ludovico was assisting his younger cousin in the invention of one of his first major commissions. Tempting as this suggestion might be, it is contradicted by the fact that, apart rom the main theme, the iconography of the altarpiece and the drawings is not the same. Not only do the latter lack the motif oi the cross carried by angels; they also show, except for the obvious presence o t e Virgin, St. Mary Magdalene, and a group of angels, a very different set o saints. While in the painting the death body of Christ is mourned y t. aire, St. Francis and St. John the Evangelist, the drawings feature a t ree Maries, St. Anthony Abbot and another elderly, long-bearde o y mon (thus hardly identifiable with St. Francis, usually represented as a mt c aged man with short beard). 8 Since the personnel to be depicted in such an important commission was surely defined by the patrons, 1 ese ‘s crepancies could be explained only by a radical change of min on t e part of the monks after the beginning of the work, a hypothesis w ic seems rather remote. Moreover, the presence of St. Anthony Abbot ap- pears unsuitable for the high altar of a Franciscan church. Theretore, the drawings must have been produced for another commission which is currently lost or was never executed. Though these sheets might well have inspired Annibale while he was working out the design tor his Parma Pieta, the inventions Ludovico made on purpose for his younger cousin ’s paintings still await identification. A main source for the Carraccis’ cooperative method is the above rnentioned section opened by the image of the Geryon of painting , m which Malvasia highlights the homogeneity of the Carraccis style as a tesult of their close collaboration and mutual help. According to t eir biographer, the artists themselves often contributed to the con usion o attributions, in order to maintain their union; so when aske a out t e 7 Feigenbaum 1993, p. 69f, Loisel 1995, p. 5£; Loisel 2004, p. 25, 30. A fourrh drawing in the Louvre (without saints), also discussed by Feigenbaum m th.s context, *crasmu in style and is probably a copy or, as Loisel proposes, a shop ra™n8 ols ’ f ’ no. 155). According to Feigenbaum. Malvasia reports that Anmbales P.eta was one of the low-paving commissions Lodovico passed along to his younger cousin promismg he pa- tr°n to ProvldcA ««y asslstance• andj rprouchinerCt g[hc” (Feigenbaum Crucifvcion and 1993, the p. Baptism: 70). Malvasia, cf. Malvasia how ever, mentions among these commtssions only tn !> 1678/1841, I, p. 265. For the Pie* see Daniele Benatt, .n.AnMeCarraca 2006, p. 174 f„ no. III.21 (with earlier bibliography), and Robertson 200 , p. 5 . 8 The Oxford drawing represents the actual moment of the de Posttton and conseqnend y a>so includes Joseph of Arimathia and Nicodemus (see Lotsel 195, hg. ). 144 S amuel V itali responsibilities in a collaborative work, they would respond with the often quoted words: “Ella e dei Carracci. L’abbiamo fatta tutti noi.” (“It’s by the Carracci: we all of us made it.”)9 Among the examples of doubtful authorship, Malvasia mentions Ludovico ’s Martyrdom of Saint Ursula and Saint Leonard (now in the Pinacoteca Nazionale in Bologna)10 11and reports Francesco Albani’s claim that all three Carracci participated in both the invention and the execution of the altarpiece. While dismissing this opinion as due to Albani’s bias in favour of Annibale, Malvasia acknowledges that the correct attribution of the painting ’s invention to Ludovico alone is pos- sible only thanks to a drawing then in possession of Lorenzo Pasinelli (and unfortunately since lost).11 It is hard to say how this doubt could have arisen, as the painting seems so perfectly consistent in design and execution with the style of Ludovico around 1592. However, regard- less of its truthfulness, Albani’s opinion testifies that such cooperation for a single work was, if not a regular practice, at least a possibility. Malvasia himself mentions elsewhere a “Madonna in Egitto” (i. e. a Holy Family on the Flight into Egypt) on copper, hitherto unidentified, painted by all three Carracci together, as a gift for the nun who would clean their collars.12 Two decades earlier, Francesco Scannelli had al- ready reported in his Microcosmo della Pittura (1657) an apparently widespread opinion (“fama”) that both Ludovico and Annibale con- tributed to Agostino’s highly praised Last Communion ofSt. Jerome then in the Certosa (now in the Pinacoteca Nazionale, Bologna);13 a state- 9 Malvasia 1678/1841, I, p.