No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2019
We are accustomed to think of Nicolas Poussin as a man of profound intellect and impressive dignity who led, according to Bellori, an eminently rational, well-ordered, and even severe life in Rome. His serious personality is reflected in the stately grandeur of his history pictures, allegories, and religious scenes. Even his bacchanals are rather sober and restrained. He is, in short, the peintre philosophe. While Poussin's sense of the profound is well known, his sense of humor is rarely discussed. Yet there are humorous elements in his art which relieve his high seriousness and offer revealing insights into his personality.
The results of this study were presented at the Frick Collection-Institute of Fine Arts Symposium on the Kstory of Art in April 1960. I am very grateful to Professors Erwin Panofsky and John Rupert Martin for their generous advice and help in the preparation of this article.
2 For a discussion of the Philostratian motive of the thievish Mercury in this context see E. Panofsky, ‘Poussin's Apollo and Daphne in the Louvre', Bulletin de la Société Poussin III (1950), 27-41; and R. W. Wallace, ‘Venus at the Fountain and The Judgement of Paris; Notes on Two Late Poussin Drawings in the Louvre', Gazette des Beaux-Arts, January 1960, pp. 11-18.
3 Exposition Nicolas Poussin, Musée du Louvre, Catalogue by Sir Anthony Blunt (Paris,1960),pp. l36f., no. 111.
4 G. P. Bellori, Le vite de'pittori, scultori, et architetti moderni (Rome, 1672), pp. 445 f.
5 A. Andresen, Nicolas Poussin. Verzeichnis der nach seinen Gemalden gefertigten Kupferstiche (Leipzig, 1863), nos. 302, 303; Georges Wildenstein, ‘Les graveurs de Poussin au XVIIe siècle', Gazette des Beaux-Arts, September-December 1955, nos. 104-105.
6 A. Félibien, Entretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellens peintres anciens et modernes (2d ed., Paris, 1688), pp. 360 f.
7 W. Friedlaender et al., ed., The Drawings of Nicolas Poussin, Catalogue Raisonné (London, 1939-1953, Studies of the Warburg Institute v), 1, 30 f., no. 60, pl. 36.
8 Ibid., II, 3.
9 I have used the English translation by A. Fairbanks, Philostratus, Imagines; Callistratus, Descriptions (London and New York, 1931, Loeb Classical Library), pp. 287 f. For other examples of the late Poussin's use of the Imagines as known through Blaise de Vigenere's very popular annotated translation, Images ou tableaux de platte peinture des deux Philostrates sophistes Grecs (Paris, 1609), and subsequent editions, see D. Panofsky, ‘Narcissus and Echo; Notes on Poussin's Birth of Bacchus in the Fogg Museum of Art', Art Bulletin XXXI (1949), 118-120; and note 1 above. It seems probable that Poussin was relying on a Blaise de Vigenere edition in this picture as well. In ‘Achilles en l'isle de Scyro’ Blaise de Vigenere translates the tower of Philostratus the Younger as le Chasteau, which is what Poussin illustrates (Paris, 1629 edition, p. 565). R. B. K. McLanathan, ‘Achilles on Skyros', Bulletin of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts XLV (February 1947), 11, suggests that the palace in its setting perhaps recalls in a general way certain elements of the Temple of Fortune complex at Palestrina. A. Blunt, Exposition Nicolas Poussin, p. 137, also mentions this association. One year before this picture was completed the first publication of the ruins of Palestrina, J. M. Suares (Suaresius), Praenestes antiquae libri duo (Rome, 1655), appeared containing a proposed reconstruction of the Temple of Fortune by Pietro da Cortona (see R. Wittkower, ‘Pietro da Cortonas Ergänzungsprojekt des Tempels in Palestrina', Adolph Goldschmidt zu seinem siebenzigsten Geburtstag, Berlin, 193 5, pp. 137-143). However, any resemblance is so general that a sure association would be extremely difficult to make.
10 For a discussion of the influence of classical reliefs (C. Robert, Die Antiken Sarkophag- Reliefs, Berlin, 1890, 11, nos. 28, 34) and Marino's Adone on Poussin's representations of ‘The Discovery of Achilles', see A. Moschetti, Dell'influsso del Marino sulla formasione artistica di Nicola Poussin (Rome, 1913), pp. 19 f.; W. Friedlaender's review of Moschetti's book in Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft XXXVII (1914), 230-235; W. Friedlaender, ‘Achilles auf Skyros von Nicolas Poussin', Zeitschrift fur Bildende Kunst 1926-1927, pp. 141-143; and Jamot, P., Connaissance de Poussin (Paris, 1948), p. 23 Google Scholar.
11 Friedlaender et al., ed., Drawings … ,II, 3 f., fig. 14.
12 Ibid., pp. 4 f., no. 106, pi. 84.
13 Cesare Ripa, Iconologia (Siena, 1613), pt. II, p. 167.
14 have used the English translation by J. H. Mozley, Statius (London and New York, 1928, Loeb Classical Library), 11, 571-573.
15 McLanathan, op. cit., pp. 7-11, finds no particular significance in the correspondence of the mirror and the reflecting shield of Statius. Instead, he states that a passage in the life of Ulysses in Natale Conti's Mythology was the important literary source for Poussin here, and points out its general agreement with the painting and its specific reference to Ulysses disguised as a merchant as he appears in Poussin's representation. However, the disguise of Ulysses is not an especially distinctive iconographic feature, while the mirror is quite unique, has great distinctiveness, and acts as the iconographical focal point of the entire picture. H. Bardon, ‘Poussin et la litterature latine', Actes du Colloque Nicolas Poussin (Paris, 1960), 1, 127, also finds no association of the Richmond picture with the Statius description of the event.
16 It is noteworthy that an interest in optics, and particularly in mirror devices, was widespread at the time when Tasso wrote his famous epic, as the great popularity of Giambattista della Porta's Magia naturalis with its complex and often amusing optical and mirror experiments testifies.
17 Rensselaer W. Lee, ‘Ut Pictura Poesis: the Humanistic Theory of Painting', Art Bulletin XXII (1940), 248.
18 Exposition Nicolas Poussin, p. 41, no. 1; and p. 215. A. Blunt, ‘Poussin Studies xn: The Hovingham Master',The Burlington Magazine, CIII (1961), pp. 454-461, has recently attributed this controversial painting to the Hovingham Master.
19 Exposition Nicolas Poussin, p. 41, no. 1; and p. 215