DOI issue:
Nr. 3-4
DOI article:Kaleciński, Marcin: "Mary Magdalen at the Tomb of Christ": an unknown work of Antiveduto Gramatica at the visitation convent in Cracow
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18945#0165
the foreground at the right side of Mary Magdalen, is distinguished by
unusually realistically painted wings. The second angel, seated diagonally, is
portrayed in half figure, holding the shroud. Both angels, as the evangelist
recounts, are dressed in long flowing white garments. Their gowns are
luxuriously draped, with unusually decorative and flowing folds, gathered at
the neck. The angels’ faces are not sad, since they already know about the
Lord’s Resurrection.
In spite of the fact that the composition is symmetrical and the figures are
drawn in a triangle, it is difficult to consider this a static work. The diagonal
of the tomb disrupts the symmetry, while the play of gestures and glances
contributes a dynamism to the composition. The light falling from the left hand
side iluminates the figures in the hazy dawn. It brings expressiveness to the face
of Mary Magdalen, and creates plasticity in the angels’ garments. The colours
of the work are limited to subtle variations of tones of white and dark purple,
which are partially determined by the demands of the iconography.
A direct analogy to the Cracow painting can be found in the painting on the
same theme from the Hermitage, attributed until recently to Gramatica,2 dated
ca. 1622-1625 (Fig. on p.129). In contrast to the work in the Visitation
Convent, the Petersburg composition on this theme has a horizontal format. In
general form it is a reduced and reversed version of the composition in the
Cracow painting. There are fundamental differences in the poses of Mary
Magdalen (in the Petersburg painting she kneels at the tomb) and the angels
(wearing different types of garments). In the foreground a tombstone has been
added with the inscription “QUIA TULERUNT DOMINUM MEUM”. Yet the
similarity of motifs is evident, particularly in the dress of Mary Magdalen, and
in the method of psychological characterization of the models, although the
Cracow painting presents a more subtle type of expression and is a work of
a higher quality. Specific evidence of superiority includes the unusually subtle
execution of modeling, the tender rendering of the angels' garments, the
mastery in conveying the variations in the texture of the fabric, and finally the
perfect lyricism in the face of Mary Magdalen. The Kunsthistorisches Museum
in Vienna contains yet another of Gramatica’s versions of the theme of
a desperate Mary Magdalen at the Tomb.3 It is significant that both the
paintings from the Hermitage and the Kunsthistorisches Museum were
previously attributed to Artemisia Gentileschi. The fundamental difference
between the works by Gramatica and those on the same them in the work of
2 The painting was originally attributed to Artemisia Gentileschi (S.Vsevolozhskaya, J. Linnik,
Caravaggio and his Followers, Leningrad 1975, pp.68-70). It is now acknowledged as a work of
Gramatica: H. Ph. Riedl, E. Schleier, “Ein unbekanntes Hochaltarbild Antiveduto della Gramaticas
in Todi und weitere Neuzuweisungen,” Pantheon, L, 1992, pp.66-67; G. Papi, Antiveduto
Gramatica, Cremona 1995, p. 118.
3 This painting as well was attributed to Gentileschi (O. Benesch, „Seicento-Studien”, Jahrbuch der
Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien N.F., I, 1926, pp. 145-146). The first to link this painting
with Gramatica was Roberto Longlu (R. Longhi, “Quesiti caravaggeschi. I,Registro dei tempi”,
Pinacotheca, I, 1928, pp. 19-20; this attribution is supported by G. Papi (“Note al Gramaticaee al
suo ambiente”, Paradigma, 9, 1990, p.125; Antiveduto Gramatica, op. cit., p.91).
155
unusually realistically painted wings. The second angel, seated diagonally, is
portrayed in half figure, holding the shroud. Both angels, as the evangelist
recounts, are dressed in long flowing white garments. Their gowns are
luxuriously draped, with unusually decorative and flowing folds, gathered at
the neck. The angels’ faces are not sad, since they already know about the
Lord’s Resurrection.
In spite of the fact that the composition is symmetrical and the figures are
drawn in a triangle, it is difficult to consider this a static work. The diagonal
of the tomb disrupts the symmetry, while the play of gestures and glances
contributes a dynamism to the composition. The light falling from the left hand
side iluminates the figures in the hazy dawn. It brings expressiveness to the face
of Mary Magdalen, and creates plasticity in the angels’ garments. The colours
of the work are limited to subtle variations of tones of white and dark purple,
which are partially determined by the demands of the iconography.
A direct analogy to the Cracow painting can be found in the painting on the
same theme from the Hermitage, attributed until recently to Gramatica,2 dated
ca. 1622-1625 (Fig. on p.129). In contrast to the work in the Visitation
Convent, the Petersburg composition on this theme has a horizontal format. In
general form it is a reduced and reversed version of the composition in the
Cracow painting. There are fundamental differences in the poses of Mary
Magdalen (in the Petersburg painting she kneels at the tomb) and the angels
(wearing different types of garments). In the foreground a tombstone has been
added with the inscription “QUIA TULERUNT DOMINUM MEUM”. Yet the
similarity of motifs is evident, particularly in the dress of Mary Magdalen, and
in the method of psychological characterization of the models, although the
Cracow painting presents a more subtle type of expression and is a work of
a higher quality. Specific evidence of superiority includes the unusually subtle
execution of modeling, the tender rendering of the angels' garments, the
mastery in conveying the variations in the texture of the fabric, and finally the
perfect lyricism in the face of Mary Magdalen. The Kunsthistorisches Museum
in Vienna contains yet another of Gramatica’s versions of the theme of
a desperate Mary Magdalen at the Tomb.3 It is significant that both the
paintings from the Hermitage and the Kunsthistorisches Museum were
previously attributed to Artemisia Gentileschi. The fundamental difference
between the works by Gramatica and those on the same them in the work of
2 The painting was originally attributed to Artemisia Gentileschi (S.Vsevolozhskaya, J. Linnik,
Caravaggio and his Followers, Leningrad 1975, pp.68-70). It is now acknowledged as a work of
Gramatica: H. Ph. Riedl, E. Schleier, “Ein unbekanntes Hochaltarbild Antiveduto della Gramaticas
in Todi und weitere Neuzuweisungen,” Pantheon, L, 1992, pp.66-67; G. Papi, Antiveduto
Gramatica, Cremona 1995, p. 118.
3 This painting as well was attributed to Gentileschi (O. Benesch, „Seicento-Studien”, Jahrbuch der
Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien N.F., I, 1926, pp. 145-146). The first to link this painting
with Gramatica was Roberto Longlu (R. Longhi, “Quesiti caravaggeschi. I,Registro dei tempi”,
Pinacotheca, I, 1928, pp. 19-20; this attribution is supported by G. Papi (“Note al Gramaticaee al
suo ambiente”, Paradigma, 9, 1990, p.125; Antiveduto Gramatica, op. cit., p.91).
155