微信公众号 
图码生活

每天发布有五花八门的文章,各种有趣的知识等,期待您的订阅与参与
搜索结果最多仅显示 10 条随机数据
结果缓存两分钟
如需更多更快搜索结果请访问小程序
美国纽约大都会艺术博物馆展品查阅
美国纽约大都会艺术博物馆展品查阅
美国大都会艺术博物馆中的24万件展品,图片展示以及中文和英文双语介绍(中文翻译仅供参考)
读取中
读取中
读取中
品名(中)圣塞巴斯蒂安
品名(英)Saint Sebastian
入馆年号1940年,40.24
策展部门欧洲雕塑和装饰艺术European Sculpture and Decorative Arts
创作者Alessandro Vittoria (Alessandro Vittoria di Vigilio della Volpa)【1525 至 1608】【意大利人】
创作年份公元 1566
创作地区
分类雕塑青铜(Sculpture-Bronze)
尺寸整体 (confirmed): 21 3/8 × 6 3/8 × 6 3/8 英寸 (54.3 × 16.2 × 16.2 厘米)
介绍(中)亚历山德罗·维多利亚(Alessandro Vittoria)是雅各布·桑索维诺(Jacopo Sansovino)的学生,是1570年主人去世后最重要的威尼斯雕塑家。他创作了巨大的大理石雕像以及灰泥的豪华室内装饰,是一位杰出的肖像画家。他丰富的作品还包括青铜小雕像,通常比典型的文艺复兴时期的青铜小雕像大一点。今天,已知十三件这样的青铜器,包括大都会的圣塞巴斯蒂安,都由艺术家完全签名,而另外十件没有签名的青铜器或多或少令人信服地归因于他。[1]七件签名的青铜器描绘了异教神灵,可能是为私人收藏家准备的,而六件则有宗教主题。后者中的两个,一个圣约翰和一个圣弗朗西斯,在威尼斯圣弗朗西斯科德拉维尼亚的圣水站上;[2] 另外两位先知玛拉基亚和麦基洗德曾经装饰过威尼斯圣玛丽亚·格洛里奥萨·德·弗拉里的会幕。[3]我们的圣塞巴斯蒂安,以及私人收藏中同一型号的另一个铸件,[4]从未发挥过作用[5],但仍然由维多利亚自己拥有,并在他的几份遗嘱中得到了特别的关注。委罗内塞的亚历山德罗·维多利亚肖像也在《大都会》(图58a)中,雕塑家温柔地拿着小雕像的模型,这一事实进一步证明了他对这幅作品的重视,这确实代表了他最巧妙和最成功的发明之一。[6]

这个饱受折磨但美丽的裸体青年靠在一棵被截断的树上,左臂向后弯曲到脑后,这个引人注目的姿势首先是由维多利亚在1563-64年为圣弗朗西斯科德拉维尼亚的蒙特费尔特罗祭坛制作的真人大小的伊斯特拉石雕像中制定的(图58b)。7] 1566 年 12 月 14 日,维多利亚向安德烈亚·迪·亚历山德里(称为布雷西亚诺)支付了最后一笔款项,用于铸造青铜圣塞巴斯蒂安。[8]大约八年后,即1575年5月16日,已故布雷西亚诺的女婿奥拉齐奥因铸造另一位圣塞巴斯蒂安而获得报酬。[9]

因此,文献证实,维多利亚的塞巴斯蒂安生前至少生产了两件铸件,直到最近,这些小雕像在洛杉矶县艺术博物馆被确定为大都会博物馆中的青铜器,另一件没有签名,但带有可疑的缓存sexe。 然而,现在人们一致认为,后者松弛的造型和薄壁表明铸造晚了, 可能从十八世纪开始。[11]1998年塞巴斯蒂安在艺术市场上的出现[12]促使人们对已知小雕像及其与文件的关系进行了彻底的重新评估。大都会的圣塞巴斯蒂安现在被一致认为是布雷西亚诺于1566年执行的铸件,[13]是一位技艺精湛的青铜创始人,他创作了威尼斯圣玛丽亚德拉礼炮的纪念性逾越节烛台等作品。[14]支持这一鉴定的是铸件的卓越品质,它保留了一定是完美蜡模的每一个细节,因此几乎不需要任何追逐。这与维多利亚的话完全吻合,他给了布雷西亚诺一个"清洁良好的蜡"。[15]现在私人收藏的精美铸件似乎是布雷西亚诺的女婿在1575年执行的,他显然继承了安德里亚的工作室。这个复制品显然是用与我们的塞巴斯蒂安相同的模具制成的,但其锉削和精加工并不复杂。

这两个数字之间微妙但至关重要的区别是签名。正如理查德·斯通(Richard Stone)所观察到的那样,我们的小雕像上刻有签名,该签名已刻在蜡模上,然后在冰冷的作品中小心而谨慎地强调,创造出大理石雕刻铭文的清晰效果。[16]私人拥有的塞巴斯蒂安-亚历山大的签名。维多利亚。F[ECIT]——不太精确,几乎是草率的,并且省略了字母"T",指的是维多利亚的故乡特伦特。正如曼弗雷德·莱特-贾斯珀(Manfred Leithe-Jasper)所指出的,[17]维多利亚只在他的早期作品中使用了"三叉戟"这个名称及其姓氏的缩写形式,这进一步证明现在的圣塞巴斯蒂安确实是1566年记录的演员。

如果这些假设是正确的,那么维多利亚在1586年5月的第五份遗嘱中提到的一定是这两个数字,他在遗嘱中说只有一个被签署。[18]根据他在这份文件中的措辞,两个小雕像中的一个在底座上刻有签名"切"。由于大都会的塞巴斯蒂安的签名既被抛入又被追逐,这种描述没有冲突。然而,这也许可以解释私人拥有的塞巴斯蒂安签名的轻微尴尬,这可能是在维多利亚的第五份遗嘱之后才添加的。鉴于艺术家痴迷于在作品上签名,[19]他显然非常重视的小雕像没有签名会很奇怪。因此,似乎可以想象,一旦他注意到疏忽,他就会纠正疏忽,但到那时,他的合作者无法在字体中达到同样的清晰。

对维多利亚圣塞巴斯蒂安的引用在十七世纪反复出现。1615年,文森佐·斯卡莫齐(Vincenzo Scamozzi)报告说,威尼斯收藏家巴尔托洛梅奥·德拉·内夫(Bartolomeo della Nave)拥有其中一幅塞巴斯蒂安,根据1650年的清单,另一艘由维琴察的收藏家吉罗拉莫·瓜尔多(Girolamo Gualdo)拥有。[20]除了这两件青铜器外,维多利亚的塞巴斯蒂安的石膏模型一定是现成的,并作为车间道具受到重视。因此,它们出现在扬·斯蒂恩、加布里埃尔·梅苏、埃瓦里斯托·巴斯切尼斯等人的画作中。[21]

如果将维多利亚的青铜塞巴斯蒂安与他为蒙特费尔特罗祭坛设计的石雕进行比较,那么两年内解释的变化就非常了不起了。虽然姿势保持不变,但青铜器的比例却大不相同。腿和躯干已经大大拉长,仿佛材料的延展性诱使维多利亚将身材拉伸到极限。青铜琴身更纤细、更光滑、造型更流畅,强调了其动态扭曲的优雅。甚至树桩也比石头塞巴斯蒂安后面的那棵大树更长更细。这样的装置出现在小雕像中可能被认为是奇怪的,因为青铜雕塑通常不需要这样的支撑。但在这种情况下,很明显树桩稳定了构图,允许复杂的姿势与之对抗。

有几个原型被认为是维多利亚圣塞巴斯蒂安的灵感来源:米开朗基罗的垂死奴隶,拉奥孔和所谓的垂死亚历山大,后者是塞巴斯蒂安富有表现力的头部的模型。[22]因此,洛伦佐·菲诺基·盖尔西(Lorenzo Finocchi Ghersi)得出结论,塞巴斯蒂安标志着维多利亚作品的转折点,当时雕塑家放弃了他的大师桑索维诺的风格,完全接受了米开朗基罗与古典雕塑。[23]然而,正如汉斯·魏赫劳赫(Hans Weihrauch)所观察到的那样,维多利亚与帕玛强尼诺的亲和力比与米开朗基罗的亲和力更强,这就是为什么他改编了垂死奴隶的姿势,而不是其有力的解剖模型。在这方面,维多利亚·艾弗里(Victoria Avery)指出了帕玛强尼诺(Parmigianino)的一幅裸体男人的画作(图58c),今天由私人收藏,但曾经归维多利亚本人所有,这幅画构成了圣塞巴斯蒂安的精确表现,人们可能应该在其中看到与雕塑最相关的前型。[24]

维多利亚的圣塞巴斯蒂安是一座真人大小的石头雕塑,用于祭坛壁龛。很可能维多利亚觉得他扭曲的、类似蛇形的发明在这种环境中与周围建筑的禁锢作斗争。这一点以及成功地将他的石头水星变成威尼斯公爵宫的细石变成青铜小雕像的经历可能激发了他对塞巴斯蒂安做同样的事情。[25]在这种媒介中,可以从不同的角度看到构图,他可以探索一种更有礼貌或"Parmigianesque"的人物建模方式。维多利亚对米开朗基罗的奴隶主题的贡献——基本上是展示痛苦中的美丽男性身体的练习——因此可以给予更个人化的解释。

委罗内塞的艺术家肖像证明了维多利亚对这件雕塑的深刻认同,他的右手正好拿着塞巴斯蒂安的模型,他的签名出现在青铜小雕像上。这只手——艺术家和创作者的手——与帕玛强尼诺在著名的凸镜自画像中画自己的手非常相似,维多利亚在 1561 年买下了这幅画。[26]因此,大都会博物馆的塞巴斯蒂安可以被认为是亚历山德罗·维多利亚的"标志性作品"。
-CKG

脚注
(有关缩短参考文献的关键,请参阅大都会艺术博物馆艾伦、意大利文艺复兴和巴洛克青铜器的参考书目。纽约:大都会艺术博物馆,2022。


1. 参见Leithe-Jasper在Bacchi等人,1999年,第325-29页。
2. 它们在二十世纪末被盗。
3. 这两位先知曾经在柏林的费斯特收藏中,在第二次世界大战中丢失了;见Leithe-Jasper在Bacchi等人,1999年,第325页,并附有进一步的参考资料。
4. 佳士得,伦敦,欧洲雕塑,1998年7月7日,编号109。
5. 哀悼圣母和圣约翰高 110 厘米,今天在威尼斯的圣乔瓦尼和保罗,但最初是为圣凡坦的阿松塔和圣杰罗姆礼拜堂的祭坛而制作的,可能太大而不能被视为小雕像,但为了完整起见,这里提到维多利亚的宗教青铜器通常用于教堂的特定功能。
6. 拜耳 2005,第 20、23 页。
7. 参见桑德罗·斯蓬扎在祭坛上的条目,Bacchi et al. 1999,第314-18页,cat。66.
8. V. Avery 1999b, doc. 61; 另见Predelli 1908,第132页。
9. V. Avery 1999b, doc. 91; 另见Predelli 1908,第135-36页。
10. 这种混乱主要与维多利亚在 1570 年 11 月 7 日的第三份遗嘱中指出(见 Gerola 1924-25,第 348-49 页; V. Avery 1999b,doc. 77),青铜小雕像——此时显然只有一个铸件——可以被解释为塞巴斯蒂安或马西亚斯。鉴于洛杉矶人物的性别特征(M.51.12),人们可以争辩说,圣人应该被描绘成用覆盖腹股沟的帷幔,而色狼可以完全裸体(例如,参见Leithe-Jasper在Krahn 1995,第298页,第83类)。然而,维多利亚不是通过使用帷幔来区分这两个主题,而是通过暗示左乳房下方的伤口,这使得整个论点毫无意义。就像佛罗伦萨的詹博洛尼亚一样,维多利亚因此表现出与米开朗基罗流行的主题相同的冷漠。
11. 舍费尔和福斯科,1987年,第170页。
12. 见注4。
13. Leithe-Jasper in Bacchi et al. 1999, pp. 342–45.
14. 戴维斯 1976,第 163 页。关于布雷西亚诺的一般情况,请参阅C. Avery 2020。
15. V. Avery 1999b, doc. 91; 另见Predelli 1908,第135-36页。
16. R. Stone/TR,2009 年 7 月 7 日。小雕像在铜、锌、铅和锡的四元合金中薄而均匀地铸造,并带有微量杂质。
17. 巴奇等人,1999年,第344页。
18. 杰罗拉 1924-25,第 353 页; V. Avery 1999b, doc. 121.同样,维多利亚在他的第三份遗嘱中评论说,青铜器可以被解释为描绘塞巴斯蒂安或马西亚斯(见注10),解释了为什么在他的第五份遗嘱中提到"marsia"可能指的是他心爱的圣塞巴斯蒂安。过去,一个演员被签名而另一个没有签名的区别被视为对洛杉矶未签名塞巴斯蒂安的真实性的确认。
19. 见V. Avery 2007a,第20、23页。
20. 斯卡莫齐 1615,第 1.3 卷,第 306 页;瓜尔多,1972年,第56页。
21. 详细清单见Leithe-Jasper,Bacchi等人,1999年,第345页。
22. 普兰尼西格 1921,第 452 页;文丘里 1935-37,第 3 卷,第 93 页;瓦伦蒂纳,1942年,第149页。
23. 菲诺奇·盖尔西 1998,第 140 页;菲诺奇·盖尔西 2020,第 29 页。
24. V. Avery 1999a,第147页。
25. 盖蒂,85.SB.184。Peter Fusco(Bacchi等人,1999年,第336页,第72类)认为青铜水星可能来自一个未执行的细通体模型——它的起源尚不完全清楚。
26. 艺术史博物馆,GG 286; V. Avery 1999a,第143页。
27. 一张照片(ESDA/OF)显示维多利亚的圣塞巴斯蒂安(无疑是我们的演员)站在维也纳属于古斯塔夫·冯·本达的特奥多罗·特里武尔齐奥的马术小雕像旁边(见 Bode 1907-12,第 1 卷,第 LXXII)。虽然后者是"Legat Benda"的一部分,并于1930年进入艺术史博物馆,但圣塞巴斯蒂安没有,所以它之前一定被出售过。
28. 纽约,1927年,第四十六页。
介绍(英)Alessandro Vittoria, a pupil of Jacopo Sansovino, was the most important Venetian sculptor after his master’s death in 1570. He created monumental marble statues as well as sumptuous interior decorations in stucco and was an eminent portraitist. His rich oeuvre also includes bronze statuettes, which are usually a bit larger than the typical Renaissance bronzetto. Today, thirteen such bronzes, including The Met’s Saint Sebastian, all fully signed by the artist, are known, while another ten without signature are more or less convincingly attributed to him.[1] Seven of the signed bronzes depict pagan gods and were probably intended for private collectors, while six have religious subjects. Two of the latter, a Saint John and a Saint Francis, surmounted the holy water stoups in San Francesco della Vigna, Venice;[2] another two, the prophets Malachias and Melchizedek, once decorated the tabernacle of Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari, Venice.[3] Our Saint Sebastian, as well as another cast of the same model in a private collection,[4] never served a function[5] but remained in Vittoria’s own possession and were given special attention in his several wills. The fact that Veronese’s portrait of Alessandro Vittoria, also in The Met (fig. 58a), shows the sculptor tenderly holding a model of the statuette provides further evidence of the importance he assigned to this composition, which indeed represents one of his most ingenious and successful inventions.[6]

The striking pose of the tormented but beautiful nude youth, who leans against a truncated tree and bends his left arm back behind his head, was first formulated by Vittoria in a lifesize statue of Istrian stone executed in 1563–64 for the Montefeltro Altar in San Francesco della Vigna (fig. 58b).[7] On December 14, 1566, Vittoria made a final payment to Andrea di Alessandri, called Bresciano, for the casting of a Saint Sebastian in bronze.[8] Some eight years later, on May 16, 1575, the son-in-law of the deceased Bresciano, Orazio, was paid for the casting of another Saint Sebastian.[9]

Thus documentation confirms the production of at least two casts of Vittoria’s Sebastian during his lifetime, and until recently these statuettes were identified as the bronze in The Met and another, without signature but with a suspicious cache-sexe, in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.[10] However, it is now agreed that the latter’s slack modeling and thin walls indicate a later cast, probably from the eighteenth century.[11] The appearance of a Sebastian on the art market in 1998[12] spurred a thorough reevaluation of the known statuettes and their relationship to the documents. The Met’s Saint Sebastian is now unanimously considered the cast executed in 1566 by Bresciano,[13] a highly skilled bronze founder who created, among other works, the monumental Paschal Candelabrum in Santa Maria della Salute in Venice.[14] Supporting this identification is the exceptional quality of the cast, which preserves every detail of what must have been a consummate wax model so that hardly any chasing was necessary. This corresponds perfectly with Vittoria’s remark that he gave to Bresciano a “well-cleaned wax.”[15] The very fine cast now in a private collection appears to be the one executed in 1575 by Bresciano’s son-in-law, who apparently had inherited Andrea’s workshop. This replica was clearly made from the same mold as our Sebastian but is not as sophisticated in its filing and finishing.

The subtle but crucial difference between the two figures is the signature. As observed by Richard Stone, our statuette features a signature that had been engraved in the wax model and then carefully but sparingly accentuated in the cold work, creating the crisp effect of an inscription carved in marble.[16] The signature on the privately owned Sebastian—ALEXANDER. VICTORIA. F[ECIT]—is less precise, almost sloppy, and omits the letter “T,” a reference to Vittoria’s native city Trent. As pointed out by Manfred Leithe-Jasper,[17] the denomination “tridentinus” and the abbreviated form of his surname were used by Vittoria only in his early works, further evidence that the present Saint Sebastian is indeed the cast documented in 1566.

If these assumptions are correct, it must have been these two figures that Vittoria mentioned in his fifth will of May 1586, in which he stated that only one of them was signed.[18] According to his wording in this document, one of the two statuettes had the signature “cut” into the base. Since the signature of The Met’s Sebastian is cast-in as well as chased, this description presents no conflict. It might explain, however, the slight awkwardness of the signature on the privately owned Sebastian, which was probably added only after Vittoria’s fifth will. Given the artist’s obsession with signing his works,[19] it would have been odd that a statuette he clearly valued very highly was left unsigned. It seems therefore conceivable that he rectified the oversight once he noticed it but that by that point his collaborators could not achieve the same crispness in the lettering.

References to Vittoria’s Saint Sebastian turn up repeatedly in the seventeenth century. In 1615, Vincenzo Scamozzi reported that the Venetian collector Bartolomeo della Nave owned one of the Sebastians, and according to an inventory of 1650 another was owned by the collector Girolamo Gualdo in Vicenza.[20] In addition to the two bronzes, plaster casts of Vittoria’s Sebastian must have been readily available and valued as workshop props. As such, they feature in paintings by Jan Steen, Gabriël Metsu, Evaristo Baschenis, and others.[21]

If one compares Vittoria’s bronze Sebastian with his stone sculpture for the Montefeltro Altar, it is quite remarkable how much the interpretation changed within two years. Although the pose remained the same, the proportions of the bronze are quite different. Legs and torso have been elongated considerably, as if the malleability of the material seduced Vittoria into stretching the figure to its limits. The bronze body is slenderer, smoother, and more fluidly modeled, emphasizing the grace of its dynamic twist. Even the stump is longer and thinner than the massive piece of tree behind the stone Sebastian. That such a device appears in the statuette at all may be considered strange, since bronze sculptures generally do not require such supports. But in this case, it is clear that the stump stabilizes the composition, allowing the complicated pose to play against it.

Several prototypes have been noted as inspiration for Vittoria’s Saint Sebastian: Michelangelo’s Dying Slave, the Laocoön, and the so-called Dying Alexander, the latter as the model for the Sebastian’s expressive head.[22] It is not surprising, then, that Lorenzo Finocchi Ghersi concluded that the Sebastian marks a turning point in Vittoria’s work, when the sculptor abandoned the style of his master Sansovino and fully embraced Michelangelo together with classical sculpture.[23] However, as observed with much insight by Hans Weihrauch, Vittoria’s affinity with Parmigianino was stronger than with Michelangelo, which is why he adapted the pose of the Dying Slave but not its powerfully modeled anatomy. In this regard, Victoria Avery has pointed to a drawing by Parmigianino of a nude man (fig. 58c), today in a private collection but once owned by Vittoria himself, that constitutes such an exact representation of the Saint Sebastian that one probably should see in it the most pertinent foretype for the sculpture.[24]

Vittoria’s Saint Sebastian came into being as a lifesize sculpture in stone that was intended for an altar niche. It might well be that Vittoria felt that his twisting, figura serpentinata–like invention was struggling in this setting against the confinements of the surrounding architecture. This and the experience of having successfully turned his stone Mercury for the finestrone of the Palazzo Ducale in Venice into a bronze statuette may have inspired him to do the same with the Sebastian.[25] In this medium, the composition could be seen from different angles, and he could explore a more mannered, or “Parmigianesque,” way of modeling the figure. Vittoria’s contribution to Michelangelo’s theme of the Slaves—basically exercises in displaying beautiful male bodies in distress—could thus be given a more personal interpretation.

Vittoria’s profound identification with this sculpture is demonstrated by Veronese’s portrait of the artist in which his right hand holds the model of Sebastian exactly where his signature appears on the bronze statuette. This hand—that of the artist and creator—is rendered very similarly to how Parmigianino had painted his own hand in the famous Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror, which Vittoria had bought in 1561.[26] The Met’s Sebastian can thus be considered the “signature piece” by and of Alessandro Vittoria.
-CKG

Footnotes
(For key to shortened references see bibliography in Allen, Italian Renaissance and Baroque Bronzes in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. NY: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2022.)


1. See Leithe-Jasper in Bacchi et al. 1999, pp. 325–29.
2. They were stolen toward the end of the twentieth century.
3. The two prophets, once in the Feist collection in Berlin, were lost in World War II; see Leithe-Jasper in Bacchi et al. 1999, p. 325, with further references.
4. Christie’s, London, European Sculpture, July 7, 1998, lot 109.
5. At a height of 110 cm, the Mourning Virgin and Saint John, today in the Santi Giovanni e Paolo, Venice, but originally made for an altar in the Oratory of the Assunta and San Jerome at San Fantin, are perhaps too large to be considered statuettes but are mentioned here for completeness and to underline that Vittoria’s religious bronzes were usually intended for a specific function in a church.
6. Bayer 2005, pp. 20, 23.
7. See Sandro Sponza’s entry on the altar in Bacchi et al. 1999, pp. 314–18, cat. 66.
8. V. Avery 1999b, doc. 61; see also Predelli 1908, p. 132.
9. V. Avery 1999b, doc. 91; see also Predelli 1908, pp. 135–36.
10. The confusion had mostly to do with Vittoria stating in his third will of November 7, 1570 (see Gerola 1924–25, pp. 348–49; V. Avery 1999b, doc. 77), that the bronze statuette—at this time there apparently existed only one cast—could be interpreted as either Sebastian or Marsyas. Given the cache-sexe of the figure in Los Angeles (M.51.12), one could argue that a saint should be depicted with a drapery covering his groin, while a satyr could be entirely nude (see, for instance, Leithe-Jasper in Krahn 1995, p. 298, cat. 83). However, Vittoria differentiates the two subjects not by the use of drapery, but by the suggestion of a wound below the left breast, which makes the entire argument moot. Like Giambologna in Florence, Vittoria showed thus the same indifference to subject matter that was made popular by Michelangelo.
11. Schaefer and Fusco 1987, p. 170.
12. See note 4.
13. Leithe-Jasper in Bacchi et al. 1999, pp. 342–45.
14. Davis 1976, p. 163. On Bresciano in general, see C. Avery 2020.
15. V. Avery 1999b, doc. 91; see also Predelli 1908, pp. 135–36.
16. R. Stone/TR, July 7, 2009. The statuette was thinly and evenly cast in a quaternary alloy of copper, zinc, lead, and tin, with trace impurities.
17. Bacchi et al. 1999, p. 344.
18. Gerola 1924–25, p. 353; V. Avery 1999b, doc. 121. Again, Vittoria’s comment in his third will that the bronze could be interpreted as depicting Sebastian or Marsyas (see note 10), explains why the mention of a “marsia” in his fifth will is likely to refer to his beloved Saint Sebastian. In the past, the distinction of one cast being signed and the other not has been seen as confirmation of the authenticity of the unsigned Sebastian in Los Angeles.
19. See V. Avery 2007a, pp. 20, 23.
20. Scamozzi 1615, vol. 1.3, p. 306; Gualdo 1972, p. 56.
21. For a detailed list, see Leithe-Jasper in Bacchi et al. 1999, p. 345.
22. Planiscig 1921, p. 452; Venturi 1935–37, vol. 3, p. 93; Valentiner 1942, p. 149.
23. Finocchi Ghersi 1998, p. 140; Finocchi Ghersi 2020, p. 29.
24. V. Avery 1999a, p. 147.
25. Getty, 85.SB.184. Peter Fusco (in Bacchi et al. 1999, p. 336, cat. 72) suggested that the bronze Mercury might have derived from an unexecuted model for the finestrone—its genesis is not yet entirely clear.
26. Kunsthistorisches Museum, GG 286; V. Avery 1999a, p. 143.
27. A photograph (ESDA/OF) shows Vittoria’s Saint Sebastian (undoubtedly our cast) standing next to the equestrian statuette of Teodoro Trivulzio that belonged to Gustav von Benda in Vienna (see Bode 1907–12, vol. 1, pl. LXXII). While the latter was part of the “Legat Benda” and entered the Kunsthistorisches Museum in 1930, the Saint Sebastian did not, so it must have been sold before.
28. New York 1927, pl. XLVI.
  大都会艺术博物馆,英文 Metropolitan Museum of Art,是美国最大的艺术博物馆,世界著名博物馆,位于美国纽约第五大道的82号大街。
  大都会博物馆回顾了人类自身的文明史的发展,与中国北京的故宫、英国伦敦的大英博物馆、法国巴黎的卢浮宫、俄罗斯圣彼得堡的艾尔米塔什博物馆并称为世界五大博物馆。