Author of the entry: Mariano Saggiomo
Even within a context as singular as the Sansevero Chapel, this monument in memory of Cecco di Sangro is an utterly bizarre work: perhaps one of the most theatrical ‘deceptions of truth’ to adorn the family church (the quotation, not specifically referring to Cecco’s tomb, is from Forgione 2022, p. 51). The marble group, interesting in many respects, is positioned above the main door, the upper edge of which serves as a base for the hippogriffs placed at the sides of the sarcophagus; from this, Cecco emerges in a pose far more clumsy than heroic, fully armed and accompanied higher up by an eagle that clutches arrow-shaped thunderbolts in its left claw. The front of the chest is draped with a lion skin on which a long inscription identifying the figure is incised. The text describes his military valour and especially the prestige he derived from the famous episode at Amiens, the city in northern France where, in 1597, Cecco distinguished himself as a soldier in the Spanish army of Philip II during the conquest of an important stronghold: a strategic Trojan Horse was used to introduce him (wounded, no less) into the enemy lines, concealed inside a chest, from which he emerged unexpectedly two days later, securing victory for himself and his men.
Studies have stressed that the monument is in fact the only one in the Chapel to tell the story of an episode ‘which according to tradition really took place’ (Cioffi 1994, p. 45). In truth, Cecco’s swashbuckling escapade has all the air of a literary topos: one need only observe that even the Historia dell’illustrissima famiglia Di Sangro, by its very nature inclined towards dynastic exaltation of the family, and published in 1615, at a time – all things considered – close to the events narrated, celebrates Cecco’s cunning at Amiens but never alludes to the stratagem involving the chest (Campanile 1615, pp. 51–53). This does not alter the fact that the legendary character of the episode (evidently received as historical fact by Raimondo’s day) lent itself perfectly to the Prince’s imaginative bent, which he therefore sought to exploit to the full for its symbolic potential. The curiosity of the story may indeed provide a justification for the inclusion of Cecco in the family pantheon, since, if one excludes Sant’Oderisio, he is the only male figure to appear there despite not being a prince and without being able to claim some direct link to Raimondo: he was simply a nephew of the first Prince of Sansevero.
Beyond this choice, part of the iconographic development of the subject must also be attributed to Raimondo, although the work, dated 1766, is clearly signed by Francesco Celebrano, who, according to the inscription running along the border between the two imaginary animals, both conceived and executed it. In this regard, in the litigation between Francesco Queirolo (1704–1762) and Raimondo di Sangro, begun in October 1759, the Prince requested that the sculptor return ‘the model of the great door and the tomb that goes above it, also made in clay’ (Bruno Crimaldi, in Chartulae desangriane 2006, p. 81). There has been much debate about the authorship of these preparatory studies: whether they belong in toto to Queirolo or whether, more credibly, behind every work of the Genoese artist, and by Celebrano after him, lie ideas by Antonio Corradini (1688–1752), author of the well-known thirty-six bozzetti left to the Prince before his death (cf. Origlia Paolino 1754, p. 365); for critical debate, see especially Picone 1959, p. 37; Cioffi 1994, pp. 11–12; and Cogo 1996, pp. 325–330. As for the work under discussion, stylistic considerations lend credence to the hypothesis that Celebrano was influenced principally by Queirolo and little, or not at all, by Corradini (Picone 1959, p. 70; Cogo 1996, p. 329), a circumstance that – for Marina Picone (1959, p. 70) – made the final result considerably worse: if Queirolo’s idea ‘must have been a great one, in Celebrano’s execution, the breath of the original bozzetto is irretrievably lost, and the composition, which must have originally been dignified and inspired, appears poor and coarse’ (ibid.).
Oderisio de Sangro (1991, p. 224) maintains that some parts of the monument were poorly remounted after the late-nineteenth-century collapse of the counter-façade, which may perhaps explain the compositional weaknesses just described. In particular, in his view, ‘the head has been turned around, and the eyes stare into the void, while previously his gaze was concentrated on the left foot already out of the chest’ (ibid.). Yet, from a comparison between the marble’s current state and an engraving by Franz Wenzel (c. 1839, pl. VIII) dating from before the collapse, the alteration does not actually seem so evident. The doubts increase if credence is given to a chronicler almost contemporary with the disaster, according to whom ‘the fine monument that is over the main door’ remained unscathed (Colonna di Stigliano 1895, p. 34). A different account must be given, however, of the hand gripping the sword, still dangling, as it had ‘been tied to the warrior’s right wrist’ (de Sangro 1991, p. 224).
Essential bibliography on the work
Inventario de’ beni rimasti nell’eredità del fu eccellentissimo don Raimondo di Sangro principe di Sansevero, Naples, notary Francesco de Maggio, 1771, copy of the document held at the Archivio Storico del Pio Monte della Misericordia di Napoli, d’Aquino di Caramanico collection, provisional shelfmark A.162, fols. 103r–105r.
Sarnelli Pompeo, Nuova guida de’ forestieri…, Naples, Saverio Rossi, 1772, p. 133.
Sigismondo Giuseppe, Descrizione della città di Napoli e suoi borghi, [Naples,] II, Terres, 1788, p. 40.
Wenzel Franz, pl. VIII, belonging to a group of 32 lithographs of the sculptures of the Sansevero Chapel in Naples drawn by various authors and engraved by Wenzel c. 1839: the copy identified (lacking six lithographs) is held at the Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli, shelfmark PALATINA Banc. 03.
Colonna di Stigliano Fabio, ‘La Cappella Sansevero e D. Raimondo di Sangro’, in Napoli nobilissima, IV, 1895, 3, pp. 33–36, esp. p. 34.
Picone Marina, La Cappella Sansevero, Naples 1959, pp. 51, 69–70.
de Sangro Oderisio, Raimondo de Sangro e la Cappella Sansevero, Rome 1991, pp. 224–226, no. 27.
Cioffi Rosanna, La Cappella Sansevero. Arte barocca e ideologia massonica, first edition: Salerno 1987; edition cited: Salerno 1994, p. 45.
Cogo Bruno, Antonio Corradini scultore veneziano. 1688–1752, Este 1996, p. 329, part of entry no. 51.
Chartulae desangriane. Il Principe committente, exhibition catalogue, Bruno Crimaldi (ed.) (Naples, Museo Cappella Sansevero, 28 March 2006), Naples 2006, p. 81.
Attanasio Sergio, In casa del Principe di Sansevero. Architettura, invenzioni, inventari, Naples 2011, pp. 143–144.
Napoli, la Cappella Sansevero e il Cristo velato. Naples, Sansevero Chapel and the Veiled Christ, texts by Marco Bussagli, photographs by Carlo Vannini, Bologna 2019, pp. 33–37, 39, 40–41, 44–45.
Comparative bibliography
Campanile Filiberto, L’historia dell’illustrissima famiglia Di Sangro, Naples, in the printing house of Tarquinio Longo, 1615, pp. 51–53.
Origlia Paolino Giangiuseppe, Istoria dello Studio di Napoli…, II, Naples, Giovanni di Simone, 1754, p. 365.
Picone Marina, La Cappella Sansevero, Naples 1959, p. 37.
Cioffi Rosanna, La Cappella Sansevero. Arte barocca e ideologia massonica, first edition: Salerno 1987; edition cited: Salerno 1994, pp. 11–12.
Cogo Bruno, Antonio Corradini scultore veneziano. 1688–1752, Este 1996, pp. 325–330, no. 51.
Forgione Gianluca, I simulacri delle cose. La Cappella Sansevero e il barocco romano, Turin 2022, esp. p. 51.
DOI: 10.82049/CATALOGO16