G.Domenico Ottonelli and Pietro da Cortona, The Treatise on Painting and Sculpture - Their Use and Abuse (1652)

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

G. Domenico Ottonelli e Pietro Berrettini [Pietro da Cortona]

Il Trattato della Pittura e Scultura. Uso et abuso loro
[The Treatise on Painting and Sculpture. Their use and abuse] 

(1652)

Edited by Vittorio Casale

Canova Publishers, 1973

Figure 1 Pietro da Cortona, Triumph of the Divine Providence, Palazzo Barberini, Rome
Source: www.ibaroque.it

The Treatise on Painting and Sculpture – Use and Abuse of them, composed by a Theologian and a Painter was printed in Florence in 1652, and signed by Odomenigico Lelonotti and Britio Prenetteri, two absolute strangers, if it were not that, in reality, these are two anagrams. No desire to hide. Simply a tribute to the prevailing Baroque fashion of the moment [1]; the authors are the Jesuit Father Giovanni Domenico Ottonelli and Pietro Berrettini, known as Pietro da Cortona, which is one of the biggest 'star' of the Roman Baroque of half 1600. The presence of Pietro da Cortona - let us state it already now - has generated a negative bias on the work, in the sense that it is considered very disappointing and not very interesting compared to the standing of the artist. There is no doubt that the Treaty should be classified as belonging to that kind of works of religious precepts, certainly not particularly bright, which provide guidance on what is and what is not lawful for an artist to paint, since the Council of Trent onwards. The progenitor of these writings is the Discourse on the sacred and profane images, published in 1582 by Cardinal Gabriele Paleotti [2]. The Treaty of Ottonelli and Pietro da Cortona follows it by seventy years (and reveals a relaxation of orthodoxy in the counterreformation positions) and resolves itself essentially in an infinite review (400 pages) of cases and questions which might arise in the face of an art creator and to which is given timely response (with an excessive and overflowing abundance of citations of any kind). In short, if we were looking for (as we have tried) an autobiographical reflection of Pietro on his work and on his poetry, it will not be here that we will find any answer. And it is natural that the first thing that comes to mind is that this Pietro da Cortona which makes of the Triumph of Divine Providence, in the noble hall of the Palazzo Barberini, an absolute masterpiece of Roman Baroque (with a burst of images of a mythological character that stuns until vertigo the unsuspecting viewer, when he or she enters) is not the same Pietro da Cortona as the co-author of this Treaty. 

Figure 2 Pietro da Cortona, Triumph of the Divine Providence (detail).
© Atlante dell’arte italiana. Fondazione Marilena Ferrari

Let's read what Schlosser writes in his Letteratura artistica [3]: 

"A disappointment ... gives us another book, that deserves, however, a closer examination as one of the most memorable spiritual creations of this time. Here we find a singular couple, the representative of a religious order being very knowledgeable for excellence of the world and of life, the Jesuit priest Ottonelli, and one of the most famous painters of fashion at that time, Pietro Berrettini da Cortona. Their Treatise on Painting and Sculpture ... came out in Florence in 1652 ... If it were just mentioned on the title, no one would suspect the collaboration of an artist, who must have had played the part as a counsellor. The real author is undoubtedly the theologian, and the smell of sacristy here is stronger than elsewhere ... The book, a true product of casuistic spirit, which puts plenty of profit to the previous work of Cardinal Paleotti ..., is particularly notable because it exposes consciously for the first time the concept of artistic policy (indeed very understandable for that time) ... With a very tortuous reasoning the authors come to argue that art, in the representation of inconvenient, or immoral subjects, does not lose any of his originality as such, as pure art, which consists only in a representation ... But as Plato already marked a boundary between useful and harmful rhetoric, so art is to be assessed not only according to its essence, but especially according to its social action and must then be fully subject to the latter, that is to "politics". Actual life isn't pure, and therefore weak men must not be exposed to any than less laudable impulse. It is worth noting that representations of a freer character are allowed for private environments: the detachment of the age following the Council of Trent from ancient, more naive and lazy times is here voluntarily clear.

For the rest the treatise basically concerns the pictorial decoration of the churches, where the casuistry also has good game; the question is always the same: is the painter sinning, if he omits this or that? One will therefore not be surprised if the dispute on festive labour is also part of the discussion. The thing has actually a real and practical background: even in this age of free virtuosity blows an air of the ancient consciousness of craft, which is still latent"(pp. 616-617). 

Figure 3 Pietro da Cortona, Triumph of the Divine Providence (detail).
© Atlante dell’arte italiana. Fondazione Marilena Ferrari

Schlosser, therefore, highlights the prescriptive spirit of the work, successfully captures a greater tolerance on the painted subjects, he cannot help however but point out to "the smell of sacristy" that emerges from all over the treatise, as if this odour was a direct emanation of the thought of Ottonelli alone and had little to do with Pietro da Cortona.

From here starts the present edition of the Treaty, published in 1973 by Vittorio Casale. This is a reprint, preceded by a long and interesting introduction by the editor and followed by a valuable index. The fact that the one by Casale is the first edition of the text, starting from 1652 (and that from 1973 to today there have been no others) demonstrates, however, the lack of success of the work in its entirety (are instead frequent citations of individual passages; the most recent case is probably in Tomaso Montanari, L’età barocca. Le fonti per la storia dell’arte (1600-1750) (i.e. The Age of the Baroque. Sources for the history of Art 1600-1750), an anthology published by Carocci publishers in 2013 [4]). 

Figure 4 Pietro da Cortona, Triumph of the Divine Providence (detail).
© Atlante dell’arte italiana. Fondazione Marilena Ferrari

Casale starts from '"the smell of sacristy." The belief that Pietro da Cortona had little to do with that odour has prompted many to try to regularly analyse what are the parties to the treaty to be ascribed to Ottonelli (almost all) and what to Berrettini. Interesting exercise - the commentator hints to us - but useless, by itself. There is no dichotomy between the writings of the Jesuit and the artist; both share the same vision of the world. If there is any "smell of sacristy," it belongs to both, and not only to Ottonelli. In this sense it is allowed, and appropriate, to consider them as intrinsically co-authors of the whole work in all effects. Then, it is clear that in some pages (it is the case of the paintings reported in response to this or that case) the footprint of Pietro da Cortona can be supposed to be higher; but where Casale is particularly convincing is in arguing that the attributive issue is a false problem. The great value of the work lies in being a precious testimony of the spirit of the Roman Baroque; and in particular in the importance it attaches to the value of images. Much of the essay by the curator is dedicated to illustrate it. To summarize, Casale often used the term "iconocrazia", i.e. the dictatorship of images.

Figure 5 Pietro da Cortona, Trionfo della Divina Provvidenza (particolare).
© Atlante dell’arte italiana. Fondazione Marilena Ferrari

The question of the importance and effectiveness of images dates back to the course of time, and has written his first major codification during the debates on the iconoclastic heresy (the Council of Nicaea is the most obvious example). But what the editor wants to emphasise is the typically Baroque importance, which is attributed to the effect that the image, using fantasia (fantasy) and maraviglia (wonder), raises up on those who contemplate it. 

"The trust bestowed to the power of the 'painted image of things' rests on beliefs about the precise dynamics of any iconocrazia. It is not generally a simple halo of influences that captivates the viewer, or, at least, is not only this; the fascinating moment is only the first one in the history of the meeting between subject and image. 

Soon after, the siege to the individual is assigned to a coherent strategy that programs a gradual assault of the three spiritual faculties that could be the points of resistance: intellect, will, and memory. 

The intellect in fact receives a vigorous instruction from the easy and persuasive book of the painted figures; from the acquired knowledge (also printed in the intellect) receives orders the will, which is folded, evens out, and depends on the iconocrazia. To ensure the continuity of action, the image is deposited in the memory. And at the appropriate time, it could awake in the subject, to direct his actions "(pp. LIX-LX). 

"Once intellect, will, and memory have been captured, there remains no room for an autonomous activity, which the iconocrazia would not supervise. The Treatise does not admit that the intellect can exert any free activity, creating on his own, as it is reduced to a cast for images "(p. LX). 

Figure 6 Pietro da Cortona. Trionfo della Divina Provvidenza (particolare).
© Atlante dell’arte italiana. Fondazione Marilena Ferrari

From here, of course, the importance of the behaviour of the artist. The Treatise is not a work on the lawfulness or unlawful nature of the images (such as, for example, part of the writing by Paleotti in 1582). We are in a phase of history in which the legality is taken for granted; the awareness, if anything, is that the image is so important that we must steer its use and prevent any abuse; because - in front of the power of the image - the man can do nothing.

Figure 7 Pietro da Cortona. Triumph of the Divine Providence (detail).
© Atlante dell’arte italiana. Fondazione Marilena Ferrari

Interestingly, Casale establishes a comparison between the work of the Ottonelli-Cortona duo and the L’Idea de’ Pittori Scultori et Architetti, a treatise published by Federico Zuccari in 1607 (Idea of Painters, Sculptors and Architects) [5]. That by Zuccari is one of the last great Mannerist treatises. We are certainly not talking about it now, but it is undeniable that Zuccari develops a theoretical reasoning related to the processes of knowledge and the relationship between viewer and image, with a still clear imprint from the Renaissance; 45 years pass, and with Ottonelli and Cortona we are literally poles apart, in full Baroque: 

"The logical, rational system, which appears at the opening of the century in the work of Zuccari, and is fully bound in the Renaissance tradition, is now called into question, and denied. 

The novus nascitur ordo [note of the translator: the order just born] that characterized the final stage of knowledge [in the Treaty of Zuccari] is now replaced by a different conclusion: the enslavement to the image, the only real power, although that power cannot be given any qualification. Each event is assumed by the senses as an appearance: this way of knowing has, of course, an impact on behaviour. 

Thus, we understand the impossibility for a man to direct his own life according to an eternally valid compass. Better to adjust the shot every time, and give up rules." (p. LXXII). 

Figure 8 Pietro da Cortona. Triumph of the Divine Providence (detail).
© Atlante dell’arte italiana. Fondazione Marilena Ferrari

Waiving the rules. We started this review talking about the treaty in question as a purely prescriptive writing. We do not intend to deny what we wrote (and that is evident by simply browsing through the pages). We simply want to emphasise that the precepts by Ottonelli and Cortona are much more flexible (and less "coercive") than the rules of Paleotti. They analyse each case, with greater flexibility and understanding towards the doubts of the artist. This fact helps us to better understand and resolve the apparent contradiction between the spirit of the work, "the smell of sacristy" reported by Schlosser and the actual pictorial achievements by Pietro, filled with mythological references to those which, in all respects, are "false gods": "the text tries to distract the artist from that field [note of the editor: the mythological argument] to lure him toward those of sacred art, that demonstrates to be more fertile and even more profitable; but then the text admits that the painter can perform works of that kind without any sin, if somehow induced (p. 84); and that the customer can commit them, provided they are located in a private place (p. 315). To point out, in this second respect there is no specific reference to mythological paintings, but the used expression "indifferent works, and also made ​​with some license," can easily include them"(p. CXXXI n. 2).

Figure 9 Pietro da Cortona. Triumph of the Divine Providence (detail).
© Atlante dell’arte italiana. Fondazione Marilena Ferrari

And so we can continue admiring the ceiling of the Palazzo Barberini without thinking that Pietro da Cortona was in intimate contradiction between what he wrote and what he actually realised. 

NOTES

[1] See the item Anagramma by Stefano Bartezzaghi in the Encyclopedia of Italian by Treccani publishers, Rome, 2010. 

[2] Gabriele Paleotti, Discorso intorno alle immagini sacre e profane (1582) (Speech about sacred and profane images), edited by Stefano Della Torre, Vatican City, 2002. 

[3] Julius Schlosser Magnino, La letteratura artistica (Literature on art), 3rd edition, Florence, 1966. 

[4] Tomaso Montanari, L’età barocca. Le fonti per la storia dell’arte (1600-1750), (The Age of Baroque. The sources for the history of art), Rome, 2013. 

[5] Federico Zuccari, L’idea de’ Pittori Scultori et Architetti, (The idea of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects), Torino, 1607.