Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Giovanni Michele Silos
Pinacotheca sive Romana Pictura et Sculptura [The Gallery, or Painting and Sculpture in Rome]
Preface by Luigi Grassi; introduction, translation from Latin and comments by Mariella Basile Bonsante
2 voll., Treviso, Libreria editrice Canova, 1979
Reader's Note by Luciano Mazzaferro
[Note by Giovanni and Francesco
Mazzaferro: This text is the transcription and faithful translation of a
manuscript "Reader’s Note" (at the head of the manuscript appears in
fact the word "nota di lettura") compiled by our father, Luciano
Mazzaferro, between 1998 and 2000. The endnotes – like the division in sections
and their titles – are instead editorial and were compiled in 2014].
 |
| The cover-page of the edition by Mariella Basile Bonsante |
The Pinacotheca
The
text, which was published in Latin in Rome for the types of Filippo Maria
Mancini in 1673, opens with a note addressed by Silos to the “Candidus Lector”,
i.e. the unaware readers, and with some laudatory verses which had been
addressed to Silos by Jacobus Albanus Ghibbesius (the English rhetoric teacher
James Alban Gibbes [1]). It follows, and are all pages drafted by Silos: an epigram
on the two sister arts (painting and sculpture), the Proloquium (Introduction)
and 301 epigrams of the Liber Primus (First book) entitled Romana
Pictura (Painting in Rome), the Proloquium and 302 epigrams of
Liber Secondus (Second book) indicated by the reductive title Romana
Sculptura (Sculpture in Rome), the 18 essays on different topics that
appear under the title Odorum Appendicula (Appendix on scents) and,
finally, an index, in Latin, of the subjects and characters mentioned in all
parts of the work. Silos has certainly experienced some discomfort for having
included in the volume the odes of the Appendix, written in his youth, and
tried to overcome his embarrassment with a massive (but little spontaneous) dose
of irony: "I did not wanted to hold the odes further, so they could not complain
because of their Author, for the fact that I had destined them to eternal
darkness, like they were bastard things. Actually, there are only a few: in any
case they are too many, since they are not worth anything" (translation in
vol. II, p. 4).
The entire text of 1673 is reproduced anastatically in the first of two volumes, making up the new edition. There are also, with Roman numerals, the presentation by Prof. Luigi Grassi, a notice and an extensive introductory study of the curator (Mariella Basile Bonsante). The second volume includes the Italian translation of the original Latin text, a commentary, a bibliography, and three indexes – an index of personal names (artists excluded), an index of artists and index of places and works - that flank very well the classification work (Pinacotheca index) made by Silos with criteria typical of his time, just responding to the needs and curiosity of today’s reader. It should be added that in the translation, in the comments and in the new indices - in short, the entire second volume - are considered the texts of the Pinacotheca alone, excluding the odes of Appendicula. The odes - it is stated on p. 292 - have been "deliberately neglected ... for their purely literary contents" completely unrelated "to the themes of art history...". It is a decision against which there is little to object and that seems to be fully justified by the actual words of Silos reported earlier.
Fortune of the work
When she set to work, the curator could not benefit of any sufficiently thorough study on Silos’ work. The Pinacotheca did not collect much success when it was published, nor its fortune improved in later ages. No reprint; no comments of specific depth; no Italian translation from the Latin text; only one attempt of an imitation, made with undoubted easiness: at the beginning of the new century, a scholar from across the Channel, who signed with his initials and probably was John Elsum, took several epigrams of Silos (like they did not belong to anybody), modified them in several sections to make them better adhere to his beliefs and the taste of fellow countrymen, turned them into English and placed them next to compositions of his own making. Imprinted in London in 1700, the work found good audience and was reprinted in 1704 [2]. Then, for a little less than 120 years, any curiosity disappeared on the Pinacotheca. It seemed as if its memory had gone lost entirely, at least in the circles accustomed to talking about art. In that impressive harvest of news which was the Storia della letteratura Italiana (History of Italian literature) by Girolamo Tiraboschi [3] appears (in the first part of the eighth tome) a reference to the three volumes - and the fourth volume, which remained manuscript - published by Silos to illustrate the events of the monks “Clerks Regular Theatines”, but not a single word was spent on the work interesting us here. The work is not even mentioned in the Catalogo della libreria di Giuseppe Bossi (Catalogue of the library of Giuseppe Bossi) [4]. Among connoisseurs of art, the name of Silos resurfaces only in 1821 with the Catalogo ragionato del conte Cicognara (Annotated catalogue of Count Cicognara) [5] that - even quoting it, something quite unusual for him, in two parts or sections of the publication – does not proceed, however, beyond the usual and slender bibliographical references and avoids any value judgment. In one of the two quotations (see Vol. I, p. 185) he specifies the number of epigrams dedicated to painting and other works of artistic interest, identifies the number of odes included in the Appendix and indicates the presence of an "alphabetical index of all the objects described". In the second quotation (Vol. II, p. 220) he warns that, by the end of the seventeenth century, when the volume was written, all the described artistic material was in Rome "so much in public as well as in private places."
Another century passed before Schlosser, attracted by the words of Cicognara, to whom he felt a sincere admiration, returned to quote the Pinacotheca. It is, of course, only few lines and it does not need much space to reproduce a substantial part: "The influence of Marino" - I read on p. 542 of the Italian edition of the Kunstliteratur (Literature on Art) [6] - is revealed in a certain sense also in the Pinacotheca of Giovanni Michele Silos, an ecclesiastical writer of Southern Italy, published in Rome in 1673. Written in scholastic language and ancient metres, it offers us a kind of poetic guide through the art of Rome, public and private..." After Schlosser’s manual, whose edition in German dates back to 1924, the name of Silos returned to appear - as far as I have been able to learn - in just two other texts of prestige. I think first of all to the Le guide di Roma (Guides of Rome) that Oskar Pollak left manuscript and were edited by Ludwig Schudt, being published by the Filser publisher in Vienna in 1930 [7]. Very little space is reserved also here to the Pinacotheca presented as “einen guten Einblick in die Bestände der römischen Sammlungen, wie der Giustiniani, Borghese, Cesi, Altemps usw” (p. 135) [note of the translator: including the collections of the Giustiniani, Borghese, cesi, Altemps, etc], in short, a good insight of the pieces of some Roman collections at the end of the seventeenth century. I then recall the Bibliografia dell’archeologia classica e dell’arte italiana (Bibliography of classical archaeology and Italian art) compiled by Fabia Borroni and published forty years ago in Florence. [8] In the second tome of the first volume (pp. 67-68) one of the two notes pencilled by Cicognara is reproduced and reference is made to the work of Pollak edited by Schud. After browsing through this work and the others mentioned above, very little concrete remains [9]: the most important evaluation stems from the comparison between the booklet of Silos and Marino’s Galeria (Gallery) [10], accomplished with a good dose of caution by Schlosser. It is no coincidence that Mariella Basile Bonsante, translator in charge of the new edition of Pinacotheca, refers to this inspiration to start a discussion of a certain level, although not without some overstretched arguments, on the elements that are common and, even more, the differences between the two works.
The curator (henceforth referred to by the abbreviation M.B.B.) argues that the suggestion of Marino’s model of La Galeria is still to be demonstrated and adds: "the brief notes that Schlosser devoted to the subject by insisting on the close relationship between the two collections [my italics] ... deserves to be developed and argued with more detailed biographical and historical references " (p. XLI). M.B.B. takes for granted that Silos "read and appreciated the writings of Marino", recalls the admiring funeral encomium dedicated to the Neapolitan poet, recognizes that the title of the work and its breakdown "in two key sections of Pictura and Sculptura" derive from Marino (p. XLII), but strongly affirms that aspects of differentiation and contrast between the Galeria and the Pinacotheca prevail over those of homogeneity and close proximity. Very different - warns the curator - are the intentions to which the two authors aimed: in Marino prevails the desire to delight and amaze the reader with subjective and uncontrolled interpretations and the "fluttering and bizarre game of wits and metaphors" (p. XX). In Silos instead, the dictates of the Counterreformation have a strong weight and often the heavy and pedantic themes of sacred oratory emerge" (p. XXI). The mythological tale, dear to Marino, becomes a parable (p. XLVI). The evaluation on the art work follows criteria imbued with ethical values or, more simply, moralizing values. Beyond these basic differences M.B.B. captures other ones and marks them, to clarify the position of the two poets: "for example" - I found written on p. XLIII - "in the second section Silos reserves considerable space to the statues of the ancients and even to the archaeological sites and ruins of Rome, completely ignored by Marino. Equally extraneous to the culture of Marino is the recovery of medieval painting, from the most famous Madonnas of San Luca to Giotto’s Navicella, which Silos operates from time to time with obvious devotional and apologetic intents." At page LI she touches another point: "It is all too obvious that in the case of Silos any authentic and direct contact with the world of artists is lacking, while Marino had lived almost constantly in contact with them." And on p. LVI it is stated: "... it seems clear that Silos did not seek contacts with artists and even with qualified "experts"; rather, he preferred to attempt approaches, even difficult, with the old aristocratic families or with humanists and amateurs." In short, rather than establishing meaningful and lasting relationships with the creators of works of art, he tried to get in touch with those who had collected both works of other periods as well as paintings of his time, so he could directly examine them and draw ideas for the drafting of new epigrams. The problem which is closest to Silos’s heart is not to have access to the "studios" of the artists, but rather to be allowed to visit some private collections, almost inaccessible, existing in Rome.
For a reconsideration of the relationship Silos - Marino
What should
we think of the comparison which M.B.B. accomplished between Marino and Silos?
On some points I do not think that there can be reasons for dissent. M.B.B.
captures the true, when reporting interests that Marino had and Silos neglected,
such as the constant contact with the world of artists and experts in the
visual arts, or when, on the contrary, she speaks of interests felt by Silos
and ignored or undervalued by the Neapolitan poet, as it is clearly shown by
the description of archaeological sites and monuments of ancient Rome in the
second part of the Pinacotheca and the extra space that Silos agreed to
sculpture. And here, on the subject of the sculpture, one can not help but say
that the figure of Bernini, enthroned in the period between the two collections,
played a certainly not negligible role in determining the change in position
that is felt in Silos. But when from these comparisons we move to other topics
covered in the introductory essay and to whom – perhaps excessively - M.B.B.
seems to give a more consistent weight, some reasons of doubt begins to emerge.
Clearly, in the words of the curator it is always possible to capture
something true; yet occasionally it happens to perceive a certain stiffness in
the analysis, a taste for clean cuts and sharp contrasts, a pleasure for intense
and sharp tints and, as an inevitable consequence, a lack of preference for
chiaroscuro and more attenuated conclusions. Even the reference to
Schlosser, from which begins the discourse on the influences of Marino,
reflects this attitude that sometimes seems to derive more from particular vibrations
of the character than from perceptions that slowly matured in the course of the
study. M.B.B. ascribes to the Austrian scholar far more than he had in
fact written, presenting him as a believer of a close relationship between the two
collections; this is a thesis which fits badly with the prudence and the
mentality of Schlosser and which – in any case – is not reflected in the lines
of his text, which simply drops a hint to the influence of Marino ("Einfluß Marinos" in
Schlosser’s original edition [11]) which it is possible to
capture in Silos in a certain sense ("in gewissem Sinne"). A
very cautious approach, as you can see; more an interpretative proposal that an
indication of rigid constrictions and strong relationships.
A
similar stiffness is to be seen when M.B.B., after having laid aside Schlosser,
takes her own path and sets out her conclusions on the differences between the
two authors. I repeat: the remarks are essentially correct, but prove to be too
peremptory to represent a very articulate reality. Marino and Silos are not figures
with fixed attitudes and always consistent statements: with their volatility they
can often justify anything and the contrary. A censoring and preachy mentality is
definitely present in Silos, which is typical of the world of the Counter-reformation.
In some cases it even emerges an obsessive opposition to the
"naked", which leads him to censor even great artists. In the epigram
149 (in the section with paintings), in front of a Venus by Titian, he imagines
to address directly the artist and gives him a warning:
"Discipline
yourself: with your colours, you enhance the graceful beauty of Venus
But you also
reduce the estimate of your morality.
If Venus
is so perfectly painted, there is nothing more vile:
and with
her attractive appearance, she dishonours his Manufacturer."
In
another epigram (171), where he refers to another work of Titian, namely Venus
with Cupid, Silos keeps the same attitude of disapproval:
"When you represent the graces of Venus ...
Do not think, Titian, then to reach the highest peaks of art
and to make your paintings famous thanks to your talent."
 |
| Titian, Venus with Cupid |
Recommendations
of the genre are almost unthinkable in Marino, but it should be added that Silos
is not always the bigoted that appears in these two heavy compositions. In
"Adam and Eve naked after sin" (epigram 192, always in the part
devoted to painting), attributed to Francesco Francia, we read:
"The leaves provide the first dress ...
However,
the Painter does not hide these things with any veil,
to make
sure no clothes overshadow his masterpiece. "
There is
no scandal to the naked bodies: Silos understands that, without any freedom of
composition, which had been however denied elsewhere, the painter would have not
been able to make the best of his creative abilities.
In defense of the principles strongly supported by ecclesiastical authority, Silos condemns the heresies and writes verses of fire against Elizabeth of England (epigram 272). But this was not just his habit and it is just sufficient to browse through Marino’s Gallery to discover images controversially distorted not only of the Queen of England, but also of Luther, Calvin and the same Erasmus of Rotterdam. When in 1619 he entrusted to his Venetian printer to publish the Galeria, Marino was afraid to run into some trouble on the part of the censorship, and to avert the danger, advised the printer to call the attention of the father inquisitor "over portraits of several heretics, because, as you will see, they are invectives against them; and I wanted to include images of people displayed in evil, in order to avoid that the book remains incomplete". [12] It could be said that - in writing about these things - the soul of Marino was very different from that of Silos, but you cannot deny that similar attitudes were present in Marino, with traits and with an angle that had not gone unnoticed to Silos.
So, to
come to another subject, Marino should certainly be recognised the intent to
move between quirks and oddities and jokes on certain names and surnames, all
to magnify delight and pleasure, almost to stun the reader; but that being said, I do not think we can deny to Silos a similar attitude on more than one
occasion. The differences recorded in other cases between the two literates do
not entitle us to deny the efforts made by Silos to get closer to Marino. The
question is always the same: the assessments need to be softened and the
influences, where they exist, to be recognised in their full extent. The image
of a Lazarus risen twice (epigram 238), the first time for divine miracle and
the second time thanks to the ability of Tintoretto, who painted the scene
narrated in the Evangels, would probably have not displeased Marino. In the epigram
135 Silos converses on "The Three Marias at the Tomb of Christ” by
Salvator Rosa and plays, just like Marino loved to do, with the surname of the
artist (the italics are mine):
"Do you
know who performed this remarkable work of painting?
that
famous noble flower of art, to which the beauty
of a rose
gave a pretty name.
This work
will flourish forever:
a rose
performs it and makes it flourishing.
The references
to the name of the artist, certainly less frequent and brilliant than in Marino,
are however not entirely abandoned by Silos, as evidenced by another epigram (71,
also in the first section), this time dedicated to "Christ at the column"
by Sebastiano del Piombo:
"I am
astonished that the artist was able to paint this cruel
flagellation without
his hand being frozen and having
remained lifeless.
But the
painter was "Piombo [Lead] made! May a
leaden author ever experience compassion?
No, so that his hand did not remain
inert."
It can be
discussed - how much you want - on the opacity of these verses, but not on a
reference to Marino’s taste. The quirks, the word games and their manipulation
did not mind at all to the author of the Pinacotheca: it is not, I
think, by accident that the only composition of another hand hosted in the
publication (I am referring to the verses by Gibbes) are based on a pair of
palindromes, i.e. two-faced words (vol II , p. 4):
" ... Sounds
like Roma Amor, as with one voice only
the fame
sings: Silos has all of the Sun [solis]."
The
Latin Roma (Rome) is palindrome to the Latin word Amor {Love], Silos to
Solis, genitive of the Latin word "sol", the Sun.
The importance of a modern edition of the Pinacotheca
Nothing
would prohibit adding other considerations in support of those above and to
dwell on the contrast, very dear to the editor, between "ut pictura poësis"
("as is painting so is poetry", adaptable to the position of
Marino) and "ut pictura oratoria " ("as is painting so is
rhetoric”, due to the case of Silos), i.e. on a contrast which, while having
gained some sympathy (cf. De Benedictis, p. 96 [13] and Trabucco, p. 67 [14])
seems also built-up with some trouble and with a certain pretension. The
particular emphasis of B.M.M. on this contrast between Marino and Silos could justify,
without any difficulty, such a choice. I would not like, however, in doing so, to
commit ungenerously the mistake of forgetting some essential features that make
the new edition of the Pinacotheca so culturally valuable. Finally,
we came out of the silence of the past and from the vicious circle of brief and
reciprocal quotations; now the possibility is given to the reader to form a
direct and personal opinion on Silos, a definitely boring poet but capable,
despite everything, to provide information and to evoke typical positions of the
Baroque age. The translation - that is meant to be a literal as possible, and
that does not resort to unnecessary frills - helps making possible a reading
that otherwise would have been unpleasant, difficult or even impossible.
Without the effort by M.B.B., I would have never read the Pinacotheca. She
writes, with great modesty: my research "tried simply (my
italics) to offer the scholars a reading, the more easily it can be, of a
little-known work, placing it in its historical and cultural coordinates"
(p. XVI). No, too little. That "simply" which I thought was
worth mentioning in italics (as a sign of respect) cannot make us forget the
hardships and difficulties of a job that would have never come to an end without an anything
but common great tenacity and love for old writings on figurative art.
And then,
when one finally comes out of the long and insistent talk about the comparison between
the Galeria and the Pinacotheca, you will discover - maybe just hinted
- some suggestive references and insights that deserve to be further elaborated.
I think (for example) to the "doubt", shown on p. XL, "that
the entire collection has perhaps not been composed under one single inspiration but has
grown with ensuing additions, juxtaposed to very old editions". If these
are the doubts, they are more than welcome. A similar critical path would make
possible to follow the evolution of taste and thought, making us to realize even
certain combinations and, at the same time, some contrapositions to the Galeria.
And then I think of the suggestive references to Achillini (a stubborn
follower of Marini) [15], the Latin epigrams by Andrea Mariani [16], Les
peintures morales (Moral paintings) of Pierre Le Moyne [17], the Treaty of Ottonelli and Pietro da Cortona [18], the Dicerie Sacre (Sacred Dialogues)
[19] - and not just the Galeria - by Giambattista Marino. Very
precise and justified is the distinction between the body of the epigrams by Silos
and the Proloquia (Introductions), with their fragile attempts of a theoretical
approach. Well-chosen are the references to the works of some artists. Surprising
references to Caravaggio: I would have never expected that a so tired and often distracted
versifier could offer a so tasty delight as the one that M.B.B. note on p. LI:
Unlike the learned rulers of the Church of San Luigi dei Francesi, Silos
preferred the refused canvas of San Matteo e l’angelo (St. Matthew and
the Angel) to the more faded version that took its place in the Contarelli Chapel.
NOTES
[1] For
information on James Alban Gibbes see:
[2] It
would seem (but being information collected on Wikipedia it must be confirmed)
that actually Elsum printed a first collection in 1700, and then slightly
modified versions in 1703 and in 1704:
[3] Girolamo Tiraboschi, Storia della
letteratura italiana (History of Italian Literature), 9 vols. From 1772 to
1782.
[4] Catalogo della libreria del fu cavaliere
Giuseppe Bossi. (Catalogue of the library of the late Cavalier
Giuseppe Bossi). Note
critique of Paola Barocchi, S.P.E.S. Studi per Edizioni Scelte, without date, (reprint
edition 1817). Owned in this library.
[5] Leopoldo
Cicognara, Catalogo ragionato dei libri d’arte e d’antichità posseduti dal
Conte Cicognara (Annotated catalogue of the books on art and antiques owned
by the Count Cicognara), Arnaldo Forni publisher, 1998 (reprint edition 1821). Owned
in this library.
[6] Julius Schlosser Magnino, La letteratura
artistica. (The literature on art). Consulted in the 3rd
edition. Nuova Italia, 1967. Owned in this library.
[7]
Pollak, Oskar; Schudt, Ludwig. Le Guide di Roma: Materialen zu einer
Geschichte der römischen Topographie/unter Benutzung des Handschriftlichen
Nachlasses von Oskar Pollak (The Guides of Rome: Materials on a History of
Roman Topography/based on the manuscript remains of Oskar Pollak; edited by
Ludwig Schudt. Vienna;
Augsburg: Benno Filser, 1930.
[8] Fabia Borroni. Il Cicognara. Bibliografia
dell’Archeologia classica e dell’Arte italiana. (Cicognara.
Bibliography on Classical Art and Italian Archaeology). Volume I, Tome II.
Florence, Sansoni Antiques, 1955.
[9] A
mere citation in Sergio Rossetti, A Bibliography from the Invention of Printing
through 1899. I. The Guide Books, Florence, Leo S. Olschki, 2000. Owned in
this library.
[10] Giovanbattista Marino, La Galeria (The
Gallery). We consulted the edition edited by Marzio Pieri,
Padua, Liviana Editorial, 1979. Owned in this library.
[11] Julius von Schlosser, Die
Kunstliteratur (The Literature on Art), Vienna, Anton Schroll, 1924. Consulted
in the reprint published by the same publisher in 1985. Owned in this library.
[12] Giovanbattista Marino, Lettere (Letters), edited by Graziano Guglielminetti,
Turin, Einaudi, 1966, p. 213. Owned in this library.
[13] Cristina De Benedictis, Per la storia del collezionismo italiano. Fonti e documenti. (History of
Italian collectors. Sources and documents). Florence, Ponte alle Grazie, 199,
p. 96. Present in this library.
[14] Alfonso Trabucco, La Galeria di Giambattista Marino (the Gallery of Giambattista Marino), Pescara, Tracce
Publishers, 1998, p . 67. Owned in this library.
[15] See Dizionario
Biografico degli Italiani
(Biographical Dictionary of Italian), Alberto Asor Rosa, see item:
[16] See
Biographical Dictionary of Italian, Rita De Tata, see item:
[17] Pierre Le Moyne, Les
Peintures Morales, 1641
[18] Giovan Domenico Ottonelli; Pietro da Cortona. Trattato della Pittura e Scultura, uso e
abuso loro (Treatise
on Painting and Sculpture, use and abuse hereof - 1652), edited by Vittorio
Casale, Treviso, Canova Publisher, 1973. Owned in this library.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento