ENGLISH VERSION Ilaria Miarelli Mariani, Seroux d'Agincourt e l'Histoire de l'Art par les monumens. Bonsignori editore, 2005

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Ilaria Miarelli Mariani

Seroux d’Agincourt e l’Histoire de l’Art par les monumens

Riscoperta del Medioevo, dibattito storiografico 

e riproduzione artistica tra fine XVIII e inizio XIX secolo
[Seroux d’Agincourt and the Histoire de l’Art par les monumens

Rediscovery of Middle Age, historiographic debate and artistic reproduction between end of the XVIII and beginning of the XIX century]

Bonsignori editore, 2005

Isbn 88-7597-368-7

Histoire de l'Art par les monumens. Vol. IV. Plate LXIV:Historical and Chronological Chart of the Frontispieces of Temples, Before and During the Decadence of Art
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Site Tolbiac, Réserve des Livres Rares
© BNF

[1] Seroux (or Séroux) d'Agincourt is a widely quoted figure in history of art, because of his Histoire de l’Art par les monumens depuis sa décadence au IVe siècle jusqu’a son renouvellement au XVIe siècle. (History of art through monuments, since its decadence around the fourth century until its renovation in the fifteenth century). However, today is also a little-known person. His masterpiece was published in France in installments over the course of thirteen years (1810 to 1823) and reprinted in full in six volumes, again in 1823. Seroux (1730-1814) had already passed away since several years. In Italy, the Histoire de l'Art  was printed between 1826 and 1829 (or 1830 according to Schlosser) with Stefano Ticozzi as editor. Another edition is to be recalled in Mantua on 1841. Since then, in our country, nothing more. Not only was Seroux’s Histoire de l'Art no longer published, but it is impressive to see that a nucleus of significant monographs on the author has been lacking. It is therefore reasonable to think that, on some occasions, when expressing views, scholars may have uncritically repeated those expressed by the most famous exponents of art historiography. Fortunately, it seems that things are changing: this valuable work by Ilaria Miarelli Mariani has now come the market, and above all quite in spring 2006 a new edition of the Histoire de l'Art (always edited by Miarelli Mariani) has appeared for the types of Nino Aragno publisher.

Histoire de l'Art par les monumens. The Basilica of Saint Vitale in Ravenna

[2] Being forced to summarise, I would say that until today Seroux has been interpreted according to two quite different perspectives. On the one hand, one can place Schlosser, who in his work Letteratura artistica (On the art literature) (pp. 488-489) speaks briefly, but in flattering terms, on it. After recalling Seroux’s move to Rome in 1787 (then already in an advanced age) as well as his relations with the erudite world of the time, Schlosser writes: "What did Winckelmann in the field of history of ancient art, [Seroux] applied to later times... Even his masterpiece, released after his death, with its 325 engraved plates in outline (the result of 30-year studies, still remarkable for the unusual things in it, especially on Middle Ages), reveals him as a follower of the great German - as indeed he professed himself - and a true patriarch of modern art history. His work investigates the language of the monuments themselves; the stylistic analysis prevails on the antiquarian interest, and the author is never tired of pointing out that the decisive organ is the eye of the researcher, that the formal interpretation must replace the one of the contents, and that the primary sources and the work of art itself must take precedence over indirect literary tradition. Its historical system presupposes the great world-historical orientation of the French ... The work of d'Agincourt is therefore fundamental to our subject [note of the translator: i.e. art literature] and is still a lighthouse shining in its history." On the other hand, certainly more negative is the judgment of those referring to the view expressed by Giovanni Previtali in his La fortuna dei primitivi (The fortune of the primitives) (pp. 164-175). Previtali invites not to fall in a trap, when Seroux focuses “on the need for the reader to ‘look at’ the monuments, and to base himself on the ‘style’... In fact d'Agincourt looked much less at the monuments than at the drawings that friends sent to him... or at the etchings of printed works" (p. 166). What is convincing Previtali the least, then, is precisely the weakness of Seroux’s critics, too tied to an abstract idea of ​​decadence of the arts first (from the fourth to the twelfth century) and then a rebirth (from the twelfth to the sixteenth century) that leads to exclude "monuments and artists, also of high value, simply because ‘they are not important for development' of arts" (p. 167). In general, Seroux’s attitude towards medieval arts is too strict and reflects the cultural background of the author, bound in his French years to Caylus and Mariette (who certainly did not appreciate the artists of the Middle Ages). Moreover, the work of Seroux was actually born old; published in 1823, "it was composed between 1779 and 1789... Around 1789, he already was sending it to Paris to have it printed and only the events of the French Revolution advised his friends to send him back the copper plates" (p. 165); the next thirty years allowed some bibliographic updates, but did not change the underlying system. Previtali, in short, does not believe that the stature of Seroux can flank, for example, that of a Lanzi and his Storia pittorica (History of Painting). Only after considering these limitations, however, it must be "taken into account - in the right measure - the importance he played in the culture of the time, especially for the high level disclosure work and for the dissemination of artistic interest in the Middle Ages" (p. 173). It is also worth referring to a more nuanced position (but still basically in agreement with Previtali) expressed by Luigi Grassi in Teorici e storia della critica d’arte. Vol. 3°. Il Settecento in Italia (Theorists and history of art criticism. Vol 3. The eighteenth century in Italy (pp. 191-195).

Histoire de l'Art par les monumens. Notre-Dame de Paris

[3] Ilaria Miarelli Mariani, faced with statements such as those set out above, makes in our opinion the correct choice: she starts from the archives and re-read the documents; she covers his years in France, his successful career as a royal officer, his cultural formation under the influence of Caylus and Mariette, the travelling period in Europe and in Italy and his move to Rome in 1781 (a simple trip to a few months according to the initial intent, then transformed into a permanent stay along thirty years). From this material, some aspects of great interest can be identified:

• The choice of Seroux to devote himself to the history of medieval art has nothing amazing or incredible; it dates back to his years in France and is the challenge of a man who "for pure love of history ... decided to set out into such a desert" (p.192); 

• Seroux devoted himself to this project for over thirty years. In these decades, he was able to set up a network of scholars, artists, and designers of international dimension, such that he was very soon recognised as a point of reference for all those who wanted to dedicate to the studies of the ‘dark ages’; 

• The preparatory material for the Histoire de l'Art is kept at the Vatican Library. This is an impressive body of graphic material from which Seroux drew to print the work, which, it should be remembered, in its 325 tables reproduces "partially or in full, more than 1,400 monuments, of which, Seroux adds with pride, "more than seven hundred have never been published" (p. 130); 

• It is not true that preparatory work is completed in the years prior to 1789. The final draft, indeed, appears to be of 1809-1810 (p. 201); 

• The fact remains that the work, to put it in two words, was born "old", in some way: "Seroux found himself operating in an era of rapid transformation. What he assessed as a negative pattern for artists and art lovers had already begun to attract the attention of international taste since at least two decades "(p. 196), while Seroux "in perfect harmony with his training and Neoclassical antiques... was passionate, yet in the new century, for the ancient sculpture, and not the medieval one" (ibid.); 

• Seroux, in short, is not a Lanzi, nor cares to be one. When, on 9th October 1812 Seroux wrote to Léon Dufourny to elicit a more rapid publication of his work, it is not because he feared that new critical perspectives would supersede the eyes with which he had interpreted the world, but because he saw his birthright in this matter as threatened. Seroux wants to be for medieval art what Winckelmann had been with his Storia dell’arte dell’antichità (Art History in Antiquity). It is no coincidence that in the original design, the full title of his work is Histoire de l’Art par les monumens depuis sa décadence au IVe siècle jusqu’a son renouvellement au XVIe siècle, pour servir de suite a l’Histoire de l’Art chez les Anciens. (History of art through monuments, since its decadence around the fourth century until its renovation in the fifteenth century, to serve as a continuation of the history of art with the antiques). And in the end, it is not so difficult to understand: Seroux was more than eighty years old and had dedicated his life to a single project. Now, that birthright, the personal track record that was legitimized through decades of uninterrupted studies was threatened by the publication of texts with iconographic work of other artists whom often Seroux had encouraged and introduced himself to the study of matter. The man who writes to Dufourny, in 1812, it is neither a precursor nor a scholar tied to the past: it is only an individual who fears, at the end of life, to loose what he indeed deserves, and in his weakness he cannot but arouse our sympathies.

[4] Of particular interest is the chapter devoted to "The graphic documentation for the Histoire de l'Art" (pp. 129-167).

[5] Sorry to say, but Miarelli Mariani’s work would have deserved another round of revisions of the draft text. As well known, these are decisions not depending on the will of the author.