ENGLISH VERSION Luciano Mazzaferro. Giovan Battista Marino: Artistic Interests Between Court Life and Art Collecting. Part One

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Luciano Mazzaferro
Giovan Battista Marino: 

Artistic Interests Between Court Life and Art Collecting
Part One: The 'Dicerie Sacre'

[Note by Giovanni and Francesco Mazzaferro: This text is the faithful transcription and translation of a manuscript of our father, Luciano Mazzaferro. He produced a comment to three works by Giovan Battista Marino (1569-1625), in which the interests in art of the Italian Baroque poet emerged: the first of his Dicerie sacre (Sacred Dialogues), the Galeria (Gallery) and the Lettere (Letters). The title of the writing, as well as its division into paragraphs and the notes are our editorial input.]

Frans Pourbus il Giovane, Portrait of Giovanni Battista Marino (1621)
Fonte: Detroit Institute of Art

Introduction

Giovan Battista Marino was not an original thinker, nor deepened the thought of predecessors and contemporaries to produce new aesthetic guidelines; he was rather well informed on the popular theories in the classical age or on those created in the High and Late Renaissance; however, he used them not for cognitive intents, but for practical goals, for panegyric and flattery purposes in court life. He frequented artistic circles; was in correspondence with artists, engravers and painters (not always – and in fact, rarely - of great stature); had however an understanding that it would be unfair to say superficial of technical procedures. He loved to collect works of art; got practice of various rules and tricks of art markets and resorted to various expedients to form and to enrich his collection. In his choices as collector he demonstrated a plurality of tastes and orientations which attest a general eclecticism, and not a reasoned preference for any specific stylistic currents. It is not true that he took action to ensure that Caravaggio would be commissioned to paint the canvas of the Contarelli Chapel; this thesis, supported by Bellori [1], does not come across with the fact that, when the contract for the execution of the works in San Luigi dei Francesi was drafted, Marino was still in Naples and could not operate for the benefit of Caravaggio, as well of any other painter, in Rome. He had, however, a merit that cannot go unrecognized: during his stay in Paris he discovered and helped to enhance Nicolas Poussin who, grateful and convinced of the greatness of the Neapolitan poet, portrayed him a couple of times: one time under the aspect of Ovid in the "Triumph" of the National Gallery of Ancient Art in Rome and the other one in the "Parnassus" now preserved in the Museo del Prado. Nor should it be forgotten that, even with the limitations that he was never able to overcome - and perhaps exactly because of the presence and relevance of these limits - Marino was able to represent the prevailing trends in the court life and the prevalent understanding among many art lovers at the end of the sixteenth and in the first quarter of the seventeenth centuries. To represent the preferences of Marino we refer to the Dicerie sacre (Sacred Dialogues) [2], the Galeria (Gallery) [3] and his Lettere (Letters) [4]. His other works are of only marginal importance for our interests.

The Dicerie sacre (Sacred Dialogues)

The first of the Dicerie sacre, the only one that is of interests to us, is entitled La pittura (The painting) and has the subtitle Diceria prima sopra la Santa Sindone (First dialogue, above the Holy Shroud). Considered by some as a veritable treatise of art, it is actually a mixture or combination of topics of art interest with a blatant sycophantic intent towards the Duke, who sheltered Marino in Turin and with apologetics intentions on religion influenced by the climate following the Council of Trent.

I believe that it is possible to find an orientation among the topics in the Diceria only by following the two leitmotifs along which the two fundamental theses are developed. The first of the two themes is treated in the initial pages and taken up in the final ones; the second, less easy to read, is inserted and almost embedded in the other one, occupying the central part of the Diceria.

The Shroud

The Shroud

Here, in brief, is how the first of the two issues is treated. Without denying the connections that exist between them, the poet compares painting with sculpture and wonders which of the two art expressions merits a position of primacy. It returns, as you can see, the old theme of the "paragone delle arti” (comparison of the arts), already widely present in the artistic literature of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Marino gives the floor to Painting and Sculpture, depicting arguments and evaluations often heard in the past: the commentator, Giovanni Pozzi, reminds the precedents provided by Leon Battista Alberti, Baldassare Castiglione and Benedetto Varchi [5], but there would be no need of a great effort of memory to compile a list of much greater size. Marino puts into the mouth of the two arts (here personified and made talkative by his indisputable presentation skills) various reasons in support of their own prestige and the lower standing to be given to the other party. At the end of the comparison, the assessment turns to the benefit of painting, but it is interesting to note that the final judgment is not made by taking into account the validity of any evidence adduced by the winning art or by the poor intake of the speeches given by Sculpture. The verdict in favour of painting is the consequence of an assessment of an entirely different nature, of a sharply religious and metaphysical cutting. In defence of Painting - Marino writes (p. 86 ff.) - there is an incontrovertible "reason": "and that the same great and almighty God who wanted more paintings than sculptures (according to the way of our understanding) to be shown". Just consider how "he [editor's note, i.e. God] – in order to enrich the equipment of his Church of a priceless furniture – has left on the earth - of his own hand stained ..." a mysterious drape "painted with immortal and divine colours." It goes without saying that the cloth to which Marino refers is the Shroud of Turin. The choice to represent the Saviour on linen, as if it were a self-portrait, would without any doubt be the best testimony of the primacy of painting and its more representation capacity vis-à-vis sculpture.

In truth this is not the first time an argument similar or analogous to that advanced by Marino has been used, to decide the comparison between the two arts to the benefit of painting or, more generally, to reiterate the proclaimed "nobility of painting." The author of the Diceria, far from being original, leaves sufficient traces to demonstrate how he took account even here of statements found in some treatises (which, as usual, he abstains from mentioning). But this is his habit: not mentioning the work of others, but looting it, if it is convenient. Pozzi (p. 87 footnote) recalls the precedent of Armenini that gives strength to his declared preference for painting by quoting the behaviour "of Jesus Christ himself, our Lord and Saviour, because he himself was pleased to let us expressly the true likeness of his holy and divine face painted with immortals colours above a simple veil; really great and stupendous miracle in all the world." This is the "Blessed Shroud of the Holy Veronica, which is so well known among Christians, that people from all the extreme parts of the earth come to Rome to see it" (p. 49). The work by Armenini appeared in 1587 [6]. In the same period other art lovers, and all of first quality, used the same reasoning to emphasise the "nobility" of painting and its "utility" for purposes of religious education: Cardinal Paleotti in 1582 [7], Romano Alberti in 1585 [8] and Lomazzo [9]. Armenini, Paleotti and Alberti refer exclusively to Veronica's veil; the author of the sixteenth century to which Marino approaches more frequently, i.e. Lomazzo, cites first Veronica and then, as if were to strengthen its argument, the image left in the "sheet" guarded "by the Serene Duke of Savoy". Marino’s writing differs from the previous ones in two points only. First, when the veil of Veronica, of paramount importance to the other treatises, is downgraded to "a sketch of the face of Christ, adumbrated with sweat in a hanky," in short an image reported on a handkerchief to blow the nose. And second, when the Shroud - a true picture of the whole body of Christ - is considered as if it were an extravagant amulet or a certificate of special divine favour. At page 191 I read: "Rings [editor's note: "protective belt "] around Italy are these insurmountable Alps: rings around Turin are these impregnable walls; but the safest and the strongest protection for your whole state, Serene Sire, this is the holy shroud, that bastion which defends you from all your enemies and protects you from every trap." And at page 193 I find: "The infinite goodness of the Savior turned to different cities and spread different instruments to different princes, in order to distribute its sweet Passion. In Milan it left a nail, to Naples gave a thorn, to Paris the entire crown, to Rome gave the spear, a little blood to Mantua, part of the Cross to Jerusalem: but everything that was distinctly divided among many, has been generously provided altogether to one. To you (Serene Sire), it has been pleased to bestow upon something, which collects the entire contents of these many mysteries in a small compendium: because anyone who seeks this most sacred framework, expressly sees the scars of nails, the wounds of thorns, and the crack of the spear, and the source of the blood and the stiffness of the Cross. For this reason you can devoutly claim to have almost depleted the treasury of heaven, and in some way stripped God of all her greatest wealth." Finally, on p. 197, the Marino exclaims: "No greater and more vigorous argument I can find to prove that you (Serene Sire) are singularly beloved by God, if not to see that he was stripped of that cloth itself that covered him, and he made a free gift of it to you." It is true that Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy was called the Great; but probably the Neapolitan artist, received under the protection of Savoy in Turin, resorted to some exaggeration.

The impossibility of perfection in art as a theological argument

So far the first of the two themes of the Diceria dedicated to painting. And here is - in fact trapped in the previous argument - the second theme, obviously reduced to the essentials. Although painting offers much more valid means of expression of the sculpture, Marino is also convinced that no painter could in practice have all the necessary elements to achieve perfection in the art. To make a painter "excellent and perfect" will require - and the author of the Adone supports it with drawn swoforcefully - three conditions: "science, wisdom and diligence" (p. 89). But already the first of these conditions, namely science, shows itself as "imperfect" in the painters, "since it rarely or never happens that in a single craftsman all those disciplines join together which are necessary in such an art" (p. 91). And Marino mentions the need to learn theology " to be able to confidently describe the things of God , of the angels and of saints", anatomy "to move the muscles in their seats without cripple [not of the editor: baroque Italian: stroppio]", geometry "to draw lines with foundation", cosmography to properly "represent the places in the world", astrology "to show the images of Heaven", perspective “to get views and represent motions", and then various other disciplines and areas of knowledge that is almost useless to number, as those mentioned are sufficient to account for such heavy conditions required that perfection is in fact impossible. And, after the requirements of this first group, all classified under "science", Marino talks about those covered in the second part, first called as "wisdom" and then as "experience", which permit to represent special skills in artistic representation. To attain true perfection, the painter cannot simply follow the precautions of a single author, even if he is considered of high value, but must assimilate the qualities demonstrated by a significant number of teachers, taking from everyone the best which was able to give. At p. 93 it is said that the true creator of works of art is required to match "Parmigianino in grace, Correggio in tenderness, Titian in the heads, Bassano in the animals, Pordenone in the pride, Andrea del Sarto in sweetness, Giorgione in shading, Salviati in the draperies, Paolo Veronese in the vagueness, Tintoretto in haste, Albrecht Dürer in diligence, Cangiaso [note of the editor: Luca Cambiaso] in practice, Polidoro in battles, Buonarroti in glimpses, Rafael in many of the things above."

Already some connoisseurs in the same era as Marino, or at least in his own century, warned that the demands and requirements listed in this and the previous group were exaggerated and unjustified. Mancini, for example, wrote [10] (p. 7) that Marino was mistaken "by raising so many requirements to the painter"; a few decades later (but still in the same cultural climate) Scannelli [11] came to warn that "the Chevalier Marini [note of the editor: sic] especially in his speech on painting has gone beyond measure.” It is really hard to think that the Neapolitan poet did not understand how his requests were overly exaggerated, yet it is certain that (in addition to the conditions and obligations already mentioned) he even put some other requirements that he ended up placing under the third and final entry, that is, "diligence" too often "flawed" in painters (pp. 93 ff.). He did not decrease the long list, but continued to exaggerate. All of this is so manifest that we need to ask: why Marino went into this direction, which appears even unreasonable, and behaved accordingly? I believe that Marino has listed that many requirements and placed so many conditions because his main purpose was not to identify the criteria for critical evaluation of the validity of individual artistic experiences, but rather to prove – with all the elements at hand – the impossibility, or rather the inadmissibility to consider a pictorial realisation as perfect. The Marino as art writer has now given way to the preacher and amateur theologian, and in these new clothes what matters is to prove one thing: the only perfect author is God alone, since he is by definition omnipotent. It should be added that, while clearly emphasising the tones, Marino behaved also on this occasion without any particular originality: he came to conclusions which seem to get the shape of absurdity, but at the end of the sixteenth century had been tried with firmer spirit. Grassi rightly reminds [12] (p. 101, n . 3) a passage of Lomazzo where the figure of God looms as the supreme painter and artist, "who created in his likeness, by painting the heavens, the stars, the sun, the circumference of the earth, the waters and all the ends of the elements, with vague and graceful elementary colours" [13]. The figure of God as supreme manufacturer and painter is already outlined, but between Lomazzo and Marino a substantial difference can also be identified: the first one, to revere the divine power, does not render problematic the creative capacity of the artists; the second one, i.e. Marino, almost scorches the earth around normal painters, to decline them (apparently only in this writing of him) that perfection which is reserved, with a fierce preaching tone, exclusively to the transcendental. It does not take much to understand that, once accomplished, the comparison resolves to the obvious advantage of the treatise author from Lombardy [note of the editor: Lomazzo].

Is there really nothing in this Diceria sacra that would repay the reader's attention and would fully meet his expectation? There are really not many stimulating points we can recall, but still there is something that deserves to be tasted and remembered. I refer to some specific references to the then prevailing colour taste and I think to some intuitions, unfortunately lost in a sea of ​​unfocused propositions. I would like to recall a passage (p. 133), which talks of unfinished works: "Reverence and respect are due even to stains and sketches of great men; and even their unfinished works can be can admired the most, since you can see in them every minute of the thinking of the authors." These are words of a high standard and the only trouble with them comes from the fact that they belong to the scanty group of counter-current and exceptional things.

GO TO PART TWO 

NOTES

[1] Giovan Pietro Bellori, Le Vite de’ pittori, scultori e architetti moderni (The lives of the modern painters, sculptors and architects modern), edited by Evelina Borea, Turin, Einaudi, 1976 pages. 218; owned by this library.

[2] Giovanbattista Marino, Dicerie sacre e la strage de gl’innocenti, (Sacred Discourses and the Slaughter of the Innocents), edited by Giovanni Pozzi, Turin, Einaudi, 1960; owned by this library.

[3] Giovanbattista Marino, La Galeria (The Gallery), by Marzio Pieri, Padua, Liviana Editoriale, 1979; owned by this library.

[4] Giovanbattista Marino, Lettere (Letters), edited by Graziano Guglielminetti, Turin, Einaudi, 1966; owned by this library.

[5] See for all, Benedetto Varchi, Vincenzo Borghini, Pittura e Scultura nel Cinquecento (Painting and Sculpture in the sixteenth century), edited by Paola Barocchi, Livorno, Sillabe, 1998; owned by this library.

[6] Giovan Battista Armenini, De’ veri precetti della pittura (On the true precepts of the painting), curated by Marina Gorreri, Turin , Einaudi, 1988, p. 49; owned by this library.

[7] Gabriele Paleotti, Discorso intorno alle immagini sacre e profane (1582 ) (Speech about sacred and profane images - 1582), Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002, p. 58-59; owned by this library.

[8] Roman Alberti, Trattato della nobiltà della pittura (A Treatise of the nobility of painting) in Paola Barocchi (ed.), Trattati d’arte del Cinquecento (Art treatises of the sixteenth century), Vol III , p. 234, Bari, Laterza, 1962; owned by this library.

[9] Gian Paolo Lomazzo, Idea del tempio della pittura (Idea on the Temple of painting) in: Gian Paolo Lomazzo, Scritti sulle arti (Writings on the arts), edited by Roberto Paolo Ciardi, Vol I p . 265 , Florence, Marchi & Bertolli, 1973; owned by this library.

[10] Giulio Mancini, Considerazioni sulla pittura (Considerations on painting), Critical Edition and Introduction by Adriana Marucchi, Vol I, p. 7, Rome , Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei , 1956; owned by this library.

[11] Francesco Scannelli, Il microcosmo della pittura (The microcosm of painting), Vol I, 1989, p. 27, 29 and ff., Cassa dei Risparmi di Forlì, 1989. Reprint of the Cesena edition, 1657; owned by this library.

[12] Luigi Grassi, Teorici e storia della critica d’arte (Theorists and history of art criticism. Vol II. The Modern Age: The Seventeenth Century, p. 101, n. 3, Rome, Multigrafica editrice, 1973; owned by this library.

[13] Gian Paolo Lomazzo, see endnote 9, p . 245.