ENGLISH VERSION Re-Reading Leonardo. The Treatise on Painting across Europe, 1550-1900 PART 4

Claire Farago
Who Abridged Leonardo da Vinci's Treatise on Painting?

in

Re-Reading Leonardo. The Treatise on Painting across Europe, 1550-1900
Edited and introduced by Claire Farago

Francesco Melzi. Portrait of Leonardo da Vinci

[1] Let us reveal from the outset that there shall be no conclusive answer. Farago moves from an undeniable assumption: compared to the little that is known about the early steps from Melzi’s archetype compilation to the apograph manuscripts, we know much more (despite some breaks) about the steps which, starting from Cassiano dal Pozzo’s attempts, led to the publication of the first printed edition in 1651 (see, e.g., Mauro Pavesi, ‘Cassiano dal Pozzo, Nicolas Poussin e la prima edizione a stampa del «Trattato della Pittura» di Leonardo tra Roma, Milano e Parigi’ - Nicolas Poussin and the first printed edition of the "Treatise on Painting" by Leonardo between Rome, Milan and Paris’ in ‘Tracce di letteratura artistica in Lombardia’ - Tracks of literature on arts in Lombardy, but also in other essays in this volume). It is taken for granted that the first apograph manuscript went (for now) lost. Nor do we know for what reason only the second, third and fourth parts were taken from the Book of Painting, thereby "eliminating the sections on light and shade and aerial perspective altogether "(p. 81). That said, the history of the various manuscripts is highly uncertain, it being understood that the greater number of specimens can be found in the Florentine area and can be traced back to years between roughly 1560 and 1580. Carlo Pedretti, for example, believes that particular importance should be attributed to ms. Concini (Riccardiana 2308), from which all the other Florentine versions would be derived. Farago does not share this view; first of all she considers that it is appropriate to emphasize the occurrence of a group of codes in the same city and more or less around the same time; these manuscripts do not differ significantly from each other, but above all do not differ significantly from the first printed edition of 1651. Our authoress’ view is that everything is an expression of an attempt to publish the Treaty of Leonardo: “the thesis is that a group of literary humanists associated with both the Florentine literary academy (the Accademia fiorentina) and the art academy (the Accademia del disegno founded in 1563) collaborated before Archduke Cosimo I’s death in 1574 on a plan to publish an abridged version of Melzi’s compilation” (p. 81). In the group of codes one cannot fail to mention those named Concini, Giacomini and Gaddi (which led in 1586 to the Pinelliano code); carefully comparing the texts of individual manuscripts with that of the first edited version of 1651 (remember that Farago is working to a critical edition of this publication), the impression is that the fundamental manuscript was the Giacomini manuscript and not the Concini one, which would derive from it. The Concini manuscript would rather be a "fair copy", to be presented to potential funders of the publication or to request an artist of some retrofit work with accurate illustrations (see p. 83). 

[2] It has been already said that, whenever it has been set up, the transcription of Melzi’s archetype does not reveal to be only a mere copy, but shows signs of being a particular publishing project. “The abridged version of Melzi’s text eliminates the Parte prima of the Codex Urbinas, where Melzi had collected definitions of painting and arguments for the supremacy of painting over the other arts. The editors who abridged the Codex Urbinas also eliminated Books 5 through 8 of the Codex Urbinas, where passages on light and shade, the treatment of reflected color in landscape, the representation of atmospheric conditions, the treatment of the curvature of the horizon, and other topics we sometimes refer to today under the heading of aerial perspective were gathered. The editors... also did not hesitate to condense and eliminate passages in the three sections they did include from the Codex Urbinas, and they frequently inserted their own words and phrases” (pp. 87-88). However, more attention should be paid not only to what is missing in the apograph manuscripts, but also to what they contain in addition. A non-secondary element, for example, is that in two manuscripts attributed to the same "publishing project" - Giacomini and Gaddi - the discussion is included of the second of ‘Le due regole della prospettiva pratica’ (The two rules of practical perspective) by Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola. The publishing history of the Two rules is processed by Francesca Fiorani in ‘Danti Edits Vignola: The Formation of a Modern Classic on Perspective’. In particular, we know that the work was only published posthumously in 1583 by the Dominican Father Egnazio Danti. And here we come to the figure of Egnazio Danti, who worked for the Medici family until the death of Cosimo I (1574), and that as from 1571 was officially a professor of mathematics at the court. “Fiorani believes it likely that Danti initially used Vignola’s manual to prepare lectures delivered at the Medici court and that he wrote the major portion of his commentary in connection with this teaching, beginning as early as 1567 and extending into the early 1570s” (p. 91). We also know from the correspondence of Gian Vincenzo Pinelli, that in 1585 Egnazio Danti, who had fallen out of favour with the rise to power of Francesco I and moved therefore to Rome, was still in possession of an apograph copy of the manuscripts of Leonardo. It is quite likely that this copy was already at his disposal in Florence. Vagnetti writes in De naturali et artificiali perspectiva (On natural and artificial perspective) about the first printed edition by Danti / Vignola: "... it soon became clear that the exposition of the second rule was particularly valuable. This was the one relating to the use of points of the distance, undoubtedly already known and used by previous practitioners and some theoretical experts in prospective, but never exposed so clearly and convincingly as in this text - cf. p. 321)”. It is therefore possible to begin thinking that in Florence, thanks to Egnazio Danti or someone in his circle, matured the idea of compiling a "hybrid" work, which would exhibit a first part with the rules of linear perspective, in particular the second one fixed by Vignola and reviewed by Danti, combined with a second part with “Leonardo’s precepts dealing with the composition of figures on painting that make up the three sections of the abridged treatise” (p. 91). It is clear that the end result would have been a very different text than designed by Leonardo (in fact the relevant part on the aerial perspective, eccentric with respect to the linear one, is eliminated), but perfectly functional for an audience of young artists and men court gravitating around the Academy. 

[3] In all fairness, the hypothesis advanced by Claire Farago is suggestive, but needs to be explored further. The perhaps less convincing aspect is the substantial non-participation in the project of men like Vincenzo Borghini, Giorgio Vasari and Cosimo Bartoli. And yet, knowing that surprises never end (think for example about the recent rediscovery of the Italian translation of the Institutiones geometricae of Albrecht Dürer by Cosimo Bartoli) the impression is that the overall framework of the thesis of the authoress is sufficiently solid. 

[4] In response to some questions raised by Ricardo Santos de Mambro in his review of the work (http://arthistoriography.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/media_183214_en.pdf), Claire Farago said to have reconsidered the question of the first apograph of Melzi’s text. Of course, it is still impossible to know who might really its author, but Farago says to be more and more inclined to the view that this text was not drafted in Florence (where there is no trace of a passage of the Codex Vaticanus Urbinas 1270), but in Milan, during the period of stay in town of Cardinal Carlo Borromeo (1560-1584). Farago refers to the future publication of the critical edition of the Treaty to provide more guidance. Her writing can be read at http://arthistoriography.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/media_183216_en.pdf