Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
GO TO THE CENNINI PROJECT
SEE ALSO Francesco Mazzaferro. Cennino Cennini in Hungary: At the Search of the Anonymous Author of the first Hungarian Translation
SEE ALSO Francesco Mazzaferro. Cennino Cennini in Hungary: At the Search of the Anonymous Author of the first Hungarian Translation
Giovanni Mazzaferro
CENNINO CENNINI, AN ENIGMATIC EDITION AND HUNGARY IN THE FIRST 1900
A census is not simply a list of names and years; it is the story of men and women, their ideas, and (sometimes) even of ideologies. Before Christmas, I posted the Check-List of the printed editions of the Book of Art by Cennino Cennini; I then kept it up to date with pieces of information received from several parties. Each new edition has been somewhat of a challenge to figure out how it had been produced, who had taken charge of it and why.
Of all the editions indicated, there is one that is still enigmatic to me, and perhaps has a special charm, for this reason. And yet, it gave me the opportunity to make acquaintance with a reality that, in all honesty, I did not know at all: that is the study and dissemination of Cennino’s Book of Art in Hungary during the early twentieth century, and the birth of Cennini Társaság (Cennini Society) in 1920.
But first things first, and we begin with a cover. This one:
.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
This is the cover of a "private edition" of the Treatise on Painting printed in Hungary. It is all I know. It was retrieved from the internet by my brother Francesco. There are three sites in which it appears:
• www.mokka.hu, which is the official catalogue of an electronic circuit of Hungarian libraries;
• on the website of an antiquarian http://www.antikva.hu;
• on the website of a second antiquarian http://vonnegutantikvarium.com.
The librarian site displays that year and place of publication (and even less the curator) are not known. The same applies to the website of the first antiquarian. On the site of the second antiquarian, the indication of one year appears instead: 1988. All three agree that the book is written in Hungarian.
I will tell you immediately: it seems to me unlikely that the year of publication is 1988 and the publication date escaped to the Hungarian libraries. However, I cannot discard anything. The site of the first antiquarian also shows an excerpt of the introduction (in Hungarian). I am quoting here the English translation. Of course, the name of the writer remains unknown:
"Through their work, the Cennini methods, recipes can be still recognised in our paintings. Sándor Nagy, as a college professor was handling over the traditions of the
tempera, the gesso base from Cennini 's time to generations of painters - though not quite so, as the master of Padova had written more than five hundred years ago. There are several reasons for this. One of the principal reasons is that the German translation,
which is used by Gödöllő was not accurate, was not complete. In addition, they added their own experience and methods gained from other sources as well; materials used by Cennini were no longer available, and they often mistakenly tried to make up for the
shortage (gypsum death). More than twenty years ago, I managed to get the most complete edition of Cennini's book in Rome, as one of them, and then I thought it was the most important from those foreign and domestic technical books of painting, which I chewed
through myself, to learn how to deal with all types of painting, from wall painting in gilt to reproduction of tempera making.
Learn in theory and practice as well try it."
On the content of the book, this passage does not say anything decisive: it could be a Hungarian translation of the text, or the writer might have simply included a Hungarian introductory survey to the very complete "Italian edition" that he had obtained in Rome more than twenty years before. One thing is certain: the text refers to an artist (Sándor Nagy) and a location (Gödöllő), which have their historical importance for Hungary. Let us find out.
In the early 1900s (in 1901) was set up in Gödöllő (a city in northern Hungary, in the Pest county) an art colony which was headed by Aladár Körösfõi - Kriesch first and Sándor Nagy (the latter arrived in 1907) later on. Körösfõi - Kriesch said, listing his reading: "If you ask me as a painter, as I have said, for many years the Book Art or Treatise on Painting by Cennino Cennini was my daily bread." Stylistically, the artists based themselves on the experience of the Art Nouveau: it was a movement aimed at the rediscovery of folk art and traditional crafts and practices (soon takes on a particular prestige the production of tapestries). Cennino was seen as an ideal reference to ancient forms of art (especially frescos), while also Nazarenes from Germany and the Pre-Raphaelites from England were a source of inspiration. The colony lives according to particular rules, remembering that - from a procedural point of view – of the activity of a monastic community. Ideologically speaking, they are devout Catholics with anarchist sympathies (Tolstoj is one of its cultural reference point). The community of Gödöllő considered itself as part of the broader Secession movement across Europe; acquired fame at the national level (remember in particular a Salon in Budapest in 1909) and international (they also exhibited in Italy, in Turin and Milan, and at Venice Biennale of 1913). Mystics and strongly pacifist ideals of the community were put to a hard test by the first world war. Hungary came out of the war literally to pieces, losing two thirds of the territory. In 1919, with a coup, a communist regime came to power, establishing the Hungarian Soviet Republic; it remained in command only a few months (from March to August of the same year). At that time, however, the production of tapestries in Gödöllő was nationalized. Many artists left the community, and the year after the founder, Aladár Körösfõi - Kriesch died. The golden age of Hungarian Art Nouveau has ended. Meanwhile, the country experienced yet another political upheaval: in 1920 installed itself, after months of civil war, a regime with a quite opposite ideological orientation: a strongly reactionary and nationalist footprint, which, over the years, expressed increasingly evident sympathies for the fascism of Mussolini. It is important to remember this, because, in parallel, the community of Gödöllő had not vanished from an artistic point of view; Sándor Nagy (the artistically prominent figure after the death of Körösfõi - Kriesch) took the reins. In the same year (1920) the Cennini Társaság (Cennini Society) was founded in Gödöllő: the choice of the name was programmatic. Nagy dedicated himself to the artistic profession on the one hand; on the other hand he taught at the Academy of Fine Arts in Budapest. The study of Cennino’s Treatise was operated on its German version (I assume on that of Verkade of 1916, which, even spiritually, seems to me akin to the Gödöllő artists). All this information is taken from the site http://www.art-nouveau.hu/. Now, let's face it: it is almost impossible that Nagy (who died in 1950) could exercise the teaching profession and in such an important role if not adhering ideally to the nationalist policy of the Hungarian pro-fascist regime.
Let's go back to the introduction of our mysterious book. The writer points out that the study and the artistic techniques of Cennini did not found great success because the German version of his Treaty, which was object of study, was not complete. He (or she) had travelled to Rome (over twenty years before) and had come into possession of the most complete copy of Cennino’s Treaty (I assume the Simi edition of 1913 or a reprint of 1933 or 1943). And I think, now he decided to print that more complete edition (I am not sure whether in Italian or translated into Hungarian). I have not the faintest idea of when all of this may have been written. Perhaps indeed in 1988 (but, I am convinced, it must have happened much earlier). What is certain is that referring to Sándor Nagy under a communist regime was not particularly comfortable. And then the assumptions on the private issue are two: a) that it was just an example of self-publishing (quite possible) or b) that the issue was semi-clandestine (a samizdat-type of publication, like it was typical for dissidents in Eastern Europe).
Of course, these are all conjectures of mine. I would invite anyone having more complete information to please provide clarity. I will obviously add any new element to this piece or correct it if necessary.
P.S. One final observation on the cover page of the book: a simple one, probably made in economy, but with a frieze that is very reminiscent of the Art Nouveau. I do not think it can be a coincidence.
ALL THE POSTS PUBLISHED IN THE CENNINI'S SERIES
Questo commento è stato eliminato dall'autore.
RispondiEliminaCiò che ha scritto è perfetto e chiarissimo, adesso spero che l'esame che dovrò dare l'11 vada bene e se sarà così è anche grazie a lei!
RispondiElimina