Martin Kemp and Juliana Barone.
What Might Leonardo’s Own Trattato have Looked Like? And What did it Actually Look Like up to the Time of the Editio Princeps?
in
Re-Reading Leonardo. The Treatise on Painting across Europe, 1550-1900
Edited and introduced by Claire Farago
[1] The question may seem pointless. It is clear that Leonardo would have organised his Treatise differently, if he had written it in person. More in general, it is clear that this happens whenever different hands work on the same textual basis, especially after decades (in the case of Melzi’s archetype) or after over a century (with reference to the first printed edition of 1651). If anything, more correctly, the problem is to understand the extent to which on the one hand the autograph manuscripts from the Codex Urbinate latino 1270, and on the other hand the latter with respect to the first printed edition structurally differ from each other. One wonders in particular why Melzi’s compilation excludes a large part of optics and linear perspective, of physiognomy and human anatomy, compared to the manuscripts. A (partial or total) response may come from Leonardo’s intents to write separate treatises relative to the linear perspective and anatomy, but a further explanation could be found in relation to the initially designed iconographic apparatus. “Much of the Trattato material consists of relatively schematic line illustrations (even those of the human figure)... This suggests that even Leonardo, and certainly Melzi, had in mind a certain kind of printed book, essentially with marginal or in-text illustrations reproducible in simple form, probably in woodcut, economically and in relatively large editions” (p. 41). Hence the exclusion of many anatomical images and related texts: “There is some evidence that Leonardo worked on new relief-printing techniques for his anatomical illustrations, and he specifically counsels against economizing in the printing of his late anatomical drawings, presumably alluding to his wish that they should be produced in copper engraving rather than woodcut” (pp. 40-41).
[2]
In the second part of the essay the authors wonder about the extent to which
the apograph manuscripts of the first half of 1600 differ from Leonard’s initial design, or better
yet, from Melzi’s archetype, of which reworked versions appear to exist. Of
course, individual manuscripts differ from each other in a lesser or a greater
extent. They all share the removal of some books of the Codex Urbinate
Latino1270 (the first, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth ones), so that they
present around 370 chapters out of the 944 chapters of the Melzi manuscript.
The attention of Baron and Kemp focuses in particular on two manuscripts dating
back to 1635 and about their respective iconography apparatuses: first, Ms. H
228 Inf. with illustrations by Nicolas Poussin and, second, the Codex
Riccardianus 2275 transcribed by Stefano della Bella. These are, first of all,
codes prepared for different purposes: on the one hand the Ms. H 228 Inf was a preparatory
manuscript for the publication of the Treatise, planned by Cassiano dal Pozzo (for
a comprehensive discussion of the issue see Mauro Pavesi, ‘Cassiano dal Pozzo,
Nicolas Poussin e la prima edizione a stampa del «Trattato della Pittura» di
Leonardo tra Roma, Milano e Parigi’- ‘Cassiano dal Pozzo, Nicolas Poussin and
the first printed edition of the "Treatise on Painting" by Leonardo
in Rome, Milan and Paris’ in ‘Tracce di letteratura
artistica in Lombardia’ – ‘Traces of artistic literature in Lombardy’); on the
other hand the code of della Bella was copied for personal use. The approach to the
iconographic apparatus is very different. Claire Farago writes in his introduction:
“Poussin’s figure drawings, probably prepared at Cassiano dal Pozzo’s request
for the first printed edition, omit figures depicting the disruption of balance
and lack the sense of potential motion or inherent dynamism typical of the
Codex Urbinas and autograph Leonardo drawings. Poussin’s drawings render the
continuous quality of motion as discontinuous. His engagement with the Antique
and his working methods provide clues for understanding how he viewed Leonardo:
in opting for a single set of proportions, Poussin endowed the Treatise on
Painting with a strong sense of aesthetic consistency... The authors contrast
Poussin’s dramatic reorientation of the relationship of text and images with a
manuscript copy made for personal use by Stefano della Bella, who remains much
closer to the spirit of Leonardo’s own illustrations” (p. 8). The theme of Poussin’s
illustrations for the Treatise on Painting returns frequently
throughout the book and is the subject of deeper consideration in Juliana Barone, Poussin as Engineer of the Human Figure: the Illustrations for Leonardo’s Trattato.
What Might Leonardo’s Own Trattato have Looked Like? And What did it Actually Look Like up to the Time of the Editio Princeps?
in
Re-Reading Leonardo. The Treatise on Painting across Europe, 1550-1900
Edited and introduced by Claire Farago
.jpg) |
| Leonardo The Treatise on Painting (1651) |
[1] The question may seem pointless. It is clear that Leonardo would have organised his Treatise differently, if he had written it in person. More in general, it is clear that this happens whenever different hands work on the same textual basis, especially after decades (in the case of Melzi’s archetype) or after over a century (with reference to the first printed edition of 1651). If anything, more correctly, the problem is to understand the extent to which on the one hand the autograph manuscripts from the Codex Urbinate latino 1270, and on the other hand the latter with respect to the first printed edition structurally differ from each other. One wonders in particular why Melzi’s compilation excludes a large part of optics and linear perspective, of physiognomy and human anatomy, compared to the manuscripts. A (partial or total) response may come from Leonardo’s intents to write separate treatises relative to the linear perspective and anatomy, but a further explanation could be found in relation to the initially designed iconographic apparatus. “Much of the Trattato material consists of relatively schematic line illustrations (even those of the human figure)... This suggests that even Leonardo, and certainly Melzi, had in mind a certain kind of printed book, essentially with marginal or in-text illustrations reproducible in simple form, probably in woodcut, economically and in relatively large editions” (p. 41). Hence the exclusion of many anatomical images and related texts: “There is some evidence that Leonardo worked on new relief-printing techniques for his anatomical illustrations, and he specifically counsels against economizing in the printing of his late anatomical drawings, presumably alluding to his wish that they should be produced in copper engraving rather than woodcut” (pp. 40-41).
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento