ENGLISH VERSION Carlo Cesare Malvasia. Felsina pittrice. Lives of the Bolognese Painters. Vol. I. Part One

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro

CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Carlo Cesare Malvasia

Felsina pittrice 
Lives of the Bolognese Painters

Volume one: Early Bolognese Painting

Edited by Elizabeth Cropper e Lorenzo Pericolo

Part One

Harvey Miller Publishing, 2012

Isbn 978-1-905375-84-4

Other titles in the Series:
Life of Marcantonio Raimondi and critical catalogue of prints by or after Bolognese masters
Lives of Domenichino and Francesco Gessi

About Carlo Cesare Malvasia, please see also: The paintings of Bologna

[1 ] The first volume of the critical edition of ‘Felsina pittrice’ by Carlo Cesare Malvasia (expected in sixteen volumes).

[2] The first volume presents (in addition to the critical text relative to the primitive painters in Bologna) the following tests:

• Elizabeth Cropper, A Plea for Malvasia's Felsina pittrice;
• Carlo Alberto Girotto, Some Bibliographical Questions Regarding Malvasia's Felsina Pittrice (Bologna, Erede di Domenico Barbieri, 1678);
• Lorenzo Pericolo, Introduction to the Critical Edition of Malvasia's Felsina pittrice and Scritti originali

Each of them is used as a source to extend the notes below (which then concern the whole work in general and not specifically only "primitive painters" in Bologna).

Cimabue, Madonna and Child Enthroned with Angels, late XIII century, Bologna, Santa Maria dei Servi
Source: Wikimedia Commons

[3] Carlo Cesare Malvasia published his Felsina pittrice in 1678 (in fact, at the end of 1677). Felsina is a work on which much was talked-about, at times by those who knew very little about it. As often happens in these cases, then talking takes the form of clichés. Everyone says that the work of Malvasia is the most serious and structured attempt to challenge the Tuscan-centric setting of the Vasari's Lives, replacing it with a vision based on the promotion of the Bolognese school of painting, from the primitives to achieve, in a similar evolutionary process, up to the Carracci and beyond. This attempt, in substance, failed. It was, moreover, strongly contested since the time of the work, so much that Filippo Baldinucci stigmatized it in the first volume of his Notizie dei Professori del Disegno, which was published shortly thereafter and was even more Tuscan-centric than Vasari himself. In his Apologia, Baldinucci did not fail to reproach Malvasia some very rashly made judgments. Very soon, a highly famous definition about Raphael ("the boccalaio of Urbino") contained in a passage of the work, produced a real scandal. Malvasia hurried up to replace the injurious word with a praising one in all the copies of the work not still sold. This episode has been discussed for centuries, like a few others. Another case for all: the alleged creation by Malvasia of a fake letter of Raphael to Francesco Francia: that letter would refute the (false) news provided by Vasari, according to which Francesco Francia would have literally died of envy after having seen the St. Cecilia of Raphael arriving in Bologna. All elements that, in short, helped create an image of Malvasia as both parochial and forger, only to admit that the information provided about artists of the generations temporarily closest to him (especially on the Carracci brothers and Guido Reni) were correct and reliable, and to equally appreciate, according to a strictly positivist approach, the information he provided about the primitive painters in Bologna. That's it. Only Luigi Lanzi, in his Storia pittorica, at the turn of the late 1700s and early 1800s, and Roberto Longhi, from 1930 onwards, realised that there could be more. Fortunately.

Vitale da Bologna, St. George and the Dragon, 1330 ca, Bologna, National Gallery
Source: Wikimedia Commons

[4] After Longhi, in the late Twentieth century, there was a generation of Italian scholars (Andrea Emiliani, Lea Marzocchi, Adriana Arfelli) that allowed us to acquire very important data, such as the (partial) study of the Scritti originali (Original Writings) by Malvasia (the handwritten files that the author used to write the work). A figure as essential as Giovanna Perini Folesani joined later on the studies; she devoted and continues to dedicate much of her life to the study of Malvasia. Meanwhile, Malvasia began to be translated into English. In 1980, Catherine and Robert Engass provided a translation of the life of Guido Reni; in 2000 came to light a very important monograph, in which Anne Summerscale transcribed and annotated in English the lives of the Carracci. Up to this today really ambitious project coordinated by Elizabeth Cropper and Lorenzo Pericolo, which would provide the first Felsina’s critical edition ever (in sixteen volumes). The merit belongs to an institution and a publisher outside Italy. The patronage is in fact given by the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts at the National Gallery of Washington, and the publisher is Belgian.

Vitale da Bologna, Madonna dei denti, 1345, Bologna, Museo Davia-Bargellini
Source: Wikimedia Commons

[5] I wrote above that the Felsina pittrice came out in 1678. It was divided into two volumes and structured into four parts, according to chronological criteria: the first part is devoted to the so-called primitives, the second one is from Francesco Francia to Cesare Baglione; the third one is reserved for the Carraccis; and the last one presents, among others, Guido Reni, Guercino, Domenichino and Albani. The work (which incidentally had a wide circulation) was never reprinted until the mid-Nineteenth century. Between 1841 and 1844, on the initiative of a group of scholars from Bologna, it was republished in a quite common manner at the time, for works of such a great thickness: it was sold in separate instalments (in substance, a subscription to the underwriters). The entire publication began in 1841 and ended in 1844. The new edition (printed at the printing Guidi) was not an updated version of Felsina, but nevertheless differed profoundly from the first edition. The notes that Giampietro Zanotti had drawn up in the early decades of the 1700s at the foot of pages were added; he had planned to turn a new edition of the work, this time probably completely updated and rewritten. Together with Zanotti’s notes, others were affixed, whose hand is not always easy to recognise. To be added: the editors of the second edition felt the need in some situations (without making it evident) to correct the lexicon used by Malvasia (on these aspects, Perini Folesani conducted extensive research) to normalise it and delete or amend some Bolognese ‘dialect’ expressions. In short, the edition of 1841-1844 is certainly not a critical edition, and cannot be defined entirely satisfactory to study the work (Girotto, p. 59-60). In 1967, the publisher Forni decided to republish a facsimile of the edition of 1841-1844. This reprint is, in fact, all what had been studied on the Felsina in Italy until today. Moreover (see p. 82 No. 64) the bound copy that has been used by Forni to produce the facsimile had errors in the binding of the files, which had originally been sold separately. This is why the final index is sometimes unreliable. The critical edition of Cropper and Pericolo therefore raises a number of objectives: 

• Provide a finally faithful transcript Italian (even lexically) of the original dated 1678;
• Make available the first complete translation into English of the work; 
• Enrich the text of Malvasia with a very rich series of historical and artistic notes; 
• Publish (only in Italian) the text of the ‘Scritti originali’; · 
• Give an account of all the variations to the text contained (not only in the edition of 1841-1844, but also in the copies of the 1678 edition) where changes were made on several occasions by the author. 

Lippo di Dalmasio, Madonna of Humility, 1390 ca, London, National Gallery
Source: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/lippo-di-dalmasio-the-madonna-of-humility

[6] Around two hundred copies of the 1678 edition of the Felsina Pittrice have been identified (thus, a high number). A key feature of the work is that there are a very large number of variants between a copy and the other of the same edition. We mentioned previously one of them: originally Raphael was branded as "boccalaio urbinate" (mug seller from Urbino) but almost immediately Malvasia replaced it with "the great Raphael". But the variants are really numerous. Carlo Alberto Girotto occupies himself in detail with them, also trying to draw up a chronology of the variants in his bibliographical essay. It is however certain that Malvasia did not make all changes on a single occasion, and this demonstrates the great attention that the author dedicated to the work even after its publication. Precisely because of the many variations, anyway, it is important to take into account that the critical edition is conducted on a copy formerly belonged to Rudolf Wittkower and currently preserved at the National Gallery of Art Library, Washington (ND621.B7 M22). That copy can be considered of a "second generation", as it incorporates all the main modifications already introduced by Malvasia during the original editing. Of course, an indication of all changes in the text is provided in the notes.

Francesco del Cossa, Madonna and Child Enthroned with Saints Petronius and John the Evangelist and Alberto Cattani
(Pala dei Mercanti), 1474, Bologna, National Gallery
Source: Wikimedia Commons

[7] In order to draw up their work, the editors have however used many other materials. In the first place, the Scritti originali, as mentioned above. So Lorenzo Pericolo describes them (pp. 160-161): "Consisting respectively of 372 and 322 folios…, Ms. B16 and Ms. B17, the so-called Scritti originali, contain part of the numerous files compiled by Malvasia in preparing the Felsina pittrice… The Scritti originali are working notes, organized in alphabetical order according to artists’ names and, less frequently, general topics. As a rule, Malvasia wrote in the upper left of each folio the subject to which its notes related (for instance, “Carracci”) and built files upon which he would rely in composing his biographies… It comes as no surprise that Malvasia’s notes are couched in such a manner that is impossible to establish a chronology or identify redactions. It is certain that some of these notes hark back to the early 1660s [note of the editor: a very important notion to understand when the author got the idea to write the work]. As work progressed over the years, Malvasia repeatedly returned to his files in order to add new information, respond to open questions, or correct previous conclusions”. Malvasia’s working notes are very important. Saved by Count Filippo Hercolani, they are now preserved at the Archiginnasio library. Rediscovered in 1961 by Adriana Arfelli, who published some files in relation to painters who had not be incorporated in the Felsina Pittrice, because they were still living at the time of the first edition, were subsequently partially published by Lea Marzocchi. In our personal opinion, their transcription and the comments on them in the context of this critical edition are by far the most important element of novelty for the reader. Of course, the writings factually contain much more material new elements than what has already been published. They also permit to identify Malvasia’s written sources (on very rare occasions only, the author cited them in the printed work, for an intentional personal choice). Finally, they tell us a lot of Malvasia and its working methods, its habit to personally inspect the works, and its skilled ability to attribute works to artists, which were often not documented in Felsina. Malvasia - as is to be expected - is freer when writes notes, but then goes back to a more measured language in the printed text. One example, which is rightly pointed out by Elizabeth Cropper (p. 34): in its Scritti originali Malvasia says he went to inspect the Madonna del Monte, at whose feet an inscription testified that it had been painted by Vitale da Bologna. Comparing it with the Madonna dei Denti (also a work by Vitale), the author argued that the two works were of a different hand. An important statement: only in 1929-30 it was proved that the inclusion of the Madonna del Monte was false, and that Malvasia was right. Now, this does not intend overstretching the ability of the author as an expert. What we would like to point out is that, in Felsina, Malvasia decided to adapt to the general opinion, and - despite his right stylistic observations - assigned the work to Vitale again. From a methodological point of view, the choice of the editors seems fortunate: in each volume are published also Malvasia’s original writings concerning the authors mentioned in Felsina. To better understand, in this first volume are presented pages of manuscripts relating to the primitive painters of Bologna.

Niccolò dell'Arca, Lamentation over the Dead Christ (detail), Bologna, Santa Maria della Vita
Source: Wikimedia Commons

[8] In addition to the original writings, the editors make use of other important materials. Ms. B1357 dell'Archiginnasio contains the copy that, a few months before, had been submitted to the Inquisition to get permission to print. Lorenzo Pericolo (p. 160) indicates that there are sometimes minor discrepancies between the texts, but sometimes significant ones, between the one submitted to the Inquisition and the first edition. Malvasia always followed with extreme attention all stages immediately preceding the printing, as well as the subsequent ones. With Ms. mark B1729 is instead retained only the first volume (the second was lost) on which Malvasia himself, after printing, directly noted corrections to be brought, taking notes at the margin of the volume. In addition, 50 "bookmarks" (strips of paper) were included, with indications of the changes to be made. Not all of these changes have been eventually made in later versions of Felsina. However, the editors make note of the variations both to Ms. B1357 and Ms. 1729.

End of Part One

Go to Part Two